Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaikka Carel
White syndicate BattleStar Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 04:04:00 -
[61] - Quote
I think that the changes to t1 cruisers proposed by Alara IonStorm are the right ones. Anyone who says that cruisers may be balanced by cost are wrong because it's not only isk that make for cost effeciency but also time and logistics and tactics. If you bring a cruiser to a BC gang everybody will laugh at you and they will be right because you're the one who's about to be volleyed first and that's significant loss to the gang and a lot of pain in the ass for you to fly back and change the ship.
Basically it's like with modern tanks. Fit a 150mm against autocannons and small arms on the tank! With a such signifcant reduction in weight you can use wheel chasis. A 1500hp engine will get you to 80-110km/h easily, congrats! you're more mobile than an average MBT! But when it comes to bulldozering own way through rubble and barricades, or survivng under constant fire of AT guns/missiles you're basically ffffffuuuuu....
In this term EVE is awesome as it represents the real world situations and people's solution to it - more tankier/powerful vessel against raw mobility. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
285
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 04:10:00 -
[62] - Quote
I'd bet money on EHP buffs. Assault frigates and destroyers got them. Industrialists are just about screaming for them. The writing is just about on the wall. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1103
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 04:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I'd bet money on EHP buffs. Assault frigates and destroyers got them. Industrialists are just about screaming for them. The writing is just about on the wall.
We don't need more EHP buffs - we need more fragile glass cannons like the Tier 3s.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
244
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 04:52:00 -
[64] - Quote
Drakes certainly are nice ships. Maybe not as awesome as some ~elite pvp~ ships, but definitely if you can apply their better isk:bang ratio, you can get a lot of explosions off.
Plus their tank (which will change) makes them also annoying to fight. Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Kaikka Carel
White syndicate BattleStar Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 05:10:00 -
[65] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I'd bet money on EHP buffs. Assault frigates and destroyers got them. Industrialists are just about screaming for them. The writing is just about on the wall. We don't need more EHP buffs - we need more fragile glass cannons like the Tier 3s. -Liang
For what purpose? To compete with tiers3?
No matter how cheap you make current t1 cruisers they won't be viable due to their horrible survivability. 24k ehp cruiser dies less than in 1 minute to 4 BC's. And that's it one man down in your fleet. Which means no DPS, no utility, no intimidiating presence in the overview. It's not about ISK.
Same goes for destroyers. I see lots of them in Tama lol poping frigs but even an idea to add one into a gang sounds like a intentional sabotage.
Current cruisers make no sense in current lowsec meta full of BC's. |
Alara IonStorm
1821
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 05:33:00 -
[66] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: We don't need more EHP buffs - we need more fragile glass cannons like the Tier 3s.
-Liang
I disagree, I think Cruisers do need EHP buffs. Of course the lower Tiers need them.
As for where a cruiser should sit tank wise is the question. Lets look at some common EHP numbers.
Thorax Armor 37000k Thorax Shield 20000k Moa Shield 33000k Vexor Small Blaster Armor 40000k Vexor Medium Blaster 28000k Rupture Armor 40000k Rupture Shield 20000k Arbitrator Armor 35000k
I think the Armor Rupture, Thorax and Arbitrator are exactly where a Cruiser tank should be but to get that means Armor Rigs which right there makes you slower then a Shield BC. The fact that you have to cram a Battleship sized plate to get the EHP their is silly IMO. I say tank 1600mm Plates off the table and remove rig penalties with the speed buff. Make Battleship Plates require Battleship Grid and buff the EHP so Shield Cruisers and Armor Cruisers can get between 30000 - 40000 K EHP without gimping Damage and you have yourself a whole new ball game.
Yes both Shield and Armor Battlecruisers Cruisers will still have 60000-80000 K EHP without 1600mm Plate and do more Damage. But on the plus side Armor Battlecruisers won't be as bad without rig penalties. By closing a major portion of the Sig rad / Speed Gap you make it about Damage vs Utility.
These leaves Battlecruisers slower then Cruisers with more EHP and DPS. It lets Cruisers that can field an okay tank not loose the Cruiser speed advantage.
My idea of good future Cruiser Tanking potential w/o 1600mm Plates.
Stabber Shield Barrage 30000 EHP / 350 DPS Rupture Armor 220mm 40000 EHP / 500 DPS Thorax Armor Ion 36000 EHP / 550 DPS Moa Shield Rail 35000 EHP / 400 DPS Caracal Shield HAM 36000 EHP / 500 DPS Vexor Electron Armor 35000 EHP / 550 DPS Omen Scorch Armor 36000 EHP / 400 DPS Maller Pulse Armor 45000 EHP / 400 DPS
All faster or at least on par with Battlecruiser speed. More agility, speed and capacitor. Reworked bonus like Damage for the Moa instead of resists, new slot layouts, more PG and such.
For instance: new Stabber idea.
[Stabber Fleet Issue, New] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Warp Disruptor II Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
30k EHP 350 DPS Barrage / Warriors, 430 DPS with RF Ammo / Warriors. Bonuses 5% Damage / 7.5% Falloff.
[Omen Navy Issue, New] 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
36000k EHP 360 DPS Scorch, 420 Multi. 5% Damage / 10% Range.
Various changes like that across the board for Cruisers. Make them dangerous but not over powered. Battlecruisers still have the DPS / Tank potential.
|
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
285
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 05:57:00 -
[67] - Quote
And when the tier one ships have more raw EHP then their T2 counterparts the EHP buff will continue.... |
Alara IonStorm
1821
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 05:59:00 -
[68] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:And when the tier one ships have more raw EHP then their T2 counterparts the EHP buff will continue.... HAC's are also slated for buffs.
So far the list the CSM minutes gave out said.
Frigate Cruiser EAF HAC Tier 1 Battlecruiser Command Ship
Nerfs look like the Drake and they are looking at the Cane. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
285
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 06:11:00 -
[69] - Quote
Stealth arty nerf. |
Hrett
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 06:15:00 -
[70] - Quote
As I fly mostly T1 cruiser and BC, I am all for a cruiser buff. EHP would be nice, speed would be nice. But buffing EHP, speed and damage all together would make them unbalanced, IMHO.
Remove the need to fit 1600mm plates for a decent tank (or change lower meta plates to give less ehp, but less mass penalty) and remove the speed penalty for most of the armor rigs (maybe not trimarks). That would go a long way toward helping armor cruisers.
Regardless, I am all for EHP buffs generally. EVE combat is too short. |
|
Trinkets friend
Obstergo NEM3SIS.
227
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 08:48:00 -
[71] - Quote
@Lian
1) Giving more capacitor would cause everyone to run full-neut because you could run them for longer. This would disadvantage cruisers without utility slots (Caracal) and unfairly benefit cruisers with plenty (Vexor, Arby). One benefit for the EW cruisers would be the ability to perma-run a rainbow BB (you can already permarun a damping celestis with MWD off). 2) Here's some mathsifying for you. A shield Bellicose starts with 148 sig (1 x LSE, 3 x rigs, 1 x Invul) and 19K EHP. 500% of that is 847mm. An armour celestis starts with a sig radius of 135, ending up with 810 plus 27K EHP. A shield cyclone starts with 327 and 69K EHP, and gets 1800 sig on MWD.
Your typical most annoying kiting cruiser, the Cynabal, starts with 135 sig radius, or 810 with MWD, but has no plates slowing it down. The average Cynabal, everyone would agree, has the same sig tank as a Celestis but goes 3 x as fast (plated Celestis is 1114m/s). It has less sig than a Bellicose, and goes faster; it is in the butter zone.
Now, before you carp on about "oh you want to make the Bellicose into a Cynabal" consider the Cynabal's attributes; 25% ROF, 10% damage per level and 10% falloff, allowing for the typical ZOMG performance you pay 300M for. A Bellicose with a 5% sig bonus to MWD would see its sig go from 148 to 555. Its DPS and falloff and ROF would be the same as now. Harder to hit, like a butterfly, but no sting like a bee
This would allow the Bellicose to efficiently sig tank while maintaining MWD.
3) Let us consider the same nanoed Bellicose, which due to gimped CPU gets a choice of lows of either 2 x TE's and 1 x Nano or DCU and 2 x nanos. The fit is razor tight. Tracking on the 220's (the only guns it can fit) is 0.114 with no TE's with range for Barrage of 2.75 + 16.5km. You have an align time of 4s
If you are really crazy and fit 2 TE's and even less tank, you get this to 0.135r/s and 3.5 + 27km. Plus your align time goes up to 5.5s, your speed goes down. Generally a bad idea.
Typical nanocane, if he were to fit 2 x TE's, 2 nano's and 220's, would get equivalent tracking and not gimp himself at all, and get an align time of 5.9s. Not bad; you get slightly worse align than a TE'd Bellicose for the equivalent OMG Winmatar Nerfbat tracking.
You can see where I'm going with this. BC's have the ability to achieve better real-world tracking and equivalent maneuverability to cruisers. That is pretty broken. A 25% tracking bonus to cruisers would allow you to concentrate on DPS mods, tank mods, etc.
4) 10% more shield, armour and hull base hitpoints won't turn cruisers into killdozers. Eg, again, the Bellicose. Raw shield: 1250 + skills = 1,56 Raw Armour: 1210 + skills = 1,51 Raw hull: 1210 + skills = 1,56
Add 10%, it would look like Raw shield 1375 + skills = 172 Raw armour 1300 + skills = 162 Raw hull 1300 + skills = 162
Calculating the EHP bonus at the end of the process? Depends on skills, modules, rigs, but 10% more HP won't do much of anything except give cruisers a little extra love. As I said before, the biggest addition to HP of a cruiser is the 1600 plate which adds 4,200hp. This far outweighs any 10% bonus to the raw hitpoints of any ship aside from BS's and capitals. Yes, trimarks will scale it up, but you go an ACR to get the plate vs a third trimark to get another percentage
5) You are welcome to stick 2 small armour RR's in your Caracal any day of the week
As for your "need more glass cannons" idea, nice troll, but I'm not biting. We've already got enough gank dessies soloing hulks and tornados soloing haulers and PVE tengu The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu @trinketsfriend on twatter
|
Crellion
Parental Control HELL4S
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 09:17:00 -
[72] - Quote
One thing to keep in mind (at the back) when comparing BCs to Cruisers/AFs:
-The former can be fit to kill the latter, efficiently and quickly. -The latter can be fit to kill the former, efficiently and slowly.
The realities of pvp make this distinction an important one. Batphones, baits, chance encounters, de-aggro timers are just a sample fraction of the reasons for this... |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 11:36:00 -
[73] - Quote
i dont think t1 cruiser need a EHP buff a EHP buff wont make them any better against BC or BS because if you get to the point you have to tank your going to lose anyway even with an etra 10k EHP also a EHP buff wont help that much against smaller class because if you cant hit them dosent matter too muc if they take another etra 20-30 seconds to take you down imho T1 cruiser need a boost in survivability via more speed more agilty, the difference between BC and cruiser is too small atm also most of them need theirs slots layout and their fitting stats readjusted and maybe some of their bonus change speaking only about the combat cruiser thats my idea on how to fix them maller- change cap bonus for a dmg bonu omen- more fitting to allow a 800mm plate + heavy pulse setu arbitrator is fin
thorax - change the mwd bonus for something useful like a turret tracking or somethin vexor - need more fitting, its almost impossible to armor tank the ship with medium sized blaste celestis - dampener are useless, if you cant fix dampener make it a bit more combat worthy, move 1 high to low, more fitting for a kite setup and 50mb of droneba
moa - moar fittings enough to fit a full rack of 250mm rails and mwd (or neutron blaster with some tank caracal - more fittings agai blackbird is fin
rupture - the ship its fine but it would be cool to see one of those 2 utility slots moved to a mid or lo stabber- give the ship 25m of dronebay, after that move one or even both the utility slot to meds or low or give it an extra turret and replace the rof with a falloff bonus (10%) bellicose- same as the celestis no one use painters and the ship its not good for combat, move 1 high to med, more fittings, give it 4 launcher and a damage bonus to missile instead of proj
on top of that put they speed/agility between frigs and BCs a normal cruiser would do 1600-2000 ms w/o speed mods based on the race (with the exeption of the stabber that should be faster) a good way to do that would be reducing their mass by a 30
with these changes the still wont be able to kill a BC and thats ok to me (same way a t1 frig cant kill a dessie) but they will be more hard to catch and they could be an option for roaming in hostile territory with something bigger |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 16:22:00 -
[74] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:...
1) It would also give them much stronger defenses against neuting, and I don't think would make much difference for cruisers with/without utility slots. 2) Your math on MWD sig bloom wasn't impressive. You're still solving a problem with a module by applying a role bonus to most ships that can use it. Furthermore, what you're suggesting is allowing the Bellicose to sig tank WITH A MICROWARP DRIVE. MWDs aren't meant for sig tanking. And really, you this would just worsen the problem that makes you claim medium gun tracking is bad. 3) You're still applying sweeping role bonuses instead of solving a problem with a specific ship or module. That's not a good way to go about making sandboxes that "work". 4) You keep talking about the Bellicose, but that's ******* stupid. We both know they're going to turn the Bellicose into a Rupture - so just use Rupture HP/slots and tell me that the Rupture needs a huge EHP buff. 5) Right - might as well run the armor RRs because 2 drones won't even dent a frigate's shields before it nukes them. 6) Glass cannons are needed. Destruction is what makes the world go around, and people are relying too much on face tanking instead of figuring out how they should fly their damn ships.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 16:24:00 -
[75] - Quote
Hrett wrote:EVE combat is too short.
I got into a 1v1 frigate fight where I was dropping out 300 DPS with good tracking and it lasted 15 minutes. I've been in other fights where spent 10 minutes decimating an entire enemy fleet with just a few of us in glass cannons.
You're doing it wrong.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 16:29:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: We don't need more EHP buffs - we need more fragile glass cannons like the Tier 3s.
-Liang
I disagree, I think Cruisers do need EHP buffs. Of course the lower Tiers need them.
Yes, I make this assertion off of the assumption that all T1 cruisers will become top-tier like... and hopefully a bit less ******** with regards to mobility (Moa) and fittings (Omen). You went through some effort to show "common EHP values" and then armor tanked everything with a 1600 plate. Protip: that's pretty stupid in this day and age.
Also, you want 40k EHP on a basically untanked Rupture? Are you out of your ******* mind? Stop face tanking - I tank entire fleets with a 10k EHP Talos.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Alara IonStorm
1822
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 16:50:00 -
[77] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: Yes, I make this assertion off of the assumption that all T1 cruisers will become top-tier like... and hopefully a bit less ******** with regards to mobility (Moa) and fittings (Omen). You went through some effort to show "common EHP values" and then armor tanked everything with a 1600 plate. Protip: that's pretty stupid in this day and age.
I did not Armor Tank everything with a 1600mm, just the Arby, Rupture, Thorax and Vexor.
Not as stupid as you think TBH with those 4 Ships. They can be if you overheat and burn in quick on the primary.
Liang Nuren wrote: Also, you want 40k EHP on a basically untanked Rupture? Are you out of your ******* mind? Stop face tanking - I tank entire fleets with a 10k EHP Talos. -Liang
I don't really understand what you mean? I never said I wanted a basically untanked Rupture. I just want it to equal 40000 EHP with an 800mm Plate and buffer armor while 1600mm Plates are adjusted to require Battleship PG.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:04:00 -
[78] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Yes, I make this assertion off of the assumption that all T1 cruisers will become top-tier like... and hopefully a bit less ******** with regards to mobility (Moa) and fittings (Omen). You went through some effort to show "common EHP values" and then armor tanked everything with a 1600 plate. Protip: that's pretty stupid in this day and age.
I did not Armor Tank everything with a 1600mm, just the Arby, Rupture, Thorax and Vexor. Not as stupid as you think TBH with those 4 Ships. They can be if you overheat and burn in quick on the primary.
Those ships aren't really viable in armor fits, and what you're suggesting is only going to work against unsuspecting/bad pilots. I know - I do it all the time. Furthermore, its a borderline lie to claim those armor fits as "common EHP values" for the ship since most of them are never armor tanked.
Quote:Liang Nuren wrote: Also, you want 40k EHP on a basically untanked Rupture? Are you out of your ******* mind? Stop face tanking - I tank entire fleets with a 10k EHP Talos. -Liang
I don't really understand what you mean? I never said I wanted a basically untanked Rupture. I just want it to equal 40000 EHP with an 800mm Plate and buffer armor while 1600mm Plates are adjusted to require Battleship PG.
This just isn't necessary. You're asking for the Rupture to have a near modern-BC level tank while asking for it to have dramatic improvements in cruiser-like areas. The **** storm you're asking to open up is epic in proportion.
I swear, EFT warriors should be banned from posting.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Alara IonStorm
1822
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:15:00 -
[79] - Quote
[quote=Liang Nuren] Those ships aren't really viable in armor fits, and what you're suggesting is only going to work against unsuspecting/bad pilots. I know - I do it all the time. Furthermore, its a borderline lie to claim those armor fits as "common EHP values" for the ship since most of them are never armor tanked.Quote: Flatly untrue, the Vexor and Arbitrator are almost always Armor Tanked, Thorax's are about 50 / 50 and the Rupture is in for the most par the Shield column.
Hardly most. [quote=Liang Nuren] This just isn't necessary. You're asking for the Rupture to have a near modern-BC level tank while asking for it to have dramatic improvements in cruiser-like areas. The **** storm you're asking to open up is epic in proportion. -Liang
Hah, that is cute, near modern BC levels of tank. Your near modern levels of Battlecruiser tank are based off the Brutix and the Hurricane fit for Shield. Drakes can pull above 100k EHP and 90k after the nerf, the duel plate Cane currently 95k EHP. So it is okay for Battlecruisers but not Cruisers.
Hurricane and Brutix were never designed to be fit that way but have to because of Shield OP. A priority should be to fix small scale Armor tanking so they don't have to be and get the tank they deserve. [quote=Liang Nuren] I swear, EFT warriors should be banned from posting.[quote] Good for them. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:28:00 -
[80] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: Flatly untrue, the Vexor and Arbitrator are almost always Armor Tanked, Thorax's are about 50 / 50 and the Rupture is in for the most par the Shield column.
Waaaaaay more than 50% of ruptures and thoraxes are shield tanked.
Quote:Liang Nuren wrote: This just isn't necessary. You're asking for the Rupture to have a near modern-BC level tank while asking for it to have dramatic improvements in cruiser-like areas. The **** storm you're asking to open up is epic in proportion.
-Liang
Hah, that is cute, near modern BC levels of tank. Your near modern levels of Battlecruiser tank are based off the Brutix and the Hurricane fit for Shield. Drakes can pull above 100k EHP and 90k after the nerf, the duel plate Cane currently 95k EHP. So it is okay for Battlecruisers but not Cruisers. Hurricane and Brutix were never designed to be fit that way but have to because of Shield OP. A priority should be to fix small scale Armor tanking so they don't have to be and get the tank they deserve.
So your argument is that cruisers need as much tank as the most common BCs because tank bonused BCs have better tanks and you can create unviable EFT only fits for the Cane that get somewhat close. Cool story bro.
Quote:Liang Nuren wrote: I swear, EFT warriors should be banned from posting.
Good for them.
That's you, BTW.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
689
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
Wait wait wait... Let me see if I get this right:
Shield tanking nano setups are more popular than armor setups so... we nerf the armor setups.
Brilliant!
(/sarcasm)
No Hurricane or Drake is ever fit for over 90k EHP, even if they "can be". You're missing the big picture balancing view by focusing on comparing raw numbers. Stop EFT-warrioring. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Alara IonStorm
1822
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:38:00 -
[82] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: So your argument is that cruisers need as much tank as the most common BCs because tank bonused BCs have better tanks and you can create unviable EFT only fits for the Cane that get somewhat close. Cool story bro.
Lol, you really haven't been paying attention.
1. My argument is that they should fix armor tanking so that those aren't the most viable fits for the Cane and Brutix. So we don't have to jam plates on. 2. I clearly listed the EHP values I hope to see post buff and they are all below the common current tank of the Cane and Brutix and do less damage.
At this point I don't think it matters what I say because you will just make it up. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:43:00 -
[83] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Stealth arty nerf.
Make it so. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:50:00 -
[84] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: So your argument is that cruisers need as much tank as the most common BCs because tank bonused BCs have better tanks and you can create unviable EFT only fits for the Cane that get somewhat close. Cool story bro.
Lol, you really haven't been paying attention. 1. My argument is that they should fix armor tanking so that those aren't the most viable fits for the Cane and Brutix. So we don't have to jam plates on. 2. I clearly listed the EHP values I hope to see post buff and they are all below the common current tank of the Cane and Brutix and do less damage. At this point I don't think it matters what I say because you will just make it up.
Most modern BCs have relatively low EHP - Myrms, Brutixes, Canes, Cyclones, and Shield Bingers. That leaves Armor Bingers and Drakes as the realistic stand outs, and they typically only have 60-80k EHP depending on the fit. In your ideal future, cruisers would be about as tanky as most BCs we see today - except they would have all the lovely cruiser features like being faster with smaller sigs.
Your suggestion would be a disaster for game balance.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 17:51:00 -
[85] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: Yes fleet Drakes commonly are. That isn't the point though. Liang is complaining that I want common viable tanks for Cruisers to be between 40-60k and Battlecruisers between 60-75k.
So you want a common cruiser to have ~6x the HP of a tanked out AF. Cooool.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Alara IonStorm
1822
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 18:05:00 -
[86] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: Most modern BCs have relatively low EHP - Myrms, Brutixes, Canes, Cyclones, and Shield Bingers. That leaves Armor Bingers and Drakes as the realistic stand outs, and they typically only have 60-80k EHP depending on the fit. In your ideal future, cruisers would be about as tanky as most BCs we see today - except they would have all the lovely cruiser features like being faster with smaller sigs.
Your suggestion would be a disaster for game balance.
-Liang
Bolded the missed point. I want to see that changed.
I want to see it changed by fixing Armor Tanking, as for Shield Battlecruisers the Darke will be fine, Ferox and Cyclone are getting EHP buffs.
What I want for Armor Battlecruisers to close the gap is simple.
* Make 1600mm Plates unfittable below Battleships like the L Armor Repair. Introduce an XLSE module also unfittable. * Buff Plate HP above Extenders value. * Remove Rig Penalties across the board. * Remove Plate mass and Shield Sig increase or lessen them.
Make speed and sig a non issue and make the difference between Armor and Shield that of low slot vs mid slots.
Liang Nuren wrote: So you want a common cruiser to have ~6x the HP of a tanked out AF. Cooool.
-Liang
That's supposed to be 30-40k. |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 18:20:00 -
[87] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Bolded the missed point. I want to see that changed.
I want to see it changed by fixing Armor Tanking, as for Shield Battlecruisers the Darke will be fine, Ferox and Cyclone are getting EHP buffs.
What I want for Armor Battlecruisers to close the gap is simple.
* Make 1600mm Plates unfittable below Battleships like the L Armor Repair. Introduce an XLSE module also unfittable. * Buff Plate HP above Extenders value. * Remove Rig Penalties across the board. * Remove Plate mass and Shield Sig increase or lessen them.
Make speed and sig a non issue and make the difference between Armor and Shield that of low slot vs mid slots.
You keep talking about the relationship of BCs and Cruisers post patch, but you are in effect creating a wholly new game with different ships and modules but the same general mechanics. You are neglecting the ideas of what is going to change relative to now, and that's what I'm trying to show you.
Furthermore, your knowledge of current in game mechanics seems sorely lacking because you keep trying to improve cruiser hulls by turning them into low DPS battlecruisers with emphasized cruiser attributes! Again, your balancing approach would be a catastrophe.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Alara IonStorm
1822
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 18:31:00 -
[88] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: You keep talking about the relationship of BCs and Cruisers post patch, but you are in effect creating a wholly new game with different ships and modules but the same general mechanics. You are neglecting the ideas of what is going to change relative to now, and that's what I'm trying to show you.
I know I am and I am probably not going to get what I want, or at least not going to get most of it.
But I like to at least get my idea's out there.
Liang Nuren wrote: Furthermore, your knowledge of current in game mechanics seems sorely lacking because you keep trying to improve cruiser hulls by turning them into low DPS battlecruisers with emphasized cruiser attributes! Again, your balancing approach would be a catastrophe.
-Liang
Low DPS, Low Tank Battlecruisers. They all have 20-35% less tank then the current Cane and Brutix. But I do not think that this is a catastrophe at all. I think that is where they should be and Battlecruisers slow by comparison and have a fatter sig but have 35-50% more tank and 20-30% more DPS.
As I said, I want to move Cruisers to the center. I want Battlecruisers to become what Destroyers are to Frigates and not the standard fleet ship like now. I want that to be Cruisers.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1105
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 18:38:00 -
[89] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: I know I am and I am probably not going to get what I want, or at least not going to get most of it.
But I like to at least get my idea's out there.
You'd be better off discussing your ideas on a game developer's forum (for new games).
Quote: Low DPS, Low Tank Battlecruisers. They all have 20-35% less tank then the current Cane and Brutix. But I do not think that this is a catastrophe at all. I think that is where they should be and Battlecruisers slow by comparison and have a fatter sig but have 35-50% more tank and 20-30% more DPS.
As I said, I want to move Cruisers to the center. I want Battlecruisers to become what Destroyers are to Frigates and not the standard fleet ship like now. I want that to be Cruisers.
Two comments: 1) Why bother if you're just turning cruisers into battlecruisers and leaving nothing between frigates/destroyers and battlecruisers? 2) You are dramatically improving face tank ability while simultaneously suggesting improvements to cruiser attributes (which help in areas *OTHER* than face tanking). If you want to turn cruisers into BCs, you need to be nerfing their cruiser attributes.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
689
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 18:48:00 -
[90] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Make speed and sig a non issue and make the difference between Armor and Shield that of low slot vs mid slots.
See, people whine about Eve being dumbed down when it's just a simple name change, but a change like this one is true "dumbing down". The armor mass vs shield sig radius penalties are essential attributes of each type of tanking, and add flavor and depth to combat.
An Ares or Malediction is better at breaking the tracking of the ship it's tackling because it doesn't armor tank, whereas the Stiletto tries to solve that with raw speed due to its shield tank. The brickiness of fleet Drakes is countered by the fact that hitting one is as easy as hitting the broad side of a barn, while the brickiness of Harbingers is countered by the fact that they are slower than some battleships when fit for maximum tank.
On top of that, 1600mm plates should not be changed. 200mm and 400mm plates are frigate plates, and 800mm and 1600mm plates are cruiser plates. Battleships make do with 1600s, but in case you haven't noticed, the 1600mm plate does not take a significant amount of any battleship's fittings, just as LSEs do not. I would be fine with the addition of 3200mm and 6400mm plates for battleships, or of XLSEs, but the current tank progression is not the problem.
The problem is that across the board, at all tasks, battlecruisers are superior to cruisers. That is, there is not a single thing that a cruiser does well (excepting EWAR) that there does not exist a battlecruiser that does the same thing better. That is causing cruisers to fall into disuse. Changes to tank only doesn't do anything to create a niche for cruisers. It just changes mechanics for the sake of changing them.
If a battlecruiser is supposed to be a heavier cruiser, most things are already fine. "Heavier" implies a bigger tank and bigger damage, which are already the case. However, it also implies "slower, clumsier, easier to hit, and more difficulty against smaller targets", which are not the case -- at least, not significantly. Some solutions to this?
- Buff cruiser speed/agility, particularly in egregiously lacking cases like the Moa and Maller.
- Nerf BC speed/agility (increase their mass) to eliminate nano fit abuse.
- Nerf BC tracking (25% tracking penalty across the board, with equivalent explosion velocity/radius penalty on Drake?)
- Nerf BC signature radius (make 'em bigger)
- If mega-tanks are an issue (I'm not convinced they are), increase penalties of doing so (1600mm plate mass, LSE sig radius)
Simply tweaking tanks of ships doesn't balance them, and a base cruiser having many times the EHP of an assault frigate is not balance.
Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |