|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
484
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
A Ferox with optimal and resist bonuses is hopelessly obsoleted by the Naga. But giving it damage instead of optimal means that it'll have the same bonuses as the Moa - instead making the Moa hopelessly obsolete as the Ferox effectively becomes a high-tier cruiser, expressly counter to the principle of tiericide.
Good luck solving that conundrum. Switching the Moa to optimal and damage is about the only solution I can think of, and even that doesn't sound very attractive.
Well, nerfing the t3s into the ground might work too. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
485
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote:The ferox, drake and brutix are missing their utility high for a warfare link.
Maybe the Ferox, Drake and Brutix should all be given a utility high by removing a turret from each? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
487
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:
If Raivi makes a ship that's already slow as fck even slower that thus MUST mean there's a plate/armor rig change in the works which will more than make up for it. Stop being ****, stop being uninformed and stop whining like a 5 yearold.
I wouldn't absolutely count on it. One of the problems with BCs was that there was insufficient difference in mobility between them and cruisers, serving to push cruisers towards obsolescence as little more than low-tier battlecruisers. Now, sure, the cruiser tiercide has gone a long way towards fixing this, but I'm not surprised at all to see BC mobility reduced too - although ofc the main offender was the Hurricane rather than the Harbinger! |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
487
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Turn the Ferox into a big Moa!
Then what would be the point of the Moa? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
487
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tiberius Funk wrote:First of all, and I think this has been said a 100 times in this thread but just to reiterate, BCs (other than tier 3s) have a role bonus for gang links therefore every BC should have at least one utility high slot. SO WHY ON GODS GOOD EARTH HAVE THE HIGHS GENERALLY BEEN REMOVED?!!?!?!?
To force a choice between weapons and gang links. Battlecruisers have long suffered from being too good at too many things. There's no point in fitting requirements if you can just fit whatever you like all of the time.
Quote:**Nos SSHHHHHERIOUSHLY needs a buff after it took a right royal nerf hammering. Please buff it so you can drain a ship dry but you will only get cap for your own ship up to say 33%-50% of your cap.
Then what would be the point of neuts? The mechanism of nos is perfect, it just needs tweaks to fitting requirements and drain amount. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
490
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Balance ships, not slot numbers. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 11:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga?
There will be a small niche for the Ferox as an inside-web-range brawler. Now, you'd probably be right to say that the Ferox would be better with a damage bonus in that role, notwithstanding the better range flexibility of range-bonused blasters, but if the Ferox has a damage bonus would there be any incentive to fly the Moa over the Ferox? Any incentive would only be related to mobilitiy, but by giving the Ferox mobility poor enough to make the Moa relevant would end up favouring the optimal bonus.
I thought about a tracking bonus instead for the Ferox for a bit - tracking and optimal would help the rail Ferox relative to the Naga - but I don't think it's a battlecruiser's job to be fighting frigates. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 16:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Cyclone should keep it's RoF bonus. Make it the 'DPS' missile boat.
The Cyclone will be the mobile missile BC, it shouldn't be the DPSy one too. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
493
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Also, it probably got missed a couple of pages ago, but I suggested dropping the resist bonus on the Drake in favour of a missile.velocity bonus, like the other caldari missile boats.
Does anyone have opinions in that, for or against?
Bad idea, results in too much overlap with the Caracal, just like giving the Ferox a damage bonus (but with the Moa, obviously).
Since cruisers and BCs use the same weapons size, we can't have BCs effectively being big cruisers - it defeats the point of tiericide. Battlecruisers need to have different roles, relative to cruisers, which very likely requires different bonuses and significantly inferior mobility. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Balance ships, not bonuses. |
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
500
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 11:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
Marko box wrote:So i guess any criticism is too late now with changes allready on sisi? But ill post this anyways. That agility nerf and mass increase on drake is totally unnesesery nerf to any kind of kiting fit and basicly limits the ship to a close range brawler.
TBH if you want a kitey T1 HM/HAM ship, you should be flying a Caracal.
BCs obsoleting cruisers has long been a serious problem and I'm glad that some sort of separation between the classes is opening up. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
505
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 08:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type that also a huge PvE disadavantage for new players. I hope that those side-effects are not intended.
It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
505
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Gypsio III wrote: It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.
They might be. But I doubt that that is the reason. They wanted to free up a high for links, without cutting out any other slots. Likely an unintentional side effect. Besides, as a T1 ship there should be a moderate entry level for effectiveness. Mastery of course should take more time, but the difference between mastery and effectiveness shouldn't be too vast on a T1 ship. T2 ships though should absolutely punish those who attempt to enter them prematurely.
I don't have a quote for this, but I'm pretty sure that CCP did say that they were unhappy with the newbie's general progression of "get in a BC as fast as possible and ignore cruisers". But certainly removing that philosophy fits in with the principle of tiericide.
Now, certainly the primary intent for the 10% Drake kinetic bonus is to free up a highslot for a link. But the fundamental problem with BCs is that they're too good at doing too many things and they need to be less flexible, and the 10% bonus fits in with that, while simultaneously creating further distinction between the Drake and the Caldari T1 cruiser missile cruiser. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
507
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 14:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:The Railgun sniper ship is pretty much dead because railguns doesn't hit very hard compared to artillery and even way smaller ships can easily get away before getting in trouble. However "someone" didn't complete the hybrid rebalance as they promised...
Also when it comes to Naga and Rokh I really hope the Rokh gets that damage bonus because getting the range bonus when you already have the guns with the longest range isn't very good. Especially with the Naga really outperforming Rokh on the weapon systems is just plain wrong...
Despite not having a damage bonus, I think the general feeling is that the Rokh is fine. I mean, it's No. 1 on the top 20!. The resist bonus is probably too useful in the logi-supported fleets to be thrown away like that. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
510
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 20:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Saul Elsyn wrote:I wish 'Combat Ships' were actually given a specific role... If I was doing this I'd divide them into 'Assault' and 'Artillery' types or 'Assault' and 'Siege' or something. Assault do more damage, maybe even have a role bonus to capacitor or powergrid use of weapons. Artillery have much greater range, maybe even a role bonus to range or something. Siege tank better...
CCP originally proposed a "bombardment" role, which sounds like your long-range "siege" thing. They deleted the "bombardment" idea after realising that it wasn't a role that could be restricted sensibly to a class of ships, but a fundamental ability of all ships. Meaning that any ship can fit long-range weapons and play the "bombardment" role - the only way to restrict it would be to give bonuses to, say, beam lasers - but that would result in a very restricted ship of limited value elsewhere, and basically just annoy everyone. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
511
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
To mare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest.
the problem is said Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest use 2 bonus to get that dps the drake and all the others 10% bonused ship use just 1 bonus and after that they have another useful bonus.
Balance ships, not bonuses. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
515
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 11:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
I don't think you should be entirely surprised by the poor mobility of BCs. After all, if you want a mobile T1 medium-weapon platform you should be flying a cruiser. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 11:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
Pankora t'Pastamancer wrote:Jin alPatar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Please rethink this part. Active local tank bonuses are not competitive with the resist bonus. Active tank bonuses need to be larger across the board. Please update. :)
Balance ships, not bonuses. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 14:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Roime wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Pankora t'Pastamancer wrote:Jin alPatar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Please rethink this part. Active local tank bonuses are not competitive with the resist bonus. Active tank bonuses need to be larger across the board. Please update. :) Balance ships, not bonuses. Ok, BCs with active tank bonuses are not competitive with resist bonuses except in 1vs1 situations. Easiest way to fix this is to rebalance the bonuses.
Good fixes, not easy fixes.
Blanket changes are almost always a bad idea - resulting in undeserved boosts to ships that don't need boosting while not fixing the ships that do need help.
Take the 2009 projectile changes, the major benefactors of which were the Sleipnir, Hurricane, Thrasher and Rifter, ships already highly competitive in their classes. Take the recent hybrid changes didn't fix medium rails while giving an undeserved boost to small blasters and small rails. Take the recent application of GMP to unguided missiles was very welcome for torps but unnecessary for rockets.
Let the AAR changes settle in, then balance active-bonused ship individually - or just alter active-tanking, of course. For example, the Sleipnir doesn't need boosting relative to its field CS counterparts, while it would be absurd to give the Claymore an increased shield boost bonus when its role dictates that it needs a HIC-style resist bonus. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Balance ships, not bonuses. Are you suggesting then we should remove all bonuses from all thips and just give them all the the same layouts, the same stats and give them all the same amount of turret and missiles slots as well as the same amount of drones? How about we get rid of all meta and T2 gear too? Then everything will be balanced, right down the middle.
You misunderstand.
Quote:Alternatively, we can accept the fact that ship bonuses are an intrinsic and integral part of what makes a ship both unique and what it is.
Indeed. Since we fly ships rather than bonuses, it is absurd to criticise a bonus as "bad" or "obsolete"; it is not useful to look at bonuses in isolation because bonuses do not exist in-game in isolation. As you say, what matters is the value of the ship as a whole.
The arguments of diversity and uniqueness also have merit. Even if a ship was agreed to deserve a tank boost, it might not be appropriate to move its active rep bonus to resist or EHP, if it resulted in a reduction of the diversity of ships and tanking style seen in game - the route to fixing active tanking doesn't involve deleting it. I appreciate that the diversity argument cuts both ways - where is the diversity in both Caldari/Gallente BCs having resist/rep bonuses? - but diversity still has to be balanced against inter-and intra-class balance, making it problematic IMO to give the Ferox a damage bonus, or the Brutix a tracking bonus in place of its rep bonus.
But this isn't to say that active-tank bonuses shouldn't be replaced on certain ships. Command ships, for example, need to survive as link platforms in fleet environments, and hence are entirely deserving of resist bonuses, just as seen for HICs, whose role puts them in a similar environment. In this case, any perceived lack of diversity of CS bonuses is trumped by the needs of their narrow tactical role.
In the specific case of the call for 10% rep bonuses, it has merit as part of a fix to active-tanking ships. But it shouldn't be applied across the board, it should be applied where needed. A 10% rep bonus for the Incursus would probably be excessive; the Sleipnir certainly has no argument for deserving a 10% boost bonus. Ultimately, it all comes back to fixing the ships that need fixing, rather than crudely applying blanket changes. Hence, balance individual ships rather than classes of bonuses.
|
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 21:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:About Cyclone/Ferox: This is only an idea. I'm well aware that this will not really fix much.
I have a counters-suggestion since everybody is around making DPS/Dmg or doing things that hurt... It is not really a good one though. I'm not all too sure if Signature Resolutions of Turrets are that decisive in to-Hit calculations nowadays. Nonetheless, it is a notable factor when shooting upon smaller targets.
More or less, it is about range, but perhaps this could be worth it. I don't know well the Ferox is with Rails, as I never used it with such - but provided it is used as a Blaster/Railboat, maybe this could help?
How about an additional role bonus for Ferox next to its ganglink bonus: - x% bonus-reduction to Signature Resolution for Ferox' turrets - Combine with Optimal Range bonus and a Tracking Comp, this could be dangerous vs Cruisers and smaller.
Decreasing a turret's sig resolution is the same as increasing its tracking. So it's just a different way of giving a tracking bonus. And as someone said above, I don't think we should make BCs too good at hitting small stuff, so I'd be wary of tracking bonuses anyway. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 21:40:00 -
[22] - Quote
Aglais wrote:If this turned into a generic missile damage bonus, maybe even just 7.5% per level, that'd be far better than this 10% kinetic only decision.
It would also be overpowered, which is why they're not doing it. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
517
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 11:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved.
Oh hey look! It's a suggestion that totally ignores the reason that the ship rebalancing initiative was taken in the first place!You're an idiot; the reason any of this is happening is so that all races have adequate and competitive ships; not so that we can have even more 'Winmatar' happening here. @Gypsio III: Can you give me reasons WHY it'd be overpowered? Don't just say "well it'd be OP so they're not doing that", give me your reasoning and perhaps I could, I don't know, alter my argument so that I could suggest a reasonable change instead of just accepting a stupid bonus that is more of a crippling than anything else, leading you to come to the conclusion of the idiot whom I quoted at the beginning of this post. Further, It'd be doing equal amounts of damage with any missile type, but focusing on volley damage rather than rate of fire, like the Cyclone, which keeps them distinct. And it'd still do slightly less damage with any damage type than it does now with this kinetic only bonus. Also, your argument should not include "well you can build the Drake to be a huge fat EHP brick".
Because 728 DPS with freely-selectable missile damage types is too much for an 86k EHP medium-weapon T1 brawler platform with full tackle. You need to ensure that the Cyclone and, more importantly, the T1 cruisers have gamespace in which to exist - this is after all the entire point of tiericide. Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed because they're effectively just top-tier cruisers. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
517
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 19:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Gypsio III wrote:
Because 726 DPS with freely-selectable missile damage types is too much for a medium-weapon T1 brawler platform with full tackle and 80k EHP, overheating to 90k. You need to ensure that the Cyclone and, more importantly, the T1 cruisers have gamespace in which to exist - this is after all the entire point of tiericide. Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed because they're effectively just top-tier cruisers. Let the Drake have that DPS only for kinetic and you create more significant choices about fits and ammo selection.
What? Hold on. How are you fitting this Drake? Is this going to be one of those bizarre fits that people use to show that you CAN do something that has extremely little use outside of like... One situation, ever? Like all of the completely awful Moa fits that one guy was trying to use to justify not buffing the Moa? Like, this is a HAM drake. Webs are a good idea. There goes some of your tank. Nanofibres are going to be a good idea too, because as a Caldari ship literally everything else will outrun you, and you need the nanofibre to just MAYBE catch them before they manage to completely get away from you. So your ability to fit loads of BCS is limited. I need to double check, but the fit with actual combat utility that I have been thinking about does not have 80k EHP overheating to 90k, and it sure as hell doesn't do 726 DPS. The EHP is closer to 55k, with about 535 missile DPS (~610 when you throw 5 hobgoblins into the mix). And that's with Scourge Rage HAMs. Are you forgetting to account for the fact that the Drake lost a launcher recently?
It's a basic HAM Drake. Sod the nanofibres, this isn't a kiting fit and the benefit is small.
[Drake, HAM] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5 |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
517
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 08:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
Aglais wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats.
I will edit this post shortly to give notice on how completely the Drake fails against something that is prepared to fight it (which isn't so much something you can do with the Cyclone, given that if you think it's going to just pull out explosive missiles it'll pick something else to shoot at you).
You need to stop expecting to receive a ship that is good in all situations and against all enemies. Such a ship would be self-evidently OP.
In any case:
Cyclone with 5x HAMLs and 2x BCS: 413 missile DPS, fully selectable. Drake with 6x HAMLs and 3x BCS: 418 missile DPS using non-kinetic.
Yes, I know that the Cyclone has a BCS fewer, a larger drone bay and the two turret slots, but the damage selectabilty from drones is limited, those turrets will often have neuts or be using Barrage and the lowslots may be limited because of ramming multiple ASBs on. The point remains that you're overstating the Cyclone's applied damage advantage and if there is a problem, it's with the Cyclone rather than the Drake, because as everyone keeps trying to tell you, blaster and laser boats are even more locked into predictable, counterable damage types than the Drake. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
520
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 19:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Fozzie, you should throw caution to the wind with the Drake. There's no need to be so dramatic as all that. Drop the shield resist and the ******** kinetic damage buff, and give it the same ROF + Velocity treatment as the Caracal. Problem solved.
Same bonuses, same weapon systems, same tanking style. Honestly, what's the point? |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
552
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 09:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:
That said, the Myrm is still a great boat. The only point is that it does not have a clearly defined niche.
I'm really not keen on a Myrm with a drone tracking/speed bonus. BCs shouldn't be too good at whacking frigates, in the same way that neither Drake nor Cyclone get bonuses to RLMLs.
I think the Myrm should have a clearer mobility advantage over the Prophecy - if the Myrm is intended for small-scale combat where the rep bonus is a useful option - yeah yeah ASBs - then it needs to have an appropriate mobility advantage over the Prophecy. As it is, a shield Prophecy is faster and more agile than an active armour Myrm, which seems a bit silly. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
565
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 09:56:00 -
[28] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Bizheep wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:What gets me going now is the ugly fact that a standard cookie cutter drake with heavies can't break the tank of another drake with the same fit. Lol I tried it and before you ask I have elite missile skills probably because you are just using a terribad fit try replacing some shield power relay with BCS I was referring to the standard cookie cutter fit, that you see in big alliances out in null. My fit is ******* awesome and doesn't include shield power relays and was not the fit being discussed. I do not fly around in crap fits. I leave that to the goons
PVP buffer Drakes do not tank 400 DPS kinetic. Your fit is crap. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
565
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 09:04:00 -
[29] - Quote
There's nothing the matter with the Cyclone's DPS, it can do more than the Drake. You just have to forgo those dual medium neuts... |
|
|
|