These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Barghest
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1 - 2014-12-06 22:46:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
This is a condensed post with a straightforward proposal to address some shortcomings with the Barghest.

1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space).
2. Increase the number of mid slots to 7. The Barghest receives no shield resistance or damage application bonuses, so this gives it the ability to either slightly improve defensive or offensive capability.
3. Reduce the physical size of the Barghest to approximately 1200m in length.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aran Hotchkiss
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-12-07 00:22:50 UTC
I'm aware that the Garmur and Orthrus are incredibly vicious in kiting pvp (they need to be bling fit to achieve this but point stands) however I know next to nothing about the barghest - I'll need to wait until the more in-the-know people in my corp try them.

With regard to the size decrease, do you mean the radius of the collision sphere, the sig radius or what? Because I don't feel the Orthrus and Garmur need any buffs.
Sure, it's nice to have a strong shield/missile hull, which seem to be under represented in the PvP scene, but I don't want something blatantly, over-the-top strong.

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#3 - 2014-12-07 00:47:30 UTC
Aran Hotchkiss wrote:
I'm aware that the Garmur and Orthrus are incredibly vicious in kiting pvp (they need to be bling fit to achieve this but point stands) however I know next to nothing about the barghest - I'll need to wait until the more in-the-know people in my corp try them.

With regard to the size decrease, do you mean the radius of the collision sphere, the sig radius or what? Because I don't feel the Orthrus and Garmur need any buffs.
Sure, it's nice to have a strong shield/missile hull, which seem to be under represented in the PvP scene, but I don't want something blatantly, over-the-top strong.


I wouldn't really be over-the-top strong even with these changes. The barghest is a missile using battleship and will always suffer in pvp. Battleships don't tank well relative to the kind of damage that they take and battleship sized weapons, and in particular missiles, apply DPS so poorly that they end up doing less damage to a cruiser than a cruiser. They're too slow to kite and too expensive relative to their benefits to whelp.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#4 - 2014-12-07 00:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Aran Hotchkiss wrote:
With regard to the size decrease, do you mean the radius of the collision sphere, the sig radius or what? Because I don't feel the Orthrus and Garmur need any buffs. Sure, it's nice to have a strong shield/missile hull, which seem to be under represented in the PvP scene, but I don't want something blatantly, over-the-top strong.

Sorry, I was just referring to the physical model sizes in-game (which could be reduced a bit):

Barghest - 1757m length (Chiimera carrier is 2574m for comparison)
Orthrus - 607m length (Drake battlecruiser is 534m for comparison)

The Garmur at 105m in length is already an appropriate size. I'd like to see the Barghest at around 1171m and Orthrus at 404m, as they just seem oversized for a battleship and cruiser.

Bullet Therapist wrote:
It wouldn't really be over-the-top strong even with these changes.

That was kind of the overall idea - just a few minor tweaks to help it apply damage better, essentially.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Foxstar Damaskeenus
why did i join this corp
Not Purple Shoot It.
#5 - 2014-12-07 01:02:46 UTC
The Bhargest looks like a carrier undocking. I agree it's too big.

Satan's Frying Pan, Pancake Supreme, Spatula. Intergalactic grilling tool monstrosity.

"[this thread] is a cesspit of trolling and flaming" ISD Buldath
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#6 - 2014-12-07 01:26:42 UTC
Foxstar Damaskeenus wrote:
The Bhargest looks like a carrier undocking. I agree it's too big.
Satan's Frying Pan, Pancake Supreme, Spatula. Intergalactic grilling tool monstrosity.

Satan's Frying Pan - good one. Lol

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aran Hotchkiss
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-12-07 01:28:08 UTC
Personally I'd agree with the changes, as the barghest seems lacklustre, however I used to think that of the Orthrus and have been proven wrong since.

With regard to improving the dps (minorly) and likewise to application, the general opinion on missiles seems to be while their projection is good, their application tends to be awful, an that's ignoring their dps and more consistent damage than turrets

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-12-07 04:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space).

Howabout just increase battlecruiser and battleship cargohold space so it's actually bigger than destroyers? I think battleship cargoholds should be doubled to be more like marauder cargoholds, while cruiser and battlecruiser should be increased by 25-50%. A combat ship should be able to hold more than just ammo unless it's stocked up for an extended siege. Not even being able to hold enough ammo of one type for an extended siege is ridiculous.

Worried it'll turn armor BCs and BSs into dedicated haulers? That's yet another reason cargo expansion should have a stacking penalty.

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."
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#9 - 2014-12-07 07:36:29 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Howabout just increase battlecruiser and battleship cargohold space so it's actually bigger than destroyers? I think battleship cargoholds should be doubled to be more like marauder cargoholds, while cruiser and battlecruiser should be increased by 25-50%. A combat ship should be able to hold more than just ammo unless it's stocked up for an extended siege. Not even being able to hold enough ammo of one type for an extended siege is ridiculous.

Worried it'll turn armor BCs and BSs into dedicated haulers? That's yet another reason cargo expansion should have a stacking penalty.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with cargohold changes, as I suspect tweaking these would have far-reaching ramifications. I'm mainly after the slight damage increase and extra mid slot.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#10 - 2014-12-07 17:59:11 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
This is a condensed post with a straightforward proposal to address some shortcomings with the Barghest.

1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space).
2. Increase the number of mid slots to 7. The Barghest receives no shield resistance or damage application bonuses, so this gives it the ability to either slightly improve defensive or offensive capability.
3. Reduce it (and the other Mordus Legion ships) in size by about 35-50%.


The disclaimer first.
All of this information is based on a PvE fit, I will leave it to those with PvP experience to determine how these changes would affect the ship in that environment.

All I can say is when does this happen, I can't wait for a lvl 4 ship with almost 1800 dps output and over 1500 dps tank,m damn that would make running mission even easier than it is now.

Next up is a correction, the Barghest has 8 high slots, 7 of them can hold launchers so this makes me wonder how much you really know about this ship. If you want to increase that to 8 launchers then even I say no way.

Your estimation of a 2.85% increase in damage is way off base. Since the Barghest gets no bonuses to damage adding a 10% per level would yield a huge increase. My mission fit would rise from 1,105 dps with tech 2 high damage cruise missiles to 1779 dps with those same missiles that is an increase of about 60%.

So like I said when does this happen, then it would be even better for missions than the Golem or Rattlesnake.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#11 - 2014-12-07 18:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Donnachadh wrote:
The disclaimer first.
All of this information is based on a PvE fit, I will leave it to those with PvP experience to determine how these changes would affect the ship in that environment.

All I can say is when does this happen, I can't wait for a lvl 4 ship with almost 1800 dps output and over 1500 dps tank,m damn that would make running mission even easier than it is now.

Next up is a correction, the Barghest has 8 high slots, 7 of them can hold launchers so this makes me wonder how much you really know about this ship. If you want to increase that to 8 launchers then even I say no way.

Your estimation of a 2.85% increase in damage is way off base. Since the Barghest gets no bonuses to damage adding a 10% per level would yield a huge increase. My mission fit would rise from 1,105 dps with tech 2 high damage cruise missiles to 1779 dps with those same missiles that is an increase of about 60%.

So like I said when does this happen, then it would be even better for missions than the Golem or Rattlesnake.

I think you may have misread the original proposal, which was to remove one launcher (-1), one high slot (-1), add one mid slot (+1) and change the damage bonus from 5% per level to 10% per level. 7 launchers x 25% = 8.75 launchers equivalent; 6 launchers x 50% = 9.0 launchers equivalent, or a +2.857% overall damage increase.

The extra mid slot puts it on par with most shield-based ships in terms of tank or modules to improve damage application.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#12 - 2014-12-07 21:59:26 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I think you may have misread the original proposal, which was to remove one launcher (-1), one high slot (-1), add one mid slot (+1) and change the damage bonus from 5% per level to 10% per level. 7 launchers x 25% = 8.75 launchers equivalent; 6 launchers x 50% = 9.0 launchers equivalent, or a +2.857% overall damage increase.

The extra mid slot puts it on par with most shield-based ships in terms of tank or modules to improve damage application.

Whoops my bad I did miss that, forget everything I posted.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#13 - 2014-12-07 22:10:17 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Whoops my bad I did miss that, forget everything I posted.

No worries man.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#14 - 2014-12-07 22:19:14 UTC
I support this, since seeing more faction battleships that aren't sh*t like the Nestor is a good thing. Not sure how i feel about the size-reduction; mass-wise it ends up being a bit smaller than a lot of battleships; it's just a bit more spread out. It's a fairly unique design reminiscent of current modern stealth ships, which I think is a good aesthetic.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#15 - 2014-12-07 23:18:30 UTC
I support everything except the size change- the size of the Barghest makes it really attractive to me- if it were only the length of a normal sized battleship, think about how thin it would be. Size is cosmetic, but I would really love the rest of the suggested changes.

"A City made of Dreams is built in heaven"
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2014-12-08 00:09:13 UTC
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:
I support everything except the size change- the size of the Barghest makes it really attractive to me- if it were only the length of a normal sized battleship, think about how thin it would be. Size is cosmetic, but I would really love the rest of the suggested changes.

Size is not just cosmetic, it has significant effects on bumping, & therefore on fleets. There is no reason for the Barghest to be that much bigger than the rest of the BS's. Especially when it is wide as well.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#17 - 2014-12-08 00:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Catherine Laartii wrote:
I support this, since seeing more faction battleships that aren't sh*t like the Nestor is a good thing. Not sure how i feel about the size-reduction; mass-wise it ends up being a bit smaller than a lot of battleships; it's just a bit more spread out. It's a fairly unique design reminiscent of current modern stealth ships, which I think is a good aesthetic.

I'm just interested in physical size reduction to 2/3 of current length, or roughly 1200m. It makes it a bit larger than a Raven or Scorpion, but obviously thinner. Right now the current size is a bit of an issue on undock or flying in groups.

Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Size is not just cosmetic, it has significant effects on bumping, & therefore on fleets. There is no reason for the Barghest to be that much bigger than the rest of the BS's. Especially when it is wide as well.

Exactly.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-12-08 00:19:06 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Howabout just increase battlecruiser and battleship cargohold space so it's actually bigger than destroyers? I think battleship cargoholds should be doubled to be more like marauder cargoholds, while cruiser and battlecruiser should be increased by 25-50%. A combat ship should be able to hold more than just ammo unless it's stocked up for an extended siege. Not even being able to hold enough ammo of one type for an extended siege is ridiculous.

Worried it'll turn armor BCs and BSs into dedicated haulers? That's yet another reason cargo expansion should have a stacking penalty.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with cargohold changes, as I suspect tweaking these would have far-reaching ramifications. I'm mainly after the slight damage increase and extra mid slot.


They would. Cap booster charges are massive for a reason.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#19 - 2014-12-08 00:22:07 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
They would. Cap booster charges are massive for a reason.

Probably a topic for another day then. This was intended to be fairly specific to just the Barghest, as out of the three Mordus Legion ships it's currently the most lacking.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2014-12-08 15:31:54 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
This is a condensed post with a straightforward proposal to address some shortcomings with the Barghest.

1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space).
2. Increase the number of mid slots to 7. The Barghest receives no shield resistance or damage application bonuses, so this gives it the ability to either slightly improve defensive or offensive capability.
3. Reduce the physical size of the Barghest to approximately 1200m in length.


I never heared of the ship being to weak, most times i heared the oposite site complaining that its very strong. So no help from me.

-1
12Next page