These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1161 - 2013-01-14 20:05:18 UTC
One possible armor solution for the active armor repping folks could be new armor modules that are toned down passive (or active?) armors that also have some neuting reflection and/or repping bonus.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#1162 - 2013-01-14 20:06:50 UTC
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(

It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus.


THIS.

I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race!


Its just style points and making lasers amarr only. They can nerf the lasers and reduce cap usage and replace those bonuses with for example rate of fire etc. but the end result would be the same. I personally like it, some ppl dont, but its not really a balance issue.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#1163 - 2013-01-14 20:13:41 UTC
Roime wrote:
Nah,

I'd rather see them invest a bit more resources, and make completely new designs for all T2 ships. Some of them have just
different textures on the same model.


Yes, its high time this game had more art assets.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#1164 - 2013-01-14 20:13:49 UTC
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#1165 - 2013-01-14 20:14:55 UTC
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(

It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus.


THIS.

I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race!


Its just style points and making lasers amarr only. They can nerf the lasers and reduce cap usage and replace those bonuses with for example rate of fire etc. but the end result would be the same. I personally like it, some ppl dont, but its not really a balance issue.


People are content using lasers without a cap bonus, as long as there's a laser damage bonus. The high cap CONSUMPTION is what keeps lasers amarr-only, not the cap bonus.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1166 - 2013-01-14 20:28:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Andendare
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Kitsune Jones wrote:
Stop faffing around with giving ships weird numbers of drones. It's a terrible mechanic and just winds up with ships that can't use a matched flight of drones, while mismatched drone flights are as fundamentally smart as making a ship that mounts two large, one medium, and three small turrets. The result is a ship that sucks equally against all targets.

If you make a drone ship, give it the bandwidth to handle a full flight of the drone size for it. If you want to make Gallente ships definitively better with drones, do it by giving them a bigger drone bonus, not by making Amarr ships unable to use as many drones. Then give Amarr ships the bigger bays, but don't screw the Gallente by only giving them enough for a single batch of drones.

[Edit: Actually, on second thought, weird numbers of drones are acceptable if the ship bonus includes something like 'For every level your drone bandwidth increases by...' so that they can field a full flight of drones by the time they hit level 5. It's fine if a drone boat starts off as a mediocre drone boat as long as it can be made into a good drone boat with skill.]

I'd have to agree with this. Drone bandwidth should always be a full multiple of the designated size. The 2/2/1 drone flight is an idiotic concept that only ever happened because of ships having these weird numbers, and because min/max'ers think that every little green bar that can be filled must be filled, no matter whether that makes sense or not. Take that 25 drone bandwidth and dump those itemization points into something that matters, like drone bay for instance, or anything else really. Give the ship another gun . . . or 250 more points of structure HP . . . anything at all would be more useful than the mixed up toys drone bandwidth.
Along this line, I'd love to see Ishtar buffed with Guardian-Vexor-like +1 drone (and bandwidth) per level.

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

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

Tursarius
School of Life
#1167 - 2013-01-14 20:47:11 UTC
I would like to know why the gallente battlecruisers have a signature radius 15m smaller than a battleship...This seems a little excessive. Gallente battlecruisers are the only battlecruisers that are as large as a battleship when shield tanked.
Is this a subtle method to prevent shield tanking gallente?
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1168 - 2013-01-14 21:13:52 UTC
These changes are quite good IMO, if armor tank is fixed ; we desperately need to see the changes planed for armor tanking, because that's pretty much the only concern people have, even if they often don't see it. See : active armor tanking bonus are crap ; harbinger is crap ; let's shield tank my ship plz. All these kind of comments wouldn't be if armor tank changes were released.

As for the Harbinger, I don't know about cap or fiting, though moaning about it not able to fit 1600mm plate + MWD + biggest guns is silly (because no BC is able to do it), as is crying about the tank nerf : Tier 2 need their nerf, and that go with a tank nerf. If you look closer to the tanks, they are homogenised ; and the Harbinger take the role of the attack combat BC, while the Prophecy is the obvious brick ; base hp difference is 250 and the same goes for all BC.

Harbinger, and gallente ships should be seen with a future armor rebalance in mind ; its useles to moan about them or their bonuses until we know more about future of armor tanking.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1169 - 2013-01-14 21:16:25 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:

Along this line, I'd love to see Ishtar buffed with Guardian-Vexor-like +1 drone (and bandwidth) per level.


Last thing we need is 1500 dps ishtar...

Like c'mon people, lets try and not be ******** with our suggestions.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#1170 - 2013-01-14 21:42:18 UTC
These are COMBAT battlecruisers, CCP Fozzie! The caldari already have a sniping boat, and it's called the Naga! Please, PLEASE do 6 mids on the ferox and swap range for damage! The moa and merlin have worked; you have no reason not to continue that line! :<

If you're dropping a highslot on the myrmidon, I hope you're ready to change the model to accommodate that...

Brutix doesn't need that rep bonus. Swap for tracking or firing rate, and we'll finally get our gallente blaster bc we've always tried to fit it out to be.

Prophecy is GORGEOUS. It's perfect. No touchy.

Harb is ok...should actually do more dps with less fitting hassles.

Drake is...the same. Firing rate bonus would be a good substitute for kin damage; it'll help go the same route as the harbe with doing more with less.

Cane is fine; needed nerf.

Cyclone is...interesting. Should be a better brawler boat now, and a little more flexible on offense in general.

Ferox, drake, and brutix still need their bonuses changed to be viable with cruiser and bc updates. Ferox especially; a ship that good looking needs good bonuses to go along with it.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#1171 - 2013-01-14 21:49:37 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!

There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus:
1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings).
2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook.
3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.


It may be true that more people use rails on the ferox than blasters, but that's because the ferox is one of the only ships where medium rails can ever effectively be used. If you gave ALL railguns a 50% optimal bonus and swapped the ships' range bonuses for a related gun bonus for damage or tracking, you'd simultaneously fix railguns and the ships that use them. It would ACTUALLY allow caldari and gallente hybrid boats to use blasters and rails interchangeably, and provide them with comparable dps to arty and beam lasers.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1172 - 2013-01-14 22:44:48 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.

you shouldn't make fun of people's weight problem

people are no less people because they have crumbs orbiting them

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1173 - 2013-01-15 01:53:54 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.

"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"

It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good.

Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Mund Richard
#1174 - 2013-01-15 02:16:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.

"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"

It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good.

Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD.

What I don't get though, is why not multitudes of 200 instead, that leads to the n*250-s.

After a skill of 5 in the appropriate skill, 250 becomes 312,5, which is almost as bad as 937,5 for and ending of 750. Compared to these, 625 from 500 sounds nice.

And of course, after the first shield extender or armor plate, you can forget about the whole thing. Roll

"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.
Allandri
Liandri Industrial
#1175 - 2013-01-15 02:46:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Allandri
[NEW Prophecy]

800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Energized Armor Layering Membrane II

Experimental 10MN Afterburner I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Warp Disruptor II
Remote Sensor Dampener II, Targeting Range Dampening Script

Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense I

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

Hammerhead II x 22

130k EHP with 2 CPU to spare and 30 PG for ~45M ISK

363 DPS w/ Hammerhead IIs, 410 DPS with 3 Ogre IIs, or 273 w/ Hobgoblin IIs
DR BiCarbonate
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1176 - 2013-01-15 03:07:23 UTC
These changes are horrid... what teh ****.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1177 - 2013-01-15 03:13:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Mund Richard wrote:
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.

"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"

It's like putting lipstick on a pig.

It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good.

Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD.

What I don't get though, is why not multitudes of 200 instead, that leads to the n*250-s.

After a skill of 5 in the appropriate skill, 250 becomes 312,5, which is almost as bad as 937,5 for and ending of 750. Compared to these, 625 from 500 sounds nice.

And of course, after the first shield extender or armor plate, you can forget about the whole thing. Roll

200 increments would provide a much cleaner multiplier. That is true.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#1178 - 2013-01-15 03:19:13 UTC
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(

It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus.


THIS.

I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race!
I think there's some sleight of hand happening with the harby's bonuses.

Basically, the harby has 2 "standard" bonuses: a 5% bonus to gun damage and a second 5% bonus to gun damage, that stack additively ('cane's bonuses stack multiplicatively). Harby also has a cap-use pseudo-bonus. Effectively, it gets a double-strength bonus and a weak bonus rather than two normal bonuses.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Daniel Whateley
#1179 - 2013-01-15 04:06:16 UTC
Survey the situation more carefully for the extra low slots on ferox, it used to only have 4 lows, if this change comes out youll be able to fit a damage control and 2 tracking enhancers and mags, and they're not buffing, they're balancing, but it seems like most of the ships i've been flying are getting buffed P and the drake needed that, its tank was far too powerful (1200dps tank passive?) now it'll be around 960ish, more in par with the other races.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1180 - 2013-01-15 05:46:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Debir Achen wrote:
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(

It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus.


THIS.

I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race!
I think there's some sleight of hand happening with the harby's bonuses.

Basically, the harby has 2 "standard" bonuses: a 5% bonus to gun damage and a second 5% bonus to gun damage, that stack additively ('cane's bonuses stack multiplicatively). Harby also has a cap-use pseudo-bonus. Effectively, it gets a double-strength bonus and a weak bonus rather than two normal bonuses.


the cap bonus should be IMO integrated into the ship capacitor by default. Cap dependent ships have enough problems already. Caldari/Minmatar can just burn till the cap is (almost) empty and shoot while doing it. Amarr ships are disabled if you fly them the same way. ASBs made the situation worse and made capacitor even less important for min/caldari. Not to mention that the medium slot count of amarr ships is very limited so you often can't fit cap boosters.

i am curious how CCP wants to tackle the active local tank issue without introducing something like a ASB for armor. (e.g ancillary resistance boost module)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value