These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#1621 - 2013-01-24 19:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonaura
Meh. Moved this post into my last post. Hello page 82. Life treating you well?

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Joss Portera
Pyongyang's Finest
#1622 - 2013-01-24 19:37:59 UTC
DRAKE -15 CPU WHYYYYYYYYYY
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1623 - 2013-01-24 20:00:51 UTC
I don't know some of this feels like some of the problems with these changes is because it's trying to force both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 hulls into the exact same role... the fleet boosting ship. A better approach would have been to balance each ship with a specific role in mind... some examples.

Tier 1s - The T1 Command Ships
Brutix-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Damage Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP

  • 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level
  • 2% bonus to Information Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Cyclone-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Speed Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP

  • 5% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Damage per Level
  • 2% bonus to Skirmish Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Ferox-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/Long Range Sniper for Large Scale Fleet PvP

  • 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Range per Level
  • 2% bonus to Siege Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Prophecy-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Survivability Ship for Large Scale Fleet PvP

  • 5% bonus to Armor Resistances per Level
  • 2% bonus to Armor Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Tier 2s - The Combat or Attack Battlecruiser
Drake-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Survivability 'Combat' Battlecruiser

  • 10% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Range per Level
  • 5% bonus to Shield Resistance per Level


Harbinger-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser

  • 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage per Level
  • 10% bonus of Medium Energy Turret Tracking per Level


Hurricane-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser

  • 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Damage per Level
  • 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire per Level


Myrmidon-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser

  • 5% bonus to Drone Hitpoints and Damage per Level
  • 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level


Tier 3s - The Pocket Battleships
Really they're great as they are.

If you want us to fit Gang Links, give a bonus to doing it? While Battlecruisers may have originally been meant as a fleet booster, they're not all used in that role. The Drake for example is heavily used both as a fleet line ship in 0.0 (Combat Ship) and a mission runner with a Passive Shield Tank. The Cyclone is used a lot in roaming gangs (like many Minmatar ships) because of its speed and maneuverability.
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1624 - 2013-01-24 20:18:19 UTC
Saul Elsyn wrote:
I don't know some of this feels like some of the problems with these changes is because it's trying to force both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 hulls into the exact same role... the fleet boosting ship. A better approach would have been to balance each ship with a specific role in mind... some examples.

Tier 1s - The T1 Command Ships
Brutix-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Damage Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP

  • 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level
  • 2% bonus to Information Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Cyclone-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Speed Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP

  • 5% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Damage per Level
  • 2% bonus to Skirmish Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Ferox-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/Long Range Sniper for Large Scale Fleet PvP

  • 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Range per Level
  • 2% bonus to Siege Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Prophecy-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Survivability Ship for Large Scale Fleet PvP

  • 5% bonus to Armor Resistances per Level
  • 2% bonus to Armor Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level


Tier 2s - The Combat or Attack Battlecruiser
Drake-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Survivability 'Combat' Battlecruiser

  • 10% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Range per Level
  • 5% bonus to Shield Resistance per Level


Harbinger-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser

  • 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage per Level
  • 10% bonus of Medium Energy Turret Tracking per Level


Hurricane-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser

  • 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Damage per Level
  • 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire per Level


Myrmidon-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser

  • 5% bonus to Drone Hitpoints and Damage per Level
  • 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level


Tier 3s - The Pocket Battleships
Really they're great as they are.

If you want us to fit Gang Links, give a bonus to doing it? While Battlecruisers may have originally been meant as a fleet booster, they're not all used in that role. The Drake for example is heavily used both as a fleet line ship in 0.0 (Combat Ship) and a mission runner with a Passive Shield Tank. The Cyclone is used a lot in roaming gangs (like many Minmatar ships) because of its speed and maneuverability.



Bonuses to gank links should be for those flying command ships.
Your idea is just dumb.
Perihelion Olenard
#1625 - 2013-01-24 20:29:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
The brutix seems to have too much CPU and not quite enough PG. It could stand to lose a little CPU to gain at least 3% more PG. Otherwise it cannot fit 6 tech 2 ions a MWD, medium cap booster, and two tech 2 armor repairers. It certainly won't be able to fit that after the active tanking rig penalties are changed to penalize PG usage from repairers. Fitting a warfare link is impossible without downgrading stuff and probably requires a fitting rig.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1626 - 2013-01-24 21:17:43 UTC
The role of regular BC's being used as cheap command ships may see a significant return depending on what changes CCP does to them. They aren't used much now because you can do it better with a ship that you don't have to risk. If CCP changes links to only effect ships on grid with them then there will be many fleets where people may not want to risk that shiny command ship or T3, but will certainly be willing to use a regular BC to give a boost, albeit not as good as a proper command ship. Still this difference could still be the deciding factor depending on the match up.

In fact I'm quite looking forward to using it as such again. I've found the Mrym to be a good cheap command ship in the past as you could still maintain a decent tank with 1-2 links fit and still have some utility with your drones for the good of the gang.
Resilan Bearcat
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1627 - 2013-01-24 21:43:45 UTC
My first reaction on seeing the proposed changes for the Gallente ships was WTH! Why put an active bonus on both Gallente battlecruiers? I have been following this thread throughout, and I confess that I still have the same reaction. One ship being a drone platform and the other being a blaster platform is one layer of differences. Why remove the second layer of differences for only one race? Regardless of how they play, this change doesn't make any sense to me.

I fly exclusively in small gangs and almost always have logistics support. While I do not fly battlecruisers often, I do like them and will use them on occassion for fun. I was hoping to see more use from them with the balance pass. However, given the proposed changes, I would never choose to fly a Gallente battlecruiser which is my primary and highest skilled weapon system.

It does not matter to me if the secondary bonus is damage oriented like the Hurricane or passive tanking or some other bonus. Almost anything would be better than duplicating the Myrmidon's active armor bonus in my opinion.

For what it is worth, I vote no on the active armor bonus for the Brutix.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#1628 - 2013-01-24 22:44:12 UTC
mynnna wrote:
You're just completely oblivious to sarcasm aren't you, holy cow. The use of Roll is a dead giveaway to most people. My point was that the Cyclone has no reasonable way to "trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room", which makes holding up a ferox that does exactly that disingenuous in its own right, as does holding up a current version of the cyclone that does the same thing (by using 180mm instead of 220mm ACs).

Anyway, like I said before - I think the cyclone is fine. If you don't, I'm the wrong person to argue with. Put together your argument complete with fits and stats for several ships for comparison... all stats, speed, tank, DPS, etc... present them to Fozzie, and see if you can convince him.


OK, let me get this straight. Your argument re: the cyclone and ferox is as follows:


  • The new Ferox has sufficient fitting room to accommodate a full rack of bonused weapons along with a strong XLASB tank and full tackle without having to use fitting mods or downsize to frigate sized modules
  • To achieve a comparable fit with a cyclone, you need at least three fitting mods or to start downsizing left right and center
  • Therefore, the cyclone's fitting room is perfectly adequate
  • sarcasm lol Roll lol Roll


Pointing out that turret ships have more options than missile boats in terms of weapons doesn't negate the fact that all ships need sufficient fitting room to accommodate the weapons they're designed to use, a reasonable tank, and an appropriate number of ewar/tackle/utility/damage mods, and that the revised cyclone fails pretty badly on that score.

As for saying I should be presenting my argument to the devs rather than you, that seems like a pretty smart idea. I think I'll do that by initially posting a brief comment outlining my opinion in the official battlecruiser changes feedback thread and then elaborating on my position if it's challenged. Sound good to you?
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1629 - 2013-01-25 02:05:15 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
mynnna wrote:
You're just completely oblivious to sarcasm aren't you, holy cow. The use of Roll is a dead giveaway to most people. My point was that the Cyclone has no reasonable way to "trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room", which makes holding up a ferox that does exactly that disingenuous in its own right, as does holding up a current version of the cyclone that does the same thing (by using 180mm instead of 220mm ACs).

Anyway, like I said before - I think the cyclone is fine. If you don't, I'm the wrong person to argue with. Put together your argument complete with fits and stats for several ships for comparison... all stats, speed, tank, DPS, etc... present them to Fozzie, and see if you can convince him.


OK, let me get this straight. Your argument re: the cyclone and ferox is as follows:


  • The new Ferox has sufficient fitting room to accommodate a full rack of bonused weapons along with a strong XLASB tank and full tackle without having to use fitting mods or downsize to frigate sized modules
  • To achieve a comparable fit with a cyclone, you need at least three fitting mods or to start downsizing left right and center
  • Therefore, the cyclone's fitting room is perfectly adequate
  • sarcasm lol Roll lol Roll


Pointing out that turret ships have more options than missile boats in terms of weapons doesn't negate the fact that all ships need sufficient fitting room to accommodate the weapons they're designed to use, a reasonable tank, and an appropriate number of ewar/tackle/utility/damage mods, and that the revised cyclone fails pretty badly on that score.

As for saying I should be presenting my argument to the devs rather than you, that seems like a pretty smart idea. I think I'll do that by initially posting a brief comment outlining my opinion in the official battlecruiser changes feedback thread and then elaborating on my position if it's challenged. Sound good to you?



If you're talking a double XLASB tank, then you should honestly just shaddaup. ****'s already broken as **** and will get nerfed into the ground shortly I hope.

As for a single XLASB tank, you should shaddaup. I have on fit on SiSi right now, which is prefectly up the ally of what a Cyclone does now, but with HAMs. AKA, it does its job BETTER now.
Standard Faction LSB fit still works, and a dual LASB fit is just fine.

Cyclone is great, less bitching more reality plox.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#1630 - 2013-01-25 03:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Prophecy is just a mind blowingly bad and unoriginal concept. What Battleship line does this even pretend to mimic? You were better off going optimal + resist and finally fixing medium beams for any flavor there. That, plus a nerf to the PG on the Oracle or some other good change to 1600 plates fitting on it would have made a pulse or beam prophecy concept pretty cool.

Still the dual repair bonus on the Gallente BC's,,, [face palm]

Ferox is fine if you finally ******* nerf web stacking and fix the tracking formula, but your track record on either thus far speaks volumes for my faith.

The dual resist bonus on the Caldari is a fricking joke and should have never existed. I can't believe the drake has yet to lose it's tanking capacity, thus stealing a lot of the role of the Ferox. Best thing you could do for the Ferox is to dump the drake resist bonus.
Daniel Whateley
#1631 - 2013-01-25 04:05:05 UTC
I see a lot of words like Nerf and Buff, read the intended changes more carefully, if you put into calculation the new changes they are balancing each ship out to fit their "intended role" the slight cpu reduction or power reduction is nothing your losing a whole turret slot, even the harbinger... the 600 less power amount but they're making your regen time -800 your actually gaining about 2gj\s regen and because of that your getting a "damage buff" for people who use cap boosters anyway thats a pretty impressive trade off, why complain about -0.90 powergrid when your actually gaining an extra 250 from dropping a gun, your also getting a damage bonus in most cases on those ships, and the tier 2 bc's are getting pulled back slightly to meet their tier 1 equivilant, and as for the "Very Small drake nerf" your lucky they don't take your launcher away cause a ham drake now does close to 600dps since the missile changes.
Hefty TheFirst
ALTimate corp
#1632 - 2013-01-25 04:22:46 UTC
Hi,

This is my first month playing Eve Online.
Eve is a great game but it's very punishing for new players.

I loved the drake the most of the current ships and I made a plan to start training towards the drake and it's core skills.
Now I have read about the drake and I saw it got nerfed a few times in the past.

So I just read the patch notes and I feel incredibly ripped off...
My whole first month in this game goes towards just getting into the drake and now it gets this epic nerf.

My whole first month feels wasted...

I mean why "fix" something that's not broken in the first place?

Regards: Hefty
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#1633 - 2013-01-25 05:08:49 UTC
Only had time to look at fits before server shut down, but here are a few observations about PG/CPU:


  • Dual Rep Brutix w/ Ions and a medium cap booster likely need about 80 more base PG (even using 1 ACR rig) to work with a warfare link for AWU 4 players... I missed 70,7 PG with my skills for a T1 link.
  • A Myrmidon is versatile enough and should be okay. The new drone bay makes good sense. Im fitting my with a 1600 plate and single MAR so I need about 83 PG with my skills, but that isn't the same as saying the Myrm needs more PG.
  • Harbinger is okay with focused medium pulse, but with those it doesn't seem fair to have the super low cpu... 25 more base cpu would make it an easier for for AWU 3 and 4 players as it really is very tight compared to other ships.
  • Prophecy seems spot on - nice to fit without having too much either. Cool hehe
  • Drake definitely need more cpu to be worth anything - It's super tight. I'd ideally like 15 cpu back, but even 5-10 base CPU would be cherished. It's just very tough even downgrading lots of things to get enough for a decent fit while having a warfare link...
  • Ferox is very easy to fit w/Blaster setups and seems balanced no matter if you want to fit ions, neutrons, 200mm or 250mm railguns...
  • Didn't really get to look at Cyclone and Hurricane, but I had lots of trouble fitting a solid shield tanker and it's difficult to judge the CPU/PG on a cyclone when you're pretty much forced to use XL and L ASB to be competitive resulting in Co-Processor and cpu rigs alike. I think it would definitely benefit from powergrid and cpu though.


Will have to see how they fly, but Im still rather frustrated with only getting response on very few of the comments - especially regarding bonus.

Pinky Denmark
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1634 - 2013-01-25 06:27:43 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Drake:
Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level


Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this:

1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5.
2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility.
3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type that also a huge PvE disadavantage for new players.

I hope that those side-effects are not intended.
Qaidan Alenko
Eezo-Lution Inc.
#1635 - 2013-01-25 06:58:26 UTC
Well... Drake did lose a missile slot too...
Go ahead... Get your Wham on!!!
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1636 - 2013-01-25 08:30:43 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Drake:
Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level


Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this:

1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5.
2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility.
3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type that also a huge PvE disadavantage for new players.

I hope that those side-effects are not intended.


It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1637 - 2013-01-25 08:38:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Hefty TheFirst wrote:
Hi,

This is my first month playing Eve Online.
Eve is a great game but it's very punishing for new players.

I loved the drake the most of the current ships and I made a plan to start training towards the drake and it's core skills.
Now I have read about the drake and I saw it got nerfed a few times in the past.

So I just read the patch notes and I feel incredibly ripped off...
My whole first month in this game goes towards just getting into the drake and now it gets this epic nerf.

My whole first month feels wasted...

I mean why "fix" something that's not broken in the first place?

Regards: Hefty

The thing is they're fixing something that was really broken. Now it's not so broken, but it's still a fine ship. Put HAM launchers in the highs, basically PODLA the thing, and you've got a solid ship post patch. Using pre-nerf ships, could you have come up with any comparison between the Ferox and the Drake? Nobody flew the Ferox, except as an ice miner, or ironically *hipster!*.

Yes, you've put time towards training it, but it will still be a good ship, just not as stupid as it was before. Admittedly, though, a good portion of its power was in HML's. Thank god those were brought to par (though they're actually probably still above par for long range weapons...)

Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Drake:
Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level


Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this:

1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5.

I hope that those side-effects are not intended.

This however is something I can also agree with. I mean, it's hard to balance. It's hard to be that Dev that has to make those decisions. It's the same with the Harbinger. You're at a huge disadvantage if you don't have BC V. Newer players are getting the short end of the stick.

I'm actually kind of wondering if we wouldn't be better off getting a role bonus of 25% then leaving the skill bonuses at 5% per level. I know that would put things even farther ahead (though not by much), but it would rebalance things a bit for newbies.
Or hell, even a 20% role bonus or something. Hell, that would come out equivalent to 9 turrets/launchers, as these changes will have them, but without a huge disparity between newbies and vets.

Also to adress Sinigr's concerns, you could even make that a 20% role bonus to missile damage on the Drake while leaving the per level bonus as kinetic only, thus lessening the damage difference between kinetic and all other damage types. You still have specialization for more effectiveness, but you aren't as forced into using kinetic only.

Gypsio III wrote:

It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.

They might be. But I doubt that that is the reason. They wanted to free up a high for links, without cutting out any other slots. Likely an unintentional side effect. Besides, as a T1 ship there should be a moderate entry level for effectiveness. Mastery of course should take more time, but the difference between mastery and effectiveness shouldn't be too vast on a T1 ship. T2 ships though should absolutely punish those who attempt to enter them prematurely.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1638 - 2013-01-25 08:49:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
Gypsio III wrote:

It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.


New players often pick ships not because of gameplay benefits but based on aesthetics and advises of more experienced ones. Trading amount of weapons for higher bonuses is actually a positive effect in itself for those who have perfect skill set so they will still tell newcomers "get a Drake, it's still good".
Also many players pick their empire because of aesthetics/lore, so if someone likes missiles and energy shields more than autocannons he/she should be punished when moving up to battlecruisers.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1639 - 2013-01-25 09:01:44 UTC
Hefty TheFirst wrote:
Hi,

This is my first month playing Eve Online.
Eve is a great game but it's very punishing for new players.

I loved the drake the most of the current ships and I made a plan to start training towards the drake and it's core skills.
Now I have read about the drake and I saw it got nerfed a few times in the past.

So I just read the patch notes and I feel incredibly ripped off...
My whole first month in this game goes towards just getting into the drake and now it gets this epic nerf.

My whole first month feels wasted...

I mean why "fix" something that's not broken in the first place?

Regards: Hefty


Hello.
It is true that Eve is punishing for new players, but with some enthusiasm you can participate in bigger things faster than you think. Even after the nerfs Drake is still or we be a fine ship. Your time focusing on it is not wasted. Let's see what skills are needed for using Drake effectively:

1. Battlecruisers - which is also a skill for any other BC.
2. Heavy missiles - even after taking a hit, they are still good on Tengu. Other missile skills are useful on Stealth Bombers and such.
3. Shield tanking - numerous ships in Eve use shield as primary defense. Not only Caldari, but also most Minmatar, some Gallente and even Amarr ships can be fitted for shield-tanking.
4. Core skills that are used for all ships are always useful.

Moreso 1 month in Eve is not that much, if you stay here for a while you will eventually find yourself thinking "This skill takes only a month to train to V".

PS: sorry for doublepost, they are just to different to be fit in one.
darkness reins
Siberian Squad
Siberian Squads
#1640 - 2013-01-25 09:19:26 UTC
harbs gonna suck. brutix needs rep bonus replaced and all these.bcs need at least 1 utility high for a warfare.link.