Ships & Modules

Heh, the difference between shield and armor fit BCs is extremely obvious if you use torps. I took a torp Raven into 3 Hurricanes and ******* demolished 2 of them. DPS went to **** with the armor cane though - and I died. Same thing happens with bombers and BS sized guns (obvious if you use battleships or the new Tier 3s).

-Liang

approve since the whole conversation is pointless unless one of you guys is a hidden developer.

I think it was always a bit ridiculous that cruisers and battlecruisers can fit battleship plates.

I think one way to go at it is to remove their ability to fit 1600mm plates.

I feel like a lot of this conversation is moot, given that ccp announced they're basically rebalancing all classes of ships from the ground up.

I think it may be better to wait until the first wave of tiericide balancing takes place (T1 frigates, iirc), and then continue talking about further changes based on how that goes, rather than only thinking about the current soon-to-be-defunct balance framework.

I think you're fibbing.

This is not as accurate as it should be Liang. Sig bonus works for AB and for dead cap orbitting too whereas mwd sig bonus does what it says. I disagree with the argument though and agree with the proposal. You could let ceptors keep their bonus and change 1mn mwd sig penalty for everything (including ceptors)... after all there is no specific reason why ceptors should not be better than AFs in mwd speed tanking so long as they are fit to be cap stable...

OP- yes.

Hopefully the upcoming tiericide will narrow the gap between t1 BCs and the cruisers. If cruisers come out decent, with better agility and ewar (thanks to the specialized hulls) then the more powerful BC's I'll consider it balanced. Right now, there's two kinds of cruiser sized PVP ships: BC's, and Hurricanes.

The problem i see with your ongoing discussion related to stats...
or why i consider that bit balanced and discard it.

Is that the vast majority of you seem to lack an idea of how things relate and what you aim to achieve. It feels like you belive tweaking numbers here and there for the sake of it is the way to go - and then fill in the gaps as you go along the lines of "oh, changing that broke that, then we need to adress that as well afterwards".


Much - how much? The error of generalisation

When you generalise and say "Cruisers are not fast enough relative to BC" or "BS are not tanky enough relative to BC" how much would you consider relatively balanced and what do you envision for them to do? "More, just give them something" is not an acceptable answer. Do you consider the massive differences derived from role and bonus, that the span within a class is actually quite encompassing?

The difference between the slowest BC and the fastest Cruiser, as well as the most flimsy BC and the most rigid BS is extremely vast. Looking at average spreads you still see figures evening out around 50%, which is not a menial difference. It seems to me that alot of you, in your concept of balance (much like in the ongoing Tech III discussions), take positions based on individual ships you want to do something specific for your purpose; and then generalize that to class ("my tanky Cruiser isn't much faster than this fast BC, that have more tank and damage thanks to being a BC" - or "my tanky Cruiser is not near that tanky BC with it's extra core stats and slots inherent in being a larger class of ship - ontop of that racial bonus i can never have").


Much - this much! The error of trivialisation

As has been mentioned recently in this thread: every advantage on one end tend to come with drawbacks. You may not see them, they may lose relevance in certain trend or situations but just because your everyday player do not adapt to them doesn't make them nonexistant. You may consider it unfair because it's two different classes, but if you want to compare the slowest, largest and most tanky BC you should probably look up to inbetween BS. For example, look up the Drake's MWD-sig relative to the BS in the examples below, and then consider wether it needs a larger sig-bloom to be more inline with BS.

A Drake can be awesomely tanky yet an Abaddon has twice the tank. A Drake can be considered going too fast for it's EHP level but a Pest can still go faster on average slot-fill, fitting a similar tank, dealing twice the damage, sporting twice the utility in drones and projecting neuts twice the range and volume of a Cane (and yes, on the same MWD-sig). We are comparing two extremes of BS to one extreme of BC (one with the same role/bonus and how that scales, and one with the opposite role/bonus and how that relate). Looking at the average tank of a BS and you will see them sporting a good 50% of extra tank, over all BC in their top-tank configurations - which is incidentally the same general figure as a Cruiser has speed.

Once again, for most intents and purposes most classes are balanced relatively well to each other: look at both ends, the congruence and the average.

What would you need to hit BC better for their signature to be relevant to you? It's already perfectly possible to hit with L-sig and bloom it to the sig of a XL-gun by force (that's why we have all these complaints about Titans; and you will eventually see the same complaints regarding Moroses).



Not enough - too soon! If it's not sheer class balance? Skill- and income-progression

The real problem lie in ISK-balance being out of whack - solve that and you not only solve class (5m free, 30m free) issues, but also tiering issues (20m free, 30m free). There initial investment mean essentially nothing if you can afford insurance.

The other problem lie in skilling up - these are classes that utilize the same modules and only have a single skill that separate them. You don't see a natural flow over to Pests because we're looking at months of training inbetween, while going from a well-skilled Rupture to a decently skilled Cane is a matter of nothing.

ISK is irrelevant and SP is irrelevant - thus the ships are relegated to stepping stones and peripheral roles (specialist bonuses, engagability or plain old sentimentality).

Well flown BS will chew up and spit out any pre-Crucible BC in most situations (even big fleets these days with the profileration of Baddons and Alpha; but even more important at smaller scales with nano-BS actually being quite viable BC-killers up to 50-man gangs; same as most things). The fastest BS is quicker than the slowest BC just the same as the fastest BC is quicker than the slowest Cruiser. You can't really change the BC-progression without strongly affecting the NPE and introduction-level gameplay scaling (matching tech one progress to tiered mission-based gameplay; make new players wait around longer for a BC to their L3-L4 mission-progression and they will lose interest).

Look at the potential tank on a tanky cruiser like an Auguror or Moa, they already sport upward 40k EHP tanks. They may lack the utility to do much else then, but that is also a question of scaling, individual bonuses or systems; and what form of utility you consider relevant. At the end of the day, the BC just adapt too well into the trend of blob or number-game - that's the problem with them. The main problem with the Tier 3 BC is that they made that even worse on their balance of low defense - high offense and application. It doesn't help that they actually cost something to lose, comparatively. They have the downsides of the Drake without the upsides, and they were introduced due to the community and developer inability to adapt and scale.

Thus, adressing the free ships is the way to go (and adress scaling on an interactive level, not player separation).

It's the other ship classes that are ****

What would be the point of the brutix, ferox, prophecy, harbinger, cyclone, and hurricane, then? The tier 3 would obsolete them all if they all became glass cannons with large weapons. The myrmidon would field five ogres again in addition to large hybrids and the drake would fire torpedoes or cruise missiles; since they have different weapon platforms they wouldn't be obsoleted.