These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

Ferox Redux
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#21 - 2015-04-23 00:07:27 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
i would like to see the Naga become a T2 bc (assault bc) and drake lose the resist bonus for a range bonus and become the new attack bc, gaining mobility, then the ferox would have a much stronger role outside of rails.

Write it up as a seperate proposal then. HAC patterned BCs would be interesting, but I would add them without repurposing any existing hulls were I, you.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#22 - 2015-04-23 00:08:36 UTC
Kione Keikira wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Kione Keikira wrote:
The Ferox needs possibly another mid and maybe a little more PG so you can fit that utility high without downgrading your guns, though that might be intentional.

The Ferox struggles on fitting a tank with the usual prop, web, scram since you're left with 2 slots whereas armour battlecruisers have a standard DCU and 2 damage mods which results in 3 slots for tank. You could argue that the Ferox does have that low for extra DPS, but the armour ships have the extra mid which is arguably more flexible / valuable ( cap booster is pretty much required for an active tank in PvP ).


Or you could roll your rep and cap booster into one module..... if only such a thing existed, maybe it would be called an ASB.....


Then happily get destroyed by neuts and be unable to fire your guns while you slowly die...

ASB is for multiple short fights, cap booster + repper is for one a long fight. Unless you get a second ASB but good luck actually holding someone within range if you do that on a Ferox. I guess it's more of a preference but I'm not a fan of ASBs on large ships.

or ASB + MMJD to MMJD out to range, and RIP anything approaching.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#23 - 2015-04-23 00:56:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Kione Keikira wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Kione Keikira wrote:
The Ferox needs possibly another mid and maybe a little more PG so you can fit that utility high without downgrading your guns, though that might be intentional.

The Ferox struggles on fitting a tank with the usual prop, web, scram since you're left with 2 slots whereas armour battlecruisers have a standard DCU and 2 damage mods which results in 3 slots for tank. You could argue that the Ferox does have that low for extra DPS, but the armour ships have the extra mid which is arguably more flexible / valuable ( cap booster is pretty much required for an active tank in PvP ).


Or you could roll your rep and cap booster into one module..... if only such a thing existed, maybe it would be called an ASB.....


Then happily get destroyed by neuts and be unable to fire your guns while you slowly die...

ASB is for multiple short fights, cap booster + repper is for one a long fight. Unless you get a second ASB but good luck actually holding someone within range if you do that on a Ferox. I guess it's more of a preference but I'm not a fan of ASBs on large ships.

If they bring dedicated neuts (i.e. sentinal/curse/pilgrim/ashimmu) you're going to die whether you're cap boosted or ASBed. Heck even a single non-bonused medium neut will cause you to struggle somewhat. ASB + nos is generally enough to get you by.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#24 - 2015-04-23 03:04:17 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i would like to see the Naga become a T2 bc (assault bc) and drake lose the resist bonus for a range bonus and become the new attack bc, gaining mobility, then the ferox would have a much stronger role outside of rails.

Write it up as a seperate proposal then. HAC patterned BCs would be interesting, but I would add them without repurposing any existing hulls were I, you.


well 50% of the reason is too open up the attack role to some of the current CBC's and the other 50% is that they are specialized ships.. they use oversized mods like T2 logi cruisers do, i also think as gank ships adding the extra cost would be a good thing too discourage the ease of ganking ships with them.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#25 - 2015-04-23 20:40:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i would like to see the Naga become a T2 bc (assault bc) and drake lose the resist bonus for a range bonus and become the new attack bc, gaining mobility, then the ferox would have a much stronger role outside of rails.

Write it up as a seperate proposal then. HAC patterned BCs would be interesting, but I would add them without repurposing any existing hulls were I, you.


well 50% of the reason is too open up the attack role to some of the current CBC's and the other 50% is that they are specialized ships.. they use oversized mods like T2 logi cruisers do, i also think as gank ships adding the extra cost would be a good thing too discourage the ease of ganking ships with them.

Idea as now presented is bad and you should feel bad.
Also, will not eliminate ganking, will simply move which ships are most economical to use.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#26 - 2015-04-23 21:25:16 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i would like to see the Naga become a T2 bc (assault bc) and drake lose the resist bonus for a range bonus and become the new attack bc, gaining mobility, then the ferox would have a much stronger role outside of rails.

Write it up as a seperate proposal then. HAC patterned BCs would be interesting, but I would add them without repurposing any existing hulls were I, you.


well 50% of the reason is too open up the attack role to some of the current CBC's and the other 50% is that they are specialized ships.. they use oversized mods like T2 logi cruisers do, i also think as gank ships adding the extra cost would be a good thing too discourage the ease of ganking ships with them.

Idea as now presented is bad and you should feel bad.
Also, will not eliminate ganking, will simply move which ships are most economical to use.


I SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR EXPRESSING A PERFECTLY VALID IDEA? .. just one of the problems of these forums besides the trolls.. perhaps you care too elaborate on why it is sooo bad...

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#27 - 2015-04-23 23:19:34 UTC
The ferox already got an extra turret so that it could keep both of its bonuses and get extra damage. Its good for brawling and a decent mission runner.


to someone else:
Please do not do the 10% damage bonus with less turrets. Its a shin-kick to noobs. (and, when applied with only one damage type, the reason id rather fly a buffer cyclone to a buffer drake)

Yes to a RoF/missile velocity drake :3

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#28 - 2015-04-24 09:01:54 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


I SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR EXPRESSING A PERFECTLY VALID IDEA? .. just one of the problems of these forums besides the trolls.. perhaps you care too elaborate on why it is sooo bad...


Why you should feel bad:
You should feel bad because you are now that bear pushing yet another stealth nerf on ganking under cover of lore.
You should feel bad because you got people's hopes up with a cool concept and then put your pants on head by making it an attack on a style of gameplay because *reasons*.
You should feel bad because you totally missed clearing the first of the hurdles thrown by the law of unintended consequences.

Idea is bad because:
It is bad because making those ships t2 overnight with a wave of a magic wand means that (unless I am much mistaken) they can then be reprocessed into moon materials to glut the market, so moving a ship class between tech levels is likely to be terrible.
Because you homogenize several iconic ships, while also making them even worse than they currently are, and changing their defining bonus.
because moving one of the combat battlecruisers to attack battlecruisers after the ABCs move to t2 status means there are no options without more hulls, and that many people who still have battlecruisers an use them are bent over and birched, without happy ending.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#29 - 2015-04-24 10:10:07 UTC
It's hard to ask for a Ferox buff with the Drake and cane both wanting to be relevant or atleast treated equally. In case of the hurricane even, Brutix got two bonuses, so do proph, myrm, ferox, even drake. The hurricane gets two bonuses that together are as strong as one of thr Brutix', and then it has to use medium autos.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#30 - 2015-04-24 10:19:38 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
It's hard to ask for a Ferox buff with the Drake and cane both wanting to be relevant or atleast treated equally. In case of the hurricane even, Brutix got two bonuses, so do proph, myrm, ferox, even drake. The hurricane gets two bonuses that together are as strong as one of thr Brutix', and then it has to use medium autos.

10% damage and a tracking bonus would be balls-awesome and terrifyingly overpowered. I'd love it.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-04-24 10:23:38 UTC
Lidia Caderu wrote:
Quote:
10% optimal range bonus to med hybrid turrets becomes 7.5% bonus medium hybrid turret tracking speed per level

+1 turret slot


Really? Give it +10% to damage like to other normal BCs, instead of +4% to resists. One hi-slot goes to medium and -1 turret slot.

PG and CPU is up to CCP in that case.
That would be a decent BC, currently its not usable.

So with your setup in mind, it'd go back to 7 highs, and gain a mid? It'd be nice but it'd be kind of boring; a shield version of the brutix. I like the tracking speed idea posited because it opens up more options for the weapon systems it already has, as well as making others usable.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#32 - 2015-04-24 14:45:36 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Harvey James wrote:


I SHOULD FEEL BAD FOR EXPRESSING A PERFECTLY VALID IDEA? .. just one of the problems of these forums besides the trolls.. perhaps you care too elaborate on why it is sooo bad...


Why you should feel bad:
You should feel bad because you are now that bear pushing yet another stealth nerf on ganking under cover of lore.
You should feel bad because you got people's hopes up with a cool concept and then put your pants on head by making it an attack on a style of gameplay because *reasons*.
You should feel bad because you totally missed clearing the first of the hurdles thrown by the law of unintended consequences.

Idea is bad because:
It is bad because making those ships t2 overnight with a wave of a magic wand means that (unless I am much mistaken) they can then be reprocessed into moon materials to glut the market, so moving a ship class between tech levels is likely to be terrible.
Because you homogenize several iconic ships, while also making them even worse than they currently are, and changing their defining bonus.
because moving one of the combat battlecruisers to attack battlecruisers after the ABCs move to t2 status means there are no options without more hulls, and that many people who still have battlecruisers an use them are bent over and birched, without happy ending.


some good points, but those are finer details that could be resolved before any changes, not reasons not too do it at all.

Quote:
Because you homogenize several iconic ships, while also making them even worse than they currently are, and changing their defining bonus.

this bit needs some clarification

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2015-04-24 14:54:04 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
I'd like them give us back ability to fit launchers on that thing (6 turrets, 6 launchers) so make it dual weapon system. And bonuses would be splitted by 5% to range and rof of both charges and missiles. Make it interesting otherwise this ship boring as hell.


Split bonus ships are terrible. If you want missiles fly a Drake, if you want Turrets fly a Ferox. Not hard.



Only terrible if the slot layout is mixed forcing different mods to augment the damage.

Something with an even number of each allowing it to fill the appropriate rack (TFI, SFI for example) are perfectly good ships.
Mario Putzo
#34 - 2015-04-24 16:32:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
The only issue the Ferox really has is Cap.

PG is only short by 2% with MWD, 3% MMJD
Its damage projection is very nice with ~620DPS @ 30K > ~360DPS @ 80K. (using DLA as the utility high)
Its application is solid with a single TC ~72% of paper DPS being applied to cruisers across its range spectrum.

It has issues with Cap Neutron Blaster Fit, and running 2x Invulns, and runs into cap issues with Rails using MMJD (over extended engagements), and its limited mid slots and tight PG make squeezing in Cap Boosters really tough. But that being said for those short falls, it is more suited for fleets and not solo play due to its mid slots (can't really tank, and hold stuff), stick a couple Osprey or Basi with them and Cap issues disappear.

Its a very solid ship overall though. Probably the best of the Hybrid BCs atm. (in group play anyway, Brutix is a bit nicer for Solo/lowman play due to its mid slot flexibility)
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#35 - 2015-04-24 16:53:54 UTC
Drake is fine when fit with mmjd. As much as people seem to ***** about it, the kinetic bonus is great against most ships. Kinetic is one of the lowest resists on t1 hulls and minny t2. Yep.. amarr is sketchy and gal/cal t2 is a big nope.

However, the great thing about missile boats is, you never miss AND have fully selectable dmg types. I have killed confessors, dual rep venge, rets, enyos etc by just switching to inferno/nova ammo types. Yes, you lose some damage, but when fit for application + help from medium neut to turn off tank/prop that 400ish dps (with drones) will still kill plenty of people who think youre stuck in kinetic.

However, that may not be everyones cup of tea. I still vote that BCs should be given a role bonus in projection. So missile velocity bonus for drake and falloff/optimal for other BCs. Similar to their destroyer counterparts.

By doing that, ferox can drop optimal as a bonus, roll that into the role bonus, and then get another suitable bonus. Maybe RoF or dmg to reduce # of guns and help its fitting.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Mario Putzo
#36 - 2015-04-24 17:16:34 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Drake is fine when fit with mmjd. As much as people seem to ***** about it, the kinetic bonus is great against most ships. Kinetic is one of the lowest resists on t1 hulls and minny t2. Yep.. amarr is sketchy and gal/cal t2 is a big nope.

However, the great thing about missile boats is, you never miss AND have fully selectable dmg types. I have killed confessors, dual rep venge, rets, enyos etc by just switching to inferno/nova ammo types. Yes, you lose some damage, but when fit for application + help from medium neut to turn off tank/prop that 400ish dps (with drones) will still kill plenty of people who think youre stuck in kinetic.

However, that may not be everyones cup of tea. I still vote that BCs should be given a role bonus in projection. So missile velocity bonus for drake and falloff/optimal for other BCs. Similar to their destroyer counterparts.

By doing that, ferox can drop optimal as a bonus, roll that into the role bonus, and then get another suitable bonus. Maybe RoF or dmg to reduce # of guns and help its fitting.



Eh Drakes only issue is not even a Drake issue. HMLs suck, ~44% application lost just to ABs on Cruisers vs ~30% for Turrets (~35% for Arty) and that is using application mods for each weapon type (1 TC+ Tracking for Turrets, 3x Rigs for HMLs.) HAM Drakes, and even Rapid Light Drakes, are pretty ******* sexy animals still though. HMLs are just ****, and are **** on every single hull that can use them.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#37 - 2015-04-24 17:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Yep HML are complete trash. I stick with HAM drakes myself. Works well with MMJD and no stupid reload time. Kill whatever lands a scram, MJD away from everything else. Tends to work very well. Is also excellent counter to the garm/orthrus cancer thats prevalent right now.

If we added projection roles to cbcs, that would do a few things to better the bc line.

-Allow BC speed to be less a factor (not including warping) since i can hit you in a 30-50km sphere. And with proper support ships, can still apply well.

-Betters the role of the BC as anti-cruiser like destroyers are anti-frigate

-In the case of the cane will allow an ac fit to actually be viable at killing something past 15km, and arty could better synergize with MJD.

-in the case of the ferox, it will open up a trait bonus that could be used for something else. Dmg/RoF etc, this would free up some grid to allow dropping a gun.

It would look something like this:

Ferox = optimal bonus
Hurricane = falloff bonus
brutix = falloff bonus
harbinger = optimal bonus
drake/cyclone/proph? = missile velocity bonus (proph is hard to choose)
myrm = drone velocity bonus (a'la algos)?

I would also want these to carry over to the navy variants. So navy drake gets a new trait, and brutix/harby become very good at killing at range. Maybe fleet cane could do the tracking/dmg bonus as it would make you actually want to buy it. Though, that might step on the muninn's toes a bit.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Previous page12