These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#941 - 2013-01-11 20:30:28 UTC
FishySquirrel wrote:
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.


Yeah, harby needs a little bit more speed (either through a modest mass reduction or like +5-10 m/s addition) It also needs another 50-60 grid and about 15 cpu. With those changes and the new drone bay, the loss of a slot will be a non issue. If anything I'd say that with my proposed changes it will be "better" than current implementation (live) while also sticking to the standardized slot amount now being pushed by fozzie and crew.
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children
#942 - 2013-01-11 20:35:17 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can?

Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Big smile

Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE.


You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses?
If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy.


In that case I don't quite follow your logic: currently battlecruisers are definitely used for other things rather than gang-boosting, so intended reduction in combat stats will change nothing.


The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be.
I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at.
Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before.
In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#943 - 2013-01-11 21:43:38 UTC
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can?

Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Big smile

Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE.


You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses?
If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy.


In that case I don't quite follow your logic: currently battlecruisers are definitely used for other things rather than gang-boosting, so intended reduction in combat stats will change nothing.


The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be.
I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at.
Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before.
In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are.


There are several frigates that can win solo fights vs a destroyer.... that doesn't mean the destroyers are underpowered vs frigates.

The truth is... tier 2 BC's are much closer to BS's in terms of tank and firepower.... and bringing them down a notch actually puts BS's in a better place on the power scale. So far, I have a lot of faith in Frozzie.. and none of the proposed changes are alarming. They are more along the lines of... interesting, how will it fit into the power spectrum now...
Lorl Rofeller
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#944 - 2013-01-11 21:44:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorl Rofeller
Dear CCP
You did a really good job on the previous set of rebalances.
Don't feel you have to make up for it by doing a terrible job of BattleCruisers.

P.S. Keeping the range bonus on the Ferox? Seriously?
EDIT: P.P.S. Keeping the kinetic bonus on the Drake? Ah well, back to the old CCP.
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
#945 - 2013-01-11 21:46:55 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
The active rep bonus needs to be increased to 10% per level on all ships regardless if improvements to the modules themselves happen. W/o such improvements to the bonus the imbalance between resistance and active bonuses will be no different and this discussion will simply continue for another 5+ years...

On top of that, resistance is cap-independent.
But I'd rather say - nerf resistance bosuses to 3.75% all across the board (yay! supercaps as well). It would prevent power creep. It's also indirect nerf of logi ships, which are sometimes considered "almost overpowered".


This is actually another avenue that I thought about for a bit. The problem with the rep bonus could have nothing to do with the actualrep bonus, but instead have to do with the relative overpowerdness of the resistance bonus. Nerfing resistance bonus to 4% per level may very well be the best avenue of approach.

Either way, the balance between the two bonuses atm is seriously lack luster and needs to be evaluated and fixed asap.


Nerfing the other ships until the Gallente active rep bonus looks good in comparison seems like the wrong approach
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children
#946 - 2013-01-11 22:50:36 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Andre Coeurl wrote:


You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses?
If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy.


In that case I don't quite follow your logic: currently battlecruisers are definitely used for other things rather than gang-boosting, so intended reduction in combat stats will change nothing.


The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be.
I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at.
Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before.
In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are.


There are several frigates that can win solo fights vs a destroyer.... that doesn't mean the destroyers are underpowered vs frigates.


I'm not sure many would agree with this, especially since destroyers are meant to be the natural counter to frigates, but if you put a Rifter up against a Thrasher, both with short range fittings, I don't think that would happen.
The Thrasher is meant to tear down frigates, and it does just that, but I don't hear people saying it's overpowered.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

The truth is... tier 2 BC's are much closer to BS's in terms of tank and firepower.... and bringing them down a notch actually puts BS's in a better place on the power scale. So far, I have a lot of faith in Frozzie.. and none of the proposed changes are alarming. They are more along the lines of... interesting, how will it fit into the power spectrum now...


Well, some BS aren't as good as they could be but in general BSs are still tankier and have more DPS than their BC counterpart. And don't make your assumptions on how BCs were, but on the current state. If you fit a Hurricane for kiting now, you'll have around 47k EHP tank and 600 DPS @3.5+23km without a neut, while a kiting Tempest has 75k EHP doing 880 DPS @ 4+42km with faction EMP and 2 large neuts.
In comparison a Stabber can have 30k EHp and can do 300 DPS @ same range as a Hurricane but goes a lot faster with a 40% smaller radius.
I have tried the new cruisers in combat and I think the current power scale when you compare minmatar ships, namely Stabber/Rupture, Hurricane and Tempest is quite right, possibly with the Tempest needing a small tank buff if there's any change to be made at all.
If the same correlation would be made true to other races too, all the game would be a lot more fun for everyone.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#947 - 2013-01-11 22:58:21 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
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?

I doubt it'll be a straight buff to the modules, as that would only exasperate the disparity in between passive bonuses being as good or better than active bonuses when using reppers.

What really ought to happen is that hull bonuses should be increased to 10%/level and also affect received remote reps; this would at least give some parity for active rep bonuses being useful in fleet or logi situations.

Alternatively, the bonuses could increase effectiveness of active modules, too, so a RAH would increase resists more effectively per cycle, but it's enormous cap usage would still be an issue, even post-Retribution cap decrease skill changes.

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

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

Lucius Exitius
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#948 - 2013-01-11 23:20:23 UTC
Drake lost range and power and now it loses a high slot, gains mass, slower, loses tank? Drake's outside of pve were not very effective unless in a group and in most one on one situations were bad. Instead of nerfing the drake you should have brought all others up to par with the drake. Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. I tend to fly BCs in fact I don't think I use a BS. My DPS has gone down significantly and seem to be ineffective in combat, why all the Caldari hate? Missiles are the step child of weapons and now you just made them worse. My favorite class of ship seems to be losing its flair.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#949 - 2013-01-11 23:24:21 UTC
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps.

Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.
Lucius Exitius
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#950 - 2013-01-11 23:28:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps.

Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.



HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#951 - 2013-01-11 23:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps.

Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.



HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.

Comparing long range torps to short range HM's does not a valid point make. Also, how are you getting that range? Only way I get torps to go that far is a range bonused hull, which further throws things off.

Edit: I partially accounted for the torp range by looking at all V skills which brought javelin to ~30km vs 47km for fury HM's. Not sure where you are getting the extra 5 unless rigged or bonused.

Edit #2: Wondering just how close that was I looked at other combinations Large SR guns w/ LR ammo vs. Med LR guns w/ SR ammo. Med beams seem terribly irrelevant now now that the oracle exists. HM range is great by comparison.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#952 - 2013-01-11 23:48:21 UTC
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps.

Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.



HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.


Ladies and gentlemen this is called Making It Up As You Go Along.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#953 - 2013-01-11 23:50:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Apostrof Ahashion
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
FishySquirrel wrote:
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.


Yeah, harby needs a little bit more speed (either through a modest mass reduction or like +5-10 m/s addition) It also needs another 50-60 grid and about 15 cpu. With those changes and the new drone bay, the loss of a slot will be a non issue. If anything I'd say that with my proposed changes it will be "better" than current implementation (live) while also sticking to the standardized slot amount now being pushed by fozzie and crew.


The harby does not need more speed, make it fast and you would soon have 2xnano MWD fit kiters that do 500dps projected perfectly to 30km range, making it better than hurricane ever was for solo/small gank. A small +10 m/s buff would make it extremely fast when fit for speed, maybe 5m/s boost to base max. It needs tank and it needs more fitting space. All Amarr hulls need more fitting space, harby was actually the only one you could (with perfect skills) fit decently. Now if they do nerf its pg and cpu it will become a really weak ship. I dont want another fitting nightmare like Omen that with even with all skills at 5 with guns, mwd and point already has no pg for anything, and cap that lasts 1 min, so you need to fit power diagnostic unit and pick between tank or cap booster. And then realize you dont have CPU for heatsinks.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#954 - 2013-01-11 23:52:13 UTC
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps.

Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.



HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.


Ferox + 250mm Railgun II + Javelin M: 13,5km + 15km
Heavy Beam Laser II + Gleam M: 7,5km + 10 km
720mm Howitzer Artillery II + Quake M: 7,5km + 21,9km
Mund Richard
#955 - 2013-01-11 23:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Ferox + 250mm Railgun II + Javelin M: 13,5km + 15km
Heavy Beam Laser II + Gleam M: 7,5km + 10 km
720mm Howitzer Artillery II + Quake M: 7,5km + 21,9km
HM CN: 63 (damage delay of ~10 seconds...)
HM Rage 47

Surely we can get back on topic now.

edit:
Quote:
Is there a problem?
Nop, none here.

"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.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#956 - 2013-01-12 00:06:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Mund Richard wrote:
HM CN: 63 (damage delay of ~10 seconds...)
HM Rage 47


Is there a problem?

DPS:
CN: 317
Fury: 372

Range:
CN: 107 km
Fury: 80,6 km

[Caracal, 100km HM]

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Sensor Booster II

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile

Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I


Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-605
Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-705
Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005

Btw, this thing was capable of some 210 km "sniping" before the change.
Sigras
Conglomo
#957 - 2013-01-12 00:09:53 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Sigras wrote:

you mean like the resist bonuses that the caldari/amarr ships get?


No, what he's asking for is a direct boost to the amount received from reps off of a logistics. Thats not the same as resists, which mitigate damage received while the rep amount remains the same.

If you were to give a bonus to reps received it wouldn't matter what your resists were because it would simply restore X amount of shields, X being significant in the fact that you could say, theoretically restore ALL of a ships armor in a single cycle with the a single boosted cycle of reps.

youre right, that makes the resist bonus better than the rep bonus in certain situations because you cant "overheal"

if i have a 25% resist bonus (say on 50% base resists), and i receive 307 armor per second (the amount 1 guardian with 4 armor reps provides), i can tank 819.2 DPS

If i have a 37.5% received rep bonus (say on 50% base resists), and i receive 307 armor per second (the amount 1 guardian with 4 armor reps provides), i can tank 844.25 DPS

So here the rep bonus looks better, but what if im against an alpha fleet?

So what if my logistics ships can rep my armor back to full if one volley knocks me into structure? in most situations they would be even at best.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#958 - 2013-01-12 00:19:15 UTC
Andre Coeurl wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

There are several frigates that can win solo fights vs a destroyer.... that doesn't mean the destroyers are underpowered vs frigates.


I'm not sure many would agree with this, especially since destroyers are meant to be the natural counter to frigates, but if you put a Rifter up against a Thrasher, both with short range fittings, I don't think that would happen.
The Thrasher is meant to tear down frigates, and it does just that, but I don't hear people saying it's overpowered.


I've ganked thrashers with blaster atrons by getting under it's guns. I've ganked thrashers with condors by kiting out of its tackle/dps range. I've ganked thrashers with other frigates by negating it's dps with TDs, range, etc.... that doesn't make those frigates OP, nor the thrasher under powered.... It means there are vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and doing so wins you the fight.

Andre Coeurl wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

The truth is... tier 2 BC's are much closer to BS's in terms of tank and firepower.... and bringing them down a notch actually puts BS's in a better place on the power scale. So far, I have a lot of faith in Frozzie.. and none of the proposed changes are alarming. They are more along the lines of... interesting, how will it fit into the power spectrum now...


Well, some BS aren't as good as they could be but in general BSs are still tankier and have more DPS than their BC counterpart. And don't make your assumptions on how BCs were, but on the current state. If you fit a Hurricane for kiting now, you'll have around 47k EHP tank and 600 DPS @3.5+23km without a neut, while a kiting Tempest has 75k EHP doing 880 DPS @ 4+42km with faction EMP and 2 large neuts.
In comparison a Stabber can have 30k EHp and can do 300 DPS @ same range as a Hurricane but goes a lot faster with a 40% smaller radius.
I have tried the new cruisers in combat and I think the current power scale when you compare minmatar ships, namely Stabber/Rupture, Hurricane and Tempest is quite right, possibly with the Tempest needing a small tank buff if there's any change to be made at all.
If the same correlation would be made true to other races too, all the game would be a lot more fun for everyone.


In a straight up punch to punch fight... A frigate simply loses to a dessie, a cruiser simply loses to a BC, and a BC simply loses to a BS. I don't think frozzies changes are altering this template... Furthermore, how much vulnerability does a BC currently have to a cruiser? In my opinion, many of the tricks and techniques to gank a dessie with a frigate should also apply to ganking a BC with a cruiser, but BC's are typically so vastly more potent that this is very unusual.
Lucius Exitius
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#959 - 2013-01-12 00:20:11 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps.

Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.



HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.


Ladies and gentlemen this is called Making It Up As You Go Along.


No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#960 - 2013-01-12 00:27:18 UTC
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Lucius Exitius wrote:
Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps.

Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.



HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.


Ladies and gentlemen this is called Making It Up As You Go Along.


No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu.


Before the nerf.... HAMS were rarely ever used.... There was rarely any reason to use them, as heavy missiles did 90% of the dps and had 4x the range. CCP could have buffed HAMs, but any true analysis of close range weapons systems and long range weapon systems clearly showed that HMs were the weapon system that's out of line.

and HAMs are awesome these days!!!