These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Battlecruisers: Projection Role Bonus

Author
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#181 - 2015-06-01 04:05:30 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Wynta wrote:
I by no means have experience with Battlecruisers as the last time they were considered "good" was like 2 years ago between when I was playing.

I'd also like to add that I have never seen a T1 BC used as a Link Boat. I've seen FC's in brick tanked Command Ships, and the Offgrid T3 with a cloak, but never a T1. I'd bet they are so rarely used that if CCP took that role bonus off them no one would actually notice or care.


It can be a useful addition to a small cruiser gang to have a T1 BC used as a Link Boat, unless you have an off-grid booster. It is a bit easier on the wallet than dragging along a nice, expensive command ship.

Frequently used by poors for mining boosts.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#182 - 2015-06-01 06:20:56 UTC
I have seen people on roams who only want a single link using them... Just a DPS boat with a single link on them to give them a bit of an edge...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#183 - 2015-06-01 14:36:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The problem i have with 25% bonus to projection, is it barely affects the range for the weapons. For example, 180mm autocannons with a 25% bonus to falloff go from 11km to 13km.

A 25% bonus to optimal for 720's makes arty go from 15km to 18.75km. This really does nothing to improve projection in any meaningful way. Its basically adding a single built in TE to hull. After discussion with others, i think we've felt that 37.5% is a good medium at this point. Not as powerful as HAC or some T1 cruiser projection bonuses, but still enough of a bonus to make it worthwhile, and to help fulfill BC's anti-cruiser role.
A person fitting 180mms with 37.5% falloff bonus would only go from 11-15... because they're 180mms. A guy fitted with those guns is going to get kited no matter what unless you give him like a 100% bonus, which I'm sure we agree is absurd. C'mon Stitch what are you trying to do here?

720s would benefit from falloff since you proposed falloff bonus for the Hurricane yes? In which case it's going from 22-27.5 with close range faction ammo. Now given that the sweet spot for Minmatar falloff damage is Optimal + 1/3rd of Falloff, the Hurricane is now doing ideal damage at 23.5km (i.e. the edge off tech-2 long point range). Add in TEs or Tracking Computers and you're doing ideal damage out to 30+km. That's quite a big deal.

If we try Heavy Pulses, with 25% we're going from 22km optimal to 27.5. Add in a TE/TC or two and you're hitting to 30km-36km. What this basically means is that any cruisers long-pointing the BC will need to be able to tank their damage.

If this issue came down to a vote between leaving BCs the way they are or having 37.5% projection bonus, I'd choose the latter, but I think 25% is enough and I prefer to be more conservative when it comes to balancing. It can always be increased further if live testing shows it's not enough but I really do think 25% is enough.

A couple of frigs can take down a destroyer too. What's the piont in saying that though? Please at least be sensible with your comparisons. A couple of Cruisers can take down any sub-capital except for perhaps a Marauder, especially if you're throwing in Gilas or any of the other pirate cruisers that can do 700-1kDPS. If you want to make comparisons against tech 1 CBCs, stick with tech 1 cruisers.

Maller's can only field BC level tank (i.e. 65k-100K tank) if they're bait fitted (i.e. they have frigate-noobship level dps). Neither buffer or XLASB fitted Moas reach BC level tanks, but they're popular because they're about 75% the tank and DPS at only 35% the cost.

I've regularly flown in Prophecy/Myrmidon gangs and we tear apart cruiser gangs often without a single loss. With the exception of the Vexor (which is borderline cancerous in the current meta), the other tech 1 kiting cruisers frankly don't do enough DPS within long-point. Arty-cane gangs similarly also tear cruiser gangs apart.

HACs aren't a valid comparison when you're talking about tech 1 CBCs. A lot of HACs have ALWAYS been able to handle Solo BCs, heck most can handle solo Battleships too. Unless you're talking about Command ships, leave HACs out of the comparisons please. Also many HACs could solo a BC even if you gave the BCs 50% projection bonus because the T2 resists and additional damage bonuses often means a lot of HACs surpass BCs in both tank and spank. Or are you suggesting that tech 1 BCs should be buffed to the point where they stomp HACs?


180s are used on XLASB vagas due to fitting. Unless you pimp for 220s. So yes, 180s are viable for kiting if a falloff bonus is present. Granted, BCs dont have the speed to kite. However, 180s with barrage and falloff bonus should barely get to long point range. They wont apply great, but can still apply something at least. More to force off tackle.

I probably could have worded it better.There is no garauntee what i propose is going to happen in the way ive stated.. And with the lack of reading comprehension that is running rampant in this thread, many others are talking about optimal bonuses. So i mentioned what a 25% bonus to optimal would look like on artillery. Its possible CCP would just throw optimal bonuses at all turret based ships, like dessies.

TE/TC on an amarr hull? With what slots? T1 harby has 4 mids, and a cap booster is almost mandatory unless you dont want to shoot against the first thing with a neut. Pretty sure a harb cant kite like a nomen either. So that means youd sacrifice tank for range, which for a t1 bc like the harb, would be silly. It would have a tank similar to a cruiser if you started slapping TEs on it. Navy harb could maybe go with a single TC thanks to extra mid.

You can skirt 50k EHP in a moa and maller. Most BCs that arent completely brick tanked and with some option to escape are anywhere from 45-65k for t1s. Faction BC is normally 65-100k from what ive seen so far.

Why stay with t1 cruisers? A gila roaming around that sees a drake isnt going to say "oh hey, hes t1 and im pirate, im not going to engage that." A thrasher can regularly kill pirate frigs and t2 AF if the pilot is good with a decent fit. It is their ROLE to kill cruisers. Not just t1. Trying to say we should not compare to what they will actually face is foolish. HACs fall in the same category. If a t1 dessie can kill AF, why cant BCs kill a HAC? Bcs are better at killing a HAC (in comparison to BS) because medium weapons track better than large. I fail to see why you think HACs should be immune to consideration. Its not like ishtars arent the main doctrine of every alliance.

Cool story that your drone boats that field extraordinary tank and utility are fine. Cause drones are not FOTM or anything..

And if arty hurricanes are so good at tearing up cruisers, why are they seldomly used? They probably work in a niche, but are paper tanked.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#184 - 2015-06-01 18:05:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Ran out of characters

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
And if arty hurricanes are so good at tearing up cruisers, why are they seldomly used? They probably work in a niche, but are paper tanked.


To add on to this, that 65k EHP # you quoted will not work at all with a 720 arty mmjd fit hurricane. Youre looking at closer to 45k EHP, which is well within the realm of some t1 cruisers. Unless you are going with double ACRs.

Edit: Threw together a couple fits to see. You need either 1 t1 ACR and RCU or 1 t1 ACR and 1 t2 ACR to fit a cane with 720s, mmjd, ab and a meta 800mm plate. Best case scenario is 48k EHP. With 2 TC and faction short range ammo, you have 19.5+35km with 470dps. If you want mwd, then youre losing more tank.
Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
#185 - 2015-06-01 23:31:06 UTC
Agree with the Op, and special thanks to Mario for the logical breakdown of why we're seeing cruisers as the main ship of choice in EVE.

A change like this could really spice up the ships that are fielded in the space lanes.

+1
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#186 - 2015-06-01 23:47:46 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Ran out of characters

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
And if arty hurricanes are so good at tearing up cruisers, why are they seldomly used? They probably work in a niche, but are paper tanked.


To add on to this, that 65k EHP # you quoted will not work at all with a 720 arty mmjd fit hurricane. Youre looking at closer to 45k EHP, which is well within the realm of some t1 cruisers. Unless you are going with double ACRs.

Edit: Threw together a couple fits to see. You need either 1 t1 ACR and RCU or 1 t1 ACR and 1 t2 ACR to fit a cane with 720s, mmjd, ab and a meta 800mm plate. Best case scenario is 48k EHP. With 2 TC and faction short range ammo, you have 19.5+35km with 470dps. If you want mwd, then youre losing more tank.


Yea my post about T1 BC killing T1 C, Faction BC killing Faction C wasn't thorough, it was just a cup of coffee to those in thread that seem against the idea of giving T1 BC's a 25% optimal range role bonus. But is 25% optimal range on a T1 BC really that big of deal? I really don't think it would make that big a difference and only a small difference using medium long range weapons. A major rebalance is needed for the entire BC meta where CCP needs to decide what these ships are suppose to be, either giving them more range or more speed to align in with their proposed roles. Since T1 BC's can now use the MMJD, CCP may think that giving them optimal range bonus on them to be a bit overkill, but I see no reason why they wouldn't do it for the Faction BC's and to be honest I think 50% optimal range bonus is needed on these hulls.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#187 - 2015-06-02 07:09:05 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Ran out of characters

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
And if arty hurricanes are so good at tearing up cruisers, why are they seldomly used? They probably work in a niche, but are paper tanked.


To add on to this, that 65k EHP # you quoted will not work at all with a 720 arty mmjd fit hurricane. Youre looking at closer to 45k EHP, which is well within the realm of some t1 cruisers. Unless you are going with double ACRs.

Edit: Threw together a couple fits to see. You need either 1 t1 ACR and RCU or 1 t1 ACR and 1 t2 ACR to fit a cane with 720s, mmjd, ab and a meta 800mm plate. Best case scenario is 48k EHP. With 2 TC and faction short range ammo, you have 19.5+35km with 470dps. If you want mwd, then youre losing more tank.
The 65K I quoted was in reference to brawling BCs. If we're talking about kiting BCs, then you would compare them to kiting cruisers, which often have tanks around 10K or even lower, so my statement that BCs still have significantly more tank still stands.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#188 - 2015-06-02 07:48:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
180s are used on XLASB vagas due to fitting. Unless you pimp for 220s. So yes, 180s are viable for kiting if a falloff bonus is present. Granted, BCs dont have the speed to kite. However, 180s with barrage and falloff bonus should barely get to long point range. They wont apply great, but can still apply something at least. More to force off tackle.
I've flown just about every vagabond fit there is. Firstly Vagas have 50% falloff, not the 25% I'm proposing or the 37.5% you're proposing. Secondly 180mm vagabonds generally fight with the expectation that they will occasionally fight in scram range. Hell most of the one's I've seen are fit with scram + dual prop. You can also use 220s with XLASBs without pimp, you just have to sacrifice a medium neut which means good frig pilots can get under your guns. XLASBs IMO are excessive for the type of damage that typically hits you at kiting range especially with the MWD sig bonus.

Either way in summary, my point was that 180s with 37.5% bonus is a pretty bad choice and wasn't an appropriate comparison. I therefore still maintain that 25% bonus is adequate as it does what it needs to do provided the person has some clue about fitting for purpose. Using the more appropriate comparison of 425mms, with 25% they hit out to 34.85km with barrage which for medium autocannons is pretty good IMO.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
TE/TC on an amarr hull? With what slots? T1 harby has 4 mids, and a cap booster is almost mandatory unless you dont want to shoot against the first thing with a neut. Pretty sure a harb cant kite like a nomen either. So that means youd sacrifice tank for range, which for a t1 bc like the harb, would be silly. It would have a tank similar to a cruiser if you started slapping TEs on it. Navy harb could maybe go with a single TC thanks to extra mid.
Since the Hurricane nerf, double LSE harbingers with double TE and double HS with nano had been used as anti-support. When the Nomen got the 50% optimal range bonus this fit became outclassed. I was using it as an example. Armor Harbingers with double TC, cap booster and MWD are used in doctrines. But again, outlcassed by Zealot.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Why stay with t1 cruisers? A gila roaming around that sees a drake isnt going to say "oh hey, hes t1 and im pirate, im not going to engage that." A thrasher can regularly kill pirate frigs and t2 AF if the pilot is good with a decent fit. It is their ROLE to kill cruisers. Not just t1. Trying to say we should not compare to what they will actually face is foolish. HACs fall in the same category. If a t1 dessie can kill AF, why cant BCs kill a HAC? Bcs are better at killing a HAC (in comparison to BS) because medium weapons track better than large. I fail to see why you think HACs should be immune to consideration. Its not like ishtars arent the main doctrine of every alliance.
I disagree with the premise of your argument. I've rarely lost to a tech 1 dessie in an Enyo, Hawk, Daredevil or Worm. A tech 1 destroyer is something that I would GLADLY take on if I was flying an AF or the aforementioned pirate frigs. Better pilots than myself have probably never lost in these match-ups. If you want BCs to take on HACs you'll need to give them a hell of a lot more than 37.5% projection bonuses. Hell even 50% wouldn't cut it. As even taking out the factor of speed and sig radius, in raw tank and dps stats many HACs like the Deimos and Sacrilege or even the Augoror Navy Issue, beat BCs without the need to kite them.

My version of the "food chain" is that tech 1 BCs should beat tech 1 cruisers easily. Faction BCs should beat faction cruisers easily and Command Ships should beat HACs. I don't believe that a 65million isk (tech 2 fittings) tech 1 Battlecruisers should beat a 280 million isk (also tech 2 fittings) HAC where both are fit for the same purpose, and excluding the variable of pilot skill.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Cool story that your drone boats that field extraordinary tank and utility are fine. Cause drones are not FOTM or anything..
You're the one proposing additional bonuses for them not me. And you just used the Gila in your cool story so...

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
And if arty hurricanes are so good at tearing up cruisers, why are they seldomly used? They probably work in a niche, but are paper tanked.
Because Sleipnirs do it better. But if I'm FCing a public roam or working with low-skill pilots, hurricanes work fine. I DO however agree that hurricanes
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#189 - 2015-06-02 12:34:11 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The 65K I quoted was in reference to brawling BCs. If we're talking about kiting BCs, then you would compare them to kiting cruisers, which often have tanks around 10K or even lower, so my statement that BCs still have significantly more tank still stands.


Where are you getting your numbers from? A stabber gets 26k EHP with 2 LSE/dcu and some shield rigs. Your arty hurricane for example would be getting 35k EHP as a shield fit "kiter". Since there is no PG to add more than 1 LSE. The harby you mention is better, at around 42k, but has some issues.

Its easy to kite (1300 m/s with dual nano) and easy to outtrack the turrets. Not to mention no cap booster, so is still very sensitive to neut pressure.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#190 - 2015-06-02 12:44:40 UTC
Can't imagine why I haven't seen this before. I wholeheartedly agree that battlecruisers need something right now, as their class is extremely lackluster. They have bloated sig radius and low speeds comparable with a battleship, but neither the tank, raw dps or projection to make up for it.

The changes proposed in this thread would go a long way to make up for that.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#191 - 2015-06-02 15:12:38 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Responses


I flew many vagas as well. In fact i flew dual LASB brawl vagas shortly after ASBs were released. Ive flown max range vagas as well using 180s or 220s. A good kite vaga pilot doesnt expect to be fighting in scram range. He manual pilots away to kill tackle or warp off as needed. A scrammed vaga is a dead vaga. XLASB fits allow you to tank missiles and other longer range weapons that you cant kite, without having your tank overwhelmed. This is from a solo background, not pre organized fleet/gang fights. I brought up 180s on a vaga because you said you cant kite with them. You can, and with barrage will barely break past 25km. A 37.5 or even 50% bonus to falloff would still keep them viable on bc hulls. I go into detail below.

The reason i mentioned 180s is because to get the EHP numbers youre quoting from a t1 BC like a cane would mean you would need to use 180s to fit a 1600 plate and still keeping the medium neut. 180s are used fairly often on minny ships due to fitting to keep the fit flexible so you can engage multiple targets. 220s are ideal, but sometimes they dont fit. 425s take too much fitting and have poor tracking in most cases.

I still dont think that even a 50% bonus to projection is all that bad.. i was flying my sleip around with 180s and shooting at a tristan that was orbiting me. Even with barrage, i was only getting grazing shots most of the time at 25-30km. He actually got me to alil over 1/4 shield (didnt rep) when i got him to 3/4. However it did eventually force him off. Im not talking kiting specifically, im talking a BC should be able to project to point range not to kill every cruiser there, but to force them off, or make the cruiser pilot actually work for the kill. Instead of orbit and then gg. Depending on fit, maybe the bc can kill the cruiser out there. But thats not my intention.

Why are you mentioning how a harby could kite back before nomen buff like its relevant now? Hurricane was the best at kiting at one point too.. but its no longer that way, and shouldnt be used as a point in a discussion. It muddys the water and offers nothing of use to this discussion.

Ive killed enyos, triple masb hawks, vengeance, ret, jags and harpies in my thrasher. Actually im pretty sure ive killed every AF with it. Pirate frigs are alittle harder but still do able.

If you think a 37-50% wouldnt affect how they engage hacs (and would need more), then why are you proposing 25% instead? I never said a BC should outright dunk a HAC, but should give them a run for their money. Just like if an AF screws up.against a dessie, they will normally DIAF.

Trying to balance by price point is bad. These ships have a role to fill. BCs should kill cruisers like destroyers kill frigs. There is no disclaimer when flying a dessie that it can only kill something under 8m isk. HAC, faction and t1 are all cruisers no matter how you look at it. Do you think corms should be nerfed because they could snipe a daredevil at 80km for 10m? So why should t1 BC have an artificial isk to kill limit?

I mentioned gila because you said cruisers cant get to BC level tank. Then you mentioned the 2 most tankiest drone boat BCs have no problems killing cruisers. Because drone boats can use drones against varying classes/damage types and arent limited by a single turret resolution or missile application or range (since drones follow). You missed your own point to the extent its like youre moving the goalposts.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#192 - 2015-06-03 00:09:16 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I flew many vagas as well. In fact i flew dual LASB brawl vagas shortly after ASBs were released. Ive flown max range vagas as well using 180s or 220s. A good kite vaga pilot doesnt expect to be fighting in scram range. He manual pilots away to kill tackle or warp off as needed. A scrammed vaga is a dead vaga. XLASB fits allow you to tank missiles and other longer range weapons that you cant kite, without having your tank overwhelmed. This is from a solo background, not pre organized fleet/gang fights.
Not really. There are plenty of instances where you want to scram an isolated target to prevent them from burning back to gate or fleeing back into damage range of its allied gang. Also see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wv2iAzxSM4

For kite fit, I've personally found an LASB perfectly fine in tanking the type of damage that reaches me at kiting range.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I brought up 180s on a vaga because you said you cant kite with them.
No I said 25%-37.5% isn't very much of a difference especially on 180s.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
You can, and with barrage will barely break past 25km. A 37.5 or even 50% bonus to falloff would still keep them viable on bc hulls. I go into detail below.
Even with 37.5 your max falloff range is 23km. Which means you're only doing decent damage at about 12.7km. A long range missile Talwar would be doing significantly more damage at 23km. If I had a ship with 37.5km bonus range and I wanted to kite I certainly wouldn't fit 180mms. But hey if you want to experience that, go fit a vaga with 180mms and not fit any tracking enhancers or ambit rigs and let me know how well you can apply damage at kite range.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
The reason i mentioned 180s is because to get the EHP numbers youre quoting from a t1 BC like a cane would mean you would need to use 180s to fit a 1600 plate and still keeping the medium neut. 180s are used fairly often on minny ships due to fitting to keep the fit flexible so you can engage multiple targets. 220s are ideal, but sometimes they dont fit. 425s take too much fitting and have poor tracking in most cases.
Armor canes tend to have 1 if not 2 webs so usually forego the medium neut for the additional DPS since medium autocannons are already terribad at damage. You specifically addressed the range of 180mms and mentioned nothing about fitting for tank in your previous response.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Why are you mentioning how a harby could kite back before nomen buff like its relevant now? Hurricane was the best at kiting at one point too.. but its no longer that way, and shouldnt be used as a point in a discussion. It muddys the water and offers nothing of use to this discussion.
I addressed the impact 25% bonus has on Heavy Pulse lasers with scorch and and more specifically I stated that it's enough to force off those kiting it at long point range. I thought that point pretty obvious.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#193 - 2015-06-03 01:59:49 UTC

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Ive killed enyos, triple masb hawks, vengeance, ret, jags and harpies in my thrasher. Actually im pretty sure ive killed every AF with it. Pirate frigs are alittle harder but still do able.
I've never had trouble killing thrashers in AFs but to avoid this inevitably going to a KB epeen comparing competition I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree. Dessies perform well in doing damage and projecting it but generally die if something sneezes on it. Most AFs do less damage but have more mobility, resiliance and quite a few have better midslots to control range or fit e-war to beat dessies in 1v1.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
If you think a 37-50% wouldnt affect how they engage hacs (and would need more), then why are you proposing 25% instead?
Because I think 25% is sufficient to give tech 1 BCs the significant advantage over tech 1 cruisers. I don't believe tech 1 BCs should overpower HACs. I said this already come'on.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I never said a BC should outright dunk a HAC, but should give them a run for their money. Just like if an AF screws up.against a dessie, they will normally DIAF.

Trying to balance by price point is bad. These ships have a role to fill. BCs should kill cruisers like destroyers kill frigs. There is no disclaimer when flying a dessie that it can only kill something under 8m isk. HAC, faction and t1 are all cruisers no matter how you look at it. Do you think corms should be nerfed because they could snipe a daredevil at 80km for 10m? So why should t1 BC have an artificial isk to kill limit?
What I said was "I don't believe that a 65million isk (tech 2 fittings) tech 1 Battlecruisers should beat a 280 million isk (also tech 2 fittings) HAC where both are fit for the same purpose"

Who fits a daredevil for sniping? They don't even have the lock range...

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I mentioned gila because you said cruisers cant get to BC level tank.Then you mentioned the 2 most tankiest drone boat BCs have no problems killing cruisers. Because drone boats can use drones against varying classes/damage types and arent limited by a single turret resolution or missile application or range (since drones follow). You missed your own point to the extent its like youre moving the goalposts.
And the Gila is a pirate cruiser with a tank bonus and 6 midslots and drone focussed DPS so it can use the bare minimum of its fittings for weapon systems. What was your interpretation of my point because mine was that they were fine at killing cruisers and yours according to the OP was that these hulls should receive a very large role bonus to drone speed.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#194 - 2015-06-03 02:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Ran out of characters

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
And if arty hurricanes are so good at tearing up cruisers, why are they seldomly used? They probably work in a niche, but are paper tanked.


To add on to this, that 65k EHP # you quoted will not work at all with a 720 arty mmjd fit hurricane. Youre looking at closer to 45k EHP, which is well within the realm of some t1 cruisers. Unless you are going with double ACRs.

Edit: Threw together a couple fits to see. You need either 1 t1 ACR and RCU or 1 t1 ACR and 1 t2 ACR to fit a cane with 720s, mmjd, ab and a meta 800mm plate. Best case scenario is 48k EHP. With 2 TC and faction short range ammo, you have 19.5+35km with 470dps. If you want mwd, then youre losing more tank.

For the 3rd time, the 65K EHP was for Brawling BCs. How you would interpret that any different is baffling unless you're just being deliberately argumentative. My point was that BCs have far more tank than Cruisers so if we want to compare tanks, it would be brawl fits vs brawl fits and kite fits vs kite fits.

The arty hurricanes I run in my fleet are shield canes with 43K EHP (2 ancils, 1 LSe, 1 Invuln, 1 shield rig)
Cookie cutter Rail Thorax with 200mms has 18K EHP. 250mms have around 10K or less and I've alphaed them in Nados before.
Arty Rupture has 24k EHP.

I.e. Arty Hurricane still has significantly more tank than its cruiser counterpart and other cruisers. My point stands.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#195 - 2015-06-03 02:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Basically a summary of my view for each of the CBCs:

Prophecy: Doesn't actually need that much work because as mentioned before drones allow it to deal with frigates (it usually also fits neuts or rapid lights in the highs as well) and it does okay against kiting cruisers for the same reason (medium drones and rapid lights). MJD bonus would benefit it most since its only issue is its lack of mobility. The only thing a drone speed bonus would let it do is use its warriors to kill or force off a linked garmur holding it at bonus long point range. I don't really think it needs it but I'm also happy to see Garmurs die so I have no hard opinion on this.

Conclusion: MJD cooldown bonus

Harbinger: It's basically a slower hurricane that projects damage better. Poor cap hurts its engagement endurance and shuts it down when facing neuts but that's probably intended by CCP. Has a very good drone bay for a ship not focussed on drones. 25% bonus lets it hit out to 30km optimal before any TCs or TE.

Conclusion: 25% optimal bonus. Maybe a slight cap buff.

Drake: Nerfed into oblivion by both specific hull nerfs and nerfs to HML. IMO they were never that great, they were just effective in comparison to how quickly newbros could get into them and become a number in a null blob. Moreover the nerfs that were made to hurt the HML doctrine Drake hurt the HAM small gang/solo Drake as well. My opinion on HMLs has always been that the damage and projection were fine, but their fittings needed to be increased so that Drakes and Tengus had to make sacrifices to their tank if they wanted to fit them, the same way Artillery Hurricanes or Beam Harbingers do. With the introduction of RHMLs, the Raven does everything the Drake does but better. The Raven is even FASTER (LOLWUT?).

Conclusion: Fix HMLs, 25% missile velocity bonus.

Ferox:Optimal range bonus doesn't really help blasters that much and it's too slow to take advantage of the rails in small gang fights. I think it should just go the way of the Moa and receive a damage bonus instead. A 20% damage bonus would make it an impressive brawler. The reason why I don't think range bonus is needed is because anything less than 50% range bonus will mean this will still be overshadowed by the Eagle while giving it 50% range bonus will mean it overshadows the Eagle.

Conclusion: 25% damage role bonus so the 10% per level optimal range bonus can stay so those few rail Feroxes don't cry. -1 Turret and High Slot, +1 Mid Slot.

Myrmidon: Probably the best CBC hull mostly thanks to drones and flexibility in the highs. Like the prophecy, the only thing the Myrm lacks is mobility. I think an MJD bonus would benefit it the most.

Conclusion: MJD cooldown bonus.

Brutix: Overshadowed by the Myrmidon that can outbrawl it, is less cap dependant and can deal with more ships. The speed advantage doesn't make up for it. Falloff bonus I also think isn't that useful. With 2 TEs and null loaded and giving it a generous 50% falloff bonus, its still only hitting out to 24km in deep falloff. Meaning it's only doing decent damage at 16.5km. The currently strategy cruisers and frigs have vs the brutix is to hold it at long point until heavy dps arrives and unless the brutix gets a ridiculous 100% falloff bonus this strategy won't change. You could fit Rails but people would probably still use the Eagle for fleets and Deimos/Thorax/Moa for small gang because of mobility. I think a 25% tracking bonus would help both rail and blaster fits the most without treading on the Eagle/Deimos.

Conclusion: 25% tracking bonus.

Cyclone: A pretty decent ship if medium missiles weren't bad. Fix medium missiles. Give it a 25% bonus to explosion velocity bonus (differentiates it from Caldari and fits with Typhoon).

Conclusion: Fix medium missiles, 25% explosion velocity bonus.

Hurricane: Massive powergrid nerf, high slot nerf, medium autocannons are crappy, artillery powergrid increased, various nerfs to the hull (mass, align time, signature radius and tank). Add on the TE nerf and you have one very over-nerfed ship. If the Muninn wasn't so crappy and if the hull itself didn't look so badass, no one would fly the Hurricane. Powergrid needs to be buffed, medium autocannons need to be fixed and a 25% falloff bonus would go a long way into making this ship viable again.

Conclusion: Powergrid buff, 25% falloff bonus.

Navy Battlecruisers
These should get the same role bonuses (maybe slightly higher like 37.5%). Navy Brutix and Navy Harbinger are the better ones. Navy Hurricane is CCP trolling old Cane pilots and the Navy Drake is arguably worse than the standard drake. Once HMLs are fixed, the 5% explosion radius bonus needs to be changed to a damage bonus.

Attack Battlecruisers
In many ways these are what larger destroyers would look like; 8 guns highs and paper tank. They were nerfed indirectly when tracking enhancers were nerfed and were nerfed directly in Odyssey when they received universal sig radius increases. Recent hyperspatial rigs have helped these. 25% bonus to CBCs likely won't affect these too much. The Blaster Talos and the Autocannon Nado which were already hurt the most by the TE nerf would probably suffer quite badly and I would propose a slight speed/agility buff to these hulls IF CBCs are to receive a projection role bonus to help to keep their mobility advantage over CBCs relevant.

Cruisers
These I feel get over-generalised. The star performance of the Vexor, Thorax and Moa and certain pirate/navy faction hulls such as the Orthrus, Gila, ONI, VNI overshadow the issue that some cruiser hulls are absolutely trash and will become even more trash if the CBC buffs above go through. Namely the Bellicose, Stabber, Osprey Navy Issue (do people even fly this), Caracal Navy issue and Muninn. Stabber and CNI could theoretically be fixed just by fixing medium ACs and missiles.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#196 - 2015-06-03 04:48:50 UTC
There are certain cases where a scram vaga works, but glancing at your KB, i see why you have this opinion. You often fight in gangs. I fly solo, a scram vagabond by itself is not wise, unless your target is completely isolated, or is weak enough you can kill him quickly. Otherwise, you will be blobbed and laughed at.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
No I said 25%-37.5% isn't very much of a difference especially on 180s.


And its not much of a difference on a lot of other weapons, so again, why do you insist that going from 25% to 37.5% would suddenly break BC's? There is no other ship in the game that has a projection bonus below 50%, cruisers which have the same weapon systems as BC, have 50% projection bonuses, and are faster. If you don't want to be destroyed by a BC at 25km, then leave/warp-off. Its not like the proposal is adding a permanent web that holds you in place.

Keep in mind, only certain fits/weapons are going to have any effect. A blaster brutix is not going to kill a vagabond/stabber after a 37.5-50% projection bonus. A drake is not going to be able to apply all its dps due to having no webs or TP at anything past web range. A harby would have slightly less or equal range as a nomen, just no speed and because of that, the guns could be outtracked fairly easily by fast orbiting cruisers/dual prop etc

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Even with 37.5 your max falloff range is 23km. Which means you're only doing decent damage at about 12.7km. A long range missile Talwar would be doing significantly more damage at 23km. If I had a ship with 37.5km bonus range and I wanted to kite I certainly wouldn't fit 180mms. But hey if you want to experience that, go fit a vaga with 180mms and not fit any tracking enhancers or ambit rigs and let me know how well you can apply damage at kite range.


Where did i say i wanted to kite? Please read what i'm typing. I have said numerous times that it will help the weapon system project to either force off long point tackle, force the cruiser to make better pilot decisions (instead of orbit at 20km and go take a ****), and in the rare case, kill something at range.

I'll waste characters just so you can re-read it to understand i'm not talking about kiting with BC's or w/o TE's. I did not think i needed to state exact fits for you. If i kite, of course TE or ambit rigs are used. This is not about kiting with a BC though. Its about applying damage to force cruisers to commit or leave. Not get easy kills against BC's that have very little in the way of defense from almost every kite cruiser. Just for you:

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Im not talking kiting specifically, im talking a BC should be able to project to point range not to kill every cruiser there, but to force them off, or make the cruiser pilot actually work for the kill.


+ (second quote removed due to excessive quotes..)

"180s are viable for kiting if a falloff bonus is present. Granted, BCs dont have the speed to kite. However, 180s with barrage and falloff bonus should barely get to long point range. They wont apply great, but can still apply something at least. More to force off tackle."

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Armor canes tend to have 1 if not 2 webs so usually forego the medium neut for the additional DPS since medium autocannons are already terribad at damage. You specifically addressed the range of 180mms and mentioned nothing about fitting for tank in your previous response.


In an RvB gang maybe, but solo, if you don't fit neuts, you're going to be in trouble.. neuts make dealing with tackle or laser/hybrid ships managable since you can turn off their gun/tank/prop. Neuts will also kill a t3d, dual webs by themselves may not. Especially if you have a MWD and are scrammed, then you cannot maintain transversal.

I explained 180's in 2 separate paragraphs. Hence, 2 separate points about the weapon system. One related to kiting, another about fitting. I can make additional points to explain the reasoning as to why 180's were mentioned in the first place. I used it as an example because its a common weapon system fit to hurricanes. Obviously 220's are used as well, but we have to evaluate all the weapons, not just the highest tier weapon system.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
I addressed the impact 25% bonus has on Heavy Pulse lasers with scorch and and more specifically I stated that it's enough to force off those kiting it at long point range. I thought that point pretty obvious.


So the one weapon system that has a decent gain in range (since lasers are almost all optimal) should dictate every other weapon system's role bonus? Again, without speed, a scorch fit harby can easily be outtracked with speed/sig/dual prop/TD etc etc. Just because it can theoretically hit doesn't mean there aren't counters already available. Means more diverse fits from cruisers to counter BC's appropriately. Instead of only speed.

Your point is not obvious, just because a ship can project, doesn't mean it will apply 100% of its damage all the time. You claim you don't have issues with tracking at range, yet you're in a corp that sets up pre-organized fights and are often filled with newer players who are unfamiliar with transversal. You need to state how going from 25-37.5% is going to suddenly ruin cruisers other than saying they will die at range (kind of the point of the proposal).

HAC's have the tank to handle it and decide if they want to commit or disengage, as do most kite cruisers. The tankier HAC's will outlast most BC's and due to small sigs, make it harder to hit, meanwhile HAC's will track/hit perfectly fine against a BC. Yes, a BC could kill a HAC, but it needs to be FIT for it, just as destroyers need to be fit well to kill AF.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#197 - 2015-06-03 05:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
And its not much of a difference on a lot of other weapons, so again, why do you insist that going from 25% to 37.5% would suddenly break BC's

I've already addressed the range impact of 25% falloff/optimal bonus for 425mm ACs (with close range faction ammo), Heavy Pulse (with Scorch) and 720mm Arties (with close range faction ammo) and they all do excellent damage from 24-30+km. Hence why I think 25% is sufficient. Rails and Missiles I didn't address as they don't have issues with projection but rather with application. I didn't say 37.5% would break BCs, I said:

Quote:
If this issue came down to a vote between leaving BCs the way they are or having 37.5% projection bonus, I'd choose the latter, but I think 25% is enough and I prefer to be more conservative when it comes to balancing. It can always be increased further if live testing shows it's not enough but I really do think 25% is enough.


Giving more range than needed for BCs to force off tackle then starts to tread into the damage support roles of ABCs, especially the closer range ones like the AC nado and the Blaster Talos.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#198 - 2015-06-03 05:42:15 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

I've never had trouble killing thrashers in AFs but to avoid this inevitably going to a KB epeen comparing competition I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree. Dessies perform well in doing damage and projecting it but generally die if something sneezes on it. Most AFs do less damage but have more mobility, resiliance and quite a few have better midslots to control range or fit e-war to beat dessies in 1v1.


Your experiences do not make up all of EVE, and neither do mine. However, saying a t1 dessie cannot, or has a lot of trouble killing AF/Pirate frigs is plain wrong. If all you fight are blaster cata's and a/c thrashers, then i can see why you would think that. My thrasher has similar EHP as some AF, so the whole squishy tank thing is also, not true.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Because I think 25% is sufficient to give tech 1 BCs the significant advantage over tech 1 cruisers. I don't believe tech 1 BCs should overpower HACs. I said this already come'on.


You have said it many times, but not really explained the reasoning. I could say HML are fine, doesn't make it true.

Why would 37.5% become overpowered when every other hull with projection bonuses get a 50% bonus, including HAC's which have very similar tank as BC's, but are faster and have smaller sigs. Even similar dps in some cases.

So your worry that HAC's would suddenly be dunked by a projection bonus is unfounded, as HAC's still have a lot going for them against a BC. A deimos/ishtar/sac would walk all over a cane, drake, brutix, cyclone etc, regardless of if they had projection bonuses or not.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
What I said was "I don't believe that a 65million isk (tech 2 fittings) tech 1 Battlecruisers should beat a 280 million isk (also tech 2 fittings) HAC where both are fit for the same purpose"

Who fits a daredevil for sniping? They don't even have the lock range...


Why not? Sounds a lot like you're balancing around a price point, which you just said you weren't.... A role is not limited to the cost of ships. If a dessie can kill t1, faction, pirate and AF then why can't a BC kill t1, faction, pirate, and HAC? Your logic isn't holding up here.

If you mean that a hurricane with a 37.5-50% bonus would suddenly be the next vagabond, and outperform the vaga's role, then you would be mistaken. As i've already stated, the HAC has many other things going for it that make the BC less desirable in certain fights.

Keep in mind, a projection bonus does literally nothing against HAC's that are setup to brawl already. If a HAC is kiting the BC and getting hit due to the projection bonus, it can simply leave. BC's no longer should be free kills, and these cruiser pilots need to make decisions on if they want to commit or can't handle it and leave. Yep you might have to walk away from a fight, but you can't have an "I win" kite cruiser anymore.

If you are going to dispute my point, at least read it right:

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Do you think corms should be nerfed because they could snipe a daredevil at 80km for 10m?


I did not say a DD should be fit for range, I said if a daredevil was sniped at 80km by a 10m corm, then would you feel that is unfair because the DD is the more expensive ship and should win regardless? If thats what you think, then i should reiterate. "Price of a ship is not a way to balance ships, or dictate their role".

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
And the Gila is a pirate cruiser with a tank bonus and 6 midslots and drone focussed DPS so it can use the bare minimum of its fittings for weapon systems. What was your interpretation of my point because mine was that they were fine at killing cruisers and yours according to the OP was that these hulls should receive a very large role bonus to drone speed.


Pirate cruiser = its still a cruiser, that gets BC level of tank.. Again, you're using price point as your argument. Ignoring the role of the ship class. This originally started by you saying that BC's have far superior tank to cruisers, i gave you examples which you shoo'd away just because they're more expensive or don't fit the same "role" as the BC in question.

I also listed a Moa and Maller as t1 variants. Using the numbers you provided for your arty cane.

"The arty hurricanes I run in my fleet are shield canes with 43K EHP"

A 200mm rail fit moa can do 42k EHP, goes faster/same speed as your cane and has probably slightly less dps. It is smaller in sig, faster, cheaper, and better align time.

A 1600 plated maller w/ MWD with a full rack of focused pulse lasers has 58k EHP. A 1600 plated harbinger with MWD has 65k EHP.

So for double-triple the cost of the maller, you get 7k more EHP from the harb. I mentioned that BC level tanks are possible in cruisers, and you wanted to dismiss them. If you can't figure the fits out that got me those numbers, let me know i'll be happy to post them.

Is that good enough of a comparison of similar fit ships?

Not every cruiser has BC levels of tank, i agree, but there are still a few that can manage. For the ones that can't, the speed of the cruiser is more than enough to be more favorable than a BC in the same role in most cases, except maybe full on fleet fights.

So my point still stands that cruisers are still quite capable of fielding BC levels of tank.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#199 - 2015-06-03 06:04:47 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Giving more range than needed for BCs to force off tackle then starts to tread into the damage support roles of ABCs, especially the closer range ones like the AC nado and the Blaster Talos.


Lets compare then, because i'm not sure how you came up with that.

Tornado with 800mm and x2 TE/Gyro = 781dps @ 3.6km+45km using faction

Hurricane with 425's + 50% fall-off bonus x2 TE/Gyro = 549dps @ 1.8km+27km using faction

Using barrage there is still a big range disparity between the nado and cane, and dps is still significantly different. ABC's will always have more dps/range than CBC's, as they use large guns which have a higher base range and damage, plus they have 8 of them, compared to BC's 5-6.

And to pull a page from your book, we'll say they're the same role, and fit with artillery. For this example, CCP decides to go with a 50% optimal bonus for all turret based CBC's.

Tornado with 1400's x2 TE/Gyro = 606 dps @ 36+77km w/ 10k alpha using faction ammo

Hurricane with 720's x2 TE/Gyro and 50% optimal bonus = 474dps @ 27+31km w/ 3.7k alpha using faction ammo

So, again, huge alpha difference, dps is better and has better range (including optimal). The only difference is tracking. And generally an MWD cruiser's sig is big enough that it could be tracked fairly well at a tornado's operating range.

ABC's will always be king of range and dps. CBC's will have better tank, less range, less dps, more utility. I see no problem with giving CBC's more range, as even with a 50% bonus, it won't be close.


Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#200 - 2015-06-03 08:16:39 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Giving more range than needed for BCs to force off tackle then starts to tread into the damage support roles of ABCs, especially the closer range ones like the AC nado and the Blaster Talos.


Lets compare then, because i'm not sure how you came up with that.

Tornado with 800mm and x2 TE/Gyro = 781dps @ 3.6km+45km using faction

Hurricane with 425's + 50% fall-off bonus x2 TE/Gyro = 549dps @ 1.8km+27km using faction

Using barrage there is still a big range disparity between the nado and cane, and dps is still significantly different. ABC's will always have more dps/range than CBC's, as they use large guns which have a higher base range and damage, plus they have 8 of them, compared to BC's 5-6.

And to pull a page from your book, we'll say they're the same role, and fit with artillery. For this example, CCP decides to go with a 50% optimal bonus for all turret based CBC's.

Tornado with 1400's x2 TE/Gyro = 606 dps @ 36+77km w/ 10k alpha using faction ammo

Hurricane with 720's x2 TE/Gyro and 50% optimal bonus = 474dps @ 27+31km w/ 3.7k alpha using faction ammo

So, again, huge alpha difference, dps is better and has better range (including optimal). The only difference is tracking. And generally an MWD cruiser's sig is big enough that it could be tracked fairly well at a tornado's operating range.

ABC's will always be king of range and dps. CBC's will have better tank, less range, less dps, more utility. I see no problem with giving CBC's more range, as even with a 50% bonus, it won't be close.
Not always under your proposed buffs. Admittedly the Nado won't be so much affected but the Blaster Talos (which you conveniently skipped) definitely will. WIth faction ammo and 2xTEs the Talos gets 5.8+18 (let's just say 24km). Hurricane with faction ammo outranges the Talos with either a 50% falloff bonus or a 37.5% falloff bonus. With 25% falloff bonus it just matches the Talos' falloff range so the Talos has a decent chance of beating the Cane provided it knows how to fly to manage tracking.