These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Odyssey] Attack Battlecruiser balance pass

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alec Enderas
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#181 - 2013-03-29 09:13:14 UTC
Seems ok, i would like to contribute to this topic by suggesting to finally fix the damn(ed) medium rails instead of playing with 0.1s here and 0.2s there.

I am not old, just bitter.
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#182 - 2013-03-29 11:09:32 UTC
I don't understand - right now it takes 7 bombers to kill a Attack BC Fleet. What is the point of increasing the signature radius?
Alec Enderas
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#183 - 2013-03-29 11:20:22 UTC
Marian Devers wrote:
I don't understand - right now it takes 7 bombers to kill a Attack BC Fleet. What is the point of increasing the signature radius?


To reduce the amount to 6 bombers of course.

I am not old, just bitter.
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#184 - 2013-03-29 11:56:57 UTC
Also, the nado lacks some tragetting range, which is funny, because arties have a damn good range, and in the case of the nado, it's the weapon's range is extremely limited by the hull, even with some sigamps/sebos. Could you check this metric of the nado please?
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#185 - 2013-03-29 12:07:11 UTC
Marian Devers wrote:
I don't understand - right now it takes 7 bombers to kill a Attack BC Fleet. What is the point of increasing the signature radius?


You'd think CCP Rise was clear enough. In case you missed the line in original post:

slightly more vulnerable to probing
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#186 - 2013-03-29 12:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Whiite
CCP Rise,

I'm afraid I can say little of the change due to lack of information.

what is it you want with these ships and at what level.

can't say i this is good or bad without seeing the Battleships.

or the intention you guys have with battleships.

what I can say is the following:


When concerning small gang / solo PvP.

These attack Battlecruisers have no real match. non of the other battlecruisers is realy going to compete with them in almost any situation. Their range, speed and damage easely makes up for the lack of hitpoints,

Combat battle cruisers do easly 400 dps less at a shorter range, which they never going to make up because the Attack battle cruisers dictates range to them.

cruisers are scarp metal before they get close enough to hurt them.

battleships are to slow and some even do less damge.



Al of this might not be to much problem in big large fleet battles with capitals, buit in small combat superior damage, in combination with the speed and range will come out on top 9 out of 10 times.


If this is CCP's intention then that will probably fine.

If you want to open the road for Battleships to have some use in small gang pvp, it will depend on what you guys are planning for the battleships.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#187 - 2013-03-29 12:55:24 UTC
Attack Battlecruisers are the perfect ships for the sniping role aka as Bombardement Battlecruisers, but someone insist on making them the perfect solo machine capable of taking the battle up with most shiptypes on it's own or get away pretty easy...

Best sub-cap dps and ability to dictate range just doesn't harmonize. They don't need the surrealistic dps and they could easily lose 25% of their velocity while still performing their role. Currently they are still able to blap most things with ease. People whining about them being fine are mostly trying to save their own e-peen and doesn't care about other shiptypes...

Pinky
DRGaius Baltar
Perkone
Caldari State
#188 - 2013-03-29 14:00:45 UTC
Sounds like its the season of nerf...oh wait "Rebalence" have you guys given up on adding new content to this game or is this more of things to come???
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#189 - 2013-03-29 14:05:26 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
You are aware that the weakness to frigates is a stated intentional design flawgoal?

Fixed that for ya.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
IrJosy
Club 1621
#190 - 2013-03-29 14:23:22 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:


Some of us still like to fly solo, and don't use attack BCs just for ganking. The Talos is the only attack BC which has any sort of defense against smaller ships which can't be hit by the large guns.

I'd like to see the other attack BCs get some sort of defense against smaller ships, too, although I'm opposed to just adding drones to every ship.


You are aware that the weakness to frigates is a stated intentional design flaw?





What weakness to frigates? They pop frigates before frigates even get in range to lock.
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#191 - 2013-03-29 15:34:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Marian Devers
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Marian Devers wrote:
I don't understand - right now it takes 7 bombers to kill a Attack BC Fleet. What is the point of increasing the signature radius?


You'd think CCP Rise was clear enough. In case you missed the line in original post:

slightly more vulnerable to probing


They probe just fine as it is.

If you want to make a ship more vulnerable to probing, you decrease sensor strength, to which no changes were made. However, if you want to make a ship vulnerable to probing AND stealth bombers, you decrease sensor strength and increase signature radius. The fact that only the signature radius was touched means that the main priority was "more vulnerable to stealth bombers", and "more vulnerable to probing out" secondary.

So the question still stands - why is this a priority?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#192 - 2013-03-29 15:54:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Marian Devers wrote:
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Marian Devers wrote:
I don't understand - right now it takes 7 bombers to kill a Attack BC Fleet. What is the point of increasing the signature radius?


You'd think CCP Rise was clear enough. In case you missed the line in original post:

slightly more vulnerable to probing


They probe just fine as it is.

If you want to make a ship more vulnerable to probing, you decrease sensor strength, to which no changes were made. However, if you want to make a ship vulnerable to probing AND stealth bombers, you decrease sensor strength and increase signature radius. The fact that only the signature radius was touched means that the main priority was "more vulnerable to stealth bombers", and "more vulnerable to probing out" secondary.

So the question still stands - why is this a priority?

2 birds, one stone... although at decrease in sensor strength should probably be considered as well. Being very vulnerable to ECM is another viable limitation for the class.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
2manno Asp
Death By Design
#193 - 2013-03-29 16:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: 2manno Asp
i still have hopes the raging feedback against the TE re-balance will mean the these don't get double nerfed.

not against the talos getting nerfed for instance, just saying that you don't have to nerf half the ships in the game to fix the talos.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#194 - 2013-03-29 17:58:11 UTC
2manno Asp wrote:
i still have hopes the raging feedback against the TE re-balance will mean the these don't get double nerfed.

not against the talos getting nerfed for instance, just saying that you don't have to nerf half the ships in the game to fix the talos.


The Talos is definitely getting double whacked, but the TE nerf is not aimed at the Talos. It's aimed at all the ships that are using (and abusing) them. There's a reason that every turret ship that can buffer shield tanks and loads up the lows with damage mods and TEs. The module is just unnecessarily powerful - and I'm kinda excited to see how the TE nerf works out in practice.

With regards to the ABC: I said earlier that I wouldn't have much of a use for them anymore, and I stand by that. I'll poast ~numbers~ for Grath after GDC, but losing 4-5km of range and adding a second to my align time is just... well, not gonna fly for my purposes. I have no doubt that the Kil2 Neutron Special will remain viable though, but I just don't fly that.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
scarify ardonn
The First Kiss
#195 - 2013-03-29 19:39:54 UTC
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY

or

fix noobish ecm-drones

I had great "fight" today. Talos and manticore from EvoKe was belting in other system, so I undock with my hero merlin, tackled Talos and start killing him easily. Then Talos launched his MIGHTY IMBA NOOBISH ec-hornets.

First cycle : nothing (5 drones)
Second cycle: jam (3 drones)
Third cycle: jam (3 drones)

And then talos ran away.

I understand you (CCP) just cant fix drones, but for god's sake remove noob ecm drones from Talos=remove drone bay.

CCP pls, DONT suppport COWARDS like Tribun Auronus (Talos pilot).
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#196 - 2013-03-29 19:51:33 UTC
Roll

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#197 - 2013-03-29 23:24:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
scarify ardonn wrote:
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY
REMOVE TALOS's DRONE BAY - COMPLETELY

or

fix noobish ecm-drones

I had great "fight" today. Talos and manticore from EvoKe was belting in other system, so I undock with my hero merlin, tackled Talos and start killing him easily. Then Talos launched his MIGHTY IMBA NOOBISH ec-hornets.

First cycle : nothing (5 drones)
Second cycle: jam (3 drones)
Third cycle: jam (3 drones)

And then talos ran away.

I understand you (CCP) just cant fix drones, but for god's sake remove noob ecm drones from Talos=remove drone bay.

CCP pls, DONT suppport COWARDS like Tribun Auronus (Talos pilot).


But wait!!!

The experts in this thread have confidently asserted that it's impossible for your frigate to get anywhere near that Talos, let alone tackle it.

LIES!!!

SmileSmileSmile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#198 - 2013-03-29 23:26:17 UTC
Eshnala wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Oddsodz wrote:
Make sure that base scan resolution is low enough that my Arazu is not instalpopped before I lock a tier3 battlecruisers as it jumps in from a gate.

I Am sad as it is that the fire power of tier3 battlecruisers makes the job of a recon pointless (pun intended) when camping gates and so on. Before any sensor boosters are used. A tier3 battlecruisers can lock and fire before any recon ship. And in Lowsec. You can't use frigs for tackling on gates (well you can use an enyo if you can afford the silly fit with legon boosts) due to gate guns and so on. So you would use a cruiser or a recon for that job. But since the tier3 battlecruisers came along. There is no need for that role/job any more. tier3 battlecruisers can lock and pop any target before it even has a chance to warp (fittings depending). My job as an Arazu pilot was not needed any more.

Anyway. Rant over



As i said several times. Attack BC are bad for the metagame. They were knee jerk reaction to make players happy back at the incarna fiasco results.

Now we are paying the price of ships made to be extra awesome, instead of being good to the metagame.


i would be completly happy with removing tier3s at all tbh.


Agreed, or change them to those medium gun using long range sniping platforms and fix the medium long range weapons.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#199 - 2013-03-29 23:31:22 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
0wl wrote:
Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing.



Peopel really come here with this kind of expectation? Wtf people? get a grasp of reality.


Can someone actually explain why this would have been such an bad idea and wouldn't have worked with maybe less launcher slots?
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#200 - 2013-03-29 23:40:12 UTC
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
0wl wrote:
Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing.



Peopel really come here with this kind of expectation? Wtf people? get a grasp of reality.


Can someone actually explain why this would have been such an bad idea and wouldn't have worked with maybe less launcher slots?



Cruise and Siege missiles are pretty underwhelming in PVP. I was told they might have worked well in PVE but I dont know.

If the Naga was able to use missile. Then why not make the Talo a drone ship? In anycase. The Naga is one of the best vessels for fleet engagements. What more could a Caldari pilot ask for?

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]