EVE Search - Faction Battlecruisers

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 757	Posted - 2012.09.06 18:42:00 - [1] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1508537&page=1#29 CCP Greyscale wrote: NH balance - is the Nighthawk actually underpowered? I see people saying that there's things that they'd like to be able to do but can't due to grid issues, but is this driven by "the NH is really underpowered/under-used compared to other ships in its class because of this grid issue"? http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=905941&page=2#41 CCP Zulupark wrote: Field Command Ships: I think they're pretty fine as-is. Since Command Ships and Drake haven't been changed in the slightest for all these years, I guess we should treat your confession as a sign of a sudden increase in PvP compherension within CCP Plus a MEGALOL quote: http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=905941&page=1#20 CCP Zulupark wrote: Fleet command ships: We want to make command bonuses grid wide only, but there are some technical restraints we have to figure out first. Check out the date 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 757	Posted - 2012.09.06 19:26:00 - [2] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: I have only this to respond to that: LOL. Gonna second this. 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 758	Posted - 2012.09.07 12:08:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Ytterbium wrote: Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers. I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good? For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations? 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 758	Posted - 2012.09.07 16:16:00 - [4] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps! lol That's one of these few things which keep me subscribed 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 758	Posted - 2012.09.07 17:33:00 - [5] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is. Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 758	Posted - 2012.09.07 17:59:00 - [6] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is. Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues. 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 758	Posted - 2012.09.07 18:24:00 - [7] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is. Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues. What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be. What a demagogy. In that case locus coordinator rigs provide way too strong bonus compared to TE/TC - since their opportunity cost is so much lower. 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 758	Posted - 2012.09.07 18:40:00 - [8] - Quote Historical Research Advocate wrote: There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts. It's right the reverse - bittervets pop up when CCP is unwilling to admit its own faults - like with Drakes, tech3, Titans, cynoes and so on and so forth. 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 759	Posted - 2012.09.07 19:10:00 - [9] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: What a demagogy. In that case locus coordinator rigs provide way too strong bonus compared to TE/TC - since their opportunity cost is so much lower. I'm not sure that this is actually true. It feels false, but I can't really put my finger on why. My gut says that I rarely feel compelled to fit optimal rigs to optimal based ships that I fly, but I frequently feel compelled to fit falloff rigs to the falloff based ships that I fly. That's cause in small-scale PvP there's a certain, so to speak, level of optimal you can fully utilize and buffing it beyond that point (mostly point range, btw) is not that beneficial. At the same time increased falloff always has an impact of increased DPS. That's pretty clear, but it doesn't justify the disparity in rig bonuses. I could even somewhat agree with reduced bonuses on ambits (25/30%), but leaving them as-is simply makes no sense if you really long for an established game balance. 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 759	Posted - 2012.09.07 22:08:00 - [10] - Quote Skill loss may easily get removed, should tech3 become balanced stats-wise. It's really that simple. 14
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 760	Posted - 2012.09.08 06:20:00 - [11] - Quote Veshta Yoshida wrote: Field Commands would still be hauling the triplets .. just some "cheap" way to pick up the slack were a principal command popped right off the bat in an engagement. In most cases it's utterly unreasonable to fit even one single link in a field CS, much less 3 - that's what fleet versions are for. Also, the idea of tech1 BC being better at gang-boosting than tech2 counterpart is somewhat weird, to put it mildly. I'd say it's right the Field Command Ships which need to have the best link bonus out of all - tech3, BC, CS. Trade-offs are lower resists and 1 link instead of 3. 14

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.