Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3041
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:17:00 -
[751] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang
Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
zahg
Vice Legion
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:21:00 -
[752] - Quote
I really like your t1 cruiser changes as i do for the BC change and BS change coming soon.
But what i do not like is that once again you remove an advantage to the solo players by making the navy and faction ships absolutly useless to pvp next to the t1 ones. A T1 caracal tank more, tackle better, have more speed, more CPU than a navy caracal....its just one from all the others.
Pimp was a way to give an extra boost to your solo ship against blobs (because lets say it, eve is all about blobs nowaday).
I'd like to see some serious thinking about the navy and faction.
Otherwise, thank you for all the efforts you do to make the game better for PVP. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:22:00 -
[753] - Quote
I'm not sure about the Harbinger on tranq being the worst t2 BC, but after these nerfs it certainly brings nothing to the table that other BCs don't already possess. Well, except for the worst maneuverability. That's unique. (its not the slowest one, guys, remember there are 3 slower ships).
So overall its just a completely forgettable hull. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:24:00 -
[754] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone.
What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?
This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.
if you up the brutix to 10% bonus for amor reps per level and made it include external incomming armor RR that would fix the scale problem with armor tanking all together...
now you can fit plates without waisting a bonus.
secondly get rid of the tanking bonus on the myrn reduce to only 4 high slots and give us a 6th mid slot (its a shield tanked ship anyways) and give us a bonus to 7.5% to drone optimal range and tracking per level
this will make the myrm a mean green sentry machine...
also to help medium rails please please please increase the rof of them... doing this would help make up for thier lackluster dps...
also while you are at it rebalance hybrid tech I ammo to ad divercity... (like they did for projectile ammo years ago)
thanks in advance
Fuk
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Mund Richard
255
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:25:00 -
[755] - Quote
Yay, you are back! And quite good points there.CCP Fozzie wrote:Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. In the Caldari lineup, both Ferox and Drake could be made work with 6 damage (or RoF) bonused hardpoints. Prophecy already lends itself to it. Myrm... must drone ships keep the one slot less, when it doesn't even have enough bay for ONE spare flight, yet alone utility drones (rep/ewar/frigkiller)? Minmatar are OK with their utility highs, if let's say Drake gets down to 6 launchers, Cyclone could have it's go up. Although then they'd be quite competing with each other. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
450
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:41:00 -
[756] - Quote
@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking.
Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?
|
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:42:00 -
[757] - Quote
@fozzie
You addressed most of my points with got feedback. but
why the values for the bandwidht and drone bay on the myrm?
and how the proposed changes seem to hurt the harb even more. ie. a net 7% increase in dps(with max skills only 2% with lvl 4) while further limiting its ability to get in range and actually do dps. as you said you cant comment on changes to how amour tanks vs shield tanking will work but are you considering these factors in how your changing the harb? |
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:46:00 -
[758] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking. Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills? 15 for leadership not sure were they are gtting 25m |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:49:00 -
[759] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Myrm... must drone ships keep the one slot less, when it doesn't even have enough bay for ONE spare flight, yet alone utility drones (rep/ewar/frigkiller)? This is very true. I'm all for Amarr being about smaller bandwidth and 3x bandwidth m3 drone bay, and Gallente being about more bandwidth, but the Gallente's drone bay should at least represent one new flight of drones. Otherwise, you're leaving almost all your dps on the field if you have to warp out--and this is especially true with the Myrm fielding SLOW Heavy drones. We all know we're not going to have time to wait for them to slowboat back to the ship if we have to bug out.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2609
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:59:00 -
[760] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking. Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?
Multiple characters, all mindlinks, etc.
-Liang
Ed: I'm trying to point out how much I have invested in leadership, and it would be wrong to simply say the max of one of my characters. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5518
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:00:00 -
[761] - Quote
Should you take another look at the Harbi, please note that Scorch + Energy Locus Coordinators create the sweet synergy that made the ship viable for me even if it was slow as hell. There should be enough PG left to fit energy weapon rigs as a valid alternative to the standard 3xTrimarks. As far as fitting is concerned, CPU should be the limiting factor, not both CPU and PG. Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
393
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:01:00 -
[762] - Quote
a bit off topic but has there been talk of treating the battleship skill like the BC skill? How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:06:00 -
[763] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie do you not find it strange that the drake will still have 6 mids and sh resis whilst having the best ranged most flexible weapon system? Surely a close range brawler needs the extra tank rather than ship with the best range looking at the harbinger as an example of similar range but no extra tank bonus..... Also after the combat cruiser buff surely increasing/tiny nerf to tank keeps the bc as too tanky for what is meant to be a slightly heavier dps version of the cruiser hull... sig radius of a bc being the same as amarr battleships seems ridicilous. the attack bc's are around 200 surely their is room to reduce it here much more. Also still confused on the whole hybrid/drone damage line being missed on the myrm only to be continued on the domi? |
Saul Hyperion
Palmetto Galactic
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:09:00 -
[764] - Quote
Admitting something is wrong with the Gallente BC bonuses is a step in the right direction. But saying you are working on active armor tanking is a bit of a cop out, for all we know, the changes could suck, or get nerfed to hell and back like the ASB. Then we are still stuck with a useless bonus. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:10:00 -
[765] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:a bit off topic but has there been talk of treating the battleship skill like the BC skill? Battleship skills are already broken up...not sure if trolling or not.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:38:00 -
[766] - Quote
Glad to see your post, Fozzie, including the followup that the Harbinger is being looked at.
Less glad about the timing, I was working on a followup article when it came out which said, among other things, the path to making the ferox a passable sniper isn't a damage bonus but a buff to rails and that a cyclone with six launchers is just a faster drake or a bad hurricane.
Ah well, I'll have to look like a prophet another time... This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mund Richard
255
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:42:00 -
[767] - Quote
fukier wrote:Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Ferox seems pretty terribad, and why does Brutix have an armor repper bonus - so useless ;O thats because it is... i have no idea why it still have an optimal range bonus... it really really needs a hubrid turret damage bonus... Imagine if the Ferox had 7 turrets with +25% damage bonus, 6 mids, and the shield resist. Now imagine you could fly that, or the Brutix... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:47:00 -
[768] - Quote
So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:51:00 -
[769] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones.
Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as "heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored.
Or we could, you know, not try to pigeon-hole everything into hundred year old naval concepts instead. That would also work. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Spartan dax
0utbreak Outbreak.
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:55:00 -
[770] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
The Ferox simply must have its optimal bonus, don't you dare defile it like the anathema that is now known as a Merlin!
Few things regarding the Ferox though. The resistance bonus lends itself well for brawling it out with blasters but the slot layout makes it hard getting a web on there, making range control difficult and the optimal bonus while not useless at the very least less.... optimal... a 7/6/4 layout instead would make it a fearsome brawling ship. Range is damage even with blasters but without range control parity with armor ships that can easily fit a web the optimal bonus will always be less than stellar.
For Railwork I'd argue that the resistance bonus is a severly sub par bonus but the 7/5/5 slot layout excellent.
In short, change the slot layout or the resistance bonus. Not that a 7/6/4 Optimal/ damage Ferox would make me cry myself to sleep or anything.
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
450
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:58:00 -
[771] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely.... His description of plans for the tier3's (Attack vs. Combat) made me think just that. The fitting gap between SR/LR weapons should be large enough to give them a tank slightly larger than cruisers with SR while leaving nothing when going LR .. should be possible at any rate as it is frightfully close to that now. Trick will be to somehow widen the gap so that we don't suddenly drown in fast, tanked snipers. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
190
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:05:00 -
[772] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
May I consider this as a temporary answer to the thread linked in my signature ?
Something like: "We are aware of the issue, but can't talk about how we plan to fix it, yet." ? Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2852
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:20:00 -
[773] - Quote
Why do people keep thinking there will be a higher tier of battlecruisers after the removal of tiers?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:25:00 -
[774] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones. Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as " heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored.
Hate to break it too you, but I believe that role is already taken |
Danny Centauri
Huzzah Industries
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:33:00 -
[775] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?
This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.
Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
Why is the Cyclone getting just 5 launchers and why does it keep 2 turrets?
Creating effective balance between the Cyclone and the Drake is tricky business. We are aiming for a useful tradeoff between the ships, with the Cyclone significantly faster and more maneuverable and with two utility highs vs the Drake's extra missile damage, with the shield boost bonus vs resists. If it turns out that the Cyclone needs more damage to be competitive, then changing it is not off the table, but we're going to be careful here. As for the turrets, we consider these slots to be utility highs. The existence of the turrets is simply to provide people more room to do creative things with fits and go max gank if they feel the need. A vast majority of the time we expect those remaining highs to be filled with Neuts, Smartbombs, Gang links, Probes, Salvagers or other handy highslot modules. Having two unbonused weapons available as an option for utility highs is not the same thing as split weapons, and the Cyclone is no more a split weapon ship than the Raven is. Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.
To raise the quoted points in turn:
Active armor tanking for Gallente - Can the Brutix get a resistance bonus, which would then pass over to the Eos when command ships are rebalanced perhaps? I personally think Gallente ships struggle on the survivability front which means Amarr will become god after the proposed changes and soon to be commandship bonus's.
The Ferox and its bonus's - Run your data again on the ferox and who fits what, but split it by high, low, null - or by PvP losses preferably. The reason people fit rails is its a noob mission running ship, if it had reasonable bonus's people wouldn't. Your condemning the ferox to a life in hangers. The Caldari already have the naga to shoot long range, they don't need two ships.
The Cyclone - Its distinguishing feature should not be its missile DPS but the fact it already has a weaker tank due the the mid and low slot layout and the base HP. I think this is a bad reason to keep the current slot layout, I would prefer 6 missiles 1 utility high with no ability to fit a turret or it becomes OP. Really think you need to reconsider this further, I would even go for a further drop in shield base HP to get a extra missile launcher. This way you will see no buffer cyclones and primarily ASB fits where as Drakes will be buffer fit as they are currently.
|
Alli Othman
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:34:00 -
[776] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:...Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.
Thank you basedgod! |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:36:00 -
[777] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:mynnna wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones. Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as " heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored. Hate to break it too you, but I believe that role is already taken
If combat battlecruisers are more like heavy cruisers, I'd be more inclined to consider HACs as something more like a modern aegis cruiser or something. But like I said, trying to apply hundred year old naval concepts here leaves you coming up short, so why bother? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
316
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:38:00 -
[778] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Yes, please give the Ferox or Drake a utily high. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:33:00 -
[779] - Quote
Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
566
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:44:00 -
[780] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |