These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mund Richard
#1021 - 2013-01-12 19:17:39 UTC
Some Rando wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
What rigs are you looking at?
I thought it fits with a PG one or so.

I try to avoid ACRs, so three CDFEs. The fifth low would be a power diagnostic system to allow the seventh gun, which also increases shield HP. I only use two of my mids for tank for more utility. vOv

Ah, that explains.
Using the current Ferox: 1LSE, 1 Invuln, 3CDFE: 53k
assuming 6 mids, 4 lows, PG as rig instead of lowslot
1LSE, 2 Invuln, 2CDFE: 60k
2LSE, 1 Invuln, 2CDFE: 60k

So yea, -1 low, +1 mid would improve the tank, IF the neutrons fit with only one PG rig (which has no drawback).

"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.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#1022 - 2013-01-12 19:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:

( snip)
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
(snip)



This is the part I like the most.

So the Cane, Myrm and Drake are the only balanced ships in the game....as in more equal than any other ship?

It's an outrage!

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1023 - 2013-01-12 19:23:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Some Rando
Mund Richard wrote:
So yea, -1 low, +1 mid would improve the tank, IF the neutrons fit with only one PG rig (which has no drawback).

They probably would, maybe not with two LSEs (would be very tight at the least) but almost certainly with two Invulns.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#1024 - 2013-01-12 19:29:29 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Thats the name of the game man, its actualy quite silly to have trained up for one ship and only put your SP into one ship.

It's actually quite what CCP is forcing people to do now by making cross-training even harder with the skills change. This problem will only get worse for new people who train into one race for months, only to find out down the line that it's only good at one thing, or sucks at everything. They are at the same time making more willy nilly changes to break things people relied on, while making it harder to walk away and train into something different when they screw it up.


I see no problem with people dumping skills into perfecting one hull in a game with dozens and dozens of possible hulls, due to a power imbalance, suddenly being left in the cold when that balance shifts. That's the risk you take when you specialize. Maybe they shouldn't have gone for medium AC spec V. Well, they still have all the new and better Minnie cruisers to apply their perfect proj turret skills to.

And frankly, anyone who starts before April 2013 will be able to have all the racial BC Vs as well for minimal training time. There's your crosstraining. Its time to harden up, right?
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1025 - 2013-01-12 19:47:12 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
Thats the name of the game man, its actualy quite silly to have trained up for one ship and only put your SP into one ship.

It's actually quite what CCP is forcing people to do now by making cross-training even harder with the skills change. This problem will only get worse for new people who train into one race for months, only to find out down the line that it's only good at one thing, or sucks at everything. They are at the same time making more willy nilly changes to break things people relied on, while making it harder to walk away and train into something different when they screw it up.


You mistake the narrow minded-ness of training for one ship and training for one RACE, it should be harder to cross train in my opinion, tho i think CCP should have better descriptions of each races capabilitys before players have to chose. This is allso why CCP is making each race have diferant weapons systems and play styles now, so you dont have to cross train to try out a diferant weapon systems.

Think of those poor smucks that pull all their SP into Vagas when they whee the king of space. I know so many peopel with max navagation and Vaga skills that never use them now.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1026 - 2013-01-12 19:55:49 UTC
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:
I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:


I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.

And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.

I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.

Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.

If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.

For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.

If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.



Have you EVER tried fitting a harbinger?

I don't get what you're whining about.. You can still fit the ******* world onto canes..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#1027 - 2013-01-12 20:08:23 UTC
fukier wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.

What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!

I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.


Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?

This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.




if you up the brutix to 10% bonus for amor reps per level and made it include external incomming armor RR that would fix the scale problem with armor tanking all together...

now you can fit plates without waisting a bonus.

secondly get rid of the tanking bonus on the myrn reduce to only 4 high slots and give us a 6th mid slot (its a shield tanked ship anyways) and give us a bonus to 7.5% to drone optimal range and tracking per level

this will make the myrm a mean green sentry machine...

also to help medium rails please please please increase the rof of them... doing this would help make up for thier lackluster dps...

also while you are at it rebalance hybrid tech I ammo to ad divercity... (like they did for projectile ammo years ago)

thanks in advance

Fuk

its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1028 - 2013-01-12 20:43:06 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Seranova Farreach wrote:

its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish.


400 hitpoints translates to about ~700 EHP on identical fits (2x LSE II, invuln, 2x CDFE, anti-EM rig, DC II). That amount changes slightly depending on how it's fit exactly, but the point is that if people want to shield tank it after the patche they're not really going to notice any significant change.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Kesi Raae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1029 - 2013-01-12 20:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Kesi Raae
Hey Fozzie,

If you are seriously looking at replacing the Brutix's armour rep bonus with something have you considered an overheating strength bonus? (not an overheating damage bonus like on the tech 3 cruisers)

I think having your mods be that little bit more effective when overheating would fit the Brutix very well.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1030 - 2013-01-12 22:09:06 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Seranova Farreach wrote:

its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish.


400 hitpoints translates to about ~700 EHP on identical fits (2x LSE II, invuln, 2x CDFE, anti-EM rig, DC II). That amount changes slightly depending on how it's fit exactly, but the point is that if people want to shield tank it after the patche they're not really going to notice any significant change.

extra low slot = extra PDU for getting the extra shield back if you want it.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1031 - 2013-01-12 22:12:48 UTC
i would like to see the drake with a ROF bonus instead of sh resis and then drop a launcher so it would make a good link ship and make it more mobile and nerf its HP a bit that way 6 mids aren't too many combined with all the tank bonuses and excessive HP afterall its range with HAMS are even better than scorch so it doesn't really fit its brawler role.
A link kiter is a better role for it. The ferox should be tankier as its a genuine brawler otherwise the drake will still be the best caldari bc with its better range and tank.

'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

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1032 - 2013-01-12 22:15:59 UTC
Sigras wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Seranova Farreach wrote:

its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish.


400 hitpoints translates to about ~700 EHP on identical fits (2x LSE II, invuln, 2x CDFE, anti-EM rig, DC II). That amount changes slightly depending on how it's fit exactly, but the point is that if people want to shield tank it after the patche they're not really going to notice any significant change.

extra low slot = extra PDU for getting the extra shield back if you want it.


They were talking about the myrmidon, not the brutix. I made the same mistaken assumption at first ;(

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1033 - 2013-01-12 22:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
I think CCP should have better descriptions of each races capabilitys before players have to chose.

I'd agree . . . if I thought they had any idea what those capabilities are, or are supposed to be. I also don't see how mixing up weapon systems is going to help, because the way they're doing it they just wind up with these half-baked ships like the Dragoon, that can't decide what they want to be.

It's one thing to have a race have a full line of ships for each of two primary weapon systems, where each line fully commits to what it is and does. It's another thing to have these flip-flop random collections of ships and weapons, where if you train for one line for a while, then the next level up the only "good" ship is the one you can't use, because it's in the other line.

They did a really good job figuring out what each ship is supposed to do with the frigates and cruisers, and they did a good job fixing some of the mixed up toys like the Tristan. It's not clear that they're going to stay the course on that in the next round of BC and BS changes, but if they do, then it will probably go well.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1034 - 2013-01-12 22:43:08 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
I think CCP should have better descriptions of each races capabilitys before players have to chose.

I'd agree . . . if I thought they had any idea what those capabilities are, or are supposed to be. I also don't see how mixing up weapon systems is going to help, because the way they're doing it they just wind up with these half-baked ships like the Dragoon, that can't decide what they want to be.

It's one thing to have a race have a full line of ships for each of two primary weapon systems, where each line fully commits to what it is and does. It's another thing to have these flip-flop random collections of ships and weapons, where if you train for one line for a while, then the next level up the only "good" ship is the one you can't use, because it's in the other line.

They did a really good job figuring out what each ship is supposed to do with the frigates and cruisers, and they did a good job fixing some of the mixed up toys like the Tristan. It's not clear that they're going to stay the course on that in the next round of BC and BS changes, but if they do, then it will probably go well.


I agree that this round of balancing doesn't seem as focused on roles as the previous rounds they seem to be about stat swapping for example the drake/myrm and prophecy are all range ships due to their weapon types yet they all have tank bonuses whereas the harbinger looks a bit random what happened to it following the maller line to the abbadon?
The myrm was meant to follow vexor line to the domi.

'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
#1035 - 2013-01-12 23:07:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
I agree that this round of balancing doesn't seem as focused on roles as the previous rounds they seem to be about stat swapping for example the drake/myrm and prophecy are all range ships due to their weapon types yet they all have tank bonuses whereas the harbinger looks a bit random what happened to it following the maller line to the abbadon?
The myrm was meant to follow vexor line to the domi.

Not as focused on awesome?
Previous rounds I felt with many ships that "wow, now it all makes sense" for the ship itself, and not for a "bigger picture".
More slots, expanded bays on drone ships, better bonuses to go with the ship's style, T1 logis that are not horrible but in fact work, stuff like that.

This pass is maybe the opposite, many supposedly "bigger pictures", few awesome.
The ships aren't terrible, they do perform better than any direct comparison below them on tank and dps combined.
but...
The Prophecy is not a step up, but a weird side (specially since there is no plan to make a drone BS or Command Ship - it's T2 hulls - , and the Arbi is an EWAR ship with a cool damage bonus while the link between the Maller and the Abaddon are missing, so it's weird), Harbi is still one of the hardest to fit (according to some that looked at it), the Ferox doesn't get a damage bonus like a Moa letting it also act as a fleet booster with it's high but a turret instead, the Drake doesn't get turned into a higher and broader damaging ship that's no longer nerfing it's own offensive system that would also let it retain a possibility of fleetboosting perhaps, the Brutix is being hit in the shield so silly folk stop shield tanking it or suffer even more (well, as an armor tanker it is fine now perhaps, as soon as active armor tanking is fixed), the Myrm get's a bay reductions as far as flight-sustaining goes(?!), the Cyclone has less bonused hardpoints than any other BC, the Cane... I feel is still ok.

So armor bonused Brutix and the Cane I didn't have anything that could be more fun on it as far as looking only the ship goes.

Or is it just late over here, and I'm seeing things in a bad light now.

"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.
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
#1036 - 2013-01-13 00:19:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Neugeniko
[Cheap On Grid Booster] Cyclone

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Nanofibre Internal Structure II
Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Co-Processor II

Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Command Processor I

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II
Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I

5 x Hammerhead II


45k EHP 70% resists 468 dps, can run both links
at the same time.

Indices/Mining Simulator V6.41 UPDATED*

Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.5

Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
Perihelion Olenard
#1037 - 2013-01-13 01:11:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Hmm, I'm already getting ideas about a blaster/drone prophecy. The brutix will still struggle to fit electrons, MWD, cap booster, and a tank. Forget about ions.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1038 - 2013-01-13 01:11:43 UTC
brutix, only "tier 1" BC to get an EHP nerf...
And its an active tank bonus, active tank fits are already light on EHP
It still has a useless bonus, except now with its large shield nerf, its not as easy to ignore the tank type CCP wants you to use (armor), and instead go shield gank.
I agree with what has previously been posted, the repair bonus needs to be at least 10% to be viable

Drake is still too much win, they need to nerf its shield recharge time.

I do like the change of the Harby from a 5% to a 10% damage bonus - which similar to having a double bonus, so it seems less like a single bonus ship - since the 10% energy use bonus doesn't improve applied DPS at all
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children
#1039 - 2013-01-13 01:17:44 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.


Another thing that often mentioned in this thread is Warfare Links. All 8 combat BC are supposed to have their Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) remain. However I believe that Warfare Links on those ships will almost never be used. The reason for it is that unbonused links are too weak to even consider putting them on such ships. To evaluate the difference between T1 and T2/T3 Warfare Link bonusing ships just recall in your memory how often was T1 Logistic cruisers used prior to beginning of Tiercide.

Instead of having 2 BC with similar role for every empire you could make some of those BC into T1 version of Command ships. Currently Warfare Links is an exclusive thing that cannot be used on T1 ships even semi-effectively.
E.g. Ferox
5% bonus to all shield resistances and 2% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level.
This will bring following benefits:

1) Clearer roles for T1 Battlecruisers: Combat, Attack and Command.
2) More way for a new players to help corpmates or fellow militia.
3) Transitional path for players who like using such ships T1 => T2/T3 instead of _nothing_ => T2/T3
4) more incenitieve to train Leadership. Leadership SP will not feel wasted until character can pilot covert nullified offgrid T3.
5) Reduced disadvantage of roaming fleets without bonuses.
6) Lowering entry barrier for small-scale PvP.
7) Traditional bonus ships will not be pushed aside because of lower bonuses and tank.

Such changes will be beneficial for new players, small scale PvP and alt leveling. Think about it just like T1 Logistic Cruisers, T1 Ewar cruisers, T1 Tackling frigates. It will increase fleet diversity: fleet of T1 Cruisers/BCs with T1 Logistics and T1 Warfare Link ship might appear in New Eden much more often.


This is a way to think about Battlecruisers as a class which has a meaning in game and not just an intermediate ship between Cruisers and Battleships.
Fozzie and CCP, please consider something along these lines, or come up with some other solid concept before you start doing your changes.
Mund Richard
#1040 - 2013-01-13 01:44:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Andre Coeurl wrote:
This is a way to think about Battlecruisers as a class which has a meaning in game and not just an intermediate ship between Cruisers and Battleships.
Fozzie and CCP, please consider something along these lines, or come up with some other solid concept before you start doing your changes.
Designating one as command (definetly neither combat nor attack) would be rough though.
Each ship has (should have) it's fans, imagine how you'd feel if the one you like gets picked to be command and you can no longer efficiently hunt solo in it.
Taking a wild guess, former tier 1 and the myrm would be it.
Not that I want the Myrm to become even more of a brick, and the Cyclone to loose dps as well.
And they would need to be a brick, because once they are designated as "command", seeing one on grid would make it highly likely that it IS a booster. And such, a primary canidate.

Would be better, if the Myrm had an extra non-hardpoint high, one of the caldari ones (or both) loose a hardpoint and gain a RoF or damage bonus, each ship could mount one (except the Brutix, that one would need the Harbringer's magic to be eligible).
And perhaps a minor incentive to use it as well, a role bonus somewhat like the T1 logi's, let's say 5% bonus to all, or 10% bonus to the racial prefered (which is as much as 1-2% would be for a hull/subsystem) links. For all BCs that have the 99% reduction.

"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.