These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Tier3 Battlecruisers

First post
Author
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#361 - 2011-11-09 17:55:05 UTC
Ytterbium, Tallest: I think you should really, really watch this video of a Tornado killing everything from Battleships to T3 cruisers to interceptors to medium ecm drones. Something is very wrong here.

GlassLobster
Pecuniam Nulla
#362 - 2011-11-09 19:55:40 UTC
I'm not sure if I did this right but here are some damage comparisons for the Oracle and Naga. All ships are using T2 weapons and no other modules.

Short Range:
http://i.imgur.com/Std52.png

All ammunition is the close range T2 variant except for Torpedoes which are T1. The target is an Abaddon using Quad LiF.

The Oracle had the same or better DPS in almost all situations except for Neutrons vs Dual Heavy Pulse. The Oracle also out ranged the DPS of the Naga in all systems except for Torpedoes. Torpedoes were the lowest of all dps. Torpedo DPS was slightly better (~500) against a stationary target.

Long Range:
http://i.imgur.com/2avTt.png

425mm Railgun vs. Tachyon Beam Laser. Both are using T2 longest range ammunition. I don't have any experience with these but I thought I'd ad them for comparison.

The Oracle significantly out damages the Naga but suffers from reduced range. (The benefit of this range seems useless to me since you can just be probed or have your target warp off).

Disclaimer: I don't know how to adjust for tracking.

Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#363 - 2011-11-09 21:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Phantomania
Idea!

ROLE- Heavy Destroyer- Tier3 Battlecruiser- Crazy DPS and Glass Tank


First decide whether the role of this ship should be long range or short range, whichever will go for all 4 races as all races have a long and short range weapon alternative.-

>Long Range gets Uber bonus/s for Weapon Range, thats it! (let them shoot from +/- 150km)

>Short Range gets Uber bonus/s for Ship Speed, thats it! (let them go +/- 1500m/s)

Heavy Destroyers should NOT be able to effectively hit anything smaller than a standard BC or be able to Solo PvP and must all be penalized to reflect this.

They can easily be destroyed by small ships. I'd go as far as saying that they should have standard BC signature but Cruiser size Tank.

H/M/L
Armor Tank Race Layout- 8/2/6
Shield Tank Race Layout- 8/6/2

Ship Attributes should reflect race weapons, ie: Extra cap for cap munching weapons or extra m/3 for cargohold for those weapons that use bulky ammo!


The fact is that most pilots won't have a use for these ships, its a shame but then these Ships would all have to have an 8/6/6 layout and put alot of other ships out of commision.

Please don't try to compare these to any other ships, they have a role and are not standard!

Thats the only answer I can see without making them just another regular PvP ship, we have enough of them already!

Thx Big smile
Kiev Duran
Ambition Unlimited
#364 - 2011-11-09 22:16:13 UTC
Willl Adama wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:

You show me a pilot that flies a Moa, and I'll show you one that has no grasp of EVE combat.



CHECK THIS OUT!!!



I don't believe I've ever seen anyone push a ship's tank that hard before, and I tip my hat to you good sir.

Now, imagine what could have been done in a good combat ship. Or how most of those fights would have gone if the opposition brought neuts. Not to diminish the kills you got, but active tanking has a few serious drawbacks that I didn't see any of the guys you were fighting attempt to exploit.
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#365 - 2011-11-10 00:23:54 UTC
Kiev Duran wrote:
Willl Adama wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:

You show me a pilot that flies a Moa, and I'll show you one that has no grasp of EVE combat.



CHECK THIS OUT!!!



I don't believe I've ever seen anyone push a ship's tank that hard before, and I tip my hat to you good sir.

Now, imagine what could have been done in a good combat ship. Or how most of those fights would have gone if the opposition brought neuts. Not to diminish the kills you got, but active tanking has a few serious drawbacks that I didn't see any of the guys you were fighting attempt to exploit.


I have to congratulate with Will Adama for the excellent taste in music... Ayreon? Way to go! :D
Willl Adama
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#366 - 2011-11-10 01:42:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Willl Adama
Kiev Duran wrote:
Willl Adama wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:

You show me a pilot that flies a Moa, and I'll show you one that has no grasp of EVE combat.



CHECK THIS OUT!!!



I don't believe I've ever seen anyone push a ship's tank that hard before, and I tip my hat to you good sir.

Now, imagine what could have been done in a good combat ship. Or how most of those fights would have gone if the opposition brought neuts. Not to diminish the kills you got, but active tanking has a few serious drawbacks that I didn't see any of the guys you were fighting attempt to exploit.


You should see my more recent videos then! Nothing wrong with active tanking m8. And I'm flying Deimos' and Eagles and such stuff which I'm sure you'll find ******** too!

Hi

Kiev Duran
Ambition Unlimited
#367 - 2011-11-10 01:57:46 UTC
Willl Adama wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:
Willl Adama wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:

You show me a pilot that flies a Moa, and I'll show you one that has no grasp of EVE combat.



CHECK THIS OUT!!!



I don't believe I've ever seen anyone push a ship's tank that hard before, and I tip my hat to you good sir.

Now, imagine what could have been done in a good combat ship. Or how most of those fights would have gone if the opposition brought neuts. Not to diminish the kills you got, but active tanking has a few serious drawbacks that I didn't see any of the guys you were fighting attempt to exploit.


You should see my more recent videos then! Nothing wrong with active tanking m8. And I'm flying Deimos' and Eagles and such stuff which I'm sure you'll find ******** too!


I've been thinking; since passive tanking has grown popular enough to become the norm, not many people seem to carry around neuts anymore, at least not in my experience. If this has come to be the case, active tanking may see something of a small comeback in the near future. At it's core combat in EVE is just like combat in any other game: understanding and beating the current meta-game.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh to claim that any and all Moa pilots have a poor grasp of combat. We all know that the SP amount, skill focus, and pilot skill are all far more important than ship choice, but I don't think anyone would argue that the Moa and Deimos aren't weak ships that typically preform below what most people would consider "good." They have weapon systems that preform poorly in comparison to others as well as having statlines a good bit below those seen on other races' ships.
Shadow Lord77
Shadow Industries I
#368 - 2011-11-10 05:21:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadow Lord77
Shin Dari wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TALOS
So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.
I might have a fix for you... [Silly]

1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.


This is a nice idea. Make it so there's a massive cool-down, 95% of the cap is used. So basically you can jump from 150Km to 0 Km in a few seconds with little cap to spare. Makes it good for cap-less weapon platforms like Minmatar, and Missile ships and for cap-requiring ships like Amarr and Hybrid ships that have a energy logistic ship in the fleet. But then what place do the snipers have like the Rokh in Eve-Online combat?
oldmanst4r
oldmanst4r's Corporation
#369 - 2011-11-10 05:58:17 UTC
In order to be viable the Naga needs a RoF and Explosion Velocity bonus for Torps and Cruises...period.

1. Torps suck without painters/explosion velocity bonuses

2. The Raven sucks for pvp

3. Cruise missles suck for PvP

4. The Rokh sucks for PvP

The only large caldari system that doesn't completely suck worse than rails on a moa is torpedoes with bonuses. So stop making up stupid reasons for nerfing the Naga, like that it might overshadow two ships that suck for pvp anyway. Focus on making the semi-sucky weapons system that is torpedoes, not sucky by giving the naga some decent fragging bonuses.
Nikollai Tesla
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#370 - 2011-11-10 06:08:10 UTC
For a Battlecruiser with Battleship sized guns you are thinking of making the trade off, of armor for bigger guns. Another possibility is the tradeoff of ammo and time on stations.

You see this in weapon design between fewer high power one shot weapons vs weaker resuable one. Think Arrows vs Spear, or (cannon rounds vs missles/Bombs).

These battlecruisers could be designed with less supply/ammo capabilities as a trade off. You can fit Large/guns and missiles but not enough supplies/ammo for prolonged engagements. In this situation with limited ammo you can't afford to waste shots on smaller ships.


I'd redesign some of the BCs to keep the over sized guns and keeping BC quality armor, while reducing the amount of ammo. This would be a different ethos of battle cruiser design.

a) Fast enough to outrun what it can't fight, and fast enough to catch what it can kill. (more suited to minmatar philosophy)
b) Kill what I can't tank, and tank what i can't kill (more suited to the gallente)

IE
Role bonus -95% Power grid, -50% cpu, -50% Ammo capacity. They should also have tiny cargo holds, but better armor.
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#371 - 2011-11-10 06:27:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Phantomania
Phantomania wrote:
Idea!

ROLE- Heavy Destroyer- Tier3 Battlecruiser- Crazy DPS and Glass Tank


First decide whether the role of this ship should be long range or short range, whichever will go for all 4 races as all races have a long and short range weapon alternative.-

>Long Range gets Uber bonus/s for Weapon Range, thats it! (let them shoot from +/- 150km)

>Short Range gets Uber bonus/s for Ship Speed, thats it! (let them go +/- 1500m/s)

Heavy Destroyers should NOT be able to effectively hit anything smaller than a standard BC or be able to Solo PvP and must all be penalized to reflect this.

They can easily be destroyed by small ships. I'd go as far as saying that they should have standard BC signature but Cruiser size Tank.

H/M/L
Armor Tank Race Layout- 8/2/6
Shield Tank Race Layout- 8/6/2

Ship Attributes should reflect race weapons, ie: Extra cap for cap munching weapons or extra m/3 for cargohold for those weapons that use bulky ammo!


The fact is that most pilots won't have a use for these ships, its a shame but then these Ships would all have to have an 8/6/6 layout and put alot of other ships out of commision.

Please don't try to compare these to any other ships, they have a role and are not standard!

Thats the only answer I can see without making them just another regular PvP ship, we have enough of them already!

Thx Big smile



Love how this is being avoided. Do you really think CCP will add a ship that will/can replace others?

Balancing isn't just the ships but also the overall ingame effects!
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#372 - 2011-11-10 10:02:22 UTC
Phantomania wrote:
Phantomania wrote:
Idea!

ROLE- Heavy Destroyer- Tier3 Battlecruiser- Crazy DPS and Glass Tank


First decide whether the role of this ship should be long range or short range, whichever will go for all 4 races as all races have a long and short range weapon alternative.-

>Long Range gets Uber bonus/s for Weapon Range, thats it! (let them shoot from +/- 150km)

>Short Range gets Uber bonus/s for Ship Speed, thats it! (let them go +/- 1500m/s)

Heavy Destroyers should NOT be able to effectively hit anything smaller than a standard BC or be able to Solo PvP and must all be penalized to reflect this.

They can easily be destroyed by small ships. I'd go as far as saying that they should have standard BC signature but Cruiser size Tank.

H/M/L
Armor Tank Race Layout- 8/2/6
Shield Tank Race Layout- 8/6/2

Ship Attributes should reflect race weapons, ie: Extra cap for cap munching weapons or extra m/3 for cargohold for those weapons that use bulky ammo!


The fact is that most pilots won't have a use for these ships, its a shame but then these Ships would all have to have an 8/6/6 layout and put alot of other ships out of commision.
Big smile
Please don't try to compare these to any other ships, they have a role and are not standard!

Thats the only answer I can see without making them just another regular PvP ship, we have enough of them already!

Thx Big smile



Love how this is being avoided. Do you really think CCP will add a ship that will/can replace others?

Balancing isn't just the ships but also the overall ingame effects!


If peeps prefer the look of the new BCs, maybe CCP can swap the tier3 model with the tier2 models!Lol
Alsyth
#373 - 2011-11-10 11:23:55 UTC
Just like 2 mids is fail on any pvp ship, less than 4 low is fail on any dps and speed ship bigger than a cruiser.



3 lows on the rook is really bad and makes it a nightmare to fit, 4 lows on the sleipnir is really bad when you want to nano it (and it's fun to see that the nighthawk has a better slot layout mid/low wise... probably why it has such a gimped fitting though), 3 lows on a dual weapon ship like the Huginn/Lachesis is ridiculous when you want to do some dps...




So, 3 lows on the Naga which, out of all four t3 BCs, is the slowest, and the one that need to be the closest to apply some real dps (Talos is good enough with rails, Tornado and Oracle with scorch and barrage and TC/TE can hit further than Naga) makes it impossible to nano properly while applying some real damage. And if you don't nano it, you get caught. And because it has the biggest sig of the bunch, most BS will easily track it and melt it.
And don't even think of tracking disruptor, you can't fit them because of the aweful CPU.
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#374 - 2011-11-10 11:40:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Phantomania
Alsyth wrote:
Just like 2 mids is fail on any pvp ship, less than 4 low is fail on any dps and speed ship bigger than a cruiser.



3 lows on the rook is really bad and makes it a nightmare to fit, 4 lows on the sleipnir is really bad when you want to nano it (and it's fun to see that the nighthawk has a better slot layout mid/low wise... probably why it has such a gimped fitting though), 3 lows on a dual weapon ship like the Huginn/Lachesis is ridiculous when you want to do some dps...




So, 3 lows on the Naga which, out of all four t3 BCs, is the slowest, and the one that need to be the closest to apply some real dps (Talos is good enough with rails, Tornado and Oracle with scorch and barrage and TC/TE can hit further than Naga) makes it impossible to nano properly while applying some real damage. And if you don't nano it, you get caught. And because it has the biggest sig of the bunch, most BS will easily track it and melt it.
And don't even think of tracking disruptor, you can't fit them because of the aweful CPU.



DPS and Range/Speed can be balanced with bonus's on individual ships giving them equality! These ships must not be given too much opportunity to fit ewar mods.
Raven Ether
Doomheim
#375 - 2011-11-10 11:47:01 UTC
Fix the Naga please, subpar dps, lacking weapon systems, and the tank leaves much to be desired compared to other tier 3s.
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#376 - 2011-11-10 12:17:46 UTC
tika te wrote:
i have a bit more radical theory (please don't flame, it's just a thought):

i also think that there should be some "distance" between ship classes..
cruisers should be far weaker than a bc and ofc much weaker as a battlehip in terms of their hp, but they also should be MUCH harder to hit with larger sized weapons...
a battleship should really have HUGE difficulties hitting a moving cruiser, a cruiser same difficulties hitting a frig ...
on the other side..a bs should be able to survive the attack of 1-2 cruisers much longer than just few seconds...a cruiser should withstand the attacks of 2-3 frigs without dying in few eyeblinks..

sitting in a larger ship should mean sth....there should be A FAIR EXCHANGE for the sacrifice of agility and speed...
i.e. killing a battleship with just 3-4 frigs shoud be an achievement, not just a "he's tackled and will die soon" standard program..

in my oppinion better scaling between ship classes would greatly improve the eve gameplay..

this perhaps better fits in an another thread:
somwhere here on the forums so suggested giving lower tier weapons within a size-class better sig resolution. perhaps thats a first step in increasing diversity...i.e. a dual railgun 250mm having resolution of 300m, a 350mm rail a resolution of 350mm and the 425mm staying at 400m. then fitting lower tier weapons wouldn't just be a consideration when you don't have enough PG/CPU to fit higher tiers...


YES. And they are some easy way to make that.

BC penality Arms radius for tiers 1 and tiers 2. Now they have the same arms radius then all cruiser size. Put a penality for BC like 100%

In this case you will have :

Fregate T1 t2 Arms radius 40
Cruiser T1 t2 t3 Arms radium 125
BC Arms radius 250 (now is 125 same then cruiser).
BS arms Radius 400

The BC will have more problem of traking in small ship and also you.

That will be also the damage will be more different if you target are in mwd or afterburner. Because now ...

That will be more interesting.

Minmatar rush ship but you need a high signature when you rush (mwd on).
Caldari long range
Amarr slowest, but more afterburner low signature
Galente Mix between rush or slowest (rush with blaster and slowest with rail gun).

If with the same class of ship you make more dps when the target are the mwd on that will be more interesting than now. Because you can fit you ship with mwd or afterburner they are really not différence with dps.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#377 - 2011-11-10 12:39:26 UTC
Naga needs it's exp velocity bonus back(Or you could just boost torp exp velocity, nerf sb exp velocity bonus slightly to comensate, leave it as it is on Golem), no to RoF bonus that'd just be silly OP if you ended up in the right circumstances

If you want it to only have 1 bonus to each(Fix torp exp velocity if that's the case), atleast make the railgun bonus 5% damage x_x and give it back it's 4th low.

Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#378 - 2011-11-10 12:48:51 UTC
Dear CCP

Thank you for giving Us more tourists ships like talos Its great Yacht and will be looking cool in my Hangar Collection of the greatest Fails. Yes ! Some more ships is there already so THANKS !

re-write Hybrids they are unplayable feedback from SiSi is clear - hybrids don't work.

Im hope that you are "new CCP" focused on EVE

Regards
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#379 - 2011-11-10 13:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
Since the Thread gone a bit off topic during the last page, I like to repost some stuff here:

Oracle

The old concept was better. Don't get me wrong, I love pooping blaster hulls with 1200+ DPS during her endless crusade to get into a range they never reach. However this is simply over the top, for a mobile hull like the Oracle. Hitting anti support at 50km isn't so hard anyway. You not going to prevent this in a big fight, and it is rather moot point outside of this for a fleet ship like the Oracle. Give it back it's range + tracking bonus(buff the cap a bit to compensate for the lack of the 2. cap use bonus) and make it a notch faster so you end up with a faster Apoc/long range Harbinger instead of a Abaddon that also can control the engagement range(what makes it extreme powerful) and is fairly cap stable in practical game play.

Naga

I'm still waiting for a change. With torps it is nearly useful, however it still lacks the higher velocity bonus to bump up the range a bit so it can compete with other tier 3 BC short range weapon setups(except the Talos) and a explosion velocity bonus to bring it down to 337.5m. You still have damage reduction by speed and sig for most BCs. BC and BS are the most common fleet ships today for DPS. If you want a torp naga on the field it must be able to project solid damage against them(w/o throwing 1-2 painter, a scram and a web on every target you shoot, it isn't this good dps wise to justify this).

The slot and fitting nerf was uncalled for. I'm still looking for a update on the speed penalty for javelin torpedo's.

Tornado

It is over the top with the the best mix of tank and gank mounted on the fastest hull of the tier3(by quite some margin), if you insist to keep the falloff bonus, reduce the turret count or remove a low slot to bring the overall damage down a notch.

Talos

Add a 5. med(and some fitting to use the slot, overall it is very short on CPU for a shieldtank) and buff the tracking bonus to 10% per level to make it a halve way ok rail ship for medium ranges, that can at least compete against beam fittings w/o the damage bonus or puls setups with scorch(it is to far off with the tracking atm and lacks the 5. med for a reasonable tank).
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#380 - 2011-11-10 13:14:13 UTC
Wouldn't a heavy destroyer be VERY GOOD at killing things smaller than it'self? I mean, isn't that what destroyers are for?

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction