These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#381 - 2011-11-10 14:14:47 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Wouldn't a heavy destroyer be VERY GOOD at killing things smaller than it'self? I mean, isn't that what destroyers are for?




Not these ones, "Heavy Destroyer" not "Destroyer"! Roll
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#382 - 2011-11-10 14:32:24 UTC
Phantomania wrote:
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


I can't speak for everyone else, but I've avoided these posts because I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Alain Badiou
Gradatim Ferociter
#383 - 2011-11-10 15:26:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alain Badiou
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
The problem with the blasterships are accuratley described as incompatibility between slowish armortanked ships and very short range weapons. And you cant make Gallente faster than Minmatar because they are supposed to be the kings of skirmish warfare.

Now, what you COULD do, is to nerf the falloff gained by tracking enhancers and tracking computers, so that TE/TC gives 15% each to both optimal and falloff (not 15/30% as today).

At the same time introduce smaller webbing drones with better effect than the heavies that exist today. The gallente drone bonus could be applied so that say 5 x medium webbing drones give the same effect as a t1 web (-50%), and also making medium webdrones much less powerful on non-blaster platforms.

This will force minmatar kiters closer, and coupled with extended web ranges make kiting more difficult (should not be impossible but should require a good pilot who are on the ball).


These two changes have been discussed several times (smaller web drones and a nerf to TE/TC's) and I agree with them. IMO the nerf to TE/TC's is long over due. 15% seems reasonable and stacking nerfed like damage mods. That would go a long way to bringing Winmatar back in line (and while I love Gallente, I fly Minmatar). Smaller web drones are interesting - not sure other drones wouldn't almost always be better, but would certainly assist on the approach...
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#384 - 2011-11-10 17:34:11 UTC
If TE's/TC's is being nerfed to 15/15, make sure the Vargur doesn't end up as a Kronos pl0x
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#385 - 2011-11-10 21:52:45 UTC
You might want to consider if the torpedo range bonus is good enough on naga as with all relevant skills at 4 the T1 torpedoes do not reach a large control tower without rigs. And with the range rigs your fitting options get even more limited than now. Since the new battlecruisers are supposed to be easily approachable and one of the main uses for torpedoes today is pos bashing this might need another thought.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.

gnome chaos
FinFleet
Northern Coalition.
#386 - 2011-11-10 22:53:50 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Phantomania wrote:
Lol


I can't speak for everyone else, but I've avoided these posts because I have no idea what you're trying to say.


I'd go much, much further and ask Phantomania to stop eating that fleinsopp while posting.
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#387 - 2011-11-11 02:08:46 UTC
I think that Ive read everything in the world about hybrids, lasers , rails, torpedos etc.... LOL - My brain is burning !

Talos got a problem for sure same with Naga Did you wonder why ?

I think that if you want well balanced game Lasers and Projectiles need to be nerfed like someone in this thread wrote. Hybrids are useless coz projectiles and lasers are at their territory too. So whatever devs do it will be impossible to fix hybrids without touching all weapons systems :( So Welcome to the jungle..

They messed in game so much that they broken it.. Why they don't wanted to change anything for so long ? Coz things will be even worst.. Imagine hordes of noobs when CCP announce AC an lasers nerf . Arab Spring was just a picnic with that !

Eve was never good balanced game and wont be the one.. and its even worst when is getting older - GAME ECONOMY - was build right ? Its very complex situation for sure ...

Regards

For me its EOT - Ive reactivated my accounts to Patch. If hybrids and all races not be fixed I quit. Like someone said "Only way that we may help this game is not to play in it, and wait " - "Eve quit day is soon or not! Hope !"
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
#388 - 2011-11-11 03:51:32 UTC
I can fly a Tornado and a Torp Naga.

The Naga has considerable fitting issues. It was impossible to create a fit that did not entail using a fitting rig or module. My fit usually ended up looking like a what's what of named modules. I refused to compromise on the 8 x siege II and the two BCU II. My tank was usually less then the Tornado though. While I understand that these ships aren't about tank, the fact that I have a larger sig radius, am slower, have a much limited range, AND have a worse thank the the Tornado was a slap in the face.

The Tornado on the opposite side had way too much fitting. I could slap not one but two LSE II. I never had to settle for named modules - the T2 versions fit easily. In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head.
Imrik86
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#389 - 2011-11-11 05:07:52 UTC
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. Two things need to be done.

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 already exists. It's called "a overheated MWD". Gallente blaster boats just need bonuses to MWD speed, and be penalized on capacitor to force the MWD to be pulsed enough to get into blaster range, while still having enough cap to shoot. They don't need to be faster than Minmatar on average, they just need to be able to quickly dash to the target and face melt upclose.

Problem solved.
Apollo Gabriel
Biohazard.
WINMATAR.
#390 - 2011-11-11 06:50:51 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TALOS

General efficiency: we do realize it suffers from some problems next to the other hulls. Unfortunately, as some of you pointed it, the real issue here comes from blasters, and how they compete against similarly close ranged weapons like autocannons and pulse lasers. Thus, this is little more that can be done by tweaking the hull itself, since the problems mainly come from:


  • Damage projection: blasters have issues projecting damage, especially considering Tech2 ammunition like Scorch and Barrage, which greatly empowers pulse lasers and autocannons and leave hybrids far behind for little increased damage to compensate. The issue is also widened because blasters benefit less from tracking enhancers and falloff related bonuses than their Minmatar close weapon counterpart.

  • Mobility and armor tanking conflicts with each other: no surprise here, fitting plates into your Gallente armor oriented slot layout decreases its mobility, which is a direct contradiction with how blasters are supposed to work. This leaves little to no choice but to fit shield extenders on Gallente ships (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brutix and Hyperion X) to keep some mobility and actually try to apply the blaster damage output. Also let's not forget Minmatar ships are usually faster than Gallente by design, while Gallente traditionally use the shortest weapon system available.

  • Lack of usefulness in gang/fleet engagements: thus, because of blaster low damage projection and Gallente poor mobility when armor tanked, blaster ships are found lacking in gang warfare, as either your target or yourself are long dead before you can reach it. Besides, having blaster ships moving all around the battlefield to engage its target leads to coordination issues with the rest of the fleet, especially if logistics are implied.


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.


For instance, let us give you a quick insight of the indirect problems we have to face regarding blaster balancing:


  • Do we want to nerf Barrage and Scorch? If yes, by how? Wouldn't that kill their usefulness as a whole? If no, can we add even more falloff to blasters, knowing it may be over-inflating the balance of power again?
  • Don't we need to have a look at shield extenders/armor plates as well? If we nerf them, are we confident with possible changes to passive tanking? Can't we make active tanking more useful on PvP setups, so that passive tanking is less used for blaster platforms and more on Amarr platforms, designed to be more static than Gallente? Doesn't that require looking into NOS/Neuts as well? How about Cap boosters? Overheating?
  • Can we make Gallente ships faster than Minmatar knowing they also use railguns? Wouldn't that be defeating the original design goals for Minmatar ships?


Turning the Talos into a drone oriented ship: this ship is not supposed to be a drone boat, as it would allow it to hit smaller targets far too easily. We will maybe consider reintroducing its 25m3 dronebay if it is found really underperforming, but this is really unlikely for the moment


Please consider exchanging Projectile and Hybrid stats (in the future) as the fastest ships which can dictate range should be able to hit the hardest and gtfo if needed.

Just my 2 isk on the issue at large.
Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Apollo Gabriel
Biohazard.
WINMATAR.
#391 - 2011-11-11 07:07:50 UTC
In addition you could make tracking comps add a fixed amount to short/long ranged weapons (blasters/hybrids)
Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#392 - 2011-11-11 10:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head.


You can fit a 100mn AB on a puls Oracle, ac Tornado and rail Talos, what is overall ok, with the restrictions(less EHP or less range/dps) in other areas in place. The only ship you can't do this is the torp naga, however given that torps are a weapon system that isn't limited by tracking like the turrets, this is a good thing instead of a bad one(look at the 100mn Tengu, Legion, or per QR nano missile ships like the Cerberus or Sacrilege as example how powerful that is).
darius mclever
#393 - 2011-11-11 10:18:39 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head.


You can fit a 100mn AB on a puls Oracle, ac Tornado and rail Talos, what is overall ok, with the restrictions(less EHP or less range/dps) in other areas in place. The only ship you can't do this is the torp naga, however given that torps are a weapon system that isn't limited by tracking like the turrets, this is a good thing instead of a bad one(look at the 100mn Tengu, Legion, or per QR nano missile ships like the Cerberus or Sacrilege as example how powerful that is).


explosion velocity/explosion radius are the tracking of missile users. and torps can be speed tanked much much easier than turrets. you can fly away from them in a straight line and still negate incoming DPS by a mile. so please drop the thought that missiles cant be speed tanked and that the naga shouldnt also be properly to fit as the other tier 3 BCs.
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#394 - 2011-11-11 10:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
darius mclever wrote:
Jill Antaris wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head.


You can fit a 100mn AB on a puls Oracle, ac Tornado and rail Talos, what is overall ok, with the restrictions(less EHP or less range/dps) in other areas in place. The only ship you can't do this is the torp naga, however given that torps are a weapon system that isn't limited by tracking like the turrets, this is a good thing instead of a bad one(look at the 100mn Tengu, Legion, or per QR nano missile ships like the Cerberus or Sacrilege as example how powerful that is).


explosion velocity/explosion radius are the tracking of missile users. and torps can be speed tanked much much easier than turrets. you can fly away from them in a straight line and still negate incoming DPS by a mile. so please drop the thought that missiles cant be speed tanked and that the naga shouldnt also be properly to fit as the other tier 3 BCs.


The point is that constant high speed of 100mn AB setups also lowers your own chance to hit and makes it basically only a good anti BC/BS tactic, since you will be more or less unable to hit smaller targets given the high transversal you build up to evade incoming damage yourself. Missiles don't have this restrictions, because it doesn't matter how high transversal velocity between aggressor and target is.

This doesn't mean missiles ignore speed or sig altogether, but they don't have any particular disadvantage like turrets in a 100mn fitting what makes it effective in some situations and ineffective in others.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#395 - 2011-11-11 11:13:37 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!!!

TBH, he could have flown a Ferox or an Eagle and done the same thing. A kiting Ruppy, Vaga, Cynabal would have no problem with that. Hell, even a Caracal would have been able to grind him down if it kept range.
Raven Ether
Doomheim
#396 - 2011-11-11 11:15:17 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:
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).



I mostly agree.

I also think that the Naga is the most underwhelming of the four. It is desperate for attention. It simply can't compete with anything.
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#397 - 2011-11-11 13:28:53 UTC
Perhaps the best way for the blaster will be not to change the specification of the guns.

I have one stupid idea.

Remove the mass of the plate and change the trimark penality.
Make the drone web more quick and increase the efficacity


If you remote the mass of the plate. The gallente and amarr don't have malus on Accel / inertie / Speed. The gallente with armor tanking will have more speed. (idem if you remove the draw back on rig amor velocity, change by draw back on the shield).

Web drone :

Increase the speed and the efficiency. light medium heavy

Light drone : speed reduction 5%
Medium drone : speed reduction 10%
Heavy drone : speed reduction 20%

Gallente combat tactics : lauch the web drone to rush and tackle the target.

The malus of amor tanking is stupid because when you had some shield (that will be certainly you add to your ship more generator to increase the quantity of your shield). New generator will be certainly also more mass in your ship ...
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#398 - 2011-11-11 14:04:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
AspiB'elt wrote:
I have one stupid idea.


You are correct here, since everybody can use drones, good luck to get into range if they are applied against you in the hull with the shortest overall range(not to mention losing the little damage advantage you had while doing so).

Btw this isn't the hybrids thread and the Talos will probably never use blasters(outside suicide ganking) on TQ so if you think about the Talos, think about rails.

Edit: Changes to plates and armor tanking rigs have some merit, but again, this has nothing to do with the new Tier 3 BCs.
Phantomania
Lonely Trek
#399 - 2011-11-11 18:29:33 UTC


Its gone very quiet in here!

No update for a while!

I think CCP Ytterbium has finally hit the bottle or is in some small asian village playing Russian Roulette, I'm sure its easier and safer then trying to balance these Ships!!

LolLolLol
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#400 - 2011-11-11 22:35:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
You think it's bad here?

For every answer CCP Tallest provides in the hybrid thread, a thousand questions are written in reply.

Should we be looking forward to the winter expansion or summer for these things? We've waited 2 years, I'm sure a few more months won't hurt...

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