Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 07:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was thinking that perhaps it would make sense to change the bonuses of battlecruiser and destroyers
Currently a Battlercruiser gets 2 bonuses from the BC skill, and none from its racial cruiser skill.
I propose that one of the bonuses be tied to the racial cruiser skill, and leave one tied to the BC skill...
Then do the same thing with destroyers and frigate skills. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 07:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
With the possible exception of Tier 1 Battlecruisers, Battlecruisers in general do not need a buff.
With Destroyers... they're getting a hefty buff this winter... so wait and see. "Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
Daedalus Arcova
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 12:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
I really like this idea. It would make far more sense than it does currently, where you only need to train a racial cruiser to level II, then forget about it, while being able to fly that race's battlecruisers maxed out.
It might also make battlecruiser fleets a little less homogenous. I mean, who actually wants to train Caldari Cruiser V?
(Also, nerf the Drake and the Hurricane) |
David Xavier
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 12:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:With the possible exception of Tier 1 Battlecruisers, Battlecruisers in general do not need a buff.
With Destroyers... they're getting a hefty buff this winter... so wait and see.
You misunderstood the OP.
Battlecruiser skill grants 2 bonuses, the idea is that it would grant only 1 and the other half of the bonus currently granted would be tied to the racial cruiser skill.
The Brutix for example:
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.
|
Daedalus Arcova
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 13:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
David Xavier wrote:The Brutix for example:
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness per level
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.
I'd put it the other way around - generally speaking, racial cruiser skill should apply to offensive bonuses, and battlecruiser skill should apply to defensive bonuses. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 22:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:I really like this idea. It would make far more sense than it does currently, where you only need to train a racial cruiser to level II, then forget about it, while being able to fly that race's battlecruisers maxed out.
It might also make battlecruiser fleets a little less homogenous. I mean, who actually wants to train Caldari Cruiser V?
(Also, nerf the Drake and the Hurricane)
The way I see it, the idea is two fold. The first deals with battlecruisers - as you mentioned, who wants to train all racial cruisers to lvl 5? yet with BC lvl 5, you can use any race's BC (with the cruiser trained to III, which is much easier than V) with its full hull bonuses. This would provide an incentive to train the racial cruiser.
The 2nd deals with Destroyers... how many people train those to lvl V? How many people train a racial frigate to V? Under my proposed system, if you have a racial frigate to 5, and Destroyers to 4, you essentially have destroyers to "4.5" under the current system.
The system would make it easier to get into BCs and destroyers by using the Cruiser/Frigate bonus (which will already be at 3 before you can train the BC/Destroyer skill), and it would make it harder to master all the BCs/Destroyers.
I just think it would work better all around, and continue with the game's mechanic of generally making you choose which race(s) ship you will specialize in - which currently strangely does not apply to the wildly popular BC class, or the wildly unpopular Destroyer class.
Destroyers would get a little more appealing to people that already specialized in a racial frigate, while BCs would be a little less appealing as one skill wouldn't grant you full effectiveness in a ship class for 4 races...
Destroyers and BCs are so different from Frigates and Cruisers (and battleships), they almost deserve their own racial skill (ie minmatar destroyer, caldari battlecruiser), and I think the system I proposed is a good compromise. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 22:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
So it "makes sense" to change the bonus structure of destroyers and battlecruisers because destroyers are unpopular and BC are too popular?
srsly? |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 01:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Not supported, simply because this impinges newer players too much who don't have a racial cruiser to V.
The dual bonuses are on all T2 ships, I think that's where they should stay. |
Daedalus Arcova
77
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 03:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Not supported, simply because this impinges newer players too much who don't have a racial cruiser to V.
You could use that argument to say the new Tier 3 BCs are bad because new players will have to train to fly them, but older ones already can.
Besides, there's plenty of older players who don't have all racial cruisers trained to V. I mentioned Caldari Cruiser V before because everyone flies Drakes (FU Drakes!), but hardly anyone flies T2 Caldari cruisers. With this change, you'd have to train Caldari Cruiser to V to get the most out of the Drake.
I think it's perfectly fair that players who are willing to specialise and put the time into training a racial cruiser to V get more out of a ship than the players who just train up Battlecruisers with each racial cruiser to III to cover all four races with the least amount of training. |
Mirak Nijoba
Gamers Corner
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 04:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cruisers to 5 for T3 Cruisers... <_<
It would take way to much re-balancing and disrupt a system that has been in place for way too long. Too many people would be affected by this way too much in PVP.
The only way to change it is to add the Racial Bonus to a Cruiser that way everyone gets a Boost and not a Nerf/Boost.
Then on SiSi Nerf the New Buffs until everything falls even again. (So to speak)
Such as.
[Racial] Cruiser Bonus: 5% Increased Base Speed per level. Could turn out to be quite a difference in PVP all around. Making Ships faster. However that would throw off current tracking of all players who PVP but Nerf the base speed of the battle-cruisers to compensate.
People who Fly Tengu's might not fly them as much if they can fly a faster BC just to be able to run them faster.
Same with Destroyers. a Buff for all races that is equal. Not a buff that is race specific. No Shifting Buffs... That would screw people over a lot!
|
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
256
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 05:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
They're tech 1 ships you are basically limited to 2 bonuses and a possible role bonus so technically three, lately they been getting creative and making what is known as a grouped bonus to get around the limitations.
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
150
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 06:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
I dunno, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think so. Battlecruisers are a great way to try out another race's ships without being forced to train for their ships for a whole week or three. This would also make it much more difficult for new players to get into one of the most useful early missioning ship classes: You have an entire 11 whole ranks of skills to max out, rather than a mere eight in the case of Battleships.
In the end, I don't like it. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
87
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 08:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote: I mean, who actually wants to train Caldari Cruiser V?
Stupidity suspected....
Quote:(Also, nerf the Drake and the Hurricane)
Stupidity confirmed. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 17:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Not supported, simply because this impinges newer players too much who don't have a racial cruiser to V.
The dual bonuses are on all T2 ships, I think that's where they should stay.
On the contrary, the really new players who just got cruiser to III and can train the BC skill will have an easier transistion, as they already have half the ship bonuses to lvl 3. If they train straight for BS's (to L4 mission run, as a decent noob income source), when they go back to BCs for PvP, they already have half their bonuses to lvl 4.
It would allow you to stop training BC to lvl 5, and train a cruiser to Lvl 5 if you are only using BCs as an interim to getting a T2 cruiser.
It would make the bonuses higher on the low SP end when you first get into them, and it would make it harder to get all the bonuses on the high SP end. |
Daedalus Arcova
82
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 17:29:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mirak Nijoba wrote:Cruisers to 5 for T3 Cruisers... <_<
Oops. Forgot all those Tengu bears. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 17:51:00 -
[16] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:The 2nd deals with Destroyers... how many people train those to lvl V? How many people train a racial frigate to V? Everybody, once the winter expansion goes live. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 18:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:The 2nd deals with Destroyers... how many people train those to lvl V? How many people train a racial frigate to V? Everybody, once the winter expansion goes live.
this. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 18:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote: On the contrary, the really new players who just got cruiser to III and can train the BC skill will have an easier transistion, as they already have half the ship bonuses to lvl 3. If they train straight for BS's (to L4 mission run, as a decent noob income source), when they go back to BCs for PvP, they already have half their bonuses to lvl 4.
It would allow you to stop training BC to lvl 5, and train a cruiser to Lvl 5 if you are only using BCs as an interim to getting a T2 cruiser.
It would make the bonuses higher on the low SP end when you first get into them, and it would make it harder to get all the bonuses on the high SP end.
This
Battlecruisers are too powerful related to the small amount of sp required.
They can solo down bs's with almost no issues, and the bs pilots required a lot more skills to become even moderate at piloting that bs.
And, like this quote said, younger players would actually have more capability is the bc's from the start, while becomeing proficient with one would require heavier training.
It's not a matter of simply giving bc's a racial bonus because they're racial ships, it's the fact that bc's can be some of the most powerful ships in game with little SP value.
A fleet of 20 bc's fully trained can out perform and fleet of 20 bs's fully trained, and have fleet boosters to boot, with much less sp investment. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 19:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Battlecruisers are too powerful related to the small amount of sp required..
[FryStare] Is this a stealth SC nerf whine post? [/FryStare] |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 19:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: Battlecruisers are too powerful related to the small amount of sp required.. [FryStare] Is this a stealth SC nerf whine post? [/FryStare]
No one is suggesting a nerf to bc's, they're suggesting a higher sp requirement for the effectiveness that bc's give.
Like I said, a faxed out bc can almost always out perform almost every bs in game, but require much less sp in order to do so.
Attaching one of their skill bonuses to the related cruisers simply means that if you want the full power of a bc, than you'll need a bit more sp investment to do so.
It's not a nerf, but more of a balance in SP requirement in relation to effectiveness. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |