These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nerf attack battlecruisers - I'll show you they'd do great with medium guns
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2014-01-19 11:36:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Riot Girl wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Because the tornado hits harder at longer range and can get in and out of a fight more quickly.

And now with medium weapons, they can get out even more quickly. I thought this was supposed to be a nerf.

Oh god.

I'm more interested in pointing out that large weapons are unnecessary in the hull, that they would do more than fine with medium. But I also think it is an important nerf. I think ABCs are overpowered, overused, and overly successful.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#22 - 2014-01-19 11:46:02 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
edit: a battleship does NOT, under any reasonable circumstance, have any significant advantage over an attack battlecruiser in a one-vs-one engagement.

In long range fights a battleship's tank will win with simple attrition, at short range a ABC learns that web range is painful if you have the sig of a BC and the tank of a cruiser.

Put simply; I don't think you understand how useful it is to have around the same amount of dps as your opponent and 3-5 times the tank.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#23 - 2014-01-19 11:47:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
So basically, you want to take a battlecruiser with cruiser tank, speed and sig and give it cruiser sized weapons. That's not a battlecruiser, it's a cruiser.

Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I think ABCs are overpowered, overused, and overly successful.

Why?

Also, not being funny but, who gives a crap about PG role bonuses on medium weapons?

Oh god.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-01-19 12:33:36 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
So basically, you want to take a battlecruiser with cruiser tank, speed and sig and give it cruiser sized weapons. That's not a battlecruiser, it's a cruiser.

Not when it has 8 of them.

Riot Girl wrote:
Also, not being funny but, who gives a crap about PG role bonuses on medium weapons?

The powergrid cost reduction is to allow the base hull to have less total powergrid without ruining its ability to fit the weapons. This gives it less excess powergrid, helping keep its tank more in line with cruisers where it belongs, given their mobility and high power. The 40% reduction for medium weapons I suggested puts them somewhere in the vicinity of the powergrid cost of battleship weapons at 95% reduction, though not really equal because the battleship variants are balanced differently.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#25 - 2014-01-20 16:37:10 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The ABC's are the true BC's of the game.
If anything, CCP should be modifying the other 2 classes, which fit the definition of heavy cruisers, into BC's as well.

Or simply split the 3 ships, 2 being a heavy cruiser class, and then add another BC class to each race, simply for flavour.
You would end up with 2 Heavy Cruisers per race, and 2 Battlecruisers per race, and call it a day.



Agree, they are really what I expect when I think of battlecruiser.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-01-20 21:02:14 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The ABC's are the true BC's of the game.
If anything, CCP should be modifying the other 2 classes, which fit the definition of heavy cruisers, into BC's as well.

Or simply split the 3 ships, 2 being a heavy cruiser class, and then add another BC class to each race, simply for flavour.
You would end up with 2 Heavy Cruisers per race, and 2 Battlecruisers per race, and call it a day.



Agree, they are really what I expect when I think of battlecruiser.

This game isn't balanced on encyclopedia definitions of the word chosen to represent a ship class. If that were the case, dreadnoughts would be smaller than battleships.

I don't care what World War II battlecruisers were like, and neither does CCP. That has virtually no bearing on what happens with ship balance. I'm pointing out that if the ABC used medium turrets, it would be a good ship--but as it stands the ABC is overpowered.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Cheng Musana
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2014-01-20 21:23:40 UTC
So you want to make a glasscanon without the canon itself. Which makes it like a overpriced thorax.
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#28 - 2014-01-20 22:03:58 UTC
THey are not overpowered at all. At range they are powerful as they should be. However if a frigate or cruiser can get in close then they are useless.
To mare
Advanced Technology
#29 - 2014-01-20 22:58:26 UTC
could work i just don understand why you need to adjust base fitting just to give them a role bonus, give them the correct fittings to fit what they are supposed to do straight away.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-01-20 23:04:38 UTC
To mare wrote:
could work i just don understand why you need to adjust base fitting just to give them a role bonus, give them the correct fittings to fit what they are supposed to do straight away.

I adjusted the role bonus to keep the fittings as close as possible to the current attack battlecruisers. I changed the powergrid of each one a bit because the medium turret powergrid costs don't line up the same as large. If you think there is a better way, I'm all ears.

Another possibility would be to forego the powergrid role bonus and instead just increase their base powergrid to fit the guns. Then again, I'm not entirely clear on what the excess powergrid is good for, given that an oracle has enough to fit a 1600mm armor plate with top pulse lasers and an afterburner, but so does a maller.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Kesthely
Mestana
#31 - 2014-01-20 23:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Kesthely
What your suggesting is not a Battle cruiser, or attack battlecruiser, what your suggesting is an attack cruiser with a full rack of guns.

Your suggested talos, after considering that 5% per level and a 50% role bonus in falloff has exactly the same damage and range applications as the Stabber, except your doubelling its gun capacity for only a fraction more of the price. Now tell me again, how does that not make the Stabber obsolete?

The Naga? Now let me see, your actually INCREASEING the tank of this one so that compared to a ferox, its a toss up between DAMAGE, MOBILITY AND RANGE vs little bit more tank?

The talos... Do you even know how good railguns with Javelins track nowadays? 7.5% tracking per level? There the long range guns that are most proficient at shooting orbeting targets already... you'll make the murder anything smaller then you... oh guess what... on subcapital level only battleships are bigger.

The Oracle? compared to the Harbinger again your tossing up RANGE + MOBILITY + DAMAGE (8x 1.25= 10 turrets) vs tank (6x 1.5=9 turrets)

And yet you have the audacity to call your version more balanced? You actively defend it? No you do not want the attack battlecruiser nerfed, you want it BUFFED.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#32 - 2014-01-20 23:54:07 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:
THey are not overpowered at all. At range they are powerful as they should be. However if a frigate or cruiser can get in close then they are useless.


I agree, I always feel vulnerable in my sniping naga. Good dps, long range, paper thin tank. Definitely not over powered.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2014-01-20 23:59:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Kesthely wrote:
What your suggesting is not a Battle cruiser, or attack battlecruiser, what your suggesting is an attack cruiser with a full rack of guns.

It has the buffer tank of a combat cruiser. Why are you equating it with attack cruisers? It's an attack ship that's bigger that a cruiser, and has more HP than an attack cruiser along with more guns.

Kesthely wrote:
Your suggested talos, after considering that 5% per level and a 50% role bonus in falloff has exactly the same damage and range applications as the Stabber, except your doubelling its gun capacity for only a fraction more of the price. Now tell me again, how does that not make the Stabber obsolete?

did you mean to say tornado? The differences between my suggested tornado annd a stabber are huge. The tornado is slower and less agile, and has a much larger sig radius. The tornado not only has twice the damage output (not counting drones), but it also has significantly greater range since it has both the role bonus and the skill bonus to falloff. So basically it's bigger and slower, for more power at higher range. How does it obsolete the stabber?

Kesthely wrote:
The Naga? Now let me see, your actually INCREASEING the tank of this one so that compared to a ferox, its a toss up between DAMAGE, MOBILITY AND RANGE vs little bit more tank?

I haven't increased the naga's tank significantly. A ferox still has WAY more tank than a naga. So it's a choice between better damage, mobility, and range, or way better tank and the ability to fit ganglinks (which nobody ever does).

Kesthely wrote:
The talos... Do you even know how good railguns with Javelins track nowadays? 7.5% tracking per level? There the long range guns that are most proficient at shooting orbeting targets already... you'll make the murder anything smaller then you... oh guess what... on subcapital level only battleships are bigger.

Javelins track well because they have a tiny range. They do about as much damage as pulse lasers with long range ammo, while shooting at much less range and tracking much more slowly. Javelin is the band-aid ammo that allows railguns to pretend to be shorter ranged, while not allowing them to be competitive with actual medium range weapons. So this talos with javelins will shoot about as hard as a maller with standard ammo, have a bit more range due to the role bonus, and way less tracking. I don't see that making the talos overpowered. edit: Also, gleam tracks better than javelin.

Kesthely wrote:
The Oracle? compared to the Harbinger again your tossing up RANGE + MOBILITY + DAMAGE (8x 1.25= 10 turrets) vs tank (6x 1.5=9 turrets)

Actually considering the harbinger's drone bay, it can match the DPS of the oracle with my adjustment. The difference then is a choice between a lot more range and mobility, or a lot more tank. There's also consideration whether you prefer having a drone bay, or prefer not splitting your DPS across different weapon types.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2014-01-21 08:32:36 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The ABC's are the true BC's of the game.
If anything, CCP should be modifying the other 2 classes, which fit the definition of heavy cruisers, into BC's as well.

Or simply split the 3 ships, 2 being a heavy cruiser class, and then add another BC class to each race, simply for flavour.
You would end up with 2 Heavy Cruisers per race, and 2 Battlecruisers per race, and call it a day.


This is a much better solution. All Battlecruisers should use Battleship-sized weapons.


How about... make something new, like allow BC to use TWO weapon sizes: medium nad large. ABC would be all large, other BC would get medium turrets + enough powergrid to fit two large turrets.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#35 - 2014-01-21 10:19:49 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The ABC's are the true BC's of the game.
If anything, CCP should be modifying the other 2 classes, which fit the definition of heavy cruisers, into BC's as well.

Or simply split the 3 ships, 2 being a heavy cruiser class, and then add another BC class to each race, simply for flavour.
You would end up with 2 Heavy Cruisers per race, and 2 Battlecruisers per race, and call it a day.


Sir, you are awesome, Sir!

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Jureth22
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2014-01-21 10:41:56 UTC
what?no
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#37 - 2014-01-21 11:19:04 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The ABC's are the true BC's of the game.
If anything, CCP should be modifying the other 2 classes, which fit the definition of heavy cruisers, into BC's as well.

Or simply split the 3 ships, 2 being a heavy cruiser class, and then add another BC class to each race, simply for flavour.
You would end up with 2 Heavy Cruisers per race, and 2 Battlecruisers per race, and call it a day.


A far more useful suggestion.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#38 - 2014-01-21 12:49:03 UTC
Shocked

1/10 OP.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#39 - 2014-01-21 13:24:39 UTC
Jureth22 wrote:
shut up test
Secret Squirrell
Allied Press Intergalactic
#40 - 2014-01-21 20:28:55 UTC
I'm disturbed that no one has challenged the assertion that ABCs are over used. I don't know where you are playing, but over here in the great war, ABCs are an endangered species. Turns out that when your enemies know what they are doing, ABCs are pretty worthless in any type of fleet fight. In the past 2 months of incredibly heavy fighting, I have seen only a handful of ABC fleets, most were reinforcing POSes, one whelped trying to kill a super carrier on a POS shield. They are skill intensive, not cheap, get owned by bombers, and loose to even slight outnumbered HACs, BS, or T3s, which covers the vast majority of fleet concepts.

18 months ago, big ABC fleets were FOTM, but not anymore, and the last thing they need is a nerf. If you can't beat them without a nerf, your doing something wrong. In the smaller engagement space, ABCs can be effective because players don't know how to respond, but that isn't the ship being overpowered.
Previous page123Next page