These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cunane Jeran
#81 - 2011-11-05 13:29:45 UTC
I was just playing around with the Talos pvp a bit more, 425mm rail Nanofit, was honestly surprised, it wasn't bad
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2011-11-05 13:38:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
Cunane Jeran wrote:
I was just playing around with the Talos pvp a bit more, 425mm rail Nanofit, was honestly surprised, it wasn't bad


Did the same and thought the same, until I flew the Tornado. The Tornado is awesome. Why fly the Talos, they're all made for the exact same purpose and will go about it the same way. Can't fly the Naga so I can't give feeback on that. I'd say the Oracle seems very good also.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#83 - 2011-11-05 13:40:52 UTC
Cunane Jeran wrote:
I was just playing around with the Talos pvp a bit more, 425mm rail Nanofit, was honestly surprised, it wasn't bad



its true... rails just need more tracking to compensate for the speed... about 5% more damage then now and a rof increase with a cap reduction and we are set...

i was having a boat load in the talos last night...

and the naga really really needs to be able to use cruise missles... torps are great but they are too close range... the naga needs a long range option thats not rails... tbh i would scrap the rails for the platform and just do a torp/cruise mix... get rid of the rail optimal range bonus and replace with a missles rate of fire...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#84 - 2011-11-05 13:59:06 UTC  |  Edited by: AspiB'elt
All new BC Tiers 3:

The agility is too good. decrease the agility by 20%
Make is not possible to fit 100 mn afterburner on it

Tornado :

Reduce the speed with mwd 1600 m/s is to much for t3
The bonus on the falloff is to much 5% is enough.

Naga :
Make twos bonus by type or arms

Twos bonus for missile and two for hybrid

Oracle :

Remove this stupid bonus of capa, and add some bonus of tracking.

After a lot of test that will be also very interesting to increse the weapons signature when you make them on BC Tier 1 and T2

With medium turret :

Crusier T1 and T2 keep 125
BC T1 and T2 make 200

With this modification that will be more interesting to fly again with cruiser T2 against BC.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#85 - 2011-11-05 14:11:33 UTC
as much as i love the fact ccp have introduced a new line in accessable ships into eve, the manner in which they're implemented along with the still underpowered nature of Gallente ships and Hybrid turrents, means their only real power is in sniper ships.

Long range, big damage, small tank and high speed all scream sniper to me. You do not need to pigeon hole all new tier 3 BC's in the low tank long range bracket. but when u have a low tank, close range isnt an option unless u can really add not just buffer but resists onto it.

The new tier 3s dont work as t1 ahacs because their sig is too large and their AB speed is too slow, plus their resists are to poor.
if u want a gallente blaster boat to work it HAS to have a good active or passive tank on it, preferably the latter. Regardless of active or passive blaster boats neeeeeeeeed to have an extremely strong cap reserve/regen.
They commit 100% so they need to be stronger and more resilient than other ships in regard to scrams/webs/neuts.

ur working on new ewar/combat utility drones?? give the Talos either bonuses to those drones or the ability to use drones quicker on more agile ships. Battlecruiser skill bonus: 15% to Combat Utility Drone Max and Orbital Speed per lvl. for example.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#86 - 2011-11-05 14:48:25 UTC
For the sake of Ballance CCP Please rebalance all bc's as such:

Tier 1:
BS tank Cruiser dps

Tier 2:
Better then cruiers tank worse then bs tank better then cruiser dps worse then bs dps

Tier 3:
Cruiser tank
BS dps...

pretty much all you have to do to balance is nerf some tier II (like the drake) boost others (like the myrm)

and fix tier one BC's some needs more dps like the phrophecy and others need more tank like the brutix...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#87 - 2011-11-05 15:22:51 UTC
There seems to be a problem with both the concept and implementation of these BCs and I seriously urge you to look at them again.

Implementation.
- From testing on Sisi, it seems that these BCs are able to track frigates in close orbits. Something is very wrong there.

Concept.
- These BCs are so fast and have such great range with such high dps that they will have effectively made sniper HACs, alpha BS and possibly even nano HACS completely obsolete, and that at a price far below what those other ships cost.

There is going to be initial euphoria when these ships first hit TQ and then there is going to be a great deal of anger with possible repercussions for CCP's business. Please think long and hard about that before these ships are implemented.
nandodean
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2011-11-05 15:32:04 UTC
Tracking is awful. I engaged a Tornado with my Oracle and we couldn't kill each other, we were webbed, scrambled, at optimal weapon distance... but completely missed shots. Thats not good!! Even I couldn't put my max dmg to a Tempest in the same conditions!!

Also, a 25m3 and bandwidth for the gallente tier 3 BC
Yaay
ChuangShi
Fraternity.
#89 - 2011-11-05 16:07:58 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:


Excellent analysis. After a couple of hours now, pretty much same conclusion. Very sad. Well, this is why we test. The question is now, will CCP do anything about it. Fundamentally the problem is all about hybrid/gallente ships as a whole needs to be addressed.


CCP will not do anything about it, because they cannot. Their previous episodes of ill-thought-out power creep to lasers and projectiles have now forced themselves into a corner where all solutions are unattractive. Lasers and projectiles have intruded into hybrids' roles and become better than hybrids at the only things that hybrids can do.

There are three ways out of this problem, but all of them are impossible to implement. The first option is to boost blaster range, but this just homogenises the weapon systems. It's a stupid, lazy fix and everyone knows it. The second choice is to increase blaster damage until they have an advantage commensurate with the difficulty and danger of going into blaster range. The damage boost required would be absurd, about 50%. It simply will not happen. That leaves only the option of significantly reducing the applied damage of projectiles and lasers in the areas where hybrids are supposed to dominate. Since this would require widespread nerfs to ACs, tachyons, Pulse and artillery, it simply will not happen - the threadnoughts and ragequitting would be apocalyptic.


the best fix was always the original intent that got patched out with a **** load of buffs to the other weapon systems.

AC's used to track much lower. Pulse used to track much lower. But both got patched to track much higher. It used to be that you could get in under their tracking and reduce their damage. Now, both can track easily which means if you do get in close range, you still have to deal with their full damage potential and your tracking boost means nothing.

The best fix to this option is to make Gallente the kings of AB warfare. IMO, BS should be moving around 600 m/s with an AB, and cruisers should be moving near 800-1000 with an AB to increase their abilities inside close range. They still have to get there, and they are still slower and can be kited at longer range. But in close range, the AB advantage makes them kings of close range warfare.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2011-11-05 16:20:50 UTC
nandodean wrote:
Tracking is awful. I engaged a Tornado with my Oracle and we couldn't kill each other, we were webbed, scrambled, at optimal weapon distance... but completely missed shots. Thats not good!! Even I couldn't put my max dmg to a Tempest in the same conditions!!

Also, a 25m3 and bandwidth for the gallente tier 3 BC


So then your saying CCP did it's job and the ships are working as intended?

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#91 - 2011-11-05 16:32:45 UTC
So, all 4 ships bare apart from turrets and mwd. I've got identical skills for all.

Talos with 425mm rail II
Javelin 0.0207tracking 18+30 range 449.9dps
Spike 0.0041tracking 129+30 range 257.1dps
1603m/s

Tornado with 1400mm Artillery II
Quake 0.0140tracking 15+65 range 410.7dps
Tremor 0.0028tracking 108+65 range 234.7dps
1661m/s

Oracle with Tachyon II
Gleam 0.0044tracking 16.5+25 range 512.0dps
Aurora 0.0218tracking 118+25 range 292.6dps
1436m/s

Naga with 425mm rail II
Javelin 0.0150tracking 27+30 range 359.5dps
Spike 0.0030tracking 194+30 range 205.7dps
1386m/s

Best short range tracking- oracle
best long range tracking- oracle
best short range- tornado
best long range- naga (though this range is pretty useless with probes and warp to)
best short dps- oracle
best long dps- oracle
best speed- tornado

Anyone spot a trend here?

And why is the naga so damned slow? It makes no sense at all if the point of these ships is to be fast and mobile.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2011-11-05 16:40:54 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:


Excellent analysis. After a couple of hours now, pretty much same conclusion. Very sad. Well, this is why we test. The question is now, will CCP do anything about it. Fundamentally the problem is all about hybrid/gallente ships as a whole needs to be addressed.


CCP will not do anything about it, because they cannot. Their previous episodes of ill-thought-out power creep to lasers and projectiles have now forced themselves into a corner where all solutions are unattractive. Lasers and projectiles have intruded into hybrids' roles and become better than hybrids at the only things that hybrids can do.

There are three ways out of this problem, but all of them are impossible to implement. The first option is to boost blaster range, but this just homogenises the weapon systems. It's a stupid, lazy fix and everyone knows it. The second choice is to increase blaster damage until they have an advantage commensurate with the difficulty and danger of going into blaster range. The damage boost required would be absurd, about 50%. It simply will not happen. That leaves only the option of significantly reducing the applied damage of projectiles and lasers in the areas where hybrids are supposed to dominate. Since this would require widespread nerfs to ACs, tachyons, Pulse and artillery, it simply will not happen - the threadnoughts and ragequitting would be apocalyptic.



still say more damage tho. granted I do agree on you in that point, but it's the more "benign" way to do it.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#93 - 2011-11-05 16:49:12 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:
Cunane Jeran wrote:
I was just playing around with the Talos pvp a bit more, 425mm rail Nanofit, was honestly surprised, it wasn't bad


Did the same and thought the same, until I flew the Tornado. The Tornado is awesome. .



i think half of the hybrid problems would simply go away if autocannons were nerfed.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2011-11-05 16:53:26 UTC
also i just wanted to comment on the ridiculous speed and agility of these BC's. have you guys completely forgotten about HACs? why should these BC's be a direct counter to an already rarely-flown ship class?
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#95 - 2011-11-05 16:53:36 UTC
To the above posts,

I never said i couldnt hit frigates or other small ships, I just said drones would make it easier to hit them.

I will give you a hint though.

I was hyped up on mindlfood and drop boosters at the time i used it.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.

Dondoran
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2011-11-05 17:21:44 UTC
Please take another good look at the Naga CCP its beyond bad. After fitting 8 torpedo launchers the ship is maxed barely able to fit a MWD. The Tornado can have 8 large autos 2 large shield extenders and a micro warp drive, fitting is only half the problem it also has the 2 worst weapon systems imaginable. Fix it by giving it 2 torpedo bonuses 7.5% to target painter effectiveness per level and keep the 10% to missile velocity with improved grid and CPU.
or
Why not try cruise missiles at least you could PVE with it
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#97 - 2011-11-05 17:35:31 UTC
dondoran... the only problem i had fitting the naga with 2 large shield extenders and 8 torps with a mwd was cpu but one co-processor II fixed that...

perhaps you need better skills?

though i would prefer the ship bonus to be like a mini ravenish...

5% to kin missle damage per lev
10% to missile rate of fire per lev

plus ccp drop the rail bonus and give it cruise missles instead... so its either torps or cruise depending on how you like to fly tem...

i am against a TP bonus cuss if you want these ships to sine you should ahve a Recon with them .....

like an arazu to scram so the talos can get in range... or a rapier so the tops are usefull...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

HEINZ ZERO
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#98 - 2011-11-05 17:43:10 UTC
i tested these new tier 3 BC´s for a few days now (tested tornado + Oracle and naga with missiles)

... as much as I like the design of these ships but I think they shouldn´t be released on TQ.. these ships are just too overpowered

ok the EHP is low compared to most BS´s (25 - 50 % of a BS maybe), but with the sig of a bigger HAC and their high speed these ships will tank any BS fleet easily (with logistics ofc)

atm these ships are cheaper HAC´s with BS damage!

there´s a good chance that these ships will remove BS fleets completely from eve!

just think about an 100 man arty tornado fleet or an 100 man Oracle pulse fleet.. why should anyone fly Skirmish (shield arty ships) or armor BS close range fleets when you get the same alpha or damage out of a speed and sig tanked Battlecruiser fleet at same range?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#99 - 2011-11-05 17:57:37 UTC
Yeay yet again another overpowered minmatar boat with too big guns.
I hope you are aware that minmatar boats no longer reflect their "origins"? Since they are slaves and stole all of their technology, their boat should reflect that.
Why are there still boats in the game that can alpha anything away and outrun any kind of weapon system?
I have a very easy solution for that matter, decrease tracking of all artillery weapons by 500% and damage by 50% or if that does not suit you just have all minmatar ships have their shield resistence reduced by 100% and shield hp by 100% and armor hp reduced by 75% and armor resistance by lets say 30%.
That would reflect the technology of slaves clamped together in general Cool

Why should there be any battlecruiser sized boat that can fly >2000m/s with a volley damage >6000hp ?

I can see that the new battlecruiser line is designed to be fast and deadly but to any ship should be a counter against or make it unbreakable.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#100 - 2011-11-05 18:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
MeBiatch wrote:
dondoran... the only problem i had fitting the naga with 2 large shield extenders and 8 torps with a mwd was cpu but one co-processor II fixed that...

perhaps you need better skills?

though i would prefer the ship bonus to be like a mini ravenish...

5% to kin missle damage per lev
10% to missile rate of fire per lev

plus ccp drop the rail bonus and give it cruise missles instead... so its either torps or cruise depending on how you like to fly tem...

i am against a TP bonus cuss if you want these ships to sine you should ahve a Recon with them .....

like an arazu to scram so the talos can get in range... or a rapier so the tops are usefull...


You can't fit 2 LSEs(even with max skills) in a useful torp fitting(heck you couldn't even before they castrated it) and even fitting it just with one named extender is very tight.

The Raven doesn't got the kin bonus and 10% rof are insane since it already got as much effective launchers as the raven.

I did write down what the naga would need to become a working torp ship 1 page ago, I spend around 5h with the ship today, both in PVE(low sec anomalies) and PVP(against a large variety of targets).

DPS is ok(if you get 4 lows to allow you to fit 3 BCUs), it is enough to tear apart most BCs with a higher sig(most notably the HM drake) as long as they can't nail you at point blank or BS if you can make it under her guns/kite them(remove the stupid speed penalty from javelin, it slows the naga down to 1k/ms if you use them). It gets royally screwed by any kind of Cruiser, other tier 3 BCs or Frigs since you can't do enough damage against them, but this is more of a general torp problem.

Edit:

[Naga, Naga fit]

Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Torpedo

Invulnerability Field II
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Azeotropic EM Ward Salubrity
Invulnerability Field II
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive

Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I