EVE Search - Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 24 post(s)
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 206	Posted - 2013.01.09 17:00:00 - [1] - Quote Overall, I'm loving the changes. Not sure about the dear old cane, but there time to tweek it. Loving the Cyclone and Prophecy now, not to mention some of the other changes to the rest. Nice Job MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 207	Posted - 2013.01.10 17:38:00 - [2] - Quote Now I've had a look at all the details and run number myself, I have to say GOOD JOB FOZZIE! Seriously, bringing the overall power of BC's down a little makes perfect sense. They all seem pretty balanced against each other and there are more options available to each of the races. Ships that were poinless now have purpose and ships that dominated the battlefield have been broguht back in line with others. Maybe we will fianlly see doctrines based around other BC's, not just Canes and Drakes. There may be a little more tweeking in order, but I think that will be best observed on singularity. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 207	Posted - 2013.01.11 07:21:00 - [3] - Quote Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: My concern is that BCs are becoming weaker in general. With stronger cruisers and accessbility of BS/T2/T3 they wont be used that much. Now, I actually find this a refreshing change. BCs were a little too good at their job, making them preferable to both cruisers and BSs on the battlefield. By slightly reducing their effectiveness, other ships will find purpose. Who knows, maybe we will see T1 cruiser doctrines as well as maybe some other BC doctrines taking the field in fleet battles? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 207	Posted - 2013.01.11 11:01:00 - [4] - Quote Magic Crisp wrote: I'm getting more and more concerned on racial weapon types. Till the recent rebalances projectiles had been the primary platform for the minmatar, torches for the amarr, so on. Since the last rebalance it seems that all races are dual weapon platforms. So far it was usually enough to train up the given race's primary weapon platform, but since the last rebalance, it's hardly can be called enough for flying the race. If you actually take a look at the Battlecruiser lineup you will notice that there are 2 using the racial weapon of choice and 1 using their secondary (except Caldari who still only have 1 missile boat. We know they aren't going to swap out weapons on the tier 3s, (Naga with missiles - on the one hand, I would love it, but it would a pile of crap,) so really your complaint is about changes to 2 ships, (which were barely ever used for anything,) out of 12. Not to mention there's nothing stopping you putting lasers on the Prophecy and every trains drones, so that dwsnt even count. So really your complaint is about the Cyclone, which is probably the most well recieved ship change in the line up! Other than that, I agree with you on the active tanking issue. But givens Hans's dig on page 1, I'm willing to bet there's a change coming to that bonus in general. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 208	Posted - 2013.01.11 12:21:00 - [5] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Sigras wrote: you mean like the resist bonuses that the caldari/amarr ships get? No, what he's asking for is a direct boost to the amount received from reps off of a logistics. Thats not the same as resists, which mitigate damage received while the rep amount remains the same. If you were to give a bonus to reps received it wouldn't matter what your resists were because it would simply restore X amount of shields, X being significant in the fact that you could say, theoretically restore ALL of a ships armor in a single cycle with the a single boosted cycle of reps. Thats silly, reps work just fine. Just wait and see what they do with active tanking for armor before we cry a river about it. The way they've been handling things you may find they finally fix active armor so its good, they didn't let us down on the cruisers and frigates, I'd rather have faith in the over all vision and let them put it all in and see what comes out before i start bitching about things that haven't changed yet. I disagree Tank is based on the combination of rep and resist. If one ship has 25% higher resists and the other recieves 25% more reps, they will tank the same level of damage. The over all benefit however falls to the resists, as it provides its benefit to EHP, helping defend against alpha and giving a much stronger buffer. I dont think 37.5% increased incoming RR would be balanced though. Maybe 30%. But yes, until we know exactly what Fozzie has up his sleeve with regards to active tanking, we will have to wait and see. until then, it's amking for interesting discussion. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 208	Posted - 2013.01.11 12:37:00 - [6] - Quote Actually, I've noticed one thing I'm not so sure about. The sig. radius of the Gallente ships are 22% larger than the Minmatar ones, making them only 15m smaller than a Typhoon. Is that not just a tad excessive? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 208	Posted - 2013.01.11 12:42:00 - [7] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: Actually, I've noticed one thing I'm not so sure about. The sig. radius of the Gallente ships are 22% larger than the Minmatar ones, making them only 15m smaller than a Typhoon and more than double the size of any T1 cruiser. Is that not just a tad excessive? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 210	Posted - 2013.01.12 13:35:00 - [8] - Quote Nathaniel Branden wrote: Hi Fozzie, I really appreciate your communication with us on here and would like to briefly offer my opinions on the proposed changes: Overall, I feel the changes are rather underwhelming, even more so when they are compared to the amazing job done on the frigate and cruiser tiercide. Furthermore, the introduction of the Tier 3 BC offered an exciting new mechanic by allowing the fitting over BS sized weapons to a BC sized hull. If possible, I would like to see similar changes and exciting ideas enacted for the Spring expansion: I propose all the BC previously classed as Tier 1 (possibly not the Brutix, I believe the Myrmidon would be better suited) lose all their turret and launcher hard-points and replace them with 'weapon hard-points' (WS). These new hard-points would allow the ships to fit weapons of either class (launcher or turret) to the ship. This change, I feel, would eloquently resolve a number issues and hopefully help towards satisfying players (an impossible task - I know). The main purpose of this change is to offer player's flexibility in fitting their ship and not forcing them into rigid pre-subscribed doctrines. These rigid designs worked for cruisers and frigates because there is double the selection of craft to choose from. If you were to introduce flexible weapon hard-points it would also allow you to add in double bonuses (5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire - 5% bonus to medium **** Turret Damage) without risk of it being 'overpowered'. In fact, a new bonus could be: 5% bonus to Weapon System's rate of fire. The Prophecy would in essence, remain unchanged, with 5 highs and 4 'WS' but as players seem resistant to it becoming a pure drone-boat I'd argue keep the 75m3 drone bandwith but switch the drone bonus to 5% bonus to Weapon System's rate of fire. The Ferox's 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range has long been a point of contention, it needs to go. I'd propose 7 H 6 WS with a bonus to 5% bonus to Weapon System's damage. The Cyclone has long been a gunboat and the proposed changes would keep this fitting an option but incorporates your proposals of a missile based vessel. The 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire would be replaced by a 5% bonus to Weapon System's rate of fire with 7H and 6 WS slots. The Myrmidon's 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness has long been an issue, however, you've hinted at an overhaul of armour tanking so I'm loathed to argue for its removal if a fix is incoming. But if you are ok with a proposal for its removal I'd say 5% bonus to Weapon System's damage with 5H and 4 WS but keeping the drone damage bonus with the new 100m3 bandwith. I know this proposal is rather radical and that due to scripting it might be difficult to implement but I also know that the team you've got there are more than capable. I hope you consider the proposal and I would love your feedback - after all I can't believe I'm the only player that finds it strange that in such a technology advance era ships are stuck having missile or turret hard-points. Also, I believe the Tier 2's (and Brutix) require some more fine tuning but in essence are acceptable and I will hopefully post again later outlining my thoughts. For those who view this as TL:DR Nathaniel Branden wrote:** Remove all turret and launcher hardpoints and replace them with general weapon hardpoints, so they can fit anything. Also, remove the specific weapon bonuses and replace them with a generic bonuses too, so that they apply to everything as well. I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. As much as I would love to put missiles on just about everything, it would take a lot away from the feel of a lot of ships and also from the feel of the game in general. Ravens with lasers, Torp Domi's and AutoGeddons. It's a no from me. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 210	Posted - 2013.01.12 14:51:00 - [9] - Quote Nathaniel Branden wrote: Mund Richard wrote: Auto/Torp/CruiseGeddon. AutoDrake! Right. Not to mention how radically different some weapon systems are to fit, as shown by the discussion on top of this page, just ripe for the abuse, if off-racial weapon systems are also bonused on every hull. So yea. No. Again, these proposed changes only apply to 3 Tier 1 BCs & the Myrmidon, in the same vein of the Tier 3 BCs are the only ships that fit oversized guns. Hakan's summary of my post is quite inaccurate. The sole innacuracy was that you intended it for combat BC's alone. Either way, all your doing is making racial choices completely unimportant. Aside from whe scale with whihc your suggestion is intended, my point and those made after it still stand. Its a bad idea. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 214	Posted - 2013.01.14 08:43:00 - [10] - Quote So many Drama-Llamas... Anyway, I've been thinking about the Commandships changes that are also on the horizon. Going with the example of the Cyclone, the Claymore is also supposed to be a missile boat. My query is how likely is it that the Claymore will become a Cyclone with a T2 resist profile and bonuses to 2 kinds of links? I expect the Commandships class to be slightly toned down from the combat perspective, just like the Tech 1 BCs will be. But seeing as one of the secondary bonuses it currently has is a 3% to Skirmish links, will the second damage bonus get dropped for the second link bonus its due to recieve? Will the same bein store for the Sleipnir? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS

Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 217	Posted - 2013.01.15 17:34:00 - [11] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Aglais wrote: Cyclone should keep it's RoF bonus. Make it the 'DPS' missile boat. The Cyclone will be the mobile missile BC, it shouldn't be the DPSy one too. I agree. But seeing as both the Gallente and the Caldari have kept tanking bonuses to both their BCs, maybe its time to let that slide. Many suggestions have already been made towards the Brutix and the Myrmidon with regards to an alternative bonus, but I suggest a change for the Drake. How about a range bonus, say 10% velocity, towards missiles? With max skills your only looking at about 40km maximum range for HMLs, and a lot less for T2. That's not a lot for a long range weapon system and there's no way of extending it at this time, without using rigs or implants. The other main Caldari missile boats, notably the Kestrel, the Corax, the Caracal and the Raven, all recieve a velocity bonus. The Drake stands alone in this line. A 10% velocity bonus would allow the Drake to spew heavy missiles out to 60km and HAMs out to 21km, allowing it to kite out of web range and apply solid dps. Also, even the fastest interceptors would have a hard time outrunning a heavy missile going 8km/s. Don't get me wrong, that resist bonus has saved my ass over and over again. I have been flying a Drake in PvE and PvP for the best part of a year now and as much as I hate looking at its ugly mug, I damn well respect its tenacity and staying power. If there is going to be some sort of TE like device that will extend missile range and increase explosion velocity then I would probably retract this suggestion. But until that time, I think this may be a viable option. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 217	Posted - 2013.01.16 07:41:00 - [12] - Quote When did this thread change to being about drones and not the changes to tube BC lines? There are plenty of Drone threads already. Also, it probably got missed a couple of pages ago, but I suggested dropping the resist bonus on the Drake in favour of a missile.velocity bonus, like the other caldari missile boats. Does anyone have opinions in that, for or against? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 218	Posted - 2013.01.16 20:26:00 - [13] - Quote androch wrote: why do the battlecruisers need changes? they are fine the way they are, and last patch you guys already nerfed the hurricanes powergrid, now youre going to further bastardize it? are you trying to force me to unsub? YEAH! Their so fine, only a few get used because they are more equal than the others... We don't want tiericide to make these abandoned hulls useful... PS: I can has your stuff? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 218	Posted - 2013.01.16 20:27:00 - [14] - Quote I'm Down wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. I'm working on the next version of the BC changes now, but in the meantime two quick things to update. Since we've announced it in CCP Seagull's Devblog, I can let you all know that the Combat BC balance pass is scheduled for the Retribution 1.1 patch on February 12th. To reiterate, the skill split will not be happening in this patch. That change is currently scheduled for our major summer expansion. We're also in the process of putting these changes on a public test server for you guys to play with them. Expect more news on that in the next day or so. There will definitely be changes between this posted design and what releases in 1.1, but for now the test server will have the same versions as this thread's OP. When we update the designs we'll get those onto the test server as well asap. You still haven't addressed the problems that the skill changes will make to cloning, clone cost, upgrades and the possible skill losses from players who die after the changes with out dated clones thanks to the potential 6 million addtional skill points. What, 6 months of warning isn't enough for people to go and update their clone? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 219	Posted - 2013.01.17 09:22:00 - [15] - Quote I'm Down wrote: Amarr have no decent snipe boat BC or below and this was a perfect opportunity to make the Prophecy into an APOC mini but instead, we got a repeat drone boat that has 5 ships in game that already share that role around the cruiser/BC class. Ferox is an utter ** design that has never worked. I don't know why they continue to try this idea when there is now the NAGA which totally obsoletes it. Ferox also deserves a 6th mid rather than an extra low so that it can finally be the tanky *** role the drake stole from it. Pray tell, WTF is the Oracle then? Ferox range bonus means you can apply actual dps much easier, or do you feel that a blaster fit Ferox should only be useful at about 4km or less? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 221	Posted - 2013.01.17 21:13:00 - [16] - Quote Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote: Freighdee Katt wrote: Saramiir wrote: HML nerf was needed as the weapon system was just too good. Probably true, but the hilarious thing is that now the Caracal and Drake have exactly the same effective range (when the Caracal is using light missiles no less), because the Caracal got the Velocity + ROF bonuses. All the more reason that the Drake should get the same (and lose the shield resist), to make the Drake into an actual upgrade instead of just something that Caldari pilots are forced to train, but will never actually use, on their way to the Raven. I suggested a similar change a few pages back; I don't think the Drake needs the shield resist bonuses, for much the same reasons you listed. And suggested it as well. Only one person commented on my suggestion and made a pretty compelling argument: The Drake provides an opportunity for Caldari to break from the exact same bonus line for all their missile boats: Kestrel - velocity and damage Corax - double velocity and kinetic damage Caracal - velocity and ROF Raven - velocity and ROF They all focus on range and DPS Realistically, the Drake is the only Brawler style missile boat that the caldari have access to. But as I pointed out at the time, we could really use some extra range, but that can come from TE's when they finally affect missiles. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 223	Posted - 2013.01.18 06:07:00 - [17] - Quote TheFace Asano wrote: Mund Richard wrote: TheFace Asano wrote: What about a double damage bonus like cane? -1 launcher but make it 5% damage and 5% ROF. This would be a little better, the tank would be slightly lighter, and it would give the ship a unique spin. It is slow, but if you get inside it's range your toast. Just like the Gallente line doesn't need 2 ships with an armor rep bonus, the Caldari don't need 2 ships with a shield resist bonus. A hardpoint loss and a ROF gain would be a quite significant buff for dps (more than a full launcher's worth!), and it would do 25% more kinetic damage than the Cyclone even if it gets the 6th launcher. Sure, Cyclone would tank better 1v1. I'm all for having only 1 tank ship per racial lineup, so keep the ideas coming (not that there's a lot of variation to be had). maybe -2 launcher then Explosion velocity + RoF Flight Time + Velocity (double range, that would be interesting with HAMs) I like the RoF bonus better for missiles than the damage, the drake seems to fire too slow right now as is. 50% velocity and 50% fuel would actually result in a 125% range increase. The reason the argument was compelling is that it means that otherwise, we end up with every caldari missile boat doin exactly the same thing. That's just boring. Diversity is desired so making them all the same is what doesn't make sense. Hell, even the T2 versions are range focused, (Hawk and Cerberus.) MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 224	Posted - 2013.01.18 07:24:00 - [18] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: I personally think the myrm could be made to compare by just adding a 7.5% armor hp bonus per level to it. Would make it something of a reusable-buffer tank with very low downtime in hit-and run engagements. Give the ferox the 7.5% bonus to HP and swap the rep bonus for a MWD sig bonus / cap penalty reduction and you've got yourself a mean T1 tackling beast. With the off issue if that it kind-of obsoletes the thorax in everything but speed. I think you meant 'Brutix' rather than 'Ferox'. Also, adding armour or shield hp is only really good for PvP, where something like a resist bonus and in certain situations active rep bonus are useful in both PvP and PvE. Just a hp bonus isn't going to leave either ship useful for anything but solo and small gang PvP. As for the MWD bonus, again, limited PvP use, negligible use for anything else. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 224	Posted - 2013.01.18 13:42:00 - [19] - Quote Weasel Leblanc wrote: Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote: Ferrox: Change to Missiles. To much Hybrid T1 ships for Caldari. Nighthawk that follows up is also an Missile boat. We need for progression far more missile verability. In the Frig/Destroyer section are a bunch of missile boats, but for the 5x T1 BC/BS are only two. The percieved imbalance isn't caused by the Ferox, it's caused by the Naga. Turning the Ferox into a missile boat would leave Caldari pilots with zero sensible Caldari options for a battlecruiser fitting medium turrets. Yes, in theory you could use a Naga as a medium turret platform, but in practice you would be defeating the purpose of the ship entirely. How about a compromise. Give the Ferox a choice of turrets or launchers, give the Drake a range bonus instead of resists. Keeping the optimal bonus just gives it similar options to now. I have suggested the Drake change and argued against it, but if the Ferox could fill the gap for a brawler, it would settle a lot of issues. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 224	Posted - 2013.01.18 15:24:00 - [20] - Quote Pantson Head wrote: I almost like the prophecy, you just need to + a launcher, - turrets and dump the drone bonus for missile or just HAM ROF. I'm paraphrasing horribly a fantastic post of Prom's on failheap, but this would be the perfect stepping stone for the Khanid line of missile ships, between the Vengeance and the Sacrelige. It make sense with Amarr ships as they are, and it is a great armor counterpart to the Drake. Not long, but still didn't read; Gief armor drake! How does that even work? Why suggest a T1 BC to be a stepping stone between an AF and a HAC? Given that the Damnation is going to be a missile boat and will be the next step for the Khanid line, thats the point of pregression. As it is, the Prophecy could have some of the most versatile abilities of all the T1 BC's. Its got the slot layout to achieve so many things. I love my missiles, and I will be flying both HAM and HML fits with it, but I will also be testing a Blaster fit with a TD and a solid buffer tank on my PvP alt. Or maybe drop the TD and go for double web and watch the target melt under CN antimatter and Hammerhead II's... MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS

Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 224	Posted - 2013.01.19 07:20:00 - [21] - Quote Fozzie did say that he's trying to get these on the test server asap. How long do they need to be on there before people can decide if they are good to go or not? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 240	Posted - 2013.01.21 13:56:00 - [22] - Quote To the numpties who obviously can't be bothered to read the dev blog that's been up for ages: The Sleipnir is not being made into a missile boat, the Claymore is. All the Command Ships are being balanced so they can either boost, (using up to two types of boosted links @3%/level,) or fulfill a combat role. That's means the Sleipnir is probably going to lose either its falloff or damage bonus from the Command Ship skill in lieu of a 3% link boost. T3s are having their warfare sub changed to affect 3 types of links @2%/level. Also, I haven't sorted out access to SiSi as yet, has anyone actually compared the Brutixs agility and speed to some of the other BCs? I'm curious how the mass change is affecting it. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 241	Posted - 2013.01.21 17:46:00 - [23] - Quote Cytherion wrote: Hakan MacTrew wrote: To the numpties who obviously can't be bothered to read the dev blog that's been up for ages: The Sleipnir is not being made into a missile boat, the Claymore is. All the Command Ships are being balanced so they can either boost, (using up to two types of boosted links @3%/level,) or fulfill a combat role. That's means the Sleipnir is probably going to lose either its falloff or damage bonus from the Command Ship skill in lieu of a 3% link boost. T3s are having their warfare sub changed to affect 3 types of links @2%/level. Also, I haven't sorted out access to SiSi as yet, has anyone actually compared the Brutixs agility and speed to some of the other BCs? I'm curious how the mass change is affecting it. I am an ex field Command Ship pilot (both NH and Sleipnir) who just came back to the game to check out the noise that was all about, finally found the BC/Command Ship "dev blog " after digging for it. For those interested in reading it, here is the link http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530 All I can say is that they better not touch my Sleipnir damage bonus , command ships need to be able to multi-task like a mother and not just be someones buff-monkey. They need to be able to deal significant damage (slighty under top tier BS damage) while holding their own. They are command ships, thats where they belong, in the middle of heavy fire, wrecking havoc. Not stuck inside a pos piloted by an alt.. Most command ships (sleipnir aside) already seriously lack in the damage area "rebalancing" them in this area is only going to make matters worse.. So far not a huge fan of BC changes and its definitely made me wary of what they might do to the Command Ships...braces for impact How do you equate "Command" to mean "DPS"? The purpose of Command Ships is to speialise in Links, to boost the effectiveness of the squadron, wing or fleet they are leading. Hopefully CCP will laso sort out offgrid boosting and that will be the end of POS bubble and safespot boosters. They should be on the field, but they are not there to be DPS platforms, they are there to increase the capabilities of friendlies. I accept and agree that they need to survive longer than normal BC's, because the bonuses they give are worth more to the fleet than any one other ship. CCP's rebalancing program is supposed to make T2 focus on its speciality. If you want a T2 BC for a DPS platform, I suggest asking for one. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 247	Posted - 2013.01.23 09:45:00 - [24] - Quote With the changes coming to Active Tanking, I really don't see the Harby being fitable without gimping the **** out of itself. I does need to be looked at once more. On the plus side, armour cane will be q little more nimble, as wil the myrm and brutix MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 259	Posted - 2013.01.28 07:38:00 - [25] - Quote To mare wrote: i dont really like all those 10% bonus (except the drones one) they make kind of useless double damage bonused ships like the hurricane since it take 2 bonus to get a slightly better performance than 1, brutix drake harbinger get a +50% dps with 1 bonus, the cane get a +58% using 2 bonus and they all have the same nmuber of turrets or launchers The Drake will gain 3% overall kinetic damage from its missiles and a utility slot it will struggle to fill. In exchange it is losing almost 15% of any other missile types damage. Please do enlighten me as to how terrible this buff is for all non Drake users. Admittedly, for PvE purposes, of the 13 races you can fight, (not including Jove or Sleepers given their omnitank,) kinetic is only the primary or secondary vulnerability for 69%. What a crying shame... MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted 264	Posted - 2013.01.29 11:03:00 - [26] - Quote Crazy KSK wrote: Wivabel wrote: Crazy KSK wrote: This is a dumb comparison. Full tank Drake vs Light tank Ferox. The drake has absolutely no way to hold the ferox in place so he cannot kill the Ferox. The Ferox could just disengage if he wanted to. The Ferox is faster then the Drake Plus has a scram and web. A fight between these 2 ships really comes down to fitting/pilot ability. the drake probobly is slightly ahead of the ferox in buffer setups with the ferox ahead in asb setups. Ferox was better with the low slot but the utility high is useful as well. I would like to see ccp get away from these huge 6/7 slot tanks with resist bonuses though. prophecys/drakes are terrible especially in large numbers. Prophecy is gonna be OP imo. Wiv the ferox is exactly as fast as the drake with 175m/s the ferox does have web and scram but those turn off at 10-13km then they are equally fast and the drake will sooner or later catch up since its guns use no cap at the end of the chase the drake will have caught up and the ferox will have no cap to shoot its guns also by running away the ferox forces itself to use null and fight in falloff reducing its dps past the drakes dps with navy missiles ~390dps(in falloff@13km) for the ferox and ~500 for the drake the drake actually beats an asb ferox in raw shield ehp and has a second invul on top of that 17887 for overheated blue-pilled ferox and 18535 for the drake sure you could use crystals but I think its very bad to balance around 1.5bil implants that maybe 5% of all eve players have How much of an effect would an ASB fit Ferox have on Tue applied dps from.said drake, given its speed and Sig radius vs the Drakes missiles? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 285	Posted - 2013.02.03 18:09:00 - [27] - Quote SetSail ForEpicFail wrote: The prophecy need to have 125 drone bandwith to be useful as "droneboat" else it will just be one of em listed useless ships. 125 bw for heavy drones! Because it should be on par with the Dominix... I think they got it right. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 287	Posted - 2013.02.04 08:21:00 - [28] - Quote serras bang wrote: Pinky Denmark wrote: You're missing the point - T2 armor reps are usually better than Meta 4 with higher fittings in return. Anyway active tanking still has huge issues keeping up with the damage from even a single battlecruiser... Anyhow... I've been mesing around with the Drake. I have been rather obsessed with getting a bit more CPU, however I noticed that dropping the Warfare link makes it capable of becoming an insane monster. I think the real problem is the warfare links powergrid usage... 200/210 powergrid just enables people to fit a lot if they don't use the option. The Drake being able to fit like this can be rather overpowered : 6x T2 HAMs, Empty slot, Named MWD, 2x Meta 4 Shield Extenders, 2x T2 Invulns, T2 Scrambler, T2 DC, 3x T2 BCS 3x Shield rigs (extender and perhaps an em) 5x Warrior II ~700 dps, ~75k EHP (85k EHP overloaded during entire fights) And thats without implants This could also be subscriped to the Drake having both top dps, but also 6 medslots (the most medslots for the 8 battlescruisers) and a 5% resist bonus. Not many of the other ships can compete with that perhaps except the Prophecy? Yes, this fit doesn't have a web and it's not that fast so being able to dictate range is a problem. However with HAMs reaching ~15km range that shouldn't really be an issue. dunno were your getting the 700 dps on a drake from Overheat some Scourge Rage and that should hit 700+ MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 287	Posted - 2013.02.04 08:41:00 - [29] - Quote I concur, and I use a Drake for PvP on another account. At least the tank is coming down, I hit around 90k ehp currently on a PvP fit. I did suggest, earlier in the thread, that maybe swapping the resist bonus for a missile velocity bonus could be viable. Good arguments for and against have been put forward on that subject. I would not want to see every Caldari missile boat have the same bonuses, it would be boring. I also don't want to see both Caldari combat BCs have similar bonuses. That too would be boring. So, how to distinguish both hulls without screwing over the other one, or indeed the other racial boats. Fozzie, I really don't envy you or your team. What would the effects be of giving the Drake a velocity bonus instead of a damage bonus and giving it back its 7th launcher? At the same time, swapping out the resist bonus on the Ferox for a damage bonus? These are just suggestions and I would appreciate someone doing the numbers for me on them. I'm at work and on my phone so I can't really do them atm. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 289	Posted - 2013.02.05 05:21:00 - [30] - Quote Remnant Madeveda wrote: So Fozzie, No chance at making the Cyclone an armor ship instead of a shield ship? Why would the cyclone be made an armour ship over shields? It has always had an active shield.bonus, Minmatar are supposed to primarily be shield.tankers, the hurricane already is an armour tanker, armour tanking it would slow it down, reducing its benefit of being the fastest BC. By all means provide 1 good reason to.make it an armour tanker. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS

Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 291	Posted - 2013.02.05 15:08:00 - [31] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Balance ships, not bonuses. Are you suggesting then we should remove all bonuses from all thips and just give them all the the same layouts, the same stats and give them all the same amount of turret and missiles slots as well as the same amount of drones? How about we get rid of all meta and T2 gear too? Then everything will be balanced, right down the middle. Alternatively, we can accept the fact that ship bonuses are an intrinsic and integral part of what makes a ship both unique and what it is. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 291	Posted - 2013.02.05 15:18:00 - [32] - Quote Mike Whiite wrote: Quote: Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Launchers: -1 Powergrid: -40 CPU: -15 Hull: -250 So it's has less shield/armor/hull/launchers/slots as a whole. But it gained mass/lost speed/lost agillity/ lost cpu/lost powergrid/lost capacitor/ lost capacitor recharche time and gained Signature "TO GAIN A BIGGER CARGOHOLD?!!!!" for the fewer missiles that it is going to fire. Who made a Galente lead disigner for the Caldari state :) Although it should do more damage it became even lamer, than the first draft. The Cyclone: Outdamages the Drake with everything but Scourge. Has a bigger drone bay and can bring larger drones or 2 flights has only 250 Shield hp less and 500 armor more a bigger capacitater. is faster more agile. has a smaller signature radius Has more Powergrid Has more CPU Has 1 more low slot and one less mid Active shield bonus vs. Resist bonus BTW they have the same Cargohold :) I can understand the reson to reballance and make more ships usefull, though this is ripping almost every bit of use from it. Give it an general damage bonus an maybe a 7,5 % damage a level in that case they both have several options. Wow, the stock Cyclone has a massive 4.2% more dps than a Drake at BC level 5... Unless the Drake uses kinetic, where it then has 44% dps more than the Cyclone... (And actually, with 6 launchers using kinetic, it does 2.9% more dps than it used to with 7.) How aweful. And all that EHP, whatever will you do? ...as the Drake continues to have one of the most solid tanks in its class? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 292	Posted - 2013.02.05 19:02:00 - [33] - Quote Wivabel wrote: Hakan MacTrew wrote: Gypsio III wrote: Balance ships, not bonuses. Are you suggesting then we should remove all bonuses from all thips and just give them all the the same layouts, the same stats and give them all the same amount of turret and missiles slots as well as the same amount of drones? How about we get rid of all meta and T2 gear too? Then everything will be balanced, right down the middle. Alternatively, we can accept the fact that ship bonuses are an intrinsic and integral part of what makes a ship both unique and what it is. What he means by the statement balance ships not bonuses is for example if the drake needs a 50% damage bonus to be competitive with other ships within its class then so be it. One ship could have a 5% bonus while another has a 50% bonus as long as the ships themselves are balanced it does not matter that one gets a bigger bonus. Gallente battlecruisers: I really feel that the tanking bonus is not as bad as it used to be if either ship should lose this bonus I vote the myrm. triple rep myrm fits are cute and all but the ship would do well with a bunch of possible other choices drone tracking drone MWD speed etc etc. If this is indeed the case, I would retract my previous statement and agree with him. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 294	Posted - 2013.02.06 07:06:00 - [34] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Maximus Andendare wrote: Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there. High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible. That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there. I would have to disagree. If you cut the cap useage on lasers to 2/3rds their current amount it would still be a significantly high cap useage but would allow ships without the bonus to effectively fit & use lasers. Generaly the ships with no cap use bonus get fitted with something like AC's simply because it's utterly unviable for them to work with lasers. The cap bonus could then be removed off additional ships, but still left on a few that are specifically intended to be able to fire indefinetly (or close to) with a little bit of cap fitting of some kind, be it rigs or mods. They certainly do not have a damage advantage anymore that requires leaving them unable to continious fire without serious effort. Doesn't their optimal allow for awesome damage application? Not really used lasers, only missiles and projectiles, (mainly because I love the projectile sound effects and missile visuals) MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 297	Posted - 2013.02.08 13:14:00 - [35] - Quote Yonis Kador wrote: I can count the number of Amarr ships with drone bonuses on one hand. I'll have fingers left over. Maybe I just can't count. YK Dragoon Arbitrator Pilgrim Curse ...and now the Prophecy... ...man, what sort of freaky mutant are you that has 6+ fingers on one hand? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 298	Posted - 2013.02.08 16:59:00 - [36] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: Smilingmonk wrote: Aprudena Gist wrote: And you still give the ******* cyclone a split weapon system? for fucks sake Which is a reason that most people don't / won't use it. I agree completely that CCP needs to make it a one weapon system and be done with it. It's so obvious what needs to be done that we just have to wonder why they don't do it.... CCP Fozzie has already commented on this. The two AC slots should be viewed as utility highs. That you have the choice to put AC there for more DPS or utility is a bonus. Most people will put neuts there instead. The Cyclone will be: The fastest BC in the game. It will have a great burst tank that does not depend on cap. It will have two neuts or other form of utility. It has damage type choice. The tradeoff is that it has mediocre DPS compared to the other Battlecruisers. Yep, exactly like how the Cane has the option to fit extra launchers. I don't see anyone pissing and moaning about that... MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 307	Posted - 2013.02.10 14:26:00 - [37] - Quote Notorious Sick wrote: Mund Richard wrote: To mare wrote: Notorious Sick wrote: The Drake loses a Launcher? \o/ wwhhyyyyyyyyyyyyy... \o/ Seriously, that's terrible. So you mangled the battlecruiser! In my honest opinion... maybe you missed the parts where the drake get a +10% per lv instead of +5%, effectively doing more dps than the actual drake when using kin missile OFC that's only with BC V, and only if you use kinetic missiles, else it's quite a nerf, but you are right, the Drake did gain damage with kinetic missiles at skill V instead of losing. That's exactly the point. And if kinetic is not exactly appropriate, then you stand there with pants down. With the trade off being a rock solid tank... So, whats your problem again? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 310	Posted - 2013.02.12 13:34:00 - [38] - Quote Zimmy Zeta wrote: Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: Please consider testing not only with [All V] characters and not only for Blob-PvP. Drake will be pretty weak for a new players. Also Caldari will become one and only race that don't have a BC for L3 missions / rattings against anyone but Guristas/Serpentis/Mercs. And since their T1 battleships are bad for PvE Caldari will be left with Tengu and Navy/T2 BS that are not accessbile for a new player at all (price and skill wise). This is not a small problem as some might think, inability to upgrade from L2 missions without months of accumulating SP may turn away some newbies who would otherwise stay. So much wrong with this post. Keep in mind that with Retribution, most of the formerly useless cruisers became great tools for both PVP and PVE. Newbies can now chose between many ships that will do the job for them, and now there is actually a reason for them to stick with T1 cruisers and only upgrade to BCs when they have decent skills and (as a side effect) enough money to even afford to lose several BCs. Before that, whenever a newbie asked which ship to train for, the answer was "Drake for PVE and Cane for PVP. No matter what race you are, you may have to crosstrain, but don't bother with any other ship, everything else is just a waste of time." Now that new players have a valid choice between many ships that will all be good for the job, I reckon that it will be much better for motivation & new player retention. And what's that stuff about Caldari battleships being bad for PVE? I read this sentence thrice now but I am still not sure if you are serious. I totally agree. Most apt comment made in the whole thread. To mare wrote: Luscius Uta wrote: Consequently, that leaves Minmatar as the only race without a drone boat.. i missed the caldari drone boat? Yeah, that confused the **** out of me too. Given the amount of drones usable by several of the Minmatar BSs as well, its a pretty pointless statement. Are we going to recieve a request for Gallente missile boats? MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 322	Posted - 2013.02.17 10:59:00 - [39] - Quote Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote: Harbinger looks like a nice buff to me, but as i said before pls remove that cap boni its just worthless The Fozz did explain this one: If they halved the cap usage of lasers, then nocked 33% off the huge optimal, you could give the harby, (and all the other cap bonused ships,) an optimal bonus and have the same effects. The weapon system itself has different benefits and problems. Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote: Gallente Overall not much to say about, small changes but still the ol same boats. Only real thing i would like is one of them losing the Rep-Boni and getting something else instead. The only thing I would like to change is this as well. But hey, Fozzy has said that it can still change. I would like to see BCs have different bonuses to the other ships, and not just see them as scaled up or down versions of other cruisers or BS's. Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote: Cyclone A ship i have never flown but if i had a say in that i would want 6 missile launcher slots instead of 5. Its still got those two utility slots that can use turrets to make up damage, as well as those 5 lows. I'm tempted with trying to wedge an XL booster on there in an exploration fit, for giggles. Actually, this could end up being the poor/unskilled mans Tengu for exploration... MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 322	Posted - 2013.02.17 21:23:00 - [40] - Quote Eli Green wrote: So yeah the drake.... it needs another redesign..... Well it is an ugly SoB... The art team should get on that, along with 90% of the other Caldari ships, (except you scorpion, I can never stay mad at you... x) But stats wise, its looking good compared to the other BC's. And thats the point, they are balanced against each other and other ship classes. I've said it before and I'll say it again, good job Fozzy and the team. (Also, try putting something useful in your post rather than, "Change It". Normally an explanation is helpful. Thats the whole point about constructive critisism.) MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS

Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 327	Posted - 2013.02.19 17:36:00 - [41] - Quote Kahega Amielden wrote: You're completely missing the point. If they increase the reprocess value of the ships then people can just produce as many of these ships as they possibly can and be assured that, post-patch, they can be reprocessed into more minerals. People will still stockpile the rebalanced ships pre-patch and sell at a high profit margin post-patch, but at least in this way the impact is limited to a small subset of the market, and if too many are produced then the price will crash. If rebalanced ships could be turned into a source of free minerals then the entire mineral market would be affected. Mineral values would plummet because the market would be saturated with free patch minerals. Worst case scenario with the way CCP is currently doing it is that battlecruisers sell for under production cost for awhile. You forgot to add that it happened with all the other rebalanced ships from the retribution 1.0 release, as well as the mining barge rebalance back in inferno. If you failed to pick up on that, then your not much of an industrialist. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 327	Posted - 2013.02.20 05:31:00 - [42] - Quote JC Anderson wrote: Malius Sparklighter wrote: Why did I even train BC II when the tier I is better? Flying any ship without at least 4 in it's primary skill is generally a bad idea. Regardless of what is "required" to sit in the ship. TBF, I used to run level 4 missions in a drake with BC at 2... The changes were needed. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 401	Posted - 2013.03.14 08:49:00 - [43] - Quote Dato Koppla wrote: Meh the Drake is still the best BC and amazing value for it's cost. The rest aren't too shabby either, I'd say the Cane is in the worst shape after these changes. I personally think the cane is still in good shape. Certainly the armour brawling fits I use on my alt are anyway. All I had to do was drop 1 medium neut and a trimark rig to fit an ancillary rig. That let me fit a T2 1600mm plate and I've kept the same ehp(ish) and I'm actually a little faster. I admit shield canes aren't in a fantastic shape, but I think they compare well with the other options. The Drake is still top dog, but that really is an issue with shield tanking in general rather than the hull. I have tried to work some fits for doing C2 WHs and so far the Drake wins hands down. The same goes for mission fits. And yes, the only fit worth a damn on the cyclone is an asb fit. It can't tank as well as a Drake, it can't put out DPS like a Drake and its only saving grace is its marginal speed superiority and its utility highs. That's a big disappointment to me because I like the cyclones model and I had hoped to use it regularly. As its stands the only reason I can see to take it anywhere is solo/small gang PvP. Even then, the Drake fairs just as well. Between the Drake and the Cyclone, I would like to see one focus on tank and one focus on DPS. The Drake is and always will be a brick. So I would give the cyclone higher DPS. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS

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.