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)
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 92	Posted - 2013.01.08 21:32:00 - [1] - Quote I said this in another thread after the dev post about new battlecruisers but it bears repeating. You were right to be concerned about the Ferox and Naga sharing a sniper role on the battlefield. That is because comparatively the Naga with rails fitted has much longer optimal far superior damage as well as better mobility. The Ferox has a better tank...but so what if you're receiving heavy fire as a sniper something has gone awry in your plan. The two ships will NOT be competing for the sniper role the Naga will simply win, having the advantage in every area that counts (aside from tracking I suppose but the longer range will help to mitigate that as a problem) and the Ferox will continue to collect dust. At least you didn't give the Ferox a carbon copy of the Naga bonuses which was originally the plan if memory serves. The whole point however was that it needed bonuses that better fit it's adopted role in the post Naga era which is a brawler. 5% shield resistance and 5% medium hybrid damage would not make it overpowered as it's damage is currently low compared with other short range battlecruisers and would give it a very clearly defined role within the Caldari lineup.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 92	Posted - 2013.01.08 21:36:00 - [2] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: CaptainFalcon07 wrote: Prometheus Exenthal wrote: Overall, this doesn't rustle my jimmies. However, the Harbinger does look a wee bit outgunned. You're now reducing its fitting, reducing base HP, removing a high (for consistency) but also removing a turret hardpoint, in addition to making it SLOWER. Combined with the inherit weakness that is laser damage output & tracking, this simply doesnt seem like a good deal. At the very least, I'd say reduce the high slots and all that, but let it keep the 7 turrets and the powergrid. This will allow for people to run high dps setups that can compete with the likes of the others, in addition to actually fitting BEAMS. If people want that utility high slot, they can choose not to fit the 7th gun. Haven't you notice the damage bonus has been increased? its gone from 5% -> 10% damage per level. Now: 7 turrets x 1.25 = 8.75 turrets. Future: 6 turrets x 1.50 = 9 turrets As you can see you will do more damage while needing less turrets. oh man, im a big derp Don't worry man I made the same mistake at first, so at least you know you're not alone. 7 turrets with 10% damage would have been too much.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 92	Posted - 2013.01.09 00:34:00 - [3] - Quote I would have absolutely loved to see the Prophecy become a HAM ship but I sincerely doubt I'm going to get that. As for what it is here it definitely looks better than the current Prophecy 7 lows and resist bonus will be a massive tank and the drones do present the possibility of damage worth worrying about if you can apply it, think I'd like to try that one before I commit my judgement on it. Whatever I get the 4 mids is going to make me smile no matter what. One thing is certain though, you will NEVER see lasers on it. It will be fit with missiles, autocannons or utility, pretty much always is my first impression. By the way I've seen a lot of posts about nerfing the Harb and only the mobility and hp hits concern me. 6 turrets with 10% bonus is like 9 unbonused turrets compared with 8.75 which you get right now with 7 turrets and a 5% bonus. With that extra 1/4 turret I might add your cap cost for firing the grouping has gone down by 1/7 as well. The damage is a buff and much appreciated. Now if only I could move.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 93	Posted - 2013.01.09 00:44:00 - [4] - Quote I don't see the problem with the cane either other than the loss of capacitor. Minmatar ships are near or at the bottom of the barrel in terms of capacitor the cane was already a little high in general for a minmatar ship but losing ~550 or so seems a bit steep. In terms of the slot layout you knew if you read the dev post a few months ago that the cane was over on the standardized slot layout CCP were working with and you lost the predictable and least damaging slot. Now you get one neut instead of 2 very little else changes. This is exactly what I was expecting. Let me put it to you another way. If you take the current Hurricane and have to sacrifice one slot of your choosing which would you want to drop? I would drop the one high (neut).
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 95	Posted - 2013.01.09 09:07:00 - [5] - Quote Actually if gang links ever do become on-grid only I can actually see the Prophecy as a pretty good place to put them in plain sight in small scale cheapish fleets. Completely unbonused highs means you're not sacrificing much by not fitting guns/missiles and 7 lows and the armor bonus means you can tank it pretty heavily (even if you need a co-proc for more than one link), even a couple Augorors shouldn't have much trouble keeping it alive. Your gang mates can take care of the e-war/tackle as you're kinda slow anyhow. I think I'm doing well in making peace with my new found Amarr drones.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 96	Posted - 2013.01.09 09:22:00 - [6] - Quote NetheranE wrote: As to those whining about the Harb changes... This is a stepping stone between the Omen/Maller and 'Geddon/Abaddon. Are these ships known for their agility? No, and it should remain so across the linear progression line of the Amarrian "Tank & Gank" philosophy. Honestly, who needs agility when you have Scorch? I'm definitely on board with the turret change for the Harb. Yes Scorch is great but pulse laser falloff REALLY is not. ~20 or so optimal with Scorch is good but you're not webbing anything at that range in a Harb so it's very very easy for your target to move out of your range and you just have to watch. Add to that your terrible base mobility and the fact that your armor tank is going to make it even worse and there are battleships that could escape your anchored vessel. You're not going to fit a great tank with heavy pulses either so all that lost HP especially from the armor is going to hurt it again and to top all that off the fitting which was already very tight is now worse, granted you don't have to fit one of your guns anymore but it lost more than 1 gun worth of fitting and with skills factored in the loss is further amplified because the base stats you are adding your 25% to is now smaller. That applies to the mobility as well, your skills are now basing their bonus off of a worse base stat and so add less than they did before, compounding the loss.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 100	Posted - 2013.01.10 04:58:00 - [7] - Quote If you read the dev post a while back about standarizing the number of slots on battlecruisers you would already know that the Drake, Cane and Harb were all going to lose a slot. I feel in all cases the ship lost the slot that has the least impact on the ships viability. The Harb definitely suffers the least from it's missing slot with the damage increase and still maintaining a utility high. The Drake almost never used that slot before anyway so again is it really even noticeable. The Hurricane your gun layout is completely unchanged you now have one utility high instead of two so 99% of the time that means one neut (like everyone else with utility highs) and everything else is unchanged and until now I have not seen anyone else make this point that, yes you lost grid in the last patch, but one of your highs is gone and your base fittings are unchanged from the last patch. Therefore, with that neut gone you just gained ~175 grid as well as some CPU. I find it hard to believe with the Cane already being one of the most mobile BCs a 2% mass increase isn't going to hurt that bad really. Of all the crying over nerfs I feel this one is by far the most exaggerated.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 100	Posted - 2013.01.10 05:12:00 - [8] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Jean Louie wrote: Gallente still suck as usual. Gallente need a defense bonus similar to resistance, no more armor rep bonuses please that's for PVE. Nobody flies a fleet with active armor tanks. Not everyone flies in fleets. -Liang Many, MANY people do. I suppose that is true by definition isn't it.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 100	Posted - 2013.01.10 05:13:00 - [9] - Quote Sinzor Aumer wrote: Valleria Darkmoon wrote: The Drake almost never used that slot before anyway so again is it really even noticeable. Yes it did! Drake was good in PVE, you know. It means tractor beam, salvager or a probe launcher for WH ninjas. Also, considering future off-grid boosting nerf, T1 battlecruisers will be used for boosting in small gangs. Oh right, EVE has PvE doesn't it, how cute.
Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 100	Posted - 2013.01.10 07:47:00 - [10] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: Valleria Darkmoon wrote: I suppose that is true by definition isn't it. But that's not a reason to deny ships that are good in small scale, neither does it prevent you from training Amarr cruiser 3 before battlecruisers become racial skills if you feel Amarr are so much better in fleets. Except training Amarr cruiser is utterly pointless if I've trained hybrids. It just makes no sense to shoehorn both ships in to a fail active tanking role that'll just be wasted when the ships are used in fleets or small gangs, especially now with the common inclusion of cheap T1 logi ships. edit: Also, it's not "I feel" Amarr are so much better in fleets. It IS that Amarr are better in fleets. Passive tank bonuses ARE better for fleets. Afflicting both Gallente combat BCs with self-repping active bonuses does nothing but gimp their use in group work. You're reading something I didn't say and I don't know how you could have gotten it from what I wrote. I was not suggesting Amarr get active tanking bonuses nor was I suggesting that Gallente are equal to Amarr in a fleet because passive resist bonus is much better for that. I guess I worded it poorly and what I should have said is that if you feel you don't want to use Gallente in a fleet or your FC won't take it then cross train. The active rep bonus on Gallente and the resistance bonus on Amarr is not new and if all you trained for is hybrids then you'll have to make do for now I don't think the general tanking trend between races could have escaped your notice for this long. You CAN still train lasers/drones if you want and getting Amarr cruiser 3 before battlecruiser becomes a racial skill will get you free SP for the Amarr battlecruisers when they do separate so it will benefit you anyway even if Amarr BC is a distant goal at best. Additionally cross training the guns is very easy if you have hybrids already as all the supporting gunnery skills apply to both so it's literally small energy turret then mediums, easy peasy. If you just want Amarr bonuses on a Gallente ship then I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, there might be a case for not having BOTH Gallente BCs with an active rep bonus but it will blow my mind if you get a resist or armor hp bonus instead. I wanted a HAM bonused Prophecy but I'm positive I won't get that either, so I will make do with what I have.

Valleria Darkmoon No Salvation 100	Posted - 2013.01.15 09:13:00 - [11] - Quote Dear CCP Fozzie, I read your post from the 10th and I was initially calling for a damage bonus on the Ferox to replace the optimal, you convinced me however, to give it a go as presented as the 7th turret should bring it's damage up to being closer to on par with other battlecruisers which is one of the biggest thing the hull currently lacks. Null and optimal presents at least an opportunity I would like to try and I hadn't considered the impact of the optimal bonus on PvE, as since I made enough money to work the market for ISK I haven't done much PvE in a long time. So as for my request for a damage bonus to replace the optimal on the Ferox, consider it withdrawn. Those of you who liked my initial post can feel free to unlike it if you wish. If I want the full on damage blaster brawler there's always an improved Brutix out there I can fly as well. I feel like the number of complaints around battlecruisers was not unexpected seeing as how they were the go-to ships for nearly everything EVE, though there is one I'm very concerned about and that is the Harbinger, it's damage increase is nice for me as I have ~60 million SP but those who don't have that I feel will really suffer still and frankly I doubt I will use it much or at all with it so hard to move as it is, laser optimal is great and all but doesn't mean much if you're always using scorch against an opponent you can't web and can never catch up to, he's free to disengage the moment he feels threatened. Lowered fittings are also a serious concern as it lost more than a single focused medium pulse laser worth of fittings and the lowered amount also mean skills add less to a ship already notorious for fitting issues. Of all the complaints over these changes, I feel the Hurricane is the most exaggerated. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm only looking at the bracketed change numbers on the first page but with losing a high slot the standard Cane will now fit only one neut instead of two (which after reading the dev blog a few months ago about some BCs losing slots was exactly what I expected), but the grid and CPU are completely unchanged from the last patch. That says to me that you just gained extra fitting room on your Hurricane as you now need ~15-20 less CPU and ~175-200 less grid to use a standard fit. The damage is still there and your shield Cane can still push out around 750 dps with a standard shield fit and still have over 50k EHP and finally is only outpaced by the Cyclone. If anyone would have preferred the Hurricane lose either a mid or a low or a double bonused high (yeah right) they have yet to say so when I comment on the lost neut. So I think your Hurricane is pretty much spot on. I should also say that I wasn't initially a big fan of the Prophecy but the more I think about the more intrigued I am about getting a chance to play around with it. I would have loved to see it become a HAM ship but I'm getting used to the drone idea and I am having thoughts about what I can do with it now and I think its future is looking bright and has real potential to become one of my favorites. As for the Gallente I'll suspend judgement until the active armor rep details are released, other than to say there may be a good case for not giving the rep bonus to both of them. Overall I wasn't initially impressed with these battlecruisers but the more I think on them the more I like what you've done, so much so that I'm finally going to like that first post. I've been really enjoying EVE's removal if tiers and re-balance efforts. I look forward to the battleships. - Val.
Valleria Darkmoon Heretic Army Atrocitas 110	Posted - 2013.02.18 14:43:00 - [12] - Quote TravelBuoy wrote: Fjury wrote: Fuk you CCP, last couple year you doing nothing than ruining this great game! Last successful patch was Trinity! since this moment you ...... ...... .. . And now you came up with that fuking BC nerf and Only one ship which will be complety fu*ked up will be hurricane. SHOW ME SOME GOOD BENEFITS!!!! except of lame targating range bonus Hurricane: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers Fittings: 1125 PWG, 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4250(-47) / 4500(-188) / 3500(-16) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(-562.5) / 592s(-158s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000 (+300,000) / 8.4s (+0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km (+5) / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 425 (-50) +1
Valleria Darkmoon Heretic Army Atrocitas 110	Posted - 2013.02.18 22:15:00 - [13] - Quote Mund Richard wrote: Laura Belle wrote: this is how i see it - taking the ferox and turning it into a pocket-rokh Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 8 M(+3), 1 L(-3), 8 turrets (+2) Fittings: 1200 PWG (+125), 530 CPU (+55) Rokh has a slot layout of 6 mids and 5 lows. So why does your pocket-Rokh have 8 mids and 1 low? And with 1200 PG (less than the CCP proposed) the 8 turrets (and one low only)... Wishing it had one more mid so that it can brawl, I can understand. I wish it had myself. As much as I love utility highs, the Ferox is hurt a bit by being the only BC with 8 highslots, thus less mid+low. But the original plan didn't involve 6 mids as well. Though it still could be changed for it! One more mid may be a thing but if it were to get 6 mids I would want it to come from the highs at the expense of the utility high, as it stands as presented it fits Ions and an XL ASB pretty easily for 650 dps with Void and over 900 dps tank thanks to a built in capless invuln. 8 Turrets may not even increase this dps since you are proposing taking off all your magstabs and TEs to fit your ship with WAYYYYYYYYYYY to much tank. You're also losing the bonuses from the TEs to your tracking, optimal and falloff that you will need to really make your optimal bonus shine. 8 mids is just right out and not going to happen, it's not even good. Getting that at the cost of all but one low is horrible. Now you have a stupidly overtanked piece of crap who's sole role is to warp some place obvious get pointed and call in something better to deal with it. This proposal is not good or even useful, it would be exactly what the Prophecy is now before this patch goes through. The only thing you can do with this is warp in with your fleet and have the satisfaction of taking a very long time to die last. Even the Cormorant was bad with only 1 low which is why it got more, instead of more mids.
Valleria Darkmoon Heretic Army Atrocitas 111	Posted - 2013.02.25 11:58:00 - [14] - Quote Little Dragon Khamez wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Oghedron wrote: Hi Fozzie, Is it possible for the brutix to get 11 more powergrid? The hurricane and harbinger can both fit 1600 plates, mwd and a full rack of their largest guns. The harbinger can also fit a med. cap booster while the hurricane only needs a small. The ferox can fit a full rack of ions, a mwd, a medium cap booster and an equivalent shield tank (10k higher than the armor, but larger sig). The brutix cannot fit a mwd, med. cap booster, 1600 plate and a full rack of ions. It has to use a small cap booster. The 9 powergrid would allow it to fit a meta cap booster but not a neut in its place. All the other ships can use a t2 cap booster. Thanks and great job! Shield tank it, you can pull almost 1k DPS shield tanked. can you mail me or post your fit that sounds awesome. Neutrons with Void, dual extenders and 3 magstabs ought to do it, fill in the blanks after that.

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,08s, ref 20250613/1753
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.