Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
636
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 19:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Allow me to start by stating that Tier3 BCs are a horribly broken class. They are a fun concept, but in practice they are bland and upset ship balance worse than any other class.
The combination of their speed+agility & damage+range allow these ships to appear on the field quickly, and do lots of damage from a safe distance. They are quite fragile, and offer minimal ship defense, so they are somewhat fixed to mid-long range engagements, usually with help
There is a problem with these ships, and that problem plagues small gangs and soloers the most. These ships are what typically appear after a fight has already begun, and will (more often than not) sway the win.
Tier3s are opportunists ships. They do not work terribly well on their own, and require support. Tier3s are overlapping roles. They are more effective (cost and combat) than a HAC (their closest counterpart), and outperform sniping Cruisers/Battlecruisers & even BS outside of a fleet composition.
Being that EVE is a game of blobs, these ships are generally not the only damage you need to deal with. I cannot count the number of fights where a gangs composition is made 100% unengagable simply because nobody can tank the gang PLUS an extra 800+ that each t3 brings.
Cruisers can't exactly compete because they get shot out of the sky, and frigates can only kill them if the pilot is blind to someone burning for them.
Tier3 only become less effective at the large fleet level, where HP actually matters.
My suggestions? Do one (or two) of the following set changes; - Nuke their lock range. Bring their max lock range to around 40km or so, resulting in rigs/mods being used to lock beyond. - Reduce their speed further. They shouldn't be as fast as Cruisers, they are Battlecruisers. - Reduce their scan res to somewhere well between BCs & BSs.
Frankly, ATM there isn't even a point trying to fly a tanky ship when these are still about. I would even go so far as to say that one of these appearing on the field is worse than ECM. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2297
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 19:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
What's a tier? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
636
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 19:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Oh right, "Attack BattleCruisers" aka Tier3. Naga/Talos/Oracle/Tornado -áwww.promsrage.com |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War Game 0f Tears
91
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 19:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
tentatively support your proposal Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread --- Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3503687&#post3503687 ----á for FW rebalance in 2013 |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1519
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 20:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
There's some problems that plague ABCs, too. They're called sensor damps and tracking disruptors. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
198
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 21:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
I think they're fine as is. As you point out, they are somewhat weak from a tank standpoint - and to truly realize any long-range potential often means substituting tank modules for sensory, range and tracking ones. This makes them extremely vulnerable to any fast-moving or short-range opponents. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Psychoactive Stimulant
TinklePee
33
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 22:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Rock OP, pls nerf rock. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
509
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 22:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
The main points where brought up in the ABC thread and CCP ignored them...
ABC's aren't proper bc's they are basically cruisers with battleship guns and should be T2 battlecruisers as they are clearly specialist ships ..NOT ...attack battlecruisers and there dps is simply too high combined with the range projection to be on a mobile T1 hull.
in a nutshell: - make them T2 bc's the extra cost/ training time will provide some barriers to mass usage and they are specialist ships - allows 4 of the combat bc's too become attack bc's - remove a turret or two - tighten fittings for SR weapons only
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Forsak3n.
607
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 23:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Oh right, "Attack BattleCruisers" aka Tier3. Naga/Talos/Oracle/Tornado allow me to remind you that there are no tiers anymore, as if I'm some blathering idiot who doesn't think you actually know this and who also doesn't have the foresight to realize that you may have wanted to help clarify your point a bit.
But on a more serious note, I do think the attack battlecruisers are a bit overpowered. I think they would have been plenty popular if they had been nearly identical except for fitting medium weapons instead of large. They are more mobile and have a smaller sig radius than combat battlecruisers, and their HP/powergrid are lower to match, but still higher than cruisers. They could have even kept a powergrid reduction, say 50%, to make them able to fit a full rack of medium weapons on a smaller powergrid than a combat BC would have. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
391
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 23:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
ABCs are working fine and are the only true battlecruisers in the game, they have weak tanks and are vulnerable to ewar which is a fair swap for more damage. The traditional battlecruisers in the game are actually heavy cruisers given that they have strong tanks but only cruiser sized weaponry. A battlecruisers is a cruiser with battleships guns on it in traditional wet navy nomenclature, the ABCs meet this need and fill this niche perfectly. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
|
Vassal Zeren
Uncontrollable Innovations
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 23:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:What's a tier?
Don't be cute. A tier is that thing that ships moor to and you fish off of. Oh wait. A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver. |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War Game 0f Tears
92
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 23:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
care to cite some specific examples? Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread --- Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3503687&#post3503687 ----á for FW rebalance in 2013 |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
198
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 02:15:00 -
[13] - Quote
If we work really hard at it, maybe we can "balance" every class to the point where ships are indistinguishable from one another. -1, stop with the stupid neuter posts already; you're ruining the game. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 03:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:ABCs are working fine and are the only true battlecruisers in the game, they have weak tanks and are vulnerable to ewar which is a fair swap for more damage. The traditional battlecruisers in the game are actually heavy cruisers given that they have strong tanks but only cruiser sized weaponry. A battlecruisers is a cruiser with battleships guns on it in traditional wet navy nomenclature, the ABCs meet this need and fill this niche perfectly.
No, actually the traditional (i.e. WWI period) battlecruisers were actually battleship sized. The original (British) battlecruisers sacrificed a small amount of firepower and a lot of armour for speed. The German battlecruisers sacrificed very little armour, and some firepower for speed.
The Attack Battlecruisers, with their battleship DPS and cruiser tank, size, and agility, resemble no RW class of ship. The closest would be the German 'pocket battleships', though they didn't actually have battleship firepower.
|
Andrew Indy
Four Pillar Production Headshot Gaming
30
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 04:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
ABCs are also pretty limited in their usable scenarios, you pretty much have to have Tacs and be warping in at range Good luck breaking through a gate camp (even T1 frig gang could face **** a whole bunch of ABCs) |
Humang
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 05:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
I'm in the "Make them T2" camp, as they are somewhat specialised to a single role. Duno about nerfing them, but at least restricting there access seems more viable. |
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
11
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 05:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
So, you constantly find yourself outgunned and your gonna complain about it? Field a better fleet.
As for ABCs, I think their fine the way they are. Their damage (based on ammo type) diminishes significantly with range and their tank is laughably week. Long range snipe (100+ km) ABC is almost ineffective as a group modifier. Max damage of a tornado would limit it to around 70km (w/ fleet boost). If you don't have at least one ship ship in your fleet that can shoot that far, your fleet is ill formed.
Also, you mention your in a small fleet (assuming a couple toons max). Get a larger fleet! Don't expect CCP to change the game mechanics so you can fly your few players safely.
Your fleet was out classed and out matched. Wouldn't expect too much symapthy in light of the fact that nothing is stopping your from fielding ABCs in your own fleet to counter.
BTW: I'm not being an horses rear (since we can't curse on forums). Check my stats. I get stuff blown up all the time. Learn from it (or not). Don't complain about it being unfair. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
368
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 06:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
Nerfed fittings and cap would be cool. I'd rather that they just be removed entirely though tbh. |
Wapu Kashuken
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
12
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 07:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
Wapu Kashuken wrote:So, you constantly find yourself outgunned and your gonna complain about it? Field a better fleet.
As for ABCs, I think their fine the way they are. Their damage (based on ammo type) diminishes significantly with range and their tank is laughably week. Long range snipe (100+ km) ABC is almost ineffective as a group modifier. Max damage of a tornado would limit it to around [edit]~30km[/]. If you don't have at least one ship ship in your fleet that can shoot that far, your fleet is ill formed.
Also, you mention your in a small fleet (assuming a couple toons max). Get a larger fleet! Don't expect CCP to change the game mechanics so you can fly your few players safely.
Your fleet was out classed and out matched. Wouldn't expect too much symapthy in light of the fact that nothing is stopping your from fielding ABCs in your own fleet to counter.
BTW: I'm not being an horses rear (since we can't curse on forums). Check my stats. I get stuff blown up all the time. Learn from it (or not). Don't complain about it being unfair.
|
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
172
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 07:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Tier3s are opportunists ships. They do not work terribly well on their own, and require support. Tier3s are overlapping roles. They are more effective (cost and combat) than a HAC (their closest counterpart), and outperform sniping Cruisers/Battlecruisers & even BS outside of a fleet composition. I see a ship role.
I don't see a problem.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
|
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 08:13:00 -
[21] - Quote
They seem to be working as planned. While it is never pleasant being caught by them while engaged in a fight since I am more than willing to crash someone else's party in the same manner I don't have room to complain.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law |
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
3464
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 09:05:00 -
[22] - Quote
I've seen people complain about them, but tbh I've never actually seen ABCs overpower anything but structures on TQ.
People don't usually fly them due to price, slowness and vulnerability to all other ship classes. . |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
252
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 10:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
Don't get it. They are extremely strong, but their applied dps in those fagcamps (sabre, three falcons, 2 nagas) is really low with them using longrangefits/stuff. Putting aside that fighting uphill against prepared people is a pita, shooting from 50+ with large guns is always a smart thing, so you're making it very hard for yourself taking that fight at all. If it's about landing in a gatecamp with sabres/falcons/ABCs, then you just got butt******.
I do not see how any change will make a big difference for what you are complaining about. They hit hard over long range. Fittings just were even more optimized towards supporting that play if the stats were to be cut, also you'd destroy the ships for a lot of smallgang people, as with the reent rise of HACs, ABCs already are losing ground. (ABCs dumpstered by AHACs / CS all over the place)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3633385&#post3633385 - 15% more tank since the 1.1-patch. |
Verity Sovereign
Sovereign Fleet Tax Shelter
560
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 11:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:There is a problem with these ships, and that problem plagues small gangs and soloers the most. These ships are what typically appear after a fight has already begun, and will (more often than not) sway the win.
So the problem is that when more ships come, they sway the fight? I don't get it...
Quote:They do not work terribly well on their own, and require support. Sounds like balance
Quote:I cannot count the number of fights where a gangs composition is made 100% unengagable simply because nobody can tank the gang PLUS an extra 800+ that each t3 brings.
Cruisers can't exactly compete because they get shot out of the sky, and frigates can only kill them if the pilot is blind to someone burning for them.
How is this different than if they had rokhs or sentry domi's sitting at range
Quote:Tier3 only become less effective at the large fleet level, where HP actually matters. Ah, thats how its different, if you have as many ships as them, the low HP of ABCs is a bad thing. So... again, sounds like balance
You have failed to convince me there is a problem.
IMO, the biggest problem with them, is how much easier they make it to gank higher HP targets in High sec, and still be cost effective.
Of course, thats not a problem per se - it shifts the balance in favor of gankers, but doesn't break the balance. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 11:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:Quote:I cannot count the number of fights where a gangs composition is made 100% unengagable simply because nobody can tank the gang PLUS an extra 800+ that each t3 brings.
Cruisers can't exactly compete because they get shot out of the sky, and frigates can only kill them if the pilot is blind to someone burning for them. How is this different than if they had rokhs or sentry domi's sitting at range The difference is that the Rohks will ignore the frigate until it's ~40km away, and then a fleet's worth of Warrior IIs will get dumped on the frigate.
|
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 12:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
ABCs are overpowered in a ridiculous fashion. Their speed/agility/scanres is the core of the issue. There is absolutely no reasoning for them to be the machariels of BCs while being the top damage dealers and snipers. They should not have this agility advantage, the damage and range is their role and that's it.
So, 1) bring their top speed slightly under that of regular BC 2) bring their scanres clearly under that of BC 3) bring their agility slightly under that of BC
Now you have a specialized glass cannon. Not a kiting glass Ferrari of doom.
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
596
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 12:25:00 -
[27] - Quote
They don't seem overpowered to me. They die fast if they're hit.
If you're not hitting them, you're either outnumbered or you're ship is fitted incorrectly for the encounter. Either way, it's not the fault of the ABC.
|
Darth Khasei
Wavestar Business Ventures Inc.
117
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 13:55:00 -
[28] - Quote
Respect.
I don't think the devs see any issues that are nerf worthy with ABC's, neither do I.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
557
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 14:31:00 -
[29] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:ABCs are working fine and are the only true battlecruisers in the game,
This game is 30k+ years in the future AND in space. Please stop clinging to archaic 20th century warship terms as a justification to undermine the names chosen in this game to describe a class of ships between cruisers and Battleships.
Now, let me get back on topic... While I don't always agree with prom (especially his old point about how the absolution was based off the harb, lol...) In regards to his analysis on ABCs, he's spot on. These ships have lead to more problems than any other ship in the past 4-5 years. Was even more upsetting is that their presence is significantly effecting the most recent balancing decisions... Take a look at the medium long range weaponry, you will see that it's dps was drastically increased in an attempt to give these weapons a role along side short ranged weapons fit onto abcs. The result is that the difference relative difference of dps between short and long range weapons in the medium lineup is completely out of wack when compared to small and large weapons.
In conclusion, the problem had far less to do with medium long range weapons, and far more to do with Extremely OP ABCs. CCP is trying to "normalize" effect to that of something that has been proven OP time and time again. The problem with medium long range weapons in the past being viable had far more do with overbearing ABCs, and far less to do with the weapons themselves. While a modest increase in their effectiveness was most certainly needed to balance them along side their short range medium counterparts, the 30%+ dps that some weapons received just went way too far. |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
939
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 14:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
Quote:Take a look at the medium long range weaponry, you will see that it's dps was drastically increased in an attempt to give these weapons a role along side short ranged weapons fit onto abcs. The result is that the relative difference of dps between short and long range weapons in the medium lineup is completely out of wack when compared to small and large weapons.
Medium rails and beams were widely considered to be **** well before ABCs made it into the game. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |