These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Juan Mileghere
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2015-04-27 17:51:08 UTC
Decent Idea +1
Alexis Nightwish
#22 - 2015-04-28 18:17:34 UTC
I'm not really sure what you mean by this:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For the Ferox the 10% optimal per level trait would be removed in favor of a different trait (perhaps 5% dmg or RoF per level). This would help it to drop 1 turret, helping fitting (which could be tuned slightly with the change as well to reduce a little PG).
There isn't a need to 'drop turrets' or do anything else drastic. I think simply adding a role bonus focused on damage application to all the CBCs would go a long way to getting them used and healthy.


We play Cruisers Online because the T3Cs are broken as hell, and the cruiser class as a whole doesn't have any natural predators. Nothing would make my happier than seeing CBCs become cruiser killers similar to how destroyers are frigate killers.

This is what I would like to see (my changes are in italics):


PROPHECY
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Drone damage and hitpoints
4% bonus to all Armor Resistances

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to drone tracking
(Drone bandwidth increased from 75 to 100)


HARBINGER
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% reduction in Medium Energy Weapon capacitor need
10% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon damage

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon optimal range


HARBINGER NAVY ISSUE
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
7.5% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon tracking speed
10% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon damage

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon optimal range


FEROX
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
4% bonus to all Shield resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed


DRAKE
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
4% bonus to all shield resistances
10% bonus to kinetic damage of Heavy Missiles and Heavy Assault Missiles

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to missile explosion velocity


DRAKE NAVY ISSUE
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity
5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile explosion radius per level

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to missile explosion velocity


BRUTIX
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range OR +50% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff


BRUTIX NAVY ISSUE
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range OR +50% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff


MYRMIDON
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage dealt by drones
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to drone tracking


CYCLONE
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile and Light Missile rate of fire
7.5% bonus to Shield Boost amount

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
25% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile and Light Missile explosion velocity


HURRICANE
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed


HURRICANE FLEET ISSUE
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed


GNOSIS
Special Abilities:
25% bonus to Medium Energy, Hybrid and Projectile Turret damage and tracking
25% bonus to Heavy Missiles and Heavy Assault Missiles damage and explosion velocity
50% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage dealt by drones and +25% bonus to drone tracking speed
37.5% increase to scan strength of probes

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#23 - 2015-04-28 19:03:47 UTC
i just think that bc's are there for brawling mainly(heavy cruisers), the warfare link helps them boost the group's tankability.
where as dessies don't do anything for a group and don't tank very well .. so it kind of leaves them with the anti-frig role as a default.
its kind of the HAC's and even command ships role too project damage along with resilience and group support, even ABC's for damage projection.
combat bc's need help with the tanking part, mainly in a sizeable sig radius reduction, especially helpful at insulating damage from ABC's and battleships.

personally would like too see ABC's moved too T2 too allow greater options in the cbc department.

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

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#24 - 2015-04-28 20:35:26 UTC
I like the overall notion of increasing the projection of combat battlecruisers and making the relationship between cruisers and battlecruisers more like the relationship between frigates and destroyers.

The problem is that combat battlecruisers also have the additional role of fitting warfare links, and I suspect that blending links and superior projection may tip the scales far too much.

What I'd suggest is splitting the difference. Of the combat battlecruiser line, there already exists a rough split* between "the tanky ones" and "the ganky ones". Leave "the tanky ones" (Prophecy, Myrmidon, Drake, Cyclone) as is, with the ability to fit warfare links, and swap out the role bonuses on "the ganky ones" (Harbinger, Brutix, Ferox, Hurricane) to enhance their projection while losing the ability to fit warfare links. The newly-minted cruiser-killers would likely need to have their stats adjusted as well to compensate for not needing to fit links anymore as well.

This would leave us with three distinct flavors of T1 battlecruisers: fleet boosters, cruiser-killers, and glass cannons. Each would have a specific role that didn't interfere with the roles of the others.

Thoughts?



*Yes, I know that the Brutix and Ferox both have tanking bounses as well. I did call it a "rough" split, right?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#25 - 2015-04-29 00:00:56 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
I'm not really sure what you mean by this:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For the Ferox the 10% optimal per level trait would be removed in favor of a different trait (perhaps 5% dmg or RoF per level). This would help it to drop 1 turret, helping fitting (which could be tuned slightly with the change as well to reduce a little PG).
There isn't a need to 'drop turrets' or do anything else drastic. I think simply adding a role bonus focused on damage application to all the CBCs would go a long way to getting them used and healthy.


We play Cruisers Online because the T3Cs are broken as hell, and the cruiser class as a whole doesn't have any natural predators. Nothing would make my happier than seeing CBCs become cruiser killers similar to how destroyers are frigate killers.


Because the ferox already has an optimal bonus, we change that optimal bonus trait, and roll the optimal bonus into the role bonus. That leaves an extra trait slot. Meaning that trait slot can be changed to a damage or RoF bonus, allowing the ferox to drop a gun or 2 (since it won't need 7 guns anymore to stay competitive, which is taxing on fitting).

This free's up PG on a hull, that many people believe could use alittle more grid. Or, gives you 2 utility high's, meaning it can do links, or have plenty of extra fitting options (double RLML paired with rails, or dual nuets, or a link/neut etc).

Battlecruisers should be flexible in the same way that destroyers are. If i want to fit my thrasher with a/c's and do 300+ dps, i can. If i want to fit artillery, and be alil squishier, but snipe a kite frigate out at 30km, i can do that too. Battlecruisers should be FAR more flexible than they are now.

As to the rest of what you mentioned, let me ask you this. Would people still fly destroyers if they ONLY they had application bonuses? Would a kite scorch coercer still be viable? Would arty thrashers and SNIPER cormorants still have their own unique role? Or would people drop them, because they can't hit **** outside 15km? Kinda like whats happening to BC's right now.

A tracking bonus hurricane would still not be able to shoot out past 16-18kmkm with autocannons, is slow as hell, and has no way to pick off a kite stabber. Not saying it should everytime, but i think it should at least be able to harass or apply some modicum of damage, or, force the stabber to actually FLY his ship to mitigate damage. Not just orbit at 20km and GG.

Harvey James wrote:
i just think that bc's are there for brawling mainly(heavy cruisers), the warfare link helps them boost the group's tankability.
where as dessies don't do anything for a group and don't tank very well.. so it kind of leaves them with the anti-frig role as a default.
its kind of the HAC's and even command ships role too project damage along with resilience and group support, even ABC's for damage projection.
combat bc's need help with the tanking part, mainly in a sizeable sig radius reduction, especially helpful at insulating damage from ABC's and battleships.

personally would like too see ABC's moved too T2 too allow greater options in the cbc department.


So quick to dismiss the biggest benefit they have in a group. They are hard counters to a ship type. If i'm bringing heavy cruisers or even battlecruisers, you don't think a gang would benefit from a few destroyers to act as anti-frigate?

I have seen so many video's of good small gang pvp'ers use T3D, dictors or some other destroyer as a firewall to frigates for their bigger ships. We are talking 2-5 man size gangs. They are damn near untouchable when they fly right.

In terms of their tanking ability, they tank MORE than frigates (in most cases), their intended targets. My T1 hull tanked thrasher has more EHP than my MSE fit arty jag. Yea a 400m wolf,ret,venge will be probably have more EHP, but at the cost of fairly lower dps. Destroyers get more EHP because they sacrifice speed/signature, for more firepower and projection+application.

HAC's are specialized in a role against a broad range of targets, destroyers and battlecruisers are specialized in a role against a ship class smaller than them. They are a support ship, for bigger ships in theory anyway. And guess what, if we don't add a role bonus to CS, then the progression of T1 BC to CS makes more sense, because CS have a range bonus already, +1 new trait bonus and resist package. The resists, +3 links, and new trait and EHP buffs more than make up for it.

Lets use the Ferox (with its new role) as an example.
4% Shield Resist per level
5% Medium Hybrid damage per level

Role Bonus: 50% to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal Range

Now, compare that to its T2 Variant.

Vulture
10% Bonus to medium Hybrid turret optimal range
4% Bonus to Shield resist

10% Bonus to medium Hybrid turret optimal range
10% Bonus to medium Hybrid turret damage

That seems like a VERY good transition into a CS. The vulture does the ferox's job better, has more EHP, more damage, more range, more links. Which is expected of a CS.

ABC's use LARGE guns, meaning they don't track that great against close cruisers. They are okish at longer ranges against cruisers. Their main bonus is BS weapons on a smaller hull, more mobile but flimsy, but pack a hell of a punch.

BC's use MEDIUM weapons, to counter cruisers specifically, and as of right now, they only do it close, not far (minus ferox). Medium weapons will NEVER match ABC weapon ranges, since large weapons inherently have more range. Compare a naga to a ferox, sure, they both shoot far, but the naga will always be the farthest, and the ferox will track better.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#26 - 2015-04-29 00:09:18 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I like the overall notion of increasing the projection of combat battlecruisers and making the relationship between cruisers and battlecruisers more like the relationship between frigates and destroyers.

The problem is that combat battlecruisers also have the additional role of fitting warfare links, and I suspect that blending links and superior projection may tip the scales far too much.

What I'd suggest is splitting the difference. Of the combat battlecruiser line, there already exists a rough split* between "the tanky ones" and "the ganky ones". Leave "the tanky ones" (Prophecy, Myrmidon, Drake, Cyclone) as is, with the ability to fit warfare links, and swap out the role bonuses on "the ganky ones" (Harbinger, Brutix, Ferox, Hurricane) to enhance their projection while losing the ability to fit warfare links. The newly-minted cruiser-killers would likely need to have their stats adjusted as well to compensate for not needing to fit links anymore as well.

This would leave us with three distinct flavors of T1 battlecruisers: fleet boosters, cruiser-killers, and glass cannons. Each would have a specific role that didn't interfere with the roles of the others.

Thoughts?



*Yes, I know that the Brutix and Ferox both have tanking bounses as well. I did call it a "rough" split, right?


I thought of that as well, but isn't that what CCP did in the beginning, and not many used those BC's as link boats? Can you also point out a particular area where they could be OP with a projection and link bonus?

Now, in my opinion, i don't like pigeon holing ships into certain fits. It should be up to the pilot on what ship he thinks is best for the role. Could it be a cyclone with links? Or a hurricane with links? Maybe hurricane has better fitting options, since it can fit 180's and have tons of grid left for tank/links, where as the cyclone takes up a good chunk of grid with HAM's and XLASB.

"But, i could just put links on it and hide it in a safe, so it doesn't matter the weapon system." Well sure that is true, unless CCP changes links to be on grid. Then your fitting options are limited considerably. Which, if CCP does put them on grid, that means they have to revisit BC's and give them all link bonuses, or all projection bonuses. Why not just do it now?

Not to beat a dead horse, but look at destroyers, every race has 2 (3 if you count T3D) of them now. Is one better at killing frigates than the other? Nope. They just have different ways of flying and fitting them. In the end, they both still kill their intended targets. BC's shouldn't be much different.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#27 - 2015-04-29 06:02:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
I feel this change may have a positive impact on Battleship proliferation as well, seeing as BCs are going to be murdering the cruiser masses.

Who are you going to call. Cool

*More BC? Possibly, and upto a point. Lol Their signature radii is very conductive to the signature and explosion resolutions of Battleship weaponry.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#28 - 2015-04-30 01:50:03 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
I feel this change may have a positive impact on Battleship proliferation as well, seeing as BCs are going to be murdering the cruiser masses.

Who are you going to call. Cool

*More BC? Possibly, and upto a point. Lol Their signature radii is very conductive to the signature and explosion resolutions of Battleship weaponry.


Yes i think that will be a nice side effect of buffing BC's as proposed. As Mario so elegantly pointed out (and what i briefly touched on in OP), the ship food chain is damaged right now. And giving BC's a proper role will help resolve this.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#29 - 2015-04-30 14:08:48 UTC
This needs to happen. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง
Badman Lasermouse
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps
#30 - 2015-04-30 15:42:53 UTC
I think this would be an excellent way to stir up the meta.

-Badman

Alexis Nightwish
#31 - 2015-04-30 19:50:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
Bronson Hughes wrote:
I like the overall notion of increasing the projection of combat battlecruisers and making the relationship between cruisers and battlecruisers more like the relationship between frigates and destroyers.

The problem is that combat battlecruisers also have the additional role of fitting warfare links, and I suspect that blending links and superior projection may tip the scales far too much.

What I'd suggest is splitting the difference. Of the combat battlecruiser line, there already exists a rough split* between "the tanky ones" and "the ganky ones". Leave "the tanky ones" (Prophecy, Myrmidon, Drake, Cyclone) as is, with the ability to fit warfare links, and swap out the role bonuses on "the ganky ones" (Harbinger, Brutix, Ferox, Hurricane) to enhance their projection while losing the ability to fit warfare links. The newly-minted cruiser-killers would likely need to have their stats adjusted as well to compensate for not needing to fit links anymore as well.

This would leave us with three distinct flavors of T1 battlecruisers: fleet boosters, cruiser-killers, and glass cannons. Each would have a specific role that didn't interfere with the roles of the others.

Thoughts?



*Yes, I know that the Brutix and Ferox both have tanking bounses as well. I did call it a "rough" split, right?

I don't really agree with your idea simply because of the fitting requirements of links. Putting a link on a T1 BC isn't an afterthought. It forces you to make a sacrifice somewhere (tank/gank/utility/etc.). If links were 1PG/1CPU sure I'd support your idea but I feel there's enough counterbalance as it is now.


Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
I'm not really sure what you mean by this:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For the Ferox the 10% optimal per level trait would be removed in favor of a different trait (perhaps 5% dmg or RoF per level). This would help it to drop 1 turret, helping fitting (which could be tuned slightly with the change as well to reduce a little PG).
There isn't a need to 'drop turrets' or do anything else drastic. I think simply adding a role bonus focused on damage application to all the CBCs would go a long way to getting them used and healthy.


We play Cruisers Online because the T3Cs are broken as hell, and the cruiser class as a whole doesn't have any natural predators. Nothing would make my happier than seeing CBCs become cruiser killers similar to how destroyers are frigate killers.


Because the ferox already has an optimal bonus, we change that optimal bonus trait, and roll the optimal bonus into the role bonus. That leaves an extra trait slot. Meaning that trait slot can be changed to a damage or RoF bonus, allowing the ferox to drop a gun or 2 (since it won't need 7 guns anymore to stay competitive, which is taxing on fitting).

This free's up PG on a hull, that many people believe could use alittle more grid. Or, gives you 2 utility high's, meaning it can do links, or have plenty of extra fitting options (double RLML paired with rails, or dual nuets, or a link/neut etc).

Battlecruisers should be flexible in the same way that destroyers are. If i want to fit my thrasher with a/c's and do 300+ dps, i can. If i want to fit artillery, and be alil squishier, but snipe a kite frigate out at 30km, i can do that too. Battlecruisers should be FAR more flexible than they are now.

As to the rest of what you mentioned, let me ask you this. Would people still fly destroyers if they ONLY they had application bonuses? Would a kite scorch coercer still be viable? Would arty thrashers and SNIPER cormorants still have their own unique role? Or would people drop them, because they can't hit **** outside 15km? Kinda like whats happening to BC's right now.

A tracking bonus hurricane would still not be able to shoot out past 16-18kmkm with autocannons, is slow as hell, and has no way to pick off a kite stabber. Not saying it should everytime, but i think it should at least be able to harass or apply some modicum of damage, or, force the stabber to actually FLY his ship to mitigate damage. Not just orbit at 20km and GG.
Okay I understand now, and I disagree Smile
I don't believe any of the CBCs need more raw DPS, I feel that they're more or less okay in that area. What I think they need is more application of that damage. More DPS will make them more dangerous to other BCs and BSs, not really to cruisers. This is why none of my suggested bonuses conveyed RoF or raw damage.

EDIT: regarding the Minmatar BCs, I chose tracking because giving optimal only helps arty, and falloff only helps AC. I didn't want to pigeonhole them into one type of gun.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#32 - 2015-04-30 20:04:06 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Okay I understand now, and I disagree Smile
I don't believe any of the CBCs need more raw DPS, I feel that they're more or less okay in that area. What I think they need is more application of that damage. More DPS will make them more dangerous to other BCs and BSs, not really to cruisers. This is why none of my suggested bonuses conveyed RoF or raw damage.


This isn't intended to be a DPS increase on the ferox. It is intended to bring it to 6 turrets and about the current DPS to keep the fitting in line with other CBCs, while keeping it from hitting like an absolute limp noodle in the role it curretly excels in, i.e. long-range medium gang fights against cruisers. It moves one of the 2 bonuses that define the hulls role into the role bonus and then gives a damage bonus to about equal the loss of the 1 turret, which means that if the fitting stats aren't hit with the nerf-bat too hard, it performs the same, but is easier to fit, or performs better for the same difficulty making the thing fit.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#33 - 2015-05-01 02:46:11 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Okay I understand now, and I disagree Smile
I don't believe any of the CBCs need more raw DPS, I feel that they're more or less okay in that area. What I think they need is more application of that damage. More DPS will make them more dangerous to other BCs and BSs, not really to cruisers. This is why none of my suggested bonuses conveyed RoF or raw damage.

EDIT: regarding the Minmatar BCs, I chose tracking because giving optimal only helps arty, and falloff only helps AC. I didn't want to pigeonhole them into one type of gun.


No BC would see a dps increase, or if there is one (in the case of the ferox, it would be minor). The ferox would simply drop 1-2 turrets, gain a small damage bonus, and put the current optimal bonus as its role bonus. As James already pointed out, its not to increase damage, but to bring it in-line with other BC's in what it can fit for flexibility.

Optimal doesn't help a/c's, period. Fall-off helps both. Remember, projectiles operate mostly out in fall-off. An optimal bonused 720 fit projects better to about 35km compared to a fall-off bonused ship. After 35km, the fall-off bonused ship starts to do more dps. So, fall-off is not worthless on artillery, it just projects the dps further, at the cost of fighting in fall-off earlier.

I mean arty wolfs (wolves?) are a thing, and work fairly well (minus the whole no tank thing).
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#34 - 2015-05-01 03:44:53 UTC
Rather than argue over which turrets gain more from which bonus, why not give turret ships both bonuses. 25% to Optimal & Falloff. Then the overall range increases 25% regardless of which turret it is.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#35 - 2015-05-01 04:16:34 UTC
The proposals are ridiculously over the top and would see the death of tech 1 cruisers except for a select few used for niche roles like tackle Vexors and 900 DPS suicide gank thoraxes.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#36 - 2015-05-01 04:59:31 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The proposals are ridiculously over the top and would see the death of tech 1 cruisers except for a select few used for niche roles like tackle Vexors and 900 DPS suicide gank thoraxes.

Then please, enlighten us as to the amount of necessary changes to make BCs useful without making them over powered?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#37 - 2015-05-01 05:01:01 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The proposals are ridiculously over the top and would see the death of tech 1 cruisers except for a select few used for niche roles like tackle Vexors and 900 DPS suicide gank thoraxes.


You say it, but give no reasons why. Do you complain about destroyers killing frigates? Why should BC's not be more viable against cruisers?

If BC's start to become more popular after the proposed change, all you have to do is hop into a BS and obliterate the BC. No tank or significant DPS values are changed with what i'm proposing. So the same fit drake/cane/prophecy etc will have the same tank and dps as they do now, but will be able to actually hit back.

If you're in a brawler fit ship, there is literally no difference, since you're going to be well within the available range with current settings. If you're a kiter, you MIGHT take more damage depending on the ship you're fighting and how well its fit (or if they have support). I say "might" because a blaster brutix will still have fairly poor range. But a 220mm cane might be able to shoot out past 20km if they fit for range.

If you look at an a/c fit thrasher, or blaster fit corm/catalyst, its the same principle. Those destroyers get excellent ranges/application with certain fits/weapons. If you fit short range weapons, you still generally get terrible range (minus scorch coercer). When using long range weapons, you now gain the range but lose tracking. And since these changes do nothing about tracking/application, you should still be able to outtrack long range guns easily by fitting TD or being fast and orbiting as needed. Might actually involve MANUAL piloting.

So, like i mentioned before, it will be more about pilot skill and fits, then just "i brought the fast cruiser, and your BC can't catch me, please wait for blob".
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#38 - 2015-05-01 05:18:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The proposals are ridiculously over the top and would see the death of tech 1 cruisers except for a select few used for niche roles like tackle Vexors and 900 DPS suicide gank thoraxes.


You say it, but give no reasons why. Do you complain about destroyers killing frigates? Why should BC's not be more viable against cruisers?

If BC's start to become more popular after the proposed change, all you have to do is hop into a BS and obliterate the BC. No tank or significant DPS values are changed with what i'm proposing. So the same fit drake/cane/prophecy etc will have the same tank and dps as they do now, but will be able to actually hit back.

If you're in a brawler fit ship, there is literally no difference, since you're going to be well within the available range with current settings. If you're a kiter, you MIGHT take more damage depending on the ship you're fighting and how well its fit (or if they have support). I say "might" because a blaster brutix will still have fairly poor range. But a 220mm cane might be able to shoot out past 20km if they fit for range.

If you look at an a/c fit thrasher, or blaster fit corm/catalyst, its the same principle. Those destroyers get excellent ranges/application with certain fits/weapons. If you fit short range weapons, you still generally get terrible range (minus scorch coercer). When using long range weapons, you now gain the range but lose tracking. And since these changes do nothing about tracking/application, you should still be able to outtrack long range guns easily by fitting TD or being fast and orbiting as needed. Might actually involve MANUAL piloting.

So, like i mentioned before, it will be more about pilot skill and fits, then just "i brought the fast cruiser, and your BC can't catch me, please wait for blob".
I don't complain about destroyers being able to wreck most frigates because cruisers can easily wreck destroyers for not that much more isk. The same cannot be said about battleships against battlecruisers. If battlecruisers were slower than attack battleships the same way destroyers are slower than attack cruisers, sure, give them double/triple the guns of cruisers and up their tracking and range by 50%. But that's not the case.

A lot of the comparisons in this thread are incredibly biased and inappropriate for what they're trying to prove. For example earlier in this thread someone complained that an AC Stabber could theoretically solo an Hurricane... they have different bonuses... a more valid comparison would be the rupture, and I've never heard of a competent cane pilot complain about ruptures.

Also unlike the application bonuses of destroyers which primarily affect their ability to kill frigates, buffing the application of battlecruisers not only makes them better at killing cruisers but also lets them **** on destroyers and frigates. Battlecruisers are also sufficiently fast vs battleships that range bonused battlecruisers would be able to dunk close range Battleships as their bonuses take them over the increased base range of large weapons.

You're essentially just shifting the popularity of cruisers onto battlecruisers.

I think saying this is a class issue is generalising the issue. There are actually many cruisers that see very little use even after their rebalance.
Mario Putzo
#39 - 2015-05-01 05:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
The proposals are ridiculously over the top and would see the death of tech 1 cruisers except for a select few used for niche roles like tackle Vexors and 900 DPS suicide gank thoraxes.


Pretty bold claim very little details.

Id wager that it wouldn't be the case, what with mostly all T1 cruisers being able to

A) Outrun all T1 BCs
B) Applying 100% damage against all T1 BCs
C) Mittigating around 35% of turret based BC damage, and nearly 50% of missile based BC damage.
D) Costing about 1/5th as much

But ya T1 cruisers would see a reduction in usage...which is kind of the point (they make up the vast vast majority of fielded ships in EVE).

So when BC online happens again, and BS come out of the wood work to hard counter them, we play BS online for a bit? At least until people remember that T1 Cruisers can kill T1 BS very easily.

What a wonderful sob story. Cruisers Died, and on the third day they arose to slay the glut of OP BS's everywhere, who ate all the BC's.

Sorry i missed this post I was midway typing.

Quote:
I don't complain about destroyers being able to wreck most frigates because cruisers can easily wreck destroyers for not that much more isk. The same cannot be said about battleships against battlecruisers. If battlecruisers were slower than attack battleships the same way destroyers are slower than attack cruisers, sure, give them double/triple the guns of cruisers and up their tracking and range by 50%. But that's not the case.


BS absolutely SMASH BCs, especially shield BC's. It is literally the exact same relationship as Cruiser to Dessie. The problem is BCs don't have the same relationship with Cruisers as Dessie share with Frigs.The #1 counter to a BC is and always has been a BS. Its not even a contest BS just smash the ever living **** out of BC.

Quote:
Also unlike the application bonuses of destroyers which primarily affect their ability to kill frigates, buffing the application of battlecruisers not only makes them better at killing cruisers but also lets them **** on destroyers and frigates.


HAHA WUT?
Just fly away. Ain't no BC ever going to catch a Frig or a Dessie unless they let themselves be caught. I mean **** Cruiser have a hard enough time killing frigs without webs and that is ones with application bonuses, something BC's won't have. Projection =/= Application. An Optimal of 100KM doesn't help you track any better when a ship is orbiting on your paint.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#40 - 2015-05-01 05:55:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Mario Putzo wrote:
Quote:
I don't complain about destroyers being able to wreck most frigates because cruisers can easily wreck destroyers for not that much more isk. The same cannot be said about battleships against battlecruisers. If battlecruisers were slower than attack battleships the same way destroyers are slower than attack cruisers, sure, give them double/triple the guns of cruisers and up their tracking and range by 50%. But that's not the case.


BS absolutely SMASH BCs, especially shield BC's. It is literally the exact same relationship as Cruiser to Dessie. The problem is BCs don't have the same relationship with Cruisers as Dessie share with Frigs.The #1 counter to a BC is and always has been a BS. Its not even a contest BS just smash the ever living **** out of BC.
I think you missed the point big time. So I'll break it down with some examples:

A Coercer goes 1,709 m/s with 1mn MWD. An Omen without any speed mod or implants at max skills goes 2,018 m/s with a 10mn MWD.

In contrast, a Harbinger goes 1,123 m/s with 10mn MWD. An Apoc goes 1,041 m/s with 100mn MWD.

In summary the current balance is that a Destroyer can beat Frigs, but a Frig is fast enough to run away if it doesn't want to fight. That's cool, because a Cruiser can crap on a Destroyer AND a Cruiser is also fast enough to catch a Destroyer.

Unless significant changes are also made to Battleships, merely making Battlecruisers able to dunk Cruisers will mean Battlecruisers win every engagement with cruisers of the same tech level and cruisers are forced to flee while at the same time, Battlecruisers have the speed to run away from Battleships. I.e. they can do more than Destroyers currently can and you've overbuffed them.

If Attack Battleships were given significant increases to their speed so they can catch Battlecruisers the same way Attack Cruisers can catch Destroyers, I would support OP's proposal. Otherwise I do believe it would just shift from Cruisers Online to BCs Online.