These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Attack Battlecruisers should they be T2 Heavy Assault Battlecruiser?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#21 - 2013-05-06 22:45:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
the tier 3's don't need t2 resists. It be an improvement for them if looking to put them inline as it where.


If the t2'ing is an attempt at cost to stem the tide of tier 3....one need only look at the current t3 and t2 cruiser situation. Cost does not limit numbers. Some ask why so many tengu's around. My answer, fly a cerb or hell eagle (for those who say wtf, lets run hybrid sub). For a bit more isk and the mild pita of subystsem retrain if popped you get a better boat. Run well and a bit of luck, that tengu will also come home more often than those hacs.

Also not sure where you are getting hac range limitations. Have artty muninn gangs fallen out of favor on the server? When I did pvp I saw from both ends how effective they can be run well.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-05-07 20:12:36 UTC
Also besides balancing them and the ships making more sense being put where they belong in T2 area.
It would open up ideas about changing 4 of the combat battlecruisers into the attack line.

Brutix could follow the thorax to mega line but perhaps with a more shield bias instead 7-5-5 with a tracking bonus

Drake could have a more tracking theme with its damage so an explosion velocity bonus with a kin damage bonus

Cyclone is already pretty much an attack bc or they could use the cane

Harbinger would make a good attack bc it could use more mobility

'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

Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-05-09 12:20:29 UTC
bump

'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

Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-05-13 14:11:37 UTC
bump

'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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#25 - 2013-05-13 14:57:31 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Also besides balancing them and the ships making more sense being put where they belong in T2 area.
It would open up ideas about changing 4 of the combat battlecruisers into the attack line.

Brutix could follow the thorax to mega line but perhaps with a more shield bias instead 7-5-5 with a tracking bonus

Drake could have a more tracking theme with its damage so an explosion velocity bonus with a kin damage bonus

Cyclone is already pretty much an attack bc or they could use the cane

Harbinger would make a good attack bc it could use more mobility



I get your point that the Attack Battle Cruisers seem as if they would have been more inline if introduced as T2 variants. I somewhat agree, and would be fine with giving them T2 resists and keeping their build cost somewhere around 75% of a battleship, leaving the 8 turrets intact and leaving them otherwise mostly as they are. Skill requirements might include something like Advanced Weapons Upgrade 5 or something else useful.

I have to take issue with the school of thought that everything and it's dog should have a shield bias. I see this over and over again, and it just rubs me raw every time. Brutix does not need to be built for shields, and Harbinger does not need tons more mobility since Lasers have issues, but damage application at range isn't one of them.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-05-13 15:01:26 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Also besides balancing them and the ships making more sense being put where they belong in T2 area.
It would open up ideas about changing 4 of the combat battlecruisers into the attack line.

Brutix could follow the thorax to mega line but perhaps with a more shield bias instead 7-5-5 with a tracking bonus

Drake could have a more tracking theme with its damage so an explosion velocity bonus with a kin damage bonus

Cyclone is already pretty much an attack bc or they could use the cane

Harbinger would make a good attack bc it could use more mobility



I get your point that the Attack Battle Cruisers seem as if they would have been more inline if introduced as T2 variants. I somewhat agree, and would be fine with giving them T2 resists and keeping their build cost somewhere around 75% of a battleship, leaving the 8 turrets intact and leaving them otherwise mostly as they are. Skill requirements might include something like Advanced Weapons Upgrade 5 or something else useful.

I have to take issue with the school of thought that everything and it's dog should have a shield bias. I see this over and over again, and it just rubs me raw every time. Brutix does not need to be built for shields, and Harbinger does not need tons more mobility since Lasers have issues, but damage application at range isn't one of them.


I agree with you about shield bias but atm armour ships using blasters doesn't work anywhere near aswell as shield fitted versions at least for closing range since blasterboats are about speed and gank rather than amarr tanking and projecting.

'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

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#27 - 2013-05-13 15:01:33 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Eviscerate their tanking ability.


LOL. Tanking ability. That's rich.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-05-13 17:57:47 UTC
Then maybe marauders could be the T2 line following the assault line from frigs to battleships.

'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

Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-05-14 16:00:21 UTC
expensive and underwhelming navy attack battleships also adds to the case here.

'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

Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-05-18 10:24:21 UTC
bump

'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

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#31 - 2013-05-18 10:33:11 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Eviscerate their tanking ability.


LOL. Tanking ability. That's rich.



If a battleship can't alpha one, or take it down in two reasonable shots ("Hits", not "Penetrates"), then they're too tanky IMO.

They should be like Stealth Bombers or Destroyers - Highly effective, but once someone in a same-or-larger ship locks you, you're pretty much already on a killmail.
ExAstra
Echoes of Silence
#32 - 2013-05-18 11:27:25 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Eviscerate their tanking ability.


LOL. Tanking ability. That's rich.



If a battleship can't alpha one, or take it down in two reasonable shots ("Hits", not "Penetrates"), then they're too tanky IMO.

They should be like Stealth Bombers or Destroyers - Highly effective, but once someone in a same-or-larger ship locks you, you're pretty much already on a killmail.

Agreed, ABCs are way too tanky and are completely infringing on Battleship space. Blaster Nagas get nearly 700 DPS with 50k+ Shield EHP and only one Mag Stab. That's not exactly "glass cannon" material.

Save the drones!
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-05-18 16:28:05 UTC
Well they are still battlecruisers so they should still have better tank than a cruiser they just need to get the dps under control and make them T2 then the tank wouldn't be such an issue.

'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

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#34 - 2013-05-18 23:55:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Jonas Sukarala wrote:




I agree with you about shield bias but atm armour ships using blasters doesn't work anywhere near aswell as shield fitted versions at least for closing range since blasterboats are about speed and gank rather than amarr tanking and projecting.



Range is the Blaster's Achilles heel. While the ASB is off the chain and stupidly unbalanced so long as you can circumvent the reload by fitting 2 of them the meta will give a shield bias. Hopefully someone at CCP will actually take a look at how silly that is one day and fix it--- they sure don't mind leaving armor crippled in comparison, as they limited both the reactive hardener and the AAR to one each per ship.

The real issues with blasters need fixing with changes elsewhere in the game. Give blaster boats stronger engines, which would make them able to catch their targets but leave them less maneuverable.

Kind of off topic though. I still agree that the current ABCs would fit fine with a small upgrade as T2 ships, needing no more than T2 resist profiles and perhaps something less impactful on combat directly like improved sensors
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-05-28 18:05:26 UTC
Its odd cos CCP has admitted that blasters and armour make no sense combined yet they give ships little choice in shield tanking them like the megathron having 8 low slots is just plain weird ...
Yet the Talos and Thorax can both shield tank well and see how popular they are.

'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

PavlikX
Nocte Vigilo
Fraternity.
#36 - 2013-05-29 08:44:19 UTC
No matter how, but abcs must be nerfed. Weird sitution - they can be fitted with 8 guns, meantime most battleships cannot. Ccp created anotherone ubalanced and overpowered ships. Battleships was not buffed, so ABCs must be nerfed. Possile solutions according to my point of view:
1 remove 2-3 turrets. This option have positive aspect - more powerfull guns can be fitted.
2 decrease powergrid. This will bring lower tier levels of turrets to this ships.
3 increase their costs in 2 or even 3 times

Frankly i against move this ship class to the t2 category. Ccp declared their position allready - if was able to fly this ship before rebalance you will be able to do after. Have no idea how it's possible if this will become t2 ships
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2013-05-29 13:30:08 UTC
PavlikX wrote:
No matter how, but abcs must be nerfed. Weird sitution - they can be fitted with 8 guns, meantime most battleships cannot. Ccp created anotherone ubalanced and overpowered ships. Battleships was not buffed, so ABCs must be nerfed. Possile solutions according to my point of view:
1 remove 2-3 turrets. This option have positive aspect - more powerfull guns can be fitted.
2 decrease powergrid. This will bring lower tier levels of turrets to this ships.
3 increase their costs in 2 or even 3 times

Frankly i against move this ship class to the t2 category. Ccp declared their position allready - if was able to fly this ship before rebalance you will be able to do after. Have no idea how it's possible if this will become t2 ships


Well they could simply inject the T2 skill into you so you could fly it ..
But the point of making it T2 is that its too specialized for it to remain T1 and also it would double their cost so think command ships.
Then reduce pg to fit only the short range weapons and remove a turret and give it T2 resists and an extra slot and voila its no longer OP and occupying the attack role that some other bc's could rather benefit from being.

Brutix - more mobility, lower sig, switch its active rep bonus to tracking or something more useful.
Drake - more mobility, lower sig, switch its resists for explosion velocity or ROF.
Harbinger - more mobility, lower sig,
Hurricane - more mobility, lower sig,

'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

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2013-05-29 13:39:12 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
PavlikX wrote:
No matter how, but abcs must be nerfed. Weird sitution - they can be fitted with 8 guns, meantime most battleships cannot. Ccp created anotherone ubalanced and overpowered ships. Battleships was not buffed, so ABCs must be nerfed. Possile solutions according to my point of view:
1 remove 2-3 turrets. This option have positive aspect - more powerfull guns can be fitted.
2 decrease powergrid. This will bring lower tier levels of turrets to this ships.
3 increase their costs in 2 or even 3 times

Frankly i against move this ship class to the t2 category. Ccp declared their position allready - if was able to fly this ship before rebalance you will be able to do after. Have no idea how it's possible if this will become t2 ships


Well they could simply inject the T2 skill into you so you could fly it ..
But the point of making it T2 is that its too specialized for it to remain T1 and also it would double their cost so think command ships.
Then reduce pg to fit only the short range weapons and remove a turret and give it T2 resists and an extra slot and voila its no longer OP and occupying the attack role that some other bc's could rather benefit from being.

Brutix - more mobility, lower sig, switch its active rep bonus to tracking or something more useful.
Drake - more mobility, lower sig, switch its resists for explosion velocity or ROF.
Harbinger - more mobility, lower sig,
Hurricane - more mobility, lower sig,



It is also utterly useless. As has been explained to you repeatedly, but you refuse to listen.
PavlikX
Nocte Vigilo
Fraternity.
#39 - 2013-05-29 15:24:15 UTC
I disagree. Here is a situation - you have and fly ABC, but you don't have BC skill 5th level, but only 4th. Meantime t2 skill demands 5th level of t1 skill simply because it is a rule to the entire t2 system. What options we have in this case? Give t2 skill without training t1 to 5th? Give needed number of skill points? Not allow to the pilot to fly his vessel till he will finish quite long BC5th level skill?
Sorry, but first and second option are simple cheat and third one hardly possible.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-06-01 21:38:21 UTC
bump

'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

Previous page123Next page