These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2015-09-12 10:03:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Not sure if anyone else has spoken about the Cyclone yet but I find the ship extremely frustrating.

One of the low slots in a Cyclone essentially has a Co-Processor welded in it. This is extremely annoying. I can't find any effective fit (which isn't armour tanked - yes you can armour tank a Cyclone. It's not bad) which doesn't require that co-processor.

I would approve of the cyclone receiving a heavy buff to CPU and moving a low slot to a mid (I would shed a tear for losing the armour tank option but I think it is worth it).

The reasons for this are that I simply find that the Cyclone does not have enough mid slots. A CBC really needs to fit both a prop mod and a MJD to be effective. The cyclone then needs to squeeze in a shield booster and a scram and web along with an invul field to be 100% effective. It needs that extra mid.


Also, in order to use a MJD aggressively, CBC's require the ability to lock a target at 100km. Minmatar CBC's literally can not do this effectively. Other racial CBC's can, even with a slight fitting tweak. This is a "must buff" for me.
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2015-09-12 10:33:58 UTC
CCP buffing my propheceptor \o/
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#243 - 2015-09-12 10:34:35 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Not sure if anyone else has spoken about the Cyclone yet but I find the ship extremely frustrating.

One of the low slots in a Cyclone essentially has a Co-Processor welded in it. This is extremely annoying. I can't find any effective fit (which isn't armour tanked - yes you can armour tank a Cyclone. It's not bad) which doesn't require that co-processor.

I would approve of the cyclone receiving a heavy buff to CPU and moving a low slot to a mid (I would shed a tear for losing the armour tank option but I think it is worth it).

The reasons for this are that I simply find that the Cyclone does not have enough mid slots. A CBC really needs to fit both a prop mod and a MJD to be effective. The cyclone then needs to squeeze in a shield booster and a scram and web along with an invul field to be 100% effective. It needs that extra mid.


Also, in order to use a MJD aggressively, CBC's require the ability to lock a target at 100km. Minmatar CBC's literally can not do this effectively. Other racial CBC's can, even with a slight fitting tweak. This is a "must buff" for me.


I am shocked that you have to use a fitting mod to fit an oversized module to a ship. Not in my Eve!

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#244 - 2015-09-12 10:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
FT Diomedes wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Not sure if anyone else has spoken about the Cyclone yet but I find the ship extremely frustrating.

One of the low slots in a Cyclone essentially has a Co-Processor welded in it. This is extremely annoying. I can't find any effective fit (which isn't armour tanked - yes you can armour tank a Cyclone. It's not bad) which doesn't require that co-processor.

I would approve of the cyclone receiving a heavy buff to CPU and moving a low slot to a mid (I would shed a tear for losing the armour tank option but I think it is worth it).

The reasons for this are that I simply find that the Cyclone does not have enough mid slots. A CBC really needs to fit both a prop mod and a MJD to be effective. The cyclone then needs to squeeze in a shield booster and a scram and web along with an invul field to be 100% effective. It needs that extra mid.


Also, in order to use a MJD aggressively, CBC's require the ability to lock a target at 100km. Minmatar CBC's literally can not do this effectively. Other racial CBC's can, even with a slight fitting tweak. This is a "must buff" for me.


I am shocked that you have to use a fitting mod to fit an oversized module to a ship. Not in my Eve!



The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises.

Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons.

Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#245 - 2015-09-12 10:52:31 UTC
afkalt wrote:


The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises.

Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons.

Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises.

His point was that you are oversizing your shield booster rather than using the actual one for BC's size.
Just because oversizing plates & boosters is common does not make it required.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#246 - 2015-09-12 11:03:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
afkalt wrote:


The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises.

Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons.

Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises.

His point was that you are oversizing your shield booster rather than using the actual one for BC's size.
Just because oversizing plates & boosters is common does not make it required.


And mines is that missiles are the only weapon system harshly penalized because they don't have the options all others do for their weapon fittings. Therefore those are the only ships forced into fitting mods, or just not bothering.

Downsizing from 425 to 220 or 180 is a far smaller hit than losing a BCU for a fitting mod, for example.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#247 - 2015-09-12 11:10:20 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
afkalt wrote:


The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises.

Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons.

Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises.

His point was that you are oversizing your shield booster rather than using the actual one for BC's size.
Just because oversizing plates & boosters is common does not make it required.



Actually, oversizing a shield booster is a requirement. It has been balanced this way because of the value of mid slots.

Dual or even triple armour rep fitting is possible and it also doesn't completely ruin your ship's overall effectiveness because it uses low slots.

In order to get similar overall effectiveness in an active shield fit, oversizing is necessary and plain well "in the design". Look at it yourself. Work the numbers. You will see that it is so and it is so because of the value of mid slots.

I also dislike the modules in game which are prefixed with a size. I feel this is completely out of character for a Sci-Fi atmosphere and the names should be much more similar to propulsion mods.

For example a Medium shield booster should be called a "500 Gj shield booster". A large shield booster a "750 Gj shield booster" and so on.

This naming convention would also uncouple "size" from a module (at least a little) which would remove the term "oversizing" and create the ideology of "Maximum Capability" of the ship.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#248 - 2015-09-12 11:30:43 UTC
afkalt wrote:
And mines is that missiles are the only weapon system harshly penalized because they don't have the options all others do for their weapon fittings. Therefore those are the only ships forced into fitting mods, or just not bothering.

Downsizing from 425 to 220 or 180 is a far smaller hit than losing a BCU for a fitting mod, for example.


I love to bring this up as often as I can, muahahaha

The reason for this "punishment" was as you might have guessed - 100% application. I didn't bring it up the last few times but it was implied.

Can you see now why I want it back?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
The Sinister
Interbellum
TURBOFEED OR GLORY
#249 - 2015-09-12 11:45:56 UTC
Thank You very much CCP for finally making BCs capable of defending against kiting ships. Was about damm time, 2 thumbs Up.
Jita Jitara
Piscis Austrinus Enterprise
#250 - 2015-09-12 11:52:53 UTC
:S
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#251 - 2015-09-12 12:15:10 UTC
Oh before I forget, can you give the Ferox her 5 unbonused missile launchers back? It's just for old times sake because it reminds me of my nubie days.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#252 - 2015-09-12 12:56:21 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
Here's an idea: give the medium micro jump drive a bonus to targeting range while active.
Right now MMJD is only usable as a defensive module except for the buffer tanked Myrmidon, Gnosis and N. Harbinger which can afford to sacrifice their 5th midslot for a sensor booster. This would allow battlecruisers to start locking as they spool up their MMJD which would make them a real threat to kiting ships which is very useful and much needed.


Single best idea in this thread.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#253 - 2015-09-12 13:08:20 UTC
Also, for the people not understanding the cyclone:

The ship has 2 fits mostly, first you have the single xlasb + ham setup, atm (prechanged) that shup deals 623 dps preheat and has 92kehp after the first reload (with the option to get a reload off). This gives it fairly amazing combat stats, especially in the current meta. It isnt good for fleets, for pve and similar but a 1 or 2 man gang of these is fairly powerfull.

The second one is the poor mans sleipnir or claymore, dual xlasb + hams, this gives the ship with force multipliers a peak tank of nearly 9k, or 4.4k per booster, resulting in about 2.2k permatanked.

Both of these fits are fairly rare, but nevertheless quite powerfull. Hence the ship beeing rare as hell, **** 90% of the time due to misues but a all around good ship in the right hands.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#254 - 2015-09-12 13:25:10 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:

Both of these fits are fairly rare, but nevertheless quite powerfull. Hence the ship beeing rare as hell, **** 90% of the time due to misues but a all around good ship in the right hands.



All of the Battlecruisers are "good in the right hands" (except the Drake maybe), not changing it "just because" is simply idiotic.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#255 - 2015-09-12 14:23:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Doris Dragonbreath wrote:
This buff does not include T2 BC's? I believe these could use some love as well?


Best love they can get is for t3 cruisers to lose the ability to fit warfare links and be nullified and fit a cov ops cloak at the same time.



baltec seriously, could you please give the T3C hate a rest. Nerfing the T3C isn't what this thread is about.

Also nerfing the T3Cs to hard could destroy blue loot value and forcing many wormholers into galactic poverty.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#256 - 2015-09-12 14:33:29 UTC
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:

Both of these fits are fairly rare, but nevertheless quite powerfull. Hence the ship beeing rare as hell, **** 90% of the time due to misues but a all around good ship in the right hands.



All of the Battlecruisers are "good in the right hands" (except the Drake maybe), not changing it "just because" is simply idiotic.


Not really, the ones that are arent getting changed much (cylcone, myrm). The rest was pretty bad all around.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#257 - 2015-09-12 14:50:46 UTC
No it wasnt. All of them had some super niche traplord fits for solo pvp (2x ASB Ferox, Kite shield or Armor brawl Harbinger for frig blapping comes to mind for example) just like the Cyclone does now. If the Cyclone is good they are aswell. If they are bad then the Cyclone is aswell.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#258 - 2015-09-12 14:54:00 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:

Both of these fits are fairly rare, but nevertheless quite powerfull. Hence the ship beeing rare as hell, **** 90% of the time due to misues but a all around good ship in the right hands.



All of the Battlecruisers are "good in the right hands" (except the Drake maybe), not changing it "just because" is simply idiotic.


Not really, the ones that are arent getting changed much (cylcone, myrm). The rest was pretty bad all around.


They all needed some love, but were still capable. I found them great at killing t3ds. Could handle most brawler cruisers and the arty kite cane was actually quite strong in the right hands (at the cost of having 0 tank minus a dcu).

100mn/MJD canes/harby were also very strong at brawling and range control. Anything that you couldnt catch, you mjd away from. Max application drake with MJD also murdered frigs, t3d and low sig cruisers with ease. I killed prenerf 10mn fessors with THERMAL missiles. Nuked svipuls with kinetic and handled sig tanking scyfi's.

The thing with BCs is everyone echo chambered "they were bad", and instead of being creative or adapting, they just decided to stop using them completely. The MJD is an incredibly useful tool and when setup for brawling, BCs can tear apart most ships in scram range and MJD away from things it cant catch.

With these changes, these ships are going to be strong, or at least more viable now. The fleet cane is a mini sleip now and im going to have a field day with it. It has a 50% bonus to tracking, which means 720s with sabot/quake will track like scorch HPL. But it will have a 4k volley.

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

Make the Muninn great again!
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#259 - 2015-09-12 15:05:19 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Baali Tekitsu wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:

Both of these fits are fairly rare, but nevertheless quite powerfull. Hence the ship beeing rare as hell, **** 90% of the time due to misues but a all around good ship in the right hands.



All of the Battlecruisers are "good in the right hands" (except the Drake maybe), not changing it "just because" is simply idiotic.


Not really, the ones that are arent getting changed much (cylcone, myrm). The rest was pretty bad all around.

Yes there are one or two semi effective uses for it but it still needs another mid slot to be relevant in the overall meta. That could either be from dropping a high slot or a low slot.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2015-09-12 15:30:15 UTC
Who cares about Drakes, I want to fly a Ferox!

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

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."