Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2974
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
It seems wrong for there to be so few stickies in this section.
Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.
As with all the tiericide efforts, we are aiming for these ships to have roughly comparable power levels. To that end most of the former Tier 1 ships are getting slots and most of the former Tier 2 ships are losing slots. We gave them EHP closer to the averages of the old Tier 1s and damage closer to the averages of the old Tier 2s. These ships are getting less dramatic changes than some of the smaller classes but we still expect the meta to change noticeably.
The biggest changes will be seen by the Prophecy and the Cyclone, which are both getting changed weapon bonuses. The Proph is becoming an heavy tanking droneboat with the choice of missiles or turrets in the highslots (similar to how we have been using the highs of the smaller Amarr droneboats throughout this balance pass). The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger.
We're planning to release these ships in an upcoming Retribution point release so that we can keep the balance train rolling steadily. I'm working to figure out the earliest point we can get them on a test server so that I can start getting hands on feedback from you all. As always these stats are subject to change and we welcome all the feedback you can provide.
Prophecy: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-2), 4 M (+1), 7 L (+1), 4 turrets (-2), 4 Launchers (+3) Fittings: 1100 PWG (-200), 415 CPU (+75) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-419) / 5500(+617) / 4250(-145) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.704 / 12900000 (-600,000) / 8.5s (-0.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 (+50) / 225 (+200) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 210 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1) Signature radius: 270 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400 (+50)
Harbinger: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1325 PWG (-175), 350 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-516) / 5000(-469) / 4500(-188) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3125 / 822s(+72s) / 3.8 (-0.366) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.704 / 13800000 (+300,000) / 9.1s (+0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km (+5) / 210 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1) Signature radius: 270 (+5) Cargo capacity: 375 (+25)
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1100 PWG (+25), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.05) / 13510000 (-500,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 7 Launchers Fittings: 840 PWG (-10), 515 CPU (-10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L (+1), 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(+135) / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Myrmidon: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(-188) / 4750(+453) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 175 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Falcon
2066
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Glue Applied.
Also, first in epic numbars post
CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Team -á || -á EVE Illuminati -á || -á Live Events Organizer
@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Black Core Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Its a new day for cyclones. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3739
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
157
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Care to comment on BPO mineral requirement changes, or will we have to wait for the test server for those? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
741
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Do you think you guys want to do BC then BS by Summer? Is that within the realm of doable? Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Cabal Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
661
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
have not read yet... bah i am too slow
now that i ahve read i was really hopping for some usefull bonus for the ferox and the brutix... same for the myrm...
i am happy that it has an extra heavy drone but i would have prefered to get rid of the armor rep bonus and replace with drone tracking and optimal range bonus
as for the ferox... pretty simple drop the optimal range bonus and replace with hybrid turret damage bonus
and for the brutix 10% bonus to armor rep per level (make it a big incursus)
other than that i am stoked the myrm is getting an extra 25mb... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
tgl3
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
229
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
The Drake is keeping the Kin bonus? Uh huuuuh... I write a blog. I think people read it. http://throughnewbeyes.wordpress.com
Mate |
Mai Khumm
Carbon Circle Tactical Narcotics Team
403
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
The Ferox is getting a nice buff...
I like...!!! *insert witty saying here* |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Bitten.
107
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
10st
Its nice that your attempting to make all ships viable but armour self reppers, fix that please before you give that to ships. |
|
Musaab Osman
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
Am I happy? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2974
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Care to comment on BPO mineral requirement changes, or will we have to wait for the test server for those? We'll be following the same general idea as previous tiericide classes, except that the former Tier 3 BCs will continue to require more minerals than the Combat BCs due to their role and use of large turrets.
Aryth wrote:Do you think you guys want to do BC then BS by Summer? Is that within the realm of doable? I'm not going to make promises until we have the planning for Summer further along, but we'll be getting as much done as quickly as we can time and resources permitting. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Alua Oresson
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma.....
You know something you evil man, don't you? http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/ |
Ammzi
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
1284
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
Harbinger being welped? quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Dead Links
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
Please for the love of God give the Harbinger some more CPU. Or if you are removing a turret simply leave the CPU as it is now, rather than reducing it. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
171
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:02:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ferox seems pretty terribad, and why does Brutix have an armor repper bonus - so useless ;O
do like the prophecy, myrm and cyclone changes |
Sphit Ker
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
135
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
What could be the reasoning behind nerfing the Harbinger? I can't think of anything that ship need taken off. Consider me puzzled |
Musaab Osman
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Harbinger being welped?
Yeah...it seems like they are taking it out to the woodshed. I think it was already underpowered...now it seems like they are just putting it to sleep. Harbinger of what? Defeat? |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma.....
Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
661
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:05:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Ferox seems pretty terribad, and why does Brutix have an armor repper bonus - so useless ;O
do like the prophecy, myrm and cyclone changes
thats because it is...
i have no idea why it still have an optimal range bonus...
it really really needs a hubrid turret damage bonus... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
|
Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2438
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 2 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1200 PWG (-10), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4750(+355) / 4000(+94) / 3500(+81) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(+62.5) / 592s(+8.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Why not 6 launchers? I thought you were going away from the split weapon layout. Now it just seems like you swapped it around for the cyclone.
Also, many of the former tier2 ones seem to lose their utility high. I had hoped to see t1 BCs being used more with a link or two for small fleets with the upcomming change to links, but the loss of the utility high will just mean that ppl will be less likely to fit one with a link.
If you are having Smurf problems I feel bad for you son I got 99 problems but a Blue aint one. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
661
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs.
by all reps that would mean incomming external RR right? as a rep bonus without range bonus on rr is rather useless...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
FistyMcBumBasher
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
I think having armor repair per level on both of the Gallente BC's is a little boring. Maybe an armor resist on the brutix or a Drone MWD on the Myrmidon? |
Thomas Hurt
Poteque Industries
64
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
Interesting to see that the only people the Dev responded to were goons... |
Mary Clarissa Titor
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:08:00 -
[25] - Quote
A few questions. Pardon me if they sound stupid. :)
- Looks like all battlecruisers are keeping their warfare link module fitting bonus. But as far as I remember, the plan is to get rid of off-grid boosting in the future. That will make battlecruisers with warfare link modules usefull, while right now I don't think I've ever seen one fit on a real ship. Is there a particular reason for Gallente to have no battlecruisers with an utility high for such a usage while Amarr and Minmatar do?
- What Hans said. Why both Gallente battlecruisers get an active repair bonus, when such a bonus so often remains unused in a fleet situation? With the current popularity of T1 logi, the usefullness of an armor resist bonus is much higher.
Otherwise, yay, heavies on myrm! :) |
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:08:00 -
[26] - Quote
the sad thing about this major nerf, which it really is... tier 3 bc's are going to be even more the ship to fly once this slaughter goes into effect.
for instance the dual type of the harbinger plus the other chances to will make me sell mine before it get ruined. i would not fit different weapons on a ship. for the simply reason that damage modefiers come from different modules so i'd have to compromise to much on my overall fitting idea.
and i have a FAR more important question ! does this in any way effect on the commandship version of the upcoming ruined tier 1 and 2 bc's. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1390
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:09:00 -
[27] - Quote
you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
661
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
the changes i would like to see:
Myrmidon: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 4 H (-2), 6 M (+1), 6 L, 5 turrets (-2) Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 425 CPU (+25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(-188) / 4750(+453) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 175 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400
Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 10% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L (+1), 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(+135) / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1100 PWG (+25), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.05) / 13510000 (-500,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Dead Links
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
Meh, whatever. |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
My opinion:
Harbinger - A big improvement and change. I like it.
Prophecy - I am not impressed, it has more tank and everything but 75 mb of drone is pretty lacking. I say you give it more launcher slots and make it a missile launching drone boat.
Ferox - better, but still not good enough. The optimal range bonus is pointless when you have the Naga that has way better DPS AND RANGE. Swap the Range bonus for a damage bonus, make it more like the new Moa.
Drake - nothing much has changed.
Cyclone - Poor, only 5 launchers with a single damage bonus. You might as well get a caracal. Give it 6-7 launchers and it will be good.
Hurricane - Loses a high slot, eh can deal with it.
Myrmidon - Loses a turret for more drone bandwidth, seems better but I still don't like that armor repair bonus.
Brutix - Better but still not impressed with the armor repair bonus. |
|
Sugar Kyle
The humbleless Crew Capital Punishment.
190
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
The cane hadn't really healed from the last onslought. Now it loses a high, less cap, less cap regen, less shields, less structure... Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
900
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:12:00 -
[32] - Quote
I like the looks of the new prophecy. The Harb did get hit harder then I expected.
I was hoping that between the Myrm and Brutix one would get rid of the armor rep bonus. Sigh. 100m^3 is a weird bandwidth for the Myrm too. 4 heavies? 3 heavies an two medium to not make full use of it? It's nice but sort of offends my OCD.
The Drake is unoriginal. Caldari hybrid boat get shield and a hybrid bonus. Caldari missile boats get range and damage. The Ferox got upgraded to 7 turrets. I approve.
Minmatar - saw it coming. Looks fine. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:15:00 -
[33] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 2 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1200 PWG (-10), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4750(+355) / 4000(+94) / 3500(+81) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(+62.5) / 592s(+8.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Why not 6 launchers? I thought you were going away from the split weapon layout. Now it just seems like you swapped it around for the cyclone. Also, many of the former tier2 ones seem to lose their utility high. I had hoped to see t1 BCs being used more with a link or two for small fleets with the upcomming change to links, but the loss of the utility high will just mean that ppl will be less likely to fit one with a link.
Isn't a turret high on a missile bonus ship the ultimate utility high?
fukier wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs. by all reps that would mean incomming external RR right? as a rep bonus without range bonus on rr is rather useless...
Yes, I meant all incoming reps, that includes remote reps. And even then a resist bonus will outperform a rep bonus since buffer tanks (plate and extenders) won't gain anything from a rep bonus while a resist bonus benefits both active and passive tanking. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
468
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
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. -áwww.promsrage.com |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
661
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:17:00 -
[35] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:by all reps that would mean incomming external RR right? as a rep bonus without range bonus on rr is rather useless...
Yes, I meant all incoming reps, that includes remote reps. And even then a resist bonus will outperform a rep bonus since buffer tanks (plate and extenders) won't gain anything from a rep bonus while a resist bonus benefits both active and passive tanking.[/quote]
ok good cuss i have been suggesting this for years!
well with alts...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Abigail La'Fey
Nictus X Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
The Cyclone is missing a Launcher hardpoint. |
Abigail La'Fey
Nictus X Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:19:00 -
[37] - Quote
Also, would it not make more sense to just give the Tier 1 BCs more slots to bring them in line with the T2 instead of nerfing the bridge new players live in before they can move to a BS? |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:20:00 -
[38] - Quote
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. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1100 PWG (+25), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.05) / 13510000 (-500,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
An optimal range to hybrid guns practically forces you to use railguns since blasters have terrible optimals anyways, why not follow the Moa route and give this a damage bonus instead? Even a tracking or falloff bonus would beat this. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
208
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
Please consider changing the +rep bonuses to Hardening bonuses or something that scales better with fleets. |
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
661
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
Abigail La'Fey wrote:The Cyclone is missing a Launcher hardpoint.
indeed as far as i understand the belli and such have less dps due to them being e-war ships...
but the cyclone has a repper bonus meaning its a combat ship and should be comparable dps...
so yes it really needs that extra missile slot. At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Loki Vice
Hedion University Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:22:00 -
[42] - Quote
why are you nerfing the harb across the board? it already barely gets flown |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:22:00 -
[43] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1100 PWG (+25), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.05) / 13510000 (-500,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
An optimal range to hybrid guns practically forces you to use railguns since blasters have terrible optimals anyways, why not follow the Moa route and give this a damage bonus instead? Even a tracking or falloff bonus would beat this.
What's the point of using a Rail Ferox, when you have the Rail Naga?
|
Garphunkle
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:24:00 -
[44] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus.
Seems to be an easier pill to swallow given Harbi is going from 5% to 10% damage bonus. More than makes up for the lost gun.
Does it seem utility highs are vanishing at an alarming rate?
EDIT: By my count only the cyclone can fit the cloak/neut combo i'm looking for, the Huricane/Harbi have to chose one or the other, and the rest are all just straight racks of guns, or drone boats |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
468
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:24:00 -
[45] - Quote
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 -áwww.promsrage.com |
Mund Richard
232
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:25:00 -
[46] - Quote
*edit: was slow* Harbringer getting +10% damage bonus instead of 5, becoming (miniscule) better, plus a spare flight?
In fact, it gets the same bandwidth and more bay than a Brutix! Any chance that with the AI as it is, more ships with a tight bay of 50 get such a treatment?
Ferox is indeed underwhelming, expected more. Well, a turret extra is nice, but not the OOOMPH I came expecting to see.
Brutix: The extra low is nice, a bit of extra bay, and a better bonus wouldn't hurt.
Myrm: Would have prefered that it only looses a turret slot, but I would also have preferred it getting a full 125 bay, and I knew that ain't happening. A drone extra is nice, maybe +25/+50 instead of +25/+25... but I'm a droneophile, so I can never get enough.
Prophecy: So now we have a drone ship with a passive tank bonus, and the possibility of 5 unbonused capless weaponry! Triple size bay is also nice, or 4+spare smalls, if using meds instead of min/maxing.
Cyclone: Probably wouldn't mind an extra launcher. With the Cane loosing a highslot, this is the only (non-drone) ship with two unbonused spare weapon/utility slots? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Black Core Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:28:00 -
[47] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 2 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1200 PWG (-10), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4750(+355) / 4000(+94) / 3500(+81) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(+62.5) / 592s(+8.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Why not 6 launchers? I thought you were going away from the split weapon layout. Now it just seems like you swapped it around for the cyclone. Also, many of the former tier2 ones seem to lose their utility high. I had hoped to see t1 BCs being used more with a link or two for small fleets with the upcomming change to links, but the loss of the utility high will just mean that ppl will be less likely to fit one with a link.
Looks like there might be a philosophical shift away from utility highslots toward more utility drones from t1s |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
794
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:30:00 -
[48] - Quote
so you guys made a new drake model with 8 awesome slots and i can use only 7 of them ?
that makes no sense !
give the drake 8 highslots for 8 launchers and nerf the damage-bonus
don't forget to add enough pg/cpu for another launcher We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
(BANNER WAS USED FOR THIS POST) |
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Black Core Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:30:00 -
[49] - Quote
fukier wrote:Abigail La'Fey wrote:The Cyclone is missing a Launcher hardpoint. indeed as far as i understand the belli and such have less dps due to them being e-war ships... but the cyclone has a repper bonus meaning its a combat ship and should be comparable dps... so yes it really needs that extra missile slot.
+1 lowslot means damage mod buff. |
Gungnir Winder
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
95
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:31:00 -
[50] - Quote
Ferox needs 5% damage bonus, it's time to make it a useful ship... My Solo Pvp Youtube Channel-á |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:32:00 -
[51] - 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. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
208
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:32:00 -
[52] - Quote
What is strange is that every race has a damage dealer and an extra tank version, except the Gallente, who just has two bonuses to local tanking. This doesn't seem to line up at all with the rest of the t1/t2 battlecruisers. Shouldn't at least one of them have double weapon bonuses, like better tracking instead of the armor bonus on the brutix? |
Bobbechk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:32:00 -
[53] - Quote
Sphit Ker wrote:What could be the reasoning behind nerfing the Harbinger? I can't think of anything that ship need taken off. Consider me puzzled
The damage bonus is changed from 5% to 10%, meanwhile -1 turret.
This means its actually a great boost for the ship, both in DPS and cap-usage
The lost fitting is the same as 1 Heavy pulse so thats fine as-well.
Read the notes before you whine nerd. |
Mund Richard
232
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:33:00 -
[54] - Quote
Garphunkle wrote:Does it seem utility highs are vanishing at an alarming rate?
EDIT: By my count only the cyclone can fit the cloak/neut combo i'm looking for, the Huricane/Harbi have to chose one or the other, and the rest are all just straight racks of guns, or drone boats As a Gallente, I don't mind that at all...
Now if only one of our BCs had something more exciting than the tanking bonus!
Kismeteer wrote:What is strange is that every race has a damage dealer and an extra tank version, except the Gallente, who just has two bonuses to local tanking. This doesn't seem to line up at all with the rest of the t1/t2 battlecruisers. Shouldn't at least one of them have double weapon bonuses, like better tracking instead of the armor bonus on the brutix? Well, Caldari have double shield resist and only one damage bonus... But yes, came expecting the Brutix to become a giant Thorax. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:36:00 -
[55] - 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. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1390
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
Garphunkle wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. Seems to be an easier pill to swallow given Harbi is going from 5% to 10% damage bonus. More than makes up for the lost gun. Does it seem utility highs are vanishing at an alarming rate?
Medium nos was never good enough to compensate the cap use of unbonused cruiser or BC in pvp. Removing utility slots is actually not a huge problem IMO. Putting neuts on cap dependent ship is meh, fight a cane and he will laugh at the neut so you can just leave it off and move a bit qucker. It just widens the gap between cap dependent ships and cap independent ships, ASBs made it worse. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Saul Hyperion
Palmetto Galactic
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:41:00 -
[57] - Quote
These are incredibly underwhelming. Active tank bonuses screw over those ships as active tanking in small and larger gangs is dumb.
At the very least the Myrm should get a hybrid optimal like the Algos. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:43:00 -
[58] - Quote
And you still give the ******* cyclone a split weapon system? for fucks sake |
Raid'En
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
186
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:44:00 -
[59] - Quote
Was surprised for the harbi nerf, didn't knew it needed one, as I don't see people flying one. not surprised that the drake got a bit nerfed on defensive abilities. the lost high on the cane hurts however. I though the tier3 bc would have a few changes also, surprised not a number changed. After I'm not a fitting guru at all, so I won't say if these changes are good or bad in my view, only saying I'm surprised by some ;) |
Mund Richard
232
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:I though the tier3 bc would have a few changes also, surprised not a number changed. Hint: Combat Battlecruiser topic
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
NoT KwarK
LP Incorporated
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:49:00 -
[61] - Quote
I would like to see the Cyclone get another launcher slot, split weapon systems suck. |
Skawl
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:50:00 -
[62] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs.
This would be awesome. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:50:00 -
[63] - Quote
The reason behind why drone ships have one less slot that all other ships eludes me still, care to shed some light on the reason. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:50:00 -
[64] - Quote
Gigglecruisers for everyone! |
sarahnova
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:54:00 -
[65] - Quote
I'm sorry but this is F'ing bull your f''ing with the game too much and one more thing and im out
I'll go play the game that won GOTY because they dont F with things |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1245
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:54:00 -
[66] - Quote
Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75) Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Torri Bernard
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:54:00 -
[67] - Quote
What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again. |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
91
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:56:00 -
[68] - Quote
Torri Bernard wrote:What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again.
The harbinger is not being nerfed. Its buffed its got a 10% damage per level instead of a 5%, more than makes up a loss of a turret. |
Royal Hammer
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:56:00 -
[69] - Quote
With the recent bonuses to medium laser turrets, I was looking forward to my Harbinger being a competitive ship, even though it's slightly outclassed by two other popular battlecruisers. But now...ouch. Amarr can't get no love. Maybe make the nerf a teensy bit less bad? |
killer139139
Zero Fun Allowed Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:57:00 -
[70] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
I Agree more of a brawling ship |
|
John Valentine
Repo.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:57:00 -
[71] - Quote
Yeah, I got a quistion, what are CCP's plans with the minmater? Completely screwing them out of the game? First the Rifter, and now the Hurricane?
WTF? |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 21:59:00 -
[72] - Quote
Please reconsider the active armor tank bonuses on the Gallente hulls, or at least on the Brutix. They're completely useless for anything but solo and the smallest gangs, and really, when was the last time you saw a solo Brutix? |
Royal Hammer
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:01:00 -
[73] - Quote
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:Torri Bernard wrote:What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again. The harbinger is not being nerfed. Its buffed its got a 10% damage per level instead of a 5%, more than makes up a loss of a turret.
The Harby is still getting a HP and pg/cpu reduction. If it quacks like a nerf... |
Krisaana Stormrider
N3UR0TIC Vortek Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:02:00 -
[74] - Quote
Maybe I am missing something. Why is the Drake keeping the kinetic-only bonus? I figured this was a legacy thing that would surely be removed in the tier updates.
Has anyone ever explained the motivation for why this exists?
Thanks in advance, Kris |
Ezra Vouland
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:02:00 -
[75] - Quote
How long did that take to return the Myrim to its original self? Thanks :D |
IrJosy
Club 1621
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
Vexor (turret/drone bonus) > Myrm (drone / repair bonus) > Domi (turret/drone bonus)
One of these is not like the others. |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
91
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:05:00 -
[77] - Quote
Royal Hammer wrote:CaptainFalcon07 wrote:Torri Bernard wrote:What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again. The harbinger is not being nerfed. Its buffed its got a 10% damage per level instead of a 5%, more than makes up a loss of a turret. The Harby is still getting a HP and pg/cpu reduction. If it quacks like a nerf...
the PG/CPU reduction is fair since you need one less turret.
All Tier 2 BC's are getting HP reduction, what do you expect? |
IrJosy
Club 1621
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:06:00 -
[78] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Edit: This would make the Brutix a very versatile ship and allow it to be used in many circumstances. It'd truly make it a 'brawling' ship that newbies can get into pretty easily.
The changes I've adjusted remove it's useless armor repair bonus and give it something that actually benefits the ship and it's design. I like bonus on the myrm however so why are we cookie cutting that on to the brutix? This also gives it the choice, it can be shield or armor.
too much like talos |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:07:00 -
[79] - Quote
Why all the hate for the Hurricane? Because people actually flew them? On a side note why is the Minmatar Sensor strength only 16 when other ships are more? Caldari is 19?
The hurricane is my ship of choice, I fly it 99% of the time. Now it sucks. I can't fit anything, I can only imagine what it will be like if these changes go through. You have taken a good thing in EVE and killed it. And from what it seems you are intent on doing that to all the BC. Doesn't CCP realize that the BC is the primary ship for low skill pilots? Why are you killing them all?
On a different note, it seems like CCP is intent on creating a ship for every roll in a fleet fight...and that is all they can do. What you seem to ignore is that MOST pilots fly around in small gangs or solo and need a ship that can multitask. If you limit EVERY ship to a single role you effectively ostracize every pilot that doesn't fly in a large fleet. Which is your broad player base. While I like to fly in large fleets, MOST of my time is spent flying around solo, or in a small gang. I need a multipurpose battlecruiser, and you are killing that for me and the rest of EVE. You are making it more difficult to get into this game. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:08:00 -
[80] - Quote
I don't have any detailed input on these except to say the Ferox still looks pretty mediocre (Prophecy and Cyclone might be good now though), and to question why the Drake and Cyclone are specifically excluding Rapid Light Launchers in their bonuses? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
113
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:09:00 -
[81] - Quote
Mizhir wrote: Why not 6 launchers? I thought you were going away from the split weapon layout. Now it just seems like you swapped it around for the cyclone.
I agree I was hoping to see the death such split weapon layouts not a reinforcement of them.
|
NinjaOnShrooms
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:10:00 -
[82] - Quote
Im not a fan of the minmatar "balances" The cane was already struck a deadly blow that it hasn't recovered from yet and the cyclone... Whats the point in just swapping the split weapon system backwards? |
Bronya Boga
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:10:00 -
[83] - Quote
[quote=CCP Fozzie] Prophecy: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to heavy missile and heavy assault missiles
there I fixed it for you.
But seriously most of these changes are really not good IMO. Heres why: Amarr: Prophecy being a drone boat is silly. Just think about it the only drone boats in the Amarr fleet are the Arbitrator and the Recon ships, while they really have more missile base boats in the T2 lineup. Prophecy should be a missile boat no matter how you turn it. Harbinger is mostly fine as Fozzie suggests to do.
Caldari: Drake is fine, no one cares for that stupid high slot. Ferox looks good now, I like it.
Minmatar: Hurricane is OK, I hate to loss that high but I guess it was inevitable. Cyclone is alright I suppose, I mean your still keeping the split weapon system which is dumb and the ship could really use dropping a gun hardpoint and putting another missile hardpoint in there.
Gallente: *sigh* The myrm...is alright I suppose I'm still wrapping my head around it Brutix looks better, although the active tank bonus (IMO) should really go in favor of something else. Unless there is something in the works for active armor tanks (OHH PEASE SAY ITS SO)
in general I already got really upsetting feedback about most of this, mostly about the Cyclone and the Amarr ships. Host of podcast Down The Pipe www.downthepipe-wh.com Podcast Public Channel is DTP Podcast @drverikan on twitter [email protected] |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1250
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:13:00 -
[84] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Zagdul wrote:Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Edit: This would make the Brutix a very versatile ship and allow it to be used in many circumstances. It'd truly make it a 'brawling' ship that newbies can get into pretty easily.
The changes I've adjusted remove it's useless armor repair bonus and give it something that actually benefits the ship and it's design. I like bonus on the myrm however so why are we cookie cutting that on to the brutix? This also gives it the choice, it can be shield or armor. too much like talos
And?
Why not have a medium hybrid transition ship for newer pilots who can't use the T2 large hybrids yet?
Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
John Valentine
Repo.
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:13:00 -
[85] - Quote
Also, if the changes to the cane and cyclone go trhough, I demand CCP give back my Skill points in Projectile Gunnery for BC's, so I can invest them into missiles. As the hurricane will be useless to fly, and I dont have missile skills trained..
And stop screwing with the minnie ships..We dont all want caldari easy mode. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:13:00 -
[86] - Quote
Torri Bernard wrote:What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again.
Maybe they don't fly them because they can't find the in the market. No Myrmadons in Jita
Every race has 2 damage types, Amarr happens to be lasers and drones, don't like drones, don't fly Amarr drone boats. |
Kyang Tia
Matari Exodus
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:14:00 -
[87] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Also, many of the former tier2 ones seem to lose their utility high. I had hoped to see t1 BCs being used more with a link or two for small fleets with the upcomming change to links, but the loss of the utility high will just mean that ppl will be less likely to fit one with a link.
This. I like most of the changes, but you should rather take low slots away from the tier2 BCs than high slots.
|
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority Exodus.
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:16:00 -
[88] - Quote
I heard Thulium is gonna be used for new manufacturing, better stock up on it now before the price goes up! |
Tomytronic
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:16:00 -
[89] - Quote
I would like to throw in another vote for:
"Oh my God, split weapon systems are terrible." |
Ams3t
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:16:00 -
[90] - Quote
Armor rep bonus on both gallente is pretty uncool. Only a few people use the rep bonus on thr Brutix now, so fix this and not the slotlayout. Myrmidon is the activ tanking ship, Brutix should be the high Dps closerange brawler, like the Megathron or thorax.
A additional low slot is nice, but a tracking bonus or falloff bonus would make the brutix more usefull. Best would be Armor resists, but thats overpowered.
And the optimal Range bonus for the Ferox is pretty useless, because the Naga is a way better Sniping BC. So a 5% Dmg bonus, like the moa got it, would give the ferox a better ability to with brawl. |
|
xUnlimitedx
ZERO T0LERANCE RAZOR Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:19:00 -
[91] - Quote
Well u need to nerf Tier 3's first to get in line.
And hi Amsdreit. |
Ezra Vouland
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:19:00 -
[92] - Quote
Brutix for shield buffer bonus of some sort please? |
Mund Richard
234
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:20:00 -
[93] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Vexor (turret/drone bonus) > Myrm (drone / repair bonus) > Domi (turret/drone bonus)
One of these is not like the others. I see your drone boats and raise Thorax (hybrid / tracking) > Brutix (hybrid / repair bonus) > Mega (hybrid / tracking)
(Except that in that case folk can bring in both Talos as competitor and Hyper as repper, so not as good. You win. Still don't like the double active rep BCs though.)
Ezra Vouland wrote:Brutix for shield buffer bonus of some sort please? Like a Ferox, with less meh optimal and more damage bonus with the shields? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:23:00 -
[94] - Quote
Why the heck does it seem like CCP has a lovefest with the Caldari ships? If they are nerfing the Cane (again) because it is overused, then for crap sake they should be nerfing the hell out of the Drake. You really want to stop botting in EVE, well it starts with your passivly tanked caldari ships. Or was all that lip service to stopping bots just that...lip service? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2573
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:23:00 -
[95] - Quote
First, let me say: Don't touch my Cyclone. Now I'll read your post.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Torri Bernard
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:23:00 -
[96] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Torri Bernard wrote:What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again. Maybe they don't fly them because they can't find the in the market. No Myrmadons in Jita Every race has 2 damage types, Amarr happens to be lasers and drones, don't like drones, don't fly Amarr drone boats.
Amarr has as many missile boats as drone boats. Also, go fly a prophecy in a goon fleet and see how long you make it before they laugh you out and make you take a picture with a plunger on your head. (you can try this before or after the change and you'll get the same result) |
Jin alPatar
Entertainment 7wenty
56
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:26:00 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Please rethink this part. Active local tank bonuses are not competitive with the resist bonus. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:26:00 -
[98] - Quote
Any change on the shield recharge for the passive tank kings, drake and myrm?
This isnt a comment on the actual combat performance of the ship but I'm also not sure I like the move to 10% bonuses on the harbinger. I know you should be duly rewarded for training skills, but I feel like 10% weapon damage makes the jump from battlecruiser IV to V quite large. Battlecruisers are some of the most cost-effective and achievable ships for newer players to aim towards for PVP, and I feel like many of the newer players wouldnt be able to fully experience what the harb was intended to be when it was balanced. (Hurricane experiences the same thing even now though, so I might just be over-exaggerating things)
I suppose it's not too terrible if the skill multiplier for Amarr BC is changed to be a bit lower when the split happens, but still. Speaking of, I might have missed it somewhere but will this point release contain the Battlecruiser/Destroyer split or are you saving it for a later expansion? |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:26:00 -
[99] - Quote
Tomytronic wrote:I would like to throw in another vote for:
"Oh my God, split weapon systems are terrible."
I am quoting this because it is soooooo true. At least every other race can choose one or the other, minmatar have to try and figure out how to fit both on each ship. DUMB! |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:26:00 -
[100] - Quote
Tomytronic wrote:I would like to throw in another vote for:
"Oh my God, split weapon systems are terrible."
Split weapon systems refers to bonuses to two different weapon systems, like the Typhoon.
Having one or two extra highs that could also be a turret is called a utility slot. Use a turret, or a smart bomb, or a nos/neut. Or here's an idea, use a gang link! |
|
HazeInADaze
L'Avant Garde Happy Endings
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:28:00 -
[101] - Quote
I'd like to see BCs more dependent on cruiser & frig support. I think they should be a fleet enhancement: either links and tank or DPS. But I don't like seeing them as a straight upgrade from combat cruisers -- I think combat cruisers need a place that the BC just can't fill.
Painfully slow aligns, limited speed, low sensor strength, low scan res, a very negative correlation between tank and gank; all ways to make the BC rely on help from other classes to bring its designed strength to the fight.
I think the T1 logi and Ewar cruisers will still retain a roll but i'm hopeful that the choice between caracal and drake, or ruppy and cane isn't as simple as " do I want to spend more money?" |
Torri Bernard
Hedion University Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:28:00 -
[102] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Tomytronic wrote:I would like to throw in another vote for:
"Oh my God, split weapon systems are terrible." Split weapon systems refers to bonuses to two different weapon systems, like the Typhoon. Having one or two extra highs that could also be a turret is called a utility slot. Use a turret, or a smart bomb, or a nos/neut. Or here's an idea, use a gang link! You are a CCP employee arent you. Why else would you be white knighting for them so hard? |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:28:00 -
[103] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:First, let me say: Don't touch my Cyclone. Now I'll read your post.
-Liang
I have been playing EVE for almost 5 years and can count the number of cyclones I have seen on one hand. The ship sucks. And now they are making it worse, but trying to morph it into a missile boat? Now I can't even use the Cyclone as a sniping platform....it is completely useless. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2990
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:29:00 -
[104] - Quote
Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
:Writing up a reply to more questions now: Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Torri Bernard
Hedion University Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:30:00 -
[105] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:First, let me say: Don't touch my Cyclone. Now I'll read your post.
-Liang I have been playing EVE for almost 5 years and can count the number of cyclones I have seen on one hand. The ship sucks. And now they are making it worse, but trying to morph it into a missile boat? Now I can't even use the Cyclone as a sniping platform....it is completely useless.
You should go rat with it. It'll be awesome! |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:30:00 -
[106] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Tomytronic wrote:I would like to throw in another vote for:
"Oh my God, split weapon systems are terrible." Split weapon systems refers to bonuses to two different weapon systems, like the Typhoon. Having one or two extra highs that could also be a turret is called a utility slot. Use a turret, or a smart bomb, or a nos/neut. Or here's an idea, use a gang link!
Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3749
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:31:00 -
[107] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote: Now I can't even use the Cyclone as a sniping platform
not sure if serious
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:32:00 -
[108] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Tomytronic wrote:I would like to throw in another vote for:
"Oh my God, split weapon systems are terrible." Split weapon systems refers to bonuses to two different weapon systems, like the Typhoon. Having one or two extra highs that could also be a turret is called a utility slot. Use a turret, or a smart bomb, or a nos/neut. Or here's an idea, use a gang link! Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless.
Don't even get me started on the Naglfar....yeah again SPLIT PLATFORM....imagine having to train capital class weapons for both projectile and missiles just to be effective as a cap pilot. Dumbest thing in EVE. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3749
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:33:00 -
[109] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote: Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless.
Wouldn't be awesome if the devs were going to revamp battleships too? I think it would.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Mund Richard
235
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:33:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie True. So... One turret/missile ship with Two utility Highs? Why not add another launcher and have zero?
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2574
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:34:00 -
[111] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:First, let me say: Don't touch my Cyclone. Now I'll read your post.
-Liang I have been playing EVE for almost 5 years and can count the number of cyclones I have seen on one hand. The ship sucks. And now they are making it worse, but trying to morph it into a missile boat? Now I can't even use the Cyclone as a sniping platform....it is completely useless.
WTF? Where the hell do you live that you don't see Cyclones everywhere?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3749
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:34:00 -
[112] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:imagine having to train capital class weapons for both projectile and missiles just to be effective as a cap pilot. Dumbest thing in EVE.
I don't have to imagine, because I alread- Bahhhhhh, why do I bother.
3/10 Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:34:00 -
[113] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Tomytronic wrote:I would like to throw in another vote for:
"Oh my God, split weapon systems are terrible." Split weapon systems refers to bonuses to two different weapon systems, like the Typhoon. Having one or two extra highs that could also be a turret is called a utility slot. Use a turret, or a smart bomb, or a nos/neut. Or here's an idea, use a gang link! Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless. Right now Gallente is the ONLY race that has mulutple ships with split weapon systems. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:34:00 -
[114] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote: Now I can't even use the Cyclone as a sniping platform not sure if serious
How many missile snipe ships do you see out there......? "crickets" |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:36:00 -
[115] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: Right now Gallente is the ONLY race that has mulutple ships with split weapon systems.
You're kidding right? |
arbalesttom
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:36:00 -
[116] - Quote
WOW
you guys think about the whole bc tiericide for a couple of months, and this is all you can come up with??? (i.e. nerfing the ships that where perfectly fine, and leave the **** ones as they are pretty much)
i am dissapoint |
John Valentine
Repo.
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:37:00 -
[117] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote: Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless. Wouldn't be awesome if the devs were going to revamp battleships too? I think it would.
For the love of God dont let them touch the Battleships..you know the gonna nerf the **** out of the maelstrom and probally make the Tempest a missile boat.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:37:00 -
[118] - Quote
Torri Bernard:
CCP Fozzie wrote: Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
I'm in Goonswarm, CCP Fozzie is my employee.
I have also been asking for a change to active tank bonuses and the Ferox hybrid optimal bonus, only I don't sperg as bad as the rest of the denizens of forms.eveonline.com, this doesn't mean I'm not asking for things. |
Jerrek Peacelord
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:37:00 -
[119] - Quote
Never posted on an EVE development forum, but I'm only replying 'cos I'm annoyed.
As a player who loves solo pvp and small gang pvp, if these changes went through to what is probably my fave class of ship, solo pvp (which is very difficult currently with friggin ECM/Falcon trash everywhere: sort ECM out please devs!) is going to be even more difficult and, basically:
you're nerfing the whole class of ship pretty much.
Losing utility highs IS a big deal, cos being a ship with a rack of just weapons means you are one dimensional. It's pushing pvp in the game even more into needing to be in a fleet, which cuts out the whole ease of logging in, jumping in a ship and going and having some fun without trying to fc another fleet (or herd cats).
The Changes:
Harbs: less of everything except the damage bonus. Well that's just brilliant. Cant WAIT to fly that in our nex....NOT! Prophecy: is anyone REALLY looking forward to flying a drone boat of this size with 75m3 for drones? Cane: oh...my...goodness. Seriously? Do you not want anyone to fly this thing? Cyclone: why split damage types?! And at the risk of crying over previously spilled milk......MISSILES?! Good grief..... Brutix: bonus! It's not a bonus cos NO-ONE USES IT IF THEY HAVE PLAYED THE GAME FOR LONGER THAN 3 MONTHS! Myrmidon: wahey! One good thing to say....a bc with (imho) the minimum size drone bandwidth....finally. But what the chuff? Still an armour rep bonus?!!
IF you HAVE to mess about with these ships to this extent, at least sort the bonuses out to reflect how people are fitting the ships. I KNOW people should fir according to the ship's bonuses, but bonuses are not good enough to affect the meta (ie, people still flying 2x LArge Shield Extender Brutix like Kil2 does) so rather than just make the bonuses obsolete, make them useful!
I cant be bothered to moan about the other changes cos they are all fustrating and disappointing. You're just nerfing the class. That sucks. T1 cruisers got a big buff and are awesome, why make bc's crappier. Unless you plan on making bs waaaaay better for the summer so more people fly/lose those and that drives PLEX sales up.
There I said it, and I dont care.
Seriously, please don't make THOSE changes; listen to us and make good ones. T1 cruiser changes were universally cool. T1 frig changes were universally coool. DONT DROP THE BALL WITH BC's CCP!
Seriously, give BS a 9th slot in mids/highs/lows or something if that means they can "stay ahead" of bc's, just don't nerf bc's too much!
*breathes into a paper bag*
|
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:37:00 -
[120] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
WTF? Where the hell do you live that you don't see Cyclones everywhere?
-Liang
EVE Online |
|
Mund Richard
235
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:38:00 -
[121] - Quote
arbalesttom wrote:WOW
you guys think about the whole bc tiericide for a couple of months, and this is all you can come up with??? (i.e. nerfing the ships that where perfectly fine, and leave the **** ones as they are pretty much)
i am dissapoint You know... out of a balancing POW, if they wanted all the BCs to be equally good (or bad) and have people use more different ships, assuming it is as you describe, it could work! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Torri Bernard
Hedion University Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:38:00 -
[122] - Quote
John Valentine wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote: Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless. Wouldn't be awesome if the devs were going to revamp battleships too? I think it would. For the love of God dont let them touch the Battleships..you know the gonna nerf the **** out of the maelstrom and probally make the Tempest a missile boat.
Get ready for your drone boat geddon. |
TijsseN
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:38:00 -
[123] - Quote
It seems to me that the proposed new split weapons systems for BC's make it even longer to fly a ship effectively (T2 weapon grind for both different weapons systems) adding on top of that the split of destroyer and battlecruiser skills into racial versions making it even harder to maximize your skills on a wide set of ships.
The current slot layout of every ship means that you can only effectively boost 1 weapon system and the second one becomes very ineffective. With a split weapon system you can only do less damage than with a hull with only one weapon system. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:39:00 -
[124] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Right now Gallente is the ONLY race that has mulutple ships with split weapon systems.
You're kidding right? Well after the rebalance, they will be the only one left Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Mund Richard
235
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:39:00 -
[125] - Quote
John Valentine wrote: For the love of God dont let them touch the Battleships..you know the gonna nerf the **** out of the maelstrom and probally make the Tempest a missile boat. Good news!
The plan was to have the Phoon a missile boat instead!
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2574
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:42:00 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Harbinger: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% (+5%) bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1325 PWG (-175), 350 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-516) / 5000(-469) / 4500(-188) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3125 / 822s(+72s) / 3.8 (-0.366) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.704 / 13800000 (+300,000) / 9.1s (+0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km (+5) / 210 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1) Signature radius: 270 (+5) Cargo capacity: 375 (+25)
Ok, a few comments: - I approve of dropping a turret for a bigger bonus. - I disapprove of dropping fittings. It's already the hardest BC to fit by a lot. - You're hitting those defenses kinda hard. I can see swatting the shield HP, but armor too? I never really considered the Harbinger a particularly tanky ship. - You're smacking the **** out of it's mobility and it was already a giant fat ass. Combining armor tanking with a giant fat ass even before you fit plates is... dubious.
Honestly I'd trade the extra drone space for better mobility.
PS: Cyclone. Guns. Keep them. You know you want to. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Torri Bernard
Hedion University Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:45:00 -
[127] - Quote
Jerrek Peacelord wrote:... Harbs: less of everything except the damage bonus. Well that's just brilliant. Cant WAIT to fly that in our nex....NOT! Prophecy: is anyone REALLY looking forward to flying a drone boat of this size with 75m3 for drones? ...
My point exactly. Armor based drone boats dont work. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:48:00 -
[128] - Quote
Torri Bernard wrote:Jerrek Peacelord wrote:... Harbs: less of everything except the damage bonus. Well that's just brilliant. Cant WAIT to fly that in our nex....NOT! Prophecy: is anyone REALLY looking forward to flying a drone boat of this size with 75m3 for drones? ...
My point exactly. Armor based drone boats dont work.
Don't you know Torri....EVE players are supposed to adapt to the ships they fly.........only to have the ships get screwed and then have to try and adapt again......and again....
CCP, for the love of all that's holy, please leave the hurricane alone, unless you want to return it to it's pre-neutered state? That would be a great change. Thanks. |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
139
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:48:00 -
[129] - Quote
Wasn't the Harby already tight on CPU? I don't get making the lowest CPU BC even lower (and yes, I see you dropped a turret, but the CPU drop > 1 medium turret.) You shouldn't be nerfing Harby CPU more than 15.
(And iirc I've never flown a Harby fwiw.)
I liked EVE better when it had iconic ships like the rifter, the hurricane and the drake. As long as best in class ships were spread amongst all races (and not I-win buttons, just not insignificantly better than their peers,) it's not necessarily a bad thing (I'd argue it's a good thing that encouraged players to stick around and cross-train.) Ship balancing should have focused on making all ships useful, not equal, and certainly shouldn't have been used as an excuse to make previously best-in-class ships like the dramiel pretty terrible. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:50:00 -
[130] - Quote
TijsseN wrote:It seems to me that the proposed new split weapons systems for BC's make it even longer to fly a ship effectively (T2 weapon grind for both different weapons systems) adding on top of that the split of destroyer and battlecruiser skills into racial versions making it even harder to maximize your skills on a wide set of ships.
The current slot layout of every ship means that you can only effectively boost 1 weapon system and the second one becomes very ineffective. With a split weapon system you can only do less damage than with a hull with only one weapon system.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
:Writing up a reply to more questions now:
He already answered this question, they are utility highs, it could be a turret, it could be a nos/neut, it could be a smartbomb, it could be a gang link, it could be a drone range extender, it could be a salvager, it could be a remote repper.
Can we move past this non-issue now? |
|
Mund Richard
235
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:51:00 -
[131] - Quote
Torri Bernard wrote: My point exactly. Armor based drone boats dont work. Before the Drone Damage Amplifier, they weren't too bad. Now you want both DDAs and heatsinks/magstabs/BCU() even on the base versions. Prophecy having 3 different weapons when fit for max damage is weird.
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:52:00 -
[132] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:TijsseN wrote:It seems to me that the proposed new split weapons systems for BC's make it even longer to fly a ship effectively (T2 weapon grind for both different weapons systems) adding on top of that the split of destroyer and battlecruiser skills into racial versions making it even harder to maximize your skills on a wide set of ships.
The current slot layout of every ship means that you can only effectively boost 1 weapon system and the second one becomes very ineffective. With a split weapon system you can only do less damage than with a hull with only one weapon system. CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
:Writing up a reply to more questions now: He already answered this question, they are utility highs, it could be a turret, it could be a nos/neut, it could be a smartbomb, it could be a gang link, it could be a drone range extender, it could be a salvager, it could be a remote repper. Can we move past this non-issue now? maybe they should just remove the turret hard points Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Sarmatiko
846
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:57:00 -
[133] - Quote
John Valentine wrote: Belicose = Missile boat, Talwar = Missile Boat, Breacher = Missile Boat, and now the cyclone as well? WTF?
You forgot one thing. Just before rebalance it was just like this: Belicose = useless, Talwar = non existant, Breacher = useless. Cyclone = overshadowed by Hurricane. Sorry to mention this, but even your character flew only Hurricane, Rifter/Wolf, Thrasher (according to KB losses). So why you complaining about ships totally unrelated to your playstyle?
Returning back on topic, I would love to see +1 launcher on Cyclone.
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
620
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:59:00 -
[134] - Quote
They all look fine to me. Great balancing. Cyclone looks interesting, prophecy looks less useless.
(Ferox is mehhhhh still, but its a step in the right direction.) |
Kogh Ayon
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:59:00 -
[135] - Quote
Brutix
The boost on brutix may not enough to make it a good solo ship, the problems : 1, odd damage type 2, damage type problem can be solved by drones, but there's dilemma at choosing ecm drones or Infiltrators/Valkyries (implies more drone bay) 3, No utility high to fit neut to kill mission ships, nor being able to fit cloak to travel into hostile space. (implies an utility high)
So the usage of armor brutix will still be restrict to ~5 man small gang, can't solo, can't join bigger fights.
Harbinger
Don't get the logic to nerf this ship, isn't it **** enough already that people even use omen rather than harbinger?
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:00:00 -
[136] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Torri Bernard wrote: My point exactly. Armor based drone boats dont work. Before the Drone Damage Amplifier, they weren't too bad. Now you want both DDAs and heatsinks/magstabs/BCU( ) even on the base versions.
Or you could do like all other Amarr drone boats are doing and fit some nos/neut.
The prophecy looks like it could do well with 4 HM/HAM and a medium neut. The 75 bandwidth is exactly what the Myrmidon has now but with an extra low and a better tank bonus. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
146
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:01:00 -
[137] - Quote
Is it intentional that the damage bonuses on the cyclone and drake don't affect rapid light missile launchers despite them nominally being cruiser-sized weapons? |
blackpatch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:01:00 -
[138] - Quote
These changes are really underwhelming in comparison to the excellent T1 frigate/cruiser changes. The T1/T2 battlecruiser hulls are still far inferior to the T3 hulls for most practical applications.
The frigate/cruiser changes changed the game in a very good direction. They placed more power in the hands of newbees and opened up some of the exciting new T1 cruiser compositions we've been seeing recently. These proposed changes aren't going to do much of anything. T1/T2 battlecruisers will continue their slow slide into obsolescence.
In my opinion you need to go back to the drawing board, and use the T3 battlecruisers as a standard of comparison. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2578
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:02:00 -
[139] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:John Valentine wrote: Belicose = Missile boat, Talwar = Missile Boat, Breacher = Missile Boat, and now the cyclone as well? WTF?
You forgot one thing. Just before rebalance it was just like this: Belicose = useless, Talwar = non existant, Breacher = useless. Cyclone = overshadowed by Hurricane. Sorry to mantion this, but even your character flew only Hurricane, Rifter/Wolf, Thrasher (according to KB losses). So why you complaining about ships totally unrelated to your playstyle? Returning back on topic, I would love yo see +1 launcher on Cyclone. Split system is bad.
The Cyclone was not overshadowed by the Hurricane. I'd have taken a Cyclone against a Hurricane any day, and that Cane was gonna die.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3756
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:04:00 -
[140] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote: How many missile snipe ships do you see out there......? "crickets"
How many cyclones do you see sniping out there.......? "crickets"
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
FistyMcBumBasher
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:05:00 -
[141] - Quote
After having reviewed these changes a little bit more.
The prophecy is going to be a much better drone boat than the myrm because of resist bonus and wonderfully massive drone bay. The prophecy is how I have always envisioned a drone boat. My experience with drone boats is that anyone would easily trade that extra 25 bandwidth for more variation in drones.
The drake is relatively unchanged from it's current version, as it rarely utilized the utility high.
Why the extra CPU on the Ferox? It has more than enough in it's current form.
Brutix and myrm having the same bonus is a bit silly because only one of them will be used for the active tanking ship. Give one of them another offensive bonus in my opinion, as two of the same niche bonus is a little uninspiring.
Let the haters hate, I look forward to flying the Cyclone especially since the cyclone is getting a buff to CPU and a new low (probably going to be filled with a co-pro). The damage projection will be larger and it will deal more consistent dps to larger targets when using HAMS. Is it possible to get the bonus to also apply to Rapid Light Assault Missile's? The two utility highs (or split weapon system as some people are saying) should give it some defense against lighter ships. I can see this ship replacing the Hurricane of old.
Hurricane is still the hurricane but without the possibility of two neuts. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3756
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:05:00 -
[142] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Right now Gallente is the ONLY race that has mulutple ships with split weapon systems.
You're kidding right?
List some.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Mund Richard
237
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:07:00 -
[143] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Torri Bernard wrote: My point exactly. Armor based drone boats dont work. Before the Drone Damage Amplifier, they weren't too bad. Now you want both DDAs and heatsinks/magstabs/BCU( ) even on the base versions. Or you could do like all other Amarr drone boats are doing and fit some nos/neut. The prophecy looks like it could do well with 4 HM/HAM and a medium neut. The 75 bandwidth is exactly what the Myrmidon has now but with an extra low and a better tank bonus. I suppose. So one neut, loosing two guns and one heavy's worth of bandwidth, for a better tanking bonus. Not quite sure... I'm inclined to try it though. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Lili Lu
659
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:11:00 -
[144] - Quote
Oh Fozzie, I'm sorta underwhelmed and disappointed. Admittedly, I'm not yet crunching numbers to see what fits, but here are my impressions and worries -
Stupid 7.5 armor repairer bonus still on both gallente BCs? This is useless unless you imprve MARs, or massively up the grid, and if you do that then lots of people will just fit plates for fleet work. Then they will still be left with a ship with one used bonus.
The overdone 10% optimal still on the longest range guns in the game for the Ferox Can you not see the problem with giving rails the most base optimal and then topping it off with a 10% per level bonus on all the Caldari ships? Tone it down to 7.5%. And why are both Caldari BCs retaining a resist bonus? It is so much better than the peice of **** 7.5 armor repairer bonus on the gallente BCs. At least you didn't massively buff the Drake with a rof bonus. But, where is the "rebalancing" I was expecting when I opened this thread page?
Why is the Cyclone so much more blessed in fitting than the Cane now? ASB sure, but with all that grid I suppose you could fit a better armor tank on the damn thing than on the Cane as well. You already took a high away from the Cane. The dual neut phenomenon will be a thing of the past (unless someone wants to sacrifice a turret). So why is the cane going to be starved for grid (are 720s, a mwd, and a 1600 still possible?)?
Ugh, that prophecy. So it's now a vexor with more tank. Not very exciting tbh. And the Harby, still the 10% cap use reduction bonus. Nothing innovative here. Lasers are not all that that this ship can still do anything special. At least you are removing the irritating offset turret from below the nose. But what does this ship really have going for it? Still nothing special and the resist bonused Drakes and Feroxes will still be much preferred over it.
Laslty, you do not mention anything about fixing the BC shield regen imbalance. Still giving almost a BS sized shield an almost cruiser sized shield regen time leads to not enough nerf on the passive shield BC ubiquity. If some poor ******* has to still self nerf his own grid to fit a cap injector(s) and multiple MARs to make anything of the stupid armor repairer bonus on the gallente ships, but there is no increase in shield regen time on BCs overall the passive shield regen will still be better tank for pve in BCs than any cap charge nomnoming multi-MAR or milktoast single MAR tank on an armor BC.
Please start shaking these ships up some more. After so much relatively good work with Cruisers and Frigs, I am disappoint.
Edit - Having just read Sigras' post, lol so true. Now instead of 425 dual med neut canes I suppose we'll see HAM dual neut Cyclones instead. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
308
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:12:00 -
[145] - Quote
so wait . . . you all seem upset that they took away the second high slot from the hurricane because you wanted that utility high . . .
Then in the same breath you scream that a split weapon system sucks on the cyclone because it has two utility highs?
forgive me if this sounds dumb but the hurricane has 2 missile launcher slots that it can fill those highs up with . . . why not complain about the hurricane's former split weapon system? |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:15:00 -
[146] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Torri Bernard wrote: My point exactly. Armor based drone boats dont work. Before the Drone Damage Amplifier, they weren't too bad. Now you want both DDAs and heatsinks/magstabs/BCU( ) even on the base versions. Or you could do like all other Amarr drone boats are doing and fit some nos/neut. The prophecy looks like it could do well with 4 HM/HAM and a medium neut. The 75 bandwidth is exactly what the Myrmidon has now but with an extra low and a better tank bonus. I suppose. So one neut, loosing two guns and one heavy's worth of bandwidth, for a better tanking bonus. Not quite sure... I'm inclined to try it though.
The extra low is pretty important since the drone damage amps are low slots. The extra 5% armor resist is effectively giving you an extra low with massive resists that don't incur diminishing returns.
On the Myrmidon you have an extra heavy drone (4 instead of 3) so 33% more damage, but one drone damage amp less. You get a 37.5% better repair efficiency, but this pales compared to 25% to all resists with no diminishing returns.
Unless they fix the armor rep bonus to be useful with remote reps, the Myrmidon is pretty terrible with an armor tank, while the Prophecy looks like what the Myrmidon has always wanted to be. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
620
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:19:00 -
[147] - Quote
Kogh Ayon wrote:Brutix
The boost on brutix may not enough to make it a good solo ship, the problems : 1, odd damage type 2, damage type problem can be solved by drones, but there's dilemma at choosing ecm drones or Infiltrators/Valkyries (implies more drone bay) 3, No utility high to fit neut to kill mission ships, nor being able to fit cloak to travel into hostile space. (implies an utility high)
So the usage of armor brutix will still be restrict to ~5 man small gang, can't solo, can't join bigger fights.
Harbinger
Don't get the logic to nerf this ship, isn't it **** enough already that people even use omen rather than harbinger?
so, 6 turrets with a 50% bonus (9 turrets) isnt as good as 7 turrets with a 25% bonus (8.75 turrets)? Sounds fine to me. You even get to keep your utility high, unlike the drake, and the harby lost one of its utility highs as well. Harby is probably keeps the most of its current goodness out of all tier 2 BCs, along with the myrm. |
Mund Richard
237
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:22:00 -
[148] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Unless they fix the armor rep bonus to be useful with remote reps, the Myrmidon is pretty terrible with an armor tank, while the Prophecy looks like what the Myrmidon has always wanted to be. And it wasn't me, who said it!
Well, one thing the Myrm is still possibly better at (depending on the unlisted shield recharge rate), is passive shield tanking (), and using the lows for damage mods.
Though quite a bit of shield was taken away... ...Reminds me, why take away armor, buffing hull above it's amount, if so dead-set on keeping armor repair bonuses. Gallente ships? Has a thousand less armor than the Prophecy AND a low less AND no resist bonus. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Isengrimus
Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:24:00 -
[149] - Quote
Loki Vice wrote:why are you nerfing the harb across the board? it already barely gets flown
This. I mean, seriously? It's the weakest all the tier 2 BCs at the moment already, why nerfing it any further? Losing 1 turret means 12,5% decrease in DPS, the lame +5% bonus increase will not compensate it. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:25:00 -
[150] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Unless they fix the armor rep bonus to be useful with remote reps, the Myrmidon is pretty terrible with an armor tank, while the Prophecy looks like what the Myrmidon has always wanted to be. And it wasn't me, who said it! Well, one thing the Myrm is still possibly better at (depending on the unlisted shield recharge rate), is passive shield tanking ( ), and using the lows for damage mods.
With 400 CPU? Unlikely. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3756
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:27:00 -
[151] - Quote
Sigras wrote:so wait . . . you all seem upset that they took away the second high slot from the hurricane because you wanted that utility high . . .
Then in the same breath you scream that a split weapon system sucks on the cyclone because it has two utility highs?
forgive me if this sounds dumb but the hurricane has 2 missile launcher slots that it can fill those highs up with . . . why not complain about the hurricane's former split weapon system?
Because:
Quote: Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:28:00 -
[152] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Loki Vice wrote:why are you nerfing the harb across the board? it already barely gets flown This. I mean, seriously? It's the weakest all the tier 2 BCs at the moment already, why nerfing it any further? Losing 1 turret means 12,5% decrease in DPS, the lame +5% bonus increase will not compensate it.
6 turrets with a 50% damage bonus means: 6 * 1.5 = 9. So the damage equivalent of 9 turrets with the cap use and cost of 6.
7 turrets with a 25% damage bonus means: 7 * 1.25 = 8.75. So the damage equivalent of 8.75 turrets with the cap use and cost of 7.
Is this really that difficult?
EDIT: Also consider the PG and CPU required to fit 7 vs 6 turrets
For those of you too dumb to figure this out. 7 turrets cost more and use more cap than 6 turrets. Having a ship be more expensive and use more cap to fire its guns makes it worse. These changes make the Harbinger a better ship.
Better, its a buff, not a nerf. |
Mund Richard
237
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:29:00 -
[153] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Loki Vice wrote:why are you nerfing the harb across the board? it already barely gets flown This. I mean, seriously? It's the weakest all the tier 2 BCs at the moment already, why nerfing it any further? Losing 1 turret means 12,5% decrease in DPS, the lame +5% bonus increase will not compensate it. Has been posted before, but... 7*1,25 = 8,75 6*1,5 = 9 And less cap usage for the weapons. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Apathetic Brent
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:31:00 -
[154] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 7 Launchers Fittings: 840 PWG (-10), 515 CPU (-10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Why do you hate me? The Drake get's its HML damage reduced, then I hear about the kin bonus getting removed for omni. I'm down with that. Taking out the extra high is fine. You don't put anything there on most fits anyhow, but then further reducing fitting....Taking away shield and armor THEN GIVING IT 800K MORE MASS!!!
Baby, you know I love you and I want to have your children, but don't take advantage of my heart like this. Get rid of the kin bonus and make it omni and I'll ignore the fact that the only thing this does better now is loot ****. |
Isengrimus
Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:35:00 -
[155] - Quote
I'm not good at maths (obviously) but still, don't you think less armor and PG does not seem to be a wise thing to do to a shitties BC in game already. :P |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1169
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:35:00 -
[156] - Quote
Cyclone = Why only 5 launchers????
Myrm+Brutix = I really wish you could give them different bonuses from each other than the armor rep bonus. It seems like it's just a lack of creativity here. Give the Brutix a different bonus.
Drake+Ferox = Same thing. I know that both could use the resist bonus, but seriously - why can't we do something a bit more creative with these second bonuses than give them the same one for each?
I guess I don't quite get why you're doing what you're doing with the Harbinger overall.
I'm curious to see how these slightly less HP BC's are going to stand in the new age.
Where I am. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:37:00 -
[157] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sigras wrote:so wait . . . you all seem upset that they took away the second high slot from the hurricane because you wanted that utility high . . .
Then in the same breath you scream that a split weapon system sucks on the cyclone because it has two utility highs?
forgive me if this sounds dumb but the hurricane has 2 missile launcher slots that it can fill those highs up with . . . why not complain about the hurricane's former split weapon system? Because: Quote: Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
Hans.. I think you misread his comment.. He was pointing out the hypocrisy in the whinning about the 2 launchers. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:37:00 -
[158] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote: How many missile snipe ships do you see out there......? "crickets" How many cyclones do you see sniping out there.......? "crickets"
That's all you see them do? look at the battleclinic fits. Shield tanked and sniper fit. Mini Malestrom. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3762
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:40:00 -
[159] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:battleclinic fits
NM, this explains everything.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
467
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:40:00 -
[160] - Quote
The targeting ranges seem pretty low compared to what all the other modified ships have gotten. There are frigates that target twice as far as a hurricane for example.
Also, can you comment on the reasoning for the very minor changes in hp? Like taking 16 structure away from the cane seems just a strange thing to decide on.
I think the ferox is still subpar - you still dont snipe with medium rails, and the brutix outdoes it as a close range blaster platform.
Same for the myrm and prophecy - drones as a weapons platform have some serious problems, and even just tracking bonused guns would help both ships a lot. |
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:41:00 -
[161] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:I'm not good at maths (obviously) but still, don't you think less armor and PG does not seem to be a wise thing to do to a shitties BC in game already. :P
Most tier 2 BCs lost some HP across the board (Hurricane got a little shield), all tier 1 BCs gained some HP across the board. This was done to bring them closer to each other, its called Tiericide after all.
Quit your whining, its distracting from real concerns. |
Thallius O'Quinn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:43:00 -
[162] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:
Also, can you comment on the reasoning for the very minor changes in hp? Like taking 16 structure away from the cane seems just a strange thing to decide on
Because 3500 is easier to do math on than 3516. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:45:00 -
[163] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:The targeting ranges seem pretty low compared to what all the other modified ships have gotten. There are frigates that target twice as far as a hurricane for example.
Also, can you comment on the reasoning for the very minor changes in hp? Like taking 16 structure away from the cane seems just a strange thing to decide on.
I think the ferox is still subpar - you still dont snipe with medium rails, and the brutix outdoes it as a close range blaster platform.
Same for the myrm and prophecy - drones as a weapons platform have some serious problems, and even just tracking bonused guns would help both ships a lot.
You are aware this is base targeting range right? Even the Kitsune has less base targeting range than the lowest Minmatar BC... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:46:00 -
[164] - Quote
IMHO blaster ships should not also be combat ships, all blaster ships should be attack ships . . .
I see combat ships more like the galaxy class starships, there really isnt much maneuvering to be done with it, it basically just sits and shoots; the ships that you see moving around a lot are the defiant class or intrepid class (voyager) these are the attack ships meant to take the fight to the enemy.
Blaster ships lack the range to just sit and shoot, all blaster ships should be attack ships
To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. |
Mund Richard
239
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:52:00 -
[165] - Quote
Sigras wrote: To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. I like the innovative way of thinking there, it's not like molds aren't broken elsewhere, like with the caldari and only one each attack and combat battleship for instance. And the two would get a nice differentiation that way.
edit: fast and dirty napkin math with the current stats: Full neutron blaster with T2 ammo, 2 damage mod in the lows. Thorax 670 vs 744 Vexor, tracking bonus and mobility vs hull hp and drone bonus, same slots. Brutix 875 vs 896 Myrm, "nothing" vs drone HP and an extra midslot.
I'm feeling like I forgot what I wanted to make a point of. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:55:00 -
[166] - Quote
I, for one, look forward to seeing utility highs on my Naglfar |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
324
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:56:00 -
[167] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Please consider changing the +rep bonuses to Hardening bonuses or something that scales better with fleets. Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Please reconsider the active armor tank bonuses on the Gallente hulls, or at least on the Brutix. They're completely useless for anything but solo and the smallest gangs, and really, when was the last time you saw a solo Brutix? I'd prefer *not* to see all BC/BS ships redesigned around a fleet-only focus.
Despite rumors to the contrary, solo and small gang PVP are not dead. Many of us still prefer faster/smaller scale PVP, in which logi support isn't always available.
Also, many players still run missions solo, or in small gangs, where the active rep bonuses are needed. I used an active-tank Brutix for running L3 missions solo, until I skilled up to fly a BS.
That said, active armor repping is certainly long overdue for a buff. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:56:00 -
[168] - Quote
It might just be me, but I feel that the Algos, and the Tristan got the best mix for the hybrid/drone weapon system. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:57:00 -
[169] - Quote
Sigras wrote:IMHO blaster ships should not also be combat ships, all blaster ships should be attack ships . . .
I see combat ships more like the galaxy class starships, there really isnt much maneuvering to be done with it, it basically just sits and shoots; the ships that you see moving around a lot are the defiant class or intrepid class (voyager) these are the attack ships meant to take the fight to the enemy.
Blaster ships lack the range to just sit and shoot, all blaster ships should be attack ships
To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed.
The problem here is that railguns have horrid tracking, so if you're not sniping, you're not doing any damage. The Gallente mid-range combat is done with drones, so the Myrmidon would fill your "combat ship" role; the Myrmidon is not a blaster boat. The Brutix with its current layout makes a good blaster boat, but it's current armor bonus is lacking compared to a armor resist bonus. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:58:00 -
[170] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:I, for one, look forward to seeing utility highs on my Naglfar It has one, but most everyone puts a Siege Module II in that slot. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:00:00 -
[171] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Sigras wrote: To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. I like the innovative way of thinking there, it's not like molds aren't broken elsewhere, like with the caldari and only one each attack and combat battleship for instance. However, the Vexor has only one less bonused turret than the Thorax, while also gaining bonused drones. Compared to that, the Myrm would be ...lacking? One less hardpoint, all unbonused, doesn't sound like that good a trade-off for +50 bandwidth. Baybe I'd think differently if I did the math. its true, but right now theyre both a bit lacking . . . and the myrm is a pretty good tank and gank ship as it stands . . .
Also drones and projectiles (the myrm's weapon of choice) is actually pretty good if you have to be (relatively) immobile. |
Suitonia
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
145
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:00:00 -
[172] - Quote
My Feedback;
Brutix: Overall solid changes rounding out this ship, the 7.5% active armor tanking bonus is still a bit lackluster however. The Brutix still seems a bit too vulnerable to be an Armor Bruiser to me, no tracking bonus or utility highslot, loses damage if it goes for a flight of light drones. Prehaps a sneaky +25m3 drone bay would be nice? Giving it similar treatment to the Harbinger, -1 turret, 5% bonus goes to 10% bonus, lower the bandwidth to 25m3 would also make it more attractive to use.
Myrmidon: Moving more of it's damage output to drones is a good thing. Solid changes. Same thing about the 7.5% armor repair amount bonus as above
Prophecy: Changes seem pretty good.
Harbinger: Nice changes. The CPU could use a tad improvement though.
Ferox: Not sure what this provides next to the Naga, its slower, has less range and does less damage. It is quite a bit tankier though and has a drone bay so I guess it's not as vulnerable as the Naga is outside of fleets.
Drake: Drake was always the best BC, nice to see it got a slap on the wrist
Cyclone: Good changes I feel.
Hurricane: Again, nice to see the Hurricane getting a slap on the wrist.
Overall these are nice changes and all going in the right direction |
Jita iswhereIsit
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:00:00 -
[173] - Quote
I will wait to see until they're on the test server but It would be nice for the Cane to have some PG back, I thought the main idea of removing it was to remove the option of 2nuets without a PDU. Its quite hard now to fit a T2 plate and have 220s so the small amount of extra PG would help.
I like the Brutix getting the extra lowslot as it will now be a viable armor tanker and can use its bonus. The drake may be getting hit a little too hard with the recent HM nerf on top (I still think missiles in general need looking at), maybe the drake should stay as it is (being it was the most controversial) and wait to see how things play out with the other BC changes and how the drake fits, they're is always the chance of nerfing it too hard and it not being useful in anyway and not be looked at again (ala incursions :( ) for a while.
The Cyclone being made into a missile boat is dumb just because I think missiles need work.
Overall I would say these aren't really that significant, I was hoping for a complete change to most of them (like T1 cruisers) but they're really staying in the same roles with very small fitting/bonus changes. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:02:00 -
[174] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Kismeteer wrote:Please consider changing the +rep bonuses to Hardening bonuses or something that scales better with fleets. Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Please reconsider the active armor tank bonuses on the Gallente hulls, or at least on the Brutix. They're completely useless for anything but solo and the smallest gangs, and really, when was the last time you saw a solo Brutix? I'd prefer *not* to see all BC/BS ships redesigned around a fleet-only focus. Despite rumors to the contrary, solo and small gang PVP are not dead. Many of us still prefer faster/smaller scale PVP, in which logi support isn't always available. Also, many players still run missions solo, or in small gangs, where the active rep bonuses are needed. I used an active-tank Brutix for running L3 missions solo, until I skilled up to fly a BS. That said, active armor repping is certainly long overdue for a buff.
The problem with the +rep bonus is that it only applies to local reps, so if you want to use a tank buffer it won't work, if you have a logi with you it won't work.
A resist bonus works for both active and passive tanks, it also works if you have logi with you.
You see, we don't want all ships to need to be in a fleet to be good, we want all ships to be good with or without the fleet. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:06:00 -
[175] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Sigras wrote:IMHO blaster ships should not also be combat ships, all blaster ships should be attack ships . . .
I see combat ships more like the galaxy class starships, there really isnt much maneuvering to be done with it, it basically just sits and shoots; the ships that you see moving around a lot are the defiant class or intrepid class (voyager) these are the attack ships meant to take the fight to the enemy.
Blaster ships lack the range to just sit and shoot, all blaster ships should be attack ships
To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. The problem here is that railguns have horrid tracking, so if you're not sniping, you're not doing any damage. The Gallente mid-range combat is done with drones, so the Myrmidon would fill your "combat ship" role; the Myrmidon is not a blaster boat. The Brutix with its current layout makes a good blaster boat, but it's current armor bonus is lacking compared to a armor resist bonus. im not looking for my "combat ship" to be a mid range fighter . . . if youre referring to my suggestion on the talos i was thinking of blaster falloff to kite around 20 km which would almost be in optimal range for null ammo
also im not sure what you mean by "mid range" is that 50 - 100 km?
I was just saying that the brutix (as with all blaster ships) makes a better attack ship than a combat ship; then i gave a way to differentiate the talos and the brutix as they'd both be blaster attack ships. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
467
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:27:00 -
[176] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:
You are aware this is base targeting range right? Even the Kitsune has less base targeting range than the lowest Minmatar BC...
You are aware the t2 frigates havent been buffed yet, right? |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
325
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:31:00 -
[177] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:The problem with the +rep bonus is that it only applies to local reps, so if you want to use a tank buffer it won't work, if you have a logi with you it won't work.
A resist bonus works for both active and passive tanks, it also works if you have logi with you.
You see, we don't want all ships to need to be in a fleet to be good, we want all ships to be good with or without the fleet. I think you forget that, unlike shields, armor does not self-repair. To keep your armor tank buffer up, in a prolonged battle or on a roam, you need an armor repper - local or RR.
In solo PVP and PVE, you don't have a logi. So, esp. when running L3 or L4 missions solo, the armor rep bonus is more valuable than an armor resist bonus.
And, even when you do have a logi in a small gang, he/she is usually pretty darn busy, or jammed - anyone who can local rep helps take the pressure off the logi pilot. Also, when your logi gets popped, the rest of your armor gang isn't automatically SOL.
In a nutshell, Ed, what works for a fleet does not necessarily work for solo or small gangs. You can't design around a "one size fits all" model.
The Myrmidon, for example, is fairly useless for large fleet work, even with a resist bonus. Unbonused turrets and drones just aren't fleet weapons. |
Razefummel
Unknown Dimension Alpha Volley Union
393
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:33:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger. ...
There are some Points i dont get yet...
Minatar and Gallente are Allys right? Caldaris and Amarr are Allys too right?
Why did you gave MISSILES to Minmatar and DRONES to the Amarrians?
Isn-¦t ist funny that Minmatars got an DMG Bonus for Missiles in All DMG Types in form of RoF Bonus and The Caldaris keeps the Kinetic Bonus? Don-¦t get me wrong, but i think the Minmatar-Users realy enjoy its Proiectile Turrets and an good Option for Angel-Ships and also the Gallentean Drone Boats in that Skillingtree.
Therfore the Caldari-Users share theyre weaponary with there Enemys ... Hybrid Turrets with Gallente and Missiles in the Future with the Minmatars.
I-¦m fearing the Day the Battleships will be "balanced".
I wonder how long it takes to nerf the Caldari completly because Gallente and Minmatar will do more DPS than any Caldariship will do... so after that "Missile Change" RANGE don-¦t will be the Argument to use Caldari-Missileboats like the Caldari Turretships incase of the Gallente Variations.
Btw. If the Tengu is realy the Problem why don-¦t fix just that Ship in case of nerfing an whole Race?
I-¦m just wondering. 21 Tage Trial + Plex-Back Option : http://www.eveger.de/forum/showthread.php?20631-Buddy-Programm-21-Tage-Trial-Angebote&p=857096&viewfull=1#post857096
Der Public Chanel unserer Corporation ist: Dimension |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:34:00 -
[179] - 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. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
188
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:34:00 -
[180] - Quote
Hey Fozzie !
Interesting changes, but I agree with the Gentlemen complaining about the 7,5% active rep bonuses. May I bring this thread to your attention? It has been out there for a while and has the subject pretty much covered.
It's not too long and has good arguments from various people in it. I think it's worth your time.
I also agree that a cut in CPU is the last thing the Harbinger needs, even with one turret removed.
I'm really looking forward to the additional turret on the Ferox though.
Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:36:00 -
[181] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Edit: This would make the Brutix a very versatile ship and allow it to be used in many circumstances. It'd truly make it a 'brawling' ship that newbies can get into pretty easily.
The changes I've adjusted remove it's useless armor repair bonus and give it something that actually benefits the ship and it's design. I like bonus on the myrm however so why are we cookie cutting that on to the brutix? This also gives it the choice, it can be shield or armor. Agreed! I think its very clear that of the active tanking ships, we Gallente certainly don't need TWO BCs to have that bonus (even if active armor tanking is to be improved).
One BATTLEcruiser ought to be about all out battle (think: Hurricane vs. Cyclone), whilst the Myrm could easily fill the "tough tank (while drones do the business)" role. Personally, I'd love to see either armor repping be completely overhauled, so as to give faster cycle times (like small reppers already do) and more bonus per level (10% vs 7.5%), like the Incursus.
There's something fundamentally wrong that I need to use a triple repping, dual cap injected Myrm to be able to keep up with a single XL-ASB Cyclone.
I think giving the brutix a dual-role damage bonus is the way to go. I think the bonus should be for Falloff, though, so at least it could still apply damage out of optimal range (sort of like what the Proteus does with a falloff bonus).
P.S. A note on the Ferox: optimal range bonus is terrible, since the Naga will almost always outshine it. And if it is a sniper boat, why the heck have a +tanking bonus on it, since its not going to be hit anyway?? If you want it to be range-ier than a Gallente boat, which is why I'm sure you have +optimal bonus, then just have it apply (something nuts) like +15% damage per level to RAILS ONLY. (Tracking is going to be a problem, and the range issue still conflicts with a +tanking bonus, but its something).
Another thought on the Ferox is to make it the +active shield gunboat that we're losing in the Cyclone, although +active tanking is not very Caldari-esque.
|
Tithia Jadetiger
Futue te ipsum
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:44:00 -
[182] - Quote
Can we get 2-3 months before you fine folks at CCP deploy these changes....pretty plz.
I still have characters that are working on their sp for this change and they are at least 1 month plus 6 days away from completion. :( |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:44:00 -
[183] - 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). |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:49:00 -
[184] - Quote
Hello,
Seeing the big influx of primarily only negative critism i-¦ve read trough the current 9 pages of comments and i-¦m going to try to place constructive and negative feedback where i deem appropiate.
Prophecy:
At First glance the ship looks pretty decent. Compared with the Harbinger however there are a few things that seem odd. Drone and missile boats have easier damage projection then gunboats. The Prophecy aligns faster, and is overal faster due to its lower mass. Not a con, but it seems odd.
Harbinger:
I like the changes to this ship. Its always been my favorite BC, and it seems it will remain that. Only thing thats odd in my eyes is the mass / align difference compared to the Prophecy
Ferox:
Basicly everything on this ship is improved. More Damage, easier to fit, more speed, Tougher tank. I had to check the stats 4 or 5 times just to realize how good this ship will actually become. But the first 3 times was to get over the fact it still has a range bonus. Don't get me wrong, the ship stats are awesome! But i think a lot of people still see: "range bonus, this ship is still bad"
Drake:
Is this all there doing to you? It becomes easier to fit, with less speed and utility. Its going to be fun to catch up a mwd drake, in an Afterburner hac tough.
Brutix:
This ship scares me. With its new mass, it gets up to current hurricane speed, with an excessive amount of dps. Combination of low and mids that make it adaptable to many situations. This one will make people fear gallente ships again.
Myrmidon:
This one is going to be unpredictable. The amount of different fits i can think of for this one is awesome. But why doesn't it have the capability of carrying 2 full flight of drones?
Cyclone:
Looks good, Looks bad... I honestly don't know. I can think as many pro's as con's for this ship, that i can't predict anything for it yet.
Hurricane:
It looks nerfed, but it isn't. If you look at all the other bc's this one is going to be the primary ship for a lot of pilots again.
Overall analisys:
Anticipated the primary and secondary weapon systems devide up. Ships look ok at first glance. Definatly going to get a lot of love and hate of the playerbase. In my opinion this way is a good way (you cant build almost 2 identical hurricanes, or harbingers afterall) The secondary weapon system BC's seem more powerfull in utility, except for the Ferox.
The Harbinger and Hurricane seem odd beeing the only bc's without any sort of tank bonus, Or does it seem odd that the Drake and Brutix still do have a tank bonus.
Personaly i was pleased to see the Prophecy and Cyclone changes announched, and was shocked to find the ferox still haveing a range bonus.
Things that i would change:
I would switch the Mass and align time of Prophecy and Harbinger I would add an additional 25 drone bay capacity to the Myrmidon |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1201
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:50:00 -
[185] - Quote
Tithia Jadetiger wrote:Can we get 2-3 months before you fine folks at CCP deploy these changes....pretty plz. I still have characters that are working on their sp for this change and they are at least 1 month plus 6 days away from completion. :(
This is why Fozzie told everybody to train those skills back before Retribution released.
|
Mourning Souls
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:50:00 -
[186] - Quote
Yay, Ferox buff. No hate here. |
Lledrith
Ex Caminus
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:51:00 -
[187] - Quote
what in hell.... why this change to Missiles for the Cyclone?
i though that Minmatar race was more incline into projectile than missiles... |
Tithia Jadetiger
Futue te ipsum
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:54:00 -
[188] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Tithia Jadetiger wrote:Can we get 2-3 months before you fine folks at CCP deploy these changes....pretty plz. I still have characters that are working on their sp for this change and they are at least 1 month plus 6 days away from completion. :( This is why Fozzie told everybody to train those skills back before Retribution released.
I just resubbed and didn't learn about these changes until about 1 week ago. Sorrieee ! |
Bobby Mugabe
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:55:00 -
[189] - Quote
75 bandwidth on a drone boat
ya blew it |
Muso Soseki
Chaotic Ninja Midgets
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:58:00 -
[190] - Quote
I don't understand why everyone is crying so much about these ships being made to do the purpose they were created for.... Gangs and Fleets.... (Read: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules, BATTLEcruiser) So what if they are making the ship harder to use solo, it was never meant to be used solo. Be glad you had your fun and lern2adapt. It isnt like they are RUINING the ships, otherwise I would be complaining more about the drake fitting, as it is already hard to fit 7 launchers with lvl V skills. I agree with the mass increase and cap nerf because they are a passive tanking ship anyways and I see a lot of drake mw fleets. I want to see fleets with all kinds of ships, I am tired of seeing fleets of all drakes or all this ship or all that, it needs to be more of a game where fleets are composed of all classes.
On another note I can see the Cyclone using those 2 extra slots for small turrets to take care of drones... I dont agree with optimal range on the brutix, and tracking would just make it overpowered. The Prophecy seems to have a attractiveness to it now. Those of you complaining about missile boat changes on the cyclone, just understand it is just like caldari complaining that they have gun boats.(Though I've only complained because our boats haven't been much worth using until now) |
|
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:03:00 -
[191] - Quote
Some or all of the following has probably been addressed by others but i didn't bother to read non fozzie replies.
i like what yall are doing with the proh, but it seems like y'all a nerfing the already not that great harb even more.
on the min ships i don't really like what yall are doing to the cyclone but understand why you did what you did. this is mainly due to not much caring for missiles in general not specifically the cyclone changes
the ferrox and drake dont seem to be anything unexpected.
what i am however surprised by is the changes to the myrm and the drake
fully approve of the slot changes on the brutix but an active rep bonus? to me this seems to be a waste as it currently is. the rep bonus needs to buffed more for it to be worth even trying to have an Armour active tank. give the disaprity between active shield and active amour reps. unless there are more reaching amour tanking balancing than has so far been released, probably better to go to a dual hybrid bonus as has already been suggested.
the myrm on the other hand i can kinda see the rep bonus but still feel its probably a wasted bonus. what gets me is that while buffing the bandwidth the mrym still only has 100 bandwidth so still cant launch a full flight of heavy's or sentries surprising. with 100 your left with either only using 4 of the larger drones or doing a mix of large and med drones both of which feel weird.
|
Mund Richard
239
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:05:00 -
[192] - Quote
B'reanna wrote: what gets me is that while buffing the bandwidth the mrym still only has 100 bandwidth so still cant launch a full flight of heavy's or sentries surprising. with 100 your left with either only using 4 of the larger drones or doing a mix of large and med drones both of which feel weird. Could be worse, could be 95, taking away the choice. Could be better.
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Bobby Mugabe
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:09:00 -
[193] - Quote
The cyclone change makes no sense therefor I propose a change
Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile turret and Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 5 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1200 PWG (-10), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4750(+355) / 4000(+94) / 3500(+81) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(+62.5) / 592s(+8.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25) |
Ben Li
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:19:00 -
[194] - Quote
CCP hates neuts so badly... Cane loses a highslot just after it lost PG
As did rupture.
Tempest is next?
Derp. |
Mund Richard
239
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:19:00 -
[195] - Quote
Bobby Mugabe wrote:The cyclone change makes no sense therefore I propose a change Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile turret and Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Did you just invent the double bonused bonus? ... And it would work, quite possibly. Hell, with all the T2 recons and the like, I wouldn't mind their split weapon system bonuses taking up only one slot. ... Ain't happening.
Plus, that cyclone would be an awesome wild card the way you suggest, 5 each bonused hardpoint and bonused tank. By that school of thought, the Phoon could be a Projectile/Missile and drone bonused ship... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Denidil
Turalyon Plus
559
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:29:00 -
[196] - Quote
meh. seems to be reducing EHP and usefulless. No elimination of split turret type loadouts, which we asked for. Active tanking still sucks, unless you intend to fix that later (which you should just tell us now if you intend that so we can take it into account when evaulating the ships).
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design. |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
321
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:40:00 -
[197] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie You're forgetting the previous version of the merlin
I like most of the modifications : - the drake is fine - the ferox looks interesting, but it may be lacking a bit of PWG to fit some 250mm - the harbinger is fine, adaptive nano plating instead of EANMs but a good DPS ship - the myrmidon is still a myrmidon, move along - the cane is a cane instead of a mini tempest of doom. - 6th low slot for the brutix woot woot woot !
But : - the cyclone may need a 6th launcher - the prophecy. Too slow, too tanky, and too low on PWG. And looking too much like the myrmidon. I would say, give it a 125m^3 bandwith, an even huger bay, and give it a sentry bonus instead of a damage bonus for all drones. |
Dibblerette
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:49:00 -
[198] - Quote
Razefummel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger. ...
There are some Points i dont get yet... Minatar and Gallente are Allys right? Caldaris and Amarr are Allys too right? Why did you gave MISSILES to Minmatar and DRONES to the Amarrians? Isn-¦t ist funny that Minmatars got an DMG Bonus for Missiles in All DMG Types in form of RoF Bonus and The Caldaris keeps the Kinetic Bonus? Don-¦t get me wrong, but i think the Minmatar-Users realy enjoy its Proiectile Turrets and an good Option for Angel-Ships and also the Gallentean Drone Boats in that Skillingtree. Therfore the Caldari-Users share theyre weaponary with there Enemys ... Hybrid Turrets with Gallente and Missiles in the Future with the Minmatars. I-¦m fearing the Day the Battleships will be "balanced". I wonder how long it takes to nerf the Caldari completly because Gallente and Minmatar will do more DPS than any Caldariship will do... so after that "Missile Change" RANGE don-¦t will be the Argument to use Caldari-Missileboats like the Caldari Turretships incase of the Gallente Variations. Btw. If the Tengu is realy the Problem why don-¦t fix just that Ship in case of nerfing an whole Race? I-¦m just wondering. Yes! Let's base all balance on silly stories!
That aside, I think Hans knows something we don't, leading to the Brutix and Myrm keeping the rep amount bonus. Looking forward to the Proph and Cyclone. Only thing for the cyclone is I wish it would get a 6th launcher but a 25mb bandwidth. I hate having to use medium drones to get the most damage out of a ship. |
IrJosy
Club 1621
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:56:00 -
[199] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:IrJosy wrote:Zagdul wrote:Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Edit: This would make the Brutix a very versatile ship and allow it to be used in many circumstances. It'd truly make it a 'brawling' ship that newbies can get into pretty easily.
The changes I've adjusted remove it's useless armor repair bonus and give it something that actually benefits the ship and it's design. I like bonus on the myrm however so why are we cookie cutting that on to the brutix? This also gives it the choice, it can be shield or armor. too much like talos And? Why not have a medium hybrid transition ship for newer pilots who can't use the T2 large hybrids yet?
Eh k |
Mund Richard
240
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 01:56:00 -
[200] - Quote
Dibblerette wrote:That aside, I think Hans knows something we don't, leading to the Brutix and Myrm keeping the rep amount bonus. If so, I hope we'll also hear about it soon, else we are seeing only a part of things.
Dibblerette wrote:Only thing for the cyclone is I wish it would get a 6th launcher but a 25mb bandwidth. I hate having to use medium drones to get the most damage out of a ship. Goes in concert with my disliking a 50/50 bandwidth+bay and calling for +1 launcher, while yours also takes away some?
I like it! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Mund Richard
240
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:01:00 -
[201] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:IrJosy wrote: too much like talos And? Why not have a medium hybrid transition ship for newer pilots who can't use the T2 large hybrids yet? Well, why justify a ship just by being useful only until you have a month's worth of extra training?
Someone had an interesting idea of Talos with falloff bonus focusing on the kiting aspect, and Brutix with tracking instead for the inyourface brawling. Not sure how that would work though, never flew one. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
2164
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:07:00 -
[202] - Quote
Poor Firox... such a red headed stepchild. So now it's a poor man's command sniper? I think you should give it a little bump to max velocity, or reduce it's mass, if that's the case. Just my 2 ISK.
|
Dibblerette
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:08:00 -
[203] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Zagdul wrote:IrJosy wrote: too much like talos And? Why not have a medium hybrid transition ship for newer pilots who can't use the T2 large hybrids yet? Well, why justify a ship just by being useful only until you have a month's worth of extra training? Someone had an interesting idea of Talos with falloff bonus focusing on the kiting aspect, and Brutix with tracking instead for the inyourface brawling.
I agree, having the brutix serve only as stepping stone sounds a hell of a lot like the tiers we're supposed to be getting rid of. Furthermore, with the Talos probably losing some speed and/or agility, I'd prefer it keep the tracking bonus. Large blasters have plenty of range already, especially if you count Null and Tracking Enhancers. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
939
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:14:00 -
[204] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Prophecy: Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 (+50) / 225 (+200)
Myrmidon: Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 175 (+25)
I continue to question the wisdom of this approach.
Amarr - 3 full flights. Wise? Not particularly. With what drone costs, carrying 3 full flights is overkill in most cases. Not to mention that most ships tend to get popped before the second flight gets munched through.
Gallente - not even 2 full flights? Again?! Wise? Not particularly. For one, this completely removes the "flexibility" of a drone boat in the field. And makes logistics a nightmare, as a single hot warpout leaves your drone capability at 75% of optimal at best.
Can't you guys even consider the happy medium? That is, 2 flights for Gallente AT LEAST? I know this "doctrine" has been around for a while, but it doesn't sit well, with me at least. It never has. |
zerquse
Outsiders. Fusion.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:15:00 -
[205] - Quote
myrm: 7.5% bonus to armor repair rate and amount per level 10% bonus to drone damage/hit points/and tracking per level
brutix: 5% bonus to medium hybrid damage per level 10% reduction to mass penalty to armor plates per level
this is what gallente should be |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
138
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:16:00 -
[206] - Quote
Dang. What did the Harbinger ever do to you? I don't know that the increased damage is going to make up for that heavy hit in fittings and tank. If the PG hadn't been hit so hard, I could see a future of heavy pulse Harbingers a la 425mm Hurricanes, but now I just see them struggling to break even and still stuck in the focused medium rut.
I was hoping the Prophecy would come to something after the Venture kicked it out of its god-given role as a gas harvester, but I am unimpressed with its new role, but that might be me just feeling sad that the whispers of recon battlecruisers never came to pass.
A lot of these changes seem to hinge on mysterious upcoming alterations to various modules (medium rails, active armor tanking, drones?). It would be nice if you could let us know as soon as possible what all of these changes are, because that is very relevant to the feedback loop. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
917
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:20:00 -
[207] - Quote
+10% damage per level looks weird and inconsistent. Why Binger should be any special? I just don't get it, despite never being dogmatic.
Also, why do you keep adding sensor strength points to basically all ships you're changing? Basically there's no difference at all between those values, all ships with medium weaponry have 15-18 sensor strenght points. Pretty much no difference there. Given how Marauders have that halved (compared to normal battleships), it's questionable. Why don't you alter the EW mechanics itself if you think jamming is an issue?
Also: + for getting EHP on some ships decreased. Less overtanking \o/ - for getting EHP on some ships increased. Even more overtanking /o\ 14 |
Mund Richard
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:24:00 -
[208] - Quote
zerquse wrote:7.5% bonus to armor repair rate and amount per level 10% bonus to drone damage/hit points/and tracking per level 10% reduction to mass penalty to armor plates per level So double repair bonus, the more you have, the faster and more you repair, at the more cap cost. When I was new, I always wondered why having more SP makes me less cap-stable. Not sure I like it.
10% drone tracking: On top of everything else, that's a bit much. If the bonuses were 7.5% each, maybe. Too sudden burst, would require some drones to be altered perhaps, specially with the new drone destroyers out.
Plate reduction: So what if I don't fit a plate on it due to some sheer folly, like shield buffering or active tanking? Giving speed and/or inertia would be better maybe. Or just not going there.
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
None ofthe Above
413
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:24:00 -
[209] - Quote
Bobby Mugabe wrote:The cyclone change makes no sense therefore I propose a change
Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile turret and Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 5 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1200 PWG (-10), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4750(+355) / 4000(+94) / 3500(+81) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(+62.5) / 592s(+8.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Actually I love this.
Would have loved to have seen this kind of flexible set up for some of the other ships that had split weapons systems. Merlin, Tristan, Crow for example.
Not holding my breath though. This kind of genius idea of a properly bonused ship that can be effective with either bays or turrets has been pretty thoroughly ignored in the past. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
zerquse
Outsiders. Fusion.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:31:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:zerquse wrote:7.5% bonus to armor repair rate and amount per level 10% bonus to drone damage/hit points/and tracking per level 10% reduction to mass penalty to armor plates per level So double repair bonus, the more you have, the faster and more you repair, at the more cap cost. When I was new, I always wondered why having more SP makes me less cap-stable. Not sure I like it. Pretty sure I don't like it! Armor tanking shouldn't be fixed by making the bonus assymetric compared to shields. 10% drone tracking: On top of everything else, that's a bit much. If the bonuses were 7.5% each, maybe. Too sudden burst, would require some drones to be altered perhaps, specially with the new drone destroyers out. Plate reduction: So what if I don't fit a plate on it due to some sheer folly, like shield buffering or active tanking? Giving speed and/or inertia would be better maybe. Or just not going there.
this would give the myrm the ability to sit at range with its drones and snipe while having a decent burst tank so its no op.
while the brutix would inherit an ability to fit a 1600mm plate and be able to fly as if there were only an 800mm beter agility speed etc so it can pounce on its target as intended.
it would give u an active or buffer option on medium blasters that are both very viable. |
|
Guillaume Conquerant
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:33:00 -
[211] - Quote
Ok, my thoughts:
- Ferox
Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Justification: It will never be able to out-sniper the Naga so lets make this an 'in-your-face' brawler; Caldari needs at least one
- Drake
Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to all missile damage --or-- 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to all missile rof
Justification: As kings of the missle boats, Caldari should not be limited to just kin dmg. The multiple damage profiles are a redeeming quality of missiles in pvp. Let's not hamper that.
- Brutix
Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking
Justification: Brutix, Brute, brawler ... skull f*cker. Not sure we need two ships with active tank bonuses.
- Cyclone:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses: --NO CHANGE-- Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 Launchers
Justification: Please, enough of the schizo ... Minnie culture is about decisiveness, this split weapons business does NOT suit them (or my implants or my low slot layout)
|
Klown Walk
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
194
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:35:00 -
[212] - Quote
And still no info about fixing active tanking. |
Mund Richard
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:37:00 -
[213] - Quote
zerquse wrote: this would give the myrm the ability to sit at range with its drones and snipe while having a decent burst tank so its no op. Still holding that unless you want all active tank ship bonuses to be like it, don't go there. It's not just about a Myrm sitting at range or not, being OP or not. I'm on about integrity, and fixing armor tanking where it is broken, and not just with "overbuffed" hull bonuses.
zerquse wrote: while the brutix would inherit an ability to fit a 1600mm plate and be able to fly as if there were only an 800mm beter agility speed etc so it can pounce on its target as intended. And the ones not fitting a plate due to going full-active or shield are borked.
zerquse wrote: it would give u an active or buffer option on medium blasters that are both very viable. Lost me here. Still talking about the plate? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jean Leaner
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
69
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:40:00 -
[214] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Right now Gallente is the ONLY race that has mulutple ships with split weapon systems.
You're kidding right? List some.
Minmatar - Typhoon, Cyclone, Naglfar,
You're on the CSM and you don't even know which ships have split weapons systems? |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
467
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:41:00 -
[215] - Quote
So who here plans on flying a drake ever again btw? |
Mund Richard
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:45:00 -
[216] - Quote
Jean Leaner wrote: Minmatar - Typhoon, Cyclone, Naglfar, You're on the CSM and you don't even know which ships have split weapons systems? CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie Phoon will be reworked into torp boat supposedly. Cyclone "only" has two utility highs, with many of us here calling for +1 launcher. That the Naglfar suxx with two unbonused and two double bonused, is meh. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
David Zahavi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:48:00 -
[217] - Quote
Kogh Ayon wrote:
Harbinger
Don't get the logic to nerf this ship, isn't it **** enough already that people even use omen rather than harbinger?
Yup, especially after the Omen buff. But even before. |
Carol Krabit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:55:00 -
[218] - Quote
I spy a surprising number of odd or defunct bonuses still being there. I thought these were the primary targets for change? Very few people are going to really enjoy the snipe bonus on the Ferox, and the Brutix rep bonus is only going to be useful in novelty solo fits like the triple rep Myrmidon today. Myrmidon has enough versatility because of its med slots and auxiliary weapon system that it is hard to complain, but the Brutix doesn't enjoy that same luxury.
Also it's funny to read spoiled minmatar players complaining as if their ships fitting has been butchered. The changes recently has only put them in line with other races. It used to be that you barely had to care about grid or CPU when fitting a cane, and that was ridiculous. Both Cyclone and Hurricane are going to stay excellent, Cyclone might even get a reputation as the new Drake of PvE because of the damage projection, drones and bonus.
Overall I think the more fundamental role changes like the Prophecy and Cyclone ones are very interesting, but I had expected much more of it. I also think this will be very successful in diversifying the killboards, although eventual fotms are inevitable as always. Next station for the BC train is the removal of off-grid boosting and the resulting demand for cheaper links in small inexpensive fleets. Let's hope that happens soonish. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 02:58:00 -
[219] - Quote
zerquse wrote:myrm: 7.5% bonus to armor repair rate and amount per level 10% bonus to drone damage/hit points/and tracking per level
brutix: 5% bonus to medium hybrid damage per level 10% reduction to mass penalty to armor plates per level
this is what gallente should be I think would be a mistake. If you want ultra-high-dps-for-the-hull-and-speed, use a Thorax. Battlecruisers should either 1) have a +tank/+dps bonus or 2) 2 +dps bonuses.
An alternative to +damage resist bonuses (common for Amarr) maybe could be +% armor HP (like the Proteus sub), making each plate (maybe even an 800mm!) more effective. By optimizing a Brutix to use 800mm (buffed) and Neutrons, you could achieve high dps and high survivability with lower mass for better agility and speed.
Personally, shoehorning Gallente into active tanking roles without a similar ASB module for armor is just going to mean that the active bonuses will continue to be wasted.
Perhaps the three BCs should be set aside into 3 distinct hull designs: 1) Very high dps (current and future Tier 3 BCs), 2) Active tanking bonus one (Cyclone/Myrm/Ferox/Harbinger) and 3) Passive tanking one (fleet) (Drake/Brutix/Hurricane/Prophecy). That way, each category has a good mix of drone damage/gun damage/armor/shield in each.
I don't particularly think all the BCs should be so homogenized, but I do feel a more radical thinking plan is in order, since more of the status quo is obviously not being well received by the general player base (well, at least the forum warriors). |
Albert Spear
meadhan oidhche cinneach Miners' Militia
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:02:00 -
[220] - Quote
I took the time to run some math on the Harbi.
If the goal is to get newer players to move of the ladder to Battlecruisers while still training medium turrets and T2 modules, the Harbi takes a big hit.
For players who are 5'ed out - the Harbi gets a good buff, but most players who are 5'ed out will probably chose to fly better ships.
I suspect that the Harbi will be end up getting little use. Fitting a Harbi with L2 and L3 skills will be tough with the reduction in CPU.
|
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1202
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:03:00 -
[221] - Quote
B'reanna wrote: so after running the math on the harb assuming lvl 5 skills between dropping the 1 turret and the 5% increase in dmg bonus the net change is a 7% buff in dps along with a bit better fitting in return for increase in mass and align time. at anything less than lvl 5 skills its a net nerf in dps. in addition to this the biggest problem with the harb as always been getting in range to do dps which with the proposed changes would be even harder to do. so for a balance that's supposed to help level the playing field for newer players seems to me in the harbs case be a net nerf to an already lackluster ship.
CCP Fozzie please read this part right here, right here the whole thing.
I would bold the improtant bits but its all important.
Right now as is the Harby is in that middle group. Not quite as useless as the Ferox maybe, but nowhere near as good as the cane or drake. You've effectively dropped the hammer on it with those changes for anybody but a bitter vet.
The gun change is kinda nice for the fitting options you're opening but you've neutered it in other ways to make it virtually unusable for anybody without maxed skills when compared to the other BC options.
EDIT: And even then its pretty sub par when you look at the comparative DPS/Tank potentials of any other BC. |
Skotykus
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:14:00 -
[222] - Quote
Why not just remove the Drake, already? You seem to be whittling away at it each stupid patch. How can you think it's still OP with the missile changes?
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:15:00 -
[223] - Quote
Jean Leaner wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: Right now Gallente is the ONLY race that has mulutple ships with split weapon systems.
You're kidding right? List some. Minmatar - Typhoon, Cyclone, Naglfar, You're on the CSM and you don't even know which ships have split weapons systems? You should perhaps spend a bit more time reading about upcoming changes. If you did, you'd already know that Typhoon is slated to become a dedicated missile boat just like the Cyclone is. And we don't really know about what'll come of the Naglfar yet, but its a capital ship, and those are in a special class anyway, with their Siege modules...
|
Mund Richard
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:19:00 -
[224] - Quote
Or looking at the ships another way, will be a screwed view due to not taking the weapon systems themselves into account.
Extradamage, Capacitor, 6 bonused + non-hardpoint high. Passivetank, SecondaryDamage, +4 unbonused high "+1 more" unbonused. Damage, PassiveTank, 7 "bonused" highs. SecondaryRange, PassiveTank, 7 "bonused" highs. Damage, Activetank, 7 bonused highs. SecondaryDamage, AcitveTank, + 6 hardpoint highs. PrimaryDamage, PrimaryDamage, 6 double-bonused highs +hardpoint high. SecondaryDamage, ActiveTank, 5 bonused highs, +2 hardpoint highs.
Racial Primary damage system ships summary: Damage: 6 double bonused +off-hardpoint> 6 extra bonused > 7 bonused > 7 limited bonused. Secondary: PassiveTank > ActiveTank > Cap Usage (why keping those still), 4th ship included a line above.
Racial Secondary weapon-type Ships: Secondary: PassiveTank = PassiveTank > ActiveShield > ActiveArmor. 4 tank-bonused ships Damage: 5*Secondary+2hardpoint > Secondary+6hardpoints > 7*RangeBonused > Secondary+4/1hardpoints
Primary lineup: Two tank-bonused, one Cap, one Double damage. If the secondary-line is the tankier, why not make all of these non-tanked? Would justify the Drake getting a proper damage bonus, always found "missiles = selectable damage, Caldari = Kinetic" silly. And the Harbringer with it's cap bonus... Still the most lackluster bonus, even with me hating active armor tanking ones.
Second lineup: Tanky ones, hopefully there's a trick in the bag for armor rep. Balance between drones and hardpoint weapons too much hassle to find, so leaving these somewhat alone. One ship having bonused hardpoints and yet two unbonused is unusual after tiericide (Cyclone, even the Rupture lost the second). And the Ferox, medium railguns with range bonus but nothing else... the only thing it offers over a Naga is staying power, in return for 1 size smaller, 1 less turret, with no damage bonus (on the same size it would be 10 against 7 turret's dps, by the virtue of using larger ones Naga is already more-or-less where the Ferox gets with the bonus). Worth it? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
666
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:20:00 -
[225] - Quote
Skotykus wrote:Why not just remove the Drake, already? You seem to be whittling away at it each stupid patch. How can you think it's still OP with the missile changes?
because they are waiting to see how bad it gets before they make TC/TE affect missiles...
thats why... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Misha M'Liena
Rui Freelance Mining
2071
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:26:00 -
[226] - Quote
Your nerfing the harby when it needed a buffing? Why in gods name?
One less weapon, less powergrid less cpu...?? Are you outa your freaking mind Fozzie???
I want whatever your drinking.
Misha. Not as innocent as she appears.Gäó -á |
Mund Richard
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:29:00 -
[227] - Quote
Misha M'Liena wrote:Your nerfing the harby when it needed a buffing? Why in gods name? One less weapon, less powergrid less cpu...?? Are you outa your freaking mind Fozzie??? I want whatever your drinking. Misha. I wonder if sooner or later everyone frequenting this thread will finish their posts with: "And the Harbringer getting +10% damage bonus is given a damage buff even with loosing a turret." Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Styledatol
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:30:00 -
[228] - Quote
CCP logic: "We've fixed the cruisers by making them almost as good as battlecruisers. Now, lets fix battlecruisers by making the good ones just as bad as the rarely used ones." |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1913
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:31:00 -
[229] - Quote
Removed a ranting post.
I would like to remind people that while negative feedback is helpful, please do it in a constructive manner. Ranting about it while not help solve anything, but telling us why you don't like it and ways to fix it is very helpful. Thank you. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Captain She'ep
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:33:00 -
[230] - Quote
Will you guys leave my hurricane the hell alone? Seriously. Back the **** off, doods! |
|
Cethion
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:37:00 -
[231] - Quote
I have a lot of problems with these proposed changes, lets roll through each ship one by one.
Prophecy: Continuing this push to make drones the secondary weapon system of the Amarr just doesn't make much sense. Drone boats don't see much use in fleet actions (when was the last time the myrm had a starring role in a fleet op aside from bait?), and even solo, a drone bandwidth of 75 is insufficient. If you want this ship to see increased use, and are determined to make it a non-laser boat, give it missiles. An armor tanked BC with missile options would be a hell of a lot more useful.
Harbinger: While the ship gets a small damage boost from the higher damage bonus, and having fewer guns means less danger to capacitor, but the ship already had significant fitting problems, and while this reduction is supposed to be commiserate with the loss of a turret fitting, a smaller reduction would give the ship a little more heart. Then comes the agility nerf. This ship is already (theoretically) supposed to be an armor tank, and starting with the maneuverability of a pig is not helpful. This ship is already not all that popular, and these changes won't help things, at least remove the agility nerf to keep it somewhat competitive.
Ferox: I don't fly these ships, so I don't have a lot to say about this one, others have mentioned wanting a damage bonus instead of an optimal range, but I am glad to see some other buffs for it.
Drake: This ship is almost unchanged. More of a pig with maneuverability, but the much-vaunted tank is essentially the same. Weren't there supposed to be some nerfs coming to get this ship in line with the now-nerfed Cane?
Brutix: I like the slot changes, fitting boosts, and agility increase, but the bonuses are still odd. Both the Gallante combat BCes have bonuses to active armor tanking, which is basically useless outside of very small-scale fights. You want to see this ship used some more? Give it a different second bonus, if you want to support the damage angle, a falloff or tracking bonus is a great idea, if you want something more ganky, maybe an agility boost. Either way, this needs a change.
Myrmidon: Turrets were never this ship's strong point, and the additional bandwidth and size are amazingly helpful to this ship. Given the focus of the ship, losing some armor while gaining hull is a bit of an odd choice, but overall, it fills much the same roll as it used to, even if an active tank is harder to support with a smaller powergrid.
Cyclone: While another missile launcher hardpoint would be great, having two utility highs isn't necessarily a bad thing, and the across the board boosts get it a lot more in line. I like most of that.
Hurricane: This ship already got hit pretty hard with the nerf bat, hurting it more seems unnecessary. Others have been more vehement than I in this regard, so I'll leave it at that. |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:39:00 -
[232] - Quote
Why are removing all the extra high slots that are supposed to be used for the links? Like seriously? If anything you should leave those in place and give most of the BCs extra PG fitting ability so we can actually use the 99% CPU reduction bonus for links. They already don't get the command ship link effectiveness bonus. If you go through with this you may as well take the 99% CPU reduction bonus away. Hardly anyone uses it now and even fewer will after these changes go through.
Also, can we get rid of this pointless Caldari Kenetic Bonus? It seems ridiculous that there are 4 flavors of missiles and Caldari are stuck using the worst of them all. "But it's Caldari's racial damage!" Yeah. Then why is explosive Minmatar's but they don't get an "Explosive damage bonus"? At least Amarr can only do EM/TRM and Gallente can only do THRM/KIN. And you already got rid of the Kinetic bonus on the Caracal and the condor. Finish the job.
And why would I use a sniper Ferox when the Naga does it better? If you get caught sniping that resist bonus isn't going to help you. At least the Naga has the Large Rails range and is fast and agile enough to run away. |
Marcus Antovar
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:45:00 -
[233] - Quote
What the **** is this ****? The hurricane is getting hit more? Man, that ship is going from awesome to ****!
And why do both the Gal BCes have active rep bonuses? Why? The brutix is bullshit right now, even with these changes.
Why is the Prophecy a droneboat? **** that noise! |
Kratisto
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:45:00 -
[234] - Quote
The Ferox suffers from a capacitor burden, which requires a cap booster in the mids for pvp. This and a prop mod means it has only 3 shield slots for tanking- not exactly conducive for a ship with shield resistance bonuses. The turret bonus is good, a cool +50 dps, to 350 dps or so with 200's, the guns required for fitting... but compare that to a Hurricane's 480 with shortrange ammo, with a similar range despite no range bonus (25+16 ferox, 15+28 on cane)...
The cane has 60k ehp with full skills, the ferox 72k, both when shield-tanked. This hardly makes any sense.
Easy solution: Give the ferox the extra midslot instead of low, sufficient powergrid so it can fit the extra gun without needing a pds, giving it sufficiently more tank to justify its flight. Adding the damage buff would make it too good, and here there is a tradeoff: DPS and alpha, vs tanky/fast rof, in the realm of midrange snipers.
|
Mund Richard
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:48:00 -
[235] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:Why are removing all the extra high slots that are supposed to be used for the links? Like seriously? If anything you should leave those in place and give most of the BCs extra PG fitting ability so we can actually use the 99% CPU reduction bonus for links. They already don't get the command ship link effectiveness bonus. If you go through with this you may as well take the 99% CPU reduction bonus away. Hardly anyone uses it now and even fewer will after these changes go through. Riiight! As it is now, only the Harbringer has a spare high with no hardpoint, making it "ideal" (before fitting issues) for a link. Both Minmatar and the Prophecy can use a utility High for it. The Myrm has a choice of not using one of the 5 turrets, which may be magstabbed/gyroed for a lesser bonus. The Brutix and the Caldari ships make a choice between dropping a bonused hardpoint, or the link.
Anyone seeing a racial pattern here?
PS:
Mund Richard wrote:"And the Harbringer getting +10% damage bonus is a damage buff even with loosing a turret." The rest of what it got debatable. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
393
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 03:52:00 -
[236] - Quote
was really hoping the Harb would become viable with the changes and I'm sad to see that it won't :(
The tiny dps buff doesn't come close to evening out how very slow it is How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:10:00 -
[237] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:
There's something fundamentally wrong that I need to use a triple repping, dual cap injected Myrm to be able to keep up with a single XL-ASB Cyclone.
That is it in the shell of a nut.
You have been great about listening to feedback, so I will add my voice to the chorus saying please don't give the Brutix an active tank bonus.
If you keep the bonus on the Myrm, then DO give it a 10% bonus like the Incursus.
|
NetheranE
The Cariest Of Bears
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:11:00 -
[238] - Quote
Prophecy changes are excellent, as are the Harb and Myrm.
To the Ferox, the addition of another gun is a great help, except for the difference in cap usage is rather exceptional for an already cap-close boat. However, is is a trait of the Caldari line, so I can see why it was maintained.
Brutix, I dont see why the rep bonus remains. I can see it being an overall ok choice, however I think a tracking bonus like the thorax may find it's place safer. I think something needs to be considered in that bonus slot, as otherwise the Myrm and Brutix will constantly find themselves left behind for any amount of fleet work. ^Personally I have less of an issue with this as the Myrm and Brutix are still extremely poignant choices for small gangs, and leaving their bonuses as listed in the OP would continue to enable them this edge.
Drake and Cane, these changes effectively bring them in-line with the other BCs, which I think is an excellent choice. For too long the drake and cane have left all other BCs far behind in the dust, and pushing them back down to an even keel is an excellent balance choice.
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?
Learn to quit whining about wanting to use a ship outside of its general conceptualization. These ships have their roles, and the changes ensure that they excel in these roles exceptionally.
ALL GLORY TO THE AUG & BINGER DOCTRINE, ALL GLORY! |
Capqu
Love Squad
66
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:13:00 -
[239] - Quote
hi fozzie,
i think there is an innate problem with the armor rep bonuses in that that resist bonuses are just as effective for active tanking, while also allowing you to buffer / passive if you want (and even providing some buffer if you decide to active)
i think this puts too much disparity between the active bonused and the resist bonused ships, which i imagine are intended to be similar power level just geared towards active or passive
perhaps look at tweaking the potency of the active bonus, or reworking it all together? http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
CaptCommando
Irrationality ILLC C0NVICTED
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:15:00 -
[240] - Quote
correct me if im wrong but the drake is now even more useless as it is now goin be all tank no bite. and the myrm is losing a gun and high as wells as a reduction on its tank shields armor and hull but still keeping a 7.5% armor repping bonus. and its loosing PWGRD. so with its tank and gun dps output lose its goin be relying on its drones to dump on someones day so if u dont have good drones skills u might be ******. and putting a 1600mm plate on to help the reppers is now goin to be a necessity. shoulda just left the highslot and taken the gun slot or increase the repping bonus. |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1202
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:16:00 -
[241] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote: I wonder if sooner or later everyone frequenting this thread will finish their posts with: "And the Harbringer getting +10% damage bonus is a damage buff even with loosing a turret."
Only with all skills at 5 brotatoe, and as has been pointed out if all of your skills are at 5 theres not much chance that you're flying a harbinger so for just about everybody who WILL fly a harbinger it will be slower, do less dps and even if you look at the 1 removed gun they're removing MORE cpu than that one gun used so less overall CPU fitting space.
Its mass is higher, its probable baseline dps will be lower considering the average pilot skill in the craft, and generally ALL of the other BC's will be in some way shape or form significantly better.
What did the Harby ever do that should merit a nerf? Are people roaring around somewhere in vast fleets of Harbies raping and pillaging?
|
Mukun
The Shadow Plague Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:28:00 -
[242] - Quote
BRUTIX NEEDS MORE LOVE!!!!!!!!!!! |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:30:00 -
[243] - Quote
The Prophecy is going to be a better drone boat than the Mrym by a long shot.
The Gal drone bays, as have been mentioned, become a real problem, particularly in parts of space where you can't dock or buy new ones. The Mrym in particular will suffer from this. The armor rep is still a waste especially when compared to the Prophecy. The Prophecy with launchers will be amazing. It will have tank, damage projection, etc. Just overall very sad with the changes for the Mrym, one extra "slow take forever to get to the target" heavy drone doesn't make up for the rest of it. Put a second bonus that has more utility than armor rep. If you must take a turret slot (you going to change the model?) then at least leave it a utility high slot. You reduced armor AND shield? Well so much for shield tanked Mrym's. This whole change just sucks. Look at what a great boat the Vexor has been made into, now apply that exactly (at scale) to the Mrym. Turret bonus and drone bonus. Then it will be cool. Screw armor rep.
The Brutix, armor rep also? Really?
Absolutely depressed with these changes.
|
CorryBasler
The Maverick Navy Black Legion.
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:36:00 -
[244] - Quote
way to ruin the cane :-( it was fine before, now its utter crap. |
Vordak Kallager
Mafia Redux Omerta.
511
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:47:00 -
[245] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs.
Not everything needs to be for big fleets, yo. Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
Senjiu Kanuba
Acheron Enterprise INFINITY.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:54:00 -
[246] - Quote
I'll just copy most of a mail to a corpmate in here:
Quote:My view on the Battlecruiser changes:
Prophecy: It's a drone Battlecruiser now. They replaced the energy consumption reduction (Energy Turrets) bonus with a drone HP and Dmg bonus. This means you can now fit launchers or projectile weapons without missing out on a bonus and the missing damage by removing turrets (-2 turrets but +3 launcher slots so 1 weapon less than before) is more than compensated by the drone damage bonus and the increased bandwidth and drone bay. I've never flown a drone battlecruiser before but the new prophecy makes me want to test it. The Armor resistance bonus also works great with fleets and 7 low slots enables one hell of a tank. I think this battlecruiser profited the most from those (possible) patchnotes.
Harbinger: I run the numbers in my head and it deals about 4% more damage than before but has about 10% less EHP (both are estimates). Its cap is probably the same as before (with the remobal of one turret and a decrease in regeneration). So it's relatively close to where it was before in my opinion. I always thought of it as one of the weaker battlecruisers and still do.
Ferox: Hardly anything changed about the Ferox. It got an additional turret but has no damage bonus and for a shield tank of this size having only 5 med slots is not acceptable in my opinion. Also I don't see what 5 low slots should be used for. (Tracking Enhancers and MagStabs probably but it already has so much range before that and you can't use a tracking script with the TEs so they're less useful than TCs here which you can't use because you need the mids for shields). If you thought the Ferox wasn't useful before then you'll probably still think that after the patch.
Drake: The drake probably experienced the least changes of all battlecruisers. Its tank got nerfed a little, it's unnecessary 8th highslot got removed and it has slightly less fitting resources but it'll probably still work about as well as it does right now.
Brutix: Never used one of those, to me it looks like they mostly stayed the same. A new low slot for and more armor and cap make a better tank.
Myrmidon: One high slot got removed and they slightly nered the tank and increased the Bandwidth and Drone bay a bit. I have no idea how to use 100 Mbit with drones. 4 Ogres? Anyway, as I already said, I'd use a prophecy as my drone BC of choice.
Cyclone: The most noticable change (aside from that additional Low slot, one less High slot and 100 more CPU) is the increase of bandwidth and drone bay. You can now field 5 Hammerheads with this ship. Tank and cap got increased. I think the cyclone is mostly the same as before but slightly improved in different spots.
Hurricane: One less high slot and less capacitor volume (but more regeneration). It's mostly the same as before but with less energy neuting power, so it's a nerf for the hurricane.
I didn't get around to training assault missiles and probably have to at some point in the near/medium future. |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:56:00 -
[247] - Quote
More thoughts on the Brutix. Get rid of the rep bonus, add a tracking bonus. Revert the shield nerfs and ditch the structure bonus. Give it an extra mid instead of low.
A versatile hybrid platform like that would see a LOT of use. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2845
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:56:00 -
[248] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs. Not everything needs to be for big fleets, yo. And yet that bonus is not even all that great in small fleets.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Cede Forster
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
137
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 04:56:00 -
[249] - Quote
pretty unimpressive minor tweak still kinetic bonus that was said to be abolished, still the same issues with most ships or old issues replaced by known issues
very underwhelming
|
Beregond Romendacil
Seventh Heaven's Retinue Dominatus Atrum Mortis
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:01:00 -
[250] - Quote
Seems to me, these ships are just getting thrown together out of a pile of parts on the floor without any thought of what people would want to do with them. Seems like everyone is trying to figure out how to use each of these ships the way it was randomly designed rather than designing the ship for a use. As it is now, most boats do have advantages but are not good at any role. And it would be nice for newer players to choose a role and train the skills for it rather than train skills for a year and still have no useful roles other than 'just bring what you got'. The recent move to ECM frigs and Logis might help.
- Battlecruisers are supposed to be the first ships of scale capable of exchanging volleys and surviving for while. They should be able to put cruisers and frigs in their place. And Eve Battleships are embarrassing. Nobody fears them or needs to.
- BCs should be decent at solo/small fleets or decent in large fleets, not bad at both. And given 2 BCs for each race, their should be one of each. i.e. one bonused for reps, one for resists.
- The options for long range, short range, drone, or ECM should be spread out/mixed across the races. It may be a good drone boat but if its bad at both fleet and solo roles so it does not get used. Gallente might get the drone boat with resists designed for fleets and Minmatar might get the drone boat with self-reps for solo but that's better than both having a drone boat that no one wants. Designing for large fleet vs small fleet/solo seems better than designing for PvP vs PvE. Good PvP designs will still work well in PvE (especially considering continued AI improvements).
- And, since missiles are already near useless and unwanted, do you have to make it worse with a bonus for Kinetic damage ONLY? Missiles may be weaker DPS but their upside was supposed to be able to switch ammo types.
- all BCs and larger ships should have 2 utility slots so that turrets don't have to be dumped for common tasks: salvage & tractor, probe and cloak, warfare links, drone mods. and I would expect frigs and cruisers to have 1. maybe 2 for the strategic cruisers would make them more useful.
- drone bays should be larger. Still have the reasonably limited bandwidth but have a few more in reserve to kick out.
- And, for the love of God, whatever the ship's intended role, the CPU and PG should be capable of fitting it !!! A low skilled character should be able to fit T1 basic modules and make it work. And as character skills progress, they should be able to progressively step up through the modules until reaching the T2 modules. And shouldn't T2 modules be better than T1 ? sometimes but many times not.
|
|
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
393
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:13:00 -
[251] - Quote
The overall problem with the harb is that shield/nano, aka, fast **** is more popular these days. Especially for small gang pvp. Add to that the fact that active tanking also sucks doesn't help matters
Nobody wants to fly boats that are slow as hell, even if it's tank/dps is a tiny bit better.
Slow boats really need a good buff to tank/dps to make them more attractive overall How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1205
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:19:00 -
[252] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
Nobody wants to fly boats that are slow as hell, even if it's tank/dps is a tiny bit better.
Actually people would, I mean there are Abbadon based fleet comps, prop modless BS that go rolling around trying to tank the world, and more examples that you could find if you sat and thought on it hard.
The problem is the Harby doesn't DO anything better than the other BCs, so you're looking at an on average weaker platform thats also slower...and tanks less...than everything else ....where do i sign up to buy dozens of those
|
Amera Khan
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:23:00 -
[253] - Quote
Why are most BC's getting nerfed? please answer me that question fozzie , you and your team did great work on crusiers but this is just a kick in the balls.
Why are u removing the utility high for links? why not just remove that bonus altogether now.its baffling that CCP expects you to not only overly gimp your fit to meet the requirements for links(and lets not forget the cap issue) but now you must sacrifice DPS now aswell.
Harbinger : Why are you adding mass to the harbinger ? It is already a slow ship and now you are making it worse.Nerfing the harbingers cpu aswell? are u kidding me its already so tight on fit as it is and even though you are removing a turret slot that still doesnt make up for the reductions. it needs more cpu not less. I like the damage buff even at the expense of a turret slot so atleast you didnt totally make it unflyable.
Prophecy : I like most of the changes to it , a drone boat is a good role for it a step up from the arbitrator , but only a 50 bandwith seems a bit low , i mean a flight of medium drones aint gonna do much against any BC even with the added damage bonus. 75 mbit is a whole lot better it would give it some verstility in drone choice.
Drake: still keeping the kinetic bonus huh? Can we just get rid of it already and whats with the huge mass gain? its just an all round nerf to the drake nothing gets improved which we all expected at one point but i didnt think you'd also take the utility high for the link.
Cyclone: so its a missile boat now but with just 5 launchers? its needs 6 to be a good missile boat i mean the medium drones wont make up for the lack of that last missile launcher apart from that everything else is actually good
Hurricane: ah well we knew it was coming not only was there a powergrid nerf but now the extra utility high is gone which is a great shame as any ship that is popular always gets a nerf. adding the mass increase seems a bit excessive. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
158
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:31:00 -
[254] - Quote
Might as well throw in my two cents. Any time I'm talking numbers (dps, tank, etc) I'm assuming max skills for the sake of comparison.
Prophecy and the Myrm are the biggest winners. Both get enormous DPS buffs (Prophecy from bonused drones + support weapons, Myrm from getting to field four heavy drones), but the nature of Amarrian drone boats gives the Prophecy deeper reserves and more flexibility. While the Myrm has higher damage potential when comparing two similar fits (max tank or tank+gank), active armor tanking is a bit questionable in this age of remote reps, and the prophecy gets the bigger brick...in fact, it's brick potential even fit with three damage mods basically matches the myrmidon's full-tank brick fit.
Still, the myrm is definitely not in a bad place, and a look at active tanking in general and armor tanking specifically would make it that much better.
Other winners. I think the brutix comes off just fine - the extra low gives it more tank potential or makes it less of a glass cannon when fit for max gank, and it'll move about 75m/s faster with an MWD thanks to the mass reduction. Can only hope that idea gets extended into battleships to, well, whichever one becomes the designated blaster brawler.
Ferox isn't getting enough love in my opinion. It looks like you can get a full rack of neutron blasters onto it, plus a tracking comp, tracking enhancer, and a nice tank. Throw in the drones and you get about 570 DPS to 12+14km with Null, or 757 DPS to 6.6+5.1 with Void, all while sporting a 75k EHP buffer. Just bring support, since it can't tackle.
Last winner is the cyclone. I know a lot of people think it needs a sixth launcher, but honestly, I disagree. Five HAM launchers with 3x BCU plus a flight of Hammerheads gets you 520 DPS. It's a bit on the low end but not too bad, and unlike every other BC, this new Cyclone gets two extra highs. They're turret slots, so you can buy another 60-80 DPS, or fill them with neuts or something. Given that a sixth launcher only gets you another 73 DPS (with 3x BCU as before), I think I actually prefer the flexibility this layout offers.
The Drake's a loser, of course, but nerfs are unsurprising. Until I've played with it, I'm going to tentatively think that people are overreacting though. The hit to the tank shouldn't be bad - the 75k EHP I cited above for the Ferox is on fewer midslots with a slightly lower base EHP, after all. I can't really say for sure until I've looked at fits and how they have to change, though - the only given is that they WILL change, seeing as most of them run very tight on CPU or grid already. Keeping the Kinetic bonus is weird, though, I thought ya'll wanted to get away from that.
And the last two, clear losers. The hurricane might have been a little too good before, but these nerfs on top of the PG nerf back in Retribution seem a bit harsh. With the Harbinger, the various tweaks cancel each other out, maybe result in a slight net nerf... but I didn't really think that a net nerf was warranted, it wasn't exactly a stellar ship before and this definitely doesn't help. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Diehard15
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:31:00 -
[255] - Quote
The active tank bonuses should be replaced with either resist bonuses or something else all together to give the ships more versatility.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
107
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:34:00 -
[256] - Quote
+10 sig radius and -1 utility highslot isn't really the battlecruiser nerf I had in mind. The entire game is still going to basically be about BCs if this is all you're doing. They're supposed to be an awkward between-class like destroyers.
Still waiting on a TE nerf and drone ships 2.0. |
Gal'o Sengen
State War Academy Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:40:00 -
[257] - Quote
The Ferox bonuses are a terrible idea. A Sniping ship has no use for tank bonuses and a brawling ship has no use for Range bonuses. No matter how it's used it's wasting a bonus. And medium Rails are still terrible anyway so nobody is going to use it at all.
And the Brutix is still going to be fit for Shield Gank. It'd be nice to see that Armour Rep bonus be changed to something moderately useful, like Tracking. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
107
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 05:58:00 -
[258] - Quote
Gal'o Sengen wrote:The Ferox bonuses are a terrible idea. A Sniping ship has no use for tank bonuses and a brawling ship has no use for Range bonuses. No matter how it's used it's wasting a bonus. And medium Rails are still terrible anyway so nobody is going to use it at all.
And the Brutix is still going to be fit for Shield Gank. It'd be nice to see that Armour Rep bonus be changed to something moderately useful, like Tracking.
you dumb |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
173
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:02:00 -
[259] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:Interesting to see that the only people the Dev responded to were goons...
Yeah what's up with that Fozzie, I demand you instead be biased towards your RL friends and Pandemic Legion when posting , not to some goon scrubs you don't even know ! |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
173
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:20:00 -
[260] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:It seems wrong for there to be so few stickies in this section.
Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.
(...)
Let me know what you think! I want to leave here a question, that nobody is raising, about the fixed bonus:
"99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules"
I play this game for almost 5 years now, I never seen a kill, a fit posted in a forum, anyone I know ever told me they fitted a warfare link module in a battlecruiser. And in the past we had 1 free high slot and now is gone in all ships. (doesn't mean nobody do it, I just never seen it!)
I leave the question in the air: Who in going to give up 2 weapon or 1 weapon/some tank to fit 1 WL module in a battlecruiser (remember that to fit 1 of these modules you need 50 cpu/200 PWG and it consumes 25Power leaving you cap dry in a minute or two)
On top of that there is no bonus to the usage of a WL so why fit one in a BC when the t3 or t2 do it 500% better?
I'm questioning this bonus!
Lets think about it. I look the definition of battlecruiser in the navy and I found this:
Quote:"The basic idea of the battlecruiser is simple; provide a ship with more punch than a cruiser and more speed than a true battleship; speed enough for cruiser task force operations. Battlecruisers are less weakened battleships than they are strengthened cruisers. As originally proposed, these ships would be used with other cruisers for scouting, commerce raiding, engaging enemy cruiser task forces and making hit-and-run flank attacks to harass an enemy force in large engagements. They were supposed to use their superior speed to avoid being challenged by true battleships.
Achieving this speed required starting with something the size of a battleship, but with fewer main guns, smaller main guns, less armor protection, less range, or some combination. This to make room in a battleship-sized hull for enough machinery to push the huge vessel through the water at cruiser speeds." so, looking to your proposal we have almost everything right except for speed, these ships are suppose to be used side by side with cruisers but they lack speed in comparison. My suggestion is: why not give them a fixed speed module related bonus instead?
A bonus that reduces the gap and put a BC just behind the speed of cruisers, doesn't need to match them, just something that allows then to barely keep up with a cruiser and transform a useless fixed bonus into something usable. Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:28:00 -
[261] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:You are aware this is base targeting range right? Even the Kitsune has less base targeting range than the lowest Minmatar BC... You are aware the t2 frigates havent been buffed yet, right?
Michael Harari wrote:The targeting ranges seem pretty low compared to what all the other modified ships have gotten. There are frigates that target twice as far as a hurricane for example. OK smart ass, which frigate has a base 90km targeting range (twice as far as the hurricane)?
I agree that the Minmatar BCs shouldn't have a shorter max targeting range than their cruiser equivalents (Rupture 50km, Stabber 47.5km) but making wild claims like that just makes you look like a baseless whiner; just post real numbers like a big boy and people might take you seriously. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2587
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:29:00 -
[262] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote: I play this game for almost 5 years now, I never seen a kill, a fit posted in a forum, anyone I know ever told me they fitted a warfare link module in a battlecruiser. And in the past we had 1 free high slot and now is gone in all ships. (doesn't mean nobody do it, I just never seen it!)
I leave the question in the air: Who in going to give up 2 weapon or 1 weapon/some tank to fit 1 WL module in a battlecruiser (remember that to fit 1 of these modules you need 50 cpu/200 PWG and it consumes 25Power leaving you cap dry in a minute or two)
On top of that there is no bonus to the usage of a WL so why fit one in a BC when the t3 or t2 do it 500% better?
I've seen fits for warfare links, and used them personally. I've seen them used as well. The Prophecy is actually a good choice for that role.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Sean Parisi
Meridian Commonwealth
113
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:34:00 -
[263] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:You are aware this is base targeting range right? Even the Kitsune has less base targeting range than the lowest Minmatar BC... You are aware the t2 frigates havent been buffed yet, right? Michael Harari wrote:The targeting ranges seem pretty low compared to what all the other modified ships have gotten. There are frigates that target twice as far as a hurricane for example. OK smart ass, which frigate has a base 90km targeting range (twice as far as the hurricane)? I agree that the Minmatar BCs shouldn't have a shorter max targeting range than their cruiser equivalents (Rupture 50km, Stabber 47.5km) but making wild claims like that just makes you look like a baseless whiner; just post real numbers like a big boy and people might take you seriously.
Griffin and other E-War frigates have a massive targeting range, but that's expected. No combat frigate from what I am aware of has a base targeting range of 90km. |
Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:36:00 -
[264] - Quote
ITT people point out how the hurricane losing one of its two utility highs is a giant nerf, while simultaneously complaining that the cyclone having two utility highs makes it useless. |
Lauren Sheaperd
Cry Wolf.
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 06:45:00 -
[265] - Quote
Sigh, CCP - you've made me post again. As always, I refrain from comment on upcoming changes because I prefer to wait and see. The usual exception to this is when you make changes so terrible I feel like slapping the lead developer of the changes.
This is one of those times.
To start with, here are the really bad:
* The changes to the Cyclone in particular have me agitated, though I'd hazard a guess and say this is simply because I have enjoyed flying the ship for quite some time. Doesn't make these changes less stupid. While I understand that you wish to extend the Minmatar missile line to BCs, doing so by completely invalidating the training and money expended to achieve competency in a certain ship is not the way to go about it. Many new pilots are about to face significant retraining times to either pilot new ships of similar capabilities or to stay with their Cyclones - assuming they aren't simply put back in to small classes of ships. While this seems like a minor issue to those of us with plentiful SP - others are going to have to wait a month or so to retrain missiles. This was stupid, CCP. Really stupid.
* Oh look, you're further nerfing the Harbinger. At this point you're basically laughing at anyone who likes the appearance of the Harbinger, right? In it's *current* state it's one of the lesser BCs, under serious threat from the new cruisers and limited in versatility. Obviously the next step is to further nerf it's damage (already lack-luster), nerf it's fitting (already a pain), nerf it's tank (incredibly 'meh' at the moment), it's align time (because Amarr ships need to turn slower, obviously) and give it what - minor increases to cargo capacity and sensor strength in return? Did you even think about this before you made these changes? If anything, the Harbinger needed a buff not a nerf.
* The Drake. Oh look, you barely touched the Drake - you know, the only Battlecruiser that needed a rebalancing after the Hurricane had it's power grid hit reasonably hard. Come on CCP, if you're going to nerf the Harbinger have the decency to nerf something that actually needed it as well.
And now, lets have the not as bad to the simply 'meh':
The Prophecy, a drone boat? Okay, I can deal with this. While my objections to the Cyclone still apply here, given the Prophecy only ever had a capacitor bonus and drones, unlike missile, give almost universal benefit to ships larger than destroyers it's not so bad. This also gives the Harbinger a significantly different role to the Prophecy, which seeing as I was worried about them becoming almost the same ship if buffed is a good thing. I'll reserve judgment until I see it in action, but I'm skeptical.
The Brutix, put simply, needed a slightly larger buff than this. Oh well, the extra low slot is actually pretty nice. It's a 'meh' change, but I might actually buy one next time I get bored.
Oh look, a few other small nerfs to the Hurricane. I'm not sure it needed any more, but I can't say I care too much.
Okay, time for the good:
Oh cool, the Myrmidon gets a small drones bonus. This is small but I rather like it. I'm not sure how much this will change, but I like it (despite having too horrible drone skills to test it out myself).
Hey! A small, but very cool, bonus to the Ferox. I'm not too sure on the impact this will have, but it might actually allow for some more flexibility in the fits. I'm interested in how this will turn out at the very least.
---------
So there you go CCP, you made me post again. I even held back at the incredibly stupid line of Tier 3 BCs (which still need to be nerfed - or thrown out of the game completely) and the incredibly bad new inventory UI (which I actually posted about after fact it was so horrible). Slap whoever decided both of these were good ideas, while you're at it. In the end, Eve needs significant changes in order to remain interesting but those changes actually need to have some thought behind the effect it will have on the game before they are introduced. Cry Wolf is Recruiting EU/AU TZ Pirates! See here for more details: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1608823
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:12:00 -
[266] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Mund Richard wrote: I wonder if sooner or later everyone frequenting this thread will finish their posts with: "And the Harbringer getting +10% damage bonus is a damage buff even with loosing a turret."
Only with all skills at 5 brotatoe, and as has been pointed out if all of your skills are at 5 theres not much chance that you're flying a harbinger so for just about everybody who WILL fly a harbinger it will be slower, do less dps and even if you look at the 1 removed gun they're removing MORE cpu than that one gun used so less overall CPU fitting space. With BC at 4 you end up with the same DPS it had before: 6*1.4=8.4 & 7*1.2=8.4
If you're flying these with BC at 3 you will have bigger problems than losing that turret.
And your CPU statement is only accurate if you use terrible guns with great fitting skills, with most decent sized guns and non-perfect fitting skills you end up with better CPU. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:23:00 -
[267] - Quote
Sean Parisi wrote: Griffin and other E-War frigates have a massive targeting range, but that's expected. No combat frigate from what I am aware of has a base targeting range of 90km.
Yes, EWar frigates have long base targeting range (Vigil has 65km), but this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I agree that the Minmatar combat BCs shouldn't have a shorter base max targeting range than their cruiser equivalents (Rupture at 50km and Stabber at 47.5km) and should probably be increased to the 60-65km range.
Saying frigates have double the targeting range of the Hurricane is still an inaccurate statement and it distracts from the actual purpose of that post. |
Malcolm Clayton
Funghitech Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:34:00 -
[268] - Quote
why breaks the racial fitting line? |
PlayerName
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:45:00 -
[269] - Quote
I'm honestly not liking the change from guns to missiles for the cyclone. |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
170
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:46:00 -
[270] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Prophecy: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-2), 4 M (+1), 7 L (+1), 4 turrets (-2), 4 Launchers (+3) Fittings: 1100 PWG (-200), 415 CPU (+75) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-419) / 5500(+617) / 4250(-145) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.704 / 12900000 (-600,000) / 8.5s (-0.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 (+50) / 225 (+200) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 210 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1) Signature radius: 270 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400 (+50)
This together with the Cyclon are the most sighnificant changes I belive. While I love the idear (Dragoon > Arbitrator > Prophecy) it is still a significant change to the playstyle of this ship. But I like it :).
What's the point of 75m-¦ drone bandwidth? To use 3 heavy/sentry? Wouldn't a 50m-¦ band with a 12,5% drone bonus do a better job? And if you want us to use heavy/sentry, wouldn't a 300m-¦ drone bay be more adequat? (4*75).
Anyway, the Prophecy will gain a nice damage boost :). high: 4 heavy missile + 1 whatever med: MWD + drone speed + drone tracking + whatever low PvE: 3*drone damage + ENAM + DC + rep + whatever ... PvP dual plate instead of rep Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
|
bcpror9981
EVE Protection Agency Intrepid Crossing
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:47:00 -
[271] - Quote
WTF are we trying to accomplish here??? |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:49:00 -
[272] - Quote
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:* The changes to the Cyclone in particular have me agitated, though I'd hazard a guess and say this is simply because I have enjoyed flying the ship for quite some time. Doesn't make these changes less stupid. While I understand that you wish to extend the Minmatar missile line to BCs, doing so by completely invalidating the training and money expended to achieve competency in a certain ship is not the way to go about it. Many new pilots are about to face significant retraining times to either pilot new ships of similar capabilities or to stay with their Cyclones - assuming they aren't simply put back in to small classes of ships. While this seems like a minor issue to those of us with plentiful SP - others are going to have to wait a month or so to retrain missiles. This was stupid, CCP. Really stupid. The Hurricane and Tornado are still projectile turret ships, pilots with good gunnery skills can fly those very well. Limiting ship variety due to people's current skills will only lead to more of the bad ships we have today.
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:* The Drake. Oh look, you barely touched the Drake - you know, the only Battlecruiser that needed a rebalancing after the Hurricane had it's power grid hit reasonably hard. Come on CCP, if you're going to nerf the Harbinger have the decency to nerf something that actually needed it as well. You were just pointing out the nerf to the Harbinger's mobility, yet the Drake gets hit with more than twice the mass and align time than the Harbinger did (300 vs 800 and 0.2 vs 0.7) and its "barely touched"? Maybe you need more numbers and less loose statements in your posts.
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:Oh cool, the Myrmidon gets a small drones bonus. This is small but I rather like it. I'm not sure how much this will change, but I like it (despite having too horrible drone skills to test it out myself). Being able to field an extra heavy or sentry drone is not a "small drones bonus" it adds an extra 33% to its drone DPS. The real problem here keeps being the lackluster armor rep bonus.
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:Hey! A small, but very cool, bonus to the Ferox. I'm not too sure on the impact this will have, but it might actually allow for some more flexibility in the fits. I'm interested in how this will turn out at the very least. An extra turret (16% DPS bonus) and an extra low can hardly be considered a small bonus. It still has a lot to ask for when compared to the Brutix or the Talos/Naga though.
You really should have held back that :words: post until you did a little more math so you could make some valid points. |
Marchejita
Quasar Heavy Industries Quasar Generation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 07:52:00 -
[273] - Quote
About Prophecy.
I believe it's not a good way to go for this ship.
If you add one more low slot. You can have more than 180 k hp on this ship.
2 * 1600 plates + reactive armor + damage control + 3 * Energized adaptative nano 3 * Trimark
(+ command ship bonus).
* --low dps but heavy tanking--*
it's really to much.
And also bandwith 75 is not very interesting, you will have the same problem then now with myrmidon (old concept).
2 heavy + 2 medium + 1 light 3 heavy 1 heavy + 4 medium (65)
I prefere to have a bandwith 50 but with a big bonus on it. (Drone bonus 15%).
|
Sefur Yamil
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 08:09:00 -
[274] - Quote
Please, for the love of god, don't leave the Drake as it is.
I don't see how the cyclone will do any good against all those other ships. Switching damage types doesn't help when you only do ~400 DPS as opposed to the 600-700 that all the other turret based ships do.
And please let people decide how they want to use their BCs. Gallente BCs are used as shield ships a lot, at least give them something that boosts passive armor tanking.
Back to the Drake. You'll see how not-nerfed it is two months after you've applied these changes. They'll still be #1 on eve-kill by two or three times than the next ship after that.
Missiles look fine now, but the most broken part about Drakes were never the missiles, it was the fact that with two Ewar mods a Drake has 90k EHP without bonuses, where all the other BCs get 60k at best. The minor speed nerf won't change the fact that these ships are complete bricks and hit for perfect damage anywhere between 0 and 60km.
A suggestion would be removing a mid or replacing the resist bonus with an HP bonus. Removing the high slot is completely pointless since 99% of Drake fits don't allow anything to be fit there anyway. |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
522
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 08:29:00 -
[275] - Quote
FFS just say we all should fly tengu and nerf anything else into oblivion. Why bother with pretending we have 4 races with 4 different military doctrines and philosophies? One ship, one weapon system, one path. I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 08:35:00 -
[276] - Quote
CCP do you have a special and deep hatred for Gallente?
Giving both BCs an armor repair bonus shows that you clearly do. And to add salt to the wound you do give to the shield tanked BCs a resistance bonus.
Changes for Myrmidon and Brutix are subpar and basically throws the ships at the bottom of the ladder. Please change your mind about this. Try something different for a change.
|
Morgan Madsen
Red Ochre Mining and Exploration Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 08:38:00 -
[277] - Quote
Great work,... other than leaving the myrm and brutix in **** land! |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
129
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 08:51:00 -
[278] - Quote
Interesting changes.
We are really going to need to see any active armour changes to judge the Myrm and Brutix. As it stands with the fittings/ slot changes XL asb Brutux is probably better than dual rep Brutix and dual XL asb Myrms is better than tri rep Myrm.
Bandwidth change is a big boost to XL ASB Myrm that uses small guns anyway.
Cyclone is going to be very good if you can fit everything you need to and the Harb is still going to be a DPS EHP monster.
|
Lauren Sheaperd
Cry Wolf.
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 08:52:00 -
[279] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote: The Hurricane and Tornado are still projectile turret ships, pilots with good gunnery skills can fly those very well. Limiting ship variety due to people's current skills will only lead to more of the bad ships we have today. Because the Cyclone was always bad and lacking in definition from it's peers, am I right? While I do see your point, the change here seems to only unneceraily penalise newer players.
Edward Pierce wrote: You were just pointing out the nerf to the Harbinger's mobility, yet the Drake gets hit with more than twice the mass and align time than the Harbinger did (300 vs 800 and 0.2 vs 0.7) and its "barely touched"? Maybe you need more numbers and less loose statements in your posts. You know, I heard picking a single nerf from one ship with many that is already in dire straights and comparing it to a ship with few that is one of the most popular, and powerful, ships in the game makes for balance judgement on the extent of the changes - right? Maybe you need to look at the entirety of the changes, instead focusing on singlular figures?
Edward Pierce wrote:Being able to field an extra heavy or sentry drone is not a "small drones bonus" it adds an extra 33% to its drone DPS. The real problem here keeps being the lackluster armor rep bonus. No it doesn't, because nobody fields just three heavy drones. You're math is almost as bad as my broad, sweeping statements. Yes, it is a significant damage bonus - it's doesn't stop this being a relatively 'small' change - and no, the problem with the Myrmidon isn't the lack luster armor rep bonus. Infact, the armor rep bonus combined with the drone bonus is one of the reasons the Myrmidon is a great ship, and will continue to be so.
Edward Pierce wrote:An extra turret (16% DPS bonus) and an extra low can hardly be considered a small bonus. It still has a lot to ask for when compared to the Brutix or the Talos/Naga though. 16% huh? Hows the fitting, with a whole extra blaster though? It doubt even with the slight bonus to fitting you'll be able to practically apply the entirety of the gain. Having another look, I think the most interesting thing about the Ferox change is the significant expansion of it's cargo bay. In the past, it had problems with the number of cap boosters it could hold for active fits.
Edward Pierce wrote:You really should have held back that :words: post until you did a little more math so you could make some valid points. Not the words! Maybe instead I should have done basic math without considering the entirety of these changes and practical usage to reach a conclusion? Thats how this should be done, right? Live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse. |
Iogrim
Kaer Industries
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:06:00 -
[280] - Quote
I really don't see any point in keeping optimal bonus for Ferox. It's never going to be used with rails (both because medium rails aren't good and because Naga is much better at this job), unless by newbie L3 mission runners. I would prefer seeing fall-off bonus to use with blasters. |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
95
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:07:00 -
[281] - 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. |
White Drop
True Horde Smile 'n' Wave
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:08:00 -
[282] - Quote
Do not nerf the hurricane anymore!!! |
Trash Ice
Black Sharks Division
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:13:00 -
[283] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote: Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless.
typhoon is great with turrets 40km falloff with plasma, 2000 m\s mwd, heavy neuts, smartbomb, 125m holyshitdronebay you can r-¦pe almost any bc with this i would like to see one more med for cap booster, though
for bc changes: sounds interesting, but rough
why reducing harbinger ehp?
btw, galente, you know what? you cry about your rep bonus, but minmatar have it too you want resistance bonus on brutix with 7 low slots? are you insane? and i met this triple-rep-drone-monster and it is really scary in small pvp |
John Valentine
Repo.
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:18:00 -
[284] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:John Valentine wrote: Belicose = Missile boat, Talwar = Missile Boat, Breacher = Missile Boat, and now the cyclone as well? WTF?
You forgot one thing. Just before rebalance it was just like this: Belicose = useless, Talwar = non existant, Breacher = useless. Cyclone = overshadowed by Hurricane. Sorry to mention this, but even your character flew only Hurricane, Rifter/Wolf, Thrasher (according to KB losses). So why you complaining about ships totally unrelated to your playstyle? Returning back on topic, I would love to see +1 launcher on Cyclone.
Well, I havent lost my cyclone yet, and like I clearly said, I dont have missile skills, so dont fly the missile boats..cause they ****. Unless your Caldari, then they awesome, witch I am not. |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
96
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:22:00 -
[285] - 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. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
398
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:29:00 -
[286] - Quote
Myrm - Alright.. Proph - give it a 50 bandwith and a 12.5-15% damage bonus.. makes it more different from the myrm. Also i think it should have missiles. Harb - I all around like the change, i think it might be loosing EVER so slightly more fittings than it should but i can't tell without efting.. Love the damage buff, and the ability to carry a extra flight of lights along with mediums but.. the greatest thing is the stealth cap buff! Now go and buff nos's so that i can skip using a ******* cap booster. Ferox - Not sure how i feel about this.. Cyclone - I hate AC's so i like this. Brutix - Seems alright? Drake - Seems like it could be losing a bit more? Cane - same as above? |
Trash Ice
Black Sharks Division
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:29:00 -
[287] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:... all true
20km scorch optimal is useless without mobility
also, fitting harbi is pain, because it lacks both cpu and pg |
Swifty Blowback
Republic University Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:37:00 -
[288] - Quote
These proposed changes are almost an irrelevance, even when just looking at BCs...
Want more DPS? Get a tier 3 Want more speed? Get a tier 3 Want more range for your DPS? Get a tier 3 Want to kite? Get a tier 3
Want more tank? Get a tier 2 Want to brawl? Still undecided on that one!
The gentle proposed nerfing of most tier 2s here may narrow the gap to T1 cruisers but the tier 3 gap has just widened a little. Surely tier 3s should also be adjusted at the same time as the "combat" BCs?
I'm solo / small gang pvp and can't find a good reason to fly any of the tier 2s (maybe the cyclone but will have to see how that pans out) over a tier 3. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
398
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:43:00 -
[289] - Quote
Are people actually complaining about these being nerfed too much?? |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
3146
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:45:00 -
[290] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage I thought it was going to be changed to a straight damage bonus regardless of damage type. Was this discarded? Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
|
Xan Drakov
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:50:00 -
[291] - Quote
My thoughts:
- Underlying problem with the larger drone boats, the dps from drones isn't high enough on these ships to make them the primary damage type (in the same way that, say, Gallente work with their blasters). Also adding random additional bits of bandwidth and bay space doesn't ever seem to make up for this. Having "split" drone sizes also offends my OCD, not to mention I don't know how practical it is. I'd say it would be more in keeping with everything else to give "drone boats" similar bandwidth as other ships (maybe slightly more but meh, keep the significantly bays though as that's important for replacement drones), but I much bigger ship bonus (say 20% - 30%+ per level) to bring the damage from their primary weapon system into line more with others, then nerf (not tooooo majorly) damage from other unbonused sources.
- Prophacy now capable of biblical tank, even more so than before - it's disproportiate to others in it's class.
- With the rise of tier 3s the ferox's optimal range bonus is out of date. No other BC has to lumber with a range bonus, and now even the moa has a damage bonus - so should the ferox.
- Active armor tanking still sucks at this level. This largely stems from the issue related to being able to fit oversized shield boosting modules on ships but not their armor equivalents. As a result the active tanking bonuses on gal ships are rubbish. Either active armor tanking needs to be brought into line with shield tanking (XL booster, rejig of module requirements) or these bonuses need a rethink. Additionally the brutix bonuses should be in line with the rest of it's line anyway - the thorax (below it) and mega (above) - damage and tracking based.
- Cyclone either needs a split weapon system that makes sense (if it ever does) - bonuses to turret and missle damage, as well as the "second" bonus to shield boosting. Or it needs a 6th launcher.
- Personally I dislike the culling of utility high slots, but I'm aware that's an issue that will divide people anyway.
All that would make a better start point, you can balance slot layouts, ship parameters from there. But at the moment your trying to balance things subsequently that have core imbalances. Previously core imbalances where fixed, then ships balanced and that worked really well. I remember reading in one our you blogs somewhere about the problem with balancing things that are inherently unbalanced. That needs to happen again here and currently your not doing that. It's worked out really well so far - don't go half-baked on us now!!! |
He dares
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:50:00 -
[292] - Quote
The brutix should have a resist bonus or a tracking bonus damage bonus would make it too OP
With the ease of access to t1 logi it would make it very viable small gang ship as it does no need the local reps anymore |
Luwc
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:55:00 -
[293] - Quote
Fozzie will you marry me ? |
Trash Ice
Black Sharks Division
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 10:06:00 -
[294] - Quote
i have a wet dream
second bonus for harbi: 10% tracking per level |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 10:22:00 -
[295] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Kismeteer wrote:Please consider changing the +rep bonuses to Hardening bonuses or something that scales better with fleets. Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Please reconsider the active armor tank bonuses on the Gallente hulls, or at least on the Brutix. They're completely useless for anything but solo and the smallest gangs, and really, when was the last time you saw a solo Brutix? I'd prefer *not* to see all BC/BS ships redesigned around a fleet-only focus. Despite rumors to the contrary, solo and small gang PVP are not dead. Many of us still prefer faster/smaller scale PVP, in which logi support isn't always available. Also, many players still run missions solo, or in small gangs, where the active rep bonuses are needed. I used an active-tank Brutix for running L3 missions solo, until I skilled up to fly a BS. That said, active armor repping is certainly long overdue for a buff.
My request has nothing to do with solo PvP being "dead," it's my primary focus as well. It's that active tanking is useless in fleets, and the Brutix is useless in solo situations (because it's slow, short-range, active tanking is STILL inferior to resistances, and it's completely overshadowed by the Talos and Thorax), leaving it with no PvP purpose at all.
Except for suicide ganking, where it's pretty awesome due to slot layout and relative ease of training compared to the Talos, but the armor repair bonus is still meaningless there.
EDIT: I like the idea of giving the Brutix a resist bonus, turning it into something like the old Prophecy except with DPS this time. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 10:53:00 -
[296] - Quote
Right. ISP, please excuse the rantish tone of this next little bit, I just honestly feel it needs to be said.
Such a lovely bunch of cry bables. "Oh, no the fit I've always used and am comfortable with is just going to be so fail with all these changes!" Christ, people, if the game doesn't evolve, it'll just stagnate! Even life is about change! Instead of crying over spilt milk, why not... *rephrases a thought* take a step outside the box, and start giving some thought to all the things you can do with the options and possibilities presented by these new BC changes!
Ok, done with the rant, now, on to my comments about this! As someone who started out in this game as an Amarr pilot (first though upon initial reading about the game went along the lines of "Hmm... spaceships, the future... Oh! Lasers, woot!" lol)
Prophecy: I think that there's abit more that [could be done with it but overall I like it... and extra low slot means it will have an easier time with taking advantage of a drone damage aug, all those lovely high slots that don't beg to be weapon purposed means you have plenty of room to work with for warfare link mods as well... I wouldn't have minded seeing it with slightly lower drone capacity to pick up abit more bandwidth, but what is presented is most definately workable.
Harbinger: This was the first ship I bothered to fly once I finally admitted I couldn't solo an L3 Gurista's Extravaganza with a Navy Slicer (though damned if I didn't have fun trying!), and, overall, I like it. Only thing I'd prefer different (though it's definately NOT a bad thing as it is currently presented) is that I wouldn't have minded not getting that extra 25 to drone bay if it had meant not losing the armor ehp, otherwise, I love what I see... though I do agree that nerfing both it's ehp AND it's maneuverability is rather extreme... it makes it both even more hittable on top of losing out on it's ability to take the punishment, and as someone else mentioned, it never really had much of a tank to begin with (boo hoo, it's got abit less PG and CPU, get your fitting skills done already!), I am very excited about it's better dps potential and easier cap management!
Ferox: *shrugs* it's good it finally got that 7th turret slot, and, hey, it's abit tankier now... as for that second, hell, it's a Cald boat, what else SHOULD happen here?
Drake: Lulz to everyone who both constantly bashes the ship (of which I myself am delightfully guilty :P) and to those back in the day who used to cry it's tank and all made it too OP and it just had to be nerfed! Side Note: Can't wait to see this boat after you guys get around to putting through those oh so briefly mentioned tracking mod changes!
Brutix: This boat whether in fleet or solo pvp has never had any use for armor rep, and in pve the bonus isn't really that significant when you can just set yourself up a proper tank to begin with (6 lows is PLENTY to work with on that, after all) so I find myself overall in some small agreement to the tears over that... the flip side being, hmm.... just what COULD I do with it?
Myrmidon: always was the triple rep threat to be feared, especially solo, and, wow, guess what? Now it's potentially viable to handle that same crap with 2 reps? wow... that'd be nasty, essentially an extra low slot to work with!
Cyclone: Not much to say for this one, I'm afraid, just no real personal experience with it (but, golly, Sliepners are SOOOO sexy!)
Hurricane: after having seen this ship used as it currently stands to some rather uber effect, I find myself agreeing with the changes proposed to it completely (and look forward to using the new version myself as well).
In short, CCP, Devs, ISP, GMs... I may disagree with you (especially the GMs when I petition a ship loss, lmao) but overall, the real problem I've seen in this thread isn't these changes... it's the players (I honestly had to stop reading the player posts after page 8, repitition gets so tiring, and only skimmed over them in case someone official had something to say... needless to say, my expectations of not seeing such b/c all the material posted was SSDD turned out to be well founded) being unwilling to take a walk on the Wild Side! |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
247
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 10:56:00 -
[297] - Quote
How i see BCs class is so that they are most flexible ships out there. BCs should be decent at basically everything. PvP, PvE, Solo, Small gang and Fleet fights.
Every BC should have at least 1 utility high slot cos of links or some more flexibility, except maybe drone boats. Fixing off grid boosting will get much more BCs into this role. Which means Ferox, Drake, Brutix are in need of one after these changes.
I am sceptical about this signature buffs. They are now quite more vulnerable to BSs and Dreads. I mean it is OK for a BC to die to a BS but same should be done in cruiser/BC comparison.
Now analysis per ship.
Harbinger + Boost to dmg (but only for those with lv 5 which is a bit lame). Les capacitor consumption cos of 1 less gun. Bigger sensor str. - 10% Less armor? Slower and less agile. If the tank was same as before it could be used a lot in small gang pvp around lowsec and even in solo pvp. I dont mind the agility nerf, that was never his stronger side anyway. Pretty much Harby is at the same spot as before. Get his armor back.
Prophecy + Its an overall good buff to the boat. Will be used lot more in solo pvp. U might even see some small gang fleets around low sec.
Ferox (needs utility high) + Changes are not that bad. - Medium rails sucks. Buff em and add even more to optimal bonus and maybe 1 more mid for webz and kiting. 4 lows re just enough.
Drake + A bit less EHP to the drake will do good to all other BCs which is nice. - Bigger dmg overall bonus needed. 6 highs and 1 utility?
Brutix and Myrm (Brutix needs utility high slot) + Excellent but in before active armor rep boost. Make the bonus affect remote also.
Cyclone + Perfect maybe 1 more launcher hardpoint?
Cane + Moar armor to the glass ships is always nice. - Less agile. Dont do that. Canes agility was really OK, it was its trademark. Only nano BC that could ruin the party to some cruisers (speed/agility wise).
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
783
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:04:00 -
[298] - Quote
Prophecy: Could turn out decent, but a lack of coherent good uses for the highs may prove to make this an unpopular ship; generally speaking though, a pretty decent boat.
Harbinger: Gains a little capacitor and cheapness with the reduced turret count, but loses anything it gained with a relatively weighty nerf to base HP.
Ferox: Decent DPS; the extra turret and low seems to give it that little bit of oomph it was still missing that left it a slightly unpopular choice even after the hybrid buff. I rate this a solid change; my only concern is that as underrated as the Ferox is currently these overall buffs to the ship could lead to it being too powerful compared to others. Perhaps that's just me.
Drake: The only real difference here is the loss of the utility high. Ever a very solid competitor I think we will continue to see Drakes the same as we have before; the power output of this ship (easily surpassing 700 DPS with heavy assaults) only serves to highlight the inadequacy of the Cyclone after the proposed changes.
Brutix: I was very disappointed as I read this to see that the repair bonus was not upped to 10% per level. While it gained a much needed low slot, the repair rate simply isn't enough to be competitive in any serious fight unless there are also major changes coming the way of local repairs. You might feel like the Myrmidon already has an excellent tank in comparison, but you must remember that the Brutix relies heavily on low slot damage mods for its damage output, while the Myrmidon can focus all its slots on pure tank. After the Incursus I was hoping for a 10% bonus across the board for the Brutix hull (and the Hyperion as well, which barely keeps up with the Megathron's active tank in practice). This kind of change will at least be sorely needed for the command ships to be viable whenever we get around to those.
Myrmidon: This is really a solid trade to the Myrmidon, already a very competitive ship, gaining another 25 drone bandwidth for a high slot. This makes me wonder what the Prophecy really looks like in comparison after the changes. All in all, not much changed for this ship.
Cyclone: With only 5 launchers and a mere 5% ROF bonus, this is not going to be a powerful nor popular ship any longer. The Sacrilege has +5/-5 bonuses to heavy assaults and barely attains the kind of damage you need to compete on a battlecruiser level; the Cyclone really needs at least 6 launchers with this type of configuration to be competitive; as it is here, despite my love of missile ships I would not be very interested in flying it.
Hurricane: seems like kicking it while it's down with the speed and shield nerfs. Not really sure how this will play out altogether; it's a very strong ship to begin with, and it's really hard to say what this huge number of small changes will tell towards in the end for this ship. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Vartan Sarkisian
Inner Visions Of Sound Mind
73
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:05:00 -
[299] - Quote
Showing a lot of Drake hate with all the missile nerfs recently and to the figures shown here for the Drake... Why do i feel that those millions of SP in missile skills are wasted. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die. |
CraftyCroc
Gunpoint Diplomacy
200
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:15:00 -
[300] - Quote
Please stop nerfing the cane.
It's now almost useless - the changes described will make it completely useless
CC |
|
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:21:00 -
[301] - Quote
Brutix needs 10% rep bonus/level like the incursus, or they will continue to never be fit with active tanks and the bonus is a waste. If it doesn't get 10%, perhaps an MWD cap use bonus to get in there and melt face?
Agreed on the general consensus that cyclone will need an extra launcher.
Harby bonus makes it a little more usable, and with the additional bonus that the ridiculous off-centre chin gun will be no more
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Betty Dynamite
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:23:00 -
[302] - Quote
Cane is as dead as a dodo
Drake is boring (Drakes are boring anyway)
Ferox needs a 5% damage bonus for its guns |
kraiklyn Asatru
T.R.I.A.D
177
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:36:00 -
[303] - Quote
I dislike that CCP wants everyone to fly the same fit. I want to fly a shield cane. Thats out of the question with these changes. Recently bought a cyclone, hope i can find someone dumb enough to buy it. All in all im happy ive been training amarr, looks like its going to be neccesary. Want to fly gunboats, stop making minmatar a weird caldari hybrid. |
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:45:00 -
[304] - Quote
I like the changes to command ships and offgrid boosting, but spacepoor people like me can't afford to fly Tech 2 ships. So in that vein could you remove the fitting limit on warfare links for Tech 1 battlecruisers as part of these changes? Otherwise I fear that warfare links will become the preserve of the rich. |
Johan March
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:57:00 -
[305] - Quote
I'm still digesting this but what jumps out at me is the Gallente armor repper bonus. Perhaps good for PVE or extremely small gang PVP, anything larger than a few ships it becomes a bit of a waste, especially with the very welcome changes to T1 logistics.
Perhaps a bonus to Armor HP (scaled so they're not overpowered) to contrast with the Amarr resist bonus would be better to allow the Gallente battlecruisers more flexibility for both PVP and PVE. |
Kiliv
Lumodynamics Power Control Corp Panda Cave
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:15:00 -
[306] - Quote
Johan March wrote:I'm still digesting this but what jumps out at me is the Gallente armor repper bonus. Perhaps good for PVE or extremely small gang PVP, anything larger than a few ships it becomes a bit of a waste, especially with the very welcome changes to T1 logistics.
Perhaps a bonus to Armor HP (scaled so they're not overpowered) to contrast with the Amarr resist bonus would be better to allow the Gallente battlecruisers more flexibility for both PVP and PVE.
This, the rep bonus does not work well in pvp, change the Brutix to have 2 damage bonus's or a useful tank bonus like resist or hp per level. Chief Operations Officer-áof Lumodynamics Power Control Corp.
Panda Cave Diplomat. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
400
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:22:00 -
[307] - Quote
kraiklyn Asatru wrote:I dislike that CCP wants everyone to fly the same fit. I want to fly a shield cane. Thats out of the question with these changes. Recently bought a cyclone, hope i can find someone dumb enough to buy it. All in all im happy ive been training amarr, looks like its going to be neccesary. Want to fly gunboats, stop making minmatar a weird caldari hybrid.
Your Cane is fine, stop being bad. |
S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:25:00 -
[308] - Quote
For me, there's still some konsistency missing.
First, i would love to see the "99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules" removed from Harbinger, Drake, Myrmidon and Hurricane. While i guess there are maybe plans for new T2 ships with Warfare Boni Roles based on these 4 Battlecruisers, there are currently only T2 ships based on Prophecy, Ferox, Brutix and Cyclone. So here needs to be some role konsistency.
Second, it's not visible yet that both battlecruisers should fill in the combat role. If you want to get them in the same role, give them the same defense boni and differ the offensive boni. For example, you gave Ferox and Drake both "5% bonus to all Shield Resistances" but while the Prophecy gets a similar defense bonus, the Harbinger got "10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use". Again, there's konsistency missing. I appreciate the idea of getting them both the same role and make them slightly different to fill in dedicated niches, but at one point they must be similar. Because when not, they aren't for the same role.
Third, there's still the all over critisized ferox bonus "10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range". That must be changed into something more useful, like Tracking or Rate of Fire. No one needs a bonus for optimal range, not even for sniping with railguns. The optimal is far to short with hybrid weapons, even with bonus so it effects nearly no battle.
But i like the idea of getting 1 turret slot and 1 low slot more. That makes the Ferox a lot more powerful. And even the rest of changes look healthy and well thought. Waiting to be able to test them on the testserver. |
Iogrim
Kaer Industries
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:26:00 -
[309] - Quote
Triple-rep Myrmidon is alright, but Gallente definitely doesn't need 2 active rep bonused ships. Tracking bonus makes most sense.
For those who want damage bonus on Ferox - shut up. The thing gets extra turret and will do ~700 DPS while maintaining decent tank, with 5% damage bonus that would be almost ~900. Way too much for Battlecruiser. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:28:00 -
[310] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Lauren Sheaperd wrote:Oh cool, the Myrmidon gets a small drones bonus. This is small but I rather like it. I'm not sure how much this will change, but I like it (despite having too horrible drone skills to test it out myself). Being able to field an extra heavy or sentry drone is not a "small drones bonus" it adds an extra 33% to its drone DPS. The real problem here keeps being the lackluster armor rep bonus. Lauren Sheaperd wrote:Hey! A small, but very cool, bonus to the Ferox. I'm not too sure on the impact this will have, but it might actually allow for some more flexibility in the fits. I'm interested in how this will turn out at the very least. An extra turret (16% DPS bonus) and an extra low can hardly be considered a small bonus. It still has a lot to ask for when compared to the Brutix or the Talos/Naga though. You really should have held back that :words: post until you did a little more math so you could make some valid points. "until you did a little more math" Always wanted to do the math behind weird drone bays, it's what makes me.... *ahem*
No mod, drone hull at V and using T2 Gallente drones: 75mbps with 2/2/1 config: 315 <- so we had this before 100mbps with 4/0/0 config: 380 100mbps with 3/2/0 config: 380 again! 4 Gardes: 360
So that +33% is, unless my calculator is failing me, in fact ~21% rounded up at best. Going from 5 to 6 turrets would be a +20% buff as well, so the loss of one would be quite bad, if it had a bonus to them.
For the sake of comparison, same deal with Minnie ones: 75mbps with 2/2/1 config: 256 100mbps with 4/0/0 config: 309 100mbps with 3/2/0 config: 309 again, and the same ~21% increase again 4 Bouncers: 315, which in this case is more than the running-around types after months and months of T2 spec training. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Moonasha
Orcses and Goblinz
111
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:36:00 -
[311] - Quote
Why not give the proph a missile bonus and more launcher slots? As much as I love drone boats, it seems underwhelming without a neut bonus or some other utility. It's still going to be a fat useless piece of crap. I mean seriously, it's gonna do the same DPS as an arbitrator :/ With a little more tank, and no tracking disruptor. I guess the prohp will become a medium neut boat anyways. Unbonused guns and missiles suck |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
107
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:36:00 -
[312] - Quote
The problem with railguns is tracking enhancers + projectiles is overpowered.
I'll be in this thread sperging about t2 ammo and TEs until the end. |
S1dy
Uplifting Infernal Paradise
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:40:00 -
[313] - Quote
Iogrim wrote:Triple-rep Myrmidon is alright, but Gallente definitely doesn't need 2 active rep bonused ships. Tracking bonus makes most sense.
For those who want damage bonus on Ferox - shut up. The thing gets extra turret and will do ~700 DPS while maintaining decent tank, with 5% damage bonus that would be almost ~900. Way too much for Battlecruiser.
Next time better read what others write. What i was saying, was to get both variants konsistent if they should fill in the same role. Whether it's the offensive or the defense bonus that's the same on both ships is not important. Important is the konsistency.
The same with the Ferox bonus. I said there should be a better bonus. What bonus is not important. Important is a useful bonus and not crap like bonus to optimal range. But while you wrote about the "too much " damage with bonus just compare it with the damage that makes the Brutix. It does far more. But it's ok that the Brutix does more. On the downside it tanks lesser than the Ferox and so they are both well balanced.
Nevertheless, my hole point was to get them more konsistent. And next time read others comments before you post anything. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:41:00 -
[314] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:So that +33% is, unless my calculator is failing me, in fact ~21% rounded up at best. Going from 5 to 6 turrets would be a +20% buff as well, so the loss of one would be quite bad, if it had a bonus to them. In fact, without keeping the tripple-rep myrm in mind, just going for pure raw OOOMPH with the current version, no +damage mods: 6 T2 Heavy Neutron Blasters, void ammo: 335 dps 75 mbps' worth of drones: 315 Total: 650 New version: 660 (+1.5%)
Of course, that's not easily applied damage, so only EFT warrioring. Also, if someone tripple reps it, he won't have a full rack of T2 neutrons on it I imagine...
What this change does "help" with, is making magstabs less attractive for the ship, enforcing it's role as drone ship, unlike the Dominix where blasters+heavies or rails and sentries double bonus looks sweet (on paper). (Remembered the guy posting videos with LMJD shield tanked Domi.) Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Iogrim
Kaer Industries
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:41:00 -
[315] - Quote
S1dy wrote:Next time better read what others write. What i was saying, was to get both variants konsistent if they should fill in the same role. Whether it's the offensive or the defense bonus that's the same on both ships is not important. Important is the konsistency.
The same with the Ferox bonus. I said there should be a better bonus. What bonus is not important. Important is a useful bonus and not crap like bonus to optimal range. But while you wrote about the "too much " damage with bonus just compare it with the damage that makes the Brutix. It does far more. But it's ok that the Brutix does more. On the downside it tanks lesser than the Ferox and so they are both well balanced.
Nevertheless, my hole point was to get them more konsistent. And next time read others comments before you post anything.
Was not replying to you. Don't let the door hit you on your way out though. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:45:00 -
[316] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Mund Richard wrote:So that +33% is, unless my calculator is failing me, in fact ~21% rounded up at best. Going from 5 to 6 turrets would be a +20% buff as well, so the loss of one would be quite bad, if it had a bonus to them. In fact, without keeping the tripple-rep myrm in mind, just going for pure raw OOOMPH with the current version, no +damage mods: 6 T2 Heavy Neutron Blasters, void ammo: 335 dps 75 mbps' worth of drones: 315 Total: 650 New version: 660 (+1.5% ) Of course, that's not easily applied damage, so only EFT warrioring. Also, if someone tripple reps it, he won't have a full rack of T2 neutrons on it I imagine... What this change does "help" with, is making magstabs less attractive for the ship, enforcing it's role as drone ship, unlike the Dominix where blasters+heavies or rails and sentries double bonus looks sweet (on paper). (Remembered the guy posting videos with LMJD shield tanked Domi.) On a related note, the theoritical max damage on a myrmidon is only 65 dps away form the vexor, the damage difference between a brutix and a thorax is 140dps Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
449
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:54:00 -
[317] - Quote
Looks good at first glance although I am a bit worried about the brick nature of the Prophecy. Had expected you to complete the Abaddon line (Punisher/Maller/.../Abaddon) and give it damage/resist .. the proposed layout+bonuses screams 'bricked frigate cleanser' which is a niche as wide as the grand canyon these days.
Regarding active armour tank bonuses: Perhaps staying the complaints until the plan for active tank revisions are put forward is in order. We know it is coming.
Regarding Cyclone: Split weapon system, what?!? It is getting a RoF bonus and has significantly higher launcher count than gun ditto .. "Split weapon .." is roughly equal or equal count with bonuses to both (ie. Typhoon) .. or it used to be and truth be told it is the only defini |
Nyalnara
Adeptus Iterare Mordus Angels
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:56:00 -
[318] - Quote
Torri Bernard wrote:What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again.
Ever heard of shield Myrmidon? You can deal more than 850 dps (assuming you got all lvl5 skills)... The real problem of drone boats is not the drone part, it's the armor tanking, since it reduce DPS... (And i'm not shield-tanking that one. It would just be stupid.)
About the Harbinger: it is NOT nerfed, you just failed to see the buff... And no ones use amarr ships in PVP anyway, lasers use way too much capacitor... Only amarr ships i saw those last months were sniper Oracles, & projectile- turret stations...
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote: Have you ever flown a typhoon? Don't worry if you haven't, nobody else does either...the reason is a split weapon system...you only get a bonus to 4 turret slots? And just try to fit 3 gyros, and 3 ballistic controls in the lows.....useless. Wouldn't be awesome if the devs were going to revamp battleships too? I think it would.
They said they will... Later...
Torri Bernard wrote:Amarr has as many missile boats as drone boats. Also, go fly a prophecy in a goon fleet and see how long you make it before they laugh you out and make you take a picture with a plunger on your head. (you can try this before or after the change and you'll get the same result)
:goonies:
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:57:00 -
[319] - Quote
Admit it, you want something other than rep bonus on your brutix just so you can shield fit it better and shoot null everywhere. Disgusting. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:00:00 -
[320] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: On a related note, the theoritical max damage on a myrmidon is only 65 dps away form the vexor Which is coincidentally just as much as what it gets from the +25 bandwidth. 5 unbonused guns = 4 bonused on the Vexor.
Iogrim wrote: For those who want damage bonus on Ferox - shut up. The thing gets extra turret and will do ~700 DPS while maintaining decent tank, with 5% damage bonus that would be almost ~900. Way too much for Battlecruiser. I'm not sure all who wanted the +5% damage bonus meant it on top of the 7 turrets. 6*1,25 would be 7,5s worth of unbonused ones. It was what Ytterbium proposed earler here Although at the cost of loosing the tank bonus. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:06:00 -
[321] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Admit it, you want something other than rep bonus on your brutix just so you can shield fit it better and shoot null everywhere. Disgusting. I admit I'd like either the Ferox or the Brutix to be suited for that. At the moment, there is no blaster BC for it, even though TWO empires field hybrid weaponry. Which means two medium hybrid BCs. One is forced to active tank, the other gets no damage bonus and an optimum to force rails on it, as blasters have too short optimal compared to falloff. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
316
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:06:00 -
[322] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Mund Richard wrote:So that +33% is, unless my calculator is failing me, in fact ~21% rounded up at best. Going from 5 to 6 turrets would be a +20% buff as well, so the loss of one would be quite bad, if it had a bonus to them. In fact, without keeping the tripple-rep myrm in mind, just going for pure raw OOOMPH with the current version, no +damage mods: 6 T2 Heavy Neutron Blasters, void ammo: 335 dps 75 mbps' worth of drones: 315 Total: 650 New version: 660 (+1.5% ) Of course, that's not easily applied damage, so only EFT warrioring. Also, if someone tripple reps it, he won't have a full rack of T2 neutrons on it I imagine... What this change does "help" with, is making magstabs less attractive for the ship, enforcing it's role as drone ship, unlike the Dominix where blasters+heavies or rails and sentries double bonus looks sweet (on paper). (Remembered the guy posting videos with LMJD shield tanked Domi.) #1. your 33% number is using a 2/2/1 configuration . . . most people for simplicity sake used 3 heavies which do 285 DPS which means the ship does exactly 33% more drone DPS. Yes optimal configuration is 2/2/1 but that was rarely used.
#2 nobody and I mean nobody uses blasters on the myrm . . . they take cap, cost more PG, have less range, and a non select-able damage type when compared with autocannons. Autocannons were used before and they will be used after this change. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:07:00 -
[323] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Admit it, you want something other than rep bonus on your brutix just so you can shield fit it better and shoot null everywhere. Disgusting. I admit I'd like either the Ferox or the Brutix to be suited for that. At the moment, there is no shield blaster BC, even though TWO empires field hybrid weaponry. Which means two medium hybrid BCs. One is forced to active tank, the other gets no damage bonus and an optimum to force rails on it, as blasters have too short optimal compared to falloff.
There aren't supposed to be any specifically shield blaster ships at all. Caldari are supposed to be rails, gallente are supposed to be armour. |
Alexander McKeon
Cruelest Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:08:00 -
[324] - Quote
I can't say that I like the loss of the utility high slot: being able to fit a large remote shield repair module is necessary for the sort of small gang spider-tank PvE that I like to use my Drake for out in w-space. |
Inepsa1987
Blue Republic
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:09:00 -
[325] - Quote
God I hope active armor tanking is getting a buff, almost have to with those gallente bonuses. Waste? Spaceship Pilot. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:10:00 -
[326] - Quote
1. I think you've gone too far with that tiercide. Price tag does matter for bigger ships, and having tiers is not that terrible thing after all. Having exactly the same number of slots is not necessary, in my opinion. I'd suggest bringing extra slots on some battlecruisers (poor Cane...). Same would apply to battleships - do not please nerf Mael or add new slots for Domi. 2. 5% armor hp per level for Brutix seems fits its role much better, and in line with it's big brother, Erebus. 3. Nerfing Harbinger? Fozzie, you're evil. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:12:00 -
[327] - Quote
Sigras wrote: #1. your 33% number is using a 2/2/1 configuration . . . most people for simplicity sake used 3 heavies which do 285 DPS which means the ship does exactly 33% more drone DPS. Yes optimal configuration is 2/2/1 but that was rarely used.
#2 nobody and I mean nobody uses blasters on the myrm . . . they take cap, cost more PG, have less range, and a non select-able damage type when compared with autocannons. Autocannons were used before and they will be used after this change. So... you say the ship's bay was used suboptimally before in the drone department, and not using it's race's weaponry because it's crap, and thus the buff is better than the self-admitted EFT warrioring I did.
I was trying to show how crap it's combo was, and you helped.
Now, about making it more appreciateable, and easier to use, you have a point, now folk don't need stupid drone setups to make it work, and that's always nice!
I do appreciate it, I really do. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:14:00 -
[328] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: There aren't supposed to be any specifically shield blaster ships at all. Caldari are supposed to be rails, gallente are supposed to be armour. And neither Cane or Harbi is supposed to be nano-shield fit. And yet they are, because that works better.
Shoehorning a ship into one specific fitting ain't nice. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
takedoom
Knights of the Posing Meat
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:15:00 -
[329] - Quote
The dawn of the triple rep brutix. http://spinthatdamnship.ytmnd.com/
I am not a thief. I am a treasure hunter. |
mine mi
Hispania Armored Forces Ethereal Dawn
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:15:00 -
[330] - Quote
Something you have to think, is that one of the bc, is the hull of a commandship , so one of the bonus would have to be a passive tanking bonus. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:18:00 -
[331] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: There aren't supposed to be any specifically shield blaster ships at all. Caldari are supposed to be rails, gallente are supposed to be armour. And neither Cane or Harbi is supposed to be nano-shield fit. And yet they are, because that works better. Shoehorning a ship into one specific fitting ain't nice. A shield+damage bonus for the Ferox wouldn't make it more a blaster ship, than rails. That medium rails suck, and it would be used with blasters, is the module's fault. Same with a tracking+damage bonused Brutix, should just as much be viable with armor (or rails?), if not for the way the game works.
It's better to fix things than give the scrubs what they want. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:20:00 -
[332] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: It's better to fix things than give the scrubs what they want. Oh, I'm full behind any fixes to broken things like medium armor repping below doing it x3, or medium rails.
However, I would still consider forcing a ship for one tank type, and one weapon system of the two it has bonuses for broken as well. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Romvex
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:24:00 -
[333] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... this Post with your main |
Friar KIte
Mixed Metaphor
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:26:00 -
[334] - Quote
Prophecy drone boat? Be still my heart~ |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:27:00 -
[335] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: It's better to fix things than give the scrubs what they want. Oh, I'm full behind any fixes to broken things like medium armor repping below doing it x3, or medium rails. However, I would still consider forcing a ship for one tank type, and one weapon system of the two it has bonuses for broken as well.
I don't think so. Only minmatar are supposed to be able to really choose whether they go shield or armour, and even then, only on some ships. If they made armour tanking less bad, and maybe allowed some sort of non-cap booster active tanking, and maybe made some sort of actual downside to buffer shield tanking, then all would be well. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:30:00 -
[336] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: I don't think so. Only minmatar are supposed to be able to really choose whether they go shield or armour, and even then, only on some ships. If they made armour tanking less bad, and maybe allowed some sort of non-cap booster active tanking, and maybe made some sort of actual downside to buffer shield tanking, then all would be well. And only WINmatar should be able to go maybe shields and short range weaponry while also having the option for armor tanking, or arti, compared to which caldari should be shoehorned into shield + railguns on their turret ships every time?
If one race can more or less manage both shields and armor, short and long range turret systems, why shouldn't two sharing a weapon system manage at least their respective tank and have the option for both short and long range? Because of lore, and theme and whatnot? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Ultimate Gunpower
Knysna Grim Reapers SCUM.
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:33:00 -
[337] - Quote
Ok so by rebalancing BCs to make them all viable at the current state of affairs as outlined by the proposed changes to each ship we are having a funeral for the Hurricane, Drake and Harbinger and the new whoop ass BCs are going to be in the following order: Prophecy and the Myrm with close procession of the Cyclone, Brutix and Ferox...
Great job, kill the two favored BCs dead and make 2 new over powered BCs the Prophecy and Myrm :)
CanGÇÖt say I am ever happy when I read these proposed changes because quite simply the bulk of the logic behind it does not resonate with me or make much sense to me.
The Hurricane got whacked bad on the release of Retribution and so did the Drake indirectly with the missile nerf and now these two fine BCs are getting shot in the back of the head and left for dead with the new proposed changes :( great!
PS on the drake I love this part: First you nerf the DPS and now you nerf the tank and agility :) awesome.... So one question, what is left? Nothing On the Hurricane u nerf the power grid so bad and now u want to nerf the tank and agility :) awesome.... So one question, what is left? Oh yes a bit of modest DPS that was always balanced.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:34:00 -
[338] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: I don't think so. Only minmatar are supposed to be able to really choose whether they go shield or armour, and even then, only on some ships. If they made armour tanking less bad, and maybe allowed some sort of non-cap booster active tanking, and maybe made some sort of actual downside to buffer shield tanking, then all would be well. And only WINmatar should be able to go maybe shields and short range weaponry while also having the option for armor tanking, or arti, compared to which caldari should be shoehorned into shield + railguns on their turret ships every time? If one race can more or less manage both shields and armor, short and long range turret systems, why shouldn't two sharing a weapon system manage at least their respective tank and have the option for both short and long range? Because of lore, and theme and whatnot?
Railguns are only bad at mid range because they have to be compared to TE'd short-range weapons, which end up with more damage and 9999x tracking and fit easier. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
738
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:34:00 -
[339] - Quote
it has been stated before but i will say it again: please consider changing the drake's damage bonus. either remove one launcher and add a RoF bonus or make the damage bonus apply to all missile types. you can even make the 25% kinetic damage a role bonus and add a 25% em, thermal and explosive bonus if you like.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:34:00 -
[340] - Quote
Sigras wrote: #1. your 33% number is using a 2/2/1 configuration . . . most people for simplicity sake used 3 heavies which do 285 DPS which means the ship does exactly 33% more drone DPS. Yes optimal configuration is 2/2/1 but that was rarely used.
#2 nobody and I mean nobody uses blasters on the myrm . . . they take cap, cost more PG, have less range, and a non select-able damage type when compared with autocannons. Autocannons were used before and they will be used after this change. #1 the 2/2/1 combo was brought up in the combat cruiser thread and was deemed acceptable for actual use, on this I agree with you though.
#2 on this one imagine the new player who is training Gallente drone ships, starts with the Tristan then moves on to the Algos after that presses on to the Vexor, up to this point all these ships are drone/hybrid combo ships, then moves up to the Myrmidon and is told to train for T2 projectiles for the best use of this ship, after that moves on to the Dominix and its back to hybrid turrets. Most are going to skip training yet another weapon system, making 3? for drone ships, not gonna happen until they start cross training. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Backfyre
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:48:00 -
[341] - Quote
Cool. With +1 low slot, the Brutix can fit even a better shield tank! |
Alli Othman
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:59:00 -
[342] - Quote
Tiericide- moar like utilityhigh-icide |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:00:00 -
[343] - Quote
Hello Fozzie.
I'll go down the list :
Prophecy :
This one is pretty good.
Enough PWG to fit what it needs to fit, plenty of lowslots, it should become a usable ship. Thank you for that.
Harbinger :
This one is pretty good too. Despite everyone thinking "He's nerfing the Harbinger, bwaaaah", I think it's a buff actually. Less guns, more damage, less cap usage, minor changes here and there.
The only wrong part is the CPU nerf. Harbingers are VERY HARD to fit, CPU-wise. I would get rid of that CPU nerf and even add 15 or so CPU. I'm serious about this.
Ferox :
I like the changes, but please. Please. At least switch the optimal range bonus to a falloff bonus or something. This bonus is just not usable right now.
I would buff the PWG a bit. Adding another turret to that ship means you have to add the PWG to fit it. +80 PWG would be fine. It would still be quite a tight fit, but that'll do.
Drake :
That's a tricky ship to balance.
I heard a couple months ago that the shield resistance bonus had to go in order to make it balanced. And I agree with that.
Now notice the trend :
Prophecy => Tanking bonus Harbinger => No tanking bonus
Cyclone => Tanking bonus Hurricane => No tanking bonus
Ferox => Tanking bonus Drake => Tanking bonus
Brutix => Tanking bonus Myrmidon => Tanking bonus
I think the Drake should lose his shield resistances bonus. I don't really know what to replace it with, maybe a range bonus or a ROF bonus, I don't really know.
Brutix :
I like the new Brutix. Maybe if you could change the active tanking bonus to either a 10% active tanking bonus, or an armor resistances bonus ? That would be kinda cool.
Myrmidon :
This Myrmidon is boss. Don't touch it, it owns.
Cyclone :
I like this Cyclone very much. It owns.
Hurricane :
I don't see why everyone's getting mad at this. Seriously, I don't.
Ok, it looses the ability to fit 2 medium neuts. Sure, it's quite a change.
But other than that, it's still a good ship.
Actually, if I had only one request to make about that ship, is that considering it will lose one of his utility slots, it should get some PWG back. That will re-allow the Armor cane fit (With 220mms). Just add maybe +60 or something, that'll do.
Currently I see two fits for that Hurricane.
The regular shield-cane still works, you'll just need either a +1% implant or a meta 4 LSE to fit it.
The armor-cane (if you add 60 or so PWG) will work once again, reaching 69k EHP while still having 622 DPS.
Overall, Fozzie, I do like those changes. Some tweaks are needed on the Ferox, the Drake and the Harbingers' CPU, but I'm sure you'll be able to fix that.
Looking forward to the battleship changes ! Please, post the battleship changes ASAP |
Destroyer of Souls
Serenity Prime Kraken.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:01:00 -
[344] - Quote
Well I guess that is it. Come on Harbinger. Come out back . Time to put you out of your misery.
The worst part is, I just trained for a Drake and Hurricane. |
Trash Ice
Black Sharks Division
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:03:00 -
[345] - Quote
Backfyre wrote:Cool. With +1 low slot, the Brutix can fit even a better shield tank! YAY! I want shield amarr and galente
SMT008 wrote:The only wrong part is the CPU nerf. Harbingers are VERY HARD to fit, CPU-wise. I would get rid of that CPU nerf and even add 15 or so CPU. I'm serious about this. I like this man |
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:07:00 -
[346] - Quote
Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V. I have never, in my long history of Harbinger flying, had any kind of problem with the Harbinger's capacitor unless I was running my microwarpdrive forever. Sure, this would take it from "never had a problem" to "unforgiving energy hunger", but the Absolution and Abaddon cope just fine.
And, y'know, maybe not hitting the fittings as hard. I'm trying to EFT-dream a heavy pulse armor Harbinger and reality is harshing my buzz. I was so disappointed with the current Harbinger when I gained perfect fitting skills and a sweet PG implant and couldn't upgrade my fit at all. Can we not make that worse? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
109
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:07:00 -
[347] - Quote
Ethan Revenant wrote:Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming compared to current at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V. I have never, in my long history of Harbinger flying, had any kind of problem with the Harbinger's capacitor unless I was running my microwarpdrive forever. Sure, this would take it from "never had a problem" to "unforgiving energy hunger", but the Absolution and Abaddon cope just fine.
And, y'know, maybe not hitting the fittings as hard. I'm trying to EFT-dream a heavy pulse armor Harbinger and reality is harshing my buzz. I was so disappointed with the current Harbinger when I gained perfect fitting skills and a sweet PG implant and couldn't upgrade my fit at all. Can we not make that worse?
0/10 |
Achelois Theodorakis
Knysna Grim Reapers SCUM.
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:07:00 -
[348] - Quote
Destroyer of Souls wrote:Well I guess that is it. Come on Harbinger. Come out back . Time to put you out of your misery.
The worst part is, I just trained for a Drake and Hurricane.
Was just thinking of the noobs that chose the 2 more popular races Caldari and Minimtar that were thinking that they would fly the most viable ship class for both PvE and PvP the battlecruiser (its cheap to buy and versitile)... Well quess they will spend the next year training Amar and Gallante :( |
Rancor Kane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:13:00 -
[349] - Quote
meh,
Drake kinetic bonus needs to go, for a overall missile bonus.
Now that it's damage/range/tank/agility/and slots are nerfed, it would be nice to have 1 trick op it's sleaf.
|
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:16:00 -
[350] - Quote
Ethan Revenant wrote:Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming compared to current at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V
Well, EFT says that the current Harbinger, fitted with Heavy Pulses, 2 damage mods and 5 Hammerheads can dish out 693 DPS with IN Multi, 755 with Conflags.
Considering the changes, a Harbinger with 6 Heavy Pulses, conflag ammo, 2 damage mods, will deal 613 DPS.
The current Harbinger (7 turrets, 5% damage bonus) will deal 596.
That kind of DPS looks good to me. |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
288
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:21:00 -
[351] - Quote
It doesn't truly strike me as a through rework of former tier 1 and tier 2 battlecruisers. I do however very much like the EHP of the Battlecruisers coming closer to the current tier 1. Some things will have to be taken into consideration though:
*feedback in progress* |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Raiden.
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:25:00 -
[352] - Quote
Fozzie: you are not going to take a look into tier3 BC-¦s this time around? :( I think they need iteration pretty bad, speed nerf or something along those lines. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
110
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:27:00 -
[353] - Quote
LakeEnd wrote:Fozzie: you are not going to take a look into tier3 BC-¦s this time around? :( I think they need iteration pretty bad, speed nerf or something along those lines.
yeah and remove a few turrets from each of them |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:27:00 -
[354] - Quote
LakeEnd wrote:Fozzie: you are not going to take a look into tier3 BC-¦s this time around? :( I think they need iteration pretty bad, speed nerf or something along those lines. Mund Richard wrote:Raid'En wrote:I though the tier3 bc would have a few changes also, surprised not a number changed. Hint: Combat Battlecruiser topic As in, not attack, assault or whatever CCP calls those. I hope that helps (again). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Black Core Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:30:00 -
[355] - Quote
Ethan Revenant wrote:Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming compared to current at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V. I have never, in my long history of Harbinger flying, had any kind of problem with the Harbinger's capacitor unless I was running my microwarpdrive forever. Sure, this would take it from "never had a problem" to "unforgiving energy hunger", but the Absolution and Abaddon cope just fine.
And, y'know, maybe not hitting the fittings as hard. I'm trying to EFT-dream a heavy pulse armor Harbinger and reality is harshing my buzz. I was so disappointed with the current Harbinger when I gained perfect fitting skills and a sweet PG implant and couldn't upgrade my fit at all. Can we not make that worse?
So minmatar pilot here, but doesn't a capacitor bonus mean you can use more cap demanding crystals that do more damage? -1 turret too with just a tiny DPS increase means that the Harby will be competing for versitility with the hurricane. |
Noisrevbus
378
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:31:00 -
[356] - Quote
The big winners are the drone-boats.
In 2012 we already saw a profileration of drone-boats, and 2013 will obviously continue the trend.
Considering the slaughter of fitting-options, the big winners turn into even bigger winners in their ability to retain tanks and still field projectible damage (should current trends and field meta continue).
The losers (not only because of the tiercide, but due to the double shaving of fitting) seem to be the former Tier 2 ships barring the Myrm, along with any use of BC as makeshift boosters (though hardly anyone used them as such anyway, right?) and most appeal to fit LR-setups on any other ships than the bonused ones, leaving most BC more singular roled.
The Brutix got a slight fix to it's mobility issues, but still remain somewhat clunky. Not because "active armor sucks" as some degenerates propagate at any given chance, but because it's difficult finding any ideal role and any broader use. The Myrm will simply outshine it in almost any concept, because that free cap-less damage is just too good.
Something similar goes for the Ferox where they're currently keeping the incredibly unintuitive resist-reach bonus while the ship won't be able to capitalize on both of them at once anyway. I'd rather not see it change into another "brawler" with a resist-damage pair as there are already too many ships in that narrow speck of gameplay. Though, of course, as things currently stand that would be the most appealing. The best solution would obviously be a range-damge bonus ontop of an "attack" role with better mobility - and the complete removal of the massive mistake called Tier 3 BC.
As long as those ships exist though, having a medium-sniper is absolutely pointless - wether Zagdul can figure out that Tech I L-rails are better than Tech II M-rails or not .
Giving the Ferox the ability to capitalize on both bonuses at once would require an overblown amount of fitting bonuses that just are not reasonable and even then you'd have to question wether the gun-performance or overall slotting would make it functional as a baby Rokh anyway. As it stands it doesn't have the reach, damage or tank to describe itself as.
Keeping the KN-bonus on the Drake is a good thing. We have already gone overboard with the addition of ships with flexible damage types that obscure and imbalance the reason to have different resist profiles. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:39:00 -
[357] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
This to me just shows your disconnect with the game. Have you ever flown a minmatar ship where half of your hardpoints are dedicated to one ammo type (missiles) and the other to another type (projectile) . Yes I understand what you saying "BUT IT'S NOT A COMPLETE 50/50 SPLIT...) this is true, but when you have to choose fitting 5 of one type and 3 of another, then it is pretty dang close to a 50/50 split. Just because it is a 70/30 or 60/40 split doesn't mean that it still isn't a split platform. Seriously? And you are a DEV? No wonder your suggested remedies look like crap to most of the player base.
Rather than try to make the BC a less desireable class of ship, why not give this class a buff, similar to what you did with the Frigs/ cruisers? You are ruining the area of the game where the majority of your players play. BC class ships are the backbone of EVE. If you screw up these ships people will leave in droves, because they grow out of the frigs, there is nothing in between until they get to larger class ships.
Seriously and stop screwing up the cane!
|
Conjaq
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:39:00 -
[358] - Quote
Dear Fozzie, happy to see Battlecruisers getting a helping hand :) So far the changes look good, except for a few wierdoes.
I still dont quite understand what the Active tank bonus is good for? - Granted it's the watermark of the gallente, and i personally think it's a cool bonus. However...
Reading this link; https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=169936
You will see why the resist bonus on ships are so much better than active tank bonuses.
I was really hoping to see a buff in that regard, preferably with this "battlecruiser face lift" ... but it does not seem that, it's on the agenda? - why not?
I was under the impression you would do something with the passive tank vs active tank question, but so far the only reference is from an old dev blog, stating it would be looked at in the near future. But so far you guys have been skipping this question like a cat getting wet. Does this mean youre working on it? or does it mean you dont intend to work on it... please, give us a hint!
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1170
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:43:00 -
[359] - Quote
Although the command links don't see regular usage on T1 BC's, they are a VERY VERY valuable and cheap way to provide warfare links for lower SP players and fleets. The issue in general with any fits involving warfare links has to do with the general state of warfare links right now, which is clearly screwed up.
Utility slots for these BC's to use that link slot is pretty important. Where I am. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
422
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:48:00 -
[360] - Quote
Rabble rabble *active tanking bonuses suck - especially armour ones* rabble rabble Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:53:00 -
[361] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie This to me just shows your disconnect with the game. Have you ever flown a minmatar ship where half of your hardpoints are dedicated to one ammo type (missiles) and the other to another type (projectile) . Yes I understand what you saying "BUT IT'S NOT A COMPLETE 50/50 SPLIT...) this is true, but when you have to choose fitting 5 of one type and 3 of another, then it is pretty dang close to a 50/50 split. Just because it is a 70/30 or 60/40 split doesn't mean that it still isn't a split platform. Seriously? And you are a DEV? No wonder your suggested remedies look like crap to most of the player base. Rather than try to make the BC a less desireable class of ship, why not give this class a buff, similar to what you did with the Frigs/ cruisers? You are ruining the area of the game where the majority of your players play. BC class ships are the backbone of EVE. If you screw up these ships people will leave in droves, because they grow out of the frigs, there is nothing in between until they get to larger class ships. Seriously and stop screwing up the cane!
Dude. Keep calm, everything is going to be fine.
The Cyclone was a split-weapon platform. It is not anymore with that change. 5 launchers and 2 turrets aren't what I call "Split weapons". Just look at the Raven. It has 8 slots, 6 launcher hardpoints and a couple turret hardpoints. If I use your logic, the Raven is a split-weapon platform.
Same goes for the Tempest actually. 6 Guns, 2 launchers. Is that "split weapons" ? No.
And except for the removal of a single medium neut, the Hurricane is still fine. Just need to add like 60 or 80 PWG so it can armor tank efficiently too and it will be fine. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:02:00 -
[362] - Quote
Destroyer of Souls wrote:Well I guess that is it. Come on Harbinger. Come out back . Time to put you out of your misery. Oh come on! It cant fit beams... because of a power grid! Since when did amarrians have problems with PG? And if I cant put beams on Harb, then why are there beams at all? |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:05:00 -
[363] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Destroyer of Souls wrote:Well I guess that is it. Come on Harbinger. Come out back . Time to put you out of your misery. Oh come on! It cant fit beams... because of a power grid! Since when did amarrians have problems with PG? And if I cant put beams on Harb, then why are there beams at all? I seem to recall writing somewhere how an Abaddon can't fit a full rack of two out of the three T2 beams without fitting mods if a 1600 or a LAR is added even with no prop module. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:05:00 -
[364] - Quote
I'll comment directly on the Prophecy.
Prophecy. WiIl it now perform better than the Myrmidon.. probably with exceptions. The prophecy has now turned into the wildcard ship. It will be an armor tank, but now it has complete access to every weapon system and every damage type. Yes it is unbonused on the hull, but you can fit any type of turret AND any type of missile. Hell you can set the ship to be a blaster boat, an Artillery ship, a Missile boat... and it now has drone access and the option for another Mid slot (which it desperately needed). If you think of your fleet being all shields.. yes the prophecy sucks.. you run an armor fleet though and the thing is now one of the best boats out there. You gain no damage bonus to turrets, but now you can shoot every ammo type, at multiple ranges, and field any type of drone you like. Prophecy, great versatile ship for armor fleets. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
110
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:08:00 -
[365] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Since when did amarrians have problems with PG?
I lolled. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
114
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:11:00 -
[366] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote: Oh come on! It cant fit beams... because of a power grid! Since when did amarrians have problems with PG? And if I cant put beams on Harb, then why are there beams at all?
With a few combinations of fitting rigs and implants and meta 4 gear I bet you can, just like the cane has to for some of it's fits. *shrugs*
|
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5415
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:21:00 -
[367] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:I'll comment directly on the Prophecy.
Prophecy. WiIl it now perform better than the Myrmidon.. probably with exceptions. The prophecy has now turned into the wildcard ship. It will be an armor tank, but now it has complete access to every weapon system and every damage type. Yes it is unbonused on the hull, but you can fit any type of turret AND any type of missile. Hell you can set the ship to be a blaster boat, an Artillery ship, a Missile boat... and it now has drone access and the option for another Mid slot (which it desperately needed). If you think of your fleet being all shields.. yes the prophecy sucks.. you run an armor fleet though and the thing is now one of the best boats out there. You gain no damage bonus to turrets, but now you can shoot every ammo type, at multiple ranges, and field any type of drone you like. Prophecy, great versatile ship for armor fleets.
But it gets an additional low slot, so you could just fit one more damage mod. It's effectively a 4%/Level bonus (if you have BC V) for the weapon of your choice.
Will there be a graphic update of the prophecy to give it -as a droneboat now- more visible dronebays? Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Sir John Halsey
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:25:00 -
[368] - Quote
Bronya Boga wrote: Caldari: Drake is fine, no one cares for that stupid high slot. Ferox looks good now, I like it.
That stupid high slot was used by explorers. Either probe scanner for WH exploration or salvager for low sec exploration (you know, those mag sites).
Removing that high slot it is pretty much a nerf to some explorers.
Drake was already nerfed once with retribution. Less damage, less range.
New changes will nerf it even more. Less tank, harder to fit.
And as i said, indirectly a nerf to some explores.
Oh well, we will adapt. With some drones/armor training, Prophecy it can become a nice replacement for the exploration Drake. Cylone too. Less damage from missiles but with drone skills can compensate and it will have 2 useful utility slots for WH exploration.
|
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:27:00 -
[369] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:Ethan Revenant wrote:Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming compared to current at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V. I have never, in my long history of Harbinger flying, had any kind of problem with the Harbinger's capacitor unless I was running my microwarpdrive forever. Sure, this would take it from "never had a problem" to "unforgiving energy hunger", but the Absolution and Abaddon cope just fine.
And, y'know, maybe not hitting the fittings as hard. I'm trying to EFT-dream a heavy pulse armor Harbinger and reality is harshing my buzz. I was so disappointed with the current Harbinger when I gained perfect fitting skills and a sweet PG implant and couldn't upgrade my fit at all. Can we not make that worse? So minmatar pilot here, but doesn't a capacitor bonus mean you can use more cap demanding crystals that do more damage? -1 turret too with just a tiny DPS increase means that the Harby will be competing for versitility with the hurricane.
I use conflag a lot and still don't have cap problems. The Harbinger has a glorious capacitor reservoir. If it lost its cap bonus, the capacitor would of course need to be altered to account for that, but right now the bonus cap from losing a turret and gaining a damage bonus is basically irrelevant.
I am hoping for the dawn of a new age wherein heavy pulse Harbingers roam as freely as 425mm Hurricanes. My skills will allow me to enjoy the full glory of the added DPS, but the heavy pulse shield Harbinger just got a whole lot more fragile and it doesn't look like the heavy pulse armor Harbinger will see a renaissance either. I am eagerly awaiting this to go live on sisi so I can toy around with it and see exactly what we're in for.
Mostly I am in love with this thread because of all of the people coming out of the woodwork in support of the Harbinger. It is the Harbinger's day to shine! This day people are fighting over it as though it were the Drake! I'm so happy for it. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:29:00 -
[370] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:
Dude. Keep calm, everything is going to be fine.
The Cyclone was a split-weapon platform. It is not anymore with that change. 5 launchers and 2 turrets aren't what I call "Split weapons". Just look at the Raven. It has 8 slots, 6 launcher hardpoints and a couple turret hardpoints. If I use your logic, the Raven is a split-weapon platform.
Same goes for the Tempest actually. 6 Guns, 2 launchers. Is that "split weapons" ? No.
And except for the removal of a single medium neut, the Hurricane is still fine. Just need to add like 60 or 80 PWG so it can armor tank efficiently too and it will be fine.
If they are serious about trying to make the Cyclone into a gimpy Drake, then why does it have 2 fewer launcher points? Seriously? Do, or Do Not....there is no Try. If you go half way with this thing you end up with a Quasimodo piece of crap that nobody uses because there are better alternatives for on every point.
Just curious but since the Minmatar Command ships also use the Cyclone hull, should we expect to see the Minmatar Command ships forced into being missile boats too?
Basically Minmatar pilots are left with a half-baked Drake in the Cyclone, and a Hurricane that has been castrated then sodomized.
Basically CCP is telling all Minmatar pilots to go screw themselves, and find another class of ship to fly. |
|
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
579
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:37:00 -
[371] - Quote
I like the idea of toning down BCs, they've been too good and completely overpowering cruisers of any kind. The problem I'm seeing is that I don't agree to the choices so much.
First of all, for all intends and purposes the Drake remains untouched, and don't give me that bullcrap about "hml got nerfed" because the HAMs got buffed so effectively it means that the most annoying BC of them all is untouched and actually comes out better. The Cyclone I can see why people might be unhappy about it but that's more inertia than the proposed ideas being bad. The Myrm is largely untouched which is ok I guess.
My issue is the Prophecy, just like the Dragoon it seems as if they didn't know wtf to do with it, Proph gets the same ****** bandwidth the Myrm now has and is hated for and while the Myrm can make up for it with a shield tank and blaster damage the Proph has to use its lows to tank so no slots for DDA or bcs/heat sinks. In short, it was the worst and it remains the worst. Well done!
p.s. the Harb is still slow as fck. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:39:00 -
[372] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:I'll comment directly on the Prophecy.
Prophecy. WiIl it now perform better than the Myrmidon.. probably with exceptions. The prophecy has now turned into the wildcard ship. It will be an armor tank, but now it has complete access to every weapon system and every damage type. Yes it is unbonused on the hull, but you can fit any type of turret AND any type of missile. Hell you can set the ship to be a blaster boat, an Artillery ship, a Missile boat... and it now has drone access and the option for another Mid slot (which it desperately needed). If you think of your fleet being all shields.. yes the prophecy sucks.. you run an armor fleet though and the thing is now one of the best boats out there. You gain no damage bonus to turrets, but now you can shoot every ammo type, at multiple ranges, and field any type of drone you like. Prophecy, great versatile ship for armor fleets. But it gets an additional low slot, so you could just fit one more damage mod. It's effectively a 4%/Level bonus (if you have BC V) for the weapon of your choice. Will there be a graphic update of the prophecy to give it -as a droneboat now- more visible dronebays?
Agreed with your comments on the additional low slot essentially being its damage bonus, but don't change the visual of the Prophecy. Its iconic chicken head is really what makes the ship, and is one of the most widely viewed (visual) ships in the beginning of the Eve game.
|
CaileanOCT
Battlestars Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:39:00 -
[373] - Quote
The death of the Hurricane. Instead of buffing the other BCs and giving people a reason to fly them as well they are further destroying the Cane. Sad. I think I just unsubbed from the game with these changes. CCP is making the most common mistake other MMOs make. Nerf big and make each patch flavor of the month. Instead of nerf small, buff small and balance giving everyone a reason to play everything. It's pathetic.
I'm not paying CCP to give me the same crap ass "balance" as every other ****** MMO out there. With the current revamping of the ships you're supposed to be enhancing the game play for everyone and making it better for newer players. Please, do not turn this into a flavor of the month game!! |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:40:00 -
[374] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:mynnna wrote:Care to comment on BPO mineral requirement changes, or will we have to wait for the test server for those? We'll be following the same general idea as previous tiericide classes, except that the former Tier 3 BCs will continue to require more minerals than the Combat BCs due to their role and use of large turrets. Aryth wrote:Do you think you guys want to do BC then BS by Summer? Is that within the realm of doable? I'm not going to make promises until we have the planning for Summer further along, but we'll be getting as much done as quickly as we can time and resources permitting.
Fozzie,why u killing the cyclone?that ship is a legend. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:42:00 -
[375] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote: Just curious but since the Minmatar Command ships also use the Cyclone hull, should we expect to see the Minmatar Command ships forced into being missile boats too? Taking a Wild Guess (mhm, totally wild), I'd say one turret and one missile-based. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
56
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:45:00 -
[376] - Quote
Why not change the Ferox optimal to a damage or RoF and change the Brutix repper bonus to a falloff bonus.
C'mon, we all know those hulls need some love, least it'll mean people will fly them. I mean who the hell even uses medium rails, their literally the most niche'/terrible cruiser sized weapon anyway. Or hell, take away the resists on the Ferox and add a damage bonus, make it a mini Naga. I mean leaving their bonus' as is makes no sense when looking at the prior t1 changes.
And the Brutix as an active tank is just blergh. You got the Myrm for that, I have no doubt some derp will post saying "BUT I HAZ L33T PEEVEEPEE WIT ACTIF BURTIX" but lets face it, their usually idiots so. Lets make **** useful. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:45:00 -
[377] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:4LeafClover wrote: Just curious but since the Minmatar Command ships also use the Cyclone hull, should we expect to see the Minmatar Command ships forced into being missile boats too? Taking a Wild Guess (mhm, totally wild), I'd say one turret and one missile-based. I like the fact that each race is being (for the most part) given a hull for each of its main weapon systems. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Jin alPatar
Entertainment 7wenty
58
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:47:00 -
[378] - Quote
This doesn't really seem to fit with how the smaller ship tiericide went. If each race had 3 battlecruisers, why not give them 3 different roles?
With these changes we'll have 2 combat BCs and a big gun attack BC.
Seeing as BCs are intended to use gang links and form the platform for dedicated command ships, why not treat one of these like you did with logistic frigs & cruisers?
Make the "Tier 1" BCs combat ships as you've outlined (though drop the active tank bonus for Gallente) and make the "Tier 2" BCs "Command Ships Lite"
I'd assume the lite/entry command ships would get a good buffer bonus (7.5% bonus to resists vs 5%), no damage bonus, and either a bonus to a gang link or the ability to run 3 without a bonus. (or something else, you're the designers, not me)
TL;DR: It seems non-tiericidish to make all BCs direct combat focused when they have a history with Gang Links. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
825
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:52:00 -
[379] - Quote
RIP hurricane, you've been downgraded to the absolute worst bc by far, from being the best or second best just a few months ago
|
IainG10
Exiled Dominion Li3 Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:54:00 -
[380] - Quote
I don't understand the removal of the utility high slot if the WL bonus is kept; fits already have to be severely modified to fit them. If the intention is to use BCs as on-grid boosters, why not keep the utility high, and change the role bonus to reduce the PG (and maybe cap) needs of WLs.
If BCs are meant to be used in roams with smaller ships, they need to be sped up for the most part, not slowed down; however, if they are becoming more fleet focused, then the speed changes are not too damning.
Just a small point on the drake:
I sort of understand the mass change - the drake can fly sustained mwd, though this severely gimps the tank and dps; better would be to keep it's current speed (and with other BCs) but change the cap so sustained prop mods are effectively unfittable. However, the ship is a total pig to fit as it is; that high slot that people have pointed out is always empty, that's why. I have just short of perfect fitting skills, and still struggle without using meta mods or implants (disregarding the utility high). The fitting changes will just mean that newer toons will not be able to use bread-and-butter fleet fits; the drake is and will be a shield fleet ship, its tank determines that (but other ships roam better due to better dps, balancing it out). |
|
Nolove Trader
Black Hole Cluster
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:56:00 -
[381] - Quote
The new Harbinger is absolutely horrible.
You are effectively losing 218.15 Powergrid and 31.25 CPU, as the first post refers to base stats, and Engineering and Electronics widen the gap. You lose slightly less than you gain by fititng a Heavy Beam Laser II (223.2 PG with AWU V) and quite a bit more than a Heavy Pulse Laser II needs (187.2 PG with AWU V). In both cases the Harb has a net loss of CPU. And considering that it is even now more or less impossible to fit a Harbinger with the largest medium weapons, the net loss of fitting ressources absolutely crushes this ship. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 15:58:00 -
[382] - Quote
Jin alPatar wrote:This doesn't really seem to fit with how the smaller ship tiericide went. If each race had 3 battlecruisers, why not give them 3 different roles? With these changes we'll have 2 combat BCs and a big gun attack BC. Seeing as BCs are intended to use gang links and form the platform for dedicated command ships, why not treat one of these like you did with logistic frigs & cruisers? Make the "Tier 1" BCs combat ships as you've outlined (though drop the active tank bonus for Gallente) and make the "Tier 2" BCs "Command Ships Lite" I'd assume the lite/entry command ships would get a good buffer bonus (7.5% bonus to resists vs 5%), no damage bonus, and either a bonus to a gang link or the ability to run 3 without a bonus. (or something else, you're the designers, not me) TL;DR: It seems non-tiericidish to make all BCs direct combat focused when they have a history with Gang Links. Essentially, they *are* different by the virtue of using different weapon systems. Now in the case of Ferox vs Naga, this may not seem like much of a blessing, but moving on.
If one of the ships for each race would become a dedicated booster ship, it would naturally suffer in the combat role, like T2s do today. Should it be the Brutix, or the Myrm? The secondary weapon systems (love them or hate them) would suffer, and CCP is already supposedly moving away from this with what they envision for the T2 BCs. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
939
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:04:00 -
[383] - Quote
Can we quickly talk about active armor tank and drones?
The reason I bring this up is that Gallente as a whole are in a funny place due to recent NPC AI change and drones sucking in general. With each rebalance, the number of drone boats grows. Last patch added 3 (?) drone boats. Upcoming patch will add 1 more (Prophecy). And yet, no drone fixes have been mentioned. In fact, CCP completely avoids ANY topic with a word "drone" in it like it's got cooties. What's up? It's a little difficult to judge ship balance without knowing if anything will be done, and if so, what?
The reason I mention armor tank is that now it seems both Gallente BCs under review get the same active armor tank bonus. Which is fine, if active armor tank is getting reviewed as well. But if not, you're essentially crippling 2/3rds of Gallente BC lineup with this stuff for many/most in-game applications. Similar to drones, the topic gets studiously avoided by all CCP staff. Again, hard to judge what will happen to these hulls without knowing if any changes are planned, or what they may be.
Or is the approach going to be to change the ships first to rely on a mechanic that won't be fixed for a while yet? That seems very counter-intuitive, as ships like Myrmidon will suffer VERY badly for it - this hull has to deal with the drone issue AND the active armor tank imbalance.
Any thoughts? Besides "we'll look into it between now and the heat death of the universe", I mean. |
anids
modro Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:05:00 -
[384] - Quote
why nurf the BC's??? seriously they fun to fly :( just change bonus's and reskin cycloen/drake....drake 7 lanucher fit tight as it is give it +10 grid.......wtb less nurf on the cane :( hate u ccp |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
56
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:07:00 -
[385] - Quote
Oh also the new Prophecy is hilarious as it's current incarnation is, it does less DPS than a vexor but has a tank. So it still stays as a bait boat.
Congratulations, you made a heavier tanked Arbitrator without the EWAR essentially for four times the price. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:12:00 -
[386] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:Can we quickly talk about active armor tank and drones? [...] Any thoughts? Besides "we'll look into it between now and the heat death of the universe", I mean. You just chased Fozzie away even from here.
Expected some nice DevPost on armor after the post Hans dropped on page one, still expecting it. Drones... Also still expecting it!
One thing I'm not quite sure about... Why are both missile users shield based, and both drone users armor based? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Maria Blick
skeltari Corp
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:14:00 -
[387] - Quote
Ferox needs a hybrid damage bonus like the moa. Medium rails have no use case where they outperform large rails on a naga.
The myrmidon needs to become a dedicated drone boat. Just give it back the full 125m3 bandwidth, and instead take away the ability to fit weapon hardpoints. |
Tragot Gomndor
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:17:00 -
[388] - Quote
Ferox: i dont think the two bonuses work together... shield resistance means more hitpoints, more useable for blaster brawls than railgun sniping... sniping dont need bonus tank... and the naga is allready the sniper, no need for two snipers...
Drake: that ship has the lowest damage bonus of them all, only working for 1 damage type... maybe change the +kinetic to +rof or even make it +kinetic to all missile types, including light missiles and rockets, turning drake to an anti-frigate platform like the (new) prophecy and myrmidon with small drones... maybe doing the same for the cyclone...
Myrmidon/Brutix: armor local rep is good for pve and thats all... fix local rep
that doenst belong here but:
EXEQUROR: that ship has more ehp when fitting a shield tank than an armor tank and thats just wrong (both fits cap stable)... ccp should consider to buff armor all together...
Goons + Test + CFC + HBC = SAME!!!!!!!11111112 |
Steve Bopp
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:18:00 -
[389] - Quote
Based on the changes that they are making I think they are trying to separate cruisers and battle cruisers more. It looks like battle cruisers are becoming more skill intensive to encourage specialization.
I was not expecting the Harbinger losing HP though... Maybe they'll rework active armor tanking though? It's a shame that to get close to cap stable in an Amarr PvE ship and get a good repair amount you need to pop for a deadspace Rep a lot of the time. I would LOVE a cap reduction in Active Armor Reps for amarr ships. |
Shasz
Angels of Anarchy AL3XAND3R.
25
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:20:00 -
[390] - Quote
Comparing the Prophecy to the Myrmidon - other than bait tanking, why would I fly the Prophecy?
Same 5 un-bonused high slots (and the Prophecy has to split at least 1 weapon system to use the 5) Myrm gets superior bandwidth.
For DPS potential, the Myrm wins hands down.
The Poorphecy gets more drone flexibility (bigger bay), and better ability to fit an armor tank and drone damage mods (+1 low slot), but I don't see those as a good reason to choose it if I'm fitting a drone BC.
|
|
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5416
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:21:00 -
[391] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:I'll comment directly on the Prophecy.
Prophecy. WiIl it now perform better than the Myrmidon.. probably with exceptions. The prophecy has now turned into the wildcard ship. It will be an armor tank, but now it has complete access to every weapon system and every damage type. Yes it is unbonused on the hull, but you can fit any type of turret AND any type of missile. Hell you can set the ship to be a blaster boat, an Artillery ship, a Missile boat... and it now has drone access and the option for another Mid slot (which it desperately needed). If you think of your fleet being all shields.. yes the prophecy sucks.. you run an armor fleet though and the thing is now one of the best boats out there. You gain no damage bonus to turrets, but now you can shoot every ammo type, at multiple ranges, and field any type of drone you like. Prophecy, great versatile ship for armor fleets. But it gets an additional low slot, so you could just fit one more damage mod. It's effectively a 4%/Level bonus (if you have BC V) for the weapon of your choice. Will there be a graphic update of the prophecy to give it -as a droneboat now- more visible dronebays? Agreed with your comments on the additional low slot essentially being its damage bonus, but don't change the visual of the Prophecy. Its iconic chicken head is really what makes the ship, and is one of the most widely viewed (visual) ships in the beginning of the Eve game.
OMG, don't get me wrong...I LOVE how the Proph looks. I just thought about adding some discreet dronebays, maybe somewhere under its belly. I am NOT advocating a total redesign of mah luvely golden chickin... Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:22:00 -
[392] - Quote
Shasz wrote: Comparing the Prophecy to the Myrmidon - other than bait tanking, why would I fly the Prophecy?
Same 5 un-bonused high slots (and the Prophecy has to split at least 1 weapon system to use the 5) Myrm gets superior bandwidth.
For DPS potential, the Myrm wins hands down.
The Poorphecy gets more drone flexibility (bigger bay), and better ability to fit an armor tank and drone damage mods (+1 low slot), but I don't see those as a good reason to choose it if I'm fitting a drone BC.
Because the proph can easily field a 110k ehp tank? |
El 1974
Bendebeukers Green Rhino
76
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:25:00 -
[393] - Quote
Without getting into details, I feel that each race should have 1 ship with bonuses usefull for pve/solo and one with bonuses usefull for pvp. Now this all seems too random to me. The pvp ships should be usefull for short range engagements as the tier III's are more suitable for long range engagements due to their lacking tank. I don't think tier II battlecruisers deserve such a nerf after their role in pvp is already slowly but certainly being taken over by tech I cruisers. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:28:00 -
[394] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:Without getting into details, I feel that each race should have 1 ship with bonuses usefull for pve/solo and one with bonuses usefull for pvp. Now this all seems too random to me. The pvp ships should be usefull for short range engagements as the tier III's are more suitable for long range engagements due to their lacking tank. I don't think tier II battlecruisers deserve such a nerf after their role in pvp is already slowly but certainly being taken over by tech I cruisers.
PVE is **** easy, you don't need a ship designed for it. |
Tort Funaila
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:29:00 -
[395] - Quote
Sad to ser the Drake and Cane are no longer useful, larger engagements were already almost entirely t3's. Not suprising of course. The Harby nerf is disappointing too. My biggest beef is the Ferox though. Give it a damage bonus; it will never out snipe a naga but could be a useful brawler if bonused for it. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You have to bump the horse into the water." -James315 |
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:30:00 -
[396] - Quote
I like the complaints about the ferox, but if you look at its power grid you can't fit a full rack of the largest rails and an adequate tank while keeping anything in the ways of signature radius being small or the ship itself being fast. As a kiting blaster boat, the thing will be brilliant tho. Which I approve of.
As for the Brutix: Like said earlier in the thread give it a higher rep bonus, slash the one extra low slot(it already gets high enough resists already and can pump out a stupid amount of DPS with that extra low) and give it a 10% rep bonus since it doesn't have enough PG to fit a full rack of neutrons and more than one rep. Also buff its speed a little bit and give it one extra mid for a second web maybe, the biggest issue with the thing is that it can't get in range of anything in time and even when it does the ship is too slow that if your opponent has a web they can draw it out of your range too. And we all know how good a range blasters get, don't we!
Aside from that, nerf the prophecy tank a bit. Maybe a 3.5% resist bonus, one less low and less power grid. Since neuts are popular on drone boats and the Arbitrator doesn't have a neut bonus, give it a neut/nos range bonus. An neut/nos drain/amount bonus would be far too overpowered, however if you nerf the PG enough that it can only fit one 1600 plate, get all resists just shy of 70% without faction fit and keep the EHP in line with a Drake(80k EHP in the armor in this case) at which point this ship becomes desirable for a role other than bait. Because really, right now it can get 100k ehp+ it doesn't need that extra low. As is it's just going to be a buffer Myrmidon, only more desirable since it can get a monstrous buffer tank and hold out against a gang for even longer. And on that note, nerf the drone bandwidth. Follow suit with the track you've been taking thus far, give it enough bay to put out 2-3 replacement wings but not enough bandwidth to put out the firepower of gallente drone boats. |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
402
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:35:00 -
[397] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:First, let me say: Don't touch my Cyclone. Now I'll read your post.
-Liang
This, the current ingame layout makes it perfect for brawling ASB shenanigans, HM/Arty sniping as well as a crazy very limited use spidertanking setup. in other words, do not remove its versatility wumbo |
Skippermonkey
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1737
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:38:00 -
[398] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Ancillary Armor Repairers, coming to a gallente battlecruiser near you SOON! COME AT ME BRO
I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:41:00 -
[399] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Ancillary Armor Repairers, coming to a gallente battlecruiser near you SOON! But with a max online modul 1 limit, and no oversizing. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Arec Bardwin
881
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:48:00 -
[400] - Quote
Please reconsider the active rep bonus on the Brutix, perhaps a falloff bonus? (could scale up to Hyperion as well).
Drake still has kin damage bonus? |
|
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:48:00 -
[401] - Quote
Oh also either give the cane another gun or enough PG to fit a 1600 plate, MWD, 2EANMs and a single medium neut. I don't even fly the things, but without the neuts they're kinda depressing for pvp. A single medium neut would be more than enough to make lots of people happy. Another gun so that it can get decent DPS with its kinda meh tank would make people even happier.
Or possibly turn it into a shield tanking specialized ship, that would be nice. |
Steve Bopp
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:54:00 -
[402] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:Without getting into details, I feel that each race should have 1 ship with bonuses usefull for pve/solo and one with bonuses usefull for pvp. Now this all seems too random to me. The pvp ships should be usefull for short range engagements as the tier III's are more suitable for long range engagements due to their lacking tank. I don't think tier II battlecruisers deserve such a nerf after their role in pvp is already slowly but certainly being taken over by tech I cruisers.
I agree. I am reading these changes and thinking, what am I supposed to PvE in now? I'm just hoping they don't nerf the tengu the day I sit in it.
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
674
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:59:00 -
[403] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:Oh also the new Prophecy is hilarious as it's current incarnation is, it does less DPS than a vexor but has a tank. So it still stays as a bait boat.
Congratulations, you made a heavier tanked Arbitrator without the EWAR essentially for four times the price.
hmm but what to do?
perhaps increase the drone bay and remove the 10% bonus to drone damage and hp and replace with a 5% bonus to sentry damage and optimal range?
give it 125mb3 and a drone bay of 250m3
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:00:00 -
[404] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote: If they are serious about trying to make the Cyclone into a gimpy Drake, then why does it have 2 fewer launcher points? Seriously? Do, or Do Not....there is no Try. If you go half way with this thing you end up with a Quasimodo piece of crap that nobody uses because there are better alternatives on every point.
Just curious but since the Minmatar Command ships also use the Cyclone hull, should we expect to see the Minmatar Command ships forced into being missile boats too?
Basically Minmatar pilots are left with a half-baked Drake in the Cyclone, and a Hurricane that has been castrated then sodomized.
Basically CCP is telling all Minmatar pilots to go screw themselves, and find another class of ship to fly.
Gimpy Drake ?
A ship that can deal up to 650 DPS with no damage-type limitation isn't a gimpy Drake.
That's all that needs to be said about the new Cyclone. It keeps the good active shield tank part, it removes the split weapon system thingy, and you have enough fitting room to make use of those 2 wildcard highslots.
The only thing you are mad about is that it's no longer a turret ship.
Vilnius Zar wrote:My issue is the Prophecy, just like the Dragoon it seems as if they didn't know wtf to do with it, Proph gets the same ****** bandwidth the Myrm now has and is hated for and while the Myrm can make up for it with a shield tank and blaster damage the Proph has to use its lows to tank so no slots for DDA or bcs/heat sinks. In short, it was the worst and it remains the worst. Well done!
Yes, it has the same bandwidth the Myrmidon now has. Guess what, there are dudes flying Myrmidons right now. And they enjoy it. And it works.
However, you said "The Proph has to use its lows to tank so no slots for DDA etc". Where does it says "I have 7 lowslots and have to use all of them for tanking" ?
Listen up. The current Prophecy has 93k EHP with a plate, 2 EANMs, DC II and trimarks. The new Prophecy will be even better with more armor (+600~) and an additional lowslot/medslot. With 2 DDAs, you'll dish out approximately 450 DPS with a mix of heavy/meds/lights. Don't forget you have one last lowslot to fill, which you can use to support your launchers/turrets.
So let's recapitulate :
New Proph = ~93k EHP, ~550 DPS, 4 medslots.
Let's not forget the triple-rep Prophecy. Yes, it becomes a possibility and I look forward to try it out.
Quote:In both cases the Harb has a net loss of CPU. And considering that it is even now more or less impossible to fit a Harbinger with the largest medium weapons, the net loss of fitting ressources absolutely crushes this ship.
Agreed. The new Harbinger looks like a cool ship to fly, but Fozzie needs to fix the CPU issue with this ship.
Quote:Please reconsider the active rep bonus on the Brutix, perhaps a falloff bonus? (could scale up to Hyperion as well)
Mhmmmm I like that. Except that I quite like the Hyperion active tanking bonus, wouldn't like to see it go
Quote:Oh also either give the cane another gun or enough PG to fit a 1600 plate, MWD, 2EANMs and a single medium neut. I don't even fly the things, but without the neuts they're kinda depressing for pvp. A single medium neut would be more than enough to make lots of people happy. Another gun so that it can get decent DPS with its kinda meh tank would make people even happier.
You don't need much PWG to achieve that. You can currently do that with a 2% PWG implant. So, a +20 PWG would do.
Note that 622 DPS for 69k EHP is already very good. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
206
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:00:00 -
[405] - 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 |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:01:00 -
[406] - Quote
Steve Bopp wrote: I agree. I am reading these changes and thinking, what am I supposed to PvE in now? I'm just hoping they don't nerf the tengu the day I sit in it. But you are not supposed to PvE! Eve is a harsh place! Learn to Adapt! And stuff like that!
erm... where are my meds? PvE doesn't seem to be that bad, Prophecy can now apply damage and tank like even more of a brick, Drake/Cane is still not horrible like people make it out (plus you get a second Drake), and the Myrm is now almost usable as a sentry platform. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Steve Bopp
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:07:00 -
[407] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Steve Bopp wrote: I agree. I am reading these changes and thinking, what am I supposed to PvE in now? I'm just hoping they don't nerf the tengu the day I sit in it. But you are not supposed to PvE! Eve is a harsh place! Learn to Adapt! And stuff like that! erm... where are my meds? PvE doesn't seem to be that bad, Prophecy can now apply damage and tank like eve more of a brick, Drake/Cane is still not horrible like people make it out, and the Myrm is now almost usable as a sentry platform.
PvE is how I fund my PvP though. Now that you mention it, The Prop and these mysterious triple repper fits sound perfect for a PvE ship. I think I am still recovering from the shock of not getting a buffed Harby like I thought I was going too. Overall I trust CCP. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1397
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:07:00 -
[408] - Quote
can you tripple boost, quad rep the myrmidon already? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1127
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:14:00 -
[409] - Quote
Jerrek Peacelord wrote:DONT DROP THE BALL WITH BC's CCP!
Quoting because it needs to be said again. The Frig and cruiser changes and dessie additions were great, these proposed BC changes just seem meh to me.
|
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:17:00 -
[410] - Quote
Steve Bopp wrote: PvE is how I fund my PvP though. Now that you mention it, The Prop and these mysterious triple repper fits sound perfect for a PvE ship. I think I am still recovering from the shock of not getting a buffed Harby like I thought I was going too. Overall I trust CCP. Expected a buff to the Harby? No idea why, it was a tier 2 BC, was sure to get a nerf. Trip-rep for PvE? Might consider trying that again, not quite sure why you would.
Trust? I for one don't even trust myself with my food. It always vanishes. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1127
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:19:00 -
[411] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs.
Rather than rep bonus, I'd rather see "armor amount" bonuses . you're right, without the bonus applying to incoming remote reps, it doesn't scale, where as armor amount bonus would be on par with armor resistance bonuses.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1127
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:21:00 -
[412] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:Interesting to see that the only people the Dev responded to were goons...
Someone stole my tinfoil hat, someone go find it for me.
|
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
295
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:23:00 -
[413] - Quote
Interesting.
For those who weren't haunting the cruiser threads here last year, it was always Fozzie's intent to buff frigates and cruisers but rein BCs in (yes, including the T3BCs). BCs were a straight upgrade from cruisers, which meant that nobody flew (T1) cruisers, which is both lame against lore. The point of all this is not just to make all the battlecruisers attractive, but to encourage more people to hop into cruisers.
Prophecy: the new go-to ship for Amarr PVE, and a decent tanky brawler with ACs and heavy drones.
Harbinger: WAT. If you want to make it even less tanky and even more ganky, fine, but did it need a double nerf to EHP (one from a straight nerf to defenses, one from the new mass and align time) while still being CPU bound? It wasn't exactly OP before. As it is with these changes, it has a hollow sphere around it in which it's fairly lethal, and if you are outside or inside that sphere it's nearly helpless. Revert the mass and CPU nerfs at the very least. (The buff to cap is nice, though.)
Myrm: Nice. I'll withhold judgment on the active armor bonus until I see what you're doing with active armor.
Brutix: That's... about what it needed. On the conservative side, maybe, but that's in line with the intent here. Happy Brutix pilot is happy.
Ferox: The bonus to optimal range is so that Caldari pilots can choose between an insignificant buff to blaster optimal or an insignificant buff to LOL medium railguns? I hope you're planning to do something with medium rails, because otherwise I don't get it.
Drake: So you've basically baked the current meta into the bonuses, making the Drake completely predictable. Hmm. It already had that problem; I'm not sure what the motive is in exacerbating it. But see, this is the kind of ship where a mass increase makes sense. It's a brick, it can survive the lower transversal.
'Cane: Never flown one, but eyeballing it, it looks to be in line with the other BCs now. I never understood why it had so much capacitor. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:23:00 -
[414] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Rather than rep bonus, I'd rather see "armor amount" bonuses . you're right, without the bonus applying to incoming remote reps, it doesn't scale, where as armor amount bonus would be on par with armor resistance bonuses. How? Resist bonuses add their weight for local, remote rep, and buffer. A +amount only adds buffer (and time buffer for logi to lock you and land reps in case of armor).
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:25:00 -
[415] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Shasz wrote: Comparing the Prophecy to the Myrmidon - other than bait tanking, why would I fly the Prophecy?
Same 5 un-bonused high slots (and the Prophecy has to split at least 1 weapon system to use the 5) Myrm gets superior bandwidth.
For DPS potential, the Myrm wins hands down.
The Poorphecy gets more drone flexibility (bigger bay), and better ability to fit an armor tank and drone damage mods (+1 low slot), but I don't see those as a good reason to choose it if I'm fitting a drone BC.
Because the proph can easily field a 110k ehp tank?
Because you can fit the Prophecy to do anything.
Missile boat.. prophecy Blaster boat.. prophecy AC boat.. prophecy Neut boat.. prophecy Drone boat.. prophecy Support boat.. prophecy Torpedo boat.. prophecy Any damage type boat.. prophecy
Screw the missing on-ship damage bonus to type of weapon... the bonus is that it can use any weapon damage type, run a potentially capless tank and damage type of your choice, and field essential Battlecruiser version of the dominix dronebay. Its a armor tanked Myrmidon with more options. Less damage than a Myrmidon.. yep. More options than a Myrmidon.. yup.
You see a Myrmidon on Dscan.. you know its probably fielding heavy drones, potentially shield fit, and Hybrid weapons (KInetic/Thermal).
You see a Prophecy on Dscan, you have no fking clue if it has Blasters, Rails, Drone damage Units or Damage Mods, a 160+K ehp tank, or running HAMS, Rockets, Artillery, the type of drones it runs, how many it has, or what they could have in their extra mid slot, be it ECM, Disruptors, Boosters, or a MWD and Afterburner. You have no Fracking clue what that ship has on it. You do know, he ain't alone, will not have lasers on it and will be a @$)#*( to kill.
A Prophecy with 20 Medium Drones. A set of drones for Every Drone Damage Type, and Highslots with ammo for every Damage Type.... if he knows which ship you fly, he has the armament to hit you in the weakest slot. There goes his damage bonus. 5 Infiltrator Medium EM Damage Drones and EM Ammo to blow up your shields, then 5 Medium Valkyrie Explosive Damage Drones and Explosive Ammo to blow up your armor... all of that in a T1 BC with a Potential 100K+ EHP Armor tank... and your complaining about no damage bonus on the ship?
The Prophecy is not a ship for braindead people who just want to Launch Everything at a blinky and pray. You have to see what the blinky is flying, and know their ships. You'll live long enough in the New Prophecy. |
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:25:00 -
[416] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs. Rather than rep bonus, I'd rather see "armor amount" bonuses . you're right, without the bonus applying to incoming remote reps, it doesn't scale, where as armor amount bonus would be on par with armor resistance bonuses.
I can't tell if that's stupidity or you're actually oblivious.
A single augoror with 3 reps can RR 800dps
A Myrmidon with 2 local can rep 340 ish as a norm.
that's 1140 dps tanked right there if you include local ability. Not only that an augoror can switch to combat cap teammates, meaning that the Myrm can perma run its local reppers.
Now if you have two augorors, that's 1940 dps tanked. Three, that's 3740. Four, that's 4040.
Math, use it. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:32:00 -
[417] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:
Gimpy Drake ?
A ship that can deal up to 650 DPS with no damage-type limitation isn't a gimpy Drake.
That's all that needs to be said about the new Cyclone. It keeps the good active shield tank part, it removes the split weapon system thingy, and you have enough fitting room to make use of those 2 wildcard highslots.
The only thing you are mad about is that it's no longer a turret ship.
Please link whatever fit you are using, because even with perfect missile skills (which few Minmatar pilots have) I can't come close to 650 DPS. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:34:00 -
[418] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote: I can't tell if that's stupidity or you're actually oblivious. A single augoror with 3 reps can RR 800dps A Myrmidon with 2 local can rep 340 ish as a norm. that's 1140 dps tanked right there if you include local ability. Not only that an augoror can switch to combat cap teammates, meaning that the Myrm can perma run its local reppers. Now if you have two augorors, that's 1940 dps tanked. Three, that's 3740. Four, that's 4040. Math, use it. I can't tell if you are serious, or I'm missing something. Myrm: 6 lows, local rep bonus. Prophecy: 7 lows, +5% resist bonus.
Any incoming rep on the Prophecy is 25% better than on the myrm, and it has an extra low to make it even better still! In your example, the 800 RR already translates into 200 extra on a Prophecy. With two remote reppers on, it achieves more just sitting still for being what it is than a Myrm burning 2 reppers and cap.
Or are you arguing for local rep bonuses to include remote reps as well? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
killorbekilled TBE
Initiated
184
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:34:00 -
[419] - Quote
CCP slowly back away from the BC's ........ please, before you break something :) |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:37:00 -
[420] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Let's not forget the triple-rep Prophecy. Yes, it becomes a possibility and I look forward to try it out. Basic Why are statements like this even made? Surely I'm not the only one who can see that it's horribly broken that you need three local armor reps to even keep up with a single XL-ASB?? And even think about fitting an oversize armor repper? Forget about it.
Even trying to fit a single oversize repper would require so much power grid that it just isn't tenable. Yet, oversize shield boosters are relatively easy to fit.
I'm not advocating homogeny to the point where the two systems are the same, but damn...something on closer parity is in order! |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
1128
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:39:00 -
[421] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs. Rather than rep bonus, I'd rather see "armor amount" bonuses . you're right, without the bonus applying to incoming remote reps, it doesn't scale, where as armor amount bonus would be on par with armor resistance bonuses. I can't tell if that's stupidity or you're actually oblivious. A single augoror with 3 reps can RR 800dps A Myrmidon with 2 local can rep 340 ish as a norm. that's 1140 dps tanked right there if you include local ability. Not only that an augoror can switch to combat cap teammates, meaning that the Myrm can perma run its local reppers. Now if you have two augorors, that's 1940 dps tanked. Three, that's 3740. Four, that's 4040. Math, use it.
Someone has never ever been in a fleet fight I see. How good is that local rep when you are MWDing and getting neuted? Do you even understand why active tanks (of either kind) aren't used in fleet engagements at all?
Wow, 1940 dps, thats like what 4 or 5 fleet abaddons worth of dps! , so it only takes 3 ships and a local rep to tank 4-5 ships when the FLLEt your fighting has about 50 of them.
Brilliant.
Amount and resistance bonuses are the fleet fight bonuses, the discussion was about making more BCs useful to fleets, active tanking is and has always been useless in fleet warfare.
|
Zi'el Aubaris
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:40:00 -
[422] - Quote
On the Hurricane, I cant say anything else anyone else must have already said in the previous 21 pages.
but why, god, why? the hurricane was BEAUTIFUL. For lowsec solo'ing it was the only ship that could take on your standard OP drake, for small gang fights it was the only thing that could take on the OP drakefleets. For giant ass faction warfare hundreds aside. You could fit all the weapon slots with weapons, and not be 2 guns worth of powergrid short, even WITHOUT Any kind of utility or missile launcher in the high. You could fit a full rack of 425mm autocannon II's, WMD with web, long point & scan res loaded sensor booster, AND one (or two) 1600mm's with 2EANM's and a few gyrostabilisers.... as I said, was basically the only thing could take on a drake, while taking f*cking gate guns. Why nerf it so damn hard, it wasnt THAT overpowered! |
Mire Stoude
Antelope with Night Vision Goggles
72
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:44:00 -
[423] - Quote
Can you please take away the armor repair bonus of the brutix and give it something else? Nobody armor tanks a brutix. |
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:46:00 -
[424] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Until they make these bonuses apply on all reps (remote reps too), the rep bonus will always be inferior to the passive tank since it can't scale in gangs. Rather than rep bonus, I'd rather see "armor amount" bonuses . you're right, without the bonus applying to incoming remote reps, it doesn't scale, where as armor amount bonus would be on par with armor resistance bonuses. I can't tell if that's stupidity or you're actually oblivious. A single augoror with 3 reps can RR 800dps A Myrmidon with 2 local can rep 340 ish as a norm. that's 1140 dps tanked right there if you include local ability. Not only that an augoror can switch to combat cap teammates, meaning that the Myrm can perma run its local reppers. Now if you have two augorors, that's 1940 dps tanked. Three, that's 3740. Four, that's 4040. Math, use it. Someone has never ever been in a fleet fight I see. How good is that local rep when you are MWDing and getting neuted? Do you even understand why active tanks (of either kind) aren't used in fleet engagements at all? Wow, 1940 dps, thats like what 4 or 5 fleet abaddons worth of dps! , so it only takes 3 ships and a local rep to tank 4-5 ships when the FLLEt your fighting has about 50 of them. Brilliant. Amount and resistance bonuses are the fleet fight bonuses, the discussion was about making more BCs useful to fleets, active tanking is and has always been useless in fleet warfare.
In a fleet scenario, yeah the active rep bonus is pretty useless. The area that I was pointing out was more of a small gang scenario.
The Myrmidon however can get a universal 60%+ on its resists fit right, and in a fleet you'd have guardians which can rep around twice as much also a lot more of them. Without combat caps usually since they need those to counter neuts within their chain.
Gallente I feel is much more at home for solo/small gang engagements than fleet fights(mostly because they have no range at all ever always). Amarr doctrines are TOTALLY NOT COMMON HAHAHAHA.(Hell cat, panic geddon, abaddons. There's totally not permaburning zealot fleets either. Or legions. Also pulse lasers are definitely not amazing for damage projection with that huge optimal.) |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:52:00 -
[425] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:In a fleet scenario, yeah the active rep bonus is pretty useless. The area that I was pointing out was more of a small gang scenario.
The Myrmidon however can get a universal 60%+ on its resists fit right, and in a fleet you'd have guardians which can rep around twice as much also a lot more of them. Without combat caps usually since they need those to counter neuts within their chain. Mhm, small gang with 4 logis having spare time to rep you, because you are primary over them, or any other fleetmate of yours. Mhm.
And you still haven't mentioned anything the Prophecy doesn't do better (maybe except become a primary). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Taritura
Unseen Nomads Exiled Ones
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:52:00 -
[426] - Quote
I don't know what you smoke but making cyclone a missile boat is a sick ........ |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
827
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:52:00 -
[427] - Quote
These changes are generally good but you really need to accept you killed the ferox's sniper role when you made the naga and just give it the damage bonus already. Also one of a races ships having an active bonus is fine, both is limiting. Give the brutix a tracking bonus instead. The harbinger buff, new prophecy and new cyclone all look good though. |
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:57:00 -
[428] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:In a fleet scenario, yeah the active rep bonus is pretty useless. The area that I was pointing out was more of a small gang scenario.
The Myrmidon however can get a universal 60%+ on its resists fit right, and in a fleet you'd have guardians which can rep around twice as much also a lot more of them. Without combat caps usually since they need those to counter neuts within their chain. Mhm, small gang with 4 logis having spare time to rep you, because you are primary over them, or any other fleetmate of yours. Mhm. And you still haven't mentioned anything the Prophecy doesn't do better.
This is why I am advocating the Prophecy getting nerfed rather than buffed. If you look about two pages back I've made a post on that.
And yeah, a myrmidon being primary over some logi's isn't terribly likely. Unless the opposing FC is ********, which is often the case these days.
Basically yeah, Nerf the proph a bit. Give it EM damage bonuses so that, like said before, it isn't super overpowered. Nerf its tank to get it in line with the Drake.
Also slaves. I shouldn't need to say more than that. |
Korsanz
Tormentum Insomniae Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 17:59:00 -
[429] - Quote
Sup with mr Fozzie making all gallente ships totally useless? Why put crappy repper bonuses on every gallente ship when it kinda sucks for fleets?
And giving them structure and removing armor.. Is this guy a Dev or just a blonde joke? |
fenistil
Defensive Parameter The Mandalorians
67
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:02:00 -
[430] - Quote
CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!
What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix.
Suggested Changes to Drone Bays:
Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 -á. |
|
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:06:00 -
[431] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:In a fleet scenario, yeah the active rep bonus is pretty useless. The area that I was pointing out was more of a small gang scenario.
The Myrmidon however can get a universal 60%+ on its resists fit right, and in a fleet you'd have guardians which can rep around twice as much also a lot more of them. Without combat caps usually since they need those to counter neuts within their chain. Mhm, small gang with 4 logis having spare time to rep you, because you are primary over them, or any other fleetmate of yours. Mhm. And you still haven't mentioned anything the Prophecy doesn't do better. This is why I am advocating the Prophecy getting nerfed rather than buffed. If you look about two pages back I've made a post on that. And yeah, a myrmidon being primary over some logi's isn't terribly likely. Unless the opposing FC is ********, which is often the case these days. Basically yeah, Nerf the proph a bit. Give it EM damage bonuses so that, like said before, it isn't super overpowered. Nerf its tank to get it in line with the Drake. Also slaves. I shouldn't need to say more than that.
Leave the prophecy. Its now a ship you need a brain to fly (monitor your drones, monitor your weapons, rechange ammo and change drones when the damage type changes, etc). You cannot directly compare the Myrmidon to the Prophecy. Different ships that do different things, and we are all theorizing here at the moment. We'll know more once we fly them.
|
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:06:00 -
[432] - Quote
fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays: Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75
Funny seeing you here Fen, but the track they were taking with the ships was that Gallente could put out bigger and more drones while Amarr could put out more replacements but not as large. I'm a heavy advocate of the Brutix being able to carry a flight of lights, because as is the thing is vulnerable to... every kiting ship out there.
Basically Amarr = Redundancy Gallente = facepunchingmachine |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:07:00 -
[433] - Quote
fenistil wrote: What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. It's the same deal as with the new destroyers and the drone cruisers were always like that (well, maybe not THIS sharply)... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:09:00 -
[434] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays: Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Funny seeing you here Fen, but the track they were taking with the ships was that Gallente could put out bigger and more drones while Amarr could put out more replacements but not as large. I'm a heavy advocate of the Brutix being able to carry a flight of lights, because as is the thing is vulnerable to... every kiting ship out there. Basically Amarr = Redundancy Gallente = facepunchingmachine
.... this is true and makes sense.
Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:09:00 -
[435] - Quote
So you have a 5 bay Cyclone with a 5% ROF bonus....Why would anyone choose to fly that over a 7 bay Drake? Maybe CCP is hoping that racial allegiance is stronger than simple math?
Two extra turrets more than makes up for a 5% ROF bonus....plus you have the luxury of actually being able to fit a substantial tank on the Drake. For a shield tanking ship you need Midslots, the Cyclone has one fewer than the Drake.
Not to mention if you want to solo in this ship, where would you put scram and web? Basically solo pvp is out of the question. CCP why are you so intent on pigeonholing every ship in EVE into what YOU choose? Why not give us the flexability to decide for ourselves?
CCP, here was your promise when you introduced these changes:
Quote:"As usual, we would like to keep up with the ship line classification we have been using for frigate, destroyer and cruisers so far. This is not designed to arbitrarily pigeon-hole vessels into narrow roles, but to provide a basic line of operation for anyone to understand and follow through. The ship role and purpose on the battlefield will still greatly be influenced by the choice of modules, rigs and ammunitions you make." http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530
Now it seems that is exactly what you are trying to do....pigeon-hole vessels into narrow roles. If you remove the ability for ships to fit, various mods, rigs and ammunitions due to capacitor and/or powergrid reductions. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
828
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:11:00 -
[436] - Quote
fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays: Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75
No, it is one of the drone races, there have been two since RMR.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
403
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:18:00 -
[437] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays: Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Funny seeing you here Fen, but the track they were taking with the ships was that Gallente could put out bigger and more drones while Amarr could put out more replacements but not as large. I'm a heavy advocate of the Brutix being able to carry a flight of lights, because as is the thing is vulnerable to... every kiting ship out there. Basically Amarr = Redundancy Gallente = facepunchingmachine .... this is true and makes sense. Harb: 50 Brutix: 75
Harb needs it waaaaay more.. it has loltracking
a flight of lights wont save you from a kiting frig anyways.
|
Random McNally
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:18:00 -
[438] - Quote
Kind of disappointed with the proposal for the Ferox. Haven't flown one in a while because it was kind of crap. If the proposed changes go through, they'll still be kind of crap.
Doesn't it make more sense to send the Ferox down the line of the Caldari brawlers (i.e. Merlin/Moa)? You are planning on giving it shield resist bonuses so it would behoove it to give it a damage bonus and make it a close range scrapper. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:19:00 -
[439] - Quote
CCP wrote:"As usual, we would like to keep up with the ship line classification we have been using for frigate, destroyer and cruisers so far. This is not designed to arbitrarily pigeon-hole vessels into narrow roles, but to provide a basic line of operation for anyone to understand and follow through. The ship role and purpose on the battlefield will still greatly be influenced by the choice of modules, rigs and ammunitions you make." http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530
Also what EVE pilot buys a ship contemplating the "basic line of operation"? This may be something that old bitter vets pontificate about, but for a new capsuleer, all they are worried about is which ship will allow me to spew death, and survive as long as I can? 99.9% of EVE pilots could give a rats behind about your "basic line of operation...that pilots can understand and follow"..... ugh really? Quit forcing your players to acquiesce to your view of how things should be done.
Yes I am bitter about the changes made to the Hurricane. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
484
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:20:00 -
[440] - Quote
A Ferox with optimal and resist bonuses is hopelessly obsoleted by the Naga. But giving it damage instead of optimal means that it'll have the same bonuses as the Moa - instead making the Moa hopelessly obsolete as the Ferox effectively becomes a high-tier cruiser, expressly counter to the principle of tiericide.
Good luck solving that conundrum. Switching the Moa to optimal and damage is about the only solution I can think of, and even that doesn't sound very attractive.
Well, nerfing the t3s into the ground might work too. |
|
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:20:00 -
[441] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays: Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Funny seeing you here Fen, but the track they were taking with the ships was that Gallente could put out bigger and more drones while Amarr could put out more replacements but not as large. I'm a heavy advocate of the Brutix being able to carry a flight of lights, because as is the thing is vulnerable to... every kiting ship out there. Basically Amarr = Redundancy Gallente = facepunchingmachine .... this is true and makes sense. Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Harb needs it waaaaay more.. it has loltracking a flight of lights wont save you from a kiting frig anyways.
No but it might make them pull a bit more range so you can sling them and then murderfuckize them.
I think the brutix should either have 75mb/s with a 75m^3 bay to focus on drone dps or modularity with. The harb should have 50mb/s with a 75^3 drone bay so it can carry a flight of lights but not use it for a heavy dps source or something.
Requires more math. I'll do it later. |
Karti Aivo
Carnivore Company
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:24:00 -
[442] - Quote
Please give the Projectile Bonus back to the Clone and exchange both Hurricane Bonuses with Missile crap. I think we all read now that u want the old hurricane dead, so at least make something useful/different out of it. |
Ixtelle
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:25:00 -
[443] - Quote
fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!
What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix.
(...snip...)
More variety, less power. The idea, to me at least, would be that Myrm would be able to put out more drone damage and carry primarily combat drones. Prophecy would have maybe a flight of lights and / or mediums, and rest be a mix of different types of EWar drones. More versatility in what is obviously (to me) meant to be a support / utility role ship, without making it a contender as a brawler. Works for me. |
GreenSeed
145
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:27:00 -
[444] - Quote
the drake changes are really bad... the old announced changes were better. losing the shield resists in exchange for damage selection was way better.
the way it is there, nothing changes, except losing the utility high. the drake continues to be a fat low dps ship, except after the changes to the other ships the low dps part will be even more noticeable, to the point where it will be useless for anything but low SP pve... specially if we need to give up a launcher for RR on pve scenarios.
honestly, reduce the tank a LOT more, remove the 5% resist bonus, and make the 5% kin into a 10% all damage per lvl. the drake needs to stop being the fat bastard of the BC lineup. |
Kaz Mafaele
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:29:00 -
[445] - Quote
Please if you can't stop yourself from forcing minmatar pilots to skill into another weapon system at least dont nerf the ship while doing so. Why is the cyclone the only ship that has only one bonus and five turrets to its main way of doing damage and what exzactly do you think we will use two utility highs on a missile boat for? |
fenistil
Defensive Parameter The Mandalorians
67
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:31:00 -
[446] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays: Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Funny seeing you here Fen, but the track they were taking with the ships was that Gallente could put out bigger and more drones while Amarr could put out more replacements but not as large. I'm a heavy advocate of the Brutix being able to carry a flight of lights, because as is the thing is vulnerable to... every kiting ship out there. Basically Amarr = Redundancy Gallente = facepunchingmachine .... this is true and makes sense. Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Harb needs it waaaaay more.. it has loltracking a flight of lights wont save you from a kiting frig anyways.
Brutix is not much used for kiting and won't be afterwards either. Shield fitted brutix: separate DPS, get in face, MELT! get out if you can. +25m3 drone bay is 5 ec-300 drones... Might be just enough for certain situations, better chances than without them anyway. -á. |
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:34:00 -
[447] - Quote
fenistil wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays: Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Funny seeing you here Fen, but the track they were taking with the ships was that Gallente could put out bigger and more drones while Amarr could put out more replacements but not as large. I'm a heavy advocate of the Brutix being able to carry a flight of lights, because as is the thing is vulnerable to... every kiting ship out there. Basically Amarr = Redundancy Gallente = facepunchingmachine .... this is true and makes sense. Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Harb needs it waaaaay more.. it has loltracking a flight of lights wont save you from a kiting frig anyways. Brutix is not much used for kiting and won't be afterwards either. Shield fitted brutix: separate DPS, get in face, MELT! get out if you can. +25m3 drone bay is 5 ec-300 drones... Might be just enough for certain situations, better chances than without them anyway.
My point was that the brutix is vulnerable to kiters not is one. I would rip my eyeballs out if I saw someone trying to kite in a brutix. Both out of shame that I saw it, and out of the sheer stupidity that they didn't just use a Talos instead. |
Drew Solaert
Wildcard Inc.
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:37:00 -
[448] - Quote
Massive fan of the the Ferox and Brutix, happy you kept the flavour of those ships alive, can't wait to try flying them with the new stats I lied :o
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2597
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:40:00 -
[449] - Quote
I just want to pipe up and say that I like active armor tank bonuses - in theory. The problems with rig bonuses, lack of oversizing, etc are all very valid, but are not insurmountable. I believe we'll see some changes on this front, and that will make all the difference to these active tanked ships.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:44:00 -
[450] - Quote
Caldari: Either the Drake or the Ferox should be defensive. Give Drake RoF, Ferox with Missiles instead of Rails and an 10% Missilespeed. There are too many Caldari-Rail ships.These tend to be ignored, since people have to focus skill points.
Gallente: Same like Caldari, both ships have got an defensive boni. I wish for something more creative with the Gallente Drone Boats. Like an 1 Ewar/Utility Drone/Level Role Boni. Even Fighter-Drones as an new Boni would bring some diversity. For Myrms/Domi's using 5x Fighter instead of Drones.
Brutix: Fix this ship or make here an Industrial. I would call for RoF to make her an DPS-Hammer.
Cyclone: Mix-Damageslots doesn't work. I refer to the postings 00001 to10000 about this.
Mix-Weapon ships should have generic ship damage boni.The specialisation for the one, or other, should go with the low slots
Prophecy: Please switch Prophecy stats with Harbinger. Prophecies are iconic, often seen in CCP Videos. They should be typical Amarr designed. I would love to see them with RoF and Damage Boni. Geared for full DPS with Med-Slots with Cap-Booster to keep her going. Give us an ship that is not comfortable and is highly cap problematic. . |
|
Gneeznow
Ship spinners inc
74
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:45:00 -
[451] - Quote
The ferox, drake and brutix are missing their utility high for a warfare link.
The cyclone has two utility highs, and it's split weapons for some reason (I think the cyclone's just fine as it is, why change it to a missile ship?)
Overall not a fan. |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
1072
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:46:00 -
[452] - Quote
so clearly this won't effect Command Ships in a bad way like...making the Sleipnir an all missile boat right? That'd just be silly!~
Right?...
Guise?......
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:47:00 -
[453] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote:Caldari:
Gallente: Same like Caldari, both ships have got an defensive boni. I wish for something more creative with the Gallente Drone Boats. Like an 1 Ewar/Utility Drone/Level Role Boni. Even Fighter-Drones as an new Boni would bring some diversity. For Myrms/Domi's using 5x Fighter instead of Drones.
The only hull I could ever want/expect someday to have the ability to field 5 fighters is the dominix. Which would make it stand out as a battle ship in the Gallente line up. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Freyja Asynjur
Folkvangr Unknown Phenomena
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:47:00 -
[454] - Quote
Damn, you guys have no right to mess with the cyclone hull. Missile cyclone ? It's bad, bad, bad, bad...
(also, brutix still broken with its armor rep bonus) |
fenistil
Defensive Parameter The Mandalorians
67
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:58:00 -
[455] - Quote
Freyja Asynjur wrote:Damn, you guys have no right to mess with the cyclone hull. Missile cyclone ? It's bad, bad, bad, bad... (also, brutix still broken with its armor rep bonus)
With the extra low on Brutix, it might not be that bad. O_o Guess people going to have to test it :) Missile Cyclone could be a tad better, maybe 5% more DPS overall but it's not much of a nerf so far. The extra low gives a bit more flexibility to it.
Gang Modules in Utility High? It's got the most CPU of the tier 1 BCs, so why not? It's decent solo and small gang ship EVEN with missiles.
-á. |
FistyMcBumBasher
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:07:00 -
[456] - Quote
After playing with the EFT changes available here: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?10151-devpost-Combat-Battlecruisers/page3
Here is some extra feedback to add to this threadnaught.
The myrmidion and prophecy now fill the exact same role. The only problem is that the prophecy does everything better and is more versatile. Dual rep and triple rep fits for both rep about the same, but the prophecy can also be buffer tanked, which gives it a huge advantage to the Myrm in fleets. The utility high on the Prophecy can also be used for boosts, neuts or smartbombs, while the extra mid present on the myrm will most likely still be used for a web. 25 more dronebay on the myrm would allow it to field 2 flights of ogres, or 2x75 flights+salvage+ecm. I would suggest just giving the myrm a damage bonus to hybrids and being done with it, let the prophecy take it's place as the active tanker since resist per level > armor repair per level. I fear a little bit that the Prophecy will become the new drake/cane. Time to start buying up smartbombs.
Neither the Ferox, Drake, Myrm or Brutix have a utility high, making Caldari and Gallente suffer more than other races to fit Warfare link modules and still be competetive. Not sure what your plans are with links yet, but this could be a potential problem down the road.
The extra CPU to the Ferox is odd, because I know of no fit that gets anywhere close to using all 637.5 CPU. Move some of that bonus to Powergrid removing the necessity of fitting mods. Moving the extra low the ferox gets to a mid slot would also give the ferox more fitting options. If you wanted to go long range you can fit a Tracking computer or sebo, if you want a web you can easily fit one without sacrificing tank. We all know that brawlers need tank.
I feel the same with the cyclone. You clearly want the ship to be shield tanked, so why have 5 mids and 5 lows? The 5 mids leaves a lot to be desired for an active tanking ship. With two of the mids being used for propulsion and tackle, you are left with 3 play around with, which in my opinion is too few especially considering the new weapon system is best used with webs. Is it from fear of making the active tanking power of the Cyclone like it was when fit Dual X-L? Is it so that it is different from the Drakes layout?
The Harb and the Hurricane look ok, slight nerfs to the cane's agility and cap, and a slight dps increase to the harb.
I rather like the tracking bonus on the Thorax, but if it was also present on the Brutix then we might see fewer Thorax's. So keep it how it is, it should be loads of fun to fly now in both shield and armor varients.
Thanks for your hard work, and keep up the good work. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
497
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:11:00 -
[457] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Why are statements like this even made? Surely I'm not the only one who can see that it's horribly broken that you need three local armor reps to even keep up with a single XL-ASB?? And even think about fitting an oversize armor repper? Forget about it.
Sure, I too would like a buff to active armor tanking.
I'm just saying "It's possible to do that", just like you can have 100MN T3s or fit dual XLASB on a Cyclone (if you seriously gimp the ship).
Also, remember that an XL-ASB can't run for long. A fight between a triple-rep Myrmidon and a XL-ASB Cyclone will end with the Myrmidons' victory, simply because he isn't limited by the reloading of his reppers.
Quote:For lowsec solo'ing it was the only ship that could take on your standard OP drake
What ? A Drake deals very little DPS compared to other BCs. And it's not all that fast either. Is it that hard to find a counter to it ?
A Myrmidon will kill it if it can catch it (Overload MWD/tackle and be good), for instance.
Quote:So you have a 5 bay Cyclone with a 5% ROF bonus....Why would anyone choose to fly that over a 7 bay Drake? Maybe CCP is hoping that racial allegiance is stronger than simple math?
Two extra turrets more than makes up for a 5% ROF bonus....plus you have the luxury of actually being able to fit a substantial tank on the Drake. For a shield tanking ship you need Midslots, the Cyclone has one fewer than the Drake.
Not to mention if you want to solo in this ship, where would you put scram and web? Basically solo pvp is out of the question. CCP why are you so intent on pigeonholing every ship in EVE into what YOU choose? Why not give us the flexability to decide for ourselves?
Why would anyone choose to fly the new Cyclones ? It's pretty simple.
First, you can choose what damage you want to deal.
Second, you have one hell of an active tank.
Third, it's not a slowbrick.
Fourth, doesn't look like a Drake.
If you want to solo in this ship, you do the same thing Cyclone pilots already do, except with missiles and 2 utility slots.
Any questions ?
Quote:But giving it damage instead of optimal means that it'll have the same bonuses as the Moa - instead making the Moa hopelessly obsolete as the Ferox effectively becomes a high-tier cruiser, expressly counter to the principle of tiericide.
Mhmmm...No. The current Merlin has a resistance and damage bonus.
The current Moa has a resistance and damage bonus.
Your logic means "The Moa effectively becomes a high-tier frigate", as it's more powerful than the Moa.
Well, a Ferox with a damage bonus will become more powerful than a Moa, of course. Just like the Hurricane is a more powerful Rupture.
So what ? Battle, cruisers. That's what it says. A cruiser, except that it's bigger and more violent.
Quote:The cyclone has two utility highs, and it's split weapons for some reason
The Tempest is split weapons too, and no one cares about it. Just stick some neuts/smartbombs in those highs and be done with it. Stop complaining about the split weapons, it doesn't exist on the new Cyclone. Alternatively, it exists on every ship in the game that can fit both launchers and turrets.
|
Commander Razama
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:11:00 -
[458] - Quote
STOP ******* WITH MY CANE!!! YOU ALREADY NURFED THE POWER GRID LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
STOP FIXING STUFF THAT AINT BROKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Freyja Asynjur
Folkvangr Unknown Phenomena
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:14:00 -
[459] - Quote
fenistil wrote:Freyja Asynjur wrote:Damn, you guys have no right to mess with the cyclone hull. Missile cyclone ? It's bad, bad, bad, bad... (also, brutix still broken with its armor rep bonus) With the extra low on Brutix, it might not be that bad. O_o Guess people going to have to test it :) Missile Cyclone could be a tad better, maybe 5% more DPS overall but it's not much of a nerf so far. The extra low gives a bit more flexibility to it. Gang Modules in Utility High? It's got the most CPU of the tier 1 BCs, so why not? It's decent solo and small gang ship EVEN with missiles.
It's a matter of principle, the Cyclone hull has an iconic status in EVE. Who the hell would want a missileboat Cyclone ? Then what, missile Sleipnir/Claymore ?
|
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc. Reverberation Project
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:15:00 -
[460] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 2 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1200 PWG (-10), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4750(+355) / 4000(+94) / 3500(+81) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(+62.5) / 592s(+8.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Hurricane: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of 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): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Ladar Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 425 (-50)
Let me know what you think!
like seriously?
why you hate the matar ships?
you already nerfed the cane last patch, giving us a destro that almost nobody will use because it's missile boat, and now you want to nerf AGAIN the cane, and make the cyclone useless again?
like, seriously?
glad i can fly a myrm, and the drone doesn't take sentrys anymore, from now, no more matar BC except alpha nado, the other two now useless anyway, but sad for the matar only pilots |
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:15:00 -
[461] - Quote
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:You know, I heard picking a single nerf from one ship with many that is already in dire straights and comparing it to a ship with few that is one of the most popular, and powerful, ships in the game makes for balanced judgement on the extent of the changes - right? Maybe you need to look at the entirety of the changes, instead focusing on singlular figures? Perhaps you could elaborate on the other significant nerfs on the Harbinger? The DPS remains the same at BC4, better at BC5. The drop in armor brings it in line with the rest of the BCs leaving it in 3rd place for best base tank stats (Prophecy with 5500 armor, Drake with 5250 shield, then Harbinger with 5000 armor). And the fitting "nerf" is only to compensate for the high slot it no longer has to fit. The only real nerf here is its mass and alignment, which is half of what the Drake is being hit with.
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:No it doesn't, because nobody fields just three heavy drones. You're math is almost as bad as my broad, sweeping statements. Yes, it is a significant damage bonus - it's doesn't stop this being a relatively 'small' change - and no, the problem with the Myrmidon isn't the lack luster armor rep bonus. Infact, the armor rep bonus combined with the drone bonus is one of the reasons the Myrmidon is a great ship, and will continue to be so. Good point, most people max out and use 2 heavy 2 medium and 1 light, if you turn that into 3 heavy 2 medium and 1 light it still comes up to a 30% boost in base drone DPS. The armor rep discussion is already being addressed by some unannounced changes to armor repairers that they keep hinting at in this thread.
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:16% huh? Hows the fitting, with a whole extra blaster though? It doubt even with the slight bonus to fitting you'll be able to practically apply the entirety of the gain. Having another look, I think the most interesting thing about the Ferox change is the significant expansion of it's cargo bay. In the past, it had problems with the number of cap boosters it could hold for active fits. A fitting module in that extra low would easily allow you to fit that extra turret, so that 16% was a minimum. If you are using Ions or Electrons, you can still fit a damage mod in the lows and get an even bigger bonus.
Lauren Sheaperd wrote:Not the words! Maybe instead I should have done basic math without considering the entirety of these changes and practical usage to reach a conclusion? Thats how this should be done, right? More words with no numbers, thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread.
Oh and I see you edited your original post on the Harbinger. Yes 10% damage per level is higher than 5% damage per level. Welcome to a thread about numbers. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
114
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:18:00 -
[462] - Quote
Karti Aivo wrote:Please give the Projectile Bonus back to the Clone and exchange both Hurricane Bonuses with Missile crap. I think we all read now that u want the old hurricane dead, so at least make something useful/different out of it.
No, you aren't turning my Cane in to a missile boat even if it sits in my hanger till the end of Eve... The Clone just needs a 6th missile bay. This dur hur about 2 utility slots doesn't pair up with any of the other BC's at all.
|
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:19:00 -
[463] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Lauren Sheaperd wrote:No it doesn't, because nobody fields just three heavy drones. You're math is almost as bad as my broad, sweeping statements. Yes, it is a significant damage bonus - it's doesn't stop this being a relatively 'small' change - and no, the problem with the Myrmidon isn't the lack luster armor rep bonus. Infact, the armor rep bonus combined with the drone bonus is one of the reasons the Myrmidon is a great ship, and will continue to be so. Good point, most people max out and use 2 heavy 2 medium and 1 light, if you turn that into 3 heavy 2 medium and 1 light it still comes up to a 30% boost in base drone DPS. The armor rep discussion is already being addressed by some unannounced changes to armor repairers that they keep hinting at in this thread. Did you just upgrade 5 drones into 6 there? +21% if you use the bandwidth to the fullest. And I don't know how to break it to you, but it lost a turret slot, so the damage increase is... *sigh* Why do I even bother, last time I said the bandwidth buff is a T2 neutron's worth of damage lost on paper, I wasn't ridiculed for the part that it cannot apply it's damage properly (which I expected), but that no one fits anything but ACs or neuts on it. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:23:00 -
[464] - Quote
Freyja Asynjur wrote:fenistil wrote:Freyja Asynjur wrote:Damn, you guys have no right to mess with the cyclone hull. Missile cyclone ? It's bad, bad, bad, bad... (also, brutix still broken with its armor rep bonus) With the extra low on Brutix, it might not be that bad. O_o Guess people going to have to test it :) Missile Cyclone could be a tad better, maybe 5% more DPS overall but it's not much of a nerf so far. The extra low gives a bit more flexibility to it. Gang Modules in Utility High? It's got the most CPU of the tier 1 BCs, so why not? It's decent solo and small gang ship EVEN with missiles. It's a matter of principle, the Cyclone hull has an iconic status in EVE. Who the hell would want a missileboat Cyclone ? Then what, missile Sleipnir/Claymore ?
If you've been paying attention to the devblogs, they're focusing the Sleipnir on turret combat and the Claymore on missile combat.
So yeah, half.
And they're giving the minmatar pilots a clear line so they don't have to jump too far to go along the missile line. Right now their idea is more or less: Breacher > Talwar > Bellicose(Which is honestly a bloody amazing ship if you haven't played with it.) > Cyclone > Typhoon |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:30:00 -
[465] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're planning to release these ships in an upcoming Retribution point release so that we can keep the balance train rolling steadily. I'm working to figure out the earliest point we can get them on a test server so that I can start getting hands on feedback from you all. As always these stats are subject to change and we welcome all the feedback you can provide.
Dear CCP Fozzie,
Much more important then what you did is how you did. These point releases, keeping the train rolling is the best course of action that you could possibly take, this gives the community a feeling of constant improvement on the game. Also, asking the community about feedback before the release, ensures an epic level of smoothness to the changes, and the happiness of all. Congratulations for your attitude Fozzie!
I really hope that other DEVS follow your example!
best regards. Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
Nemo Sokarad
Unidentified Murderers and Young Hack Offenders
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:30:00 -
[466] - Quote
To my mind the Minmatar Battlecruisers need +5km lock range and +1 sensor strength to bring them in line with the other races. |
Freyja Asynjur
Folkvangr Unknown Phenomena
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:31:00 -
[467] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote: If you've been paying attention to the devblogs, they're focusing the Sleipnir on turret combat and the Claymore on missile combat.
So yeah, half.
And they're giving the minmatar pilots a clear line so they don't have to jump too far to go along the missile line. Right now their idea is more or less: Breacher > Talwar > Bellicose(Which is honestly a bloody amazing ship if you haven't played with it.) > Cyclone > Typhoon
I missed that. Must have made a mental jam on that travesty of a classic, iconic, highly loved line of ships (Cyclone/Claymore) |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:31:00 -
[468] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:In a fleet scenario, yeah the active rep bonus is pretty useless. The area that I was pointing out was more of a small gang scenario.
The Myrmidon however can get a universal 60%+ on its resists fit right, and in a fleet you'd have guardians which can rep around twice as much also a lot more of them. Without combat caps usually since they need those to counter neuts within their chain. Your scenario was pretty flawed in that it assumes the Myrmidon is using two reps while the Prophecy is using none. Another important fact you seem to be missing is that the Prophecy will have higher resists than the Myrmidon, so those reps coming from the logistics ship(s) will be able to counter more incoming DPS.
Work your numbers right and you'll quickly realize that even in a gang with a single logistics ship, the Prophecy's armor resist bonus is far better than the Myrmidon's local reps bonus. |
Poision Kevin
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:35:00 -
[469] - Quote
Why the F*** did you improve damage bonus and remove one gun of harby? Why not reduce bonus and keep 7 guns + 1 utility slot?
The one ship from Amarr that's been worth it's penny everytime I've used it is getting nerfed... **** I say, ****. |
Exterminatus Illexis
Vrtra Armamentarium
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:37:00 -
[470] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:In a fleet scenario, yeah the active rep bonus is pretty useless. The area that I was pointing out was more of a small gang scenario.
The Myrmidon however can get a universal 60%+ on its resists fit right, and in a fleet you'd have guardians which can rep around twice as much also a lot more of them. Without combat caps usually since they need those to counter neuts within their chain. Your scenario was pretty flawed in that it assumes the Myrmidon is using two reps while the Prophecy is using none. Another important fact you seem to be missing is that the Prophecy will have higher resists than the Myrmidon, so those reps coming from the logistics ship(s) will be able to counter more incoming DPS. Work your numbers right and you'll quickly realize that even in a gang with a single logistics ship, the Prophecy's armor resist bonus is far better than the Myrmidon's local reps bonus.
You appear to have caught the stupid. Please commit a frontal lobotomy by means of large hammer.
Also you're saying exactly what I said. |
|
BigSako
Lazarus Triumvirate Ethereal Dawn
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:37:00 -
[471] - Quote
Why didn't you start your post with:
"Hi, my name is CCP Fozzie and I want to make sure that all the Battlecruisers that you are flying for large scaled PvP will have to be refitted!".
CCP, do you even think about the paper work for Alliances and FC when we have to change fittings for these battlecruisers every month? |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:40:00 -
[472] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Lauren Sheaperd wrote:No it doesn't, because nobody fields just three heavy drones. You're math is almost as bad as my broad, sweeping statements. Yes, it is a significant damage bonus - it's doesn't stop this being a relatively 'small' change - and no, the problem with the Myrmidon isn't the lack luster armor rep bonus. Infact, the armor rep bonus combined with the drone bonus is one of the reasons the Myrmidon is a great ship, and will continue to be so. Good point, most people max out and use 2 heavy 2 medium and 1 light, if you turn that into 3 heavy 2 medium and 1 light it still comes up to a 30% boost in base drone DPS. The armor rep discussion is already being addressed by some unannounced changes to armor repairers that they keep hinting at in this thread. Did you just upgrade 5 drones into 6 there? +21% if you use the bandwidth to the fullest. And I don't know how to break it to you, but it lost a turret slot, so the damage increase is... *sigh* Why do I even bother, last time I said the bandwidth buff is a T2 neutron's worth of damage lost on paper, I wasn't ridiculed for the part that it cannot apply it's damage properly (which I expected), but that no one fits anything but ACs or neuts on it. Ah yeah, didn't catch that 6 drone thing. So 20% if fitting for 5 drones, 33% if fitting heavies or sentries?
The loss of a turret isn't that bad since they don't get a bonus and most of your damage mods are going to drones anyways. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:42:00 -
[473] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Lauren Sheaperd wrote:No it doesn't, because nobody fields just three heavy drones. You're math is almost as bad as my broad, sweeping statements. Yes, it is a significant damage bonus - it's doesn't stop this being a relatively 'small' change - and no, the problem with the Myrmidon isn't the lack luster armor rep bonus. Infact, the armor rep bonus combined with the drone bonus is one of the reasons the Myrmidon is a great ship, and will continue to be so. Good point, most people max out and use 2 heavy 2 medium and 1 light, if you turn that into 3 heavy 2 medium and 1 light it still comes up to a 30% boost in base drone DPS. The armor rep discussion is already being addressed by some unannounced changes to armor repairers that they keep hinting at in this thread. Did you just upgrade 5 drones into 6 there? +21% if you use the bandwidth to the fullest. And I don't know how to break it to you, but it lost a turret slot, so the damage increase is... *sigh* Why do I even bother, last time I said the bandwidth buff is a T2 neutron's worth of damage lost on paper, I wasn't ridiculed for the part that it cannot apply it's damage properly (which I expected), but that no one fits anything but ACs or neuts on it. Ah yeah, didn't catch that 6 drone thing. So 20% if fitting for 5 drones, 33% if fitting heavies or sentries? The loss of a turret isn't that bad since they don't get a bonus and most of your damage mods are going to drones anyways. I can understand losing the turret but i still cant wrap my head around why we lost the utility high slot. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:43:00 -
[474] - Quote
BigSako wrote:Why didn't you start your post with:
"Hi, my name is CCP Fozzie and I want to make sure that all the Battlecruisers that you are flying for large scaled PvP will have to be refitted!".
CCP, do you even think about the paper work for Alliances and FC when we have to change fittings for these battlecruisers every month?
Mixing things up a bit is sort of the point. Suck it up and deal with it. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:45:00 -
[475] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Ah yeah, didn't catch that 6 drone thing. So 20% if fitting for 5 drones, 33% if fitting heavies or sentries? The loss of a turret isn't that bad since they don't get a bonus and most of your damage mods are going to drones anyways. Yea, +20% for 5 drones. Sentry numbers are different.
The fact that the way they are "best used" a turret loss isn't bad, while on paper it should be, is something that makes me sad.
I like my gallente drone boats with blaster and drone damage bonus, and the myrm always felt sticking out like a Naglfar in a fleet of Moroses. And not because it's friggin vertical. Let the amarr bring the neuts on their drone boats if they so want. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:49:00 -
[476] - Quote
Exterminatus Illexis wrote:You appear to have caught the stupid. Please commit a frontal lobotomy by means of large hammer.
Also you're saying exactly what I said. Yes, I feel myself getting dumber every time I read your posts.
Maybe I didn't read this right, but I believe you were saying that the scenario you came up with was more of a small gang; I'm pointing out that even with just 1 logistics ship (hardly a fleet scenario) the 5% armor resist bonus is far better than a 7.5 local rep bonus. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
497
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:50:00 -
[477] - Quote
Poision Kevin wrote:Why the F*** did you improve damage bonus and remove one gun of harby? Why not reduce bonus and keep 7 guns + 1 utility slot?
The one ship from Amarr that's been worth it's penny everytime I've used it is getting nerfed... **** I say, ****.
How exactly getting more DPS while keeping the utility slot is a nerf ?
Please explain me that.
Also Fozzie, in case you didn't saw it already, please, please buff the Harbingers' CPU. It's a MASSIVE issue, both on the current and the new Harbinger.
Fake EDIT :
Now that I made fits for all the new BCs on the modified EFT, please note that the Harbinger is severly lacking in both PWG and CPU.
My current Harbinger fit is this one :
Quote:[NEW Harbinger, PVP - PulseFLeet] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Internal Force Field Array I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5
Biggest guns (It's a BC, it has to use the biggest medium guns available), T1 plate. Nothing really demanding fitted.
Yet, it's short 48 CPU and 264 PWG at All V.
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:50:00 -
[478] - Quote
i find these changes.. if you can call them that really not much has changed .. underwhelming and not exciting in the least considering realistically this is the most important class for the majority of fights i would have expected much more ...much much more. Where to start... drake slight nerf but still the same really what happened to removing its sh resist for a ROF bonus and removing the 6th mid which combined with sh resis makes its tank far too OP. Gal bc's armour rep bonus to 10% what happened there? myrm would benefit from a full set of drone bonus or at least continue the vexor line. Cyclone has same drones as brutix why? Harbi has 2 10% bonus really?... maller line anyone... Prophecy needs arm resist why exactly? seriously how much do you hate the ferox? no -one wants a slow second rate naga
But overall i expected the sig radius on these ships to drop closer to the Attack bc's as a drake will have a higher sig than the amarr battleships...... the cruiser part of the name really should mean something. Oh and ship mass on some of these are the same if not better than the combat cruisers why? Surely bc's should start from attack bc's then combat bc's add say 1mil mass. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:53:00 -
[479] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Ah yeah, didn't catch that 6 drone thing. So 20% if fitting for 5 drones, 33% if fitting heavies or sentries? The loss of a turret isn't that bad since they don't get a bonus and most of your damage mods are going to drones anyways. Yea, +20% for 5 drones. Sentry numbers are different. The fact that the way they are "best used" a turret loss isn't bad, while on paper it should be, is something that makes me sad. I like my gallente drone boats with blaster and drone damage bonus, and the myrm always felt sticking out like a Naglfar in a fleet of Moroses. And not because it's friggin vertical. Let the amarr bring the neuts on their drone boats if they so want. Look at the Dominix, constantly flown with neuts instead of blasters. The real problem here is the infamous "mixed weapon systems" that keeps coming up here. Granted you don't have to sacrifice drones to fit more turrets, but you do have to sacrifice the damage mod slots.
The Myrmidon would be fine if they fixed its tank bonus and did something about how easy it is to counter drones. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 19:59:00 -
[480] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Look at the Dominix, constantly flown with neuts instead of blasters. The real problem here is the infamous "mixed weapon systems" that keeps coming up here. Granted you don't have to sacrifice drones to fit more turrets, but you do have to sacrifice the damage mod slots.
The Myrmidon would be fine if they fixed its tank bonus and did something about how easy it is to counter drones. So... Drone ships would be fine, if they weren't having the drawbacks of drone ships and armor tanking?
...in fact, the drone + hybrid split wouldn't be bad... if it was on a shield-tanked ship... Could use the lows for DDA/magstab/TEs...
But that would be fun. (Or more precisely either OP, or too much of a hassle to bring out the dps.) Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Okuu Reiuji
Forever A1one
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:03:00 -
[481] - Quote
tgl3 wrote:The Drake is keeping the Kin bonus? Uh huuuuh...
Yeah. It's 2013 already! Make it omni or 5% to launcher rate of fire. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:04:00 -
[482] - Quote
So, is there a hidden suggestion that maybe drone ships should be worked on after drones them selves are fixed? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Verran Skarne
Shadowfire Enterprises
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:06:00 -
[483] - Quote
My reactions (partly from a wormhole point of view)
1. I'm not a fan of losing "utility" high slots on Drakes and Hurricanes (and others). For what we do in C1-C3 wormholes, most newer folks we bring in start in battlecruisers. That's because they can fit a battlecruiser to have a decent chance for both PvP and sleepers, and still stick a probe launcher in that last high slot (or a salvager, or sometimes even a cloak). The T1 cruisers, while much more viable than previously, don't really have the tank totals to be able to stand up in wormholes unless you can deploy them in a fleet. It's a lot easier for newer players to jump into a battlecruiser to do this than to train into a T2 or T3 cruiser right off the bat. Plus, as someone else mentioned, what about the mindlinks for when off-grid boosting is no longer viable?
2. I always looked at the Brutix as being in between the Thorax and the Hyperion - or rather, it was supposed to be. Basically it seems like it wanted to be an in-your-face blaster boat like the other two are. It's hard to get it in that role though in its current form because of the speed. I'd be willing to trade that extra low slot for a MWD bonus or something....
3. Similarly, I look at the Myrmidon as a stepping stone between the Vexor and the Dominix (both drone boats). But as it stands now a Myrmidon doesn't really do much more damage than a Vexor, and as others have pointed out, turning the Prophecy into a drone boat actually makes the Myrmidon second-class in its current form. I'd say swap the armor repair bonus for a hybrid turret bonus of some kind.
4. With the advent of the Naga, I think the Ferox is better off as a more nimble mid-range gunnery platform. The tradeoff between the two should be that you get more damage and range with the Naga, but that you're slower and less maneuverable. I don't have stats handy to compare with what's posted above, but I think the ships may be too close together right now, which means the Ferox just gets eclipsed by its newer cousin.
5. Right now most hurricanes that we fly in wormholes (or that we run into) are set up for armor tank/autocannons unless the pilot is just going for a heavy sniping setup using artillery. This happens both because of the way that sleepers and sites work, where sniping is often impractical, and the way that wormhole PvP happens (usually close quarters fights). The cap change is going to severely hurt the viability of that setup. Can we look at either adding a mid slot to get a more viable shield tank on a 'cane, or adding an armor tank bonus of some kind to make up for the cap loss? |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:11:00 -
[484] - Quote
SMT008 wrote: Yet, it's short 48 CPU and 264 PWG at All V.
I've kinda run into this myself. The DPS output is fine, if you can get it to fit...you get about 700 DPS to 9.7+8.2 with IN Multi or about 550 to 29+8 with Scorch (including the hammerheads). Unfortunately, it doesn't fit. The grid can be worked around if you're willing to downsize the plate to 800mm and drop the neut, but even doing that you're oversized on CPU.
Getting it to fit means no neut, 800mm plate and downsizing to Focused Medium Pulse Lasers (70 DPS sacrifice). Sure it works but "lets fit the smaller weapons" isn't something any of the other battlecruisers have to do to fit properly. And don't even start if you want to go with a beam sniper fit - if you don't use quad lights, you're gonna have trouble.
At the end of the day, the Harbinger's problem is that even the more, much-abused Hurricane is easier to fit. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Okuu Reiuji
Forever A1one
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:13:00 -
[485] - Quote
Poision Kevin wrote:Why the F*** did you improve damage bonus and remove one gun of harby? Why not reduce bonus and keep 7 guns + 1 utility slot?
The one ship from Amarr that's been worth it's penny everytime I've used it is getting nerfed... **** I say, ****.
1 gun of 7 is ~14% of your damage, so you'll keep 86% of current damage AND add 25% of that - 107,5%, also with 14% less cap used to fire! Great buff, isn't it? |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:17:00 -
[486] - Quote
Verran Skarne wrote:My reactions (partly from a wormhole point of view)
1. I'm not a fan of losing "utility" high slots on Drakes and Hurricanes (and others). 2. I always looked at the Brutix as being in between the Thorax and the Hyperion - or rather, it was supposed to be 3. Similarly, I look at the Myrmidon as a stepping stone between the Vexor and the Dominix (both drone boats). 4. With the advent of the Naga, I think the Ferox is better off as a more nimble mid-range gunnery platform. The tradeoff between the two should be that you get more damage and range with the Naga, but that you're slower and less maneuverable. I don't have stats handy to compare with what's posted above, but I think the ships may be too close together right now, which means the Ferox just gets eclipsed by its newer cousin.
5. Right now most hurricanes that we fly in wormholes (or that we run into) are set up for armor tank/autocannons unless the pilot is just going for a heavy sniping setup using artillery. This happens both because of the way that sleepers and sites work, where sniping is often impractical, and the way that wormhole PvP happens (usually close quarters fights). The cap change is going to severely hurt the viability of that setup. Can we look at either adding a mid slot to get a more viable shield tank on a 'cane, or adding an armor tank bonus of some kind to make up for the cap loss? 1: yea, apart from the Harbi, you have to trade damage for the high (if lucky, unbonused ones), and the harbi has fitting issues, so the same deal.
2: more like between the Thorax and Mega. The Hyper with it's 5 mids is an excellent shield ship with 8 bonused guns (unlike the Rokh) for both brawl and snipe.
3: With CCP insisting that drone boats have one slot less, it's problematic. It has too many mid slots (thus not enough lows) for getting a proper tank, and using both DDAs and Magstabs, should it get a hybrid bonus. Thorax vs Vexor the difference is one high, here also a low for a mid. Leads to issues.
4: So you want the Naga to be more cumbersome than a BC... Like a Battleship? Like a... Rokh? The only thing the Ferox really has going for it above the Naga is staying power, but usually staying power and nimbleness are kept away from each other. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:28:00 -
[487] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Admit it, you want something other than rep bonus on your brutix just so you can shield fit it better and shoot null everywhere. Disgusting.
You say that like its a bad thing |
Verran Skarne
Shadowfire Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:30:00 -
[488] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Verran Skarne wrote:My reactions (partly from a wormhole point of view)
1. I'm not a fan of losing "utility" high slots on Drakes and Hurricanes (and others). 2. I always looked at the Brutix as being in between the Thorax and the Hyperion - or rather, it was supposed to be 3. Similarly, I look at the Myrmidon as a stepping stone between the Vexor and the Dominix (both drone boats). 4. With the advent of the Naga, I think the Ferox is better off as a more nimble mid-range gunnery platform. The tradeoff between the two should be that you get more damage and range with the Naga, but that you're slower and less maneuverable. I don't have stats handy to compare with what's posted above, but I think the ships may be too close together right now, which means the Ferox just gets eclipsed by its newer cousin.
5. Right now most hurricanes that we fly in wormholes (or that we run into) are set up for armor tank/autocannons unless the pilot is just going for a heavy sniping setup using artillery. This happens both because of the way that sleepers and sites work, where sniping is often impractical, and the way that wormhole PvP happens (usually close quarters fights). The cap change is going to severely hurt the viability of that setup. Can we look at either adding a mid slot to get a more viable shield tank on a 'cane, or adding an armor tank bonus of some kind to make up for the cap loss? 1: yea, apart from the Harbi, you have to trade damage for the high (if lucky, unbonused ones), and the harbi has fitting issues, so the same deal. 2: more like between the Thorax and Mega. The Hyper with it's 5 mids is an excellent shield ship with 8 bonused guns (unlike the Rokh) for both brawl and snipe. 3: With CCP insisting that drone boats have one slot less, it's problematic. It has too many mid slots (thus not enough lows) for getting a proper tank, and using both DDAs and Magstabs, should it get a hybrid bonus. Thorax vs Vexor the difference is one high, here also a low for a mid. Leads to issues. 4: So you want the naga to be cumbersome... Like a Battleship? Like a... Rokh? Whatever the Ferox does while sniping, it will get overshadowed in all but staying power.
An alternative would be to turn the Ferox into a blaster brawler - which would be pretty interesting, but it'd be a massive change. I did go look up stats on the Naga just now though and ouch, I didn't realize its mobility was so high already compared to the Ferox. No wonder no one really flies Feroxes anymore (especially not now that we have the Venture for gas mining)
As mentioned, doing most of my fighting in C1-C3 wormholes, I don't see sniping ships/setups getting used very much. Most of our combat ships either go for close-up brawling or mid-range speed tanking. YMMV though.
Good point on the Mega vs. the Hyperion. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:32:00 -
[489] - Quote
BigSako wrote:Why didn't you start your post with:
"Hi, my name is CCP Fozzie and I want to make sure that all the Battlecruisers that you are flying for large scaled PvP will have to be refitted!".
CCP, do you even think about the paper work for Alliances and FC when we have to change fittings for these battlecruisers every month? I wasn't aware his job was to make yours easy. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1002
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:33:00 -
[490] - Quote
Why is the harbinger, a laser ship, getting a huge nerf to its capacitor recharge rate? That seems a little counter productive. |
|
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5473
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:36:00 -
[491] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Poision Kevin wrote:Why the F*** did you improve damage bonus and remove one gun of harby? Why not reduce bonus and keep 7 guns + 1 utility slot?
The one ship from Amarr that's been worth it's penny everytime I've used it is getting nerfed... **** I say, ****. How exactly getting more DPS while keeping the utility slot is a nerf ? Please explain me that. Also Fozzie, in case you didn't saw it already, please, please buff the Harbingers' CPU. It's a MASSIVE issue, both on the current and the new Harbinger. Fake EDIT : Now that I made fits for all the new BCs on the modified EFT, please note that the Harbinger is severly lacking in both PWG and CPU. My current Harbinger fit is this one : Quote:[NEW Harbinger, PVP - PulseFLeet] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Internal Force Field Array I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Heavy Pulse Laser II, Multifrequency M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5 Warrior II x5 Biggest guns (It's a BC, it has to use the biggest medium guns available), T1 plate. Nothing really demanding fitted. Yet, it's short 48 CPU and 264 PWG at All V.
Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly. I know, "Compromise" isn't an Amarrian word, but sometimes you just have to do it for better game balance.
Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:42:00 -
[492] - Quote
I have BC V and good drone skills, so this doesn't effect me, but where does a new Amarr pilot who specializes in drones (with a side dish of Missiles) go after the Prophecy?
Gallente pilots can go Domi>Navi Domi/Sin.
I like the Prophecy, don't change it, but I thought you wanted to make the game more new player friendly. What is the next step for a newish Amarr pilot? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
370
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:45:00 -
[493] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly. I know, "Compromise" isn't an Amarrian word, but sometimes you just have to do it for better game balance.
Drake should only be able to fit MSEs. LSEs are BS sized shield extenders after all.
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:I have BC V and good drone skills, so this doesn't effect me, but where does a new Amarr pilot who specializes in drones (with a side dish of Missiles) go after the Prophecy?
Geddon? |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:46:00 -
[494] - Quote
Verran Skarne wrote: An alternative would be to turn the Ferox into a blaster brawler - which would be pretty interesting, but it'd be a massive change. I did go look up stats on the Naga just now though and ouch, I didn't realize its mobility was so high already compared to the Ferox. No wonder no one really flies Feroxes anymore (especially not now that we have the Venture for gas mining) Not really. The Caldari sniper frigate (Merling) and cruiser(Moa) were also trading their underused optimal range bonus into a damage one, and it seems to work fine.
Let me go differently about it. The Harbringer has 9 turret's worth of damage. The Cane has 6*1,25/0,75= 10 turret's worth of damage? Is that really so? Didn't I make a mistake here? The Ferox currently has 7 unbonused ones (fitting/cap burden).
Even if it had a damage bonus, it wouldn't be too bad off, since rails have a superb range already.
For comparison, the Naga has 8 damage AND optimal bonused turrets. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5473
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:47:00 -
[495] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:I have BC V and good drone skills, so this doesn't effect me, but where does a new Amarr pilot who specializes in drones (with a side dish of Missiles) go after the Prophecy?
Gallente pilots can go Domi>Navi Domi/Sin.
I like the Prophecy, don't change it, but I thought you wanted to make the game more new player friendly. What is the next step for a newish Amarr pilot?
Armageddon I'd say. Considering that the NavyGeddon already has a huge dronebay and bandwidth, I suppose they increse the drone capacity of the standard Geddon, too when the battleships are due for tiericide.
Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:48:00 -
[496] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly. I know, "Compromise" isn't an Amarrian word, but sometimes you just have to do it for better game balance. Drake should only be able to fit MSEs. LSEs are BS sized shield extenders after all.? Drake and MSE... So 800 plate shouldn't be possible to fit on BCs as well? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:49:00 -
[497] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly. I know, "Compromise" isn't an Amarrian word, but sometimes you just have to do it for better game balance.
Drake should only be able to fit MSEs. LSEs are BS sized shield extenders after all.
T2 LSE has 2625 shield bonus base. T2 800m plate has 2103 armor bonus base. T2 1600m plate has 4200 armor bonus base.
Read -> Math -> Post
|
Krasniy Okytabre
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:53:00 -
[498] - Quote
Changing the cyclone to a missile boat wouldn't be a good idea IMO, us minmatar pilots like our guns. If we wanted missiles wed have trained caldari. Leave it's bonuses alone. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
497
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:53:00 -
[499] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote: Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly.
No.
With a 800mm plate, you're still short 48 CPU, and you still need a 3% PWG implant.
That's not what I call "It fits perfectly".
Also, please note that both Projectiles and Hybrids have 3 variants for each weapon-size. Lasers only have 2, which means you are forced to downgrade to the smallest guns instead of being able to tweak it with 220mm like you can do on the Hurricane.
I understand that not everything will fit on a Harbinger. But it NEEDS to PWG to support the biggest guns, 1600mm plate and a MWD.
It's an Amarrian ship, designed to sport armor plates. How come it can't fit the plate it's supposed to ? The Prophecy does it, can fit his utility slot and has even 100 spare PWG.
That's just not how it's supposed to be.
The Harbinger needs a CPU boost (VERY IMPORTANT) and a PWG boost. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:55:00 -
[500] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly. I know, "Compromise" isn't an Amarrian word, but sometimes you just have to do it for better game balance.
That's the problem though. As I said above, even if you drop the plate to 800mm and cut the neut out entirely, your still 27 CPU over. The fitting problem isn't new either, the current harb fit the same way runs into it as well. It'd be much better if they still removed the turret, but left the CPU at its old numbers.
And as a different aside, a Ferox with a damage bonus in place of the resist bonus would do ~690 DPS (guns+drones) with Null out to 12+14km, or 920 dps (guns+drones) to 6.6+5.1 with Void, all while keeping a 60k EHP buffer. It'd basically be the love-child of a drake and a max-gank Brutix, and probably be a little too good. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
219
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:55:00 -
[501] - Quote
Okuu Reiuji wrote:Poision Kevin wrote:Why the F*** did you improve damage bonus and remove one gun of harby? Why not reduce bonus and keep 7 guns + 1 utility slot?
The one ship from Amarr that's been worth it's penny everytime I've used it is getting nerfed... **** I say, ****. 1 gun of 7 is ~14% of your damage, so you'll keep 86% of current damage AND add 25% of that - 107,5%, also with 14% less cap used to fire! Great buff, isn't it?
Excuse me but they are nerfing the cap recharge too. Acording to pyfa, with those changes my Harb will win 15 dps, and +1Gj/sec. Oh and, hey, it's only losing a 10% of it's hp, who cares? 'Great' change. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
370
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:56:00 -
[502] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly. I know, "Compromise" isn't an Amarrian word, but sometimes you just have to do it for better game balance.
Drake should only be able to fit MSEs. LSEs are BS sized shield extenders after all. T2 LSE has 2625 shield bonus base. T2 800m plate has 2103 armor bonus base. T2 1600m plate has 4200 armor bonus base. Read -> Math -> Post
Large shield extender Large
Large = BS sized |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
370
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:59:00 -
[503] - Quote
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:Oh and, hey, it's only losing a 10% of it's hp, who cares? 'Great' change.
A lot more since you don't have grid to fit 1600mm plate. With 800mm plate, 2x EANM II and meta 4 suitcase we are talking about 30k EHP.
Or you can if you fit AB... Armor buffer and AB though... |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:01:00 -
[504] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote: T2 LSE has 2625 shield bonus base. T2 800m plate has 2103 armor bonus base. T2 1600m plate has 4200 armor bonus base. Read -> Math -> Post A 400 plate takes 30 PG, and is considered cruiser-size 1600 plate takes 500 PG and is considered BattleShip-sized 800 plates take 200 PG
Now, I'm no math expert, but I'd say from 200 to 500 the jump is x2.5, while from 30 to 200 x6.67 or something. If I had to pick between it being a cruiser or a battleship module, which one should I pick, even if I ignore implants improving the health I wonder?
Quote:Read -> Math -> Post Back at you. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:02:00 -
[505] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly. I know, "Compromise" isn't an Amarrian word, but sometimes you just have to do it for better game balance.
Drake should only be able to fit MSEs. LSEs are BS sized shield extenders after all. T2 LSE has 2625 shield bonus base. T2 800m plate has 2103 armor bonus base. T2 1600m plate has 4200 armor bonus base. Read -> Math -> Post Large shield extender Large Large = BS sized
Guess I should go take the Medium Shield Extenders off of my frigates. |
Sofia Wolf
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:03:00 -
[506] - Quote
Now that you removed 2nd utility slot from a cane, so it is no longer possible to fit double med nuts with 6 cannons, would you please consider giving cane +50 PG (total of 1175). Sense cane PG nerf it has become rather hard to fit arty canes, especially for those of us that have less then perfect fitting skills. Alternatively you could instead make additional reduction of PG requirement for medium artillery, that could work fine too.
Suggested changes for habrnger seem a bit of an excessive nerf. -500 armour HP on an armour tanking ship that is already underperforming is a bit of a suspect. Why not make its armour HP nice 5500. Also nerfing CPU on as ship that already has CPU fitting problems seems unreasonable, so you better leave CPU at 375 too. |
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5474
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:04:00 -
[507] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote: Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything should fit perfectly.
No. With a 800mm plate, you're still short 48 CPU, and you still need a 3% PWG implant. That's not what I call "It fits perfectly". Also, please note that both Projectiles and Hybrids have 3 variants for each weapon-size. Lasers only have 2, which means you are forced to downgrade to the smallest guns instead of being able to tweak it with 220mm like you can do on the Hurricane. I understand that not everything will fit on a Harbinger. But it NEEDS to PWG to support the biggest guns, 1600mm plate and a MWD. It's an Amarrian ship, designed to sport armor plates. How come it can't fit the plate it's supposed to ? The Prophecy does it, can fit his utility slot and has even 100 spare PWG. That's just not how it's supposed to be. The Harbinger needs a CPU boost (VERY IMPORTANT) and a PWG boost.
Oh, I see.
I was stupid then, sorry.
If 800mm RRT + biggest guns + Neut is not possible, then we have indeed a problem with the Harbi that CCP should address.
Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:05:00 -
[508] - Quote
Ok, may I suggest "oversized" plates and shield extenders be left in topics about armor/shield tanking, like this one. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:07:00 -
[509] - Quote
mynnna wrote:The T2 LSE also offers a fairly non-trivial boost to shield recharge and thus passive tank, so comparing it directly to an 800mm plate isn't entirely fair. I'm not saying the 800m plate compares to the LSE, I'm just pointing out the inadequacy of Jorma's oversimplification.
So yes, shield tanking is very different from armor tanking; lets leave it at that and move on from this module to module comparison. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:12:00 -
[510] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote: T2 LSE has 2625 shield bonus base. T2 800m plate has 2103 armor bonus base. T2 1600m plate has 4200 armor bonus base. Read -> Math -> Post A 400 plate takes 30 PG, and is considered cruiser-size 1600 plate takes 500 PG and is considered BattleShip-sized 800 plates take 200 PG Now, I'm no math expert, but I'd say from 200 to 500 the jump is x2.5, while from 30 to 200 x6.67 or something. If I had to pick between it being a cruiser or a battleship module, which one should I pick, even if I ignore implants improving the health I wonder? Quote:Read -> Math -> Post Back at you. I never called any of these modules "cruiser sized", I simply pointed out the differences between the modules. Go bark at Jorma for bringing the shield vs tank comparisons.
Take it easy buddy, not all replies are to your posts. |
|
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:12:00 -
[511] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Take it easy buddy, not all replies are to your posts. Just noticed, and was going to edit, nvm now.
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
712
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:15:00 -
[512] - Quote
I don't like crude language but wtf CCP?
Still sticking with active armor rep bonuses for Gallente when they are useless. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
370
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:24:00 -
[513] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:mynnna wrote:The T2 LSE also offers a fairly non-trivial boost to shield recharge and thus passive tank, so comparing it directly to an 800mm plate isn't entirely fair. I'm not saying the 800m plate compares to the LSE, I'm just pointing out the inadequacy of Jorma's oversimplification. So yes, shield tanking is very different from armor tanking; lets leave it at that and move on from this module to module comparison.
With current stats Drake with one LSE has double the EHP 800mm Harbi has (77k vs 36k). |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:27:00 -
[514] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:mynnna wrote:The T2 LSE also offers a fairly non-trivial boost to shield recharge and thus passive tank, so comparing it directly to an 800mm plate isn't entirely fair. I'm not saying the 800m plate compares to the LSE, I'm just pointing out the inadequacy of Jorma's oversimplification. So yes, shield tanking is very different from armor tanking; lets leave it at that and move on from this module to module comparison. With current stats Drake with one LSE has double the EHP 800mm Harbi has (77k vs 36k). Yes, armor and shield tanking is different, we all get it.
Can we move on? |
Colonel Goatbanger
The Goatbangers Club
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:41:00 -
[515] - Quote
I know that numerous people replied to this already, but two things stick out to me (similar to what already has been said).
1. With the HM nerf, which subsequently has gimped those who pilot Drakes isn't it about time to get rid of the Kin bonus and replace it with a RoF bonus (5-7.5-10%)?
2. If you intend to radically alter the Cyclone (from AC fit Missile fit) then why would you gimp it even further by not going all the way with a sixth launcher instead of this half-assed split weapon system crud you insist upon?
As far as Amarr and Gallente ships I have no opinion since I don't fly them and I prefer that pilots more experienced with lasers and drones provide commentary. |
Miang Sun
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:41:00 -
[516] - Quote
Not happy at all with Gallente ship changes.
|
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:45:00 -
[517] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:I have BC V and good drone skills, so this doesn't effect me, but where does a new Amarr pilot who specializes in drones (with a side dish of Missiles) go after the Prophecy?
Gallente pilots can go Domi>Navi Domi/Sin.
I like the Prophecy, don't change it, but I thought you wanted to make the game more new player friendly. What is the next step for a newish Amarr pilot? Armageddon I'd say. Considering that the NavyGeddon already has a huge dronebay and bandwidth, I suppose they increse the drone capacity of the standard Geddon, too when the battleships are due for tiericide.
Geddon and Navy Geddon can field a full flight of heavies/sentiries, but both are turret only ships with no drone bonuses.
The progression path of Dragoon>Arbitrator/Curse>Prophecy are all Drone bonused ships that can use launchers. Aside from the Pilgrim, all the Amarr drone boats have as many or more launcher hardpoints than turret hardpoints. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:46:00 -
[518] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:
Why would anyone choose to fly the new Cyclones ? It's pretty simple.
First, you can choose what damage you want to deal.
Second, you have one hell of an active tank.
Third, it's not a slowbrick.
Fourth, doesn't look like a Drake.
If you want to solo in this ship, you do the same thing Cyclone pilots already do, except with missiles and 2 utility slots.
Any questions ?
First - So can a drake, but they don't get a bonus to them all....you can still choose to shoot anything you like. AND YOU HAVE TWO EXTRA BAYS!
Second - 0.o an impressive tank with 5 slots? 1 prop, 1 web, 1 point, 2 slots left? Put LAR? maybe, but it's a one trick pony and you don't have grid to do anything else...including high dps launchers... fill two of your three holes in shield resists? Hmmmm... Keep in mind the Drake has 6 mids.
Third - It's not a fast BRICK either....it is a quicker glass missile boat....and that sounds like fun to fly for a guy that has trained projectile weapons....
Fourth - You have a valid point here
I'll give you 10 successful solo Drake fits, for every 1 successful solo Cyclone fit.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:50:00 -
[519] - Quote
Colonel Goatbanger wrote:I know that numerous people replied to this already, but two things stick out to me (similar to what already has been said). 1. With the HM nerf, which subsequently has gimped those who pilot Drakes isn't it about time to get rid of the Kin bonus and replace it with a RoF bonus (5-7.5-10%)? 2. If you intend to radically alter the Cyclone (from AC fit Missile fit) then why would you gimp it even further by not going all the way with a sixth launcher instead of this half-assed split weapon system crud you insist upon? As far as Amarr and Gallente ships I have no opinion since I don't fly them and I prefer that pilots more experienced with lasers and drones provide commentary.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
:Had to deal with something else, will reply to more questions tomorrow: The Cyclone has two utility slots, not mixed weapon systems.
Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com: The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it to have more damage mods. Giving it a 7th launcher would give it too much DPS compared to other BCs. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:53:00 -
[520] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:SMT008 wrote:The Harbinger needs a CPU boost (VERY IMPORTANT) and a PWG boost. Oh, I see. I was stupid then, sorry. If 800mm RRT + biggest guns + Neut is not possible, then we have indeed a problem with the Harbi that CCP should address. Heavy Pulses are not the biggest guns. Heavy Beams are. And 1600mm plate fits even on some cruiser hulls (armor HACs, anyone?) - so should be not a problem at all on BC. Battleships mostly carry 2 or even 3x1600 plates. That's why Harbinger should get a HUGE buff in PG, to be able to fit either: 1) 1600 plate + MWD + rack of pulses + med.nosf/neut, or 2) 2x med.reps + AB + med.cap-booster + rack of beams I can close my eyes on CPU, as there are non-energized plates, and that's amarrian ship after all, so should be tight on CPU. But the power grid - it needs some! |
|
Mund Richard
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:58:00 -
[521] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com: The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it to have more damage mods. Giving it a 7th launcher would give it too much DPS compared to other BCs. I agree, a 7th launcher would be too much. How about giving it a 6th launcher? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:58:00 -
[522] - Quote
you iknow i was really hopping for a dev responce today... but i think that today fozzie spent most of the day working over the rebalance and is relaying the info to the csm before responding... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
485
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:00:00 -
[523] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote:The ferox, drake and brutix are missing their utility high for a warfare link.
Maybe the Ferox, Drake and Brutix should all be given a utility high by removing a turret from each? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1208
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:02:00 -
[524] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote: Heavy Pulses are not the biggest guns. Heavy Beams are.
This is wrong and you should be ashamed.
Heavy pulse are the largest mid sized close range guns, Heavy Beams are the largest long range guns. Apples and Oranges.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:04:00 -
[525] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com: The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it to have more damage mods. Giving it a 7th launcher would give it too much DPS compared to other BCs. I agree, a 7th launcher would be too much. How about giving it a 6th launcher?
You get ~395 DPS with HAMs plus ~160 ought of a flight of medium drones, so you're at 550 DPS. Or you can use two flights of light drones and do either ~500 DPS or deploy ECM drones. Two utility highs - a unique quality, now - lets you add 60 DPS in the form of a pair of 425mm ACs if you so choose, or use them for neuts.
A sixth launcher, by comparison, would add 80 DPS.
Now, it's obviously a minority opinion if all the whinging in the thread about it is any indication, but I really don't have much of a problem with where the cyclone stands. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2598
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:04:00 -
[526] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Gneeznow wrote:The ferox, drake and brutix are missing their utility high for a warfare link. Maybe the Ferox, Drake and Brutix should all be given a utility high by removing a turret from each?
Sure, remove all the turrets you want from the Drake. More seriously: I keel you!!
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:06:00 -
[527] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com: The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it to have more damage mods. Giving it a 7th launcher would give it too much DPS compared to other BCs. I agree, a 7th launcher would be too much. How about giving it a 6th launcher? I'm beginning to like you.
Good catch, but the point still stands though. With double the drone size, ability to choose its damage type, an extra low and an extra high slot over the Drake, changing one of those two utility slots to a launcher would make it go over board on the DPS. |
Jean Louie
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:07:00 -
[528] - Quote
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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2598
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:10:00 -
[529] - Quote
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 Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Mund Richard
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:12:00 -
[530] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Good catch, but the point still stands though. With double the drone size, ability to choose its damage type, an extra low and an extra high slot over the Drake, changing one of those two utility slots to a launcher would make it go over board on the DPS. Dunno, Cane has 6 RoF AND Damage bonused turrets and a launcher, compared to that 6 RoF but not damage bonused launchers and a turret (and some extra drones) doesn't sound so game breaking, but I haven't really flown HAM ships, so I could be off. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:16:00 -
[531] - Quote
Mekhana wrote:I don't like crude language but wtf CCP?
Still sticking with active armor rep bonuses for Gallente when they are useless. This. At least the other race that is stuck with an active tanking bonus (Minmatar, Cyclone (ASB ftw!)) has the awesome dual-damage-bonus Hurricane for fleet work. For the Gallente pilots, they just get stuck with two ships with one effective bonus.
|
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
900
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:20:00 -
[532] - Quote
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
That is true but I was still hoping for a tracking or falloff bonus on the Brutix as opposed to the active rep. The Myrm as a drone boat and with un-bonused high slots will always be favored for the tank role and a little variety would be nice. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:21:00 -
[533] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Good catch, but the point still stands though. With double the drone size, ability to choose its damage type, an extra low and an extra high slot over the Drake, changing one of those two utility slots to a launcher would make it go over board on the DPS. Dunno, Cane has 6 RoF AND Damage bonused turrets and a launcher, compared to that 6 RoF but not damage bonused launchers and a turret (and some extra drones) doesn't sound so game breaking, but I haven't really flown HAM ships, so I could be off.
The way the changes read to me is that the Hurricane is your hammer. It's unquestionably a higher DPS ship, pushing out about 715 DPS with 425mm autos, 3x gyros and hobgoblins; guns are ~615 of that. But its bias towards armor tanking (six lows, four mids) means you either run a lightweight shield tank or sacrifice range or damage (possibly both).
Cyclone's the scalpel. 360 DPS from HAMs, with a bigger drone bay and two utility slots. Want max damage? Bring hammerheads and guns in the utility and you get over 600 DPS. Or maybe a bit more flexiblity, so we bring light drones - with warriors, you still get 535 DPS. Or HAMs and Hammerheads for 550 dps and some tank breaking neuts. Or HAMs, neuts, and a pair of sentries (dropped outside the furball) if you want something really wild.
On the other hand, six launchers as proposed means the max DPS setup is HAMs and hammerheads - it does 632 DPS, and has the same one utility slot as the hurricane. So at that point your DPS is about as good as what a Hurricane can do with his guns alone, and if he really wanted to he could roll a flight of ECM drones instead. So in essence, you're a worse hurricane, and where's the fun in that? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2599
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:22:00 -
[534] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:That is true but I was still hoping for a tracking or falloff bonus on the Brutix as opposed to the active rep. The Myrm as a drone boat and with un-bonused high slots will always be favored for the tank role and a little variety would be nice.
I feel like a falloff bonus on the Brutix is most certainly a bad idea. If it's mobile, it will completely gobble up the Deimos's role beyond any recognition - ever. If it's immobile it's basically useless. A tracking bonus would be alright, but it's not like you don't have enough mids for the Holy Quad.
The rep bonus is fine, and I suspect we'll see some armor tanking changes that make it ideal.
-Liang
Ed: Besides, you'd think we would have learned about QQing after the Deimos didn't get buffed and the projectile overboost. Then again, maybe projectiles weren't overboosted because I literally don't care about projectile ships. /shrug Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:23:00 -
[535] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com: The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it to have more damage mods. Giving it a 7th launcher would give it too much DPS compared to other BCs. I agree, a 7th launcher would be too much. How about giving it a 6th launcher? I'm beginning to like you. Good catch, but the point still stands though. With double the drone size, ability to choose its damage type, an extra low and an extra high slot over the Drake, changing one of those two utility slots to a launcher would make it go over board on the DPS.
So now minmatar pilots must be efficient in projectile, missiles, and drones? Not to mention that their tanking is also split, so they must train both armor and shield tanking...that is if they would like to efficiently fly minmatar ships? Is there another race that must do all of this? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:24:00 -
[536] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:I have BC V and good drone skills, so this doesn't effect me, but where does a new Amarr pilot who specializes in drones (with a side dish of Missiles) go after the Prophecy?
Gallente pilots can go Domi>Navi Domi/Sin.
I like the Prophecy, don't change it, but I thought you wanted to make the game more new player friendly. What is the next step for a newish Amarr pilot? Armageddon I'd say. Considering that the NavyGeddon already has a huge dronebay and bandwidth, I suppose they increse the drone capacity of the standard Geddon, too when the battleships are due for tiericide. Geddon and Navy Geddon can field a full flight of heavies/sentiries, but both are turret only ships with no drone bonuses. The progression path of Dragoon>Arbitrator/Curse>Prophecy are all Drone bonused ships that can use launchers. Aside from the Pilgrim, all the Amarr drone boats have as many or more launcher hardpoints than turret hardpoints. Don't forget that drones represent damage projection for Gallente pilots, since blasters can't reach out and touch someone from afar. Amarr don't share this problem, as their ships are quite capable of hitting out very far with Scorch (and not even using the longer-range beams).
I doubt that we'd ever see an Amarrian BS overhauled to be a dedicated drone boat 1) because its not necessary since they can project damage and 2) there already is a armor drone BS in that category (with the Rattlesnake covering the shield drone BS). CCP diversifies, I've seen, when there is a demand or a hole to fill. Armor drone BS is already filled, and aside from the hull being ugly, the Domi does a pretty good job.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:26:00 -
[537] - Quote
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.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:27:00 -
[538] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com: The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it to have more damage mods. Giving it a 7th launcher would give it too much DPS compared to other BCs. I agree, a 7th launcher would be too much. How about giving it a 6th launcher? I'm beginning to like you. Good catch, but the point still stands though. With double the drone size, ability to choose its damage type, an extra low and an extra high slot over the Drake, changing one of those two utility slots to a launcher would make it go over board on the DPS. So now minmatar pilots must be efficient in projectile, missiles, and drones? Not to mention that their tanking is also split, so they must train both armor and shield tanking...that is if they would like to efficiently fly minmatar ships? Is there another race that must do all of this?
Well lets see, Caldari "must be" efficient in both railguns and missiles and it's not like they don't have drone bays at all. Amarr "must be" efficient in both lasers and missiles and drones are even more important to them. I guess Gallente get lucky, they only have to train guns and drones. Man, so unfair.
Lets not bring up "you have to train multiple weapon systems!!!" like it's an actual valid complaint; thanks. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2600
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:28:00 -
[539] - 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.
The Brutix was never going to be your go-to ship for fleet work. Blasters don't scale, and it's useless to pretend like a medium rail fit is going to be worth a ****.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:28:00 -
[540] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: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. The Brutix was never going to be your go-to ship for fleet work. Blasters don't scale, and it's useless to pretend like a medium rail fit is going to be worth a ****. -Liang AFAIK "Gallente need a defense bonus similar to resistance" is a sweeping statement and not specific to the Brutix. It is true, however, that Gallente would be well served with at least one hull (that's not a T3) to have some bonus that isn't crappy active armor tanking, because, you know, *some* people do fly Gallente and do fly in fleets, especially in wormholes.
4LeafClover wrote:So now minmatar pilots must be efficient in projectile, missiles, and drones? Not to mention that their tanking is also split, so they must train both armor and shield tanking...that is if they would like to efficiently fly minmatar ships? Is there another race that must do all of this? This is new? |
|
Mund Richard
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:32:00 -
[541] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Armor drone BS is already filled, and aside from the hull being ugly, the Domi does a pretty good job. Heresy! The Glorious Space Potato looks every last bit like a battleship, moreso than any other (almost): Built like a giant brick with no bits that would fall off when accelerating too fast, and also doesn't look like something that could accelerate fast like all battleship should! I'm more offended by many battleships looking like as if they were cruisers or something.
Apart from that, amarr got a drone destroyer, a drone cruiser (doubles as EWAR), now a drone battlecruiser, so - for me - it's rather surprising they are NOT getting a drone battleship. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:34:00 -
[542] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Armor drone BS is already filled, and aside from the hull being ugly, the Domi does a pretty good job. Heresy! The Glorious Space Potato looks every last bit like a battleship, moreso than any other (almost): Built like a giant brick with no bits that would fall off when accelerating too fast, and also doesn't look like something that could accelerate fast like all battleship should! I'm more offended by many battleships looking like as if they were cruisers or something. Apart from that, amarr got a drone destroyer, a drone cruiser (doubles as EWAR), now a drone battlecruiser, so - for me - it's rather surprising they are NOT getting a drone battleship.
Well they haven't said anything about BS tiericide at all. There was the old devblog from november that seemed to imply all three Amarr BS would remain laser based ships, but then again that same blog said that the ferox would reinforce its sniping role, so who knows. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Apostrophe Diacritic
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:34:00 -
[543] - Quote
Harbinger is buffed. Yeah it has -25 cpu but one turret takes 26.3 with max skills so its actually a little buff. Drone bay increase is actually a big deal, and small capacitor recharge nerf is more than compensated with 1 less turret, same as cpu. And it also does more damage then before, 5% more dps per BC level is 25% damage boost, 1 turret less from 7 is 14,2% nerf so in total its over 10% damage buff for Harbinger. The 2% increase in mass is really not a big deal and with shield tank EHP lost is really not that bad, its less than 1.5k with great skills and some low implants. Harbinger shield tanked is 200ms slower than Cane and since its mass is "nerfed" less that difference is gonna be a little smaller now. Dont complain its slow if you put 2x1600 plates on it. And you can shield tank it, it has the same slot layout as Hurricane and even has more EHP. It also has a great damage projection. 10% damage boost is huge, and the nerfs are pathetic. Actually the 1.3 cpu "buff" may actually help some fits to use 2% implant instead of 3%.
Hurricane cookie cutter AC fit is still the same as before you only lose one neut. That is definitely a nerf, but really not a big one. As with the Harbinger the mass hit is not that a big deal, and it actually has a little bigger EHP buffer even when shield tanked (less than 1k even with max skills). The arty cane got fked but that was before this and it was deserved, so really AC fit Hurricanes are pretty much the same.
Caldari i dont fly so i wont comment, but i actually like repair amount boost on Gallente, especially with a cap boost their BC got. They are great solo/small gank ships. As for "still dual weapon system on cyclone CCP fail" no one forces you to put guns in those spare slots, put something else in it. You have an option to squeeze a little more dps with guns if you want, its not like you have to fill your lows with gyrostabilizers. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:34:00 -
[544] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Armor drone BS is already filled, and aside from the hull being ugly, the Domi does a pretty good job. Heresy! The Glorious Space Potato looks every last bit like a battleship, moreso than any other (almost): Built like a giant brick with no bits that would fall off when accelerating too fast, and also doesn't look like something that could accelerate fast like all battleship should! I'm more offended by many battleships looking like as if they were cruisers or something. Apart from that, amarr got a drone destroyer, a drone cruiser (doubles as EWAR), now a drone battlecruiser, so - for me - it's rather surprising they are NOT getting a drone battleship. Ok, I was going to respond that the "need" is already filled, but certainly I could see room for an Amarr armor drone EWAR BS, since that'd go with the flow of their ship line very well, and hey, let's face it, there is certainly room for another EWAR BS hull besides the lonely Scorpion.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:36:00 -
[545] - Quote
mynnna wrote:4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com: The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it to have more damage mods. Giving it a 7th launcher would give it too much DPS compared to other BCs. I agree, a 7th launcher would be too much. How about giving it a 6th launcher? I'm beginning to like you. Good catch, but the point still stands though. With double the drone size, ability to choose its damage type, an extra low and an extra high slot over the Drake, changing one of those two utility slots to a launcher would make it go over board on the DPS. So now minmatar pilots must be efficient in projectile, missiles, and drones? Not to mention that their tanking is also split, so they must train both armor and shield tanking...that is if they would like to efficiently fly minmatar ships? Is there another race that must do all of this? Well lets see, Caldari "must be" efficient in both railguns and missiles and it's not like they don't have drone bays at all. Amarr "must be" efficient in both lasers and missiles and drones are even more important to them. I guess Gallente get lucky, they only have to train guns and drones. Man, so unfair. Lets not bring up "you have to train multiple weapon systems!!!" like it's an actual valid complaint; thanks. Either your race has too few options and you're being restricted to a single role, or you have too many options and it takes too long to be good at them all. You can't have it all buddy.
Besides, if you look at BSs and T2 ships, every race needs drones, missiles and their racial turret skills at some point or other; the Eris and Lachesis have missile bonuses after all. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:38:00 -
[546] - Quote
mynnna wrote:
Well lets see, Caldari "must be" efficient in both railguns and missiles and it's not like they don't have drone bays at all. Amarr "must be" efficient in both lasers and missiles and drones are even more important to them. I guess Gallente get lucky, they only have to train guns and drones. Man, so unfair.
Lets not bring up "you have to train multiple weapon systems!!!" like it's an actual valid complaint; thanks.
When substantial portion of the Cyclone DPS is being attributed to "drone" damage, then it becomes somewhat of an issue. Caldari don't have any armor ships that I know of...armarr and gallente don't have any shield boats.... All I'm saying, is don't require a minmatar pliot to be proficient in Guns, Missiles, and Drones....as well as Armor and Shield. Pick one blasted line of thought, and stick to it. The hybrid thing is nice if you didn't have to spend 3 months of your life waiting to become proficient in the CCP flavor of the month. |
Anasur
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:41:00 -
[547] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 7 Launchers Fittings: 840 PWG (-10), 515 CPU (-10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Let me know what you think!
Well, not loving the shield nerf, but I suppose anyone who flies one will say the same:)
One suggestion though, how about reducing it to 6 launchers but giving it a +10% per level damage boost, with associated fitting changes of course. Much the same as you did the Harbinger.
This would be a dps nerf to anyone with lvl 1-3 in BC. DPS at BC 4 is exactly the same, and it is a small (about 3%) boost at BC5.
That would allow a utility high slot for practical use. Letting a ship often used for PvE have space for a tractor beam is insanely convenient, or a Scan Probe launcher when using one in a wormhole!! Not to mention making a gang link more viable in a ship with a bonus to them. |
Mund Richard
246
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:43:00 -
[548] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:mynnna wrote:Well lets see, Caldari "must be" efficient in both railguns and missiles and it's not like they don't have drone bays at all. Amarr "must be" efficient in both lasers and missiles and drones are even more important to them. I guess Gallente get lucky, they only have to train guns and drones. Man, so unfair. Lets not bring up "you have to train multiple weapon systems!!!" like it's an actual valid complaint; thanks. When substantial portion of the Cyclone DPS is being attributed to "drone" damage, then it becomes somewhat of an issue. Caldari don't have any armor ships that I know of...armarr and gallente don't have any shield boats.... All I'm saying, is don't require a minmatar pliot to be proficient in Guns, Missiles, and Drones....as well as Armor and Shield. Pick one blasted line of thought, and stick to it. The hybrid thing is nice if you didn't have to spend 3 months of your life waiting to become proficient in the CCP flavor of the month. Tiericide started giving everyone more drones. On BC level, each hull has a full flight of lights at least, and it's the only skill that really translates between the different hull sizes and races. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:44:00 -
[549] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote: Either your race has too few options and you're being restricted to a single role, or you have too many options and it takes too long to be good at them all. You can't have it all buddy.
Besides, if you look at BSs and T2 ships, every race needs drones, missiles and their racial turret skills at some point or other; the Eris and Lachesis have missile bonuses after all.
Just leave them the way they are? Is that too difficult? We have trained into where we want to be. I trained into a hurricane, now that ship is useless. The only viable alternative for a Minmatar pilot in a BC class vessel is the Cyclone. The shift from Hurricane to Cyclone is as dramatic as jumping from Amarr to Caldari. If any other race wants to switch to the other BC in their race it is not as dramatic.
Cyclone - Shield, Missiles (drones) Hurricane - Armor, Guns
All I'm asking is don't force us to try and do both by making one complete crap, AND making both ships complete opposites. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
162
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:45:00 -
[550] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:mynnna wrote:
Well lets see, Caldari "must be" efficient in both railguns and missiles and it's not like they don't have drone bays at all. Amarr "must be" efficient in both lasers and missiles and drones are even more important to them. I guess Gallente get lucky, they only have to train guns and drones. Man, so unfair.
Lets not bring up "you have to train multiple weapon systems!!!" like it's an actual valid complaint; thanks.
When substantial portion of the Cyclone DPS is being attributed to "drone" damage, then it becomes somewhat of an issue. Caldari don't have any armor ships that I know of...armarr and gallente don't have any shield boats.... All I'm saying, is don't require a minmatar pliot to be proficient in Guns, Missiles, and Drones....as well as Armor and Shield. Pick one blasted line of thought, and stick to it. The hybrid thing is nice if you didn't have to spend 3 months of your life waiting to become proficient in the CCP flavor of the month.
As someone else helpfully pointed out, the extent to which minmatar are required to crosstrain is nothing new. If it were more like "all our frigates are shield AC boats but our cruisers are shield missile boats, the battlecruisers shield armor boats and the battleships all armored missile boats" then I might have some sympathy for the complaint, but it's not. There are clear lines of progression (frigates -> rupture -> hurricane -> whatever we get for armor tanking AC BS, probably tempest), just the same as there are with the Caldari split between rails and missiles (merlin, moa, ferox, rokh vs kestrel, caracal, drake raven) and the developing Amarr split between drones and lasers. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2601
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:49:00 -
[551] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote: Either your race has too few options and you're being restricted to a single role, or you have too many options and it takes too long to be good at them all. You can't have it all buddy.
Besides, if you look at BSs and T2 ships, every race needs drones, missiles and their racial turret skills at some point or other; the Eris and Lachesis have missile bonuses after all.
Just leave them the way they are? Is that too difficult? We have trained into where we want to be. I trained into a hurricane, now that ship is useless. The only viable alternative for a Minmatar pilot in a BC class vessel is the Cyclone. The shift from Hurricane to Cyclone is as dramatic as jumping from Amarr to Caldari. If any other race wants to switch to the other BC in their race it is not as dramatic. Cyclone - Shield, Missiles (drones) Hurricane - Armor, Guns All I'm asking is don't force us to try and do both by making one complete crap, AND making both ships complete opposites.
Neither one are going to be complete crap.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:56:00 -
[552] - Quote
I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs.
Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie? |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:00:00 -
[553] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs.
Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie?
You should just train shield tanking....
See how that sucks? |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
329
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:01:00 -
[554] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:So now minmatar pilots must be efficient in projectile, missiles, and drones? Not to mention that their tanking is also split, so they must train both armor and shield tanking...that is if they would like to efficiently fly minmatar ships? Is there another race that must do all of this? lol... guess you don't know that this was actually part of the racial design for Minmatar back in the good old days. |
Shepard Wong Ogeko
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:03:00 -
[555] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:4LeafClover wrote:So now minmatar pilots must be efficient in projectile, missiles, and drones? Not to mention that their tanking is also split, so they must train both armor and shield tanking...that is if they would like to efficiently fly minmatar ships? Is there another race that must do all of this? lol... guess you don't know that this was actually part of the racial design for Minmatar back in the good old days.
In other words, this guy isn't pro enough to being flying Minmatar. Get good at all weapons or GTFO of my superior race. |
Mund Richard
247
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:04:00 -
[556] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs. Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie? You should just train shield tanking.... See how that sucks? I'd love to, if they had more shield hp than armor or hull, no armor bonus, ect!
Heck, I do shield tank some of them even though they have armor rep bonuses! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
GreenSeed
147
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:05:00 -
[557] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Gneeznow wrote:The ferox, drake and brutix are missing their utility high for a warfare link. Maybe the Ferox, Drake and Brutix should all be given a utility high by removing a turret from each? so a ship that already has to give up dps lows to fit a gang link now also has to drop turrets/launchers...
are you serious?
as it is now, the only real on grid boosting BC would be the drake... doing 200dps.
if CCP, wants people to stop using alts to off grid boost, they need to let on grid boosting be a matter of fitting the damn thing and turning it on... the way i see it, links shouldn't even cost cap to use. if they screw up on grid boosting from the get go like this, why would anyone "play" an on-grid booster? crap dps, no point, no mobility... all you do is warp in with the fleet and hope no one notices you are firing light missiles at drones, instead of HMs or HAMs.
due to cpu limitation on the drake its already hard to fit a link, along with the extra tank you will need because you will be primary. so to top it off, not only we lose dps, we even lose PG and CPU...
great.
and the rest of the gang also loses the utility highs for RR... which we NEED.
honestly if this changes go live with the removal the ling highs, this is the worst rebalancing ever. they want to nerf the drake, remove the 5% resist per lvl, remove the drone bay, those things wont affect the ship as much as loosing the high.
and yeah maybe there's 2 people out there who fit neuts in that high, but they re giving up a lot of tank to do it. not to mention the damn thing better be a med neut or noone will notice it, which makes a cap booster in the mids almost mandatory. if a few players want to fly a drake like that let them.
and this is pvp side only, on pve the drake was a very cool gang ship to slowly do WHs and lvl 4s with a small fleet of noobs with meta mods... with no utility high spider drakes and all their teaching potential is gone... am i supposed to ask a new player to train all the way up to a tengu to be of any use? oh wait he should train a logistics and spend the entire time a primary....
right. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:05:00 -
[558] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs.
Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie? You should just train shield tanking.... See how that sucks? If they gave Gallente ships shield tanking bonuses I would gladly take that up. I already shield tank my Talos, my Ishtar, my Lachesis and my Eris.
Also, I'm primarily a Caldari pilot. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
405
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:06:00 -
[559] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs.
Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie? You should just train shield tanking.... See how that sucks? Many gallente pilots train both.
Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:06:00 -
[560] - Quote
Still left the harb in a limbo towards tanking. Still left drake useless 75% of the time due to damage specific.. Brutus ok, cyclone ok.. But all in all most ships are **** compared to the smaller classes, making BATTLEcruiser the wrong name for the class.. Sorry, can't approve of ****** balancing attempts.. Better luck next time. |
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:09:00 -
[561] - Quote
I don't quite get the restriction on the drake for kinetic missiles. It's not like any other race has limits such as only tungsten bonus or only multifrequency etc.
Just trying to understand the reasoning. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:14:00 -
[562] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:I don't quite get the restriction on the drake for kinetic missiles. It's not like any other race has limits such as only tungsten bonus or only multifrequency etc.
Just trying to understand the reasoning. This goes way back, each race had their missile type. Amar explosive, Minmatar EM, Gallente Thermal, Caldari Kinetic. You can still see some of these in T2 ships like bombers or the Gallente mix weapon system ships.
It's dumb and they had announced they were going to move away from this. I'm hoping its just an oversight (albeit a big one) and they'll correct their ways eventually. |
Mund Richard
247
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:16:00 -
[563] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs. Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie? You should just train shield tanking.... See how that sucks? I'd love to, if they had more shield hp than armor or hull, no armor bonus, ect! Heck, I do shield tank some of them even though they have armor rep bonuses! Omnathious Deninard wrote:Many gallente pilots train both. Edward Pierce wrote: If they gave Gallente ships shield tanking bonuses I would gladly take that up. I already shield tank my Talos, my Ishtar, my Lachesis and my Eris. Also, I'm primarily a Caldari pilot. Shield Brutix for PvP Passive shield Myrm and active shield Domi for PvE. Would possibly fly a shield Hyperion in a BS shield fleet.
...Satisfied? And 3 of these 4 have an active armor rep bonus... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Bangkirai
Brewery Research Ltd Ethereal Dawn
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:17:00 -
[564] - Quote
The bonus to the ferox makes the eagle totally worthless?
|
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
712
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:19:00 -
[565] - Quote
Disappointing changes to Gallente battlecruisers.
They require different bonuses. Perhaps if they received extra remote rep from fleet logistics while keeping the local rep it would work.
This also kills all hope of me seeing the Hyperion shine in fleet warfare, they'll probably give it the same treatment as the Brutix got.
CCP I'm terribly disappointed with you. |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:20:00 -
[566] - Quote
Please make Prophecy into a mini-abaddon instead of a myrm rip-off.
Brutix needs more love. Active tanking is really bad, especially compared to the ASB. Cap efficiency needs to be better, and probably repair amount larger. Also don't understand the nerf to shield Brutix, what did it do?
I'd prefer Ferox to go same way as the Moa and become one dedicated brawler blaster BC, I think we really need one. Brutix doesn't qualify due to weak tank.
Cane didn't need any more hate but whatever.
Cyclone is lost to me now. Not very sad about it, but I think it was better the way it was.
Like what happened to Myrmidon.
Like the idea of the Harbinger bonuses very much. Hope the cap bonus as an extra may find its way to some other amarr ships *cough* maller *cough*.
Generaly not very happy with the changes. I'd prefer if T1 BCs were buffed more and T2 ones were left as good as they currently are. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:21:00 -
[567] - Quote
Bangkirai wrote:The bonus to the ferox makes the eagle totally worthless?
The Eagle gets double 10% optimal range bonuses for a total of 100% optimal range at max skills, making it an actual sniping ship.
Besides the fact that T2 ships haven't been re-balanced yet and therefore make for bad comparisons.
EDIT: Two 50% optimal, not the same as 100%, but you get the idea. |
Dewgong
Drama Llamas Dark Therapy
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:28:00 -
[568] - Quote
Harb got hit hard with that nerf bat. Fits are already tight enough with the CPU it currently has. Taking a high slot along with a turret is painful. I'd had much rather the Harb kept as is than to see those changes. The only good change to the Harb is the drones, but even then 50m3 was enough. Anything else is luxury (really 25m3 doesn't cut it, and anything more than 50 is just luxury). Also, with reading the Harb's cap changes, slower charge time is GG for any Harb now.
In addition, while as a longtime fan of the Prophecy, I must say, I have mixed feelings about the changes. It's nice to see it have potential for a role, but at least give it (noticably) better slots than an arbitrator would. The loss of two highs cripple it's utility use (good bye NeutProphGäó) At least give it a fifth mid so it might be useful as ewar support since 4 mids is hardly enough. The most glaring negative besides the high slot changes, however is the mixed use of missiles and turrets. This hurts (painfully hurts) Amarr ships moreso than it would, say, Minmatar ones. Just make it one or the other please. |
Apostrophe Diacritic
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:39:00 -
[569] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:mynnna wrote:
Well lets see, Caldari "must be" efficient in both railguns and missiles and it's not like they don't have drone bays at all. Amarr "must be" efficient in both lasers and missiles and drones are even more important to them. I guess Gallente get lucky, they only have to train guns and drones. Man, so unfair.
Lets not bring up "you have to train multiple weapon systems!!!" like it's an actual valid complaint; thanks.
When substantial portion of the Cyclone DPS is being attributed to "drone" damage, then it becomes somewhat of an issue. Caldari don't have any armor ships that I know of...armarr and gallente don't have any shield boats.... All I'm saying, is don't require a minmatar pliot to be proficient in Guns, Missiles, and Drones....as well as Armor and Shield. Pick one blasted line of thought, and stick to it. The hybrid thing is nice if you didn't have to spend 3 months of your life waiting to become proficient in the CCP flavor of the month.
Amarr are actually more SP intensive to fly effectively than Minmatar for a new pilot. For one you can get away with only 3-4 in cap skills, as Amarr you need them maxed asap. Also you can skip Controlled Bursts skill completely as you dont use cap to fire, you can skip Sharpshooter for a long time because minmatar have a low optimal anyway and operate in falloff. Amarr cant skip Trajectory Analysis because it unlocks Tracking Computers. As for Amarr dont need shield skills comment that is just stupid. Their combat frigates cant really shield tank effectively (and even that is changed now since Tormentor can be somewhat effective kiter) and their battleship are armor tanked, anything in between can (and should if the need arises) be really effectively shield tanked. Harbinger has the same slot layout as Hurricane, and has more EHP than cane when shield fitted. Amarr has ships that have armor tanking bonuses but Minmatar have ships with shield bonuses, saying that Amarr are exclusive armor tanked is the same as saying Minmatar are exclusive shield tankers. And most importantly training skills for pvp shield buffer tank takes like 8 days with no implants.
As for missile skills you dont need to train them straight away just for a couple of ships, (or if you want them you can skip gunnery at start). New characters will have to make their pick, and for older characters training HAMS is not that big a deal. Amarr will also have to train them eventually for their T2 Khanid hulls.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
371
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 00:02:00 -
[570] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:4LeafClover wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs.
Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie? You should just train shield tanking.... See how that sucks? If they gave Gallente ships shield tanking bonuses I would gladly take that up. I already shield tank my Talos, my Ishtar, my Lachesis and my Eris. Also, I'm primarily a Caldari pilot.
Shield tanking is superior. Especially in fleets where armor logis have to know exactly what will happen during next 15 seconds so they can apply their reps on ships on time. No such problems for superior shield logis. |
|
Antlpater
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 00:05:00 -
[571] - Quote
mynnna wrote:[quote=4LeafClover][quote=mynnna] ... As someone else helpfully pointed out, the extent to which minmatar are required to crosstrain is nothing new. ...
Great i crosstrained Caldari/Minmatar (drake/cane) \o/ |
Rhosigma
Unorthodox Operations Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 00:28:00 -
[572] - Quote
Normally, I'm all for giving constructive criticism, but the best I can do for this one is "Wow, that sucks." Thanks guys. |
King Rothgar
CONTRATTO IMPERIAL LEGI0N
343
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:06:00 -
[573] - Quote
Prophecy: Bad change. The obvious change is to give it the same treatment you gave the maller and punisher. Armor resists + damage bonus was the "correct" way to do it. As a drone boat, it falls a bit flat. 75mb of bandwidth might as well be 50mb of bandwidth. The reason is simple, I can count the number of times I've used lights, mediums and heavies all at the same time on one hand. The number of times I've encountered others doing it is equally rare. There is a reason for that and it has nothing to do with a ship's bandwidth.
Ferox: As has been said many times, the optimal range bonus is silly given the presence of the naga. Change it to a 5% damage bonus and all is good.
Cyclone: Split weapons are bad m'kay. Additionally, it needs another midslot, not another low. Active shield tanking in pvp with only 5 mids is kinda fail. Yes people have found ways to work with it, but it really needs a 6th midslot to be competitive.
Harbinger: Looks like a buff tbh but I don't think it needed one.
Brutix: You can't active armor tank that thing without getting laughed at by the whole of the eve community. Just drop that silly bonus and give it a shield resistance bonus already. The Troll is trolling. |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:06:00 -
[574] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:I have BC V and good drone skills, so this doesn't effect me, but where does a new Amarr pilot who specializes in drones (with a side dish of Missiles) go after the Prophecy?
Gallente pilots can go Domi>Navi Domi/Sin.
I like the Prophecy, don't change it, but I thought you wanted to make the game more new player friendly. What is the next step for a newish Amarr pilot? Armageddon I'd say. Considering that the NavyGeddon already has a huge dronebay and bandwidth, I suppose they increse the drone capacity of the standard Geddon, too when the battleships are due for tiericide. Geddon and Navy Geddon can field a full flight of heavies/sentiries, but both are turret only ships with no drone bonuses. The progression path of Dragoon>Arbitrator/Curse>Prophecy are all Drone bonused ships that can use launchers. Aside from the Pilgrim, all the Amarr drone boats have as many or more launcher hardpoints than turret hardpoints. Don't forget that drones represent damage projection for Gallente pilots, since blasters can't reach out and touch someone from afar. Amarr don't share this problem, as their ships are quite capable of hitting out very far with Scorch (and not even using the longer-range beams). I doubt that we'd ever see an Amarrian BS overhauled to be a dedicated drone boat 1) because its not necessary since they can project damage and 2) there already is a armor drone BS in that category (with the Rattlesnake covering the shield drone BS). CCP diversifies, I've seen, when there is a demand or a hole to fill. Armor drone BS is already filled, and aside from the hull being ugly, the Domi does a pretty good job.
Domi being an armor/drone boat doesn't address the issue. A young Amarr pilot who went with drones/launchers still has no progression path after the Prophecy. Cross training into Gallente BS and large hybrid weapons is a big side step for a new Amarr pilot ready for his first BS.
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:14:00 -
[575] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote: Domi being an armor/drone boat doesn't address the issue. A young Amarr pilot who went with drones/launchers still has no progression path after the Prophecy. Cross training into Gallente BS and large hybrid weapons is a big side step for a new Amarr pilot ready for his first BS.
i dunno... perhaps that 125 drone bay on the geddon will have a use after all...
like rate of fire bonus for lazors and damage/hp bonus for drones on an improved geddon At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:20:00 -
[576] - Quote
fukier wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote: Domi being an armor/drone boat doesn't address the issue. A young Amarr pilot who went with drones/launchers still has no progression path after the Prophecy. Cross training into Gallente BS and large hybrid weapons is a big side step for a new Amarr pilot ready for his first BS.
i dunno... perhaps that 125 drone bay on the geddon will have a use after all... like rate of fire bonus for lazors and damage/hp bonus for drones on an improved geddon
ROF bonus on lazors and Damage bonused Sentries. Ouch. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1210
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:27:00 -
[577] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:Prophecy: Bad change. The obvious change is to give it the same treatment you gave the maller and punisher. Armor resists + damage bonus was the "correct" way to do it. As a drone boat, it falls a bit flat. 75mb of bandwidth might as well be 50mb of bandwidth. The reason is simple, I can count the number of times I've used lights, mediums and heavies all at the same time on one hand. The number of times I've encountered others doing it is equally rare. There is a reason for that and it has nothing to do with a ship's bandwidth.
Yea, who wants a ship that can push out 600+ dps while holding a moderate tank right? This change owns, the prophecy will become one of the best BC's. Find the new EFT for it and start tinkering around a bit if you doubt me. Amazing doesn't begin to describe it.
King Rothgar wrote:Harbinger: Looks like a buff tbh but I don't think it needed one.
No, its a net nerf, its slower, weaker, does the same or less dps in most instances, and generally the changes will enhance all the problems the harby ever had.
Not to mention it will be outright the lowest DPS BC of the bunch, coming in even below the 550 or so you can expect from a Cyclone post change. At least the cyclone will be able to get in range.
King Rothgar wrote:Brutix: You can't active armor tank that thing without getting laughed at by the whole of the eve community. Just drop that silly bonus and give it a shield resistance bonus already.
Everybody that says this didnt notice the great big glaring hint about armor tanking changes on the first page of this thread.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1210
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:30:00 -
[578] - Quote
Also all the people crying about the progression path after the prophecy are actually drinking bleach with their breakfast since they haven't gotten to the BS teiricide yet.
Notice the cruisers. One got made to act like a baby geddon, one got made to act like a baby aba.
Which one does that leave open for modification that generally doesn't get much use in the game since the sniper nerfs...oh wait..the Apoc....hmmmmmm. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:35:00 -
[579] - Quote
Dewgong wrote:Harb got hit hard with that nerf bat. Fits are already tight enough with the CPU it currently has. Taking a high slot along with a turret is painful. I'd had much rather the Harb kept as is than to see those changes. The only good change to the Harb is the drones, but even then 50m3 was enough. Anything else is luxury (really 25m3 doesn't cut it, and anything more than 50 is just luxury). Also, with reading the Harb's cap changes, slower charge time is GG for any Harb now.
In addition, while as a longtime fan of the Prophecy, I must say, I have mixed feelings about the changes. It's nice to see it have potential for a role, but at least give it (noticably) better slots than an arbitrator would. The loss of two highs cripple it's utility use (good bye NeutProphGäó) At least give it a fifth mid so it might be useful as ewar support since 4 mids is hardly enough. The most glaring negative besides the high slot changes, however is the mixed use of missiles and turrets. This hurts (painfully hurts) Amarr ships moreso than it would, say, Minmatar ones. Just make it one or the other please.
Harbinger loses 175 PWG and 25 CPU. With maxed skills those become 219 PWG and 31 CPU lost. At max skills a Heavy Pulse laser II is 208 PWG and 28 CPU At max skills a Focused Medium Pulse II uses 125 PWG and 23 CPU
The harbinger actually comes out roughly equal or even ahead because its using fewer turrets to do the same DPS (same DPS thanks to a better bonus). The Harbinger actually takes 14% less capacitor to fire its guns because it now uses 6 instead of 7. So nerfing the capacitor roughly balances out. Roughly. The harbinger lost a tenth of its base armor, if you single plate 1600mm that becomes 5% effective EHP. The Harbinger loses agility. You can now carry more cap boosters in the cargo. Now it can carry an extra flight of small drones. That's pretty good too.
The harbinger was only slightly nerfed as far as I can tell.
No one's forcing you to put turrets or even launchers on all the prophecy highslots. Or even to put any on it at all. Saying "goodbye neuts" implies that for some reason they will no longer work on the ship. Which doesn't make sense. Taking away a near-pointless bonus and giving it a useful one, while keeping the awesome resistance bonus and giving it more armor, makes the new prophecy so much better that its not even funny. If you're ewar support that would imply you don't need help tackling your prey. In which case 4 mids works perfectly well for an ad-hoc ewar hull. "make it one or the other". How about not? How about I'll keep 4 of each hardpoint and be able to put whatever the hell I want there? That sounds better to me. |
FistyMcBumBasher
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
37
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:36:00 -
[580] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:King Rothgar wrote:Harbinger: Looks like a buff tbh but I don't think it needed one. No, its a net nerf, its slower, weaker, does the same or less dps in most instances, and generally the changes will enhance all the problems the harby ever had. Not to mention it will be outright the lowest DPS BC of the bunch, coming in even below the 550 or so you can expect from a Cyclone post change. At least the cyclone will be able to get in range.
With two heat sinks the new Harbinger can push over 700 dps with Imp Navy Multifrequency. The mass was decreased as well, so it is more nimble, and the capacitor also got a boost, not to mention one less turret will be draining cap. I would call that a pretty nice buff. |
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:37:00 -
[581] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Also all the people crying about the progression path after the prophecy are actually drinking bleach with their breakfast since they haven't gotten to the BS teiricide yet.
Notice the cruisers. One got made to act like a baby geddon, one got made to act like a baby aba.
Which one does that leave open for modification that generally doesn't get much use in the game since the sniper nerfs...oh wait..the Apoc....hmmmmmm. I hope the tiericide comes with a nice new model for the Apoc, since the Megathron got an awesome hull update to make it look less lopsided. The Apoc just looks too silly. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:38:00 -
[582] - Quote
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:King Rothgar wrote:Harbinger: Looks like a buff tbh but I don't think it needed one. No, its a net nerf, its slower, weaker, does the same or less dps in most instances, and generally the changes will enhance all the problems the harby ever had. Not to mention it will be outright the lowest DPS BC of the bunch, coming in even below the 550 or so you can expect from a Cyclone post change. At least the cyclone will be able to get in range. With two heat sinks the new Harbinger can push over 700 dps with Imp Navy Multifrequency. The mass was decreased as well, so it is more nimble, and the capacitor also got a boost, not to mention one less turret will be draining cap. I would call that a pretty nice buff. Look again. The harby got more mass. The align time was increased to 9.1 s from 8.9. |
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:41:00 -
[583] - Quote
Apostrophe Diacritic wrote:Harbinger is buffed. Yeah it has -25 cpu but one turret takes 26.3 with max skills so its actually a little buff. Drone bay increase is actually a big deal, and small capacitor recharge nerf is more than compensated with 1 less turret, same as cpu. And it also does more damage then before, 5% more dps per BC level is 25% damage boost, 1 turret less from 7 is 14,2% nerf so in total its over 10% damage buff for Harbinger. The 2% increase in mass is really not a big deal and with shield tank EHP lost is really not that bad, its less than 1.5k with great skills and some low implants. Harbinger shield tanked is 200ms slower than Cane and since its mass is "nerfed" less that difference is gonna be a little smaller now. Dont complain its slow if you put 2x1600 plates on it. And you can shield tank it, it has the same slot layout as Hurricane and even has more EHP. It also has a great damage projection. 10% damage boost is huge, and the nerfs are pathetic. Actually the 1.3 cpu "buff" may actually help some fits to use 2% implant instead of 3%.
im sorry your bad at math
- 1 gun 100/7 * 6 = 85.71 +25% dmg skill 85.71 * 1.25 = 107.14
now since this is supposed to be for people who dont have max skills bc lets be honest if you have max skills you arnt flying a harb unless your bad or poor or have some strange attraction to an underpowered ship. so with only a 20 % dmg buff aka lvl 4 skill 85.71 * 1.2 = 102.85
next you argue that an amarr ship should be shield tanked because the hurricane is shield tanked. its an amarr ship. amarr armor tank. if shield tanking it is better than something is wrong with it and since this is a potential balance patch this should be addressed. so your shield argument is also dumb
now if we look at how it preforms with a correct racial amour tank the mass changes continue to plague its ability to get in range and actually do damage. so while yes its a little nicer to fit now your talking at most a 7% buff in dps which is out weighted by its mass and agility nerf once stacked with a traditional amour tank. im not say it should have the same stats as a cain or any other bc for that matter, but it should be able to compete with the others and atm it cannot.
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:45:00 -
[584] - Quote
B'reanna wrote:Apostrophe Diacritic wrote:Harbinger is buffed. Yeah it has -25 cpu but one turret takes 26.3 with max skills so its actually a little buff. Drone bay increase is actually a big deal, and small capacitor recharge nerf is more than compensated with 1 less turret, same as cpu. And it also does more damage then before, 5% more dps per BC level is 25% damage boost, 1 turret less from 7 is 14,2% nerf so in total its over 10% damage buff for Harbinger. The 2% increase in mass is really not a big deal and with shield tank EHP lost is really not that bad, its less than 1.5k with great skills and some low implants. Harbinger shield tanked is 200ms slower than Cane and since its mass is "nerfed" less that difference is gonna be a little smaller now. Dont complain its slow if you put 2x1600 plates on it. And you can shield tank it, it has the same slot layout as Hurricane and even has more EHP. It also has a great damage projection. 10% damage boost is huge, and the nerfs are pathetic. Actually the 1.3 cpu "buff" may actually help some fits to use 2% implant instead of 3%. im sorry your bad at math - 1 gun 100/7 * 6 = 85.71 +25% dmg skill 85.71 * 1.25 = 107.14 now since this is supposed to be for people who dont have max skills bc lets be honest if you have max skills you arnt flying a harb unless your bad or poor or have some strange attraction to an underpowered ship. so with only a 20 % dmg buff aka lvl 4 skill 85.71 * 1.2 = 102.85 next you argue that an amarr ship should be shield tanked because the hurricane is shield tanked. its an amarr ship. amarr armor tank. if shield tanking it is better than something is wrong with it and since this is a potential balance patch this should be addressed. so your shield argument is also dumb now if we look at how it preforms with a correct racial amour tank the mass changes continue to plague its ability to get in range and actually do damage. so while yes its a little nicer to fit now your talking at most a 7% buff in dps which is out weighted by its mass and agility nerf once stacked with a traditional amour tank. im not say it should have the same stats as a cain or any other bc for that matter, but it should be able to compete with the others and atm it cannot.
You need to AGAIN, look at the first post. It isnt 1.25, it is 1.5
|
NetheranE
The Cariest Of Bears
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:46:00 -
[585] - Quote
I retract my early statements about the gallente armor rep bonus. I want to see what CCP pulls out of their hat for the "Active VS Passive Tanking Changes.'' However, atm the bonus should be pushed to 10% if active tanking changes are not coming out soon.
1. To those asking for a HP/level or Resistance/level on the Brutix. Shadd'up. First that is completely out of the pool of racial bonuses, they does not belong on gallente ships and should never be there. Second, a full damage bonus would be outright frightening, a gank brutix would carry more dps than many max skilled battleships. Get over yourselves, honestly.
2. With the extra low and gun on the Ferox, going full Neutrons and using the extra low for a PDU/RCU makes this ship entirely effective and very frightening. The optimal bonus is great inside scram range fighting, pushing Void to a useful optimal and making Null extremely effective. Stop your bitching, this ship is fine.
3. Harbinger had great EHP before with a standard 1600 EANM ANP FMP setup. While this nerf is still significant, it will not completely throw it out of the game.
4. The Cyclone does need a 6th Launcher, as the DPS will be far too low unless one can fit 3x BCUs. If 3 BCUs are possible, then having 5 Launchers is still possible. Just like the immortalised fitting done by Garmon, the new setup would simply be 5 Launchers, 2 Guns, Active shield mids, DC & BCUs for lows. I am still highly excited for the ship.
Overall, I see only blind bigoted whining by the majority of people that apparently became too entrenched in their "standard" uses of ships that over-performed their peers. They are simply upset that CCP is forcing positive changes and putting all BCs on the same tier. I'm looking at you 220-DualNeut 1600 Cane fliers. Eat a succulent nerf.
Either way, I am still excited and am thoroughly fueled by the great quantity of tears shed in this thread. |
NetheranE
The Cariest Of Bears
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:54:00 -
[586] - Quote
Dewgong wrote:Harb got hit hard with that nerf bat. Fits are already tight enough with the CPU it currently has. Taking a high slot along with a turret is painful. I'd had much rather the Harb kept as is than to see those changes. The only good change to the Harb is the drones, but even then 50m3 was enough. Anything else is luxury (really 25m3 doesn't cut it, and anything more than 50 is just luxury). Also, with reading the Harb's cap changes, slower charge time is GG for any Harb now.
In addition, while as a longtime fan of the Prophecy, I must say, I have mixed feelings about the changes. It's nice to see it have potential for a role, but at least give it (noticably) better slots than an arbitrator would. The loss of two highs cripple it's utility use (good bye NeutProphGäó) At least give it a fifth mid so it might be useful as ewar support since 4 mids is hardly enough. The most glaring negative besides the high slot changes, however is the mixed use of missiles and turrets. This hurts (painfully hurts) Amarr ships moreso than it would, say, Minmatar ones. Just make it one or the other please.
You must be blind, please carefully re-read the harbinger changes. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:54:00 -
[587] - Quote
1. Harbinger - 10% bonus to damage.... is that a typo and it's meant to be 5? Because holy cow! YESSSSSSSSSSS!
2. Prophecy is a drone boat but has 75 drone bandwith... why not 100 like the Myrm?
3. Ferox... a little better but not much. Needs 6 lows to be a nano blaster like a talos (Dmg Control, 1 nano, 2 TEs + 2 Mags). I was hoping it would get an extra mid to be like the Drake in the sense of being able to pack a nasty tank AND good tackle for range control (Since with a range bonus rather than a damage bonus, wouldn't that be how it wins against other brawlers?). I know CCP made a post saying they want the Ferox to be sniper but until medium rails get buffed that simply won't happen. Naga does too good of a job at that anyway.
4. Cyclone - Why not 6 Launchers? 6 Launchers + Warfarelink/Neut will can potentially make the cyclone a beast. Not complaining though. Will prob fit a smartbomb/medium neut for solo work. I hope the Sleipnir keeps the turrets for when they move to command ships though.
5. Personally I think both the Myrm and the Prophecy if they are to remain as drone boats should get 125mm Drone Bays. I would even be willing to part with another Highslot for this. I think the use of heavy drones should be what sets these apart from cruisers.
6. Drake, no neut/warfarelink makes me sad. I mean yeah I can use a missile slot but... no. Still a mighty BC by all rights though so I don't care that much.
7. Brutix - meh. more capacitor and an additional low makes active tanking on this better but I'm still meh about it because it's active armor tanking. Also, please give it 25mm more drone bay so it can be like the harb and pack a set of lights to swap out when dealing with frigs.
8. Hurricane - Ouch on the capacitor! you guys really hate nano canes. PG nerf already limited it to 1 medium and 1 small unless we downsized to 220s. Still a good ship though where before it was prob even with drake, drake is prob now king. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1210
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:00:00 -
[588] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:1. Harbinger - 10% bonus to damage.... is that a typo and it's meant to be 5? Because holy cow! YESSSSSSSSSSS!
YEA ONE STAT GOT BUFFED WHILE THE REST GOT RAPED TO OBLIVION WOOO HOOO BREAK OUT THE PARTY FAVORS. |
NetheranE
The Cariest Of Bears
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:15:00 -
[589] - Quote
/me sighs extensively
King Rothgar wrote:Prophecy: Bad change. The obvious change is to give it the same treatment you gave the maller and punisher. Armor resists + damage bonus was the "correct" way to do it. As a drone boat, it falls a bit flat. 75mb of bandwidth might as well be 50mb of bandwidth. The reason is simple, I can count the number of times I've used lights, mediums and heavies all at the same time on one hand. The number of times I've encountered others doing it is equally rare. There is a reason for that and it has nothing to do with a ship's bandwidth. In case you had not noticed, the entire line changing across the EvE Universe has to been create a primary and a secondary weapon system for each race. I will list them for your ease of understanding: Amarr, Lasers and Drones; Gallente, Hybrids and Drones; Caldari, Missiles and Hybrids; Minmatar, Projectiles and Missiles. This should be evident thanks the to Arbitrator and its Recon variants. If you're not using mixed drone flights, then you may need to learn of the concept called "MinMax'ing." The only reasons against it are 'false-self-diagnosis-of-OCD' and 'a lack of SP.' A 2/2/1 group applies far better than a 3/0/0 group and a 0/5/0 group lacks around 30% the dps of the 2/2/1 group. Your choice of not using it is bigoted and foolish in all simplicity.
King Rothgar wrote:Ferox: As has been said many times, the optimal range bonus is silly given the presence of the naga. Change it to a 5% damage bonus and all is good. Optimal bonus works great with blasters, making Void and Null more effecitve, an advantage that the Brutix envies. A 5% damage bonus with the addition of an extra gun makes the ferox capable of carrying FAR more damage than an armor tanked Brutix, this is disproportional to many other ratios throughout the game and is a very near-sighted response. It should not happen unless the extra gun is removed.
King Rothgar wrote:Cyclone: Split weapons are bad m'kay. Additionally, it needs another midslot, not another low. Active shield tanking in pvp with only 5 mids is kinda fail. Yes people have found ways to work with it, but it really needs a 6th midslot to be competitive. Do you suffer from something I won't mention in public? The Cyclone will have 5 Launchers to 2 Guns, and will only bonused to the Launchers. This is a perfectly acceptable choice as the majority of Cyclones CURRENTLY carry 5 Guns and 3 Launchers anyways. This is a swap to emphasis the secondary weapon system of the Minmatar that has already been done through the Breacher and Bellicose. With the bonus as is, the Cyclone is an extremely effective PvP ship tanking with its 5 mids. People have been competitive with Cyclones for a very long time, perhaps it is you who struggles with the understanding of what is and is not competitive?
King Rothgar wrote:Harbinger: Looks like a buff tbh but I don't think it needed one. It is a buff. Hurr.
King Rothgar wrote:Brutix: You can't active armor tank that thing without getting laughed at by the whole of the eve community. Just drop that silly bonus and give it a shield resistance bonus already. Sarcasm detected. A well fit, well flown dual rep Brutix is still a capable, if limited, ship and should not be so idly mocked. I'll refrain from thoroughly flaming the shield resistance comment due to apparent lack of general strength of you entire post. |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:18:00 -
[590] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Also all the people crying about the progression path after the prophecy are actually drinking bleach with their breakfast since they haven't gotten to the BS teiricide yet.
Notice the cruisers. One got made to act like a baby geddon, one got made to act like a baby aba.
Which one does that leave open for modification that generally doesn't get much use in the game since the sniper nerfs...oh wait..the Apoc....hmmmmmm.
If I ignored the fact that the developers previously posted plans for the BS revamp which does not include an Amarr drone ship, then I would think you make an excellent point.
But they did... and I didn't.
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530
Thanks for playing! |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:21:00 -
[591] - Quote
Anasur wrote:Well, not loving the shield nerf, but I suppose anyone who flies one will say the same:)
One suggestion though, how about reducing it to 6 launchers but giving it a +10% per level damage boost, with associated fitting changes of course. Much the same as you did the Harbinger.
This would be a dps nerf to anyone with lvl 1-3 in BC. DPS at BC 4 is exactly the same, and it is a small (about 3%) boost at BC5.
That would allow a utility high slot for practical use. Letting a ship often used for PvE have space for a tractor beam is insanely convenient, or a Scan Probe launcher when using one in a wormhole!! Not to mention making a gang link more viable in a ship with a bonus to them. Hey, that was supposed to be my words exactly! Both Caldari battlecruisers without utility high is too sad to be true. I even didnt mind having a humble 7.5% bonus, but whatever - just give that utility high. Also, I'd like to suggest 7.5% bonus to shield HP instead of resists. It doesnt matter for PVE applications, and still a very good option for PVP - but without overshadowing the Ferox. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:28:00 -
[592] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Anasur wrote:Well, not loving the shield nerf, but I suppose anyone who flies one will say the same:)
One suggestion though, how about reducing it to 6 launchers but giving it a +10% per level damage boost, with associated fitting changes of course. Much the same as you did the Harbinger.
This would be a dps nerf to anyone with lvl 1-3 in BC. DPS at BC 4 is exactly the same, and it is a small (about 3%) boost at BC5.
That would allow a utility high slot for practical use. Letting a ship often used for PvE have space for a tractor beam is insanely convenient, or a Scan Probe launcher when using one in a wormhole!! Not to mention making a gang link more viable in a ship with a bonus to them. Hey, that was supposed to be my words exactly! Both Caldari battlecruisers without utility high is too sad to be true. I even didnt mind having a humble 7.5% bonus, but whatever - just give that utility high. Also, I'd like to suggest 7.5% bonus to shield HP instead of resists. It doesnt matter for PVE applications, and still a very good option for PVP - but without overshadowing the Ferox.
I don't see why so many hulls lost that utility high, I thought the point of those utility highs was to utilize the role bonus to links. Now only the Harbinger has a strict utility high (except the minnies but cares about minmatar anyway). Why not spread that increased bonus concept to all the hulls and remove a hardpoint?
Or at least have one of those for each race. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:32:00 -
[593] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: Heavy Pulses are not the biggest guns. Heavy Beams are.
This is wrong and you should be ashamed. Heavy pulse are the largest mid sized close range guns, Heavy Beams are the largest long range guns. Apples and Oranges. Oh, wow, didnt know - sorry, derp. Are you serious? Who cares if they are short or long range? If I cant fit them on Harby - then where? |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:45:00 -
[594] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:1. Harbinger - 10% bonus to damage.... is that a typo and it's meant to be 5? Because holy cow! YESSSSSSSSSSS!
YEA ONE STAT GOT BUFFED WHILE THE REST GOT RAPED TO OBLIVION WOOO HOOO BREAK OUT THE PARTY FAVORS. EHP got nerfed... Cap got buffed. Drone bay got buffed. Targetting range got buffed. Sensor got buffed. Cargo got buffed.
L2read bro. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 02:50:00 -
[595] - Quote
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Ferox seems pretty terribad Yeah, I thought the point was to make these bleh ships better, or give them some sort of "role" at least. They didn't do a dang thing for the Ferox, but they did make all the ones that were already good . . . worse. This seems like the opposite of what just happened to the cruisers, all which got fairly big and meaningful buffs and realignments.
And what happened to "nerfing the Drake?" "Let's take away the spare tractor beam slot so they have to slow boat around to every single drop can in the mission rooms." "Yeah, that'll fix em!" |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1211
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:15:00 -
[596] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:1. Harbinger - 10% bonus to damage.... is that a typo and it's meant to be 5? Because holy cow! YESSSSSSSSSSS!
YEA ONE STAT GOT BUFFED WHILE THE REST GOT RAPED TO OBLIVION WOOO HOOO BREAK OUT THE PARTY FAVORS. EHP got nerfed... Cap got buffed. Drone bay got buffed. Targetting range got buffed. Sensor got buffed. Cargo got buffed. L2read bro.
Mass got raped, ship is slower, overall the stats will be worse without near perfect skills.
So lets review:
Cap got buffed: Only because you're short one gun really, but since the ships going to likely be injected anyway WHO CARES.
Drone bay got buffed: Sweet because its so slow that your drones will be the only thing that ever gets in damage range
Targeting range got buffed: Sweet so you can watch that ship kite all the way away from you while you do absolutely no DPS outside of just over 20km
Sensor got buffed: Great, you'll still get jammed by 1 ECM 300 drone because those are still broken so maybe you wont actually get to watch him kite away.
Cargo got buffed: Great so its new role is a slower weaker hauler with less cargo than any actual hauler..
Sure am glad you actually play EVE bro. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:33:00 -
[597] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Also all the people crying about the progression path after the prophecy are actually drinking bleach with their breakfast since they haven't gotten to the BS teiricide yet.
Notice the cruisers. One got made to act like a baby geddon, one got made to act like a baby aba.
Which one does that leave open for modification that generally doesn't get much use in the game since the sniper nerfs...oh wait..the Apoc....hmmmmmm. If I ignored the fact that the developers had previously posted plans for the BS revamp which does not include an Amarr drone ship, then I would think you make an excellent point. But they did... and I didn't. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530
Not to try to make you look foolish or anything, but those previously posted plans also indicated that they wanted to try to emphasize the sniper nature of the Ferox. Now, they're just a first round pass, but that hasn't happened yet. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:34:00 -
[598] - Quote
I've noticed that everyone focuses, quite understandably, on the specific, ship-per-ship changes proposed, and I agree with many who said some nerfs are totally unnecessary, being myself of the opinion that for EVE to be more fun, good ships should remain good while bad ships should get better. We've all appreciated the introduction of Tier3 BCs because they were GOOD ships, who in heavens would expect a game to become more fun when something which used to be good becomes instead bad, and what was bad becomes, well, slightly "meh"?
But the real problem here is, I think the concept of "tiericide" scales horribly bad when applied to battlecruisers.
Dear CCP Fozzie, battlecruisers aren't cruisers, obviously. Cruisers have different roles inside the class, so it makes sense to keep them in many ways comparable to each other, there are Ewar ships, logistics, combat, assault, what they have in common is similar speed and staying powers so they can fly together , but completely different uses. What are Battlecruisers instead? They are a mix between two classes, so depending on the design philosophy they could either be meant to provide more punch to a cruiser fleet (fast and nimble as cruisers but with a lot more firepower, or with heavier long range guns), or as armored and slow as battleships, but providing advantages to a battleship fleet (either as an advanced command post, or as a screen vessel against small boats, aircrafts, missiles, etc). They could also be seen as a mixed ship meant to raid enemy commerce and punch small ships flotillas, with a combination of speed allowing it to outrun battleships, and firepower allowing it to outgun small ships.
I didn't see any "battlecruiser specific" thinking in that realm in the proposed changes though. Fozzie, your (or CCP's) plan is, "[...] for these ships to have roughly comparable power levels. To that end most of the former Tier 1 ships are getting slots and most of the former Tier 2 ships are losing slots. We gave them EHP closer to the averages of the old Tier 1s and damage closer to the averages of the old Tier 2s."
Is this a good, deeply thought out and planned foundation to throw all the previous BC philosophy in the crapper? I personally doubt it.
To this day we were supposed to have a Tier1 with fast(ish) ships meant to provide DPS to small gangs, a Tier2 with slower and tankier ships meant to provide screen to BS heavy gangs. But the initial designs were already a bit flawed (speed never matched that of cruisers in the Tier1, and tank never matched a BS's in Tier2) plus in time things got mixed and changed, anyway we found ourselves with ships which were nor as fast as cruisers, nor as tanky as battleships. Today the only ships doing what we could call a real BC work are Commanships and the long-awaited Tier3s. Other BCs are usually flown either in battlecruisers-only gangs (that's an obvious sign of a flaw in the design of a ship which isn't able to fly along the other classes he should fly along with). To fly along cruisers one can only use Tier3s (thankfully) or NanoCanes (or Cyclones if he's poor) because shield Minnie ships are decently fast. Anyway most Tier1s around are usually flown solo, and mostly because they're cheap.
So PLEASE CCP Fozzie think about this. Rethink the CONCEPT behind the rebalancing, and make it meaningful. To review BCs, don't just nerf what's good and slightly fix what's terrible in the class, and don't copycat what you did about cruisers.
The work on Cruisers was awesome, but Battlecruisers are a very different beast, they ARE NOT cruisers so applying the same kind of reasoning to their "tiericide" is very dangerous and will kill the fun so many of these ships have provided us so far, without providing much more use to the ones which were instead neglected. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
317
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:41:00 -
[599] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Mass got raped, ship is slower, overall the stats will be worse without near perfect skills. Notify the editors of the Oxford/English dictionary the word "raped" has been redefined to mean 2.17% worse
Grath Telkin wrote:So lets review:
Targeting range got buffed: Sweet so you can watch that ship kite all the way away from you while you do absolutely no DPS outside of just over 20km Or you could . . . you know, use your brain and use the extra targeting range to your advantage as a mid range beam laser ship . . .
Grath Telkin wrote:Sensor got buffed: Great, you'll still get jammed by 1 ECM 300 drone because those are still broken so maybe you wont actually get to watch him kite away. Or you could . . . you know use your brain and use ECM drones yourself because "Drone bay got buffed . . ."
Grath Telkin wrote:Cargo got buffed: Great so its new role is a slower weaker hauler with less cargo than any actual hauler.. Or you could . . . you know, use your brain and use that extra space for one additional cap booster because youre ship should ". . . likely be injected anyway . . ."
Grath Telkin wrote:Sure am glad you actually play EVE bro. Sure am glad i use my brain to play EVE bro . . . |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:41:00 -
[600] - Quote
On a side note: if you plan to go ahead with the changes as proposed, what about the different prices we paid for BC hulls so far? Tier2 hulls are sensibly more expensive than Tier1s but it would sound pointless to keep it that way if they'll have comparable stats. So if someone bought a few replacement Canes or Drakes he'll just lose his ISK, as I can't imagine you'll raise the mineral requirements of Tier1s to the level of Tier2s given they're going to be just slightly better than cruisers in the proposed plan. That sounds a bit unfair to me, and I'd expect it to cause quite a stir throughout the community. |
|
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
170
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:50:00 -
[601] - Quote
NetheranE wrote: If you're not using mixed drone flights, then you may need to learn of the concept called "MinMax'ing." The only reasons against it are 'false-self-diagnosis-of-OCD' and 'a lack of SP.' A 2/2/1 group applies far better than a 3/0/0 group and a 0/5/0 group lacks around 30% the dps of the 2/2/1 group. Your choice of not using it is bigoted and foolish in all simplicity.
Statement of a EFT-Warrior. On paper you are right. On paper you get most DPS with 2/2/1. But ONLY on paper (or EFT)!
The reality is, that you lose DPS with a 2/2/1 setup when it comes to fights except for one scenario: close combat against heavy tackelt BC or bigger size targets. Problem with 2/2/1 setups are allways the heavy drones as they have trubble following and hitting anything smaller then BC. Hell, they can't even follow MWDing BCs.
So for most cases a simple 5-med is much better then your "minmax" 2/2/1 as they can applie their damage where heavys can't. And even if heavys could reach the targets ... meds can reach the targets MUCH faster and so applie damage alot faster. This is true for both, PvE and PvP.
For PvP there is just one use for a 2/2/1 setup: boring gatecamps For PvE sere is NO use for such a setup as 5-med ALLWAYS do a better job (5-med killed the BS long before 2 heavys would even reach the BS).
But again, ON PAPER you are right ;). Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1211
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:54:00 -
[602] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Or you could . . . you know, use your brain and use the extra targeting range to your advantage as a mid range beam laser ship . . .
You want to use BEAMS on a ship that already suffers crippling fitting issues?
Like seriously bro if you're just going to throw situational bullshit at whatever argument faces you thats cool and all but in this thread its already been pointed out that even with an 800 plate and Heavy Pulse laster you need fitting implants, and thats SUPER WEAK tank wise since you know, many cruisers can fit a 1600 plate for a tank.
But hey, you go ahead and argue that you're going to fit BEAMS (the harder to fit gun) on that ship, I guess tank is completely overrated.
Just hang it up boss, you looked at one stat, saw a change, and didn't look at what happened to the rest of the ship. Its ok to be wrong, just try not to drag it out like this because its silly.
2.1% of a ship thats already super slow can in fact be devastating, trying to fit beams to take advantage of some silly increase in lock range and then being ass naked because theres no fitting room left for a tank and calling that a buff is also silly. The whole sensor strength argument is ******** when stated as a buff because EC-300's dont give a damn what your sensor strength is at all, they just jam you. Turns out you could have a sensor strength of 10 million and 1 EC-300 will jam you out. You could fit a full flight in before so I'm not sure what your point is.
Just face it, you failed to notice the other changes that take a mediocre ship and basically make it the worst of all the BC's.
I want to make some snide comment about your game knowledge but at this point your just grasping at straws trying to prove your originally wrong statement so I'll just let you keep going with that because it does the job for me. |
Sentiax Alpha
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 03:55:00 -
[603] - Quote
Ferox needs damage bonus.
Drake needs universal missile damage bonus.
Myrm should have 125 bandwidth with 4 gun slots and 150 drone bay. All rep bonuses need to go, changed to resistance, to benefit both repair or ehp. 7.5% repair bonus is almost identical to 5% resistance as far as dual rep goes with identical fits, look at dual rep Prophecy vs dual rep myrm, or abaddon vs hyp. If you really want to change the meta this is an A+ way to do it imo. People might start trying single rep buffer hybrid tanks (GASP), or something else new and exciting. I miss the days of armor brawling solo or in small gangs, but nowadays you just get nano'd. Hell even 5% shield resistances is better and more versatile than 7.5% boost bonus.
Dual Rep Myrmidon vs Dual Rep Prophecy (All skills lvl 5) 2x MAR 2x EANM II 1x DCU II 1x EXP Hardener 2x Medium nanobot 1x Medium Aux
525 DPS tanked with no heat on Prophecy vs 551 DPS tanked on Myrmidon 49K EHP Prophecy vs 41K EHP Myrm |
Zaffzaff
Posthuman Society
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:09:00 -
[604] - Quote
...CCP, please stop screwing Gallente. PLEASE. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
462
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:18:00 -
[605] - Quote
Don't particularly like the looks of these changes. Here are some of my initial thoughts, although as always, I'll preface this by saying its SUPER hard to interpret ship changes from a wall of text stats. If you want us to generate meaningful feedback about your proposed changes, then please create a de-classified version of your internal Pyfa build so that people without autism spectrum disorders can actually play with potential fits and provide useful input.
- I see a lot of "x highslots, x turrets" in there. This makes me sad. Why are you hating so hard on utility highs? IMHO ~*every*~ BC should have at least one free high-- they're supposed to be flexible, workhorse T1 ships. It's one thing to leave specialized ships without utility slots, but T1 stuff should have them.
- If you just got through buffing cruiser speeds, why are you now trying to make most BCs handle worse?
- No more rapid light launcher Drakes? Sad times.
- Won't Cyclone DPS be pretty terrible with only 5 launchers and a 5% bonus? If you want it to "retain flexibility" but still be a viable ship why don't you give it 6 launcher slots at least?
- I don't like the Myrmidon changes. If you're gonna take a high slot then at least give it its 125mbit bandwidth back so it can field a full flight of heavies or sentries.
- Why are you changing the Harbinger at all? It's already the epitome of a what a BC should be-- flexible, capable, and practical without being overpowered.
- Why, in general, are you continuing to push active armor tanking bonuses on the Gallente BCs while making them even harder to shield tank? If you have some drastic change to armor tanking in mind, then it's silly to run BC changes by us before letting us know what they are. If you don't intend to completely rework active armor tanking, then you're simply removing some of the better fitting options for these ships by further committing them to armor tanks that don't work well with close-range weapons.
At the end of the day, ~*why*~ do you guys insist on continually nerfing tier 2 battlecruisers? Basically the pre-change balance was:
- Drake and Hurricane slightly overpowered (fixed already) - Harbinger almost perfectly balanced - Myrm slightly underwhelming except for ~*the triple rep fit*~ - Brutix, Ferox generally bad due to fitting requirements and pretty much exclusively used as close-range brawlers - Cyclone and Prophecy objectively inferior to all other BCs and only ever used as bait (or as ASB gimmick-ships since the intro of ASBs, which notably have not been removed from the game yet)
You've already fixed the two marginally-overpowered BCs, now you're going to shaft what was probably the best-balanced one in the game while nerfing mobility and fitting flexibility for the whole lot and providing extremely marginal improvments to the worst ships? I swear it's like you guys hate fun. You already nerfed the Cane and Drake, why are you nerfing them both again? Why nerf the Harbinger ever? Here's an idea: instead of making all the BCs ****, why don't you bring the awful tier 1 BCs up to the level of their viable counterparts?
I think you need to re-evaluate your approach. Stop pigeon-holing ships. Let Gallente ships continue to choose between armor and shield tanks. Stop stripping away utility highslots. Stop nerfing mobility on already-clumsy ships. Either make all the BCs fun to fly like the Cane, Drake, and Harb are, or just can the whole class. Noone is going to fly BCs if they all perform like slightly-improved Prophecies. |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:19:00 -
[606] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Also all the people crying about the progression path after the prophecy are actually drinking bleach with their breakfast since they haven't gotten to the BS teiricide yet.
Notice the cruisers. One got made to act like a baby geddon, one got made to act like a baby aba.
Which one does that leave open for modification that generally doesn't get much use in the game since the sniper nerfs...oh wait..the Apoc....hmmmmmm. If I ignored the fact that the developers had previously posted plans for the BS revamp which does not include an Amarr drone ship, then I would think you make an excellent point. But they did... and I didn't. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530 Not to try to make you look foolish or anything, but those previously posted plans also indicated that they wanted to try to emphasize the sniper nature of the Ferox. Now, they're just a first round pass, but that hasn't happened yet.
Don't worry. Using the information we have as a basis for my comments wont make me look foolish. I'll leave the conjecture and fantasy to others.
Just curious... I realize that the changes may be poorly executed and will result in a ship rarely used in its intended role, and if these changes went live there would still be better hulls to use as a sniping platform... but why would you say that an extra turret, 10% bonus to optimal and an extra low doesn't emphasize its sniper nature? |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
462
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:23:00 -
[607] - Quote
I'm especially peeved that a ship that recently acquired a special place in my heart (the cloaking HAM Drake, which was the one totally awesome outcome of your previous rebalancing) will no longer be a thing. Shame on you, sirs, for destroying something so beautiful and practical. |
Revman Zim
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
79
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:24:00 -
[608] - Quote
General comment:
Overall, changes I THINK are good. No way to tell until we actually fit and fly these ships IN GAME and not in EFT. Sorry guys, but the Hurricane is still OP. When we call for kitchen sink DPS for a fleet, there is only ONE ship that is flown, the Hurricane. That should tell you something right there.
SPECIFIC QUESTION:
I read every page of this thread and did not see a difinitive answer. When the update for the BC's is implemented will the SKILL TREE changes be implemented also?
CCP? Answer? I don't want to know when, since you will never say that, but just confirmation that the skill tree change to Destroyers and Battlecruisers will be implemented with the BC tiericide.
Now back to your regularly scheduled whine thread.... |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
464
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:26:00 -
[609] - Quote
The Hurricane is not overpowered, what the actual hell is wrong with people? |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1399
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:28:00 -
[610] - Quote
Revman Zim wrote: I read every page of this thread and did not see a difinitive answer. When the update for the BC's is implemented will the SKILL TREE changes be implemented also?
yes. there was even a devblog entry dedicated for that. Once BCs are balanced, destroyers and bc skills will be split up. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:37:00 -
[611] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Sigras wrote: Or you could . . . you know, use your brain and use the extra targeting range to your advantage as a mid range beam laser ship . . .
You want to use BEAMS on a ship that already suffers crippling fitting issues? Like seriously bro if you're just going to throw situational bullshit at whatever argument faces you thats cool and all but in this thread its already been pointed out that even with an 800 plate and Heavy Pulse laster you need fitting implants, and thats SUPER WEAK tank wise since you know, many cruisers can fit a 1600 plate for a tank. But hey, you go ahead and argue that you're going to fit BEAMS (the harder to fit gun) on that ship, I guess tank is completely overrated. Just hang it up boss, you looked at one stat, saw a change, and didn't look at what happened to the rest of the ship. Its ok to be wrong, just try not to drag it out like this because its silly. 2.1% of a ship thats already super slow can in fact be devastating, trying to fit beams to take advantage of some silly increase in lock range and then being ass naked because theres no fitting room left for a tank and calling that a buff is also silly. The whole sensor strength argument is ******** when stated as a buff because EC-300's dont give a damn what your sensor strength is at all, they just jam you. Turns out you could have a sensor strength of 10 million and 1 EC-300 will jam you out. You could fit a full flight in before so I'm not sure what your point is. Just face it, you failed to notice the other changes that take a mediocre ship and basically make it the worst of all the BC's. I want to make some snide comment about your game knowledge but at this point your just grasping at straws trying to prove your originally wrong statement so I'll just let you keep going with that because it does the job for me. Good lord Grath sure is mad about very small changes to a good ship. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:54:00 -
[612] - Quote
Brutix needs to have it's rep bonus increased to 10% per level (along with all active armor bonuses) to make the bonus even remotely competitive with the resistance bonus, or resistance bonus should be nerfed to 4% per level.
Myrmidon should have it's active rep bonus changed to something else drone related. Flight speed and tracking may be a good idea.
Other than that, I think the majority of these changes look pretty good. The increase in cargo will most certainly help active tanking across the board. |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
100
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 04:58:00 -
[613] - 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. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:01:00 -
[614] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:You want to use BEAMS on a ship that already suffers crippling fitting issues? Cant believe I thumb up a PL dude.
Ganthrithor wrote:I think you need to re-evaluate your approach. Stop pigeon-holing ships. Let Gallente ships continue to choose between armor and shield tanks. Stop stripping away utility highslots. Stop nerfing mobility on already-clumsy ships. Either make all the BCs fun to fly like the Cane, Drake, and Harb are, or just can the whole class. Noone is going to fly BCs if they all perform like slightly-improved Prophecies. ...and a Goon dude.
Before it's too late - maybe we just buff all former tier1 up to tier2 level, rather than vice-versa? Power creep can not be a valid excuse here - Hurricane and Drake are fine now, not at all over-powered compared to tier3's for example. So let's just pull the rest of them battlecruisers to that level. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:08:00 -
[615] - Quote
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. |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
100
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:12:00 -
[616] - 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 -
[617] - 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. |
Beregond Romendacil
Seventh Heaven's Retinue Dominatus Atrum Mortis
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:17:00 -
[618] - Quote
Who's the idiot that decided ships need to be BALANCED across each of the races !!!!
So what if Amarr has a better DPS ship with resists for fleet Ops or that the Caldari have a better self-rep ship for solo??? Why not just have one BC for all to use then?
What matters is that each ship has a role that they do well. Especially frigs and cruisers.
But when it comes to BCs, they should all be frontline fighting ships that can put fear in smaller ships and gang together to match a BS. With 2 or 3 models in each fleet, each race should be able to cover some basic roles.
- Solo whether PvP or PvE - Fleet ops where they rely on support to make them more powerful - warfare command links (these BCs would be able to fit more links while the others only had 1)
All BCs should have 1 utility slot if not 2. And BSs should have 2 or 3, maybe 1 for cruisers. They need these for flexibility to adapt to the environment, whether a salvager and tractor, or probes and a basic cloak, or drone support, or a remote rep, or a neut, or .... Let the higher tech ships and strategics be the ones with the nice bonuses for those other uses as many already do.
Let each race do it 'their way'. Some race might have more tank, and another might have more DPS, while another might have be able to mix in neuts or whatever.
Most of these BCs are just thrown together randomly and while they might have advantages, NONE of them seem to be useful in a DESIRED roll !
not sure I understand the T3 BCs... kinda like mystical unicorns....
And if another race has a ship that fits your role, then train for it. But at least EVERY ship would be used for something and ACTUALLY WORK for the purpose it was designed for. Once you have the role, the ship should have the PG/CPU/cap to fit all the Meta 1 mods to make it work with a low skill level. As the skill progresses, you'd be able to fit higher meta mods and get the better bonuses.
Don't nerf them, just make them work, and then lets fight !!! |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:19:00 -
[619] - Quote
Beregond Romendacil wrote:Who's the idiot that decided ships need to be BALANCED across each of the races !!!!
Someone who's not an idiot.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:22:00 -
[620] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:mynnna wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Also all the people crying about the progression path after the prophecy are actually drinking bleach with their breakfast since they haven't gotten to the BS teiricide yet.
Notice the cruisers. One got made to act like a baby geddon, one got made to act like a baby aba.
Which one does that leave open for modification that generally doesn't get much use in the game since the sniper nerfs...oh wait..the Apoc....hmmmmmm. If I ignored the fact that the developers had previously posted plans for the BS revamp which does not include an Amarr drone ship, then I would think you make an excellent point. But they did... and I didn't. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530 Not to try to make you look foolish or anything, but those previously posted plans also indicated that they wanted to try to emphasize the sniper nature of the Ferox. Now, they're just a first round pass, but that hasn't happened yet. Don't worry. Using the information we have as a basis for my comments wont make me look foolish. I'll leave the conjecture and fantasy to others. Just curious... I realize that the changes may be poorly executed and will result in a ship rarely used in its intended role, and if these changes went live there would still be better hulls to use as a sniping platform... but why would you say that an extra turret, 10% bonus to optimal and an extra low doesn't emphasize its sniper nature?
When the speculative proposal in that devblog was to emphasize it's sniper nature with a damage bonus, no, not really. Although thinking about it a little further I'll concede it's possible that they decided the 7th turret was a more gentle way of doing that - a Ferox with a damage bonus in place of it's resist bonus would be able to put out almost all of the damage of a gank fit brutix with a much better tank.
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:40:00 -
[621] - Quote
mynnna wrote: When the speclative proposal in that devblog was to emphasize it's sniper nature with a damage bonus, no, not really. Although thinking about it a little further I'll concede it's possible that they decided the 7th turret was a more gentle way of doing that - a Ferox with a damage bonus in place of it's resist bonus would be able to put out almost all of the damage of a gank fit brutix with a much better tank.
Ferox with a 7/5/5 layout and range/damage bonus and Butix with a 7/5/5/ layout and tracking/damage would make for 2 great ships. |
Natasha Rachmaninova
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 05:51:00 -
[622] - Quote
YEAH 6 new (non-battle)cruiser - - - NOT! |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 06:11:00 -
[623] - Quote
6/5/6 myrm now. Why not make it 5/6/6 instead of completely removing a slot?
Trading out damage/weapons for mid-utilites would provide some more flexibility. Particularly options for drone modules. |
Forgotten N Forsaken
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 06:23:00 -
[624] - Quote
Are you Guys freaking Crazy?!?! Wtf are you doing to the Bc class. Your destroying them.
Cyclone, yes its a good fix
You have Essentially Ruined the hurricane and turned it in to a summer Breeze. The myrm.. Take more tank away from it, take a gun away.. But give it one more heavy? Wtf.. A triple rep Myrm T2 fit. Struggles now to tank 2 cruisers. Its bullshit. My friends fit of 2 caracals both push out over 500 dps each and that's balenced?
Harbinger...You have destroyed it. Its hard enough to fit and to tank it well. and ur killing off some of its PG WTF are you guys thinking?
Active armor tanks I love them personally thats Great bonus, But there Freak in Pointless B/c you guys have put in ASB and there is no way to compete with the rep cycle of those things for an armor tank. Most ships you fight run 2 of them and anyone who is worth there weight knows how to feather the reps so that the other one can be extreamly close to being reloaded.
You guys are KILLING are BC class ships for the most part. There was nothing wrong With the Old Hurricane. ITs counter was the Drake. And lets face it. Drake did much better in terms of out right tank. ANd if people had fit hams instead of heavys. The drake had just as much if not more dps and tank then the cane.
Cyclone and prophcy are Decent changes, but the rest is Really ****. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
119
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 06:30:00 -
[625] - Quote
Trust a Minmatar to be unable to read. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
318
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 06:31:00 -
[626] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:You want to use BEAMS on a ship that already suffers crippling fitting issues?
Like seriously bro if you're just going to throw situational bullshit at whatever argument faces you thats cool and all but in this thread its already been pointed out that even with an 800 plate and Heavy Pulse laster you need fitting implants, and thats SUPER WEAK tank wise since you know, many cruisers can fit a 1600 plate for a tank.
But hey, you go ahead and argue that you're going to fit BEAMS (the harder to fit gun) on that ship, I guess tank is completely overrated. Beam laser sniper fits have never fielded much of a tank . . . try putting beam lasers on a zealot and see how well it tanks, but people still use them because the use RANGE as their tank . . . imagine that!
Grath Telkin wrote:Just hang it up boss, you looked at one stat, saw a change, and didn't look at what happened to the rest of the ship. Its ok to be wrong, just try not to drag it out like this because its silly. as mentioned above, the one making the straw man argument is you.
You chose one deficiency that this ship would have and pointed it out even though all the other ships filling the same role have the same deficiencies . . . it isnt the fault of the harbinger if ALL sniper ships are so crippled, thats what we call balance.
Grath Telkin wrote:Just face it, you failed to notice the other changes that take a mediocre ship and basically make it the worst of all the BC's. you really think the harb is the worst of all BCs now? I see your harbinger and raise you a brutix. This thing is a combat ship (read slowest of the ship roles) that has short range. also the harb can drop to the smaller pulse lasers to mitigate its fitting issues . . . it doesnt matter which guns the brutix fits it still cant catch anything.
I guess the point is moot because a well fit hurricane will pwn them both now. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 06:38:00 -
[627] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote: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. 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.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1213
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 07:13:00 -
[628] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Beam laser sniper fits have never fielded much of a tank . . . try putting beam lasers on a zealot and see how well it tanks, but people still use them because the use RANGE as their tank . . . imagine that!
Actually they're calld Badhacs and you can still fit a massive armor tank on them.
Glad to see you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.
Grath Telkin wrote:Just hang it up boss, you looked at one stat, saw a change, and didn't look at what happened to the rest of the ship. Its ok to be wrong, just try not to drag it out like this because its silly.
Sigras wrote:as mentioned above, the one making the straw man argument is you.
You chose one deficiency that this ship would have and pointed it out even though all the other ships filling the same role have the same deficiencies . . . it isnt the fault of the harbinger if ALL sniper ships are so crippled, thats what we call balance. So wait, to make your argument work, you're pigeonholing the Harbinger into only being a sniper? And then saying I'm building the straw man?
Are you actually this stupid?
Grath Telkin wrote:Just face it, you failed to notice the other changes that take a mediocre ship and basically make it the worst of all the BC's.
Sigras wrote:you really think the harb is the worst of all BCs now? I see your harbinger and raise you a brutix. This thing is a combat ship (read slowest of the ship roles) that has short range. also the harb can drop to the smaller pulse lasers to mitigate its fitting issues . . . it doesnt matter which guns the brutix fits it still cant catch anything.
I guess the point is moot because a well fit hurricane will pwn them both now.
No see, actually if you read what I wrote instead of trying desperately to defend your weak ass nonpoint, you'd notice i said the changes as a whole will make it the weakest BC.
You point out that a brutix for the worst which will after the change be one of the fastest BC's in the game.
Or did you not notice that little bit? And its new low slot....
Oohh, I see, you just wanted to try and look smart and prove yourself right, and in doing that you felt the need to justify the Harbingers change as valid by making its only viable role as a sniper, or by forcing it to use the smallest possible cruiser sized guns.
Well at least one things obvious: You know less about EVE spaceships and fitting than my dog. |
Apostrophe Diacritic
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 07:17:00 -
[629] - Quote
B'reanna wrote:Apostrophe Diacritic wrote:Harbinger is buffed. Yeah it has -25 cpu but one turret takes 26.3 with max skills so its actually a little buff. Drone bay increase is actually a big deal, and small capacitor recharge nerf is more than compensated with 1 less turret, same as cpu. And it also does more damage then before, 5% more dps per BC level is 25% damage boost, 1 turret less from 7 is 14,2% nerf so in total its over 10% damage buff for Harbinger. The 2% increase in mass is really not a big deal and with shield tank EHP lost is really not that bad, its less than 1.5k with great skills and some low implants. Harbinger shield tanked is 200ms slower than Cane and since its mass is "nerfed" less that difference is gonna be a little smaller now. Dont complain its slow if you put 2x1600 plates on it. And you can shield tank it, it has the same slot layout as Hurricane and even has more EHP. It also has a great damage projection. 10% damage boost is huge, and the nerfs are pathetic. Actually the 1.3 cpu "buff" may actually help some fits to use 2% implant instead of 3%. im sorry your bad at math - 1 gun 100/7 * 6 = 85.71 +25% dmg skill 85.71 * 1.25 = 107.14 now since this is supposed to be for people who dont have max skills bc lets be honest if you have max skills you arnt flying a harb unless your bad or poor or have some strange attraction to an underpowered ship. so with only a 20 % dmg buff aka lvl 4 skill 85.71 * 1.2 = 102.85 next you argue that an amarr ship should be shield tanked because the hurricane is shield tanked. its an amarr ship. amarr armor tank. if shield tanking it is better than something is wrong with it and since this is a potential balance patch this should be addressed. so your shield argument is also dumb now if we look at how it preforms with a correct racial amour tank the mass changes continue to plague its ability to get in range and actually do damage. so while yes its a little nicer to fit now your talking at most a 7% buff in dps which is out weighted by its mass and agility nerf once stacked with a traditional amour tank. im not say it should have the same stats as a cain or any other bc for that matter, but it should be able to compete with the others and atm it cannot.
Yeah i fcked up with that, to my defence i was sleepy, but still that was stupid. Damage buff is 7%.
And also i never said Harbinger should be shield tanked, i said it could be shield tanked, depends on what you want to do with it. And i didnt say you should do it because Hurricane does it, i just gave a cane as an example since they have same slot layout. As for comments about balance issues with that and that amarr should be exclusive armor tanked i think they are even more stupid than my math. Executioners can be shield tanked, Tormentors can be shield tanked, Arbitrator can be shield tanked, even Omen can be shield tanked in a kite fit but that thing has big capacitor issues to be really effective. And CCP cant really do much to prevent it if they even share your opinion that they should be exclusive armor tanked, and they dont.
And yes, for solo/small gank you should shield tank Harbinger, and it is not underpowered at all. |
Mavis O'Day
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 07:26:00 -
[630] - Quote
No, please! Don't take that extra high slot from my Drake - where the hell will I fit in my auto-targeting system?! |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
100
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 07:47:00 -
[631] - 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. |
El'Kaniery
Aries Engineering Quasar Generation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 07:51:00 -
[632] - Quote
After some hours to play with the new fitting :
Harbinger :
This ship have really some problem for fitting. Need more cpu and more Pwg. Also if you had some mass, you need to increase the range. Because now this ship it's like a sentry. You are really slow and your agility is really bad. Perhpaps the best idea will be to give a bonus on the optimal range. (if you have 34 km in long range ammo), it's not a problem to be slow.
But now you can make nothing interesting with this harbinger.
Prophecy :
Look interesting. But pls put 50 m bandwidth and change the drone damage from 10 to 12.5 %. It's really difficult to manage 3 size of drone (75 m 2 heavy, 2 medium, 1 light).
Ferox : look Good
Drake : Put the damage bonus and all type of damage not only kinetic.
Brutix : nice modification with more agility look like interesting (will be more interesting if they are some modification on the armor rep).
Myrmidon : look also nice, But same problem then prophecy put the bandwidth at 125 less bonus or 50 with more bonus.
Cyclone : look good
Hurricane : look good too
But in the same time : I lot of problem of dps must be adjusted easily if you split the ammo. Ammo for gun short range and ammo for gun long range (like t2).
Per example : with this modification that will be possible to increase the dps for railgun in short range without modify the dps for blaster etc. |
Cyaron wars
D00M. Northern Coalition.
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 08:00:00 -
[633] - Quote
Brutix - Looks like this boat will keep it's role of most useless BC ever. I did some calculations for possible fittings using new data, guess what? - It's still same old crap that cannot fit anything as it was before :)
Armor rep bonus doesn't work well by looks of it. I'm not even trying to compare it to shield analogs like cyclone. Shield boats with ASB can still outperform armor boat.
Let's take a look on ASB vs armor tank. X-L ASB (most used mods for solo shield tanked boats) gives more tanking capability then for example dualrep Brutix. Also cyclone can fit damage mods like gyrostabs or BCUs in future while brutix has to make choice between damage mod and tank. DPS and range on that ship is laughable.
Can you please consider that in future when u will try to "Balance" ships?
I haven't mentioned reactive armor hardener just because it's damn crap. Before that stuff will reach maximum on resistances your armor is long gone. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
449
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 08:17:00 -
[634] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Do your job slave!
Prod them until they release the preliminary idea that you have obviously been advised of .. if it had been done in a timely manner this thread would have gone unnoticed for all but the hard-core as changes are on the whole minimal .. it is that 'on paper' less desirable Gallente bonus that is drawing most of the heat (or seems to be at any rate)...
Don't make me dig out the VitocGäó! |
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 08:27:00 -
[635] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Myrmidon: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(-188) / 4750(+453) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 175 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400
Buff or nerf?... the extra bandwidth is great for sentry drones but not really terrible important for standard drones, loosing the high/turret just seem to greatly reduce the advantage of the extra bandwidth. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 08:50:00 -
[636] - Quote
I was hoping to see a Prophecy turned into a HAM boat, but for some reason, similar principles that were applied to new Amarr and Minmatar destroyers are now somewhat copied to Prophecy and Cyclone, turning them into Drone and Missile boats, respectively. Why can't Minmatar have both Battlecruisers as Projectile Turret boats...you don't plan to turn a Vagabond into a missile boat one day, I hope
As far as other ships are concerned, all current tier 2 Battlecruisers but Myrmidon changed for the worse....which I know is kind of a point, but a Hurricane recently got nerfed with powergrid reduction, and now this? A Drake will lose its utility high which sucks if you like doing C1/C2 sites for melted nanoribbons... but at least we have salvage drones now. I like that Ferox will keep its optimal range bonus so I can still hit stuff at 20km with Null ammo, but I would prefer +1 midslot over +1 lowslot. Both Gallente ships keep their active armour tanking bonus - good for PvE, bad for PvP. I say give Brutix 10% armour HP bonus per level, or a tracking, optimal or faloff bonus to Hybrids (well, maybe not faloff, as faloff bonuses on Hybrid Turrets are way inferior to faloff bonuses on Projectile Turrets). |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 08:54:00 -
[637] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:A Drake will lose its utility high which sucks if you like doing C1/C2 sites for melted nanoribbons... but at least we have salvage drones now. Sleepers wrecks are too difficult for them afaik. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:02:00 -
[638] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote: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. Why? Armor HP bonus is just right in Gallente style - look at Proteus, or Erebus. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
581
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:05:00 -
[639] - Quote
I have to laugh at people who say the harb got nerfed, they obviously didn't read the stats right, it actually got buffed and by quite a bit too and in a group of ships that on the whole DID get nerfed (BCs are too good and need the nerfbat, overall) that's saying something. Same for the Cyclone, it's a really good ship now albeit just as niche as it was before (which is perfect).
@ CCP Fozzie:
I had a good look at the new Prophecy again and now I get where you're going with it. For pvp it's still slow as a fcking brick so unless you have planned some stuff for armor tanking in general and rigs in particular it's still not really viable. For PVE it will be a powerhouse (even more so due to almost complete damage type selection which generally is Amarr's issue) but using it like that DOES mean training up sentries. The problem is that outside a very niche (N)Geddon sentries aren't used by amarr so you're asking a relative newbie Amarr player to train something he probably won't ever use again unless he starts training other races.
So unless you have something in the works for the Sacrilege&Legion (and that better be a full-on 125/375) and perhaps one of the Command ships I'd urge you to reconsider. It would be too niche to ask people to train for, especially given the limited shelf life of a BC for PVE.
I realise that making it into the other option (HAMs) opens a can of worms in the way that it would be severely overpowered and you'd have to limit its midslots meaning you'd need to give it an extra high or low, which is just as silly, but unless you're actually planning to make some of the T2/T3 into full drone boats you can not expect people to train sentries. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Mars Theran
Red Rogue Squadron
1594
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:07:00 -
[640] - Quote
I've only been waiting for this for 3 weeks now. zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
|
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:09:00 -
[641] - Quote
Everybody here who like the drake say goodbye to it, it has now had its final hit with the nerf bat to oblivion.
My Reasons: They nerffed heavy missiles upon Retributions release, 20% reduced damage and range. Loosing a utility slot with the new re-balance. Tank is being nerffed with the new re-balance. Making it heavier and fatter on align and mass with new re-balance. Blooming its Ship Signature Radius with new re-balance. Oh look, i see a completely inconsiderable buff, increased cargo space.
CCP You kicked the Drake in the Balls enough with the Heavy Missile Nerf, it balanced it, now its just a ship that sits in station and collects dust.
Anyone here who thinks this to be an unreasonable assessment please say so and why.
EDIT: Cyclone is now a better ship to go for than the Drake IMO if your a missile boat pilot, with the new changes to the Cyclone. Covert Ops T2 Carrier (Covert Ops Command Hub): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=178093 |
Mars Theran
Red Rogue Squadron
1594
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:24:00 -
[642] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Harbinger being welped?
It's my estimation that they are almost all being welped. The prophecy is the exception, with it now becoming a much more desirable ship. Myrmi saw a nice little bonus in that it'll be able to--finally--launch 5 Heavies.
I don't consider myself an expert, but I'm hoping that testing on SISI will improve things. The changes don't look promising for the class if you ask me; mostly not so anyway. zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
525
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:25:00 -
[643] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Everybody here who like the drake say goodbye to it, it has now had its final hit with the nerf bat to oblivion.
Quit the whining, just because the drake no longer is the obvious choice for everything, does not mean it's not useful. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |
Peter Powers
Terrorists of Dimensions Free 2 Play
119
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:34:00 -
[644] - Quote
changing my beloved prophecy to a droneboat?
is that really necessary? you end up with prophecy: drones damnation: missiles absolution: lasers
3 different weapon systems for the same hull?
seriously?
3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:43:00 -
[645] - Quote
Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:Are you Guys freaking Crazy?!?! Wtf are you doing to the Bc class. Your destroying them.
Cyclone, yes its a good fix
You have Essentially Ruined the hurricane and turned it in to a summer Breeze. The myrm.. Take more tank away from it, take a gun away.. But give it one more heavy? Wtf.. A triple rep Myrm T2 fit. Struggles now to tank 2 cruisers. Its bullshit. My friends fit of 2 caracals both push out over 500 dps each and that's balenced?
Harbinger...You have destroyed it. Its hard enough to fit and to tank it well. and ur killing off some of its PG WTF are you guys thinking?
Active armor tanks I love them personally thats Great bonus, But there Freak in Pointless B/c you guys have put in ASB and there is no way to compete with the rep cycle of those things for an armor tank. Most ships you fight run 2 of them and anyone who is worth there weight knows how to feather the reps so that the other one can be extreamly close to being reloaded.
You guys are KILLING are BC class ships for the most part. There was nothing wrong With the Old Hurricane. ITs counter was the Drake. And lets face it. Drake did much better in terms of out right tank. ANd if people had fit hams instead of heavys. The drake had just as much if not more dps and tank then the cane.
Cyclone and prophcy are Decent changes, but the rest is Really ****.
Dramatic are we?
The BC has been highly OP for years and years.. Imo they aren't being nerfed enough, imo the difference between a BC and a cruiser should be the same as the difference between a dessie and a frig. |
K Leb
Requiem of Hades Pangu Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:44:00 -
[646] - Quote
Why would harbinger has more mass than prophecy? The one with less armor, and no armor bonus, but has alot more mass?? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1214
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:50:00 -
[647] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:I have to laugh at people who say the harb got nerfed, they obviously didn't read the stats right.
Defend this statement.
Its both slower and harder to fit, and the damage increase wont be seen by anybody but the highest skilled players, so please tell me how having an extra flight of light drones is in any way a realistic buff? How and when in EVE does sensor strength matter when eveybody carries EC-300's which could care less what your sensor strength is? How does more lock range help a ship that can't really project damage past 20ish KM without being a glass tanked sniper? How does having a larger cargo bay make it better?
What, you think that the changed damage bonus matters that much? Nope, sorry, at BC4 its the same as it was before, at BC5 its stronger than it was but only marginally.
Slower, less hp, less fitting. That equals a nerf. Theres no solid argument for those changes to a platform that was always already super tight on fitting, slow, and usually light on hit points.
So I'll wait right here while you explain how it wasn't outright nerfed.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:51:00 -
[648] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma.....
Very much this.
Fitting shield extender rigs on myrmidons and brutixes should not be a requirement but an option.
|
Karti Aivo
Carnivore Company
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:51:00 -
[649] - Quote
Peter Powers wrote:changing my beloved prophecy to a droneboat?
is that really necessary? you end up with prophecy: drones damnation: missiles absolution: lasers
3 different weapon systems for the same hull?
seriously?
I see a "rebalance" coming to damnation (and sacrilege) turning it into drone boats.
You will hate this idea, it will happen. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
581
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:54:00 -
[650] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:I have to laugh at people who say the harb got nerfed, they obviously didn't read the stats right. Defend this statement. Its both slower and harder to fit, and the damage increase wont be seen by anybody but the highest skilled players, so please tell me how having an extra flight of light drones is in any way a realistic buff? How and when in EVE does sensor strength matter when eveybody carries EC-300's which could care less what your sensor strength is? How does more lock range help a ship that can't really project damage past 20ish KM without being a glass tanked sniper? How does having a larger cargo bay make it better? What, you think that the changed damage bonus matters that much? Nope, sorry, at BC4 its the same as it was before, at BC5 its stronger than it was but only marginally. Slower, less hp, less fitting. That equals a nerf. Theres no solid argument for those changes to a platform that was always already super tight on fitting, slow, and usually light on hit points. So I'll wait right here while you explain how it wasn't outright nerfed.
- It does more damage due to getting a better damage bonus - it lost fitting but less than what a heavy pulse/beams needs so in effect it gained fitting - it uses less cap for its weapons now (while doing more damage) - it gained 25m3 meaning it can now be 5 light+5 medium (this is a huge increase, if you think otherwise you're wrong)
So yes it got buffed, and in an overall nerf for BCs that is HUGE.
Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
|
Apostrophe Diacritic
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:57:00 -
[651] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:I have to laugh at people who say the harb got nerfed, they obviously didn't read the stats right. Defend this statement. Its both slower and harder to fit, and the damage increase wont be seen by anybody but the highest skilled players, so please tell me how having an extra flight of light drones is in any way a realistic buff? How and when in EVE does sensor strength matter when eveybody carries EC-300's which could care less what your sensor strength is? How does more lock range help a ship that can't really project damage past 20ish KM without being a glass tanked sniper? How does having a larger cargo bay make it better? What, you think that the changed damage bonus matters that much? Nope, sorry, at BC4 its the same as it was before, at BC5 its stronger than it was but only marginally. Slower, less hp, less fitting. That equals a nerf. Theres no solid argument for those changes to a platform that was always already super tight on fitting, slow, and usually light on hit points. So I'll wait right here while you explain how it wasn't outright nerfed.
Its easier to fit now, even with 5 in AWU one turret needs 187 PG, and they took 175 from harbinger, so it is actually a slight buff for ppl with AWU 5, and for majority that does not have it its a solid buff. Pilots with AWU 4 gain 15 PG from these "nerfs". Same for CPU but there the difference is really small, 1.3 more CPU after the "nerf". So the only real nerf is speed. Yeah 2% more mass is really gonna slow you down. Totally ruined the ship. Stop whining. 300000 more mass is gonna slow down mwd fit harby by like 20m/s, and afterburner fit by ~5m/s. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
468
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:00:00 -
[652] - Quote
dexington wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Everybody here who like the drake say goodbye to it, it has now had its final hit with the nerf bat to oblivion. Quit the whining, just because the drake no longer is the obvious choice for everything, does not mean it's not useful.
What would you use the drake for? |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:07:00 -
[653] - Quote
Changes are ok. They will definitely shake things up.
The only thing that really makes me wonder - armor rep bonus on both gallente. It should be changed on one of the hulls. Maybe drone MWD bonus for myrm. Or a tracking bonus on brutix. |
El'Kaniery
Aries Engineering Quasar Generation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:12:00 -
[654] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:I have to laugh at people who say the harb got nerfed, they obviously didn't read the stats right. Defend this statement. Its both slower and harder to fit, and the damage increase wont be seen by anybody but the highest skilled players, so please tell me how having an extra flight of light drones is in any way a realistic buff? How and when in EVE does sensor strength matter when eveybody carries EC-300's which could care less what your sensor strength is? How does more lock range help a ship that can't really project damage past 20ish KM without being a glass tanked sniper? How does having a larger cargo bay make it better? What, you think that the changed damage bonus matters that much? Nope, sorry, at BC4 its the same as it was before, at BC5 its stronger than it was but only marginally. Slower, less hp, less fitting. That equals a nerf. Theres no solid argument for those changes to a platform that was always already super tight on fitting, slow, and usually light on hit points. So I'll wait right here while you explain how it wasn't outright nerfed. - It does more damage due to getting a better damage bonus - it lost fitting but less than what a heavy pulse/beams needs so in effect it gained fitting - it uses less cap for its weapons now (while doing more damage) - it gained 25m3 meaning it can now be 5 light+5 medium (this is a huge increase, if you think otherwise you're wrong) - yes it got a speed loss, a whopping 10 m/s on MWD, and while it's already too slow I'm not even going to bother/consider marginal stuff like that. So yes it got buffed, and in an overall nerf for BCs that is HUGE.
Have one time fly a harbinger guy. I believe never ...
More damage is not a bonus if you can hit your target (range medium laser without optimal bonus is cheat).
Your tanking now is really not good. Your speed and agility a joke. I prefere to loose 17 % of dps. But to have more range and more agility. Now this ship is a sentry without tanking and without range and without speed, without agility.
About increase capacitor, i prefere to be not cap stable and use cap booster, if i have some range. No this harbinger is not viable in pvp.
You can use is if somebody come in short range... no this is don't work too if it's small ship you don't have the tracking to kill them. if it's a BC size all have more ration dps tanking ... |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
581
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:18:00 -
[655] - Quote
El'Kaniery wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:I have to laugh at people who say the harb got nerfed, they obviously didn't read the stats right. Defend this statement. Its both slower and harder to fit, and the damage increase wont be seen by anybody but the highest skilled players, so please tell me how having an extra flight of light drones is in any way a realistic buff? How and when in EVE does sensor strength matter when eveybody carries EC-300's which could care less what your sensor strength is? How does more lock range help a ship that can't really project damage past 20ish KM without being a glass tanked sniper? How does having a larger cargo bay make it better? What, you think that the changed damage bonus matters that much? Nope, sorry, at BC4 its the same as it was before, at BC5 its stronger than it was but only marginally. Slower, less hp, less fitting. That equals a nerf. Theres no solid argument for those changes to a platform that was always already super tight on fitting, slow, and usually light on hit points. So I'll wait right here while you explain how it wasn't outright nerfed. - It does more damage due to getting a better damage bonus - it lost fitting but less than what a heavy pulse/beams needs so in effect it gained fitting - it uses less cap for its weapons now (while doing more damage) - it gained 25m3 meaning it can now be 5 light+5 medium (this is a huge increase, if you think otherwise you're wrong) - yes it got a speed loss, a whopping 10 m/s on MWD, and while it's already too slow I'm not even going to bother/consider marginal stuff like that. So yes it got buffed, and in an overall nerf for BCs that is HUGE. Have one time fly a harbinger guy. I believe never ... More damage is not a bonus if you can hit your target (range medium laser without optimal bonus is cheat). Your tanking now is really not good. Your speed and agility a joke. I prefere to loose 17 % of dps. But to have more range and more agility. Now this ship is a sentry without tanking and without range and without speed, without agility. About increase capacitor, i prefere to be not cap stable and use cap booster, if i have some range. No this harbinger is not viable in pvp. You can use is if somebody come in short range... no this is don't work too if it's small ship you don't have the tracking to kill them. if it's a BC size all have more ration dps tanking ...
I'm probably not the only one to say "WHAT?"
Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Shrrrg
Friends Of Harassment
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:36:00 -
[656] - Quote
Why all the hate against utility slots from you CCP? We have seen it on the cruisers and now on the battlecruisers. Why Also the extra Cpu on the Ferox is really interresting. You dont really need it. The only fitting where cpu was somewhat tight was a remote rep fit which you killed |
Mund Richard
248
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:47:00 -
[657] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Everybody that says this didnt notice the great big glaring hint about armor tanking changes on the first page of this thread. Until glaring hints are in patchnotes already live on TQ, my ability to notice them is proportionately reduced by how likely they are to be implemented, and how much I like them and think it helps even out the playfield. Currently: Likelyhood: 100% between now and the heat death of the universe. How much I like it: 0%, can't like what I don't know. Yea, I don't like surprise parties as well. I'm such a person. Once we know what happens with armor, we can bring them in into this debate, and... start all over? yay
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:You want to use BEAMS on a ship that already suffers crippling fitting issues? Cant believe I thumb up a PL dude. Ganthrithor wrote:I think you need to re-evaluate your approach. Stop pigeon-holing ships. Let Gallente ships continue to choose between armor and shield tanks. Stop stripping away utility highslots. Stop nerfing mobility on already-clumsy ships. ...and a Goon dude. It's such a thread, ain't it? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:49:00 -
[658] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Admit it, you want something other than rep bonus on your brutix just so you can shield fit it better and shoot null everywhere. Disgusting.
With 4 med slots and such a crap second bonus there's no much of a choice than shield fit it to make it look usefull for something another can do as well and even better.
Change this silly rep bonus for a +fall off or [whatever sh+»t you can come with] will not change the fact as soon as you put a single plate on ti ti will still be using the shortest range weapon system and be slower. In short, the stupid way to fit whatever Brutix before and after changes as they stand is to put a single armor mod on it.
That simple because active armor tanking is awful, badly designed on Gallente hulls and add insult to injury make almost as slow than Amarr but with 50% less range to your weapons.
But please be my guest to keep putting plates on your Brutix after changes with this ridiculous active rep bonus. |
X ATM092
The Hatchery Team Liquid
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:49:00 -
[659] - Quote
Give the harb a little more agility and speed if you're going to make the prophecy a legit brick boat. That way amarr are offered a genuine choice of playstyle. It makes no sense for both to have the same speed. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
409
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:49:00 -
[660] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:dexington wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Everybody here who like the drake say goodbye to it, it has now had its final hit with the nerf bat to oblivion. Quit the whining, just because the drake no longer is the obvious choice for everything, does not mean it's not useful. What would you use the drake for?
Same its used for now...
A cheap shield ship that gives good tank/gank for its price.. |
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:51:00 -
[661] - Quote
Generally like those changes. Was just a bit scared about the hurricane mass addition. Sounds to me as my brick'esquely aligning armorcane will now share more properties with a brick than before!
Aside that +1 for missile cyclone +1 for drone-prophecy, cause **** myrmidons +1 for leaving the drake as it is, since we all need a bc to solo lvl4 missions aswell as people needing the ultimate answer to all pve-questions +1 for many-turret-slots-ferox!
-1 for hurricane, the dualneuts and the 1600 plate was the main reason we've been flying it. Now it's all harbingers :( but -1 for harbinger, how the hell do I fit that thing now?
Thank god they aren't nerfing the oracle and talos the same second :o |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
581
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:52:00 -
[662] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Everybody that says this didnt notice the great big glaring hint about armor tanking changes on the first page of this thread. Until glaring hints are in patchnotes already live on TQ, my ability to notice them is proportionately reduced by how likely they are to be implemented, and how much I like them and think it helps even out the playfield. Currently: Likelyhood: 100% between now and the heat death of the universe. How much I like it: 0%, can't like what I don't know. Yea, I don't like surprise parties as well. I'm such a person. Once we know what happens with armor, we can bring them in into this debate, and... start all over? yay Sinzor Aumer wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:You want to use BEAMS on a ship that already suffers crippling fitting issues? Cant believe I thumb up a PL dude. Ganthrithor wrote:I think you need to re-evaluate your approach. Stop pigeon-holing ships. Let Gallente ships continue to choose between armor and shield tanks. Stop stripping away utility highslots. Stop nerfing mobility on already-clumsy ships. ...and a Goon dude. It's such a thread, ain't it? It get's "worse"! Goon dude liked me!
If only Grath knew what he was talking about.
Lets just agree on one thing: Raivi isn't an idiot and while I don't necessarily agree with all the choices he makes and has made there's always logic&reason to his madness. The Harb got buffed, tremendously buffed in fact (given the overall nerf), the only real downside is a loss of speed/agility (but only a tiny one).
If Raivi makes a ship that's already slow as fck even slower that thus MUST mean there's a plate/armor rig change in the works which will more than make up for it. Stop being ****, stop being uninformed and stop whining like a 5 yearold. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
409
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:54:00 -
[663] - Quote
Karti Aivo wrote:Peter Powers wrote:changing my beloved prophecy to a droneboat?
is that really necessary? you end up with prophecy: drones damnation: missiles absolution: lasers
3 different weapon systems for the same hull?
seriously?
I see a "rebalance" coming to damnation (and sacrilege) turning it into drone boats. You will hate this idea, it will happen.
If the Sac/veng become drone boats i will go ******* ape... Then first you would hear me cry <_< |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
582
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:04:00 -
[664] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:If the Sac/veng become drone boats i will go ******* ape... Then first you would hear me cry <_<
I'm on the fence with that one, it never sat well with me that Amarr used missiles (vengeance/sac change to missiles a couple of years ago made me whine like an idiot). If done right it could be good and it would also explain the current Prophecy changes. In fact I could very well live with a shying away from missiles and focussing on laser/drones or drones/lasers (with missile support option). Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
CraftyCroc
Gunpoint Diplomacy
201
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:09:00 -
[665] - Quote
Fozzie - why are minimitar becoming caldari? |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:15:00 -
[666] - Quote
CraftyCroc wrote:Fozzie - why are minimitar becoming caldari?
Why is the Myrm a Minmatar drone boat? Projectiles and shield tank really make it shine!
|
Tub Chil
Last Men Standing
25
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:23:00 -
[667] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie
Prophecy will be a good ship now
Harbinger tank nerf has gone too far. if you are afraid that it will become too good with shield gank fit, nerf shields only, no need to reduce armor that much.
Ferox +1 turret is GREAT, but +25 PG? ferox has fitting problems with 6 guns, so PG buff is ridiculous.
Drake -1 hi slot means nothing, nobody fitted there anything anyway. but please don't nerf fitting stats, drake took a beating with missile nerf already, actually the only purpose for HML nerf was to nerf drake.
Brutix more drones, more cap, more lows are geat, but honestly brutix will only shine in case of ancillary armor reppers.
Myrmidon looks like a great drone boat now.
Cyclone I'm not sure how it will perform with current HML misery (see? you only had to remove 1 launcher slot from drake, not nerf entire weapon system. nobody was ever complaining about ANY other HML boat except drake)
Hurricane still a good BC, not changed much. double med neuts was a bit ridiculous tbh |
Connall Tara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
59
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:25:00 -
[668] - Quote
Woo! Was waiting for this ^_^
right then I'll be trying to save some of my more in depth ideas on this for the podcast but I figure I can do a play by play for now and some concerns.
Harbinger: the turret change is most welcome in my mind with a better GÇ£peakGÇ¥ for damage for those who want to invest while, as previously menioned, having simmilar damage potential on the way up. At the same time the reduction in cap use should certainly make the harbinger a more friendly platform to fly. My concern here however is with the reduced fitting. The harbinger's main weakness at the moment compared to its peers is its phenominally tight fitting, often having issues working even with focused pulse as opposed to heavy on some fits. I'd like to suggest that the overall fitting reduction be GÇ£mollifiedGÇ¥ a bit to take into account the prexisting fitting issues. Otherwise i'm fairly happy here, the improved drone bay adds a lot of versitility and the improved laser layout and bonus is going to look AWESOME on the ship model. Please ensure all 6 turrets are wing mounted :>
Proph: big winner here, mild confusion in some of of the complaints here though, on one hand people hate the fact that it has only 4 laser and 4 missile hardpoints... but on the other are complaining about the overall loss in utility highs... there is NO issue here. These weapons are unbonused and overall secondary in effect, savvy players will fit HAM launchers and a medium neut in the highs and brick their way to victory ^^
Ferox: lets be honest here, this is a tremendous buff and I'm saying we should keep the 10% optimal bonus here. Yes, the naga outclasses the ferox as a sniper, but I prefer to think of the ferox not as a sniping platform but as a blaster boat with phenominal damage projection. Sit down with evefit and crunch some numbers... a neutron ferox can slug Null Ammunition to ******** ranges, 11km optimal and 11km falloff with a single tracking enhancer. Throw an extra turret 5 lows and the drones into the mix and you'll be lobbing around 500 dps to 11km before you start losing damage and then easily have the ability to switch over to CNAM or Void for serious close range grunt. Combine with the improved tanking ability and you'll have a pretty damn formidable short-mid range slugger. It won't have the raw damage of the brutix, but against a shield brutix it'll have around 50% more tank for around 25% less dps and IT WILL APPLY THAT DPS BETTER ^_^
Drake: honestly this was expected and compared to other suggested changes this is quite minor. It'll have worse acelleration and turn more like a brick with slightly less tank, however it'll still represent arguably the best mix of damage projection and tank in the battlecruiser range. The buffed ferox most certainly takes over a lot of the drakes's roles but that's not really a bad thing, I'm not a fan of GÇ£monoGÇ¥ ship doctrines, simply bring the right ship for the right job. The drake is tough dps support while the ferox is the heavy tackle/brawler.
Brutix: hrm... I'm torn here. On one hand I'm not a fan of the 7.5% active tank bonus because of the current state of active armour repping... HOWEVER there is a lot of hinting from fairly credible sources that active armour tanking might be on the books pretty damn soon. Looking at the ship as is for now though, I can see it working. Its gained the 6 lows shared by the myrmidon so finally has the lowslot ability to bring a triple rep tank (for those who love the challenge) or bring a dual rep tank with a slot or two left over for weapon mods. The improved fitting and capacitor are most welcome and the reduced mass should do a lot for the ship's acceleration. Overall good changes but a final judgement can't be said until we get a better idea of the supposed upcoming armour changes.
Myrmidon: so you're telling me i'm getting a battlecruiser I already like... and letting me fly bigger drones with it? SOLD! 100Mb bandwidth is pretty damn good all told and while it isn't 125 (for that glorious 5 ogre wing) I can see the reasons why it hasn't gone there. The myrmidon was essentially the entire reason drone bandwidth was introduced back in the day and I'd rather not see the myrm step on the toes of the already problematic gila and ishtar. The 100mb bandwidth will easilly permit the deployment of a wing of 4 ogres (which will still pack a significant punch, the loss of a turret hurts a little but at the same time the expanded drone bay and bandwidth gives the ship a boost to its GÇ£upperGÇ¥ damage potential. I like it. The improved capacitor stats are also most welcome, the big changes will of course spawn from any changes to active armour tanking.
Cyclone: so THAT'S where the hurricane's utility highs have gone! Only 5 launchers is a little meh but combined with the reasonably sized dronebay and the other side benefits I think this will work out fairly well, if not? Quit whining and shove some autocannons in those utility highs. This is an obvious ham platform for pvp work and will be a fairly fearsome heavy missile toy for mission/ratting. The slot layout is particularly effective and I wouldn't be surprised if the cyclone takes over from the drake as the GÇ£fast missileGÇ¥ battlecruiser with that extra low meaning an additional BCU/nano/damage control. Overall a good ship, remember folks dps isn't EVERYTHING, damage projection is pretty damn important as well.
Hurricane: oh dear! Diddums! You'll have to fit 1 neut instead of 2 now! How on earth can we possibly contemplate such loss and woe! Its not like we've still got the MOST DAMN VERSATILE BATTLECRUISER IN THE BLOODY GAME ANYMORE. ~grumble~. Its slightly less agile.. fine. It still has a double damage bonus on its projectiles which still have arguably the best dps/range/tracking balance around, it can still both shield AND armour tank and is now fairly special in being one of the rarer ships to sport utility highs.
will talk more on the next Fly Reckless Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:33:00 -
[669] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:CraftyCroc wrote:Fozzie - why are minimitar becoming caldari? Why is the Myrm a Minmatar drone boat? Projectiles and shield tank really make it shine!
Good thing when you already have all frigs V dessi V all cruiser V and BC V is that no matter how bad or good things are done I'll be flying the no matter-the-race-and-weapon-system next uber das boat.
But yes, silly changes are silly, what fracks me up is how obvious some imbalanced stuff is, and instead of fixing things for their intended purpose I have the feeling stuff is thrown right and left just for the sake of changing things.
Active armor tanking is horrible, armor tanking penalties are horrible, give more hull hp than armor to ships supposed to armor tank but finally shield tank is horrible, and last but not least keep insisting on leaving the shortest range weapon on the second slowest ships in the game (once armor fitted) with the most awful tanking mode can not be called "balance" by no means but wasting time for the sake of wasting it.
|
Galphii
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
109
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:46:00 -
[670] - Quote
Am I reading that right? No speed increase for the brutix? It's slow as all hell right now, and desperately needs a boost to mobility. You probably don't need both gallente BC's to get the armour rep bonus - take the rep bonus away from one of them and give it something offensive.
I thought the Drake was getting a range bonus to missiles in place of that 5% resist bonus. I don't think the caldari need two ships that are defensive BC's. Not too keen on that anachronistic kinetic damage bonus either.
Ferox, medium rails still suck so 1 extra turret isn't going to help all that much. Ship itself looks okay tho. Prophecy, I love it. Cyclone, looks good too Hurricane, well.. don't nerf it too much, it was pretty well balanced already. Harbinger, more of a glass cannon I suppose, but no objections here. X |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
487
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:49:00 -
[671] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:
If Raivi makes a ship that's already slow as fck even slower that thus MUST mean there's a plate/armor rig change in the works which will more than make up for it. Stop being ****, stop being uninformed and stop whining like a 5 yearold.
I wouldn't absolutely count on it. One of the problems with BCs was that there was insufficient difference in mobility between them and cruisers, serving to push cruisers towards obsolescence as little more than low-tier battlecruisers. Now, sure, the cruiser tiercide has gone a long way towards fixing this, but I'm not surprised at all to see BC mobility reduced too - although ofc the main offender was the Hurricane rather than the Harbinger! |
Phiksus
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:52:00 -
[672] - Quote
Looking good, EXCEPT the Cyclone. 5 mids just isn't enough for active tank WITH missiles, unless you plan it to be pure asb boat. MWD, shield booster, cap booster, invuln, scram, but where is the web supposed to go? Instead of invuln? Damage from 5 launchers is already not that great, no need to nerf it further by not allowing use of web while using ships bonus for active shield tanking. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:55:00 -
[673] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:If only Grath knew what he was talking about. Of all ship in EVE, heavy beams only fit on Absolution - is that alright? Harbinger cannot even shield-tank with them. Did I say shield-tank? Burn the heretic! |
Cyaron wars
D00M. Northern Coalition.
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:55:00 -
[674] - Quote
I would like to know one more thing. When Devs are tweaking PG/CPU etc. I assume they are checking outcome fitting some mods. I assume those fits are something very common. In case if I am correct, could we please get those fits to better understand what is the idea of specific adjustments and what are they based on. One doesn't just change attributes blindly right? |
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
526
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 11:56:00 -
[675] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:Myrmidon: so you're telling me i'm getting a battlecruiser I already like... and letting me fly bigger drones with it? SOLD! 100Mb bandwidth is pretty damn good all told and while it isn't 125 (for that glorious 5 ogre wing) I can see the reasons why it hasn't gone there. The myrmidon was essentially the entire reason drone bandwidth was introduced back in the day and I'd rather not see the myrm step on the toes of the already problematic gila and ishtar. The 100mb bandwidth will easilly permit the deployment of a wing of 4 ogres (which will still pack a significant punch, the loss of a turret hurts a little but at the same time the expanded drone bay and bandwidth gives the ship a boost to its GÇ£upperGÇ¥ damage potential. I like it. The improved capacitor stats are also most welcome, the big changes will of course spawn from any changes to active armour tanking.
It's a win lose situation, the 4 heavy is only 65 dps more then the current myrmidon (2xogre,2xhammer,1xhob), and when you subtract the lost turret you end at around 35 dps more, but only when you can deploy heavy drones. When using medium or light drones, it 1 turret less, the current myrmidon does more dps. It's only really a boost to sentry drones, where you go from 3 to 4.
With the limited drone bay there is no room for spare drones, if you bring 4 heavy, and with the new ai that is really not optimal.
GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |
Cyaron wars
D00M. Northern Coalition.
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:04:00 -
[676] - Quote
dexington wrote:Connall Tara wrote:Myrmidon: so you're telling me i'm getting a battlecruiser I already like... and letting me fly bigger drones with it? SOLD! 100Mb bandwidth is pretty damn good all told and while it isn't 125 (for that glorious 5 ogre wing) I can see the reasons why it hasn't gone there. The myrmidon was essentially the entire reason drone bandwidth was introduced back in the day and I'd rather not see the myrm step on the toes of the already problematic gila and ishtar. The 100mb bandwidth will easilly permit the deployment of a wing of 4 ogres (which will still pack a significant punch, the loss of a turret hurts a little but at the same time the expanded drone bay and bandwidth gives the ship a boost to its GÇ£upperGÇ¥ damage potential. I like it. The improved capacitor stats are also most welcome, the big changes will of course spawn from any changes to active armour tanking. It's a win lose situation, the 4 heavy is only 65 dps more then the current myrmidon (2xogre,2xhammer,1xhob), and when you subtract the lost turret you end at around 35 dps more, but only when you can deploy heavy drones. When using medium or light drones, it 1 turret less, the current myrmidon does more dps. It's only really a boost to sentry drones, where you go from 3 to 4. With the limited drone bay there is no room for spare drones, if you bring 4 heavy, and with the new ai that is really not optimal. NEW AI? So you are talking only about PVE version? Or am I missing something? |
Mund Richard
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:05:00 -
[677] - Quote
dexington wrote:With the limited drone bay there is no room for spare drones, if you bring 4 heavy, and with the new ai that is really not optimal. In fact, with a bandwidth and spare bay of 100/+75 (compared to the previous 75/+75), it can no longer carry *one* spare flight of dps drones, while the Proph can carry two extra (75+150), or three-and-a-half extra if you use mediums instead of the odd mix. The proph can also easily afford a flight of ECM drones and a few extra, the myrm... not really, no. If anything, the Myrm with the heavies is more vulnerable to the death of it's drones now, with having less guns and 5 Hammerheads/Valkyries being really-really suboptimal now. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Callduron
158
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:09:00 -
[678] - Quote
I think it worth reflecting a moment on why Retribution was such a well-received Expansion. CCP took a load of unfashionable ships and made them more powerful. We started seeing people excited to see what they could achieve - we saw Arbitrators killing Redeemers and Vargurs, we saw Caracal gangs beating Tengu gangs. Suddenly what mattered was how good you are not how rich you are. People got excited.
With the planned BC pass you're not going to excite people. Most of us will just put our Drakes and Canes away in the hangar and not take them out again. I could spend 80m on a t2 Drake or on 3 T2 Caracals. Why would I fly the Drake?
I do realise that professional game design is something of a rearguard action against mudflationary tendencies. Power creep. But at this point it's inevitable. Inferno gave us T3 Battlecruisers, Retribution gave us T2 Cruisers that were better in almost every way, power creep is part of Eve's development and it's what players want.
Also buffing ships people don't fly up to the level of ships people do fly isn't really power creep, it's just adding diversity.
The next big picture issue is where do the T3 battlecruisers fit in. If these combat BC changes go through then won't everyone simply fly the better Tier? - which is against the point of Tiericide. Or will there be drastic nerfs to T3 battlecruisers to put, say, the Naga down to the level of the Ferox?
If you are planning to bring T3 BCs in line with the other BCs this balance pass is putting the bar too low. These ships are bad by Drake/Cane standards, no one is going to want to fly a Talos that's as weak as a Prophecy.
Now onto some specifics.
Capacitor parity really hurts high cap use boats. Active tank, hybrid guns and lasers are at huge disadvantage if the ship doesn't have ample cap to support the playstyle, especially as neuting someone's cap is a popular and effective playstyle as well as a feature of Blood Raider and Sansha rats.
There are three medium-sized missile weapon systems. Why are the two medium sized boats only bonused for two of them. If someone wants to put Rapid Light Missile Launchers on a Cyclone they should be allowed to
The fixed bonus isn't good. I've never met anyone or got a kill where someone had a link in a standard BC. Possibly that's because too much of the bonus comes from the Mindlink and ship bonus which I understand you have plans to address. But when balancing these the fixed bonus should be viable, possibly a 1% bonus to one group of effects would not be unreasonable. So a Ferox could give 1% bonus to shield links without treading on the toes of serious command ship and T3 link pilots.
Hybrid turret optimal range is a bad bonus for the Ferox. With Blasters optimal range bonus adds to little. There's not much real difference between 2k optimal and 3k optimal - either you control range in which case you can apply full damage or they control range in which case you apply full damage if they're dumb. (I know some people brag about their blaster Feroxes but those are kills gained by the other people making errors). With rails why would you use a Ferox over a Naga? The plus point of medium guns over large is tracking which becomes moot at extreme range. Ferox needs a different bonus, it's simply a mistake to choose it in the current meta.
Regarding the Brutix and the Myrm, do we really need two active armour tanking ships? Active armour tanking is currently the least popular of the 4 main tank styles. Also the Gallente ships have significantly higher sig radius than the other Combat BCs.
So in conclusion I do like some of the new directions (missile Cyclones etc). I do think balance passes are good for the game. I don't think that pulling the strong, popular ships down is the way to do it - I think balance passes in Eve should be about bringing the unpopular boats up to the strength of the popular ones, particularly as the last two expansions saw really powerful ships being really exciting to the players. |
Cyaron wars
D00M. Northern Coalition.
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:09:00 -
[679] - Quote
To be honest CCP should've fixed drones before adding drone boats. I remember someone from CCP talking about how bad drone mechanics is atm. |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
559
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:11:00 -
[680] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Let me know what you think!
I think the Cyclone will be OP... Nice change to the myrm and the brutix tho.
Question: Are you trying to bring back hull tanking? They see me trolling, they hating... |
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
533
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:11:00 -
[681] - Quote
So much entitlement in this thread it makes my head spin. Also, someone get me a bigger bucket, the current one is overflowing with all the TEARS! |
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
526
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:24:00 -
[682] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:NEW AI? So you are talking only about PVE version? Or am I missing something?
Yes i was talking about PvE, but i guess the same applies to PvP where bringing heavies means you lose the utility from ewar drones.
GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |
Mund Richard
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:36:00 -
[683] - Quote
dexington wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:NEW AI? So you are talking only about PVE version? Or am I missing something? Yes i was talking about PvE, but i guess the same applies to PvP where bringing heavies means you lose the utility from ewar drones. Utility from EWAR drones... as if that wasn't a hot topic in itself. How about spare light flights against frigs or anything an ogre cannot simply catch? Bay after the launch of 4 Ogres: ONE Ogre (because you can't have each drone popped a huge dps nerf) 1 full flight of smalls (because it's just plain embarassing to be tackled by a longpoint frig and not be able to do anything) 1 full flight of small ECM drones (because whoever heard of a drone boat without any ECM drones in bay) ... And you start loosing dps after two ogres were killed. Or alternatively, you can be fine as long as four ogres are not killed from the initial wave, assuming you pack no other drone at all.
Killing the initial wave of a drone boat de-fangs it, since it's turrets do only cruiser level dps (if used at all). Working as intended? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
582
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:37:00 -
[684] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:
If Raivi makes a ship that's already slow as fck even slower that thus MUST mean there's a plate/armor rig change in the works which will more than make up for it. Stop being ****, stop being uninformed and stop whining like a 5 yearold.
I wouldn't absolutely count on it. One of the problems with BCs was that there was insufficient difference in mobility between them and cruisers, serving to push cruisers towards obsolescence as little more than low-tier battlecruisers. Now, sure, the cruiser tiercide has gone a long way towards fixing this, but I'm not surprised at all to see BC mobility reduced too - although ofc the main offender was the Hurricane rather than the Harbinger!
Sure, but Cruisers got a (massive) speed buff and compared to other BC's the Harb (and Proph for that matter) are very much on the the bottom of the speed list, that is if you plate&trimark it. That is the case now and with the new changes it's still the case. So given that Raivi isn't dumb he probably has plans for that.
I'm not one for blind praise or worshipping but as stated; Raivi is not an idiot, I'm sure he thought of it.
- edit -
Just to be sure, I'm not looking for it to be faster, I'm looking for it to be on par with other BCs (while keeping in mind the ranged capabilities it has with scorch and thus "requiring" it to be slightly slower). And once all the stuff has been rebalanced I'm sure that'll be exactly the case. I'm not looking at a single ship and go "omg, it lost hp and stats and everythiiiing!!!", it's about understanding that BC's as a whole are getting a needed nerf but some need it more than others. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
582
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:39:00 -
[685] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:If only Grath knew what he was talking about. Of all ship in EVE, heavy beams only fit on Absolution - is that alright? Harbinger cannot even shield-tank with them. Did I say shield-tank? Burn the heretic!
Grath (and you it seems) didn't even figure out that the CPU&PG the Harb lost is LESS than a heavy pulse or beam actually uses, and as it lost a turret slot it thus actually GAINED fitting. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
405
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:45:00 -
[686] - Quote
It almost makes you feel like CCP Fozzie is trolling us huh, releases new stats for ships and none of the information for what will be done about armor tanking. In order to have a constructive conversation abot the new gallente stats, we do need that information. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Rancor Kane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:52:00 -
[687] - Quote
Cyclone will do fine and replace the Drake considering exploiration.
5 lowslots can do a lot for your damage output, BCU/Drone Damage modules.
utility high's and larger drone bay (than the drake) makes it multiunctional
Speed, and the ROF bonus, should make it a option or PvP as well.
Happy to see an other choice when it comes to missiles BC
-Not realy happy with the Drake, it's slow and predictable.
will still see it's uses in mission running and probably larger fleets and blobs.
Though please give it a general damage bonus or a ROF bonus.
|
El'Kaniery
Aries Engineering Quasar Generation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 12:58:00 -
[688] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:If only Grath knew what he was talking about. Of all ship in EVE, heavy beams only fit on Absolution - is that alright? Harbinger cannot even shield-tank with them. Did I say shield-tank? Burn the heretic! Grath (and you it seems) didn't even figure out that the CPU&PG the Harb lost is LESS than a heavy pulse or beam actually uses, and as it lost a turret slot it thus actually GAINED fitting.
no guy
Old harbinger with skill V CPU 468.75 PWG 1875 New Harbinger with skill V CPU 437.5 PWG 1656.25
Heavy pulse II with skill CPU 26.3 PWG 187.2
You less -4.95 CPU and -31.55 PWG
And before the modification it's was already difficult to fits the ship
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:00:00 -
[689] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:To be honest CCP should've fixed drones before adding drone boats. I remember someone from CCP talking about how bad drone mechanics is atm.
Like armor tanking fixes before slapping active rep bonus that have no sense with what armor tanking is as it stands. Clearly disappointing.
Or at least provide enough info on armor tanking changes so this discussion as some sense. |
dexington
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
526
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:00:00 -
[690] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:dexington wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:NEW AI? So you are talking only about PVE version? Or am I missing something? Yes i was talking about PvE, but i guess the same applies to PvP where bringing heavies means you lose the utility from ewar drones. Utility from EWAR drones... as if that wasn't a hot topic in itself. How about spare light flights against frigs or anything an ogre cannot simply catch? Bay after the launch of 4 Ogres: ONE Ogre (because you can't have each drone popped a huge dps nerf) 1 full flight of smalls (because it's just plain embarassing to be tackled by a longpoint frig and not be able to do anything) 1 full flight of small ECM drones (because whoever heard of a drone boat without any ECM drones in bay) ... And you start loosing dps after two ogres were killed. Or alternatively, you can be fine as long as four ogres are not killed from the initial wave, assuming you pack no other drone at all. Killing the initial wave of a drone boat de-fangs it, since it's turrets do only cruiser level dps (if used at all). Working as intended?
In relation to PvP and drones i think the myrmidon looks good, you need to choose between ewar or full dps, which i think is okay otherwise drone boats would be to flexible. If you don't bring heavies you can bring between 4 and 7 sets of mixed light and medium drones, which should leave room for both dps and ewar drones.
In PvE i can't really see where it would be practical to bring 4 heavies, when it means you can bring spare drones. 3 Heavy and 2 medium gives the same dps as 4 heavies, and it will leave the drone bay needed to bring eg. 1 medium and 3 light drones extra as spares. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥ |
|
Shepard Book
Underground Stargate
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:01:00 -
[691] - Quote
Sad to see hurricane nerfed yet again and in many categories. |
Mund Richard
252
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:11:00 -
[692] - Quote
dexington wrote:In relation to PvP and drones i think the myrmidon looks good, you need to choose between ewar or full dps, which i think is okay otherwise drone boats would be to flexible. Ok... Just looking at my sig you can tell I'm biased... But why do I have -1 slot on my drone ships, if I only have one primary damage drone flight (for which it's damage output was balanced in mind with), and my guns alone do sub-cruiser level damage?
Thus far I felt it was in return for the flexibility or something. Now I'm no longer sure. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
582
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:21:00 -
[693] - Quote
El'Kaniery wrote:no guy
Old harbinger with skill V CPU 468.75 PWG 1875 New Harbinger with skill V CPU 437.5 PWG 1656.25
Heavy pulse II with skill CPU 26.3 PWG 187.2
You less -4.95 CPU and -31.55 PWG
And before the modification it's was already difficult to fits the ship
Hmm, I forgot to apply skills to those base fitting changes, it seems I'm the idiot afteral in that regard.
Still, if you compare the new ships with realistic fits they've all lost a ton of tank and where the drake gets the most HP while having the lowest dps and the Cane getting the lowest HP while getting good dps the Harb that you can fit with these stats has HP exactly in the middle, same for dps, and can gain an advantage if it can make use of its larger dronebay.
HP wise the cane is still sitting sub 50k, the harb is sub 60k and the Drake is just over 60k (again, in realistic fits). I'm not seeing the issue much (other than me being wrong on the fitting thing), **** got nerfed which I'm fine with but I LIKE the buffs the Harb got regardless of it. Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:31:00 -
[694] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Isn't a turret high on a missile bonus ship the ultimate utility high?
I have yet to see a single Raven fit a gun, even though it has that capability. :) Problem with Cyclone is that without the two turrets, itGÇÖll do less damage than Drake even against non-kinetic targets. ItGÇÖs only with those two turrets that it pulls ahead (more on this down with my Cyclone comment)
Anyway, let's see:
Prophecy: yay, a drone boat :) I really like how youGÇÖre giving Amarr a sort of, but not quite T1 missile line through the drone boats to prepare the Amarr player for the eventual Khanid line. I wonder if that means Khanid ships will get bigger drone bays too?
Harbinger: love it. More damage, bigger drone bay and less cap hungry, though it gets extra mass and slightly less tank.
Ferox: Most of the changes are cool (no more split weapon, yay!), though I'm not yet sure what to think of the unchanged bonuses. I mean, on the one hand, I love the optimal bonus, but on the other, lack of damage bonus kinda sucks. Then again, I'm not willing to part from the resist bonus either :D How will this translate into Rokh, which already gets outdamaged by Naga?
Frankly, I think you shot yourselves in the leg when you made Moa a brawler - if that were turned into a kiter, Ferox could then be made into a shield brawler without directly competing. Now you have to juggle between medium rails having no purpose and Ferox competing both against the Moa and the Naga. I wouldnGÇÖt want to be in your position.
Drake: I would have honestly prefered the "mini Raven" version that you initially played around with. I'll need to run numbers to see if this can still get cap stable with perma MWD - killing that would go a long way to killing drake blobs. Losing utility high sucks, but then I was always of the opinion that the utility highs should be placed on dedicated close range or kiter ships. Drake is neither. Also, brick is now even more brick.
I'm putting this into the undecided cathegory - if the ship's passive tank is still viable and the Podla drake can still work, but you managed to kill the perma-MWD, I'll give it a thumbs up, else it gets a thumbs down.
Brutix: I don't have enough experience with hybrid gallente boats to really comment on it, so passing the judgement to someone more competent in this regard.
Myrmidon: I like it, a bit more drone damage, this is the damage variant, while prophecy is the more tanky of the two.
Cyclone: I love it that it's a missile boat now, but I'm not sure about the split weapon systems. With 5 lows and preference to active shield tanking, I'm guessing the cyclone will be fit for max gank, which should put its dps between 352 (4x BCUII + 5 HM launchers) and 565 (4x BCUII, 5 HAM launchers, 2 425mm ACs). Add about 100 for drones if using Hammerhead IIs. For comparison, a 6 launcher Cyclone would have HAM dps of 589 (plus drones). I would have prefered the 6-launcher version, but I can live with this version too. I'm also guessing there will be plenty of people who will skip the turrets for utility, then complain how bad the Cyclone's dps is. Further testing required, but generally favourable.
EDIT: I just read one of the responses above and realized that two turrets here could be used for exploration for only about 70 dps less. With this in mind, I'm liking Cyclone a lot :D
Hurricane: ouch, cap sure got axed. And I was just thinking the other day how much easier Cane is to get cap stable with armor tank compared to Harbi - well, there goes that :p It seems you really decided to nerf the hell out of Cane and Drake, didn't ya? :D
Overall:
Favorites - Prophecy, Harbinger, Cyclone (need to test it) Undecided - Ferox, Drake |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
394
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:36:00 -
[695] - Quote
7 blasters on a ferox... yeeeeeeyy |
El'Kaniery
Aries Engineering Quasar Generation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:36:00 -
[696] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Hmm, I forgot to apply skills to those base fitting changes, it seems I'm the idiot afteral in that regard.
Still, if you compare the new ships with realistic fits they've all lost a ton of tank and where the drake gets the most HP while having the lowest dps and the Cane getting the lowest HP while getting good dps the Harb that you can fit with these stats has HP exactly in the middle, same for dps, and can gain an advantage if it can make use of its larger dronebay.
HP wise the cane is still sitting sub 50k, the harb is sub 60k and the Drake is just over 60k (again, in realistic fits). I'm not seeing the issue much (other than me being wrong on the fitting thing), **** got nerfed which I'm fine with but I LIKE the buffs the Harb got regardless of it.
Yes and no
The buff of DPS is interesting clr. Your decrease the tanking why not. But in this case the ship most be more agile.
Remember the problem with the gallente : No speed but heavy dps and medium tank that was simply not really playable because you can put your dps on the target.
Now the harbinger look excaclty the same the range and dps look good only.
Because you not have the agility and speed to put your ammo short range, you certainly must be to use only the long range t2 ammo. the dps is not really the same and the range is not terrible about 24 km.
The harbinger look like the drake but in armor. But you have more problem with fitting, range , and capa.
|
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:45:00 -
[697] - Quote
for the love of god at least give cyclone 7 launchers. |
Mund Richard
252
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:50:00 -
[698] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:for the love of god at least give cyclone 7 launchers. Tone that down to 6 and I'll agree. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:51:00 -
[699] - Quote
dexington wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:NEW AI? So you are talking only about PVE version? Or am I missing something? Yes i was talking about PvE, but i guess the same applies to PvP where bringing heavies means you lose the utility from ewar drones.
You wouldn't carry heavies in PvP you have to be in blaster range and have a scramed target for them to catch/hit anything. ...and in return you loose your EC- drones and frigate swatters.
100MB bandwidth is cool for PvE, kinda or possibly a sentry fleet a la Ishtar mass drone drop.....
There was a reason that beyond baiting and multi-repper solo fist you didn't see many myrms. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:54:00 -
[700] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:Woo! Brutix: hrm... I'm torn here. On one hand I'm not a fan of the 7.5% active tank bonus because of the current state of active armour repping... HOWEVER there is a lot of hinting from fairly credible sources that active armour tanking might be on the books pretty damn soon.
The problem with the 7.5% bonus, regardless of the strength of armor reppers is thatit's simpyl relatively worse than a resistance bonus. There have been countless threads discussing the short comings of 7.5% rep compared to 5% resistance, the biggest being the very minimal difference in active tanking between ships equiped with said bonuses.
What needs to happen, independent of an armor repper pass, is an increase of the active bonus on the brutix, and all active hulls to 10% per level. Or to simply nerf resistance bonuses to 4% per level. Currently a 7.5% rep amount ship has like 3% more active tank than a 5% resistance ship while receiving weaker logi support, and having much less ehp. The active bonus needs to be buffed to make it at least stand out in it's niche, 3% advantage is not enough compared to the tradeoffs.
|
|
Vince Grant
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 13:57:00 -
[701] - Quote
Why not just leave the tier 2 battlecruisers as they are now, and just apply the changes to tier 1's? The tier 1's look interesting, but tier 2 looks useless.. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:00:00 -
[702] - Quote
Vince Grant wrote:Why not just leave the tier 2 battlecruisers as they are now, and just apply the changes to tier 1's? The tier 1's look interesting, but tier 2 looks useless..
Negative
|
Mund Richard
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:01:00 -
[703] - Quote
Vince Grant wrote:Why not just leave the tier 2 battlecruisers as they are now, and just apply the changes to tier 1's? The tier 1's look interesting, but tier 2 looks useless.. My guess would be that they want both battleships and cruisers become more appealing by toning down the prominence of BCs.
I mean, when new players ask what they should skill for, what was the default answer (At least where I saw them)? BC (and maybe cheap destroyers) in the T1 lineup, T2 frigs, T3 cruisers.
Destroyer and BC skilling is getting nerfed, now BC hulls. Closing the gap between BCs and Cruisers on both sides makes cruisers more interesting. Making BCs less manouverable (and former tier2 somewhat less tanky) lets Battleships deal with them easier. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
583
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:06:00 -
[704] - Quote
El'Kaniery wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:
Hmm, I forgot to apply skills to those base fitting changes, it seems I'm the idiot afteral in that regard.
Still, if you compare the new ships with realistic fits they've all lost a ton of tank and where the drake gets the most HP while having the lowest dps and the Cane getting the lowest HP while getting good dps the Harb that you can fit with these stats has HP exactly in the middle, same for dps, and can gain an advantage if it can make use of its larger dronebay.
HP wise the cane is still sitting sub 50k, the harb is sub 60k and the Drake is just over 60k (again, in realistic fits). I'm not seeing the issue much (other than me being wrong on the fitting thing), **** got nerfed which I'm fine with but I LIKE the buffs the Harb got regardless of it.
Yes and no The buff of DPS is interesting clr. Your decrease the tanking why not. But in this case the ship most be more agile. Remember the problem with the gallente : No speed but heavy dps and medium tank that was simply not really playable because you can put your dps on the target. Now the harbinger look excaclty the same the range and dps look good only. Because you not have the agility and speed to put your ammo short range, you certainly must be to use only the long range t2 ammo. the dps is not really the same and the range is not terrible about 24 km. The harbinger look like the drake but in armor. But you have more problem with fitting, range , and capa. Try to use the harbinger in mwd you loose the advantage of the signature. you have more problem with your capa. In afterburner, you are really very slow (add a plate 1600mm ). And the inertia is really bad. the tracking of the medium laser is not good. Really you look like a sentry.
Yup, and that is why I'm fully expecting an upcoming change to plates/mass and rigs (or conversely, shield extenders getting a speed/agility penalty).
Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Shingorash
S T R A T C O M THORN Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:14:00 -
[705] - Quote
The armor repair bonus crap needs to go, its a waste of time, resists bonus would be better.
Also on the Brutix wouldnt it be better to have + Damage and + Tracking like the Mega and Thorax, its natural progression surely? |
Tiberius Funk
Capital Gents Persona Non Gratis
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:20:00 -
[706] - Quote
First of all, and I think this has been said a 100 times in this thread but just to reiterate, BCs (other than tier 3s) have a role bonus for gang links therefore every BC should have at least one utility high slot. SO WHY ON GODS GOOD EARTH HAVE THE HIGHS GENERALLY BEEN REMOVED?!!?!?!? (EPICMOST FACE PALM). Common Fozzie, you've done an awesome job so far so don't fail on the BCs please. Also, please keep in mind that CCP Devs have a horrible habit of nerfbatting back to the bronze age anything that is well used by the players/considered overpowered e.g. Nos. So just because people like the Drake and the Cane please do not NERFHAMMER the arse off them. Admittedly, the Drake changes arenGÇÖt too bad but the Cane... (sigh). Both took a bit of a beating with the last patch what with heavies getting a clobbering and the cane losing its grid so please leave well be. The only thing you could do with the Drake is maybe lose the resists bonus and give it double damage a la the binger and cane or give it a missile velocity bonus and combine that change with a speed increase. Having said that we're looking at COMBAT battlecruisers that are supposed to get stuck in and stay on field not run in, smash u in the face and run away again.
Also DON'T remove any slots on the tier 2s just add slots to the tier 1s FTW. All BCs should have 18 slots. The tier 3s only have 17 on the basis that they have overpowered guns and are lightweight and speedy. Oh, and the fact they're already AWESOME :)
So here's my 2 penneth on each ship:
Prophecy - I like the drone boat idea but it needs 2 extra highs and at least one if not two extra turrets/launchers. Possibly a little extra speed and not sure why the grid has been hammered. So you'd have a slot layout of 7/4/7.
Harbinger - Is fine barring the cpu/grid nerf and the high slot that's been taken. Although I haven't fitted a binger since the change to medium energy weapons so not sure how well it fits. Ideally you want to get the same as a shield cane but be able to fit 2 Nos say in highs (CUE FLAME AT MENTION OF NOS on any ship other than a frigate)** Also a slight speed buff so it can get in and out and kite as it doesn't have an kind of bonus to tanking. Oh, please leave shield level alone or round it to say 3500.
Ferox - FOR GOD'S SAKE GIVE THE POOR THING A DAMAGE BONUS INSTEAD OF OPTIMAL!!!!!!! It will need an extra high slot as a utility slot. If you give it a damage bonus you might have to lose a turret i.e 6 turrets. Also, it needs to be able to get into range quickly so a bit of extra speed please.
Drake - Fine, just don't lose the high slot and leave the cpu and grid alone OR do as suggested in my first paragraph (which I know everyone will hate!)
Brutix GÇô OMGWTF POINTLESS ARMOUR REP BONUS!!! Either double damage it like the cane and binger or give it an optimal range bonus. A bit extra speed for kiting purposes as well wouldnGÇÖt go amiss. Also, needs an extra high as a utility slot and agreed with extra low. Maybe 3750 or 4000 shields, maybe.
Myrmidon GÇô Needs 7 highs, otherwise happy with the changes, notably the extra drone bandwith (and now for the Eos? 125 bandwith PLEASE!) People have winged about the armour rep bonus on the myrm but if youGÇÖve ever flown a triple repper myrm you know how good they are. On that point, maybe leave the grid alone or donGÇÖt kick it in the nuts as much.
Cyclone GÇô LOVING THIS!!!! BUTGǪ at least 6 launchers needed please! Keep the 8 highs. Oh, whilst IGÇÖm here, maybe slightly buff ASBs so that they can carry a couple more charges. They were ridiculous before admittedly. Or put them back almost as they were but make it so you can only fit 1 per ship. Anyway, Cyclone new darling of the pvp and pve crowd GO!!!!
Hurricane GÇô LEAVE IT ALONE!!! ItGÇÖs a great ship, itGÇÖs had itGÇÖs nerf but itGÇÖs still good to fly. Nuff said.
As a final word, please try and keep the ships varied. If we end up with ships for different races doing pretty much exactly the same thing its gonna be boring. Hence not 100% sure about the double damage bonus on the binger as is a little too canesque for my liking.
TibbeH!
**Nos SSHHHHHERIOUSHLY needs a buff after it took a right royal nerf hammering. Please buff it so you can drain a ship dry but you will only get cap for your own ship up to say 33%-50% of your cap.
|
Mund Richard
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:21:00 -
[707] - Quote
Shingorash wrote:Also on the Brutix wouldnt it be better to have + Damage and + Tracking like the Mega and Thorax, its natural progression surely? The Talos also has it, so it's getting a bit cluttered, plus the Mega/Thorax, like the Talos are Attack ships, while the Brutix a Combat ship.
Now... Either one getting a falloff, and the other a tracking, I wouldn't oppose.
On the other hand, having two Active tanking BCs I kinda do. Only the Caldari have two tanking BCs as well, and theirs are 1) Shield 2) Passive. And BOTH were rumored BY CCP to loose their tanking bonus at one point or another (For RoF on Drake, for Damage on Ferox). What happened to that? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
138
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:25:00 -
[708] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Yup, and that is why I'm fully expecting an upcoming change to plates/mass and rigs (or conversely, shield extenders getting a speed/agility penalty).
This is why it would be helpful if Fozzie would announce any relevant module changes before or at the same time as ship changes. If there are tweaks in the works for plates, we should know about that before we whip out the calculators. If something exciting is going to happen to active armor tanking, we need to know more than "wink wink Santa's coming". Until we hear what the nudge nudge wink wink changes are, I'm going to assume that this will just follow CCP's usual plan of "we're doing this now because eventually we're going to do something that will make it cool".
If we don't have accurate information about the whole picture they have in mind, then there's little point in telling us what the ship changes are. If they want early feedback, we need more than half an idea of what's going on. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:25:00 -
[709] - Quote
Turn the Ferox into a big Moa! |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:39:00 -
[710] - Quote
To use the Brutix with Blasters, it has to come close. Why not doing the same trick, like the Assault Frigs?
Swap the active repper bonus with an 12% MWD Signature reduction/Level. This would give them an MWD Signature similiar to an Cruiser. |
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:52:00 -
[711] - Quote
Royal Hammer wrote:With the recent bonuses to medium laser turrets, I was looking forward to my Harbinger being a competitive ship, even though it's slightly outclassed by two other popular battlecruisers. But now...ouch. Amarr can't get no love. Maybe make the nerf a teensy bit less bad?
Welcome to the Caldari Club. |
Mund Richard
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:53:00 -
[712] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote: Welcome to the Caldari Club. Wait. If everyone claims his side is worse off, whom are we supposed to be rallying against?
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:53:00 -
[713] - Quote
I'm going to miss the utility slots that are disapeering from some BC as for small gangs they are really useful. It will make people who like to spider tank or carry reppers for post combat repairs in the field think twice about fitting them as to do so will invariably lower their dps. In balance I think it's a good thing. |
Vince Grant
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:54:00 -
[714] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Vince Grant wrote:Why not just leave the tier 2 battlecruisers as they are now, and just apply the changes to tier 1's? The tier 1's look interesting, but tier 2 looks useless.. Negative
Very constructive.. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 14:56:00 -
[715] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote: Welcome to the Caldari Club. Wait. If everyone claims his side is worse off, whom are we supposed to be rallying against?
I was just making the point that in the 300 page+ heavy missile nerf thread., loads of people were posting that CCP hates Caldari and to be fair a great deal of posters were very unsympathetic to yet another Caldari nerf. Hence the sarcasm evident in my post. I don't bother me though as I do Amarr, as far as I can see we're starting to see some love. I cant wait to try out the rebalanced Harbinger. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
288
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:17:00 -
[716] - Quote
The active tanks actually can be very nice, however the ships need to have enough buffer for the reps to make a difference... I do however think it's a shame for both the Brutix and the Myrmidon to have an active rep bonus as well as I really hoped the Drake would lose the resist bonus for a more aggressive role creating more diversity in flavour for both Gallente and Caldari. |
Eliza DoLots
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:32:00 -
[717] - Quote
Give the Applicable Gallente ships (Brutix, especially) MORE then just a 5% weapons bonus. Now that Caldari is starting to recieve those bonuses too Gallente needs a reaffirmation of there upclose and personal DPS. It would make the 7.5% repair more tolerable since the ship would have something else to make it shine.
Since Caldari and Gallente both use Hybrid guns...the ship bonuses is what needs to be tweaked harder to make them more unique to fly. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
487
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:36:00 -
[718] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Turn the Ferox into a big Moa!
Then what would be the point of the Moa? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
487
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:41:00 -
[719] - Quote
Tiberius Funk wrote:First of all, and I think this has been said a 100 times in this thread but just to reiterate, BCs (other than tier 3s) have a role bonus for gang links therefore every BC should have at least one utility high slot. SO WHY ON GODS GOOD EARTH HAVE THE HIGHS GENERALLY BEEN REMOVED?!!?!?!?
To force a choice between weapons and gang links. Battlecruisers have long suffered from being too good at too many things. There's no point in fitting requirements if you can just fit whatever you like all of the time.
Quote:**Nos SSHHHHHERIOUSHLY needs a buff after it took a right royal nerf hammering. Please buff it so you can drain a ship dry but you will only get cap for your own ship up to say 33%-50% of your cap.
Then what would be the point of neuts? The mechanism of nos is perfect, it just needs tweaks to fitting requirements and drain amount. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:42:00 -
[720] - Quote
Eliza DoLots wrote:Give the Applicable Gallente ships (Brutix, especially) MORE then just a 5% weapons bonus. Now that Caldari is starting to recieve those bonuses too Gallente needs a reaffirmation of there upclose and personal DPS. It would make the 7.5% repair more tolerable since the ship would have something else to make it shine.
Since Caldari and Gallente both use Hybrid guns...the ship bonuses is what needs to be tweaked harder to make them more unique to fly.
Don't forget though that CCP don't like you having unique ships to fly at least not in their version of 'balance' what they are actually aiming for is for everyone to be the same so that you can just train a given race and have at it. Diversity is on the way out, 'Balance (read uniformity) is on the way in'.
Pretty soon it won't even matter what skills you have, let alone what ship you fly... |
|
Faltzs
RADIO RAMPAGE Initiative Mercenaries
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:55:00 -
[721] - Quote
Prophecy: Me likes its gd you spare highs if u fit 4 of one weapon type gd tank and damage. Harbinger: Me likes its all gd
Ferox: swich range bonus to 5% damage, go 6 meds 4 lows = blast boat will need meds for tackle, Drake: switch res bonus for a 10% missile velocity go 5 meds 5 lows, = less tank more damage much better suited
Cyclone: me likes alot hurricane: nerfed alot but eft warrioring says it stil works so will wait and see
Myrmidon: meh its ok now, its always been the dark horse in the rigth hands Brutix: 6 highs 5 turrets, 6 med 6 lows, 7.5% to damp effecitveness per lvl, 5% to gun damage enjoy (yes its not a combat bc anymore but tbh the talos and myr are just better options) be brave new ew ship,
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
114
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:07:00 -
[722] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:Vilnius Zar wrote:Yup, and that is why I'm fully expecting an upcoming change to plates/mass and rigs (or conversely, shield extenders getting a speed/agility penalty). This is why it would be helpful if Fozzie would announce any relevant module changes before or at the same time as ship changes. If there are tweaks in the works for plates, we should know about that before we whip out the calculators. If something exciting is going to happen to active armor tanking, we need to know more than "wink wink Santa's coming". Until we hear what the nudge nudge wink wink changes are, I'm going to assume that this will just follow CCP's usual plan of "we're doing this now because eventually we're going to do something that will make it cool". If we don't have accurate information about the whole picture they have in mind, then there's little point in telling us what the ship changes are. If they want early feedback, we need more than half an idea of what's going on. Tiberius Funk wrote:Harbinger - Is fine barring the cpu/grid nerf and the high slot that's been taken. Although I haven't fitted a binger since the change to medium energy weapons so not sure how well it fits. Ideally you want to get the same as a shield cane but be able to fit 2 Nos say in highs (CUE FLAME AT MENTION OF NOS on any ship other than a frigate)** Also a slight speed buff so it can get in and out and kite as it doesn't have an kind of bonus to tanking. Oh, please leave shield level alone or round it to say 3500. If you have AWU V and use at least a 5% powergrid implant or an ACR, you can currently cram heavy pulses, a 1600, and a mwd onto the Harbinger if you make some serious sacrifices in the CPU of your other mods, but god help you if you want a neut or nos on there. I think you still need a PG implant of some kind even to use an 800 with heavy pulses. I think you can get focused mediums and a 1600 on there without too much issue now, but you're still brought up short by its CPU and have to make some tradeoffs either with ANPs or meta mids. It's always been kind of a headache to fit the Harbinger relative to the other battlecruisers, though fitting the Prophecy was no peach either. I haven't mathed out whether or not six heavy pulses, a 1600, and a mwd are possible with the new fitting changes -- reports seem to be mixed on whether or not you gain or lose fitting once skills are taken into account. I think it's fair that you need to go out of your way to get all of that on the Harbinger, but it should probably be slightly less of a pain to fit with T2 modules. Battlecruisers are about when noobs start hitting their T2 stride.
In both regards I agree, if CCP intends to make changes to mechanics behind tanking and have balanced these BC changes with them in mind then how can we give input about them with that same knowledge? It's like being given book with half it's pages missing and being asked to give a report on it.
As for the Harby, all the fits that I have seen posted in this thread that people say won't work, don't show one fitting rig or module. Which when people complained about the cane PG nerf they were told to htfu and use modules, rigs and implants to make up for it. I would imagine that would now apply to the Harby now. *shrugs*
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1215
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:08:00 -
[723] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote: Hmm, I forgot to apply skills to those base fitting changes, it seems I'm the idiot afteral in that regard.
See, I do know what I'm talking about. The harbinger has always been a pain in the ass to fit, and slow as dirt, why make it harder? Why make it slower was it breaking battlecruiser speed records? Why is it slower than the brick tanked prophecy?
The entire presentation of that ship just doesn't make any good sense.
|
Velocifero
Unforeseen Consequences. The Unthinkables
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:43:00 -
[724] - Quote
I have to say it is difficult to see much left of the unifying elements once key to each faction. It seems like, other than back story and racial appearances, the race of a ship is becoming less and less relevant, and key to the path chosen by the player which would seem to be a re-focus due to the upcoming dessie and BC skills changes.
With so much intermarriage of systems and bonuses, the races seem to look like this:
Amarr = lasers Minmatar = projectiles Caldari = not lasers or projectiles Gallente = not lasers or projectiles
There's some homogenity lacking in the philosophies behind these ships and the origins leading to their conception and the strategies they use. It's like in the haste to finely tune the game and off the success of the frig and cruiser changes, some clarity of the racial heritage and focus has been diluted.
It is good to have a mix of weapons available to each race, but there needs to be a focus on retaining some semblance of the original racial hallmarks which what I always saw as something like this, although i invite others to contribute their's:
Amarr = slow, eveil lasers, badass armor tanks, and crafty cap manipulators Minmatar = speed demons, low tech, low hp, high dps projectile nuts Caldari = puritanical shield tankers with a missile fetish, anda penchant for ewar Gallente = dronemasters, armor tankers, lovers of all things damp and disruptor.
So, i don't think any ship by any one race should deviate too far from this philosophy. For example, it was nice to have a missile specific boat in the talwar for a change, but the cyclone as a missile ship makes no sense with the minnie style, nor does nerfing the hurricane's speed. I still think rebalancing within these parameters is far from impossible. |
Lili Lu
664
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 16:44:00 -
[725] - Quote
Yep, Ferox 8.2 align time, Harbinger 9.1 align time. That makes so much sense because once you put plates on the Ferox . . The Harbinger is now a space cow, moo, moo, run away lest I present my posterior and projectile laser poo in your direction Yeah what happened to avoiding the blessing of sniper ships with speed and agility such that they can do their thing without worries. And conversely let's give the probable pulse range ship the mobility of a cow moo moo
Concerning the gallente BCs, how about swapping out those 7.5% armor repper bonuses for something like the old Auguror used to have. A 10% (or whatever number) per level armor hp bonus. It's differnt from a resist bonus. Essentially Amarr ships have a built in eanm, but gallente ships would have a built in plate instead. This would make sense, as they might not have to fit a plate then and could just load resist mods and that way hope to burn into blaster range.
Can't do the same with shield hp, because then you are messing with regen, and anyway with ASBs the active shield bonuses are not worthless like the active armor is. The only reason it works on an Incursus is because the bonus is 10% and the ship has enough grid to fit two and well it's a frig. Once you get to BC and MAR it just doesn't work anymore for pvp. Of course you could buff MARs, but I think it would still be preferable to go buffer and broadcast for logi loving. |
androch
Chillwater Ltd Persona Non Gratis
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 17:15:00 -
[726] - Quote
changing my cyclone into a missile boat? what the **** ccp stop fixing what isnt broken cyclone was kickass the way it was... and now youre nerfing our tier 2 bc's??? great job assholes harbringer is a badass bc that youre killing by removing one of its guns all the changes youre making... its makign specialization pointless which is what new players are supposed to be encouraged to do |
Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 17:25:00 -
[727] - Quote
fukier wrote:Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Ferox seems pretty terribad, and why does Brutix have an armor repper bonus - so useless ;O
do like the prophecy, myrm and cyclone changes thats because it is... i have no idea why it still have an optimal range bonus... it really really needs a hubrid turret damage bonus...
Ferox needs BOTH range and damage in my oppinion.. then give the ROKH the same range+damage bonus.. cause every one knows the poor Rokh ahs been unloved for a decade nearly :P |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
121
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 17:28:00 -
[728] - Quote
androch wrote:changing my cyclone into a missile boat? what the **** ccp stop fixing what isnt broken cyclone was kickass the way it was... and now youre nerfing our tier 2 bc's??? great job assholes harbringer is a badass bc that youre killing by removing one of its guns all the changes youre making... its makign specialization pointless which is what new players are supposed to be encouraged to do Try taking a closer look at the changes and then complaining about actual issues.
This thread, I swear. This thread. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 17:30:00 -
[729] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Shingorash wrote:Also on the Brutix wouldnt it be better to have + Damage and + Tracking like the Mega and Thorax, its natural progression surely? The Talos also has it, so it's getting a bit cluttered, plus the Mega/Thorax, like the Talos are Attack ships, while the Brutix a Combat ship. Now... Either one getting a falloff, and the other a tracking, I wouldn't oppose. On the other hand, having two Active tanking BCs I kinda do. Only the Caldari have two tanking BCs as well, and theirs are 1) Shield 2) Passive. And BOTH were rumored BY CCP to loose their tanking bonus at one point or another (For RoF on Drake, for Damage on Ferox). What happened to that? So much this. There should be (in the combat cruiser hulls) that one is set up for pure damage, and one is set up for tanking (either passive or active, if you must). The Hurricane/Cyclone and Harbinger/Prophecy are good examples of this, while Ferox/Drake and Myrmidon/Brutix are not.
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
207
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 17:38:00 -
[730] - 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 |
|
Exang
Alpha Strategy The Unthinkables
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 17:54:00 -
[731] - Quote
Well let's see the Harbinger was already hard to fit decent lasers on , still it was a staple of players using laser guess what not anymore it now will be a ship stored in the hanger rarely seeing the light of PvPing ; I am sure though it might be able to do PVE level 2 dont think you can now do level 3 not enough power grid . Moving on to the poor Hurrican it was a great ship noticed I said was because it now joins the rankes of the Harbingers. Next we have Cyclone it takes the place of the doomed Drake, so much for the Caldrai being the missile king, move OVER Now comes the Gallente, both Battlecruisers get AR bonus 7.5%: Myrmidon was loved for it powerful blasters in PvPing and PvEing now I have no ideal what its good for lol because its not going to be used for PvPing anymore bet on that. Oh and now to the Brutix oh it also get the big 7.5% armor repping very very useful in PvEing useless in PvPing another ship Bits the dust hmhmh maybe we could make a song thier na its more than likely been done before. Oh the Prophecy was a Amarr staple now it swhat a missile user also ;gee the Caldrai trying to take over the Amarr ship building because they are no longer the missile kings how nice. And finally the Ferox a Hybrid Turret user ; enough said thier. So CCP belives the links will take the place of all these changes roflmao good luck with this I only know this 4 ships now are at beast PvE ships . |
Biczkowski
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 17:56:00 -
[732] - Quote
> Let me know what you think!
Y u is of **** the cane? |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 18:07:00 -
[733] - Quote
I do have to admit the Harbinger looks completely lackluster compared to the prophecy. Slower, less maneuverable, less defense, still tight fittings, and it doesn't even have better firepower to compensate.
I would say the current changes are definitely a work in progress. It's not much of an attack ship, while the prophecy, as a combat ship, looks amazing.
Hey, can the prophecy be a tad less fat? Just asking, I don't really know when the art team works. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
322
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 18:21:00 -
[734] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Just hang it up boss, you looked at one stat, saw a change, and didn't look at what happened to the rest of the ship. Its ok to be wrong, just try not to drag it out like this because its silly. as mentioned above, the one making the straw man argument is you. You chose one deficiency that this ship would have and pointed it out even though all the other ships filling the same role have the same deficiencies . . . it isnt the fault of the harbinger if ALL sniper ships are so crippled, thats what we call balance. So wait, to make your argument work, you're pigeonholing the Harbinger into only being a sniper? And then saying I'm building the straw man?
Are you actually this stupid?[/quote] once again straw man, i didnt say that the harb has to ONLY be a sniper ship, i said that is ONE way to take advantage of the new stats . . . Have you ever heard of the focused medium pulse laser? it does 90% of the damage of the HPL2 and costs WAY less powergrid; you want an easier time fitting your ship . . . try that.
Sigras wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Just face it, you failed to notice the other changes that take a mediocre ship and basically make it the worst of all the BC's. you really think the harb is the worst of all BCs now? I see your harbinger and raise you a brutix. This thing is a combat ship (read slowest of the ship roles) that has short range. also the harb can drop to the smaller pulse lasers to mitigate its fitting issues . . . it doesnt matter which guns the brutix fits it still cant catch anything. I guess the point is moot because a well fit hurricane will pwn them both now.
No see, actually if you read what I wrote instead of trying desperately to defend your weak ass nonpoint, you'd notice i said the changes as a whole will make it the weakest BC.
You point out that a brutix for the worst which will after the change be one of the fastest BC's in the game.
Or did you not notice that little bit? And its new low slot....[/quote] you mean other than the fact that it still needs to armor tank, and will actually be slower than all 3 of the 4 shield battlecruisers after just fitting a plate? or did you forget that plates add mass?
Or maybe you forgot that armor rigs slow you down? Or maybe you didnt see that the cyclone and hurricane start out slightly faster than the brutix BEFORE it puts a plate on . . .
Or maybe youre the one clinging to a sinking ship. |
Jell Feed
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 18:47:00 -
[735] - Quote
Cyclone: 2 turrets, 5 Launchers
LOL! |
Snape Dieboldmotor
In Exile.
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 18:47:00 -
[736] - Quote
Drop Ferox range bonus and give damage bonus. Like a big Moa not a tanky low DPS Naga.
Thanks |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 18:51:00 -
[737] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:fukier wrote:Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Ferox seems pretty terribad, and why does Brutix have an armor repper bonus - so useless ;O
do like the prophecy, myrm and cyclone changes thats because it is... i have no idea why it still have an optimal range bonus... it really really needs a hubrid turret damage bonus... Ferox needs BOTH range and damage in my oppinion.. then give the ROKH the same range+damage bonus.. cause every one knows the poor Rokh ahs been unloved for a decade nearly :P
see the naga for those bonus...
and what are you smoking when talking about the rokh?
edit: Personally i would not mind if they reduced the optimal range bonus and included a falloff bonus too...
something like 7.5% to optimal range and 7.5% to fall off... that way you can snipe if you want (though medium rails really do need love for this to be a real option) or you can go blasters and get really impresive range with null... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 18:51:00 -
[738] - Quote
Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:Drop Ferox range bonus and give damage bonus. Like a big Moa not a tanky low DPS Naga.
Thanks Tanky Naga is what they're going for. I just don't see it, especially with Medium Rails.
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:01:00 -
[739] - Quote
i am at work atm... so i cant do this myself
but lets say that the ferox has a 7.5% bonus to optimal range and falloff
with 7 heavy neutron blaster II with null and 3 mag stabs II and one tracking enhancer with a tracking comp II range script
whats the dps and range of the guns? At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:02:00 -
[740] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:fukier wrote:Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Ferox seems pretty terribad, and why does Brutix have an armor repper bonus - so useless ;O
do like the prophecy, myrm and cyclone changes thats because it is... i have no idea why it still have an optimal range bonus... it really really needs a hubrid turret damage bonus... Ferox needs BOTH range and damage in my oppinion.. then give the ROKH the same range+damage bonus.. cause every one knows the poor Rokh ahs been unloved for a decade nearly :P
Please never even consider removing the 5% resist on Ferox and Rokh. Its really what makes the ships even remotely good in the first place.
Luckily CCP recognizes this and stated in the BS balance devblog that they have no plans to mess with Rokh as it is a strong competitor to the Abaddon for shield tankers. |
|
Seleucus Ontuas
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:21:00 -
[741] - Quote
At the very least, if the concept is for the Ferox to be a Railgun platform, it needs some extra powergrid. Fitting a full set of 250mm takes 1309 PG, assuming AWU V (which most people don't have) out of the Ferox's new total of 1375, assuming Engineering V.
Yes, of course, the Ferox is "sniping", it doesn't necessarily need the extra PG to fit an MWD or some Shield Extenders. But, let's be honest here, unless the RailFerox can compete in the 30KM to 50KM range with the Naga, no one is going to use it over a Naga. You can argue that over a RailNaga, the Ferox will have more tank and better tracking, but what happens if I take out a Blaster Naga? A Blaster Naga will out tank, out DPS, out track, out maneuver, and match the range of a Rail Ferox to about 60KM.
If "tanky sniper" is the role being looked at for the Ferox, forcing the Ferox to make fitting sacrifices to get a full rack of 250mm Rails is going to hinder it extremely. |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Unclaimed.
43
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:28:00 -
[742] - Quote
i dont know, maybe i misread it and i wasnt going to read through 37 pages to see if its been pointed out:
harbinger now has 6 lasers with a 10% damage bonus vs 7 with a 5% bonus.
7x 1.25% (25% bonus at rank 5)= the power of 8.75 lasers. 6X1.5% (50% bonus at rank 5)= the power of 9 lasers.
do the math
seems to me dps out went up, power consumption went down, cpu and power grid needs went down, cost of outfitting a ship went down by 1 laser and 1 crystal of each flavor. granted, its a small bonus, but less draw on my cap makes me a happier camper.
the grid and cpu get lowered, cause we dont need the extra laser. acceptable. more drone bay so we can use 5 lights or 5 mediums... great! armor got lowered, its a tad slower, a few minor tweaks...
lemme go back and reread it again to make sure i am right, but i think the harby is still a beast. maybe the armor got dropped a little...i can deal with that. 500 armor isnt THAT bad...less draw on my cap is a plus though! |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:46:00 -
[743] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:i dont know, maybe i misread it and i wasnt going to read through 37 pages to see if its been pointed out:
harbinger now has 6 lasers with a 10% damage bonus vs 7 with a 5% bonus.
7x 1.25% (25% bonus at rank 5)= the power of 8.75 lasers. 6X1.5% (50% bonus at rank 5)= the power of 9 lasers.
do the math
seems to me dps out went up, power consumption went down, cpu and power grid needs went down, cost of outfitting a ship went down by 1 laser and 1 crystal of each flavor. granted, its a small bonus, but less draw on my cap makes me a happier camper.
the grid and cpu get lowered, cause we dont need the extra laser. acceptable. more drone bay so we can use 5 lights or 5 mediums... great! armor got lowered, its a tad slower, a few minor tweaks...
lemme go back and reread it again to make sure i am right, but i think the harby is still a beast. maybe the armor got dropped a little...i can deal with that. 500 armor isnt THAT bad...less draw on my cap is a plus though!
The problem people who have a problem with the Harbinger have is that decent fits require unreasonably large compromises. You have to jump through some pretty serious hoops to get both heavy pulse lasers and a 1600mm plate on, like "ditch two trimarks for a CPU and Grid rig and add in a CPU implant" compromises. Even if you drop to an 800mm plate, you still need an implant. It can also drop to smaller guns, but that's a ~14% loss of range and damage, and it still requires a CPU implant too. Compar that to the prophecy and myrmidon, which can fit a 1600mm plate with no problems. Or compare it to the hurricane - to fit a 1600mm plate and 425mm autos, it either uses one fitting rig, or downgrades the guns to 220mm ACs, which is a only a ~5% loss in damage/range. Or it can go all the way down to dual 180mm ACs, which is a 17% loss of range and 10% loss of damage, more similar to the price the harbinger pays...but in return, it gets to actually use its utility high, fitting a neut or something. Even a lot of Tech 1 cruisers have an easier time fitting a plate than a Harbinger does.
So no, it's not actually "fine". This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3039
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:48:00 -
[744] - Quote
Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.
I've been reading all the feedback here and everything I can find on other websites, thanks for the help so far. I'm going to pick out a few common questions to answer today.
Are the Battlecruiser skills being split into racial version at the same time as these changes?
We have been planning to split the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills into racial variations (Details can be found in CCP Ytterbium's dev blog here) for a while, but we've been vague about the when. Originally I had hoped to get the changes into this point release, but we've seen an opportunity to both build better tools to help players understand the changes (communicating the mechanics involved is something we could have done better so far) and also combine the skill changes with some other adjustments that fit together well. So I now have permission to let you all know that the skill change is scheduled for our Summer expansion 2013 (which most of you know tends to fall in the late spring). We'll be working to make sure that as many people as possible understand the changes beforehand. I know that some of you may feel that we've been stringing you guys along since the changes were first proposed so long ago, but we're working to make sure a huge change like this is done in the most responsible way possible.
To repeat, the skill split is scheduled for the big Summer 2013 expansion.
Why aren't there Tier 3 BC changes in this thread?
This thread is focused on the Combat line of Battlecruisers, which are the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 ships. The Tier 3 BCs will be rechristened Attack Battlecruisers and will have their own thread when we're ready to start gathering feedback.
What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?
This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.
Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
I thought the Drake was going to get missile range and RoF bonuses?
That rumor stems from a discussion that was made during a previous CSM summit, and represented an early idea rather than a completed design. I have always been of the opinion that the Drake was actually decently balanced other than the problems with the weapon system, and now that we have taken our shot at balancing heavy missiles in Retribution the changes the drake needed are smaller. There has also been a feeling expressed that we had been planning to remove all single damage type missile bonuses. It is true that we switched a few ships to omnidamage in Retribution, but we also specifically left the kinetic bonus on the Condor, as well as adding new racial damage bonuses to the Corax and Talwar. We do not consider the single damage bonus to be obsolete. Both RoF and damage missile bonuses are valid tools to use, and I prefer having a variety. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and provide different interesting gameplay in different situations.
Why is the Cyclone getting just 5 launchers and why does it keep 2 turrets?
Creating effective balance between the Cyclone and the Drake is tricky business. We are aiming for a useful tradeoff between the ships, with the Cyclone significantly faster and more maneuverable and with two utility highs vs the Drake's extra missile damage, with the shield boost bonus vs resists. If it turns out that the Cyclone needs more damage to be competitive, then changing it is not off the table, but we're going to be careful here. As for the turrets, we consider these slots to be utility highs. The existence of the turrets is simply to provide people more room to do creative things with fits and go max gank if they feel the need. A vast majority of the time we expect those remaining highs to be filled with Neuts, Smartbombs, Gang links, Probes, Salvagers or other handy highslot modules. Having two unbonused weapons available as an option for utility highs is not the same thing as split weapons, and the Cyclone is no more a split weapon ship than the Raven is. Exam... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 19:57:00 -
[745] - Quote
Thanks for the reply, Fozzie. I'd still love to see more variety in the Gallente BC bonuses, or at least hear some options of what you guys are kicking around. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
337
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:02:00 -
[746] - Quote
Double drone bonus on myrm would be pretty kick ass. The ship flys better as a shield tanker anyway |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:05:00 -
[747] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Yep, Ferox 8.2 align time, Harbinger 9.1 align time. That makes so much sense because once you put plates on the Ferox . . The Harbinger is now a space cow, moo, moo, run away lest I present my posterior and projectile laser poo in your direction Yeah what happened to avoiding the blessing of sniper ships with speed and agility such that they can do their thing without worries. And conversely let's give the probable pulse range ship the mobility of a cow moo moo Concerning the gallente BCs, how about swapping out those 7.5% armor repper bonuses for something like the old Auguror used to have. A 10% (or whatever number) per level armor hp bonus. It's differnt from a resist bonus. Essentially Amarr ships have a built in eanm, but gallente ships would have a built in plate instead. This would make sense, as they might not have to fit a plate then and could just load resist mods and that way hope to burn into blaster range. Can't do the same with shield hp, because then you are messing with regen, and anyway with ASBs the active shield bonuses are not worthless like the active armor is. The only reason it works on an Incursus is because the bonus is 10% and the ship has enough grid to fit two and well it's a frig. Once you get to BC and MAR it just doesn't work anymore for pvp. Of course you could buff MARs, but I think it would still be preferable to go buffer and broadcast for logi loving.
Buff MAR, create an armor version of ASB... either way the Prophecy resist buff is still better. I agree that both ships shouldn't have the active tank bonus. Either tracking or 10% HP bonus would be a much better choice.
|
Aethlyn
EVE University Ivy League
193
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:09:00 -
[748] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2609
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:13:00 -
[749] - Quote
Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2609
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:14:00 -
[750] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%.
I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3041
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:17:00 -
[751] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang
Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
zahg
Vice Legion
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:21:00 -
[752] - Quote
I really like your t1 cruiser changes as i do for the BC change and BS change coming soon.
But what i do not like is that once again you remove an advantage to the solo players by making the navy and faction ships absolutly useless to pvp next to the t1 ones. A T1 caracal tank more, tackle better, have more speed, more CPU than a navy caracal....its just one from all the others.
Pimp was a way to give an extra boost to your solo ship against blobs (because lets say it, eve is all about blobs nowaday).
I'd like to see some serious thinking about the navy and faction.
Otherwise, thank you for all the efforts you do to make the game better for PVP. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:22:00 -
[753] - Quote
I'm not sure about the Harbinger on tranq being the worst t2 BC, but after these nerfs it certainly brings nothing to the table that other BCs don't already possess. Well, except for the worst maneuverability. That's unique. (its not the slowest one, guys, remember there are 3 slower ships).
So overall its just a completely forgettable hull. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:24:00 -
[754] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone.
What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?
This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.
if you up the brutix to 10% bonus for amor reps per level and made it include external incomming armor RR that would fix the scale problem with armor tanking all together...
now you can fit plates without waisting a bonus.
secondly get rid of the tanking bonus on the myrn reduce to only 4 high slots and give us a 6th mid slot (its a shield tanked ship anyways) and give us a bonus to 7.5% to drone optimal range and tracking per level
this will make the myrm a mean green sentry machine...
also to help medium rails please please please increase the rof of them... doing this would help make up for thier lackluster dps...
also while you are at it rebalance hybrid tech I ammo to ad divercity... (like they did for projectile ammo years ago)
thanks in advance
Fuk
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Mund Richard
255
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:25:00 -
[755] - Quote
Yay, you are back! And quite good points there.CCP Fozzie wrote:Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. In the Caldari lineup, both Ferox and Drake could be made work with 6 damage (or RoF) bonused hardpoints. Prophecy already lends itself to it. Myrm... must drone ships keep the one slot less, when it doesn't even have enough bay for ONE spare flight, yet alone utility drones (rep/ewar/frigkiller)? Minmatar are OK with their utility highs, if let's say Drake gets down to 6 launchers, Cyclone could have it's go up. Although then they'd be quite competing with each other. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
450
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:41:00 -
[756] - Quote
@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking.
Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?
|
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:42:00 -
[757] - Quote
@fozzie
You addressed most of my points with got feedback. but
why the values for the bandwidht and drone bay on the myrm?
and how the proposed changes seem to hurt the harb even more. ie. a net 7% increase in dps(with max skills only 2% with lvl 4) while further limiting its ability to get in range and actually do dps. as you said you cant comment on changes to how amour tanks vs shield tanking will work but are you considering these factors in how your changing the harb? |
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:46:00 -
[758] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking. Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills? 15 for leadership not sure were they are gtting 25m |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:49:00 -
[759] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Myrm... must drone ships keep the one slot less, when it doesn't even have enough bay for ONE spare flight, yet alone utility drones (rep/ewar/frigkiller)? This is very true. I'm all for Amarr being about smaller bandwidth and 3x bandwidth m3 drone bay, and Gallente being about more bandwidth, but the Gallente's drone bay should at least represent one new flight of drones. Otherwise, you're leaving almost all your dps on the field if you have to warp out--and this is especially true with the Myrm fielding SLOW Heavy drones. We all know we're not going to have time to wait for them to slowboat back to the ship if we have to bug out.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2609
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 20:59:00 -
[760] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking. Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?
Multiple characters, all mindlinks, etc.
-Liang
Ed: I'm trying to point out how much I have invested in leadership, and it would be wrong to simply say the max of one of my characters. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5518
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:00:00 -
[761] - Quote
Should you take another look at the Harbi, please note that Scorch + Energy Locus Coordinators create the sweet synergy that made the ship viable for me even if it was slow as hell. There should be enough PG left to fit energy weapon rigs as a valid alternative to the standard 3xTrimarks. As far as fitting is concerned, CPU should be the limiting factor, not both CPU and PG. Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
393
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:01:00 -
[762] - Quote
a bit off topic but has there been talk of treating the battleship skill like the BC skill? How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:06:00 -
[763] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie do you not find it strange that the drake will still have 6 mids and sh resis whilst having the best ranged most flexible weapon system? Surely a close range brawler needs the extra tank rather than ship with the best range looking at the harbinger as an example of similar range but no extra tank bonus..... Also after the combat cruiser buff surely increasing/tiny nerf to tank keeps the bc as too tanky for what is meant to be a slightly heavier dps version of the cruiser hull... sig radius of a bc being the same as amarr battleships seems ridicilous. the attack bc's are around 200 surely their is room to reduce it here much more. Also still confused on the whole hybrid/drone damage line being missed on the myrm only to be continued on the domi? |
Saul Hyperion
Palmetto Galactic
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:09:00 -
[764] - Quote
Admitting something is wrong with the Gallente BC bonuses is a step in the right direction. But saying you are working on active armor tanking is a bit of a cop out, for all we know, the changes could suck, or get nerfed to hell and back like the ASB. Then we are still stuck with a useless bonus. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:10:00 -
[765] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:a bit off topic but has there been talk of treating the battleship skill like the BC skill? Battleship skills are already broken up...not sure if trolling or not.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:38:00 -
[766] - Quote
Glad to see your post, Fozzie, including the followup that the Harbinger is being looked at.
Less glad about the timing, I was working on a followup article when it came out which said, among other things, the path to making the ferox a passable sniper isn't a damage bonus but a buff to rails and that a cyclone with six launchers is just a faster drake or a bad hurricane.
Ah well, I'll have to look like a prophet another time... This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mund Richard
255
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:42:00 -
[767] - Quote
fukier wrote:Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Ferox seems pretty terribad, and why does Brutix have an armor repper bonus - so useless ;O thats because it is... i have no idea why it still have an optimal range bonus... it really really needs a hubrid turret damage bonus... Imagine if the Ferox had 7 turrets with +25% damage bonus, 6 mids, and the shield resist. Now imagine you could fly that, or the Brutix... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:47:00 -
[768] - Quote
So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:51:00 -
[769] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones.
Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as "heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored.
Or we could, you know, not try to pigeon-hole everything into hundred year old naval concepts instead. That would also work. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Spartan dax
0utbreak Outbreak.
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:55:00 -
[770] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
The Ferox simply must have its optimal bonus, don't you dare defile it like the anathema that is now known as a Merlin!
Few things regarding the Ferox though. The resistance bonus lends itself well for brawling it out with blasters but the slot layout makes it hard getting a web on there, making range control difficult and the optimal bonus while not useless at the very least less.... optimal... a 7/6/4 layout instead would make it a fearsome brawling ship. Range is damage even with blasters but without range control parity with armor ships that can easily fit a web the optimal bonus will always be less than stellar.
For Railwork I'd argue that the resistance bonus is a severly sub par bonus but the 7/5/5 slot layout excellent.
In short, change the slot layout or the resistance bonus. Not that a 7/6/4 Optimal/ damage Ferox would make me cry myself to sleep or anything.
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
450
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 21:58:00 -
[771] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely.... His description of plans for the tier3's (Attack vs. Combat) made me think just that. The fitting gap between SR/LR weapons should be large enough to give them a tank slightly larger than cruisers with SR while leaving nothing when going LR .. should be possible at any rate as it is frightfully close to that now. Trick will be to somehow widen the gap so that we don't suddenly drown in fast, tanked snipers. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
190
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:05:00 -
[772] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
May I consider this as a temporary answer to the thread linked in my signature ?
Something like: "We are aware of the issue, but can't talk about how we plan to fix it, yet." ? Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2852
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:20:00 -
[773] - Quote
Why do people keep thinking there will be a higher tier of battlecruisers after the removal of tiers?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:25:00 -
[774] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones. Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as " heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored.
Hate to break it too you, but I believe that role is already taken |
Danny Centauri
Huzzah Industries
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:33:00 -
[775] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?
This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.
Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
Why is the Cyclone getting just 5 launchers and why does it keep 2 turrets?
Creating effective balance between the Cyclone and the Drake is tricky business. We are aiming for a useful tradeoff between the ships, with the Cyclone significantly faster and more maneuverable and with two utility highs vs the Drake's extra missile damage, with the shield boost bonus vs resists. If it turns out that the Cyclone needs more damage to be competitive, then changing it is not off the table, but we're going to be careful here. As for the turrets, we consider these slots to be utility highs. The existence of the turrets is simply to provide people more room to do creative things with fits and go max gank if they feel the need. A vast majority of the time we expect those remaining highs to be filled with Neuts, Smartbombs, Gang links, Probes, Salvagers or other handy highslot modules. Having two unbonused weapons available as an option for utility highs is not the same thing as split weapons, and the Cyclone is no more a split weapon ship than the Raven is. Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.
To raise the quoted points in turn:
Active armor tanking for Gallente - Can the Brutix get a resistance bonus, which would then pass over to the Eos when command ships are rebalanced perhaps? I personally think Gallente ships struggle on the survivability front which means Amarr will become god after the proposed changes and soon to be commandship bonus's.
The Ferox and its bonus's - Run your data again on the ferox and who fits what, but split it by high, low, null - or by PvP losses preferably. The reason people fit rails is its a noob mission running ship, if it had reasonable bonus's people wouldn't. Your condemning the ferox to a life in hangers. The Caldari already have the naga to shoot long range, they don't need two ships.
The Cyclone - Its distinguishing feature should not be its missile DPS but the fact it already has a weaker tank due the the mid and low slot layout and the base HP. I think this is a bad reason to keep the current slot layout, I would prefer 6 missiles 1 utility high with no ability to fit a turret or it becomes OP. Really think you need to reconsider this further, I would even go for a further drop in shield base HP to get a extra missile launcher. This way you will see no buffer cyclones and primarily ASB fits where as Drakes will be buffer fit as they are currently.
|
Alli Othman
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:34:00 -
[776] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:...Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.
Thank you basedgod! |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:36:00 -
[777] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:mynnna wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones. Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as " heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored. Hate to break it too you, but I believe that role is already taken
If combat battlecruisers are more like heavy cruisers, I'd be more inclined to consider HACs as something more like a modern aegis cruiser or something. But like I said, trying to apply hundred year old naval concepts here leaves you coming up short, so why bother? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment
316
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 22:38:00 -
[778] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Yes, please give the Ferox or Drake a utily high. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:33:00 -
[779] - Quote
Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
566
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:44:00 -
[780] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? |
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:46:00 -
[781] - Quote
So basically ...
Harbinger (mostly considered sub par and rarely used ship) All skills considered maxed: -32 PG -5 CPU - ~3k EHP (depends on rigs ofc) +7% damage (~30dps with scorch, wohooo, and that is with BC at V, at IV you lose dps) -20m/s with MWD (even less with armor fit, not really a big deal)
Needs +6% Pg implant to fit a plate, mwd and guns (and nothing else) Needs CPU implant to fit anything in utility high even with godly skills (and needs +6% implant and faction heat sinks to fit gank link) Is slowest of all battlecruisers with no tank bonus You cant fit beams on it (there is not a single T1 hull that can use medium beams effectively)
Hurricane (mostly considered the best BC) All skills considered maxed: +1,5k EHP (the only one that got more) -20m/s with MWD (even less with armor fit, not really a big deal) -1 utility high (so now you cant fit probe launcher and salvager on it, and one neut less really destroyed it in PvP, yeah right) To be fair it recently got a rather big PG nerf so lets consider that as well: - all standard AC fits are the same, you dont even need AWU at all to fit most of them, and will always have more CPU than you know what to do with - all standard Arty fits - you have to drop nanofiber for RCUII, so you cant kite all T1 frigates anymore, just most of them.
Its still the fastest Battle Cruiser. (to be fair its around ~5m/s slower than new Cyclone when both are shield tanked and MWD fit) Can be fitted without implants and AWU5. Can be effectively fitted with AC and Arty.
So all things considered the ac cane lost one neut and arty cane lost one nanofiber. Harbinger got nerfed to the ground. And ppl are happy with Harbinger "buffs" and raging about Hurricane "nerfs".
What is wrong with you?
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
677
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:47:00 -
[782] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships?
they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:48:00 -
[783] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest?
Because that is honestly, silly design with poor justification behind it and it really should be undone from the other "drone ships". |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:51:00 -
[784] - Quote
fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything (in a subpar manner)... which is why you get one less slot... I fixed your sentence. Also with CCP spreading drones around hulls like they were a sexually transmitted disease maybe other ships should start losing slots too. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1356
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:51:00 -
[785] - Quote
Fozzie, a few people including myself have mentioned the Drake and Cyclone having Rapid Light Launchers excluded from their missile bonuses, is this deliberate or simply an oversight? Rapid Lights aren't exactly a common sight in combat anyway, I can't really see any harm in them getting the same bonuses as the heavies and HAMs, and its weird to see them left out (imagine if the turret ships similarly got bonuses which specifically excluded the smallest turret option).
Any comment? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
566
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 23:57:00 -
[786] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything (in a subpar manner)... which is why you get one less slot... I fixed your sentence. Also with CCP spreading drones around hulls like they were a sexually transmitted disease maybe other ships should start losing slots too. On that note, do drone bonuses extend to all drone types? If not and there is a slot loss for them it would seem appropriate to correct that. |
Veronica Kerrigan
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
58
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:10:00 -
[787] - Quote
Mary Clarissa Titor wrote:A few questions. Pardon me if they sound stupid. :) - Looks like all battlecruisers are keeping their warfare link module fitting bonus. But as far as I remember, the plan is to get rid of off-grid boosting in the future. That will make battlecruisers with warfare link modules usefull, while right now I don't think I've ever seen one fit on a real ship. Is there a particular reason for Gallente to have no battlecruisers with an utility high for such a usage while Amarr and Minmatar do?
- What Hans said. Why both Gallente battlecruisers get an active repair bonus, when such a bonus so often remains unused in a fleet situation? With the current popularity of T1 logi, the usefullness of an armor resist bonus is much higher.
Otherwise, yay, heavies on myrm! :) Well, here's one case of a person who uses links on a normal BC. Without perfect skills, the boosts aren;t much, but 10% bonus for one thing or another is usually worth the loss in one medium and one small neut on the Cane. |
Mund Richard
255
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:15:00 -
[788] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything (in a subpar manner)... which is why you get one less slot... I fixed your sentence. Also with CCP spreading drones around hulls like they were a sexually transmitted disease maybe other ships should start losing slots too. On that note, do drone bonuses extend to all drone types? If not and there is a slot loss for them it would seem appropriate to correct that. Well, a Dominix can field a full flight of heavies, have a spare flight of heavies, and still have 125 bay for utility drones. And six damage bonused guns. Compare that to an Armageddon (also tier 1): 7 bonused guns, 1 flight of heavies, and no spares. You can see how the Domi is stronger.
Myrm: Quad of heavies, can NOT mount a spare wing, or at best a spare wing of mediums (already nerfed damage) and an ECM light flight. Guns: 5 unbonused ones. Harbringer: full flight of mediums, spare flight of light ECM/scout drones. 6 gun with +10% damage bonus over the Myrm even with drones lots, probably T2 with HeatSinks and TC/TE.
Oh, and the heavies travel slow, have a huge sig while traveling, and have battleship-size tracking. With mediums things look better, but then why not fly the Prophecy instead? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
330
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:25:00 -
[789] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them. I'd certainly like to see split weapon systems disappear for T1 ships, because skilling up multiple weapon systems is time-consuming, esp. for new players, and unbonused weapons suffer far too much when compared to bonused weapons.
But maybe split weapon systems can find a new place on T2 combat ships, when you eventually get around to rebalancing their stats? Perhaps, with bonuses to both weapon systems?
T2 ships are not entry-level ships, so requiring more SP to fly them effectively would not be unreasonable. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:41:00 -
[790] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:fukier wrote: they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything (in a subpar manner)... which is why you get one less slot... I fixed your sentence. Also with CCP spreading drones around hulls like they were a sexually transmitted disease maybe other ships should start losing slots too. Well, a Dominix can field a full flight of heavies, have a spare flight of heavies of possibly different damage type to suit it's opponent's weakness (generally exp/therm), and still have 125 bay for utility drones. And six damage bonused guns. Compare that to an Armageddon (also tier 1): 7 bonused guns, 1 flight of heavies, and no spares. You can see how the Domi is stronger in versatility, and for drones even in staying power even if a flight is killed, not really worth doing that Even if you kill 1-2 flights of heavies, 1-2 flights of mediums, it will still have it's 6 damage bonused guns bearing down on you, and quite possibly a few flights of light ECM drones to bugger out. The Myrm neither has the luxury of such a bay (can NOT field even one full spare flight) nor does it have nearly the guns of the Domi compared to any of the turret ships of it's category it's heavies have issues applying damage to equal-size targets, or heck, even just catching them! In fact, T2 Ogre speed, all skills at V: 1050 according to EFT. Myrm speed with no nano and T2 MWD: 1112 currently. It cannot even return to your bay, if you are chasing a kiting Cane... Yes, (as I posted before) I think it needs a looking at. Yeah and a gankfit Megathron (sentries or heavies) can do the exact same DPS as a gankfit Dominix (no neuts) while having almost the same versatility. He can give up the heavies and lose only some DPS while still being able to field flights of combat drones, repair drones, and ecm drones at his discretion, and still maintaining 1000 gun DPS.
Should the megathron lose a slot? Its not a drone boat, its a blaster boat. But it can still do all the crap a domi can. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
2854
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:41:00 -
[791] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Fozzie, a few people including myself have mentioned the Drake and Cyclone having Rapid Light Launchers excluded from their missile bonuses, is this deliberate or simply an oversight? Rapid Lights aren't exactly a common sight in combat anyway, I can't really see any harm in them getting the same bonuses as the heavies and HAMs, and its weird to see them left out (imagine if the turret ships similarly got bonuses which specifically excluded the smallest turret option).
Any comment? Battlecruisers excelling at taking out frigates is a bad idea.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1215
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:45:00 -
[792] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Should the megathron lose a slot? Its not a drone boat, its a blaster boat. But it can still do all the crap a domi can.
No it can't, you actually define WHY it can't in your own post.
The domi can field the heavies AND a ton of utility lights and mediums, AND spare heavies, whereas if the Mega goes for heavies, thats pretty much it, if it goes for lights and mediums,. it can't have heavies.
So whilst you were complaining you outlined the versatility of the Domi that justifies the missing slot.
|
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:45:00 -
[793] - Quote
Took a chill-pill, and edited my previous post a few times, now it's more in a discuss-able shape. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:49:00 -
[794] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything (in a subpar manner)... which is why you get one less slot... I fixed your sentence. Also with CCP spreading drones around hulls like they were a sexually transmitted disease maybe other ships should start losing slots too. On that note, do drone bonuses extend to all drone types? If not and there is a slot loss for them it would seem appropriate to correct that. No they do not, only drone damage.
Mund Richard wrote: Well, a Dominix can field a full flight of heavies, have a spare flight of heavies of possibly different damage type to suit it's opponent's weakness (generally exp/therm), and still have 125 bay for utility drones. And six damage bonused guns.
It is also the only Gallente drone boat that can hold 3 full flights of drones. With how things are going I will expect to see that go away. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Da7id Huren
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:50:00 -
[795] - Quote
Quote:Let me know what you think!
I think you might wanna keep an eye out for waves of disgruntled Hurricane pilots. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:53:00 -
[796] - Quote
fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot... If this truly is the case then combat utility drones need to get a massive buff, to be put on the same level as an actual module and/or be able to do damage also, no other ship loses raw DPS in order to web there opponet. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:53:00 -
[797] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:It is also the only Gallente drone boat that can hold 3 full flights of drones. With how things are going I will expect to see that go away. If we had an Amarr drone boat coming, that would be a real threat... Except that on battleship level, you cannot field a size larger. Algos vs Dragoon, mediums were included, to questionable effect (speed, tracking). Vexor and Myrm vs Arbitrator and Prophecy: Heavies, same deal, also questionable. With battleships, you'd need the ability to fight fighters as a step up Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 00:56:00 -
[798] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It is also the only Gallente drone boat that can hold 3 full flights of drones. With how things are going I will expect to see that go away. If we had an Amarr drone boat coming, that would be a real threat... Except that on battleship level, you cannot field a size larger. Algos vs Dragoon, mediums were included, to questionable effect (speed, tracking). Vexor and Myrm vs Arbitrator and Prophecy: Heavies, same deal, also questionable. With battleships, you'd need the ability to fight fighters as a step up I would LOVE to see fighters on the Dominx (and by association the Sin), that would be the best. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:01:00 -
[799] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I would LOVE to see fighters on the Dominx (and by association the Sin), that would be the best. Of course you realise that each Firbolg would cost 25mill, and 5000m3 drone bay, letting you opt to take 40 Heavies for instead. But don't let me distract anyone, a Sin that can only house Fighters should be a thing. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:03:00 -
[800] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Should the megathron lose a slot? Its not a drone boat, its a blaster boat. But it can still do all the crap a domi can.
No it can't, you actually define WHY it can't in your own post. The domi can field the heavies AND a ton of utility lights and mediums, AND spare heavies, whereas if the Mega goes for heavies, thats pretty much it, if it goes for lights and mediums,. it can't have heavies. So whilst you were complaining you outlined the versatility of the Domi that justifies the missing slot. Well if Domi pilots aren't complaining about it I suppose there's likely no issue. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:04:00 -
[801] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I would LOVE to see fighters on the Dominx (and by association the Sin), that would be the best. Of course you realise that each Firbolg would cost 25mill, and 5000m3 drone bay, letting you opt to take 40 Heavies for instead. But don't let me distract anyone, a Sin that can only house Fighters should be a thing. after Material tieracide how much will the Dominix cost? for the rest they cost close to the current top tier ship, and for battle ships that is around 200~300mill Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:11:00 -
[802] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Well if Domi pilots aren't complaining about it I suppose there's likely no issue. From hull to hull, the impact of just that one slot is different, based on how useful the rest of the guns and drones are. The Domi is best off, since it has 18 compared to a Hyperions 19, plus it's one less turret than the tier 2s turret ships while still keeping pace more or less with it's second damage bonus. It's bay is HUUUGE, leading to many spare flights, so drones aren't that bad a liability on short term (their EHP added is comparable to the Domi's probably, and it's a hassle to kill 3-6 flights), they apply their damage to intended targets well.
In short: it doesn't have the Myrm's shortcomings.
Now, if it would get an extra slot, I wouldn't complain, but I won't protest as much as I do here, when the BS balancing pass comes. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
330
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:15:00 -
[803] - Quote
fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot... Drones can also be selectively destroyed, unlike modules, and EW drones are subject to stacking penalties, on a per drone basis, not per flight.
I don't agree that losing a slot is a reasonable compromise, esp. if you are going to limit the drone bay size on Gallente ships to a single flight of max damage drones. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
122
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:15:00 -
[804] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:Well if Domi pilots aren't complaining about it I suppose there's likely no issue. From hull to hull, the impact of just that one slot is different, based on how useful the rest of the guns and drones are. The Domi is best off, since it has 18 compared to a Hyperions 19, plus it's one less turret than the tier 2s turret ships while still keeping pace more or less with it's second damage bonus. It's bay is HUUUGE, leading to many spare flights, so drones aren't that bad a liability on short term (their EHP added is comparable to the Domi's probably, and it's a hassle to kill 3-6 flights), they apply their damage to intended targets well. In short: it doesn't have the Myrm's shortcomings. Now, if it would get an extra slot, I wouldn't complain, but I won't protest as much as I do here, when the BS balancing pass comes. Well it sounds like you've got a bone to pick regarding the Myrmidon's state. And the point I was trying to lead into originally was that I don't think that all drone boats need to lose a fitting slot, that it should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Since you said "From hull to hull, the impact of just that one slot is different, based on how useful the rest of the guns and drones are." this seems similar to an argument I could make to support my assertion that drone boats don't need to lose a fitting slot.
And since larger drone bays were handed out like candy with the retribution patch, and this new BC balancing update, it seems to me that utility is all over the place these days. Another obvious symptom of power creep. |
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:22:00 -
[805] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Drones can also be selectively destroyed, unlike modules, and EW drones are subject to stacking penalties, on a per drone basis, not per flight. Apart from ECM drones which - like the module they are based on - are only diminished by the fact that if one manages a cycle, the rest aren't making it worse. But even moreso than the dedicated ECM ships, they are fragile. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:26:00 -
[806] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot... EW drones are subject to stacking penalties, on a per drone basis, not per flight. I was just testing this the other day and found it to be false. Each drone applies it effects seperatly, the easiest example is stasis web drones. Starting velocity 1000m/s 5 SW-900 20% web effect
1000*0.8=800 800*0.8=640 640*0.8=512 512*0.8=409 409*0.8=327
Which is on paper better than a T2 stasis webifier, but it takes half of the DPS from a dominix to do this. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
410
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:34:00 -
[807] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at.
Talking about the prophecy
I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac) |
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:38:00 -
[808] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Talking about the prophecy I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac) Edit: scratch that, wrong ships Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
410
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:46:00 -
[809] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Talking about the prophecy I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac) Edit: scratch that, wrong ships
I personally think amarr should have 1 missile frig and a missile BC
But thats just me |
Weasel Juice
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:48:00 -
[810] - Quote
Harbinger has already been one of the weaker and less funny ships.
So here are my thoughts on the most important parts.
Fitting: CPU was slightly buffed, that's nice. CPU was always tight on Harbinger. PG was nerfed hard, that's not nice. Harbinger already can't fit heavy pulses right, let alone beams. Everyone else gets complete freedom of their weapon systems while using only one fitting mod if any for the biggest guns. Canes can fit 720s with just one RCU. Drakes can fit any weapon system without trouble. And now fitting Heavies gets even harder. Is that intentional?
Armor tanking is already not viable because the PG is just too tight, and the reduction of armor buffer makes it even less likely. The slight CPU increase will make shield tanking a bit easier, but shield tanking doesn't work really well on a Harbinger since you need that cap injector to really fly well.
I'm not sure what CCP wants the Harbinger to be able to do, but it definitely is not fitting weapons and shooting at ships.
Damage difference: (Same assumptions as with cap, using conflag and no drones) Old Harbinger: 405.85DPS New Harbinger: 417.45DPS
That is a 3% increase at Battlecruisers V. It definitely widens the gap between IV and V - people with low skills will cry, people with high skills will like it. Not sure whether we need to artificially widen gaps between older and newer players, but fine. I have the skills I don't care.
Drone Bay: I like this one. It reflects nicely of the drone sympathy that Amarr generally has, without giving too much. Allows us to bring a bit more variety and it's a very soft buff. This is perfect.
The other changes were minor, and mostly affected all BCs similarly, that they are more about changing the role of BCs in general, rather than tweaking individual battlecruisers.
But all in all, the PG is an extremely hard nerf hammer. Harbinger is already very rare in PvP. It is mostly used by pilots who cannot afford a Zealot pretty much, or don't have a Hurricane. This proposed change would remove Harbinger entirely out of PvP (and possibly PvE too, since PG is really tough), so I hope you guys at CCP look at this again. |
|
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:52:00 -
[811] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: I personally think amarr should have 1 missile frig and a missile BC But thats just me Honestly, I expected amarr to get missiles (you know, armor + missiles compared to the Caldari's shield), and Minnies to get drones (shields + drones to the Gallente's armor), to make things interesting. Always looked at the Phoon, and thought: me, after buying my first battleship skillbook wrote:Man, does that thing look like a mini-carrier, or what? With a 175/200 bay already, surely it will get a drone bonus! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Boltorano
Owner Operated Transport Service Market Power
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:02:00 -
[812] - Quote
The way I've always thought it was supposed to be, considering secondary weapon systems (Turrets being the one thing everyone has):
Most Missiles Least Missiles Caldari - Minmatar - Gallente - Amarr
Most Drones Least Drones Gallente - Amarr - Minmatar - Caldari
This is ignoring T2 manufacturing corp's specific preferences (missiles for Khanid Innovations etc.), but considering Amarr has good representation already for drone ships in their T1 lineup I was really hoping/expecting a HAM Prophecy instead of a Drone Prophecy so they'd at least have two T1 hulls where missiles were more than an afterthought. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
410
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:05:00 -
[813] - Quote
I agree that missiles on t1 amarr ships don't really make sense..
I just think they would be really good and amarr needs some good stuff =< |
Boltorano
Owner Operated Transport Service Market Power
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:11:00 -
[814] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:I agree that missiles on t1 amarr ships don't really make sense..
I just think they would be really good and amarr needs some good stuff =<
I think it DOES make sense, and that's why I wish they had more of them. Ever since they rebalanced Sansha ships (four?) years ago, the option of combining missiles with armor tanks have been extremely limited outside of T2/T3. |
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:14:00 -
[815] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:The way I've always thought it was supposed to be, considering secondary weapon systems (Turrets being the one thing everyone has): *snip* Can't really say I agree. To me, Gallente and missiles always felt weird. No ship but the SB/Recon had more than two (specifically, three each) launchers I believe, and no T1 had a bonus for it. Amarr had the Inquisitor properly bonused, and the Khanid line.
If anything, those launchers felt like they were meant for defender missile launchers (even up to and including the Mega)... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
288
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:22:00 -
[816] - Quote
Thank you for a reply to the relative long thread...
I am in particular happy with the Goal of creating at least 1 battlecruiser for each race capable of using 1-2 warfare links without compromising the combat abilities. Currently people haven't used them a lot because of current mechanics. I just want to make sure you know how important this oportunity is to create flavour and make ALL of the battlecruisers interesting and not just go over many of them because they're "balanced".
Btw have you considered lowering the cpu for command processors? fitting one can be VERY limiting atm. Either this OR allow T1 battlecruisers to fit 2 warfare links on the hull?
The Prophecy gives versatility and I agree with the new line. Likely to be a good command ship too. The amount of armor buffer however combined with resist bonus and 7 lowslots makes me worried a lot. People already have crazy tanks on prophecy with 6 lowslots and less armor. Wouldn't this be the time to settle for a 16 slot layout just like the Myrmidon?
The Harbinger needs to have a look at that 10% damage bonus, but I like keeping it in the old role and a 6 gun setup seems a good option. Perhaps consider 5 guns and a 100% bonus as an alternative... We've seen that bonus before. This even gives you a free utility slot...
The Ferox is kind of growing on me. I only wish the hybrid rebalance was followed through and completed as the alpha is ridiculous low when sniping at anything with railguns. 7/5/5 slot layout also seems very nice and allows to compensate for lack of damage bonus and still have lowslots for damage control and a tracking enhancer, however I have always felt a caldari shield tanking gunboat needed 6 medslots.
Drake still looks boring as hell and I feel the resist bonus takes away from the cool looking Ferox and prevents a more agressive aproach to a missile boat. Plz consider giving it a more glorious role - Especially when the days as a fleet ship is over...
Brutix will benefit from improved slot layout and I feel it's good. Few people will like the repair bonus and even though it has potential like a mini Hyperion. I think it will be important with more armor and less shield for armor reppers to catch on and be effecient... It does however not feel right with both gallente battlecruisers sharing the same repair bonus. So use it for Brutix or Myrmidon please, not both...
Cyclone and Hurricane looks cool as well. I have a feeling however the Cyclone would benefit a lot from 6 medslots just like I feel for the Ferox. Active shield tanking is damn difficult in pvp and Im sure it need it.
PinkyDK |
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:28:00 -
[817] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I am in particular happy with the Goal of creating at least 1 battlecruiser for each race capable of using 1-2 warfare links without compromising the combat abilities. Currently people haven't used them a lot because of current mechanics. I just want to make sure you know how important this oportunity is to create flavour and make ALL of the battlecruisers interesting and not just go over many of them because they're "balanced".
Btw have you considered lowering the cpu for command processors? fitting one can be VERY limiting atm. Either this OR allow T1 battlecruisers to fit 2 warfare links on the hull?
The Prophecy gives versatility and I agree with the new line. Likely to be a good command ship too. The amount of armor buffer however combined with resist bonus and 7 lowslots makes me worried a lot. People already have crazy tanks on prophecy with 6 lowslots and less armor. Wouldn't this be the time to settle for a 16 slot layout just like the Myrmidon?
The Harbinger needs to have a look at that 10% damage bonus, but I like keeping it in the old role and a 6 gun setup seems a good option. Perhaps consider 5 guns and a 100% bonus as an alternative... We've seen that bonus before. This even gives you a free utility slot... The Command Processor... If they were easy to fit like candy, that would be an issue as well. Two per ship... sounds interesting, but I dunno...
Prophecy: 5 High + 4 Mid + 7 low = 16? Or do you mean 5 mids like the Myrm? Doesn't quite feel amarrian to have as many mids as a Caldari vessel. Though the buffer is brutal, and can be used for local rep as well.
Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
153
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:31:00 -
[818] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Check my hangers dude - I use them on this toons HM Drakes and on Feroxs.
Removing the utility slot from the Drake will make it less likely that people will fit links to it - not more likely.
Everything else looks good but just a logic fail removing the utility slot if you want people to on grid boost as you are removing an economical way of doing it for small corps/gangs.
Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
921
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:37:00 -
[819] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Check my hangers dude - I use them on this toons HM Drakes and on Feroxs. Removing the utility slot from the Drake will make it less likely that people will fit links to it - not more likely. Everything else looks good but just a logic fail removing the utility slot if you want people to on grid boost as you are removing an economical way of doing it for small corps/gangs. No one is forced to fill up that utility wih link. So leaving the slot as-is just results in it being traditionally (ab)used for neut, cloak or w/e.
Let's admit it: current slot number of Tier2's is insanely high, given they also have 3 rig slots. 14 |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1218
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:39:00 -
[820] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote: rep as well.
Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there?
Yes, yes he did.
|
|
Mund Richard
256
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:46:00 -
[821] - Quote
If we are at "interesting" suggestions already: Algos: +12.5% drone bonus/level, 25 bandwidth, 50m3 bay. Dragoon: No Change Vexor: +12.5%, 50/100 Prophecy: +12.5%, 50/150-175 Myrm: +15%, 50/100-125
Let's face it. Half the people like the Myrm's bandwidth buff because they flew it with 5 hammerheads till now, and compared to that, 4 ogres are an awesome jump. Mix-matched flights with their different speed and tracking aren't fun, nor is trying to replace one that gets killed when you only have the other in bay. "Oversized" drones on targets of your size also not fun, specially when with MWD they can just kite the poor drones, leading to no damage applied. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1218
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:06:00 -
[822] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote: Half the people like the Myrm's bandwidth buff because they flew it with 5 hammerheads till now, and compared to that, 4 ogres are an awesome jump.
I think you'll find that most people like it because at one point and time the Myrm could field 5 Heavies, and this brings it back closer to the old days when the Myrm used to be one of the most fearsome BC's on the field. Same with the Gallent CS, the drone bandwidth changes killed all of that for anything sub BS.
|
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:08:00 -
[823] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: I think you'll find that most people like it because at one point and time the Myrm could field 5 Heavies, and this brings it back closer to the old days when the Myrm used to be one of the most fearsome BC's on the field. Same with the Gallent CS, the drone bandwidth changes killed all of that for anything sub BS. True. Is that, what's worth commenting?
Quote:Algos: +12.5% drone bonus/level, 25 bandwidth, 50m3 bay. Vexor: +12.5%, 50/100 Myrm: +15%, 50/100-125 Unless I'm doing it wrong, a Hob is 15 points of damage, a Hammer 24, an Ogre 48. Algos (35) : 3*15+2*24 = 93 vs 5*15*1,25 = 93.75, a net 0.8% increase. Vexor/Prophecy (75) : 2*48+2*24+15 = 159 vs 5*24*1,25 = 150, yielding a net nerf of 6% New Myrm(100) : 4*48=3*48+2*24 = 192 vs 180, yielding a net loss of some under 7%
So I'm not trying to get a damage buff to myyyy prescioussss. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
677
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:10:00 -
[824] - Quote
So this is my idea to make armor tanking a better skill to have that scales from small pvp to fleet pvp...
if you include external incoming remote Armor repair to have the ship repair bonus...
example compare an unfit incursus and merlin both unit and both with either a large shield transporter on them or a large remote armor system
as it stands the merlin will get 155 dps tank per large RR
and the incursus will get 124 dps tank per large RR
but if you add the ship skill bonus to affect incoming remote repair
though i am a little different than eft for ehp i take the average for resistance to determine base ehp...
so take 384*1.5 = 576 (amount of hp repair per unit)
then 573/0.675 = 848.88 (base stats are for armor 50+35+35+10/4= 32.5)
848.88/4.5=188.64
so that means the incursus when it comes to remote repair with get a base 18% boost over the merlin for RR...
but still the Merlin still gets a bonus to EHP not to mention shields repairing that the start of the cycle means that this would be balanced... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:11:00 -
[825] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Mund Richard wrote: rep as well.Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there? Yes, yes he did. I suppose it's not THAT outlandish, Cane has 10 as well, if I did the math right. If we are at "interesting" suggestions already: Algos: +12.5% drone bonus/level, 25 bandwidth, 50m3 bay. Dragoon: No Change Vexor: +12.5%, 50/100 Prophecy: +12.5%, 50/150 Myrm: +15%, 50/100-125 Gallente keeps the higher damage, Amarr keeps the larger bays. And it's a lot more "neat". Orderly. Satisfying my OCD. Let's face it. Half the people like the Myrm's bandwidth buff because they flew it with 5 hammerheads till now, and compared to that, 4 ogres are an awesome jump. Mix-matched flights with their different speed and tracking aren't fun, nor is trying to replace one that gets killed when you only have the other in bay. Heck, Vexor/Myrm needed to keep 3 different sizes in bay (now the Proph). It's a nightmare! No wonder folk didn't bother! "Oversized" drones on targets of your size also not fun, specially when with MWD they can just kite the poor drones, leading to no damage applied. If we can step away from the traditional 5% damage bonus for a turret or 7.5% armor rep (incursus) even on T1 hulls, so should we be able to accept the "heresy" of not sticking blindly to 10% drone damage/hitpoint. At a MINIMUM, Gallente drone bays should be able to hold at least another flight of drones. Too often in a fight you have to warp out, and if you're only using drones for meaningful dps, then you're leaving lots of your dps on the field when you warp out---especially if those drones are SLOW Heavy drones.
|
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:17:00 -
[826] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: At a MINIMUM, Gallente drone bays should be able to hold at least another flight of drones. Too often in a fight you have to warp out, and if you're only using drones for meaningful dps, then you're leaving lots of your dps on the field when you warp out---especially if those drones are SLOW Heavy drones. Well, yea, my suggestion "solves" both: Dessies go with lights, Cruiser/BC with mediums, and all gallente have precisely two (ok, so I'm hoping for 2.5 with the Myrm), amarr three maxed flights, each translating into two smallers.
Post at the top (yay, I got another first new page) now with math! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Scope Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:22:00 -
[827] - Quote
So now that we're up to battlecruisers do we have an ETA on when faction cruisers stop being worse than their t1 variants?
Oh and the pirate cruisers.
The Phantasm is in a cruel state -- it ALMOST works but not quite, just enough to get us to waste lots of time tyring to find a way. It could be the coolest cruiser in game IMHO however it can't do anything productive except be bait. And bad bait that dies fast. It needs a massive powergrid increase so it can actually manage a good fit without dropping a bil on faction and deadspace modules. Not to mention a spaceship could do with a capacitor bigger than the 470uF the likes of which are used to filter DC on small electronics. What would make it awesome: a bonus to active tanking that let it tank 400dps or so without unreasonable pimping, enough cap that it could do with a single cap booster, room for a med neut with heavy lasers and SPEED. You know I read somewhere that shield ships were supposed to be fast but there's one that's slower than an armor battlecruiser so maybe look over the original design file -- the Nightmare can fit the biggest of everything and still have 2 or 3k pg left it makes me believe somebody might've missed a comma when they transcribed the phantasm specs into the game.
The Ashimmu is worse than useless. It doesn't need to be fast I suppose but you know being able to get cruiser-level dps AND tank wouldn't hurt. As it stands it has no dps to speak of and no tank which don't let it do anything with its neuts because it just dies so quickly or can't kill the enemy fast enough before help arrives. Given the curse and rapier are obviously so much better individually the only thing the ashimmu can possibly do is serve the solo player so PLEASE ungimp this beautiful ship. Another low slot (or two even) and decent pg to be able to fit a tank and heat sinks at the same time.
Vigilant needs 20% or so more dps to keep up the edge on the thorax. It's a 400m cruiser for crying out loud it should hurt like 4 pedestrian cruisers all at once.
Come to think of if since you already did frigs such a long time ago take a look at the succubus as well. It's in such a sad state I don't even know where to begin.
It feels wrong to me that new ships keep getting added while there are so many cool ones that have been broken for such a long time. OK the T3 bcs were awesome, the mining frig also for people who like that, but 4 new t1 destroyers? Seriously? I couldn't even learn their names yet. Furthermore they're cheap pedestrian crap on a game with, I don't know, 50 or so different ships costing 1M or less I seriously doubt 10 people outside of CCP know the names of all the T1 frigates. Where's the proverbial "end game" of subcapital combat left when a 20M frigate is worse than a 2M one and a 200M cruiser can manage less of a proper fit than a 10M one?
Please Lord give us our pimped ships and let we fly onto combat to defend Your name one-to-ten against infidels in equal footing and let we defend Your honour because You giveth us our deadspace glory and let us be enourmous targets among men to draw the good fights upon us so that we may die and consume isk for You and have mercy upon our sensors and keep the jamming devils away, amen.
* The opinions stated on the above post do not reflect those of its author. Even if they're blatantly wrong that's entirely intentional. |
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:27:00 -
[828] - Quote
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:So now that we're up to battlecruisers do we have an ETA on when faction cruisers stop being worse than their t1 variants? Officially, they want to be done with the T1 subcaps, and then, after they see what the new balance looks like and have a feel for it, try and put the faction and T2 ships where they SHOULD be, instead of where power creep put them. Hopefully somewhere around the summer expansion, either point release, or gradually? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:41:00 -
[829] - Quote
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:Some stuff about faction cruisers Lol a faction cruiser winning 1 vs 10 is not what we want (or at what I don't want) and just goes against the whole point of tiericide. Yes, faction cruisers should be better than their T1 (As opposed to T2 which should only be better at 1 particular thing, i.e. specialise), but we don't want another Tengu scenario.
Phantasm does need a lot of work since it was weak even before tiericide (25 drone bay, better cap, better speed and possibly 1 extra low to either fit a TE or a nano). Vigilant on the other hand is fine. And the point of the Ashimmu isn't DPS. In fact most of the Pirate Cruisers (and faction crusiers) IMO just need their speed buffed to be on par with their T1 Hulls and Fitting slightly buffed (except for the Angel line, please don't buff them). |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
153
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:42:00 -
[830] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:IbanezLaney wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Check my hangers dude - I use them on this toons HM Drakes and on Feroxs. Removing the utility slot from the Drake will make it less likely that people will fit links to it - not more likely. Everything else looks good but just a logic fail removing the utility slot if you want people to on grid boost as you are removing an economical way of doing it for small corps/gangs. No one is forced to fill up that utility wih link. So leaving the slot as-is just results in it being traditionally (ab)used for neut, cloak or w/e. Let's admit it: current slot number of Tier2's is insanely high, given they also have 3 rig slots.
The point of some of these changes is to promote on grid boosting and get the whimps out of their pos shields - you might have missed that so now that you have some context you will also realize that - Anyone with a brain knows ccp can make a utility slot so it can only fit links only if they wish.
But you knew this and thought it through properly before posting.... right? Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
|
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 03:47:00 -
[831] - Quote
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:The Ashimmu is worse than useless
neuting AHAC Ashimmu Disagrees wumbo |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 04:03:00 -
[832] - Quote
Harbinger still has horrific fitting. Prophecy has a hilarious drone bandwith for a ship that's meant to be a drone boat. Drake is still the obvious choice vs the Ferox. Mrym was fine IMO, not sure why nerfed so hard - at least give it 125mm drone bay - not a big change considerabering all the available counters to drones. Unsure about the Cyclone, i.e. but added variety is definitely nice. Hurricane probably didn't need such a huge capacitor nerf... will impact nano setups considerably.
To sum up my thoughts in general and the direction of tiericide:
The cruiser remakes were fun because it essentially made ships that were previously not viable actually usable and even competitive. In other words, the winter expansion gave but didn't take so it was a very popular expansion. It ADDED to Eve. The current rendition of BC changes is very iffy. It seems to carry an unnecessary risk of making some BCs that were previously viable not viable (e.g. Myrm). To be honest I was hoping that rather than nerfing the tier 2s (and really only the drake and cane needed the nerf) you would simply buff the tier 1s (as well as make some adjustments to the Myrm and Harb). A lot of the reasons why BCs were used so overwhelmingly over other classes was because BSes weren't mobile enough and because cruisers were so bad but that's no longer the case (for cruisers that is). I hope CCP takes all this into consideration when moving forward with these changes. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 04:51:00 -
[833] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: I think you'll find that most people like it because at one point and time the Myrm could field 5 Heavies, and this brings it back closer to the old days when the Myrm used to be one of the most fearsome BC's on the field. Same with the Gallent CS, the drone bandwidth changes killed all of that for anything sub BS. True. Is that, what's worth commenting? Quote:Algos: +12.5% drone bonus/level, 25 bandwidth, 50m3 bay. Vexor/Prophecy: +12.5%, 50/100 Myrm: +15%, 50/100-125 Unless I'm doing it wrong, a Hob is 15 points of damage, a Hammer 24, an Ogre 48. Algos (35) : 3*15+2*24 = 93 vs 5*15*1,25 = 93.75, a net 0.8% increase. Vexor/Prophecy (75) : 2*48+2*24+15 = 159 vs 5*24*1,25 = 150, yielding a net nerf of 6% New Myrm(100) : 4*48=3*48+2*24 = 192 vs 180, yielding a net loss of some under 7% So I'm not trying to get a damage buff to myyyy prescioussss. These Figures would be well under the current setup. In order to get close you would need the following Algos: +15% drone bonus/level, 25 bandwidth, 50m3 bay. Current 184.14DPS 5 Light 12.5% 160.8DPS 5 Light 15% 173.25DPS
Vexor/Prophecy: +20%, 50/100 Current 314DPS 5 Medium 12.5%/Level 257.4DPS 5 Medium 20%/Level 316.8DPS
Myrm: +30%, 50/100-125 Current(New) 380DPS 5 Medium 15%/Level 277.2DPS 5 Medium 30%/Level 396DPS Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 04:54:00 -
[834] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them. A bit offtopic, but while we're at it, I'd like to say:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Typhoon is one of the best close-range battleships ever. It's really versatile, and that was the reason I started training for missles. If you make yet another missle-boat of it, I'll postpone that training, because boring ships are boring. If you want to add some torpedo-ish flavour to the Phoon, you have my permission for bonusing target painter. That would make it even more versatile (thus fun to play) and compensate for missing e-war battleships in all races other than Caldari.
Cant say much about Naglfar, but let's estimate. All other dreads have 3 weapon slots, while it has 4. Then, gyrostab+BCU > 2x gyrostab because of stacking. That is, Naglfar should be superior of them all... The fact that it's not may be because of some broken weapon system (citadel missles) or tanking issues, rather than split-weapons themselves. |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
98
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 05:00:00 -
[835] - Quote
I have to second a lot of what's already been said
- Cyclone does NOT need split weapons. Swap out a turret slot for a missile hardpoint.
- Ferox should be in line with the Merlin and Moa; give it a damage bonus rather than a range bonus. Naga already snipes
- Both Gallente BCs don't need an active armor tanking bonus. Active armor bonus pales in comparison to passive armor resist bonuses
- The viability of a PvP shield Hurricane is more or less gone. Why not swap out a low for a mid to keep it nice and flexible, like the good Minmatar ship it should be?
Just my 0.02 ISK. We Are Tomorrow |
Trifle Donier
Sham Rocks Incorporated
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 05:24:00 -
[836] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote: If we are at "interesting" suggestions already: Algos: +12.5% drone bonus/level, 25 bandwidth, 50m3 bay. Dragoon: No Change Vexor: +12.5%, 50/100 Prophecy: +12.5%, 50/150 Myrm: +15%, 50/100-125 Gallente keeps the higher damage, Amarr keeps the larger bays. And it's a lot more "neat". Orderly. Satisfying my OCD.
I like this idea a lot, it lets you get higher damage to the ship class you want it in. As a newbie I can't even put heavies/sentries on my vexor, and doing level 3 missions (because 2s are boring) I kite alot so heavies would probably just die before I could recall them anyway.
By the time I can effectively use heavies/sentries I'll probably be flying a dominix anyway, so the 75 mbit/bandwidth really doesn't seem worthwhile.
And for example, going thorax -> brutix the difference is you can fit more cruiser size blasters for increased dps. Whereas due to drone number restrictions, going Vexor -> Myrm, the difference will be that you can fit more battleship size drones, which may or may not be a damage increase due to flight time / tracking issues... it makes no sense. |
Theo Ramone
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 06:01:00 -
[837] - Quote
So, I'm open to the fact that I'm doing it wrong here but in my mind the Ferox is completely underwhelming. To put it mildly. Theres not one role this ship fills that another ship cant do as well or better.
Blaster? Good luck with the fit, and you'll get smoked by brawler ships with damage bonus over range. Never mind that even if you did have a damage bonus you have one hell of a time getting any type of decent tank on once you get blasters fit. Kiting? Sorry, this hull is too slow. You'll get chased down like a fat kid with a football. Range? Naga please. Yes I know, large vs mediums here so rather apples to oranges but it all falls into the BC hull size.
PVP seems like a total whiff on this ship. PVE feels very similar as the Drake doesn anything the Ferox does it just does it better (Inside of....50k or so).
Now I want the Ferox to work. I wish it would work, damn I wish it would. But I havent found anything it does at least well enough to justify flying it. Every time I work up a good fit or a fun fit it ends up with some type of glaring flaw, whereas shifting to a different BC hull seems to give a more rounded ship.
I want to be told I'm doing it wrong, so please someone tell me how to get this ship to work well at anything besides being a hanger queen. I say all of this as I dont see the proposed changes dramatically altering the problems of this ship. You'll still play hell keeping your DPS high and fitting any semblence of a PVP fit (prop mod and tank), or you'll end up with a decent enough tank but gimped DPS. I think its going to take more PG to make this thing work.
But again, I'd love to be proven wrong as I'd like to see this ship work. |
Dewgong
Drama Llamas Dark Therapy
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 06:13:00 -
[838] - Quote
To be fair, the active rep bonus is nice, as it keeps it around. I mean, aside from Frig and cruisers, active rep fits are a rarity as at that point you have logis. Added to the fact that with how wide-spread shield gangs are, it's almost needed just to keep armor a viable option aside from buffer/logi strategies. I know with the myrm, with all of those slots, you can just shield the **** out of it and call it good, not so much with the Brutix, which imo, needs the armor tank bonus, otherwise it'll forever be the glass cannon that shield doctrines have forged it to become.
I mean, perhaps buff the base resistances for the gallente BCs (at least the brutix) so that it's even with the Proph (which, after sleeping on it, reading through the thread some more and dwelling over it, is, imo, worse with the proposed changes than now).
The Myrm should be able to field a full flight of heavies, but subtract another mid? One of the biggest strengths for the Myrm is how it's been able to go shield or armor to great success for each. It's almost the best example outside of the Hurricane that personifies the full versatility of what BCs should be. While yes, the Caldari and Amarr boats are more specialized (as in, Full up shield and full up armor), given the Myrm is already (and from the changes will always) be the better drone boat, just give it the heavies, but drop the slot layout a bit so it doesn't become too good? I mean, if you're going to give it an armor tank bonus like that, you don't need all of those mid slots (unless you plan on finally creating a mid slot module that helps armor tankers)
Or at least turn the Proph into something more akin to the Myrm in terms of slot layout and drone bay (Also, as I said earlier, the fact that the proposed change is splitting the highs between turrets and missiles is terrible. Keep the missiles for T2s. Or at least enable it to fully fit a full compliment of turrets or missiles, but don't split it) If you gave the Proph the same slot layout as the Myrm, I'd be a happy camper <_<;
In short: Don't touch the Harb (or at least give it the larger drone bay and call it good), you can do better than that crap than you have shown with the Proph, and just turn the Myrm back to how it was, minus a couple of mid slots. Or at least give it something like, I dunno, a 2% bonus to drone control range per level instead of the rep bonus?
Also, on the subject of pirate faction ships, can we please make the Blood Raider ships not a 'fleet only' thing? I mean, seriously, you cannot solo with a Cruor or (with a bit more success) the Ashimmu. If I wanted to solo with a Cruor, I'll just use a Sentinel instead and save myself most of the cost. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1218
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 06:19:00 -
[839] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote: That is, Naglfar should be superior of them all... The fact that it's not may be because of some broken weapon system (citadel missles) or tanking issues, rather than split-weapons themselves.
The Nag sucks, everybody who's ever flown a cap of any kind knows it, as its been a hard fought fact for about ....hmm...ok ever since it was released.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
921
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 06:20:00 -
[840] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:IbanezLaney wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Check my hangers dude - I use them on this toons HM Drakes and on Feroxs. Removing the utility slot from the Drake will make it less likely that people will fit links to it - not more likely. Everything else looks good but just a logic fail removing the utility slot if you want people to on grid boost as you are removing an economical way of doing it for small corps/gangs. No one is forced to fill up that utility wih link. So leaving the slot as-is just results in it being traditionally (ab)used for neut, cloak or w/e. Let's admit it: current slot number of Tier2's is insanely high, given they also have 3 rig slots. The point of some of these changes is to promote on grid boosting and get the whimps out of their pos shields - you might have missed that so now that you have some context you will also realize that - Anyone with a brain knows ccp can make a utility slot so it can only fit links only if they wish. When they come up with something of that sort they surely can keep slots in their current (excessive) numbers. But no one sane can claim tier2 BCs having 18+3 slots balanced while Command Ships have had only 17+2.
Also, you surely knew before posting that all these talks of removing off-grid boosting have been here since 2008, didn't you?
14 |
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 06:48:00 -
[841] - Quote
Streya Jormagdnir wrote:The viability of a PvP shield Hurricane is more or less gone. Why not swap out a low for a mid to keep it nice and flexible, like the good Minmatar ship it should be? Firstly, Shield Cane is still perfectly viable. Two medium neuts while still having full-on dps and speed was too much. And as with the other Tier 2s 18 slots was imbalanced. The only thing I disagree with for the Cane in this current proposal is the cap nerf. Even without neuts shield canes use tons of cap as they are MWDing 80% of the time during any average fight, either to avoid tackle or to keep range from other BCs that can outbrawl it. I think the capacitor nerf for the cane should be removed as it not only impacts shield cane but hurts any attempt at active armor tanking it (assuming the rumours about medium armor repair buff is true).
Secondly, your proposal doesn't add flexibility, it adds mediocrity to both armor and shield fits. Armor fits losing a low would mean either less tank or gank for them. And 5 mids still won't allow the cane to outbrawl other BCs with a bonus to shield tanking. You would end up being crappy in general. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
169
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 06:57:00 -
[842] - Quote
Theo Ramone wrote:So, I'm open to the fact that I'm doing it wrong here but in my mind the Ferox is completely underwhelming. To put it mildly. Theres not one role this ship fills that another ship cant do as well or better.
[NEW Ferox, Neo-Blasters] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Hobgoblin II x5
Just an example. 72k EHP, 569 DPS with max skills (470 from guns, the rest from drones) to 12+14km, or 756 dps (657 from guns) to 6.6+5.1 with Void. Bring support to tackle, you'll need it, but that's the tradeoff of shield tanking. You could also drop the tracking computer which takes the range to 11+11 for Null and 5.8+4.1 for Void and gives you the ability to fit an EM hardener, utility ECM or some sort of tackle. It's probably a worthwhile tradeoff.
You're right that the brutix outdamages it, but the brutix can either outdamage or out-tank it, not both. A max tank brutix has 80-85k EHP but only ~600 DPS (with hammerheads and void), a shield brutix does upwards of 980 dps (again, hammerheads and void) but only has 57.4k EHP, and a max gank brutix with a light armor tank does the same but only has 40k EHP and goes much slower as well.
So yeah, I disagree. Ferox is fine. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 06:59:00 -
[843] - Quote
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. |
Thryson
Shaft Workers Union
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 07:13:00 -
[844] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, are you reading this? if so I have one question for you, would you like to have a conversation about your proposed changes? |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
207
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 07:21:00 -
[845] - 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 |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance 24eme Legion Etrangere
50
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 07:23:00 -
[846] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:
Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there?
Same number of effective turrets that the brutix has.
|
Arronicus
Vintas Industries Mistakes Were Made.
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 07:39:00 -
[847] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking. Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?
No, you are completely correct, 15.8m is the absolute maximum SP a player can have in leadership. 15,872,000 SP, to be exact. People that are saying they have 25M SP in leadership are either having a memory problem, or are including all the skillpoints they have invested into command ships, or tier 3 cruisers, neither of which really count as "Leadership skills." |
Mars Theran
Red Rogue Squadron
1595
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 07:49:00 -
[848] - 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.
I tend to agree. I'm all for tiericide now that I see it in implementation, but I was worried earlier when I saw indication that the changes following Frigates and Cruisers, and the addition of the new Destroyers and changes to existing ones, seemed to be that the trend would change to bringing down rather than up.
Aside from the Prophecy, it is my estimation that the class as a whole is being successively weakened. I'm quite certain the result is intended to make them more on level with Cruisers and close the gap between the two classes, but I don't agree that is necessary.
I have to take some more time to look at this, but I can already say that my recent experience with the Cruiser changes, coupled with my experience with current Battle Cruiser capabilities makes me feel as if Battle Cruisers have suddenly lost much of their appeal.
Further reducing their capabilities will make them even less desirable, and with reductions in grid and fitting options, and increases in Sig radius and mass, they are becoming far less capable as a ship class, and much less likely to be flown for the added cost alone.
I don't think Battle Cruisers were ever intended to be solely purposed for use as gank link ships, which is about all they'll be good for after this I think.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1360
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 07:51:00 -
[849] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Fozzie, a few people including myself have mentioned the Drake and Cyclone having Rapid Light Launchers excluded from their missile bonuses, is this deliberate or simply an oversight? Rapid Lights aren't exactly a common sight in combat anyway, I can't really see any harm in them getting the same bonuses as the heavies and HAMs, and its weird to see them left out (imagine if the turret ships similarly got bonuses which specifically excluded the smallest turret option).
Any comment? Battlecruisers excelling at taking out frigates is a bad idea.
1. So by that logic the Myrmidon and Prophecy's drone bonuses shouldn't apply to light drones?
2. The amount of damage lost against larger targets by fitting RLLs instead of haeaies or HAMs is huge, do you really think that trading off effectiveness against everything else just to kill frigates better is brokenly overpowered? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Shrrrg
Friends Of Harassment
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 08:33:00 -
[850] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:Some stuff about faction cruisers Lol a faction cruiser winning 1 vs 10 is not what we want (or at what I don't want) and just goes against the whole point of tiericide. Yes, faction cruisers should be better than their T1 (As opposed to T2 which should only be better at 1 particular thing, i.e. specialise), but we don't want another Tengu scenario. Phantasm does need a lot of work since it was weak even before tiericide (25 drone bay, better cap, better speed and possibly 1 extra low to either fit a TE or a nano). Vigilant on the other hand is fine. And the point of the Ashimmu isn't DPS. In fact most of the Pirate Cruisers (and faction crusiers) IMO just need their speed buffed to be on par with their T1 Hulls and Fitting slightly buffed (except for the Angel line, please don't buff them). Yay i want a speedbuff in my navy osprey because i want to go as fast as a dramiel. The faction cruiser are fast enough they simply suck or are too pricey for the 1% you gain extra |
|
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 08:35:00 -
[851] - Quote
Templar Dane wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Harbringer: Wait, did you just suggest 10 gun's worth of dps there? Same number of effective turrets that the brutix has. Pass me some of the stuff you have! Brutix: 7*1,25 = 8,75 Harbi: 6*1,5=9 (guy supposed 5*100=10) Cane: 6*1,25/0,75 = 10
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1219
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 08:36:00 -
[852] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:
I don't think Battle Cruisers were ever intended to be solely purposed for use as gank link ships, which is about all they'll be good for after this I think.
Maybe its good that BC's get taken down a notch so that they're not the go to platform anymore.
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 08:49:00 -
[853] - Quote
some of these can be looked as as a nerf some a buff....
Brutix getting an extra low means it will be much easier to tank
Myrm extra large drone very good but over all balanced with the fact it looses a gun
Drake i hate you die in a fire (or some type of sparkly explosion)
Ferox the comedy ship just got better
Harby This is gona kick out alot of dps and it more of an attack BC
Proph love the new changes basicly the old myrm with an armour res buff :)
Cane this has been nerfed to hell and back but it will still have the ability to field a neut and good guns
Cyclone in my view this ship has been made to replace the cane in a 0.0 blob, thinking about it it will have space for 2 neuts, can fit a mediocre tank and match the DPS of the current cane with HAMs
Over all i like these changes however i am personally waiting to see what we get for the command ship change. Keep up the good work Fozzie |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
323
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 08:50:00 -
[854] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Mars Theran wrote:I don't think Battle Cruisers were ever intended to be solely purposed for use as gank link ships, which is about all they'll be good for after this I think. Maybe its good that BC's get taken down a notch so that they're not the go to platform anymore. its true, right now basically all you see is BCs and T3s backed up by logistics ships anymore
and really all you ever see of the BCs is the hurricane and the drake.
after the change, I see the prophecy being really strong, the brutix may be able to hold its own if it can catch anything. . . (still have to experiment with the dropped mass) the hurricane will still be strong just minus one neut the cyclone may be lacking some damage but could still be quite viable as it is fastest with the longest ranged weapons . . . the drake will still be a strong platform for tank and gank
none of them will be clearly the choice over battleships anymore . . .
it will be interesting to see what comes up with these changes. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 08:52:00 -
[855] - Quote
Why is everyone dumb? Having railguns and an optimal bonus doesn't mean you're sniping. |
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:09:00 -
[856] - Quote
Quote:Unless I'm doing it wrong But of course it was late, and I was totally wrong. Omnathious Deninard wrote:These Figures would be well under the current setup. In order to get close you would need the following Algos: +15% drone bonus/level, Vexor/Prophecy: +20%, Myrm: +30% Base dps (now including all support skills) of T2s: 5 Hob / 5 Hammer/ 4 Ogre: 99 / 158 / 253 (before hull bonuses)
Base dps of the split 35 (before drone buff): 123 Buffed, it gets 184,5. In order for the 5 hobgoblins to get there, 184,5 / 99 ~ 1,8636, dividing the bonus by 5: 17,27% Nearest nice even number: 15%, 5 hobbits with x1,75 multiplier: 173,25, or a loss of 6,5%
Base dps of the split 75 (before drone buff): 210 Buffed, it gets 315. In order for 5 Hammerheads to get there: 315/158 ~ 99,36, so ~20%/level. 2*158 = 316, so an increase of 0.33% or so?
Base dps of the 4 ogres or split 100: 253 Buffed, it gets 379,5. In order for 5 Hammerheads to get there: 379,5/158 ~ +140% so 28% per level Taking 25%/level instead: 158*2,25 = 355,5, a loss of 7%
The proposal no longer as nice with these huge numbers. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Glathull
Suicidal Panda Tears of Love and Death
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:09:00 -
[857] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them. I'd certainly like to see split weapon systems disappear for T1 ships, because skilling up multiple weapon systems is time-consuming, esp. for new players, and unbonused weapons suffer far too much when compared to bonused weapons. But maybe split weapon systems can find a new place on T2 combat ships, when you eventually get around to rebalancing their stats? Perhaps, with bonuses to both weapon systems? T2 ships are not entry-level ships, so requiring more SP to fly them effectively would not be unreasonable.
I think you might be missing the point of eliminating tiers. To repeat, the skill split is scheduled for the big Summer 2013 expansion. ~CCP Fozzie |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:10:00 -
[858] - Quote
Just to point out one more time how much Harbinger is nerfed, and that the"nerfed" Hurricane is the same as before, considering the nerfs to other hulls even better than before.
Fitting both ships with just the guns the Harbinger is left with 279 CPU and 533 PG, Hurricane has 387 CPU and 575 PG left. That puts the "nerfed" Hurricane 108 CPU and 42 PG above the Harbinger to spend on same number of slots. And this is considering AWU 5.
Hurricane is considerably faster than Harbinger, having more than 200m/s advantage over it when both are shield tanked and MWD fit. Not to mention much better acceleration and agility. Hurricane is still the fastest BC (the new Cyclone is ~20m/s faster when both are MWD fitted.).
Too add even more salt to the wound now Hurricane even has better tank, getting actually buffed overall in the tanking department while the Harbinger was hit hard, especially the shield. Now since we cant really talk about armor tanked setups (since Harbinger cant even fit a 1600 plate, propulsion and guns without and implant, and just one heat sink wound push it over the limit), before this Harbinger had a healthy 3k more EHP than Hurricane, and that was ok considering it is a much slower ship, and that Harbinger pilot needed implants and AWU5 to actually fit such a tank while Hurricane pilots could get it with AWU3 and still some PG to spare. Now shield tanked canes have more EHP and are still much faster.
And when we add capacitor problems in the picture it just gets better. To be fair Harbinger has much better damage projection over 10 kilometers thanks to scorch ammo and will considerably outdamage the Hurricane at those distances, but considering its speed it cant really kite anything and its tracking is so terrible that anything that comes closer to those 10 kilometers probably wont get hit at all. So in a nutshell Hurricane has better tank, more speed, incredibly easier fitting and (depending on situation) comparable damage.
Harbinger needs to have some fitting options without implants, the nerfs are too much. It should not be a fast ship, it would be op with scorch, but it at least needs a good tank. And you ppl could really try and fix the Hurricane, one neut less does not really make a difference, especially now when most other battlecruisers lost their utility slots as well, and it even got a better tank. It is now even better than before, with nerfs to the drake the cane is now the by far the best battlecruiser, its not even debatable anymore. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:30:00 -
[859] - Quote
>typhoon >obsolete |
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:31:00 -
[860] - Quote
Going back to the drone ships get -1 module discussion.
When a drone ship can't even mount one spare flight, that's more of a liability on a ship KNOWN for it's local active repping... Shoot at it while alone, and it will take ages. Kill it's drones and it's de-fanged, pick next target if there are more hostiles.
Supposedly, one reason the drones get ahead in utility is their selectable damage. But as it is right now, you either pick T2 Gallente for the damage, or Minmatar for the better tracking sacrificing raw damage. That's not Caracal/Raven-type selectable missile damage, but more like Drake kinetic enforcement (though as if mjolnir came with an explo velocity bonus).
I'm all in support for a Drake that gets a RoF or proper damage bonus, and drones need a look at just as well. (How many know WHAT a Praetor is at all?)
Now... I must admit, I see why droneships are a hassle. CCP tried making pure drone ships, but it doesn't quite work out well. Most combat-role drone ships now have either a split weapon system (now with the added difficulty of either drone or gun dps getting left behind when fitting a damage mod), or even on top weird drone bays leading to odd speeds and tracking.
I know CCP is aware that drones need a looking at. Just as much how they are looking at armor tanking. But it's hard to discuss ships without mentioning these aspects. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2612
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:33:00 -
[861] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking. Liang Nuren wrote:Aethlyn wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%. I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership. -Liang I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills? No, you are completely correct, 15.8m is the absolute maximum SP a player can have in leadership. 15,872,000 SP, to be exact. People that are saying they have 25M SP in leadership are either having a memory problem, or are including all the skillpoints they have invested into command ships, or tier 3 cruisers, neither of which really count as "Leadership skills."
ORRRRRR we have multiple characters with great leadership skills. ;-)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Vince Grant
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:52:00 -
[862] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Theo Ramone wrote:So, I'm open to the fact that I'm doing it wrong here but in my mind the Ferox is completely underwhelming. To put it mildly. Theres not one role this ship fills that another ship cant do as well or better. [NEW Ferox, Neo-Blasters] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Null M Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Hobgoblin II x5 Just an example. 72k EHP, 569 DPS with max skills (470 from guns, the rest from drones) to 12+14km, or 756 dps (657 from guns) to 6.6+5.1 with Void. Bring support to tackle, you'll need it, but that's the tradeoff of shield tanking. You could also drop the tracking computer which takes the range to 11+11 for Null and 5.8+4.1 for Void and gives you the ability to fit an EM hardener, utility ECM or some sort of tackle. It's probably a worthwhile tradeoff. You're right that the brutix outdamages it, but the brutix can either outdamage or out-tank it, not both. A max tank brutix has 80-85k EHP but only ~600 DPS (with hammerheads and void), a shield brutix does upwards of 980 dps (again, hammerheads and void) but only has 57.4k EHP, and a max gank brutix with a light armor tank does the same but only has 40k EHP and goes much slower as well. So yeah, I disagree. Ferox is fine. e: Ferox is less stellar for sniping but the answer to that lies in buffing rails, tbh.
Not quite as good as the Naga tbh, but much cheaper, so i think its a viable ship for small gang pvp with logi now. How fast/agile is it?
Tbh i dont know why the tier 2 BC's needs those nerfs. Tier 1's were pretty useless and needed a buff. But why the nerfs of tier 2's?
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 09:59:00 -
[863] - Quote
Shrrrg wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:Some stuff about faction cruisers Lol a faction cruiser winning 1 vs 10 is not what we want (or at what I don't want) and just goes against the whole point of tiericide. Yes, faction cruisers should be better than their T1 (As opposed to T2 which should only be better at 1 particular thing, i.e. specialise), but we don't want another Tengu scenario. Phantasm does need a lot of work since it was weak even before tiericide (25 drone bay, better cap, better speed and possibly 1 extra low to either fit a TE or a nano). Vigilant on the other hand is fine. And the point of the Ashimmu isn't DPS. In fact most of the Pirate Cruisers (and faction crusiers) IMO just need their speed buffed to be on par with their T1 Hulls and Fitting slightly buffed (except for the Angel line, please don't buff them). Yay i want a speedbuff in my navy osprey because i want to go as fast as a dramiel. The faction cruiser are fast enough they simply suck or are too pricey for the 1% you gain extra Nice trolling. But just in case you really are blind:
Caracal speed: 230 m/s Caracal navy issue speed: 164 m/s
Vexor speed: 205 m/s Vexor navy issue speed: 180 m/s
Stabber speed: 290 m/s Stabber fleet issue speed: 248 m/s
Omen speed: 235 m/s Omen navy issue speed: 192 m/s
The Osprey/Exequrer/Scythe/Augoror faction line are "combat" vessels unlike their t1 hull variants and thus your comparison is invalid. Furthermore in their combat roles they are exceeded by both the t1 attack and t1 combat crusiers. No one flies them. Except the Augorer Navy Issue which has an extreme niche role as obvious bait. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1221
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 10:11:00 -
[864] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Just to point out one more time how much Harbinger is nerfed, and that the"nerfed" Hurricane is the same as before, considering the nerfs to other hulls even better than before.
Fitting both ships with just the guns the Harbinger is left with 279 CPU and 533 PG, Hurricane has 387 CPU and 575 PG left. That puts the "nerfed" Hurricane 108 CPU and 42 PG above the Harbinger to spend on same number of slots. And this is considering AWU 5.
Hurricane is considerably faster than Harbinger, having more than 200m/s advantage over it when both are shield tanked and MWD fit. Not to mention much better acceleration and agility. Hurricane is still the fastest BC (the new Cyclone is ~20m/s faster when both are MWD fitted.).
Too add even more salt to the wound now Hurricane even has better tank, getting actually buffed overall in the tanking department while the Harbinger was hit hard, especially the shield. Now since we cant really talk about armor tanked setups (since Harbinger cant even fit a 1600 plate, propulsion and guns without and implant, and just one heat sink wound push it over the limit), before this Harbinger had a healthy 3k more EHP than Hurricane, and that was ok considering it is a much slower ship, and that Harbinger pilot needed implants and AWU5 to actually fit such a tank while Hurricane pilots could get it with AWU3 and still some PG to spare. Now shield tanked canes have more EHP and are still much faster.
And when we add capacitor problems in the picture it just gets better. To be fair Harbinger has much better damage projection over 10 kilometers thanks to scorch ammo and will considerably outdamage the Hurricane at those distances, but considering its speed it cant really kite anything and its tracking is so terrible that anything that comes closer to those 10 kilometers probably wont get hit at all. So in a nutshell Hurricane has better tank, more speed, incredibly easier fitting and (depending on situation) comparable damage.
Harbinger needs to have some fitting options without implants, the nerfs are too much. It should not be a fast ship, it would be op with scorch, but it at least needs a good tank. And you ppl could really try and fix the Hurricane, one neut less does not really make a difference, especially now when most other battlecruisers lost their utility slots as well, and it even got a better tank. It is now even better than before, with nerfs to the drake the cane is now the by far the best battlecruiser, its not even debatable anymore.
Don't let this post jump out and bite anybody since its full of fact
|
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
58
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 10:18:00 -
[865] - Quote
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.
Also, you are rebalancing stuff, and we have a long standing issue, the fleet-tanking stuff. A lot of ships are only getting local bonuses, while others are getting omni bonuses. I think to some point all races should have ships designed for fleeting up, that is, using remote reppers (read: recieving it). Local rep bonuses are completely ignored here. I understand the differences between the races, and they have to be kept to keep them not being the same, but still, there are a lot of factors: rep effectiveness (on rep effectiveness / rep ammount ), effective HP, so on. I think with the proper times and effort spent on it an aggreement is achievable.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1585
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 10:52:00 -
[866] - Quote
Looks pretty good!
(inserts Amarr cruiser III into skill plan for dat Neut Prophecy <3)
Myrm:
Getting 100mbit/s is long overdue, thanks very much for including it. Drone bay size is not an issue like some complain, the philosophy behind it is solid in Gallente ganknam style context. If I opt for biggest drones I can use, I'll be brawling and go for death or glory. With new DDAs, it's quite often glory tbh. Not having tons of spares is the price you pay for the amount of drone gank. Drone HP bonuses offset the issue as well, one does not simply pop bonused drones.
However, losing a slot for drones is something that needs to be solved with this update. Either forget it, or expand drone bonuses to all types of drones. Reasoning is based on the common explanation for the missing slot- versatility. Which is a fallacy. If a normal ship fits a EWAR, tackle, neut or reps, it doesn't lose +50% of it's dps. If a drone ship launches any other type of drones, it does considerably less damage, for less gain than from a module. Flight of web drones != web.
With bonused web drones, it would be closer. Wider bonuses might revitalize the unused EWAR and combat utility drones, and bring lots of interest and variety on the battlefield, and justify the lack of a slot.
Combine this with nerf to ECM drone base stats, and it'll be double win. Sentry usage in fleets would be improved by doubling the sentry scoop range, to allow sentry ships to pre-align with sentries out. Keeping the armor rep bonus is wonderful, because active tanking is FUN and increases variety in engagements- assuming the general (mild) buffs finally happen. Remove/change active armor rig penalty, shorten repper cycle time a bit and bring repper and ASB fitting stats closer to each others (any way is good, but the fitting/rep amount is currently incredibly imbalanced considering the fact that med repper fit always needs a cap booster).
Dual rep + Nano accel + 2x Nano pump, max relevant skills, overheat and Exile are the minimum med repper configuration in current small gang meta, and it has a very low opponent count threshold when it becomes completely unviable. This tells a lot about the rep amount of med reps.
Med Repper II on all V Brutix: 72.4 hp/s Med ASB on all V Brutix: 67.1 hp/s (frigate-size module)
Also, why give Gal BCs such HUGE sigs to make tanking even harder?
Brutix:
What do you see as the main problem in making it a 5% resist bonus? Rep bonus tucks it tightly into solo/small gang locker, and the only thing Gallente lacks is large fleet viability.
Active armor tank rushing tactics are moot while the ship remains slow, and rigs make it even slower. Sluggish+mandatory MWD+huge base sig+low rep amount is just a very bad combo, as blasters really need speed. Myrm has range, it lives up to it's ship description. Brutix can't just float in space and apply damage while tanking in the same way.
All that said, simply awesome to get this balance pass in a point release! You guys do a really fantastic job, and made Retribution the best expansion ever.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1221
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 10:53:00 -
[867] - Quote
Magic Crisp wrote:
Also, you are rebalancing stuff, and we have a long standing issue, the fleet-tanking stuff. A lot of ships are only getting local bonuses, while others are getting omni bonuses. I think to some point all races should have ships designed for fleeting up, that is, using remote reppers (read: recieving it). Local rep bonuses are completely ignored here. I understand the differences between the races, and they have to be kept to keep them not being the same, but still, there are a lot of factors: rep effectiveness (on rep effectiveness / rep ammount ), effective HP, so on. I think with the proper times and effort spent on it an aggreement is achievable.
No, logistics ships are strong enough on their own, no ship ever needs a bonus to how much rep they give.
|
Capqu
Love Squad
67
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 10:54:00 -
[868] - Quote
hi fozzie,
wrt the ferox
what about the concern that range bonuses on hybrids are inherently weaker than range bonuses on other guns?
since range bonuses only bonus either optimal or falloff, and hybrids are half of both, any range bonus on hybrid weapons is inherently 50% weaker than the same range bonus on projectile (falloff) or lasers (optimal) http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
373
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 10:55:00 -
[869] - 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.
Yeah, Gallente is drones only, Caldari is missiles only, Amarr is lasers only and Minmatar is projectiles only. Not.
Every race has 3 weapon systems: Amarr: 1st: Lasers 2nd: Drones 3rd: Missiles (previously only Khanid line, bomber and 1 T1 frig + additional launcher hardpoints on some laser ships)
Caldari: 1st/2nd (pretty much equal): Missiles/Hybrids 3rd: Drones
Gallente: 1st/2nd (same thing here): Hybrids/Drones 3rd: Missiles
Minmatar: 1st: Projectiles 2nd. Missiles 3rd: Drones |
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 10:58:00 -
[870] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Gallente: 1st/2nd (same thing here): Hybrids/Drones 3rd: Missiles Remind me of all our glorious missile-combat ships. You say nemesis? I say Myrm and projectile turrets. Ofc with shields being used, it's rather the 4th minmatar BC. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
207
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:01:00 -
[871] - 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 |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
324
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:11:00 -
[872] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Magic Crisp wrote:
Also, you are rebalancing stuff, and we have a long standing issue, the fleet-tanking stuff. A lot of ships are only getting local bonuses, while others are getting omni bonuses. I think to some point all races should have ships designed for fleeting up, that is, using remote reppers (read: recieving it). Local rep bonuses are completely ignored here. I understand the differences between the races, and they have to be kept to keep them not being the same, but still, there are a lot of factors: rep effectiveness (on rep effectiveness / rep ammount ), effective HP, so on. I think with the proper times and effort spent on it an aggreement is achievable.
No, logistics ships are strong enough on their own, no ship ever needs a bonus to how much rep they give. you mean like the resist bonuses that the caldari/amarr ships get? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
373
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:15:00 -
[873] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Gallente: 1st/2nd (same thing here): Hybrids/Drones 3rd: Missiles Remind me of all our glorious missile combat ships. You say nemesis? I say Myrm and projectile turrets. Ofc with shields being used, it's rather the 3th minmatar Combat BC: the drone one with projectiles, the other two being missiles with projectiles and projectiles with even more projectiles. See, minnies still use predominantly projectiles.
I thought I should add "tbh, Gallente is seriously lacking on missile ship part..." but figured everyone already got that fact figured out. |
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:18:00 -
[874] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: I thought I should add "tbh, Gallente is seriously lacking on missile ship part..." but figured everyone already got that fact figured out. Hence my jokes asides line, and agreeing with how each race has many weapon systems, and it's not a bad thing.
Appologies for the lack of warning, still used to have one in my sig. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:26:00 -
[875] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote: That is, Naglfar should be superior of them all... The fact that it's not may be because of some broken weapon system (citadel missles) or tanking issues, rather than split-weapons themselves. The Nag sucks, everybody who's ever flown a cap of any kind knows it, as its been a hard fought fact for about ....hmm...ok ever since it was released. Worse than Phoenix? Fix those first, and then we'll see if it's about split weapons or not. |
Cyaron wars
D00M. Northern Coalition.
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:39:00 -
[876] - Quote
I would love to see Brutix and it's T2 version getting some PG/COU buff. Trying to fit decent guns while keeping 2 armor reps is impossible unless u sacrifice all your rigs for PG/CPU rigs. This doesn't affect any other BC apart from harbinger after nerf. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1224
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:47:00 -
[877] - Quote
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.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:52:00 -
[878] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Should you take another look at the Harbi, please note that Scorch + Energy Locus Coordinators create the sweet synergy that made the ship viable for me even if it was slow as hell. There should be enough PG left to fit energy weapon rigs as a valid alternative to the standard 3xTrimarks. As far as fitting is concerned, CPU should be the limiting factor, not both CPU and PG.
Scorch made the harbinger strong. Scorch and HPL. So it would be really appreciated if a fit of HPL + mwd + 1600 plate (meta IV) would be possible with no more than one ACR.
And would you mind removing some of mass given to the hurricane? It was a skirmish ship to start with, now with the recent PG nerf etc. it's more or less forced into shield tanking (since 800 plates don't even let you catch reps against 5 battleships if armortanked, and a 1600 plate is harder and harder to fit without jepordising the offensive qualities) |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
208
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 12:21:00 -
[879] - 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 |
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 12:23:00 -
[880] - Quote
Capqu wrote:hi fozzie,
wrt the ferox
what about the concern that range bonuses on hybrids are inherently weaker than range bonuses on other guns?
since range bonuses only bonus either optimal or falloff, and hybrids are half of both, any range bonus on hybrid weapons is inherently 50% weaker than the same range bonus on projectile (falloff) or lasers (optimal) While I do see your point, that's not quite the full story.
Autocannons benefit from falloff, while Pulses are insane with optimal, Blasters aren't designed to have range . Without bonuses using short-range T2 ammo, a blaster ship is in second falloff while a pulse ship is still in optimal. On the other hand, a blaster ship with Null(+40% opt/falloff/-25%tracking) still has more damage, than a pulse with Multifreq while tracking better even with a penalty... Worth pondering, ain't it?
Now with sniping... Railguns with any ammo tend have both more range and and falloff than beams (at a loss of dps), while projectiles similar optimals and twice the falloff (at even more dps loss, but alpha gain). So here, optimal for rails is just fine, and projectiles are the ones lagging behind. Coincidentally, some T2 Minnie ships have optimal bonuses. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 12:33:00 -
[881] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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. I respectfully disagree. The point already was how 25% resist lets you local rep almost just as well (4% weaker at max level) than a 37.5% local rep bonus.
By the same math, why would 25% resist be equal to 25% remote rep recieved? It's the same amount of raw armor than in the first case... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
208
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 12:37:00 -
[882] - 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 -
[883] - 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 |
Mund Richard
257
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 12:44:00 -
[884] - 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.
Is that not just a tad excessive? Wow, true. 305 on both Gallente ships, while a Phoon is 320. The Caldari ones are 295 and WILL shield tank though, an extender is 25 (320, same as a Phoon), a shield rig +5% and why would you stop at one... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 13:41:00 -
[885] - Quote
Quote:We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. "There are lies, damn lies . . . and statistics."
Thanks very much for giving us a clear timeline on the skill change; please sticky that somewhere that isn't buried in this poor neglected forum.
That said, this comment about the Ferox shows the sort of trap you can stumble into if when you start making (or justifying) decisions based too much on "metrics." The fact that you find the 250mm rails are the most common module fitted to the Ferox does not mean either that (1) rail fits work well; or (2) that people use those fits. People put rails on them because honestly that's the only thing that makes sense . . . because of the crappy bonus you gave the ship. Just because this is the only fit people resort to when they happen to stumble into this hull doesn't mean that it works out well or that they keep using it. It could be that they slap rails on it, take it out once, find out it sucks . . . and then move on to the Drake.
Assuming you have the stats available, you would also need to look at how many Ferox hulls total are in game vs. the alternatives, how often they undock and how much time they spend out when they do, how many total kills on NPCs and players this hull gets, and the ratio of kills to hulls destroyed. That would give you a much more accurate picture of how the ship play in the game, whether people are using it, how much, how often, and for what purpose.
Or . . . you could just listen to people who use the boat (or don't), and hear their reasons why. You could also play the game, which I'm sure you guys do, but since you also all have day jobs, I'm sure you are never really going to do that nearly as much as it would take to get a seat of the pants feel for how a lot of this stuff works out in practice.
Maybe the optimal bonus works and maybe it doesn't; either way, you should be careful looking at stats like this to answer this question for you, because what they don't tell you is more significant than what they do. This particular stat is marginal enough that it's almost negative information; you know less about the real situation after learning it than you would if you never thought about it at all.
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 13:42:00 -
[886] - Quote
IMO 2 Gallente Combat BC sharing same obsolete armor repair bonus is bad idea. Brutix would make great ship if it have another bonus. Giving it armor resists would make it to "Amarrish". What do you think of following second bonuses?
1) Increase maximum armor amount by X% per level (Pretty much like current armor T3 defensive bonuses). 2) Reduce penalty from armor modules and rigs by X% per level. 3) Mobility bonus (MWD Capacitor cost, AB duration cycle, MWD speed bonus etc). 4) Tackling bonus. It would be handful to have something like "Increase the range of Warp Disruptors and Warp Scramblers by X% per level" since brutix is slow armor ship with extremely close-range weapons so it might help to get in melee. 5) Drone damage bonus so it will be all-gank ship. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 13:44:00 -
[887] - Quote
Roime wrote:Looks pretty good!
However, losing a slot for drones is something that needs to be solved with this update. Either forget it, or expand drone bonuses to all types of drones. Reasoning is based on the common explanation for the missing slot- versatility. Which is a fallacy. If a normal ship fits a EWAR, tackle, neut or reps, it doesn't lose +50% of it's dps. If a drone ship launches any other type of drones, it does considerably less damage, for less gain than from a module. Flight of web drones != web.
With bonused web drones, it would be closer. Wider bonuses might revitalize the unused EWAR and combat utility drones, and bring lots of interest and variety on the battlefield, and justify the lack of a slot.
Combine this with nerf to ECM drone base stats, and it'll be double win.
This is correct, but there is another area that needs to be addressed and that is the Drone Interfacing skill, it use to provide an additional drone, no matter what it was, so the amount of drone HP on the field was increased also. Now we get 1 additional drone worth of damage or mining yeald, which tbh is not what the skill use to do. So the skill should increase the HP of drones, the EW strength, the damage, mining yeald, the logistic repair amount of drones.
This could make non-drone ships a little strong with utility drones, so another option could be to switch the drone interfacing skill effects and the drone ship bonus. IE drone interfacing 10% to the effectiveness of drones per level and the drone ships would ge 20% to the effectiveness of drones per level.
This should be couppled with a nerf to ECM drones. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 13:47:00 -
[888] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:IMO 2 Gallente Combat BC sharing same obsolete armor repair bonus is bad idea. Two having it might be a bad idea, but it's not "obsolete" as it stands now, at least for PvE, and likely will be less so when they get done with whatever mojo they're putting on armor tanking to bring it back to relevance. It makes a certain amount of sense for one "armor" race to be resist heavy and the other to be rep heavy, such that one favors buffer tanking and the other active tanking. If they come up with something ASB-like for armor tanking, rep bonused ships could easily turn into the next FOTM. |
Mund Richard
258
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:20:00 -
[889] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: 1) Increase maximum armor amount by X% per level (Pretty much like current armor T3 defensive bonuses). 2) Reduce penalty from armor modules and rigs by X% per level. 3) Mobility bonus (MWD Capacitor cost, AB duration cycle, MWD speed bonus etc). 4) Tackling bonus. It would be handful to have something like "Increase the range of Warp Disruptors and Warp Scramblers by X% per level" since brutix is slow armor ship with extremely close-range weapons so it might help to get in melee. 5) Drone damage bonus so it will be all-gank ship.
Now to Ferox. Medium-size turret sniping just doesn't work. The fact that player fit 250mm on Ferox might be caused by that Ferox is actually a "Noob Trap". New player see nice-looking ship, read description and bonuses and decide that it will work as sniping ship. Actually, what targets would you expect to be shot by medium rails? First to the Brutix: 1) it would be just a buffer, nor does it help PvE, local tanking (once fixed) and remote repping that much. What it does is help untanked solo buffered versions, and in larger fleets when alpha is really a threat. So don't really like it, those should stay T2-T3 (booster as likely primary and the like) bonuses. 2) Penaltry reductions: lot more intriguing tbh, still PvP only thing (loosing PvE edge), but it helps with the blasters. 3) again helps with the blasters 4) and again helps with the blasters, a 30% increase in scram range would turn it from easily kited into... well... kindof OP 5) it would need the bay as well, and the myrm would possibly look even worse next to it.
Ferox: Agreed with the noob trap, friend of mine started the game, went caldari, I had to talk to him on 3 different occasion not to expect it to behave the way he thought it would. Somehow he didn't like the Brutix. And in fact liked missiles, just not how the Drake looks. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
140
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:40:00 -
[890] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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?
I'm okay with their effectiveness being reduced, but I hope the final changes aren't too overboard in the hopes of steering people towards T1 cruisers. BCs were good training wheels for noobs bridging the gap between T1 fleets and bittervets with T2/T3 bling fleets. I hope they will continue to fill that role post-revamp, and I am eager to test the changes out when they hit the test server despite all my complaining on the internets.
I hope that HACs come into their own soon to fill the gap left by the tier 2 BCs (and perhaps even snatch some heavy gank/tank glory from the T3s, although I am not looking forward to the T3 nerf because I fear that my poor Legion is going to go from quietly respectable to pathetic). |
|
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:43:00 -
[891] - Quote
fozzie,why not make cyclone or hurricane the equivalent of typhoon?at a smaller scale of course.
with 8 slots, 4 turrets/4 launcher slots with bonuses to rate of fire for heavy,heavy assault missiles,rapid light and damage/rof for projectiles.while keeping the shield bonus for cyclone.thats a ship i would fly everyday
or at least give cyclone 6 if not 7 launcher slots out of 7 highs. |
Mund Richard
258
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:49:00 -
[892] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:fozzie,why not make cyclone or hurricane the equivalent of typhoon?at a smaller scale of course. My first reaction: why would you want that?
Recoil IV wrote:with 8 slots, 4 turrets/4 launcher slots with bonuses to rate of fire for heavy,heavy assault missiles,rapid light and damage/rof for projectiles.while keeping the shield bonus AAAAH. So you want 8 hardpoint split weapon system twin-bonused WITH a tank bonus. Aren't we slightly a bit greedy? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:53:00 -
[893] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Recoil IV wrote:fozzie,why not make cyclone or hurricane the equivalent of typhoon?at a smaller scale of course. My first reaction: why would you want that? Recoil IV wrote:with 8 slots, 4 turrets/4 launcher slots with bonuses to rate of fire for heavy,heavy assault missiles,rapid light and damage/rof for projectiles.while keeping the shield bonus AAAAH. So you want 8 hardpoint split weapon system twin-bonused WITH a tank bonus. Aren't we slightly a bit greedy?
no,we are not greedy lol. |
Danny Centauri
Huzzah Industries
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:55:00 -
[894] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:IMO 2 Gallente Combat BC sharing same obsolete armor repair bonus is bad idea. Brutix would make great ship if it have another bonus. Giving it armor resists would make it to "Amarrish". What do you think of following second bonuses?
1) Increase maximum armor amount by X% per level (Pretty much like current armor T3 defensive bonuses). 2) Reduce penalty from armor modules and rigs by X% per level. 3) Mobility bonus (MWD Capacitor cost, AB duration cycle, MWD speed bonus etc). 4) Tackling bonus. It would be handful to have something like "Increase the range of Warp Disruptors and Warp Scramblers by X% per level" since brutix is slow armor ship with extremely close-range weapons so it might help to get in melee. 5) Drone damage bonus so it will be all-gank ship.
Now to Ferox. Medium-size turret sniping just doesn't work. The fact that player fit 250mm on Ferox might be caused by that Ferox is actually a "Noob Trap". New player see nice-looking ship, read description and bonuses and decide that it will work as sniping ship. Actually, what targets would you expect to be shot by medium rails?
Like the first idea in the list, increase of armor HP of x% per level. Hell even a hull bonus would make it interesting structure tank brutix FTW! |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 15:03:00 -
[895] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:[Brutix and Myrm] having [armor repair bonus] might be a bad idea, but it's not "obsolete" as it stands now, at least for PvE... A blaster-boat in PVE... Hmm, what could it be? Certainly it's not mission-running - too much hustle. Must be something where NPCs are not numerous but strong enough to tank that mad DPS. A-ha! Those are Incursions or Wormhole sites, did I guess right? But those are ran with logis, so local reps would be inappropriate :-((
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. Is that not just a tad excessive? That once again confirms - Typhoon is awesome. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 15:20:00 -
[896] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Recoil IV wrote:fozzie,why not make cyclone or hurricane the equivalent of typhoon?at a smaller scale of course. My first reaction: why would you want that? Recoil IV wrote:with 8 slots, 4 turrets/4 launcher slots with bonuses to rate of fire for heavy,heavy assault missiles,rapid light and damage/rof for projectiles.while keeping the shield bonus AAAAH. So you want 8 hardpoint split weapon system twin-bonused WITH a tank bonus. Aren't we slightly a bit greedy? But split-weapons sux, no need to worry! ;-)
Also, not agree with you criticism of suggested bonuses for Brutix: 1) Buffer is used in PVE, namely in Incursions and WHs. You need to survive till logi pilot wakes up and lands on you. 2) Rigs are used both for active and passive tank, PVP and PVE - what are you talking about? |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
339
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 15:22:00 -
[897] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote: Two having it might be a bad idea, but it's not "obsolete" as it stands now, at least for PvE, and likely will be less so when they get done with whatever mojo they're putting on armor tanking to bring it back to relevance. It makes a certain amount of sense for one "armor" race to be resist heavy and the other to be rep heavy, such that one favors buffer tanking and the other active tanking. If they come up with something ASB-like for armor tanking, rep bonused ships could easily turn into the next FOTM.
Rep bonus is most certainly obsolete in comparison to a resistance bonus. The ONLY, and I say again, THE ONLY advantage the active rep bonus has over a resistance bonus is a 3% advantage in active tank only at skill level 5. The ship with a resistance bonus active tanks nearly as well, has far more ehp, and has a far better remote tank.
Now I most certainly do agree that the active rep bonus should be present on one of the gallente BCs, and my vote goes for the Brutix. Imho The brutix should be the close range active brawler (hype line) and the Myrmidon should lose the rep bonus in favor of another drone bonus as the ship does better with an asb tank compared to a tripple rep anyway. That being said... The active rep bonus needs to be increased to 10% per level on all ships regardless if improvements to the modules themselves happen. W/o such improvements to the bonus the imbalance between resistance and active bonuses will be no different and this discussion will simply continue for another 5+ years... |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
323
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 15:34:00 -
[898] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. Run again these "metrics" and tell me how many of these PVE feroxes have only 5 turrets, or 6 turrets and 3 reactor controls. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 15:35:00 -
[899] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:The active rep bonus needs to be increased to 10% per level on all ships regardless if improvements to the modules themselves happen. W/o such improvements to the bonus the imbalance between resistance and active bonuses will be no different and this discussion will simply continue for another 5+ years... On top of that, resistance is cap-independent. But I'd rather say - nerf resistance bosuses to 3.75% all across the board. It would prevent power creep. It's also indirect nerf of logi ships, which are sometimes considered "almost overpowered". |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 15:42:00 -
[900] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:I'm okay with their effectiveness being reduced, but I hope the final changes aren't too overboard in the hopes of steering people towards T1 cruisers. BCs were good training wheels for noobs bridging the gap between T1 fleets and bittervets with T2/T3 bling fleets. I hope they will continue to fill that role post-revamp, and I am eager to test the changes out when they hit the test server despite all my complaining on the internets. I'd be okay with it if we weren't going to be forced to train them in order to get to battleships. It's fine if they get sidelined when people can ignore them (in the same way nobody cared that destroyers sucked for years, because nobody needed to train them anyway). But now they stand a good chance of getting sidelined, and you HAVE to train them, because they're a bottleneck to battleships. Rather than being something you can use for what it's good for if you want, they'll just be a big fat SP sink and a (further) obstacle to cross training. If they're going to be required in order to move on from cruisers, then they need to be better then cruisers in every way, other than obviously being bigger and slower. |
|
Mund Richard
259
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:15:00 -
[901] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote: Also, not agree with you criticism of suggested bonuses for Brutix: 1) Buffer is used in PVE, namely in Incursions and WHs. You need to survive till logi pilot wakes up and lands on you. 2) Rigs are used both for active and passive tank, PVP and PVE - what are you talking about? Ok, true, for the properly scaled places, it does count. You suppose a Brutix can be turned into an incursion-running ship? An effective one? And with WHs... well, when you can solo the lesser ones in a Drake, and the greater one need a proper fleet, again, the right tool for the job? Never lived there, so wouldn't know. Would like to!
Armor rigs are used on PvE ships sure, just that I'm so used to armor ships being slow, I don't really register their drawback there, my bad. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
340
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:18:00 -
[902] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:The active rep bonus needs to be increased to 10% per level on all ships regardless if improvements to the modules themselves happen. W/o such improvements to the bonus the imbalance between resistance and active bonuses will be no different and this discussion will simply continue for another 5+ years... On top of that, resistance is cap-independent. But I'd rather say - nerf resistance bosuses to 3.75% all across the board (yay! supercaps as well). It would prevent power creep. It's also indirect nerf of logi ships, which are sometimes considered "almost overpowered".
This is actually another avenue that I thought about for a bit. The problem with the rep bonus could have nothing to do with the actualrep bonus, but instead have to do with the relative overpowerdness of the resistance bonus. Nerfing resistance bonus to 4% per level may very well be the best avenue of approach.
Either way, the balance between the two bonuses atm is seriously lack luster and needs to be evaluated and fixed asap.
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:29:00 -
[903] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:The active rep bonus needs to be increased to 10% per level on all ships regardless if improvements to the modules themselves happen. W/o such improvements to the bonus the imbalance between resistance and active bonuses will be no different and this discussion will simply continue for another 5+ years... On top of that, resistance is cap-independent. But I'd rather say - nerf resistance bosuses to 3.75% all across the board (yay! supercaps as well). It would prevent power creep. It's also indirect nerf of logi ships, which are sometimes considered "almost overpowered". This is actually another avenue that I thought about for a bit. The problem with the rep bonus could have nothing to do with the actualrep bonus, but instead have to do with the relative overpowerdness of the resistance bonus. Nerfing resistance bonus to 4% per level may very well be the best avenue of approach. Either way, the balance between the two bonuses atm is seriously lack luster and needs to be evaluated and fixed asap. No, it really wouldn't, because ships with NO defense bonus at all are still capable of fielding decent buffers that outclass the active tank bonus in most cases. Nerfing the resistance bonus on the ships that have them won't make the active tank bonus significantly more viable. All you'll be doing is lowering the increased defense on certain select ships.
Edit: the core of the problem is the relation between buffer and local reps. Attacking resistance bonuses isn't fixing the core of the problem, at best this is unhelpful, and at worse, actually hurting balance between hulls more than it already is. |
Mund Richard
259
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:48:00 -
[904] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Edit: the core of the problem is the relation between buffer and local reps. Attacking resistance bonuses isn't fixing the core of the problem, at best this is unhelpful, and at worse, actually hurting balance between hulls more than it already is. Must agree, that nerfing something ain't always the way to fix another. There are 4? kinds of tanking bonuses atmo? Local rep, resist, increased hp, and none at all.
However, ships with none at all should also be viable, so buffing everything higher and higher is also not a solution. Currently, a ship with a good damage bonus and a good resist bonus is a package that scales really-really well for instance for fleets (going with amarr, think of how you can ask for cap inject, ships with a laser cap "bonus" are... nice for letting the important ships get more, and not being stressful on the Logis? ). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:49:00 -
[905] - Quote
deleted double post |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:49:00 -
[906] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:mynnna wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:So, absolutely no interest in thinking about the possibility that there should be a group of Battlecruisers able to fly along cruisers gang to add more DPS, and another able to fly along BS gangs to provide screen? In the first role (giving them cruiser-comparable speeds and agility, but cruiser-comparable tanks) you could put easily Hurricane, Ferox, Brutix and Harbinger, in the second role (buffing tank to stay with BSs and increasing the efficiency against small targets) Cyclone, Drake, Myrmidon and Prophecy.
Currently only Tier3s are real BCs in my view, being able to run along Cruisers adding punch and range but with a flimsy tank.
Is that such a crazy idea after all? I don't believe so. But the current changes keep the Tier1 and Tier2 BCs in a class with speed and tank inbetween BS and Cruiser, keeping them unable to fly efficiently along neither ones. Maybe it's better to think of the combat battlecruisers as " heavy cruisers", which actually do fill a niche between light cruisers and battlecruisers or battleships, as opposed to actual battlecruisers which are, as you noted, essentially battleships that are faster but less well armored. Hate to break it too you, but I believe that role is already taken If combat battlecruisers are more like heavy cruisers, I'd be more inclined to consider HACs as something more like a modern aegis cruiser or something. But like I said, trying to apply hundred year old naval concepts here leaves you coming up short, so why bother?
I'd be happy to not apply naval combat concepts if: - they weren't already applied everywhere else in EVE roles - if the proposed changes would show a clear reason behind them, allowing for meaningful uses of hulls we didn't use much so far, and keeping the useful hulls useful
What Fozzie basically say is that they plan to cut the edge to the current Tier2s to put the BC class more in line with cruisers, but what I underline is that this doesn't work because Tier1 and Tier2 BCs are still slow and agile as bricks (and that gets even worse after the changes) so they'll become just overall worse and less useful than cruisers, potentially relegating them to be a cheap platform for a link... but whoever would do that in an armor cruiser fleet if that brick-like ship 5 times more expensive than the average is slowing down all the fleet, and is also likely to be left behind all the times you have to do a how warpout? I can only think we would see some Prophecy along BS gangs because of the comparable tank, but then, who would do that if such a ship will likely have 1 link when a CS would have 3? Doesnt' make sense. What the proposed changes lead to is, for sure less BC gangs around replaced by cruiser fleets,, with the odd Hurricane mixed in (only for those pilots with more isk than skillpoints though), most other ex-tier1&2 BCs used solo or with small gatecamps. And of course in PVE, for god's sake. Is this giving more flexibility to the game, is it fun? Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Or even instead of cruisers! Or maybe I'm missing a very clear role concept (which isn't the Heavy Cruiser one of course) so please explain it to me
Beside that, Battleships aren't in commission anywhere in modern navies but we have lots in EVE, plus, guess what, we have Dreadnought capital ships too :) |
Johan March
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:03:00 -
[907] - Quote
Fozzie, thanks for the update.
Some suggestions for the Gallente boats: Either have the armor rep bonus apply to RR as well, or switch to an armor resist bonus. There is precedent in the Phobos.
I liked another poster's idea of giving the Myrmidon a secondary drone bonus and an extra midslot so it can shield tank. I like the idea of one racial BC having a tanking bonus and one not with dual offensive bonuses.
Last suggestion is for the cyclone to have an equal number of gun or launcher hard points with the ROF bonus applying to both guns or missiles. It would mesh with the Minmatar flexibility concept CCP promotes. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
340
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:10:00 -
[908] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Edit: the core of the problem is the relation between buffer and local reps. Attacking resistance bonuses isn't fixing the core of the problem, at best this is unhelpful, and at worse, actually hurting balance between hulls more than it already is.
The core of the problem IS, unquestionably, the significant relative difference in effectiveness between the two bonuses. W/o addressing this CORE issue any buffs to armor reps will not address this disparity. If you "attack" resistance bonuses making them more than 3% worse at active tanking than rep bonus you've increased the gap of "niche" effectiveness in favor of the local rep bonus which is, as already stated, the core issue here. Furthermore, fixing active armor tanking via a 50% rep amount bonus will only make it viable on only ships with said bonus. If you instead address the disparity between bonuses and THEN go and fix the reppers themselves you will be making active tanking far more viable on un-bonused hulls.
Either way, if rep bonus is to become useful, ccp must take one of these avenues of approach. 10% rep per level is a good start, however a nerf to resistance bonus coupled with an overall buff to armor reppers (leaving active rep bonus unchanged) is probably the better option.
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
570
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:13:00 -
[909] - Quote
[quote=CCP Fozzie]
What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
[\quote]
The Reactive Armour hardener is not only cruddy when compared to the Anci Shield Booster in PvP but it is cruddy in both Sleeper & Incursion PvE. One quick&EZ thing CCP Fozzie could do right now is to give the Faction Plates the same HP bonuses that the T2 plates got in addition to the lower mass ( right now faction plates are as unused as the T2 plates were 6 months ago ) to justify Faction plateshigher costs. OUR LOGS SHOW NOTHING |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
340
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:15:00 -
[910] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote: thing CCP Fozzie could do right now is to give the Faction Plates the same HP bonuses that the T2 plates got in addition to the lower mass ( right now faction plates are as unused as the T2 plates were 6 months ago ) to justify Faction plateshigher costs.
This is an unquestionably good idea. This is a must add, you've got my support darth.
|
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
29
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:18:00 -
[911] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.
On a side note. Split weapon systems are often mentioned in this thread. What often inclined is that they are bad idea to begin with. I tend to disagree with those claims. Split weapon systems are interesting and fun design and I'm sure that many players here like Typhoon. If it was as strong as other BS it would be used much more often. What makes current split weapon systems bad is an absence of specialized modules for them. Adding something like this might make it more appealing:
============================== Reload Optimisation System I 1MW 30 CPU Gives a bonus to the rate of fire for both turrets and missile launcher systems. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized/ Turret RoF bonus 7.5% Launcher RoF bonus 7.5% (Numbers and name are obviously a placeholders). ==============================
Just imagine how versatile and fun might be using BC with 3 turrets and 3 launchers. You can mix Heavy missiles for kite/Harass with AC for close dps, use HAMLS+AC for close-range burst, use different damage types on launcher/guns for different targets or put RLML in launcher slots for anti-frig support. How interesting might be fitting a ship with 6-7 high slots, 4 launcher slots and 4 turret slots. Obviously training 2 weapon systems are longer, but it will be more rewarding at the end: you will be ready for using 2 types of different weapons effectively widening amount of ships you can effectively fly. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
921
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:21:00 -
[912] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude
Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE. 14 |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
340
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:27:00 -
[913] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that all commands (except sleipnir and claymore, which already have +1 slot) will be receiving +1 slot making their total slotage on par with the rebalanced BCs. I think it's also safe to assume that the 6 year old BC HP buff that was missed on Commands (fail much ccp?) will at the very least be partially applied to Commands.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
922
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:42:00 -
[914] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE. I think it's pretty safe to assume that all commands (except sleipnir and claymore, which already have +1 slot) will be receiving +1 slot making their total slotage on par with the rebalanced BCs. I think it's also safe to assume that the 6 year old BC HP buff that was missed on Commands (fail much ccp?) will at the very least be partially applied to Commands. These are correct assumptions (bar sleip and claymore; extra high is not the same as extra mid or low), but given the price difference I don't see how comparison of these classes is valid. By that logic we should ask why use Phoons or Pests when Machariel is available.
As for CCP much failing, a couple of my favourite quotations: command ships are pretty fine as-is - CCP Zulupark, 2008 Is the Nighthawk really underpowered? - CCP Greyscale, 2011
14 |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:48:00 -
[915] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE.
You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses? If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy.
Besides, you possibly didn't check what T1 cruisers can do now. You can fit a T1 Thorax with 35k HP tank and 600 DPS, fly it 1600 m/s, and have a signature radius and agility 30% better than a shield Hurricane, which in comparison does now at top 800 DPS (without neuts). Rupture is comparable, Stabber is even faster although has slightly less DPS and tank, Maller has a great tank and good DPS and damage projection... didn't personally check the Caldari ones yet but you get the picture. So your statement would be correct if you said "Battlecruisers used to be just too much better than Cruisers", but as you can check for yourself this isn't the case anymore. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
411
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:53:00 -
[916] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE. I think it's pretty safe to assume that all commands (except sleipnir and claymore, which already have +1 slot) will be receiving +1 slot making their total slotage on par with the rebalanced BCs. I think it's also safe to assume that the 6 year old BC HP buff that was missed on Commands (fail much ccp?) will at the very least be partially applied to Commands. These are correct assumptions (bar sleip and claymore; extra high is not the same as extra mid or low), but given the price difference I don't see how comparison of these classes is valid. By that logic we should ask why use Phoons or Pests when Machariel is available. As for CCP much failing, a couple of my favourite quotations: command ships are pretty fine as-is - CCP Zulupark, 2008 Is the Nighthawk really underpowered? - CCP Greyscale, 2011
lol at Zulubadness xD |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
922
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:53:00 -
[917] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE. You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses? If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy. In that case I don't quite follow your logic: currently battlecruisers are definitely used for other things rather than gang-boosting, so intended reduction in combat stats will change nothing. 14 |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
125
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:59:00 -
[918] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:
Edit: the core of the problem is the relation between buffer and local reps. Attacking resistance bonuses isn't fixing the core of the problem, at best this is unhelpful, and at worse, actually hurting balance between hulls more than it already is.
The core of the problem IS, unquestionably, the significant relative difference in effectiveness between the two bonuses. W/o addressing this CORE issue any buffs to armor reps will not address this disparity. If you "attack" resistance bonuses making them more than 3% worse at active tanking than rep bonus you've increased the gap of "niche" effectiveness in favor of the local rep bonus which is, as already stated, the core issue here. Furthermore, fixing active armor tanking via a 50% rep amount bonus will only make it viable on only ships with said bonus. If you instead address the disparity between bonuses and THEN go and fix the reppers themselves you will be making active tanking far more viable on un-bonused hulls. Either way, if rep bonus is to become useful, ccp must take one of these avenues of approach. 10% rep per level is a good start, however a nerf to resistance bonus coupled with an overall buff to armor reppers (leaving active rep bonus unchanged) is probably the better option. Attacking the resistance buff won't cause people to start putting reps on ships with no defense bonus at all. They'll still go for buffer. People rarely even put reppers on the ships that have an active rep bonus, only doing so in special select circumstances. They still go for buffer. How does nerfing the resist bonus on a prophecy fix the gallente issue? It doesn't. The core of the problem is how bad reppers are. Not how good the 5% resist bonus is.
Now, if you buff reppers, that would make the resist bonus that much better, I'll admit. And you can adjust things after that. But the balance between armor and shield is already poor, and nerfing armor resist bonuses is not helping anything. |
Kalenn Istarion
Northstar Cabal Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:04:00 -
[919] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Myrmidon: :stuff: Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) :morestuff:
Is this right? Current wiki says Myrm already at 750s recharge rate. Also, that big a nerf to the recharge rate would decrease cap/s rather than increase. I'm assuming this is an error.
However, if it's not an error, this would be a huge nerf to the Myrm as it would significantly reduce ability to make a cap-stable multi-rep fit... Could someone please clarify? Try Harder. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2613
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:06:00 -
[920] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Quote:We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. "There are lies, damn lies . . . and statistics." Thanks very much for giving us a clear timeline on the skill change; please sticky that somewhere that isn't buried in this poor neglected forum (it needs to go in a post of its own at least in GD and Skills Discussion, with a clear subject line). That said, this comment about the Ferox shows the sort of trap you can stumble into if you start making (or justifying) decisions based too much on "metrics." The fact that you find the 250mm rails are the most common module fitted to the Ferox does not mean either that (1) rail fits work well; or (2) people use those fits. People put rails on them because honestly that's the only thing that makes sense . . . because of the crappy bonus you gave the ship. Just because this is the only fit people resort to when they happen to stumble into this hull doesn't mean that it works out well or that they keep using it. It could be that they slap rails on it, take it out once, find out it sucks . . . and then move on to the Drake. Assuming you have the stats available, you would also need to look at how many Ferox hulls total are in game vs. the alternatives, how often they undock and how much time they spend out when they do, how many total kills on NPCs and players this hull gets, and the ratio of kills to hulls destroyed (if you really wanted to understand what's going on, you would break down the kills and deaths by blaster / rail fits as well). That would give you a much more accurate picture of how the ship plays, whether people are using it, how much, how often, and for what purpose. Or . . . you could just listen to people who use the boat (or don't), and hear their reasons why. You could also play the game, which I'm sure you guys do, but since you also all have day jobs, I'm sure you are never really going to do that nearly as much as it would take to get a seat of the pants feel for how every little thing works out in practice. Maybe the optimal bonus works and maybe it doesn't; either way, you should be careful looking at stats like this to answer this question for you, because what they don't tell you is more significant than what they do. This particular stat is marginal enough that it's almost negative information; you know less about the real situation after learning it than you would if you never thought about it at all.
Instead CCP should just ignore all numbers and metrics and listen to you about how to design their games.
...
...
...
No.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
29
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:12:00 -
[921] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote: Attacking the resistance buff won't cause people to start putting reps on ships with no defense bonus at all. They'll still go for buffer. People rarely even put reppers on the ships that have an active rep bonus, only doing so in special select circumstances.
Putting active rep on ship without rep bonus is a common thing in PvE. I can safely assume that absolute majority pilots use active reps in PvE. Also I dont realy want to see lot of active tanking in PvP because it can often feel unfair when you just cant break target's tank. PvP in games with such mechanics (heavy relience on self-sustain) is usualy boring and tedious. Try to make a 3v3 with (Drake + 2 Basilisks) and (Drake + 2 Basilisks) and you will get the idea how bad it can be with abundance of active tank. Overall passive tanking is more healthy for PvP. Another suggestion: how about a fast self-repairing module with long cooldown? Something that gives quickly gives you 30-70% of your armor/shield but then unusable for next few minutes. With such things active repair bonuses would be used both in PvE and PvP. If you fit 2-3 of such modules on your ship you will get more EHP than by passive tank but it will come at cost of higher skillcap, cap dependence and lower outside repair potential. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
340
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:14:00 -
[922] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote: Attacking the resistance buff won't cause people to start putting reps on ships with no defense bonus at all. They'll still go for buffer. People rarely even put reppers on the ships that have an active rep bonus, only doing so in special select circumstances. They still go for buffer. How does nerfing the resist bonus on a prophecy fix the gallente issue? It doesn't. The core of the problem is how bad reppers are. Not how good the 5% resist bonus is.
Now, if you buff reppers, that would make the resist bonus that much better, I'll admit. And you can adjust things after that. But the balance between armor and shield is already poor, and nerfing armor resist bonuses is not helping anything.
As I already stated, if you don't address the imbalance between resistance and rep bonus we're going to have the same issues we have today between the two bonuses even after any potential bonuses to armor reps. The solution as stated, is to increase the relative active tank effectiveness between resistance and rep bonused ships more in favor of the active bonus. You can either do this by increase the effect of the active tanking bonus, which would make active reps only viable on bonused ships. Or you can nerf the resistance bonus (of both shield and armor) to 4% per level and buffing armor reppers. The second solution solves the problem of active vs resistance bonus, as well as solving the problem of armor reppers being used on hulls w/o a bonus.
In all honesty, Resistance bonus is overpowered anyway. |
Stanly Wigglignton
GaggyMcGee And The Uptown Dread Rockers
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:20:00 -
[923] - Quote
Hi, I know this is a selfish question, but I'm sure a lot of other people will be wondering this too:
What date (roughly) will the eventual changes go onto Buckinham, and live on Tranquility? I know you can't give an exact ansdwer to the question, because good things are 'ready when they're ready', but will it be less than a month, 1-2 months or later in the spring? Thanks |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
185
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:41:00 -
[924] - Quote
Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things... |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
340
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:45:00 -
[925] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...
I can't agree more, normalizing recharge rate between all of them just seems like a "balancing cop out". Incorporating cap recharge into the balance scheme of each ship is a far better idea. As an example, gallente and amarr should have have higher recharge rates in comparison to matari and caldari.
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:47:00 -
[926] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things... Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide. |
Mund Richard
259
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:48:00 -
[927] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide. The things you learn. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
341
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:54:00 -
[928] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things... Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide.
By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.
The reality is that certain ships use more cap than others and should have cap recharge that coincides with this... I'm not saying that cap recharge should "normalize" the cap usage between ships, however it should at the very least be a balancing/flavor factor. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
125
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:56:00 -
[929] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things... Standartized cap recharge rates are already implemented for frigates, destroyers and cruisers due to tiercide.
That doesn't even remotely make sense. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:56:00 -
[930] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Not positive if this has been mentioned before, but all of the BCs having the same cap recharge rate, regardless of whether or not they need it doesn't seem right. This blurs the lines between the races even more than they already are. Making all of the races the same but with different colored attacks, are we? I guess that's one way to "balance" things...
The average cap/second is the same but the nature of capacitor recharge (it's not flat but rather is a curve with the peak recharge around 25%, if I recall) means that they will work notably different in practice, since each ship has a larger or smaller capacitor capacity and recharge time.
Case in point: Compare a Brutix and a Cyclone, for example, both running nothing but an Experimental 10mn MWD. The cyclone can run that for around 17.5 minutes, the brutix for more like 23m, despite identical average cap/second. Of course, the brutix then goes and takes advantage of that by firing cap hungry guns and tackling gear and maybe running a repper (or probably not since active repping is sort of bad), while the Cyclone is running shield tank modules and possibly a point, and in the end they wind up with similar capacitor durations (~20 seconds apart or so depending on just how they're fit). This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:00:00 -
[931] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.
I dont remember much complanes back then when it was first used for attack frigates. It was obvious from the beginning that same pattern will be used for other shiptypes and sizes as well. It is not the tendention that might rise but already a direction CCP follows. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
341
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:04:00 -
[932] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.
I dont remember much complanes back then when it was first used for attack frigates. It was obvious from the beginning that same pattern will be used for other shiptypes and sizes as well. It is not the tendention that might rise but already a direction CCP follows. Inkarr Hashur wrote: That doesn't even remotely make sense.
Where was you with your "not making sense" when it already happened half a year ago?
CCP has made mistakes, and will so again, most specifically in regards to ship balance. I'd be far more in favor of going back and changing cap recharge amounts on cruisers/frigs than to just let this overly mathematically simple "direction" continue to fruition.
|
Wacktopia
Noir. Black Legion.
409
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:05:00 -
[933] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma.....
This. Drop rep bonus on Brutix for tracking? The bottom line is that now I have one of those annoying signatures. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
341
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:12:00 -
[934] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... This. Drop rep bonus on Brutix for tracking?
Negative, we already have the talos for that... Brutix needs to fallow the hype line, not the rax, talos, megathron line.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:19:00 -
[935] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote: Attacking the resistance buff won't cause people to start putting reps on ships with no defense bonus at all. They'll still go for buffer. People rarely even put reppers on the ships that have an active rep bonus, only doing so in special select circumstances.
Putting active rep on ship without rep bonus is a common thing in PvE. I can safely assume that absolute majority pilots use active reps in PvE. Also I dont realy want to see lot of active tanking in PvP because it can often feel unfair when you just cant break target's tank. PvP in games with such mechanics (heavy relience on self-sustain) is usualy boring and tedious. Try to make a 3v3 with (Drake + 2 Basilisks) and (Drake + 2 Basilisks) and you will get the idea how bad it can be with abundance of active tank. Overall passive tanking is more healthy for PvP. Another suggestion: how about a fast self-repairing module with long cooldown? Something that gives quickly gives you 30-70% of your armor/shield but then unusable for next few minutes. With such things active repair bonuses would be used both in PvE and PvP. If you fit 2-3 of such modules on your ship you will get more EHP than by passive tank but it will come at cost of higher skillcap, cap dependence and lower outside repair potential. This is already in the game. They called it "ancillary shield booster."
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:48:00 -
[936] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:This is already in the game. They called it "ancillary shield booster."
ASB was implemented poorly being overpowered on some ships by using 2 oversized ones and useless with intended module size. No such thing for amor though. |
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
219
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:55:00 -
[937] - Quote
Kristoffon Ellecon wrote:God word about faction/pirate cruisers
What this man said. Pretty please? |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
342
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:00:00 -
[938] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:This is already in the game. They called it "ancillary shield booster."
ASB was implemented poorly being overpowered on some ships by using 2 oversized ones and useless with intended module size. No such thing for amor though.
ASB should never have been added, period. It was a dumb idea suggestion by baddies in a fail "new modules" sticky thread started by ccp.
The reality is that actual, active shield tanking is something more or less non existent now. With shield tanks prior to the advent of asb's being commonly recognized as "the best active tanks", them being "replaced" by the better asb is a clear sign of a broken module.
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
125
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:17:00 -
[939] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote: By that logic, speed, mass, and agility should be normalized as well... Using the excuse of "tiericide" to side tracking the discussion of over normalization is not a great argument.
I dont remember much complanes back then when it was first used for attack frigates. It was obvious from the beginning that same pattern will be used for other shiptypes and sizes as well. It is not the tendention that might rise but already a direction CCP follows. I'm not implying that it is good or bad, but it should be looken into more complexly than just BCs. Inkarr Hashur wrote: That doesn't even remotely make sense.
Where was you with your "not making sense" when it already happened half a year ago?
Where was I? Not on the forums I'm sure.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
289
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:18:00 -
[940] - Quote
ASBs was a super nice addition for the single ASB users, but the dual ASB's broke the pvp game and CCP crapped on their own ideas balancing dual use and ******* up single use...
But yes I was a spokesman for fixing real active tanking instead of ignoring the problems and inventing something new. The idea of the ASB however is good. It's just very poorly implemented and the last nerf didn't help gameplay at all :-(
Pinky |
|
FishySquirrel
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:18:00 -
[941] - Quote
Just what the harbinger needed, more damage and less hitpoints and even speed...It isn't like it already it the first (non-tier3) primary in every BC gang....oh wait, it is. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
400
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:21:00 -
[942] - Quote
So whats this hint about buffing active armor tanking? Will all modules just get a straight buff you think? Will their be an armor ASB? Will they use less cap or something? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
344
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:30:00 -
[943] - Quote
FishySquirrel wrote:Just what the harbinger needed, more damage and less hitpoints and even speed...It isn't like it already it the first (non-tier3) primary in every BC gang....oh wait, it is.
Yeah, harby needs a little bit more speed (either through a modest mass reduction or like +5-10 m/s addition) It also needs another 50-60 grid and about 15 cpu. With those changes and the new drone bay, the loss of a slot will be a non issue. If anything I'd say that with my proposed changes it will be "better" than current implementation (live) while also sticking to the standardized slot amount now being pushed by fozzie and crew. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:35:00 -
[944] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE. You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses? If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy. In that case I don't quite follow your logic: currently battlecruisers are definitely used for other things rather than gang-boosting, so intended reduction in combat stats will change nothing.
The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be. I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at. Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before. In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1639
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 21:43:00 -
[945] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE. You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses? If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy. In that case I don't quite follow your logic: currently battlecruisers are definitely used for other things rather than gang-boosting, so intended reduction in combat stats will change nothing. The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be. I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at. Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before. In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are.
There are several frigates that can win solo fights vs a destroyer.... that doesn't mean the destroyers are underpowered vs frigates.
The truth is... tier 2 BC's are much closer to BS's in terms of tank and firepower.... and bringing them down a notch actually puts BS's in a better place on the power scale. So far, I have a lot of faith in Frozzie.. and none of the proposed changes are alarming. They are more along the lines of... interesting, how will it fit into the power spectrum now... |
Lorl Rofeller
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 21:44:00 -
[946] - Quote
Dear CCP You did a really good job on the previous set of rebalances. Don't feel you have to make up for it by doing a terrible job of BattleCruisers.
P.S. Keeping the range bonus on the Ferox? Seriously? |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 21:46:00 -
[947] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:The active rep bonus needs to be increased to 10% per level on all ships regardless if improvements to the modules themselves happen. W/o such improvements to the bonus the imbalance between resistance and active bonuses will be no different and this discussion will simply continue for another 5+ years... On top of that, resistance is cap-independent. But I'd rather say - nerf resistance bosuses to 3.75% all across the board (yay! supercaps as well). It would prevent power creep. It's also indirect nerf of logi ships, which are sometimes considered "almost overpowered". This is actually another avenue that I thought about for a bit. The problem with the rep bonus could have nothing to do with the actualrep bonus, but instead have to do with the relative overpowerdness of the resistance bonus. Nerfing resistance bonus to 4% per level may very well be the best avenue of approach. Either way, the balance between the two bonuses atm is seriously lack luster and needs to be evaluated and fixed asap.
Nerfing the other ships until the Gallente active rep bonus looks good in comparison seems like the wrong approach |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 22:50:00 -
[948] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:
You probably didn't read my whole post, but to make it clearer, I was talking about a potential role of BCs as bonus givig ships to BS gangs... so would you rather have a crappy (but cheapish) 1-link ship to bonus your gang where everyone is flying 200m ISk+ ships, or put in a 300m Isk ship to give 3 links with much better bonuses? If you'd do the first, I'm not sure your fleet mates would be happy.
In that case I don't quite follow your logic: currently battlecruisers are definitely used for other things rather than gang-boosting, so intended reduction in combat stats will change nothing. The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be. I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at. Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before. In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are. There are several frigates that can win solo fights vs a destroyer.... that doesn't mean the destroyers are underpowered vs frigates.
I'm not sure many would agree with this, especially since destroyers are meant to be the natural counter to frigates, but if you put a Rifter up against a Thrasher, both with short range fittings, I don't think that would happen. The Thrasher is meant to tear down frigates, and it does just that, but I don't hear people saying it's overpowered.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The truth is... tier 2 BC's are much closer to BS's in terms of tank and firepower.... and bringing them down a notch actually puts BS's in a better place on the power scale. So far, I have a lot of faith in Frozzie.. and none of the proposed changes are alarming. They are more along the lines of... interesting, how will it fit into the power spectrum now...
Well, some BS aren't as good as they could be but in general BSs are still tankier and have more DPS than their BC counterpart. And don't make your assumptions on how BCs were, but on the current state. If you fit a Hurricane for kiting now, you'll have around 47k EHP tank and 600 DPS @3.5+23km without a neut, while a kiting Tempest has 75k EHP doing 880 DPS @ 4+42km with faction EMP and 2 large neuts. In comparison a Stabber can have 30k EHp and can do 300 DPS @ same range as a Hurricane but goes a lot faster with a 40% smaller radius. I have tried the new cruisers in combat and I think the current power scale when you compare minmatar ships, namely Stabber/Rupture, Hurricane and Tempest is quite right, possibly with the Tempest needing a small tank buff if there's any change to be made at all. If the same correlation would be made true to other races too, all the game would be a lot more fun for everyone. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 22:58:00 -
[949] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:So whats this hint about buffing active armor tanking? Will all modules just get a straight buff you think? Will their be an armor ASB? Will they use less cap or something? I doubt it'll be a straight buff to the modules, as that would only exasperate the disparity in between passive bonuses being as good or better than active bonuses when using reppers.
What really ought to happen is that hull bonuses should be increased to 10%/level and also affect received remote reps; this would at least give some parity for active rep bonuses being useful in fleet or logi situations.
Alternatively, the bonuses could increase effectiveness of active modules, too, so a RAH would increase resists more effectively per cycle, but it's enormous cap usage would still be an issue, even post-Retribution cap decrease skill changes. |
Lucius Exitius
Protectors Holdings CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:20:00 -
[950] - Quote
Drake lost range and power and now it loses a high slot, gains mass, slower, loses tank? Drake's outside of pve were not very effective unless in a group and in most one on one situations were bad. Instead of nerfing the drake you should have brought all others up to par with the drake. Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. I tend to fly BCs in fact I don't think I use a BS. My DPS has gone down significantly and seem to be ineffective in combat, why all the Caldari hate? Missiles are the step child of weapons and now you just made them worse. My favorite class of ship seems to be losing its flair. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
567
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:24:00 -
[951] - Quote
Lucius Exitius wrote:Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well. |
Lucius Exitius
Protectors Holdings CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:28:00 -
[952] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well.
HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
567
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:30:00 -
[953] - Quote
Lucius Exitius wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well. HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take. Comparing long range torps to short range HM's (outside of size class on top of that) does not a valid point make. Also, how are you getting that range? Only way I get torps to go that far is a range bonused hull, which further throws things off. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1230
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:48:00 -
[954] - Quote
Lucius Exitius wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well. HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.
Ladies and gentlemen this is called Making It Up As You Go Along.
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:50:00 -
[955] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:FishySquirrel wrote:Just what the harbinger needed, more damage and less hitpoints and even speed...It isn't like it already it the first (non-tier3) primary in every BC gang....oh wait, it is. Yeah, harby needs a little bit more speed (either through a modest mass reduction or like +5-10 m/s addition) It also needs another 50-60 grid and about 15 cpu. With those changes and the new drone bay, the loss of a slot will be a non issue. If anything I'd say that with my proposed changes it will be "better" than current implementation (live) while also sticking to the standardized slot amount now being pushed by fozzie and crew.
The harby does not need more speed, make it fast and you would soon have 2xnano MWD fit kiters that do 500dps projected perfectly to 30km range, making it better than hurricane ever was for solo/small gank. A small +10 m/s buff would make it extremely fast when fit for speed, maybe 5m/s boost to base max. It needs tank and it needs more fitting space. All Amarr hulls need more fitting space, harby was actually the only one you could (with perfect skills) fit decently. Now if they do nerf its pg and cpu it will become a really weak ship. I dont want another fitting nightmare like Omen that with even with all skills at 5 with guns, mwd and point already has no pg for anything, and cap that lasts 1 min, so you need to fit power diagnostic unit and pick between tank or cap booster. And then realize you dont have CPU for heatsinks. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
373
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:52:00 -
[956] - Quote
Lucius Exitius wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well. HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take.
Ferox + 250mm Railgun II + Javelin M: 13,5km + 15km Heavy Beam Laser II + Gleam M: 7,5km + 10 km 720mm Howitzer Artillery II + Quake M: 7,5km + 21,9km |
Mund Richard
260
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:58:00 -
[957] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Ferox + 250mm Railgun II + Javelin M: 13,5km + 15km Heavy Beam Laser II + Gleam M: 7,5km + 10 km 720mm Howitzer Artillery II + Quake M: 7,5km + 21,9km HM CN: 63 (damage delay of ~10 seconds...) HM Rage 47
Surely we can get back on topic now. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
374
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:06:00 -
[958] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:HM CN: 63 (damage delay of ~10 seconds...) HM Rage 47
Is there a problem?
DPS: CN: 317 Fury: 372
Range: CN: 107 km Fury: 80,6 km
[Caracal, 100km HM]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005 |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
326
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:09:00 -
[959] - 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. youre right, that makes the resist bonus better than the rep bonus in certain situations because you cant "overheal"
if i have a 25% resist bonus (say on 50% base resists), and i receive 307 armor per second (the amount 1 guardian with 4 armor reps provides), i can tank 819.2 DPS
If i have a 37.5% received rep bonus (say on 50% base resists), and i receive 307 armor per second (the amount 1 guardian with 4 armor reps provides), i can tank 844.25 DPS
So here the rep bonus looks better, but what if im against an alpha fleet?
So what if my logistics ships can rep my armor back to full if one volley knocks me into structure? in most situations they would be even at best. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1640
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:19:00 -
[960] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: There are several frigates that can win solo fights vs a destroyer.... that doesn't mean the destroyers are underpowered vs frigates.
I'm not sure many would agree with this, especially since destroyers are meant to be the natural counter to frigates, but if you put a Rifter up against a Thrasher, both with short range fittings, I don't think that would happen. The Thrasher is meant to tear down frigates, and it does just that, but I don't hear people saying it's overpowered.
I've ganked thrashers with blaster atrons by getting under it's guns. I've ganked thrashers with condors by kiting out of its tackle/dps range. I've ganked thrashers with other frigates by negating it's dps with TDs, range, etc.... that doesn't make those frigates OP, nor the thrasher under powered.... It means there are vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and doing so wins you the fight.
Andre Coeurl wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The truth is... tier 2 BC's are much closer to BS's in terms of tank and firepower.... and bringing them down a notch actually puts BS's in a better place on the power scale. So far, I have a lot of faith in Frozzie.. and none of the proposed changes are alarming. They are more along the lines of... interesting, how will it fit into the power spectrum now...
Well, some BS aren't as good as they could be but in general BSs are still tankier and have more DPS than their BC counterpart. And don't make your assumptions on how BCs were, but on the current state. If you fit a Hurricane for kiting now, you'll have around 47k EHP tank and 600 DPS @3.5+23km without a neut, while a kiting Tempest has 75k EHP doing 880 DPS @ 4+42km with faction EMP and 2 large neuts. In comparison a Stabber can have 30k EHp and can do 300 DPS @ same range as a Hurricane but goes a lot faster with a 40% smaller radius. I have tried the new cruisers in combat and I think the current power scale when you compare minmatar ships, namely Stabber/Rupture, Hurricane and Tempest is quite right, possibly with the Tempest needing a small tank buff if there's any change to be made at all. If the same correlation would be made true to other races too, all the game would be a lot more fun for everyone.
In a straight up punch to punch fight... A frigate simply loses to a dessie, a cruiser simply loses to a BC, and a BC simply loses to a BS. I don't think frozzies changes are altering this template... Furthermore, how much vulnerability does a BC currently have to a cruiser? In my opinion, many of the tricks and techniques to gank a dessie with a frigate should also apply to ganking a BC with a cruiser, but BC's are typically so vastly more potent that this is very unusual.
|
|
Lucius Exitius
Protectors Holdings CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:20:00 -
[961] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well. HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take. Ladies and gentlemen this is called Making It Up As You Go Along.
No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1640
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:27:00 -
[962] - Quote
Lucius Exitius wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Yes the drake has an amazing tank but its dps sucked and now HMs barely out range torps. Define barely out range. Last check what you got with torps you could double with HM's as torp range wasn't buffed. This was post nerf as well. HMs on a drake with tech II ammo is about mid 40s, javelin torps are about 35km give or take. Ladies and gentlemen this is called Making It Up As You Go Along. No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu.
Before the nerf.... HAMS were rarely ever used.... There was rarely any reason to use them, as heavy missiles did 90% of the dps and had 4x the range. CCP could have buffed HAMs, but any true analysis of close range weapons systems and long range weapon systems clearly showed that HMs were the weapon system that's out of line.
and HAMs are awesome these days!!! |
Mund Richard
260
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:29:00 -
[963] - Quote
Lucius Exitius wrote:No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu. In return for the travel time, you still cannot "get under the guns", as Gizznitt Malikite showed a few posts ago just how powerful that is. Furthermore, I find CN missiles to be quite viable for range AND damage, while CN antimatter is only good for damage but not range. IMHO it's neither OP or broken.
Quote:Before the nerf.... HAMS were rarely ever used.... There was rarely any reason to use them, as heavy missiles did 90% of the dps and had 4x the range. CCP could have buffed HAMs, but any true analysis of close range weapons systems and long range weapon systems clearly showed that HMs were the weapon system that's out of line. and HAMs are awesome these days!!! And that. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Lucius Exitius
Protectors Holdings CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:31:00 -
[964] - Quote
[/quote]
No but in my anger at the changes I made a major mistake, and that's comparing a BS weapon with a BC weapon. I still believe that the drake is getting nerfed to much. Missiles are cool looking but still have flight time which makes them much weaker then most other forms of weaponry. IMHO the only reason HMs got nerfed was because of the Tengu.[/quote]
Before the nerf.... HAMS were rarely ever used.... There was rarely any reason to use them, as heavy missiles did 90% of the dps and had 4x the range. CCP could have buffed HAMs, but any true analysis of close range weapons systems and long range weapon systems clearly showed that HMs were the weapon system that's out of line.
and HAMs are awesome these days!!! [/quote]
Good point, I guess im just mad because I have to train HAMs now lol. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
924
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:37:00 -
[965] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote: The logic is that since currently BCs are used for several things where they do good, namely providing a good punch to mobile small or medium sized gangs, the proposed change to combat stats will reduce that use ESPECIALLY when you consider that cruisers are now much better than they used to be. I was trying to see what the reasoning behind that was, and as you agree then there isn't another role the "tiericided" BCs would be more useful at. Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before. In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are.
But what did you expect? Cruisers and battlecruisers all use basically same mods and if occasionally a cruiser manages to outplay its elder brother, then so be it. How is that wrong? Even a mighty carrier can be killed by just 2 subcaps - curse+machariel. I suspect after these changes interclass balance between Cruisers and BCs to be set pretty good. Yet again, most just got spoilt by cheap-ass overperforming ships, Drake being the perfect example. 14 |
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
171
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 01:30:00 -
[966] - Quote
On keeping the armor rep bonus for the Brutix and the Myrm, I seriously hope the armor tanking changes will go live with the BC changes. With cruisers it's still manageable, but now that we got to battlecruisers, not fixing armor tanking would seriously hurt gallente and amarr pilots.
On the drone bonus and the slot trade-off, you should consider either giving those lost slots back or make the bonus affect all drones' effectiveness on drone boats.
Edit: Minor thing, but is the Myrm hull/texture being fixed to appropriately reflect the reduction in highslots/hardpoints? I don't want Gallente to suffer from the same case of hardpointitis as some Caldari ships. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1222
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 01:42:00 -
[967] - Quote
So it looks like any BC that is currently useful is being nuked through the floor and any that is currently not useful is becoming slightly better. Personally i think these changes will make BCs an obsolete class apart from the tier 3s since T1 cruisers will do everything just as well. |
Mund Richard
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 01:47:00 -
[968] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote: Personally i think these changes will make BCs an obsolete class apart from the tier 3s since T1 cruisers will do everything just as well. In all honesty, if multiple webs are applied to a target in a fleet scenario, I'd rather be in a Combat BC. Now if I had to pick one though... I'd have a rough time to choose. Suppose it is well so? Prophecy for drones, to annoy the enemy with neuts, boost the fleet, and enjoy the armor resist and health. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
906
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 01:49:00 -
[969] - Quote
Lets take the Ferox. You can put together a fit:
High: Neutrons II x 7 Mid: Experimental MWD LSE II x 2 Adaptive Invuln II Warp Scrambler II or Warp Disruptor II (soooooo much CPU) Low: RCU II DC II MFS II x 2 TE II Rigs: Shield rigs to taste
The ship with Null gets mid 400 to 525 DPS (with damage implants) Add drones for another 80-100 DPS. The Null has a 11km optimal and 11km falloff. With void? Mid 600 to 744 DPS. (With damage implants). 6km + 5km. Add drones to that number. 75k EHP. If you want you can swap out a shield rig for a medium ACR and turn the RCU into another magstabs or tracking enhancer. You can also downgrade the guns to ions and replace the two LSE with an X-L ASB and a web.
The point is - why would I want to fly a Brutix over this? By the time you slap two MAR, a cap booster, and a MWD on the ship you are looking at Ions at best. I can get tank AND gank on the Ferox. Not so much for the Brutix. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
1222
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 02:02:00 -
[970] - Quote
Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_< Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...
(Please no...) |
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
332
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 02:18:00 -
[971] - Quote
Regarding the issue of local repping bonuses vs. resist bonuses, it certainly seems like RR may have become somewhat OP these days. Perhaps the "fix" to local repping should actually be a nerf to RR?
The comments on this thread appear to inadvertently support this thought, as does the fact that CCP restricts teams to a single RR ship in the AT. I also remember reading a post on Jester's blog, where RK was running into logi-heavy gangs, which were nigh impossible to kill.
With the introduction of T1 logis and the nerf to ECM, this situation is just going to get worse. The only counter to a logi-heavy opponent is probably going to be a blob (ugh).
A ship with a local repper, which also receives RR, should always tank better than a ship without a local repper, receiving only RR, regardless of resists. Resist modules already have the advantage of having lower fitting requirements and lower capacitor use than the local reppers - it doesn't make sense that they should also provide comparable or superior tanking, too. |
Mund Richard
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 02:20:00 -
[972] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_< Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...
(Please no...) OFC you realise, T2 425 ACs are 19CPU, 720s are 24, while HM and HAMS are 37,5 and 41,3 at max skills.
Had what, 5+3 before and one slot less? so +2 launcher -3 turret and a low... Tired, so math will be wrong.. BCU in the low +40, +2 HAM +75, -3 AC 3*19= -57, a total of +60 seems reasonable for a start after CPU V (so +48), and missile rigs eat CPU. ... But yes, ASB, ASB everywhere, with small neuts in the utility highs. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 02:25:00 -
[973] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_< Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...
(Please no...)
i think the new cpu will be eaten up (mostly) by the missile launchers as a t2 heavy assault launcher requires 50 tf while a T2 425mm autocannon requires only 25 tf.
so you need additionally 150 tf CPU just for fitting 5xHAMs instead of 5x425'ger. thats before skills so with weapon upgrades 5 you get 25% off should be at 112,5 tf addionally needed.
looks rather then a indirekt cpu reduction of 12,5 tf to me. |
Mund Richard
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 02:28:00 -
[974] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: i think the new cpu will be eaten up (mostly) by the missile launchers as a t2 heavy assault launcher requires 50 tf while a T2 425mm autocannon requires only 25 tf. Well yes, question is, if the 3 highslots that had launcher hardpoints were originally figured in with T2 HAMs in mind, T2 HMs, or ...not really anything the like (or medium neuts, that are cheaper than the launchers as far as CPU goes).
Your figure is going a bit overboard imho (or not, depending on CCP's scenario), since it did have 8 hardpoints, including 3 missiles. But mine may be too restrictive in return. /shrug Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 02:44:00 -
[975] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Just noticed the +100 CPU on the cyclone >_< Dual ASBs, dual ASBs everywhere...
(Please no...)
Are you worried about dual large ASB or dual x-large ASB? While the former fits without any issues and certainly has a formidible tank as long as it has charges (so long as you use some named gear here and there) the latter takes something like a co-processor, an ancillary current router, two processor overclocking units, and a CA-1/CA-2 implant set. If you're willing to go that far to use two XLASBs, I think you deserve to. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mund Richard
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 02:46:00 -
[976] - Quote
mynnna wrote: Are you worried about dual large ASB or dual x-large ASB? One of each? That's almost hilarious enough to relatively easily allow. Almost. How far do you get with two range rigs for HAMs, an overclocker and a Co-Proc towards that? Too tired to do more math. Off to bed (I hope). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 03:24:00 -
[977] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:mynnna wrote: Are you worried about dual large ASB or dual x-large ASB? One of each? That's almost hilarious enough to relatively easily allow. Almost.
It's actually a little HARDER to fit the XLASB fit post-patch than it is now, believe it or not. I mentioned what it takes to fit post-patch, right now it's "only" a co-proc, ACR and two POUs; add a 3% CPU implant if you want two small neuts. Two LASBs and 425mms fit without any fitting mods at all, even if you replace the co-proc with a third gyro; a 3% CPU implant lets you run three small neuts in the utility highs. So if anything they nerfed the fit. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 04:21:00 -
[978] - Quote
Hi CCP Fozzie, I mainly focus on industry and investment. I dont have the experience to comment on pvp effectiveness. However I do keep a eye on the market and tiericide has diversified the market for ships, especially cruisers. Tiericide has opened up investment opportunities for a lot of player, and once stockpiles run low, manufacturing opportunities will follow.
With this in mind I want you to be as tiericidal as possible. You are removing field/fleet command distinction, don't add it to BCs. Make them all be able to field a ganglink. People will be looking for cheap ongrid solutions soon, and they will want choices.
Neug |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
327
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 05:39:00 -
[979] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote:Basically, I think the changes would just make the T1 BC category in general a lot less interesting for PVP without any other reason for it than "oh the Hurricane is so overpowered", which honestly it isn't anymore, if it was before. In fact I have the impression that there are quite a few cruisers which could engage battlecruisers 1V1 and even win... that's not what one would expect to happen when a category of ships is so "overpowered" as seem to think they are. I think this is the point. Right now all you ever see is BCs, T3s, logis and cap ships in 0.0 with these changes, you might start to see other ships in the mix.
I dont understand where everyone got this idea of one ship "countering" another >.>
You might think that medium neuts on a cyclone "counter" frigates, until you meet someone who knows how to use his small nos to keep his AB and warp scrambler running and beats you anyway . . . |
rodensteiner
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 06:08:00 -
[980] - Quote
I'm sure this has already been said, but
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL **** DID YOU DO THE PROPHECY?????????
The only thing that the Prophecy really needed was a 4th mid, and it'd have been fine!
But now missiles? Drones? What the hell??? Can you even fly a full flight of heavies with it? Probably not. |
|
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 06:15:00 -
[981] - Quote
Sigras wrote: I think this is the point. Right now all you ever see is BCs, T3s, logis and cap ships in 0.0 with these changes, you might start to see other ships in the mix.
I dont understand where everyone got this idea of one ship "countering" another >.>
You might think that medium neuts on a cyclone "counter" frigates, until you meet someone who knows how to use his small nos to keep his AB and warp scrambler running and beats you anyway . . .
i don't know about your neck of the woods but on 0.0 i see caps, bs, bcs, cruisers and frigs(both t1 and t2) as well as t3. now admittedly some so better than others in given situations but they are all used. with the lowering of the gap between t1 bcs and t1 cruisers i suspect it will mean seeing less bcs and more cruisers for roaming and more bs for big fleets. that said if the changes go through as is i suspect that there will if anything be no or little change in the diversity of the bcs one encounters but that the particular bcs one frequently encounters will change. As some that were already rather underutilized get nerfed more (harb) while others get pushed to the forefront (proph) and still others fall in from the front of the pack to the middle (cane, drake) |
D'Angelo Barksdale
He's got a pineapple on his head
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 07:24:00 -
[982] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
To repeat, the skill split is scheduled for the big Summer 2013 expansion.
Will you include changing the capital requirements in this expansion as well? |
Mars Theran
Red Rogue Squadron
1595
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 07:34:00 -
[983] - Quote
rodensteiner wrote:I'm sure this has already been said, but
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL **** DID YOU DO THE PROPHECY?????????
The only thing that the Prophecy really needed was a 4th mid, and it'd have been fine!
But now missiles? Drones? What the hell??? Can you even fly a full flight of heavies with it? Probably not.
Bandwidth 75 indicates you cannot. You can load up a ton of them though, and fly 2 plus 2 medium and one small if you like. Or you could just use a load of Mediums. It's going to have a wicked tank though. zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
82
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 09:03:00 -
[984] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Mund Richard wrote:HM CN: 63 (damage delay of ~10 seconds...) HM Rage 47 Is there a problem? DPS: CN: 317 Fury: 372 Range: CN: 107 km Fury: 80,6 km [Caracal, 100km HM] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005 Btw, this thing was capable of some 210 km "sniping" before the change.
fitting t2 rigs worth 50m ++ each on a ship thats worth 10m with 130m++ hardwirings.gg
|
Jack Mancetti
Rennfeuer Curatores Veritatis Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 10:26:00 -
[985] - Quote
Can u stop change the proud Matarships into weak Caldari boat,noone from the Matar pilots need this crap on their ships
We like our . . . .ratatatatatatatatatatatat . . . from our autocannon and dont want this stupid,lazy,unpretentious zzzzzwiiischh from those fire and forget launchers.
Matar pilots train hard for for their ships and weapons and are the best Combatpilots in the whole space, they don't want those Kindergarten crap on their ships
Mancetti |
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 10:28:00 -
[986] - Quote
With the extra CPU the cyclone can run twin active gang links without sacrificing too much buffer and dps. Would be nice to see more of the bc be able to do this for a selection of cheap ongrid boosters.
Neug |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 11:39:00 -
[987] - Quote
I would remove one turret slot from Brutix (but either keep an extra utility high slot or replace it with +1 midslot) and replace the +7.5% rep bonus with +5% RoF bonus. Makes it even more of a proper close range gank boat than before.
Also, when will faction cruisers be fixed? After Retibution, Vexor Navy Issue became inferior to normal Vexor in about every regard. No wonder you're being accused of trolling those who fly Gallente. And faction variants of T1 logis were horrible even before. |
Mund Richard
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 12:57:00 -
[988] - Quote
While I may not support the entire message of Jack Mancetti
Jack Mancetti wrote:We like our . . . .ratatatatatatatatatatatat . . . from our autocannon and dont want this stupid,lazy,unpretentious zzzzzwiiischh from those fire and forget launchers. He's DAMN RIGHT on this one! Crosstraining Minmatar for the MORE DAKKA!
Pinkish ...Phobos ejaculating hot white ...plasma - while having it's own ..."charm"? - doesn't come close for me to a Cynabal, and it's superior audiovisual experience of MORE DAKKA.
This message has been brought to you by an Acolyte of the Temple of BOOM. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Mund Richard
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:00:00 -
[989] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:I would remove one turret slot from Brutix (but either keep an extra utility high slot or replace it with +1 midslot) and replace the +7.5% rep bonus with +5% RoF bonus. Makes it even more of a proper close range gank boat than before.
Also, when will faction cruisers be fixed? After Retibution, Vexor Navy Issue became inferior to normal Vexor in about every regard. No wonder you're being accused of trolling those who fly Gallente. And faction variants of T1 logis were horrible even before. So the same bonuses and turret count as a Cane, while also having the same utility high for on-grid boosting? Can't say I don't like.
That said, Faction ships will hopefully be fixed really-really soon, supposedly once T1 Battleships (and maybe command ships?) are done? Not sure if this was the last thing communicated or not. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
411
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:07:00 -
[990] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:So whats this hint about buffing active armor tanking? Will all modules just get a straight buff you think? Will their be an armor ASB? Will they use less cap or something?
Please god no.. anything but that!
|
|
Mr Noo
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:15:00 -
[991] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Just to point out one more time how much Harbinger is nerfed, and that the"nerfed" Hurricane is the same as before, considering the nerfs to other hulls even better than before.
Fitting both ships with just the guns the Harbinger is left with 279 CPU and 533 PG, Hurricane has 387 CPU and 575 PG left. That puts the "nerfed" Hurricane 108 CPU and 42 PG above the Harbinger to spend on same number of slots. And this is considering AWU 5.
I can't fit in Harb not only 1600 plates, but also Energized Plating or Heat Sinks.
While Hurricane pilots cries for one mid neut, Harbinger pilots cant fit something in their ship at all
It will be better if you cancel changes for Harbinger at all. |
Nathaniel Branden
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:19:00 -
[992] - Quote
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. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
210
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:35:00 -
[993] - 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 |
Nathaniel Branden
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:43:00 -
[994] - Quote
Quote: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.
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.
Please don't twist the proposal to include battleships that I've made no mention of! I'd totally agree that I would want Ravens with lasers etc.
However, players have long been fitting AC Prophecys, Laser Myridons and HAM Ferox's my proposal would only respect that tradition and incorporate into the tiercide.
|
Mund Richard
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:45:00 -
[995] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: 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 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.
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
37
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:47:00 -
[996] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Ravens with lasers, Torp Domi's and AutoGeddons. FYI, Arty-Abaddons were once the main-stream doctrine of some 0.0 alliances. |
Nathaniel Branden
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:51:00 -
[997] - Quote
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. |
Mund Richard
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:52:00 -
[998] - Quote
Nathaniel Branden wrote: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. As soon as you posted your first clearance, I've edited my post to *edited*, and have. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:01:00 -
[999] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.
Another thing that often mentioned in this thread is Warfare Links. All 8 combat BC are supposed to have their Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) remain. However I believe that Warfare Links on those ships will almost never be used. The reason for it is that unbonused links are too weak to even consider putting them on such ships. To evaluate the difference between T1 and T2/T3 Warfare Link bonusing ships just recall in your memory how often was T1 Logistic cruisers used prior to beginning of Tiercide.
Instead of having 2 BC with similar role for every empire you could make some of those BC into T1 version of Command ships. Currently Warfare Links is an exclusive thing that cannot be used on T1 ships even semi-effectively. E.g. Ferox 5% bonus to all shield resistances and 2% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level. This will bring following benefits:
1) Clearer roles for T1 Battlecruisers: Combat, Attack and Command. 2) More way for a new players to help corpmates or fellow militia. 3) Transitional path for players who like using such ships T1 => T2/T3 instead of _nothing_ => T2/T3 4) more incenitieve to train Leadership. Leadership SP will not feel wasted until character can pilot covert nullified offgrid T3. 5) Reduced disadvantage of roaming fleets without bonuses. 6) Lowering entry barrier for small-scale PvP. 7) Traditional bonus ships will not be pushed aside because of lower bonuses and tank.
Such changes will be beneficial for new players, small scale PvP and alt leveling. Think about it just like T1 Logistic Cruisers, T1 Ewar cruisers, T1 Tackling frigates. It will increase fleet diversity: fleet of T1 Cruisers/BCs with T1 Logistics and T1 Warfare Link ship might appear in New Eden much more often. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
1544
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:07:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Honestly, I think if active tanking is to be made viable again as a PvP tactic, the amount of capacitor armour reps (and possibly shield reps, although there is the ancillary shield booster) use needs to be drastically reduced.
Even then, I remember someone writing once that the problem with active tanking in a fleet engagement is that even without energy warfare, there's a very distinctive hard limit on the amount of tanking a single ship can do, so active tanking has the problem of scaling. Mane 614
|
|
Mund Richard
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:16:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.
Another thing that often mentioned in this thread is Warfare Links. All 8 combat BC are supposed to have their Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) remain. However I believe that Warfare Links on those ships will almost never be used. The reason for it is that unbonused links are too weak to even consider putting them on such ships. To evaluate the difference between T1 and T2/T3 Warfare Link bonusing ships just recall in your memory how often was T1 Logistic cruisers used prior to beginning of Tiercide. Having not much experience in BC PvP, naive as I am, I'd think part of the problem why links aren't used on T1 hulls is:
It's simply a b**** to fit them. T2 Neutron: 25/168, T2Pulse:26/187, T2_425:19/138 Compared to that, T2 Link: 55/210, a good 2+ gun's worth of CPU, and a notable PG.
A command processor on top is another 150/50, and a prescious midslot lost.
If active tanking was in a good spot, 18.75% reduction in cycle time and/or cap consumption would be nothing to sneeze at even with no bonus for a roaming Brutix gang. Resistances are stacking penalized as far as I'm aware between links and modules, so bit nerfed there. Skirmish warfare links seem interesting, acting like permanently overheating your points, or speeding up the gang even more. Having someone with 28% extra Jam resist (if the new skills are worth it) when running in caldari ECM boats wouldn't hurt.
But it ain't easy to justify an "if", when it costs the performance of one ship, and the enemy may guess which one it is (based on smaller guns fit or one missing, lower speed, the only Harbi on grid, ect). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Nathaniel Branden
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:41:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Nathaniel Branden wrote:Quote: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. 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. Please don't twist the proposal to include battleships that I've made no mention of! I'd totally agree that I wouldn't want Ravens with lasers etc. However, players have long been fitting AC Prophecys, Laser Myridons and HAM Ferox's my proposal would only respect that tradition and incorporate into the tiercide. Different weapon systems have different fitting costs. Their racial hull versions are balanced with that in mind for both fitting and cap-recharge for weapons. If a gameplay mechanism CAN be abused, it WILL be abused. For instance, the Ferox would either become a faster drake (let's say 6 RoF bonused launchers instead of kinetic-only, +1 low) with a LOT more PG, or an AC brawler with a brick tank and more cap (what's freed up with capless weapons). Do we need that? Not that I would mind the brick-ShieldBrutix that the Ferox would become.
You raise a good point regarding the fitting costs and capacitor balance of each hull!
I'd argue those differences would still encourage racial weapon systems on their respective hull, Cyclone with lasers while fun, would cap out quickly. However, the options for new and exciting fits would be great and recognise the meta of fitting off-racial weapons onto Teir 1 BCs. Thus your Ferox would certainly take some names and wouldn't just languish in station, unused and unloved.
If 5 years ago you'd of told me CCP would release a BC with BS sized weapons bonused I'd of definitely laughed. I feel this proposal is in a similar vein - I know they won't implement the proposal but my guess is you'll still be seeing ACs on Myridons, Blasters on Prophecys and even, occasionally, lasers on Feroxs unless they implement proper weapon bonuses on the teir 1 BCs. My post is just a request for CCP to recognise this trend and on 4 hulls, actively allow it. |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
82
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:49:00 -
[1003] - Quote
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.
YES.
but the i would have spaceship command for 4 races with the gunnery/missiles skills and choose the pretiest ship to fly :D |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
210
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:51:00 -
[1004] - 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 |
Nathaniel Branden
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 15:09:00 -
[1005] - Quote
Quote: 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.
Scale is very important and as a result you started to mention ships that the proposal never intended to change but never-mind, moving on:
Racial choices would still be important - especially considering the skill change is to be introduce at the same time but this would offer players more options on 4 hulls that are notorious for not using their racial weapons!
I've never flown with lasers on a Prophecy or hybrids on a Myrmidon, have you? |
X ATM092
The Hatchery Team Liquid
48
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 15:27:00 -
[1006] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at. Lower the mass, up the speed, give it more fitting. That way it can distinguish itself from the prophecy and find a niche as a mid range, decently tanked, turret boat that no other bc currently fills. |
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Black Dawn Rising
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 15:28:00 -
[1007] - Quote
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 15:52:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
u wont get ur SP's refunded unless they remove such ships from the game. can i have ur stuff?
|
Heribeck Weathers
Dred Nots
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:09:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote: stuff + If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
Thats the name of the game man, its actualy quite silly to have trained up for one ship and only put your SP into one ship. The fact that people where encoraged to train for 1 BC and stay in it is why CCP are nerffing the Tr2 BCs, To force people like you to step out of their safety zone. Maybe you can fly a tornado, or a rupture or just give me your stuff.
Over all I like most these changes, tho I really think the grid on a few ships could be improved, thats one reason the new Dessys kinda fail, you spend way to much room on fitting mods.
I for one welcome our new Prophocy overlords. |
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
660
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:11:00 -
[1010] - Quote
I only really fly the Brutix and Ferox regularly and I have to say I like the changes.
The extra low slot on the Brutix seems to push it solidly into armor-tanking, so hopefully your talk about looking into armor-tanking isn't just placating. I'd be okay with a different bonus than armor repping too, since I fly the Brutix as a single bonus ship right now anyway, but I'm trusting in unannounced future balancing.
The Ferox is getting a much-needed upgrade and I feel it'll be a solid contender. I actually like the optimal bonus for use with Heavy Neutrons/Null so i'm happy to see that retained. I'm not sure if I'd prefer an extra mid or low slot; right now my fit will use the low-slot for a fitting mod for an extra Neutron and some tank, and an extra mid would require dropping the gun size but I'd be able to fit even more tank. I'm torn, but still leaning towards the low slot (Gallente at heart...)
Overall the changes look good, except for the Harbi which is just getting ******, and I think I'm seeing an overall intention of BCs being "big cruisers" rather than the catch-all super Swiss Army knife they are now. I like the direction we're going here. |
|
Kaz Mafaele
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:23:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Its really awesome to see someone responding on here in a fairly comprehensive way thank you for doing that. Any chance you could comment on a couple things.
1. Why the new expectation for minmatar pilots its to train 3-4 weapon systems in order to be able to effectively fly their ships (a/c, arty, missiles and now drones with cyclone really needing that drone bandwith to do damage) as a player with a somewhat low amount of skill points it kills me to try to figure out when i am going to be able to train missiles and drones up properly especially since i don't think ill be feeling any desire to fly my Hurricane anymore after its second nerf in a matter of months.
2. It feels like you are trying to take away some of minmatar flexibility with these changes by adding more armor and less speed to some of the hulls and more shields to others taking away their ability to be effective with either tank.
|
Mund Richard
264
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:33:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Some Rando wrote:The Ferox is getting a much-needed upgrade and I feel it'll be a solid contender. I actually like the optimal bonus for use with Heavy Neutrons/Null so i'm happy to see that retained. I'm not sure if I'd prefer an extra mid or low slot; right now my fit will use the low-slot for a fitting mod for an extra Neutron and some tank, and an extra mid would require dropping the gun size but I'd be able to fit even more tank. I'm torn, but still leaning towards the low slot (Gallente at heart...) I'm torn on the Ferox's slots/ect.
Fitting it for full braw: With 6 slots, it would be The Holy Trinity, and a 3-slot tank, that's enough, with 5 it's a bit tight. But still one more than the Brutix. Bit less manouverable, less damaging, in return harder to kite and harder to kill.
Fitting it for sniping... well... Naga and Rokh for ganky and tanky sniping, the Ferox tries to be on the budget between the two but doesn't appeal to me in any way for that. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:33:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Kaz Mafaele wrote: Why the new expectation for minmatar pilots its to train 3-4 weapon systems in order to be able to effectively fly their ships (a/c, arty, missiles and now drones with cyclone really needing that drone bandwith to do damage) as a player with a somewhat low amount of skill points it kills me to try to figure out when i am going to be able to train missiles and drones up properly especially since i don't think ill be feeling any desire to fly my Hurricane anymore after its second nerf in a matter of months. Leaving me with ONLY a missile/drone boat.
This is not a Winmatar-exclusive concept. Think about Caldari. |
Mund Richard
264
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:36:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: This is not a Winmatar-exclusive concept. Think about Caldari. While some caldari try to pretend hybrids don't exsist as much as do minnies now with missiles, as a slight difference a few minnie ships are armor-tankable which the caldari don't have to deal with. Not that you wouldn't want to train mechanism and hull upgrades for DC and more EHP anyways, so the added burden is the armor compensation and rig skills. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
660
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:46:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:I'm torn on the Ferox's slots/ect.
Fitting it for full braw: With 6 slots, it would be The Holy Trinity, and a 3-slot tank, that's enough, with 5 it's a bit tight. But still one more than the Brutix. Bit less manouverable, less damaging, in return harder to kite and harder to kill.
Fitting it for sniping... well... Naga and Rokh for ganky and tanky sniping, the Ferox tries to be on the budget between the two but doesn't appeal to me in any way for that. Yeah, it's a matter of preference in fitting. With a six-slot mid I'd have to drop the Neutrons in favor of Ions, which means less range for that optimal bonus to work with, but a far heavier tank. OTOH a six-slot mid is much more Caldari, so I'm surprised we don't have that.
And I agree, the Ferox is a blaster boat, I don't think I'd ever use it for sniping. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:55:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Thats the name of the game man, its actualy quite silly to have trained up for one ship and only put your SP into one ship. It's actually quite what CCP is forcing people to do now by making cross-training even harder with the skills change. This problem will only get worse for new people who train into one race for months, only to find out down the line that it's only good at one thing, or sucks at everything. They are at the same time making more willy nilly changes to break things people relied on, while making it harder to walk away and train into something different when they screw it up. |
Connall Tara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:58:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
*takes shot*
let the "refund my skillpoints" drinking game BEGIN! Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 18:09:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Nathaniel Branden wrote: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. This sums it up best. The frigate and cruiser changes worked out so well; they were thoughtful, aggressive changes, that reformed all the various hulls into some clear, common roles that do what they say, and do it with some real power. The BC changes amount to doing nothing all that special for the tier 1s and just flat out nerfing the tier 2s. If you make each hull great at one thing, rather than good at everything (which was the problem with them before), then people will feel like you made a positive, rational change. As it is, they don't feel "different" . . . just worse, or not much better.
There also doesn't appear to be a unifying concept to any of the changes, other than "tier 2s were too good." Well, you know one of the reasons they were too good was due to the skill economy of the non-racial skill. Now that they're getting racialized, they need to ALL be good, and if anything they need to be better than they were (at least for whatever each one's designated role is). They also should outclass cruisers in every way, because you have told us through the new skill plan that they're a whole new class of ship, not just bigger cruisers. If that means that BCs wind up putting battleships to shame, well then that's the point of balancing them too when the time comes. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 18:13:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: This is not a Winmatar-exclusive concept. Think about Caldari. While some caldari try to pretend hybrids don't exsist as much as do minnies now with missiles, as a slight difference a few minnie ships are armor-tankable which the caldari don't have to deal with. Not that you wouldn't want to train mechanism and hull upgrades for DC and more EHP anyways, so the added burden is the armor compensation and rig skills. Every turret type allows you to use 2 versions of such turrets (long and short range). Missiles however requires you to train 2 separate skills for every weapon size. |
Mund Richard
264
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 18:23:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Some Rando wrote: Yeah, it's a matter of preference in fitting. With a six-slot mid I'd have to drop the Neutrons in favor of Ions, which means less range for that optimal bonus to work with, but a far heavier tank. OTOH a six-slot mid is much more Caldari, so I'm surprised we don't have that. And I agree, the Ferox is a blaster boat, I don't think I'd ever use it for sniping. What rigs are you looking at? I thought it fits with a PG one or so.
Connall Tara wrote:*takes shot* let the "refund my skillpoints" drinking game BEGIN! *hick* Thought it was on from page one? Darn, I took those shots for NOTHING! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
127
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:06:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
You seem mad that you were able to fly a FOTM ship (for well more than a month) |
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
660
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:12:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:What rigs are you looking at? I thought it fits with a PG one or so. I try to avoid ACRs, so three CDFEs. The fifth low would be a power diagnostic system to allow the seventh gun, which also increases shield HP. I only use two of my mids for tank for more utility. vOv |
Mund Richard
266
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:17:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Some Rando wrote:Mund Richard wrote:What rigs are you looking at? I thought it fits with a PG one or so. I try to avoid ACRs, so three CDFEs. The fifth low would be a power diagnostic system to allow the seventh gun, which also increases shield HP. I only use two of my mids for tank for more utility. vOv Ah, that explains. Using the current Ferox: 1LSE, 1 Invuln, 3CDFE: 53k assuming 6 mids, 4 lows, PG as rig instead of lowslot 1LSE, 2 Invuln, 2CDFE: 60k 2LSE, 1 Invuln, 2CDFE: 60k
So yea, -1 low, +1 mid would improve the tank, IF the neutrons fit with only one PG rig (which has no drawback). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5607
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:17:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote: ( snip) I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously. (snip)
This is the part I like the most.
So the Cane, Myrm and Drake are the only balanced ships in the game....as in more equal than any other ship?
It's an outrage! Morgan Freeman ordered me to self-destruct....now what's your excuse? |
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
660
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:23:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:So yea, -1 low, +1 mid would improve the tank, IF the neutrons fit with only one PG rig (which has no drawback). They probably would, maybe not two LSEs but almost certainly with two Invulns. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
127
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:29:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Thats the name of the game man, its actualy quite silly to have trained up for one ship and only put your SP into one ship. It's actually quite what CCP is forcing people to do now by making cross-training even harder with the skills change. This problem will only get worse for new people who train into one race for months, only to find out down the line that it's only good at one thing, or sucks at everything. They are at the same time making more willy nilly changes to break things people relied on, while making it harder to walk away and train into something different when they screw it up.
I see no problem with people dumping skills into perfecting one hull in a game with dozens and dozens of possible hulls, due to a power imbalance, suddenly being left in the cold when that balance shifts. That's the risk you take when you specialize. Maybe they shouldn't have gone for medium AC spec V. Well, they still have all the new and better Minnie cruisers to apply their perfect proj turret skills to.
And frankly, anyone who starts before April 2013 will be able to have all the racial BC Vs as well for minimal training time. There's your crosstraining. Its time to harden up, right?
|
Heribeck Weathers
Dred Nots
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:47:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Thats the name of the game man, its actualy quite silly to have trained up for one ship and only put your SP into one ship. It's actually quite what CCP is forcing people to do now by making cross-training even harder with the skills change. This problem will only get worse for new people who train into one race for months, only to find out down the line that it's only good at one thing, or sucks at everything. They are at the same time making more willy nilly changes to break things people relied on, while making it harder to walk away and train into something different when they screw it up.
You mistake the narrow minded-ness of training for one ship and training for one RACE, it should be harder to cross train in my opinion, tho i think CCP should have better descriptions of each races capabilitys before players have to chose. This is allso why CCP is making each race have diferant weapons systems and play styles now, so you dont have to cross train to try out a diferant weapon systems.
Think of those poor smucks that pull all their SP into Vagas when they whee the king of space. I know so many peopel with max navagation and Vaga skills that never use them now. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
415
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:55:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
Have you EVER tried fitting a harbinger?
I don't get what you're whining about.. You can still fit the ******* world onto canes..
|
Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 20:08:00 -
[1029] - Quote
fukier wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone.
What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?
This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.
if you up the brutix to 10% bonus for amor reps per level and made it include external incomming armor RR that would fix the scale problem with armor tanking all together... now you can fit plates without waisting a bonus. secondly get rid of the tanking bonus on the myrn reduce to only 4 high slots and give us a 6th mid slot (its a shield tanked ship anyways) and give us a bonus to 7.5% to drone optimal range and tracking per level this will make the myrm a mean green sentry machine... also to help medium rails please please please increase the rof of them... doing this would help make up for thier lackluster dps... also while you are at it rebalance hybrid tech I ammo to ad divercity... (like they did for projectile ammo years ago) thanks in advance Fuk its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
175
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 20:43:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote: its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish.
e: Whoops, you were talking about the myrm. Nevermind. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Kesi Raae
Lollipops for Rancors
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 20:43:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Hey Fozzie
If you are seriously looking at replacing the Brutix's armour rep bonus with something have you considered a overheating strength bonus? (not an overheating damage bonus like on the tech 3 cruisers)
I think having your mods be that little bit more effective when overheating would fit the Brutix very well. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
329
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 22:09:00 -
[1032] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote: its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish.
400 hitpoints translates to about ~700 EHP on identical fits (2x LSE II, invuln, 2x CDFE, anti-EM rig, DC II). That amount changes slightly depending on how it's fit exactly, but the point is that if people want to shield tank it after the patche they're not really going to notice any significant change. extra low slot = extra PDU for getting the extra shield back if you want it. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 22:12:00 -
[1033] - Quote
i would like to see the drake with a ROF bonus instead of sh resis and then drop a launcher so it would make a good link ship and make it more mobile and nerf its HP a bit that way 6 mids aren't too many combined with all the tank bonuses and excessive HP afterall its range with HAMS are even better than scorch so it doesn't really fit its brawler role. A link kiter is a better role for it. The ferox should be tankier as its a genuine brawler otherwise the drake will still be the best caldari bc with its better range and tank. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
175
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 22:15:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Sigras wrote:mynnna wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote: its not a shield tanker any more they nerfed its shield hp by 400 ish.
400 hitpoints translates to about ~700 EHP on identical fits (2x LSE II, invuln, 2x CDFE, anti-EM rig, DC II). That amount changes slightly depending on how it's fit exactly, but the point is that if people want to shield tank it after the patche they're not really going to notice any significant change. extra low slot = extra PDU for getting the extra shield back if you want it.
They were talking about the myrmidon, not the brutix. I made the same mistaken assumption at first ;( This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 22:36:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:I think CCP should have better descriptions of each races capabilitys before players have to chose. I'd agree . . . if I thought they had any idea what those capabilities are, or are supposed to be. I also don't see how mixing up weapon systems is going to help, because the way they're doing it they just wind up with these half-baked ships like the Dragoon, that can't decide what they want to be.
It's one thing to have a race have a full line of ships for each of two primary weapon systems, where each line fully commits to what it is and does. It's another thing to have these flip-flop random collections of ships and weapons, where if you train for one line for a while, then the next level up the only "good" ship is the one you can't use, because it's in the other line.
They did a really good job figuring out what each ship is supposed to do with the frigates and cruisers, and they did a good job fixing some of the mixed up toys like the Tristan. It's not clear that they're going to stay the course on that in the next round of BC and BS changes, but if they do, then it will probably go well. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 22:43:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:I think CCP should have better descriptions of each races capabilitys before players have to chose. I'd agree . . . if I thought they had any idea what those capabilities are, or are supposed to be. I also don't see how mixing up weapon systems is going to help, because the way they're doing it they just wind up with these half-baked ships like the Dragoon, that can't decide what they want to be. It's one thing to have a race have a full line of ships for each of two primary weapon systems, where each line fully commits to what it is and does. It's another thing to have these flip-flop random collections of ships and weapons, where if you train for one line for a while, then the next level up the only "good" ship is the one you can't use, because it's in the other line. They did a really good job figuring out what each ship is supposed to do with the frigates and cruisers, and they did a good job fixing some of the mixed up toys like the Tristan. It's not clear that they're going to stay the course on that in the next round of BC and BS changes, but if they do, then it will probably go well.
I agree that this round of balancing doesn't seem as focused on roles as the previous rounds they seem to be about stat swapping for example the drake/myrm and prophecy are all range ships due to their weapon types yet they all have tank bonuses whereas the harbinger looks a bit random what happened to it following the maller line to the abbadon? The myrm was meant to follow vexor line to the domi. |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 23:07:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:I agree that this round of balancing doesn't seem as focused on roles as the previous rounds they seem to be about stat swapping for example the drake/myrm and prophecy are all range ships due to their weapon types yet they all have tank bonuses whereas the harbinger looks a bit random what happened to it following the maller line to the abbadon? The myrm was meant to follow vexor line to the domi. Not as focused on awesome? Previous rounds I felt with many ships that "wow, now it all makes sense" for the ship itself, and not for a "bigger picture". More slots, expanded bays on drone ships, better bonuses to go with the ship's style, T1 logis that are not horrible but in fact work, stuff like that.
This pass is maybe the opposite, many supposedly "bigger pictures", few awesome. The Prophecy is not a step up, but a weird side (specially since there is no plan to make a drone BS or Command Ship - it's T2 hulls - , and the Arbi is an EWAR ship with a cool damage bonus, so it's weird), Harbi is still one of the hardest to fit (according to some that looked at it), the Ferox doesn't get a damage bonus like a Moa letting it also act as a fleet booster with it's high, the Drake doesn't get turned into a higher and broader damaging ship that's no longer nerfing it's own offensive system that would also let it fleetboosst, the Brutix is being hit in the shield so silly folk stop shield tanking it or suffer even more (well, as an armor tanker it is fine now, as soon as armor tanking is fixed), the Myrm get's a bay reductions as far as flight-sustaining goes(?!), the Cyclone has less bonused hardpoints than any other BC, the Cane... I feel is still ok.
So armor Brutix and Cane I didn't have anything that could be more fun on it as far as looking only the ship goes? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 00:19:00 -
[1038] - Quote
[Cheap On Grid Booster] Cyclone
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofibre Internal Structure II Pseudoelectron Containment Field I Co-Processor II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Command Processor I
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I
5 x Hammerhead II
45k EHP 70% resists 468 dps, can run both links at the same time. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 01:11:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Hmm, I'm already getting ideas about a blaster/drone prophecy. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
354
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 01:11:00 -
[1040] - Quote
brutix, only "tier 1" BC to get an EHP nerf... And its an active tank bonus, active tank fits are already light on EHP It still has a useless bonus, except now with its large shield nerf, its not as easy to ignore the tank type CCP wants you to use (armor), and instead go shield gank. I agree with what has previously been posted, the repair bonus needs to be at least 10% to be viable
Drake is still too much win, they need to nerf its shield recharge time.
I do like the change of the Harby from a 5% to a 10% damage bonus - which similar to having a double bonus, so it seems less like a single bonus ship - since the 10% energy use bonus doesn't improve applied DPS at all |
|
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 01:17:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Hi everyone! Welcome to our first ship balance thread of 2013! Today we've got a set of battlecruisers for you, the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 BCs, re-branded Combat Battlecruisers.
Another thing that often mentioned in this thread is Warfare Links. All 8 combat BC are supposed to have their Role Bonus (99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need) remain. However I believe that Warfare Links on those ships will almost never be used. The reason for it is that unbonused links are too weak to even consider putting them on such ships. To evaluate the difference between T1 and T2/T3 Warfare Link bonusing ships just recall in your memory how often was T1 Logistic cruisers used prior to beginning of Tiercide. Instead of having 2 BC with similar role for every empire you could make some of those BC into T1 version of Command ships. Currently Warfare Links is an exclusive thing that cannot be used on T1 ships even semi-effectively. E.g. Ferox 5% bonus to all shield resistances and 2% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level. This will bring following benefits: 1) Clearer roles for T1 Battlecruisers: Combat, Attack and Command. 2) More way for a new players to help corpmates or fellow militia. 3) Transitional path for players who like using such ships T1 => T2/T3 instead of _nothing_ => T2/T3 4) more incenitieve to train Leadership. Leadership SP will not feel wasted until character can pilot covert nullified offgrid T3. 5) Reduced disadvantage of roaming fleets without bonuses. 6) Lowering entry barrier for small-scale PvP. 7) Traditional bonus ships will not be pushed aside because of lower bonuses and tank. Such changes will be beneficial for new players, small scale PvP and alt leveling. Think about it just like T1 Logistic Cruisers, T1 Ewar cruisers, T1 Tackling frigates. It will increase fleet diversity: fleet of T1 Cruisers/BCs with T1 Logistics and T1 Warfare Link ship might appear in New Eden much more often.
This is a way to think about Battlecruisers as a class which has a meaning in game and not just an intermediate ship between Cruisers and Battleships. Fozzie and CCP, please consider something along these lines, or come up with some other solid concept before you start doing your changes. |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 01:44:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Andre Coeurl wrote: This is a way to think about Battlecruisers as a class which has a meaning in game and not just an intermediate ship between Cruisers and Battleships. Fozzie and CCP, please consider something along these lines, or come up with some other solid concept before you start doing your changes. Designating one as command (definetly neither combat nor attack) would be rough though. Each ship has (should have) it's fans, imagine how you'd feel if the one you like gets picked to be command and you can no longer efficiently hunt solo in it. Taking a wild guess, former tier 1 and the myrm would be it. Not that I want the Myrm to become even more of a brick, and the Cyclone to loose dps as well. And they would need to be a brick, because once they are designated as "command", seeing one on grid would make it highly likely that it IS a booster. And such, a primary canidate.
Would be better, if the Myrm had an extra non-hardpoint high, one of the caldari ones (or both) loose a hardpoint and gain a RoF or damage bonus, each ship could mount one (except the Brutix, that one would need the Harbringer's magic to be eligible). And perhaps a minor incentive to use it as well, a role bonus somewhat like the T1 logi's, let's say 5% bonus to all, or 10% bonus to the racial prefered (which is as much as 1-2% would be for a hull/subsystem) links. For all BCs that have the 99% reduction. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 01:47:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: There are several frigates that can win solo fights vs a destroyer.... that doesn't mean the destroyers are underpowered vs frigates.
I'm not sure many would agree with this, especially since destroyers are meant to be the natural counter to frigates, but if you put a Rifter up against a Thrasher, both with short range fittings, I don't think that would happen. The Thrasher is meant to tear down frigates, and it does just that, but I don't hear people saying it's overpowered. I've ganked thrashers with blaster atrons by getting under it's guns. I've ganked thrashers with condors by kiting out of its tackle/dps range. I've ganked thrashers with other frigates by negating it's dps with TDs, range, etc.... that doesn't make those frigates OP, nor the thrasher under powered.... It means there are vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and doing so wins you the fight. Andre Coeurl wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The truth is... tier 2 BC's are much closer to BS's in terms of tank and firepower.... and bringing them down a notch actually puts BS's in a better place on the power scale. So far, I have a lot of faith in Frozzie.. and none of the proposed changes are alarming. They are more along the lines of... interesting, how will it fit into the power spectrum now...
Well, some BS aren't as good as they could be but in general BSs are still tankier and have more DPS than their BC counterpart. And don't make your assumptions on how BCs were, but on the current state. If you fit a Hurricane for kiting now, you'll have around 47k EHP tank and 600 DPS @3.5+23km without a neut, while a kiting Tempest has 75k EHP doing 880 DPS @ 4+42km with faction EMP and 2 large neuts. In comparison a Stabber can have 30k EHp and can do 300 DPS @ same range as a Hurricane but goes a lot faster with a 40% smaller radius. I have tried the new cruisers in combat and I think the current power scale when you compare minmatar ships, namely Stabber/Rupture, Hurricane and Tempest is quite right, possibly with the Tempest needing a small tank buff if there's any change to be made at all. If the same correlation would be made true to other races too, all the game would be a lot more fun for everyone. In a straight up punch to punch fight... A frigate simply loses to a dessie, a cruiser simply loses to a BC, and a BC simply loses to a BS. I don't think frozzies changes are altering this template... Furthermore, how much vulnerability does a BC currently have to a cruiser? In my opinion, many of the tricks and techniques to gank a dessie with a frigate should also apply to ganking a BC with a cruiser, but BC's are typically so vastly more potent that this is very unusual.
I never said it shouldn't be possible to kill a dessie with a frig, as much as a BC with a Cruiser, but that if a destroyer usually kills frigs that doesn't mean it's overpowered, and you proved there are ways to single out the enemy weaknesses. And so you also poitn out basically that it was possible to kill a BC with a cruiser but it took a while because of the superior tank so that made it often impractical... but did you try the new cruisers, already? I am just pointing out that if some Battlecruisers were considered "overpowered" by comparison before Retribution, the combination of increased efficiency in the Cruiser class and the nerfing done to Hurricane and Drake already has leveled the difference well enough so that the proposed changes now are very much over the top. What we would all benefit more would be a review of the tier1 & 2s in a way that actually has a meaning, not just as a way to dumb some fun ships, and half-bake a few others still keeping them in a no-man land. |
Midori Tsu
Evolution The Retirement Club
114
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 02:06:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Am i the only one who has noticed how ridiculous the fitting ability cyclone will be?
it has the ability to use dual X-L ASB, full rack of hams, mwd and 2 BCUs, while still maintaining the ability to tackle.
And if we went the passive route it can fit a bigger tank than the hurricane (that's fine) while being able to go the same speed and having the ability to use 2 neuts. not mention still having a full rack and 3 BCUs
I'm not sure if this was intended or not, but being able to fit dual X-L ASB on sub battleship without sacrificing minimal dps seems a bit broken.
Maybe lower the grid to 1000? |
Malcorian Vandsteidt
Black Dawn Rising
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 02:11:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player. u wont get ur SP's refunded unless they remove such ships from the game. can i have ur stuff? edit- btw, when they nerfed heavy missiles and the canes grid, i actually said the cane pilots weren't whining because they tended to have a better perception of balance and the rugged maturity to adapt...so thanks for this ^^ lol just make me out to be a right liar.
We do, and we usualy don't complain, I have an adapted cane. This is simply me expressing my frustration with the whole thing. I agree the BC's needed an overhaul, but it wasnt the ones they are nerfing that needed the overhauls it was the others that needed buffs. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 02:18:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote: I agree the BC's needed an overhaul, but it wasnt the ones they are nerfing that needed the overhauls it was the others that needed buffs.
Power creep. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 02:25:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote: This is a way to think about Battlecruisers as a class which has a meaning in game and not just an intermediate ship between Cruisers and Battleships. Fozzie and CCP, please consider something along these lines, or come up with some other solid concept before you start doing your changes. Designating one as command (definetly neither combat nor attack) would be rough though. Each ship has (should have) it's fans, imagine how you'd feel if the one you like gets picked to be command and you can no longer efficiently hunt solo in it. Taking a wild guess, former tier 1 and the myrm would be it. Not that I want the Myrm to become even more of a brick, and the Cyclone to loose dps as well. And they would need to be a brick, because once they are designated as "command", seeing one on grid would make it highly likely that it IS a booster. And such, a primary canidate. Would be better, if the Myrm had an extra non-hardpoint high, one of the caldari ones (or both) loose a hardpoint and gain a RoF or damage bonus, each ship could mount one (except the Brutix, that one would need the Harbringer's magic to be eligible). And perhaps a minor incentive to use it as well, a role bonus somewhat like the T1 logi's, let's say 5% bonus to all, or 10% bonus to the racial prefered (which is as much as 1-2% would be for a hull/subsystem) links. For all BCs that have the 99% reduction.
You're quite right, if there will be just a group of T1 BCs able to be boosters, they should just become "the bricks", and that's not so much fun if you liked to fly them.
I think that there's a way to avoid this by giving all ex-tier1 & 2 BCs a specialized bonus allowing them to fit 2/3 unbonused links, and then you could have one group meant to be fast and agile as cruisers, with comparable (if slightly stronger) tanks and just the same kind of weaponry cruisers have with 2/3 more hardpoints, and another with BS-like tank and speed (if slightly faster), and a set of weapons meant to counter smaller ships (drones, tracking bonused turrets or explosion-speed bonused missiles, etc). This way everyone will have a choice with the ship, you can fit it for more DPS so you use the extra slots for more guns, or you fit it for boosting and you put the links in.
This way we could have T1 bonus ships for armor and shield fleets, for cruiser an battleship fleets, and you can use those also solo if you want but they won't be even remotely overpowered, being either cruisers with more punch or battleships able to take on smaller ships. So for example, Brutix, Ferox, Harbinger and Hurricane would become "fast booster" and Myrmidon, Drake, Prophecy and Cyclone would become "heavy booster".
Mind you, this isn't meant as a "finished" proposal, but a rough concept to further the discussion... |
Arathella
Corpus Hermeticum Inc
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 03:02:00 -
[1048] - Quote
What is the reason Myrmidon has one slot less than other BCs? |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
681
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 03:24:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Arathella wrote:What is the reason Myrmidon has one slot less than other BCs?
the same reason why you choose to not read the thread first... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Arathella
Corpus Hermeticum Inc
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 03:47:00 -
[1050] - Quote
fukier wrote:Arathella wrote:What is the reason Myrmidon has one slot less than other BCs? the same reason why you choose to not read the thread first...
Which is what? I humbly beg to enlighten me. |
|
auraofblade
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 04:05:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Well, I'm a bit of a noob on the topic, but I'd like to throw a crazed Ferox idea into the mix.
What if you split the 10% Optimal into 5% Optimal and 5% Tracking? Or whatever balanced numbers would be.
The problem I see with the Ferox is this: there's no reason to take it as a sniper over anybody else (eg: Naga), it isn't the best Shield tank (eg: Drake), and it's outclassed at using Rails/Blasters (eg: Everything Gallente). So, what I'm suggesting is to create an odd niche for it as a midrange Railgun boat, or at the very least an off-sniper that has a better time with more mobile targets. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 07:03:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Arathella wrote:fukier wrote:Arathella wrote:What is the reason Myrmidon has one slot less than other BCs? the same reason why you choose to not read the thread first... Which is what? I humbly beg to enlighten me. It was asked earlier and it is because of the "utility" and "versatility" of drone ships. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
927
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 07:21:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Arathella wrote:fukier wrote:Arathella wrote:What is the reason Myrmidon has one slot less than other BCs? the same reason why you choose to not read the thread first... Which is what? I humbly beg to enlighten me. It was asked earlier and it is because of the "utility" and "versatility" of drone ships. Because drone bay itself is effectively a slot (or several) till its size reaches a certain point. 14 |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 08:12:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Because drone bay itself is effectively a slot (or several) till its size reaches a certain point. Because drone ships have to give up half there DPS to gain the effects of 1 ewar module using drones? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 09:11:00 -
[1055] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Because drone bay itself is effectively a slot (or several) till its size reaches a certain point. Because drone ships have to give up half there DPS to gain the effects of 1 ewar module using drones? Yes. Had the same thing with the Vexor as well for instance, only there you still get one bonused gun less than it's gunship counterpart the Thorax. Here you getan extra mid, two guns less, all are unbonused, and unless you get a scram on your target, every last kiting BC will evade every drone of yours with it's MWD on, since drones getting in orbit turn theirs off. And Ogres don't get in range in the first place anyways.
And it cannot sustain two flights of drones. Utility indeed. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Dewgong
Drama Llamas Dark Therapy
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 09:16:00 -
[1056] - Quote
The new Proph isn't even remotely useful tbh. You'd practically get more use out of the current one than this new one, even if the concept of a drone boat is nice. Simply said, it doesn't work for the Dragoon, it wont work for the Proph. ****, if I really want to use a Dragoon, might as well use a Sentinel instead, ya know?
If you're going to be essentially completely redoing ships so drastically, you're better off only tweaking them and just introducing another tier 1 BC for the ideas you have.
As Rodensteiner said, just give the Proph another mid and it's instantly usable for the most part.
Also, please, for the love of god, don't touch the Harb. It's fine as is (or at least give it a little more CPU, don't take that **** away, it's tight on the fitting as is)
As far as the idea of making a dedicated boosting ship, we already have that in Command Ships (and to a growing extent, T3s) It's nice to have the ability on BCs, but honestly, who does it these days? Just give them a singular combat role and leave it at that <_<
Wouldn't mind an amarr BC (non Tier 3) that has a range bonus (I'm looking at you Proph) though. And while drone boat does fit Amarr (considering Crucifier and Arbitrator hulls, the Dragoon now, and in a sense, the Magnate) it's just a big mess with what you did with the Dragoon and are considering for the Proph. God help us if you even try this **** on the Curse and Pilgrim.
With the number of BCs that can field a full flight of medium drones or lights, a drone boat has to be able to field Heavies to really stand out, or have enough of a 'something else' to make them stand out. The default '10% more damage per level' just doesn't really cut it when you're at the BC level. Sure you can send like, two heavies and some mediums, but seriously, that's just not really a great move, it's why mixed damage/weapon platforms don't preform well (minus the Typhoon, but :Battleship: happens with that)
Edit: Also, if you can give a role bonus to the drone boats of like can use up to 7 drones at once, the Myrm and the Proph (moreso the proph) instantly become decent and worth the time to actually bother fitting up. Sure they can't use heavies, and the non-bonused turrets/launchers become less of an embarrassment. Sure they can't use heavies, but I think it's a fair substitute. |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 09:26:00 -
[1057] - Quote
Dewgong wrote:With the number of BCs that can field a full flight of medium drones or lights, a drone boat has to be able to field Heavies to really stand out, or have enough of a 'something else' to make them stand out. The default '10% more damage per level' just doesn't really cut it when you're at the BC level. Sure you can send like, two heavies and some mediums, but seriously, that's just not really a great move, it's why mixed damage/weapon platforms don't preform well (minus the Typhoon, but :Battleship: happens with that)
Edit: Also, if you can give a role bonus to the drone boats of like can use up to 7 drones at once, the Myrm and the Proph (moreso the proph) instantly become decent and worth the time to actually bother fitting up. Sure they can't use heavies, and the non-bonused turrets/launchers become less of an embarrassment. Sure they can't use heavies, but I think it's a fair substitute. Earlier in this thread, I tried to suggest getting the silly bandwidths down to 5 equal-sized drones and buff drone damage in return to fix tracking and mix-matched spares. Totally messed up the numbers, someone was kind enough to correct it for me instead of laughing. Corrected numbers here.
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
1020
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 10:00:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Thats the name of the game man, its actualy quite silly to have trained up for one ship and only put your SP into one ship. It's actually quite what CCP is forcing people to do now by making cross-training even harder with the skills change. This problem will only get worse for new people who train into one race for months, only to find out down the line that it's only good at one thing, or sucks at everything. They are at the same time making more willy nilly changes to break things people relied on, while making it harder to walk away and train into something different when they screw it up. I see no problem with people dumping skills into perfecting one hull in a game with dozens and dozens of possible hulls, due to a power imbalance, suddenly being left in the cold when that balance shifts. That's the risk you take when you specialize. Maybe they shouldn't have gone for medium AC spec V. Well, they still have all the new and better Minnie cruisers to apply their perfect proj turret skills to. And frankly, anyone who starts before April 2013 will be able to have all the racial BC Vs as well for minimal training time. There's your crosstraining. Its time to harden up, right?
Its time for them to harden up. We won't have to since, we were given the easy way out.
Suppose it will be like finally making senior level in high school and we get to raze all the new freshman.
But like the guy said, read the balancing BC dev blog. CCP wants you to pick just one ship or one race to train to lvl 5. That way new players are kind of like vets. CCP always mentions, that they don't ever expect new players to catch up to vets, and they will always be kind of shafted, unless they get lucky with the one ship or race they choose to train. So far with me choosing gallente then drone boats, I have not been so lucky.
Also a quick question to CCP Fozzie, do you really support those ideas, considering you put minmitar guns on your proteus in the CCP player event? I mean that is pretty much the opposite of specializing to combat vets. Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 10:24:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Dewgong wrote:With the number of BCs that can field a full flight of medium drones or lights, a drone boat has to be able to field Heavies to really stand out, or have enough of a 'something else' to make them stand out. The default '10% more damage per level' just doesn't really cut it when you're at the BC level. Sure you can send like, two heavies and some mediums, but seriously, that's just not really a great move, it's why mixed damage/weapon platforms don't preform well (minus the Typhoon, but :Battleship: happens with that)
Edit: Also, if you can give a role bonus to the drone boats of like can use up to 7 drones at once, the Myrm and the Proph (moreso the proph) instantly become decent and worth the time to actually bother fitting up. Sure they can't use heavies, and the non-bonused turrets/launchers become less of an embarrassment. Sure they can't use heavies, but I think it's a fair substitute. Earlier in this thread, I tried to suggest getting the silly bandwidths down to 5 equal-sized drones and buff drone damage in return to fix drone tracking, speed, and mix-matched spares. Totally messed up the numbers, someone was kind enough to correct it for me instead of laughing. Corrected numbers here. They are quite high. +1 drone launchable each level (like the Guardian Vexor and carriers) for the Prophecy after BC level 3, and for the Myrm after level 1 (or even there for full bandwidth) usage would be fun, but unlikely. I as well like the idea of a 5+ drone ship, but on anything bigger than light drones is would be a waste, as such 2med=1large but 2 light =/= 1 med. As has been said before we need a complete drone overhaul. I think maybe the method behind fighters DPS may be correct, each drone does the same amount of DPS but with different ROF, alpha, HP, velocity, optimum range ect Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
3264
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:03:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang Liang, I'm not sure if you noticed, but the fitting nerf is to compensate for the loss of the 7th turret. You actually get slightly more fitting if you were using Heavy Pulse IIs, even if you do have all fitting skills at V. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
928
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:05:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Because drone bay itself is effectively a slot (or several) till its size reaches a certain point. Because drone ships have to give up half there DPS to gain the effects of 1 ewar module using drones? How about you stick to your drone DPS and gain ewar effects via regular modules, like the rest of us? My hi-slots don't allow me to gain EW effects at all, so what?
Simply put, drones in your case replace guns - so why wonder that you have less turret hardpoints? 14 |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:17:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Because drone bay itself is effectively a slot (or several) till its size reaches a certain point. Because drone ships have to give up half there DPS to gain the effects of 1 ewar module using drones? How about you stick to your drone DPS and gain ewar effects via regular modules, like the rest of us? My hi-slots don't allow me to gain EW effects at all, so what? Simply put, drones in your case replace guns - so why wonder that you have less turret hardpoints? i know why i have less turret hardpoints, less slot lay out is the question. And if drones are supposed to be used only for damage then where is the "versatility" that they are supposed to have? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Kitsune Jones
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:29:00 -
[1063] - Quote
+1 on the "Don't touch the Harbinger's tank" list. The Harbinger's a poster child for BC balance as it is right now: tough but not invincible, decently-gunned but with a big sig to make it especially vulnerable to big guns. I very much doubt that at any point ever in Eve history have the words, "Oh god they're flying Harbingers, we're screwed." been uttered.
Giving the Prophecy a weird drone bandwidth number like 75 is not doing it any favors. What is anyone supposed to do with that? Three heavies is just laughable. One heavy and four mediums? Two heavies and three lights? An Arbitrator flying five mediums is going to have just about equivalent firepower to a Prophecy, with the added bonuses of being smaller, faster, and having ewar bonuses. If you're going to make a ship that's big and slow and depends on drones to do anything, go whole hog and give it the full 125. Even then, the only reason most people would fly that instead of just getting a Dominix is if they have some big Amarr fetish.
I don't think anyone can really say that they weren't expecting an eventual Drake tank nerf, though that along with the heavy missile nerf may wind up dumping the ship in the trashbin in the minds of many pilots. Drakes were never paragons of damage, just immense survivability. If the survivability is getting yanked, they really deserve a damage boost to compensate, at least enough to bring them back to pre-heavy missle nerf areas. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
928
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:47:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Because drone bay itself is effectively a slot (or several) till its size reaches a certain point. Because drone ships have to give up half there DPS to gain the effects of 1 ewar module using drones? How about you stick to your drone DPS and gain ewar effects via regular modules, like the rest of us? My hi-slots don't allow me to gain EW effects at all, so what? Simply put, drones in your case replace guns - so why wonder that you have less turret hardpoints? i know why i have less turret hardpoints, less slot lay out is the question. And if drones are supposed to be used only for damage then where is the "versatility" that they are supposed to have? Count on your fingers how many utility highs are left on a typical turret ship after placing all the guns. Guns require slots, that's why you have less highs.
Versatility in your case is an option to do X at timestamp/situation Y. It doesn't mean you have to use X all the time. 14 |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 12:38:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Thing is a Drone is not a turret ship it is a drone ship, it has upgrades that span all 3 wracks, destroyable damage, and most every one has a split weapon system.
and every ship has the ability to do X at timestamp/situation Y, so that arguement is invalad.
BTW every minmatar turret ship has at least 1 utility high slot, and every frigate turret ship has a utility high slot. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 13:20:00 -
[1066] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
Back to reality
If proposed changes go live Hurricane will:
Have a little more EHP shield tanked Have a lot more EHP armor tanked Mass addition is gonna "nerf" your speed when mwd fit about ~20m/s, afterburner fit ~5m/s You loose one neut (and almost all other bc dont even have utility high slots anymore)
As for PG nerf that happened in december you can still fit all the ac setups without a problem, and for arty fits you might actually need to train AWU4-5 or get an implant.
Hurricane is still class above all other BC, especially now when Drake is nerfed. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
129
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 13:31:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:BTW every minmatar turret ship has at least 1 utility high slot, and every frigate turret ship has a utility high slot.
So I take it Tornado and Maelstrom don't exist (and technically Typhoon, as it has split bonuses)? And seemingly, neither do Incursus, Merlin and Tormentor :p
|
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 13:32:00 -
[1068] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Hurricane is still class above all other BC, especially now when Drake is nerfed. The Drake ain't dead yet as well. It still has the second highest base HP to it's primary tank (after the Prophecy), it still has it's 5% resist bonus (just like the Prophecy), and has 6 midslots which is unlike any BC (though beaten by the Prophecy's 7 lows)... Heck, even 5 slots are rare (Ferox, Myrm, Cyclone). And the only other missile BC has only 5 bonused launchers.
What it did get nerfed by, is mainly the buff it didn't get to the launchers, and the loss of it's utility high.
Right now the ones still having utility highs are the Prophecy, both Minnie ships (Cyclone at two), and if you are counting the Myrm's full rack of unbonused guns (I wouldn't, or else I'd fly a Prophecy if armor tanking). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 13:38:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Hey i'm just begginer, but...
Why set prophecy bandwitch to 75 ? It's not huge droneship it's abomination. I know its cool and easy to just set numbers like 25, 50,75,100. But when you actually think about this bandwitch it's terribad. Why? Because if you want to max damage out of this hull you will be forced to send some gimmick squads of : 2x heavy / 2xmedium/1x small. 3 types of drones all with diffrent speed, signature, tracking etc. It's awful idea. So you can also send something like 1 heavy and 4 mediums(i dont see it as better but just example). Now you are looking at it and you see that it actually does only have 1 heavy over 1 medium drone advantage VS Arbitrator.
Ok my english sucks so i will go straight to the point. I don't ask 125 bandwitch , but 80 bandwitch is absolutely ok. Why ? It let's you send 2 heavy and 3 medium drones and that is reasonable damage advantage over Amarr Arbitrator. Think about it. |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 13:43:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:2x heavy / 2xmedium/1x small. 3 types of drones all with diffrent speed, signature, tracking etc. It's awful idea. So you can also send something like 1 heavy and 4 mediums(i dont see it as better but just example). Now you are looking at it and you see that it actually does only have 1 heavy over 1 medium drone advantage VS Arbitrator. Or keep the 50 bandwidth, and get more than +10%/level to the drone damage instead?
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers Intrepid Crossing
168
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 13:47:00 -
[1071] - Quote
WTF DID YOU DO TO MY HARBINGER!!!!!! it was fine the way it was, if anything it should have gotten a slight boost to fittings |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 13:57:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:2x heavy / 2xmedium/1x small. 3 types of drones all with diffrent speed, signature, tracking etc. It's awful idea. So you can also send something like 1 heavy and 4 mediums(i dont see it as better but just example). Now you are looking at it and you see that it actually does only have 1 heavy over 1 medium drone advantage VS Arbitrator. Or keep the 50 bandwidth, and get more than +10%/level to the drone damage instead? So it actually outperforms every single pre carrier drone ship when fighting cruisers , destroyers and frigates ? I like but not gonna to happen ;). |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 14:05:00 -
[1073] - Quote
Kaz Mafaele wrote:Its really awesome to see someone responding on here in a fairly comprehensive way thank you for doing that. Any chance you could comment on a couple things.
1. Why the new expectation for minmatar pilots its to train 3-4 weapon systems in order to be able to effectively fly their ships (a/c, arty, missiles and now drones with cyclone really needing that drone bandwith to do damage) as a player with a somewhat low amount of skill points it kills me to try to figure out when i am going to be able to train missiles and drones up properly especially since i don't think ill be feeling any desire to fly my Hurricane anymore after its second nerf in a matter of months. Leaving me with ONLY a missile/drone boat.
2. It feels like you are trying to take away some of minmatar flexibility with these changes by adding more armor and less speed to some of the hulls and more shields to others taking away their ability to be effective with either tank.
And another reality check
1. All races have to train guns (long and short range ones), drones and missiles. And when you consider how much easier Minmatar ships are to fit (witch you should) Minmatar are actually the easiest race to train for new players. Not to mention you dont need Controlled Bursts at all, and you can skip Sharpshooter unless you really want to use arty, you dont need to rush lvl 5 capacitor skills etc.
2. 300,000 mass addition will slow you ~20m/s with mwd when you shield tank. If you armor tank not even that much. And afterburner ~5m/s reduction. And Hurricane will have bigger tank if those changes go live, so it will actually get buffed not nerfed.
|
NinjaStyle
hirr Against ALL Authorities
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 14:31:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Just to point out one more time how much Harbinger is nerfed, and that the"nerfed" Hurricane is the same as before, considering the nerfs to other hulls even better than before.
Fitting both ships with just the guns the Harbinger is left with 279 CPU and 533 PG, Hurricane has 387 CPU and 575 PG left. That puts the "nerfed" Hurricane 108 CPU and 42 PG above the Harbinger to spend on same number of slots. And this is considering AWU 5.
Hurricane is considerably faster than Harbinger, having more than 200m/s advantage over it when both are shield tanked and MWD fit. Not to mention much better acceleration and agility. Hurricane is still the fastest BC (the new Cyclone is ~20m/s faster when both are MWD fitted.).
Too add even more salt to the wound now Hurricane even has better tank, getting actually buffed overall in the tanking department while the Harbinger was hit hard, especially the shield. Now since we cant really talk about armor tanked setups (since Harbinger cant even fit a 1600 plate, propulsion and guns without and implant, and just one heat sink wound push it over the limit), before this Harbinger had a healthy 3k more EHP than Hurricane, and that was ok considering it is a much slower ship, and that Harbinger pilot needed implants and AWU5 to actually fit such a tank while Hurricane pilots could get it with AWU3 and still some PG to spare. Now shield tanked canes have more EHP and are still much faster.
And when we add capacitor problems in the picture it just gets better. To be fair Harbinger has much better damage projection over 10 kilometers thanks to scorch ammo and will considerably outdamage the Hurricane at those distances, but considering its speed it cant really kite anything and its tracking is so terrible that anything that comes closer to those 10 kilometers probably wont get hit at all. So in a nutshell Hurricane has better tank, more speed, incredibly easier fitting and (depending on situation) comparable damage.
Harbinger needs to have some fitting options without implants, the nerfs are too much. It should not be a fast ship, it would be op with scorch, but it at least needs a good tank. And you ppl could really try and fix the Hurricane, one neut less does not really make a difference, especially now when most other battlecruisers lost their utility slots as well, and it even got a better tank. It is now even better than before, with nerfs to the drake the cane is now the by far the best battlecruiser, its not even debatable anymore. Don't let this post jump out and bite anybody since its full of fact
Wow I knew the harb had it hard and it was insanely hard to fit back in the day but I didn't know it was this bad... no wonder it's been pointless to even try....
Fozzie: I realy gotta ask. Are the original designs for the Harb realy correct? Or could this actually be intended? if so huh? what?
Thanks to writing this up Grath. |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 14:37:00 -
[1075] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote: So it actually outperforms every single pre carrier drone ship when fighting cruisers , destroyers and frigates ? I like but not gonna to happen ;). My Domi will still 1 or 2-shot incoming frigs with it's 5 sentries omnilinked and DDA-d, while the Myrm would have only two.
So no, not quite outperform, only at point-blank range. And at that range, a battleship SHOULD be outperformed by it's smaller counterparts (unless fitting smartbombs, which is a reaaally smart choice while your drones are out).
And on BS level, the 6 bonused Large hybrids and 5 sentries/heavies... Yea, won't fear for the Domi, even if it will have less drone damage bonus from hull, than a Myrm. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
928
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 14:56:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Thing is a Drone is not a turret ship it is a drone ship, it has upgrades that span all 3 wracks, destroyable damage, and most every one has a split weapon system.
and every ship has the ability to do X at timestamp/situation Y, so that arguement is invalad. Yeah, my 25m3 worth of drones surely provide me a bunch of options. 14 |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 15:01:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote: So it actually outperforms every single pre carrier drone ship when fighting cruisers , destroyers and frigates ? I like but not gonna to happen ;). My Domi will still 1 or 2-shot incoming frigs with it's 5 sentries omnilinked and DDA-d, while the Myrm would have only two. So no, not quite outperform, only at point-blank range. And at that range, a battleship SHOULD be outperformed by it's smaller counterparts (unless fitting smartbombs, which is a reaaally smart choice while your drones are out ). And on BS level, the 6 bonused Large hybrids and 5 sentries/heavies... Yea, won't fear for the Domi, even if it will have less drone damage bonus from hull, than a Myrm.
"My Domi will still 1 or 2-shot incoming frigs with it's 5 sentries omnilinked and DDA-d, while the Myrm would have only two." Exactly incoming. You think it's all pve. When it's not and so called pvp -orbiting frigates laugh at your omnilinks and sentries. Let's say prophecy would have 20% per level to damage on all drones. Now it's light drones deal about same damage as medium but are faster and got better tracking etc. So yeah at this point you would have not only to start fear about your domi, but honestly domi would be subpar as pvp drone ship. On top of that prophecy crazy 7 low/4 mid layout cominbed with ship resistance bonus would make it TOUGHER than dominix. Yeah i got it right. Maybe not EHP but sure in fleet with remote reps.
Don't get me wrong i love prophecy hull, i'm big amarr fan but giving ideas out of ... back ;) is not good idea. I have strong feeling that devs ignore some posts with crazy unreal/overpowered ideas, while they pay attention to those that are more realistic in terms of ship balance.
Edit : i just talk about pvp as i don't see anyone pick prophecy as hull for pve. After changes of course. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 15:09:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Thing is a Drone is not a turret ship it is a drone ship, it has upgrades that span all 3 wracks, destroyable damage, and most every one has a split weapon system.
and every ship has the ability to do X at timestamp/situation Y, so that arguement is invalad. Yeah, my 25m3 worth of drones surely provide me a bunch of options. Does it not? Many ships got drone bays added with the cruiser tieracide and others were expanded they could be removed and then you would go back to standard options, but with it you have many more options and don't have to sacrifice your primary DPS to do so. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
928
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 15:27:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Thing is a Drone is not a turret ship it is a drone ship, it has upgrades that span all 3 wracks, destroyable damage, and most every one has a split weapon system.
and every ship has the ability to do X at timestamp/situation Y, so that arguement is invalad. Yeah, my 25m3 worth of drones surely provide me a bunch of options. Does it not? Many ships got drone bays added with the cruiser tieracide and others were expanded they could be removed and then you would go back to standard options, but with it you have many more options and don't have to sacrifice your primary DPS to do so. Specialized drone vessels have bigger drone bays and thus bigger versatility in the sense I stated above. I don't quite get your general idea - you think a ship with extra dronespace should at the same time also have normal number of slots? Like eating a cake and having it? 14 |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
408
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 15:37:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Yes but to use that versatility they must give up a large portion of there DPS Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 15:52:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Yes but to use that versatility they must give up a large portion of there DPS
Dedicated drone ships are -1 slot in comparison to ships of similar class/"tier". This is how it's more or less been for a very very long time. No amount of pointless arguing is going to get this changed...
Myrmidon and proph will be -1 slot compared to the rest. No point in continuing that specific line of discussion.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1608
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 16:24:00 -
[1082] - Quote
Why not? Having one less slot makes no sense and nobody has ever come up with any kind of proper explanation why it should be kept so.
"it's always been like that" is not an argument.
If any other non-combat drones besides dishonour drones would make any sense, the slot/versatility argument would make sense.
But now it's about giving up 500 dps for 1/6th of a web, except that the "webs" are too slow to even catch their target. This is why I suggest expanding the drone bonus to all drones to make them viable choices on drone ships.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Arathella
Corpus Hermeticum Inc
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 16:26:00 -
[1083] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Yes but to use that versatility they must give up a large portion of there DPS Dedicated drone ships are -1 slot in comparison to ships of similar class/"tier". This is how it's more or less been for a very very long time. No amount of pointless arguing is going to get this changed... Myrmidon and proph will be -1 slot compared to the rest. No point in continuing that specific line of discussion.
Why not? Is it appropriate to bring this up in the BC rebalancing feedback? As for "this is how it's more or less been for a very very long time": Ishtar - 15 slots, Demios - 15 slots
|
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 16:30:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Don't get me wrong i love prophecy hull, i'm big amarr fan but giving ideas out of ... back ;) is not good idea. I have strong feeling that devs ignore some posts with crazy unreal/overpowered ideas, while they pay attention to those that are more realistic in terms of ship balance.
Edit : i just talk about pvp as i don't see anyone pick prophecy as hull for pve. After changes of course. Edit2: Was talking about small drones but it applies to medium drones too etc. I did suggest a big cut in bay, not only bandwidth, but I do see what you mean.
Now, if you have any good suggestion to make the Myrm's Ogres any more effective than the Prophecy's wave-after-wave of mediums against cruiser-sized targets, I'm all ear.
Heck, in PvP, any non-scrammed sub-BS ship laughs at drones since their orbit velocity is nothing like the target's MWD. They catch up MAYBE, turn their MWD off, and are left behind. As being chased how many times do you have to repeat that, if you want to shoot them down, while their sig bloom is active, and are larger than a battleship?
Is that more balanced? Damage projection of an Ogre goes as far as your scram and web. Might as well have the bay of an Ogre less, and bonused Blasters. Or the extra turret back so we can continue with ACs on them. Same range, less vulnerability Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
stoicfaux
2224
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 16:31:00 -
[1085] - Quote
How about making the repair/resist bonus user selectable? The pilot would choose which bonus to have before undocking. A possible implementation would be a very specific rig slot that accepts either a resist bonus or a repair bonus. This rig slot would be in place of the repair/resist ship bonus.
IMO, this would get around the "useless" repair bonus on buffer tanked ships.
disclaimer: No, I haven't read all 55 pages, so apologies in advance if this has already been proposed.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 16:54:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Arathella wrote:
Why not? Is it appropriate to bring this up in the BC rebalancing feedback? As for "this is how it's more or less been for a very very long time": Ishtar - 15 slots, Demios - 15 slots
I'm sure the ishtar will lose a slot or the deimos will gain a slot in the HAC pass.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
490
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:00:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Balance ships, not slot numbers. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
129
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:03:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Roime wrote:Why not? Having one less slot makes no sense and nobody has ever come up with any kind of proper explanation why it should be kept so.
"it's always been like that" is not an argument.
If any other non-combat drones besides dishonour drones would make any sense, the slot/versatility argument would make sense.
But now it's about giving up 500 dps for 1/6th of a web, except that the "webs" are too slow to even catch their target. This is why I suggest expanding the drone bonus to all drones to make them viable choices on drone ships.
To be fair, it always seemed like drone ships lost their slot where they needed it least. As in, usually one of the high slots. |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:17:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:To be fair, it always seemed like drone ships lost their slot where they needed it least. As in, usually one of the high slots. That, I can somewhat agree with. But the Myrm with 5 unbonused guns compared to the Brutix's 7 bonused ain't quite the same as the Vexor's 4 bonused vs the 5 of the Thorax. On Vexor level, you can get away with using hammerheads for their speed and tracking, with a Myrm you are accepting a much larger loss of dps that way, while the bays don't allow for a spare flight just as much, should you be forced to warp out, and Ogres are unlikely to catch up then.
Now against battleships, the thing is a lot more fine in the drone department with the Ogres. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
378
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:29:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Balance ships, not slot numbers.
You mean something like this?
Cane: 24+4 slots Drake: 24+4 slots Harbinger: 16+2 slots Myrmidon: 18+3 slots
Cane/Drake would be OP? Not more than they currently are, so no problem. |
|
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
302
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 17:50:00 -
[1091] - Quote
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:Drake - nothing much has changed.
Inbeepingdeed! I had expected the Drake to get a small but noticable nerf, which would make the Nighthawk look better in comparison.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 18:40:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Salpad wrote:
Inbeepingdeed! I had expected the Drake to get a small but noticable nerf, which would make the Nighthawk look better in comparison.
Nighthawk buff incoming SoonGäó
|
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 19:34:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Drake tank changes:
Shields: 5250 (-219) Armor: 3250 (-658) Hull: 4000 (+94)
Soo your shields are weaker, armor is significantly weaker so that if your shields go you pretty much pop much faster. Ohh ho ho but look out! We are going to save grace by giving you a whole fricken 94 hp to your structure!! Oh man that is going to save my ass so much. /sarcasm
Seriously though, why the increase to structure. I mean why not just go ahead and take hp from it too? |
Mund Richard
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 19:40:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Octoven wrote:Drake tank changes:
Shields: 5250 (-219) Armor: 3250 (-658) Hull: 4000 (+94)
Soo your shields are weaker, armor is significantly weaker so that if your shields go you pretty much pop much faster. Ohh ho ho but look out! We are going to save grace by giving you a whole fricken 94 hp to your structure!! Oh man that is going to save my ass so much. /sarcasm
Seriously though, why the increase to structure. I mean why not just go ahead and take hp from it too? 1) The Drake still has the second largest tank in it's primary among the BCs, beaten only by the Prophebrick (5500). 2) It's the only ship with 6 meds, so among shield tankers, it's unrivaled. 3) All tank numbers are now multitudes of 250, every hull got at least rounded to the closest, if not further. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
pressveck
OPUS STYX Zombie Ninja Space Bears
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 19:56:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Please rename them to Supportcruiser, because it is not an BATTLEcruiser anymore. Thats really ridiculous.
Oh, wait got a better idea. Remove them completely from EVE, than this story will come to an end. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
129
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:01:00 -
[1096] - Quote
pressveck wrote:Please rename them to Supportcruiser, because it is not an BATTLEcruiser anymore. Thats really ridiculous.
Oh, wait got a better idea. Remove them completely from EVE, than this story will come to an end. You have such amazing ideas, its a wonder CCP doesn't hire you. |
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Hephaestus LLC Get Off My Lawn
111
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:02:00 -
[1097] - Quote
I had hoped to see the Drake go the route/role of the Caracal; lose its shield resist bonus and gain something else in return - velocity or flight time bonus?
The Moa gets the shield resist bonus in the Cruisers, so the Ferox should keep it. The Drake needs to lose its shield resistance bonus, IMO.
*braces for impact against all of the crap teh Draek lubbers are going to hurl his way* "My hotdrop was bigger."
"Accidental cyno best cyno." |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:06:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Kitsune Jones wrote:I don't think anyone can really say that they weren't expecting an eventual Drake tank nerf, though that along with the heavy missile nerf may wind up dumping the ship in the trashbin in the minds of many pilots. Drakes were never paragons of damage, just immense survivability. If the survivability is getting yanked, they really deserve a damage boost to compensate, at least enough to bring them back to pre-heavy missle nerf areas. If they really wanted to do the Drake "right," they would make it the obvious step up between the Caracal and the Raven. Way back when they first started talking about all this, that's what they actually said they were going to do. Drop the stupid kinetic bonus AND the shield resists, give it the rate of fire and velocity bonus, and make it the designated Caldari "attack" missile boat. This would at least make some sense, and nerfing the passive tank would completely fix the perceived problems with it, while still leaving it to be quite good for its intended role.
Let the Ferox then step into the "Combat" role, and things would start to make some sense; more sense anyway than having two "tanky" BCs in each race and no real "Attack" ships at all, other than the tier 3s, which are more gank wagons than combat ships. To fill things out, as someone else suggested, they should really bring in a brand new "Command" hull for each race, drop the gang link bonuses from all the other BCs, and give the new set of command hulls a really nice booster role bonus, the same way that they did for T1 logi with the "support" line of frigates and cruisers. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
682
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:28:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:I had hoped to see the Drake go the route/role of the Caracal; lose its shield resist bonus and gain something else in return - velocity or flight time bonus?
The Moa gets the shield resist bonus in the Cruisers, so the Ferox should keep it. The Drake needs to lose its shield resistance bonus, IMO.
*braces for impact against all of the crap teh Draek lubbers are going to hurl his way*
yeah its funny no one wants both gal ships getting the same bonus (active tank)
but yet both the ferox and drake having the same bonus is a o.k?
get rid of the resist bonus on the drake and replace with a velocity bonus...
that would make the drake a ham ship of uberness
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Mund Richard
268
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:30:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Well, Fozzie's post is here.
The Ferox having tank and optimal has the intriguing side of not being that easy to kite if you use 2 TEs and Null with max skill. Having 5 mids though is still sub-optimal for brawl maybe, considering it's a caldari ship, must choose between tank and tackle. ...Which, while I don't like if I fly it, is well if my enemy does.
The Drake... "It was just an early idea" - and I liked it :(
Fozzie wrote: Both RoF and damage missile bonuses are valid tools to use, and I prefer having a variety. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and provide different interesting gameplay in different situations. Sure, both damage and RoF have their advantages. Specially a damage bonus over a +kinetic only damage bonus. , nerfs one of the two advantages the system it gives a bonus to has. On the other hand, even shooting mjolnirs, given the equal number of upgrades, I guess it will out-damage a launcher-only Cyclone. That would make it balanced, compared to the other, I suppose. Still hoping that both get RoF and 6 launchers, letting both have one utility high for the occasional fleetboost/cloak/probe launcher. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Ares Desideratus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 21:23:00 -
[1101] - Quote
WTF are you doing with the Harbinger? FFS I'm an ignorant non-believer and I live in my grandma's garage. When people see things differently, misunderstandings happen. Everybody wins when you blob PvP! |
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 22:41:00 -
[1102] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, I think it may be worthwhile looking at fitting requirements for gang links and command processors. This way you can encourage their use without having to risk utility slots being used for neuts or increasing pg on ships to allow their use. This of course would leave t2/3 command ships with extra resources for a while until they are adjusted.
Neug
WTB cheap effective command platforms
|
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
84
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 22:44:00 -
[1103] - Quote
ccp,killing pvp,a little,each day.if the new cyclone sucks in pvp i`m gonna ask for skillpoints back. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1004
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 23:49:00 -
[1104] - Quote
People liked frigate and cruiser balancing because it made a bunch of awful, useless ships useful. People won't like battle cruiser balancing because it makes a bunch of useful ships awful. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
180
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 00:13:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Or, if we want to be less dramatic, it's given (mostly) small buffs to ships that needed it and mostly small nerfs to ships that needed them, with the real loser (harbinger) being looked at further, all of which is decidedly less significant a change than useless ships being made useful. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
291
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 01:48:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Lots of people believe tier 2 battlecruisers are perfect and doesn't understand why they have to be rebalanced. These people forget or never experienced how tier 2 battlecruisers made frigates, cruisers and battleships obsolete in most pvp situations and embrace their current "one shipclass must rule them all" balance (T3 cruisers aside).
Rebalancing will give the game a more diverse game play and even though it doesn't look like CCP got sober after their new year celebration I am sure the battlecruisers will soon be exciting and rewarding to fly even though they will not be as tough as before. Im sure they are working overtime to make all 8 battlecruisers exciting and not just change a few of them...
I could ofcouse be wrong. Maybe they don't want to take the oportunity to create 8 unique and interesting ships when they can cut a corner and only change a few while cutting shields down. But they have done a great job with cruisers so I doubt that...
Pinky |
Bobodahobo Dahobos
Probe Patrol Exhale.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 01:56:00 -
[1107] - Quote
how about leaving the ships the way they are, if you wanna change constantly just add new ships,LEAVE THE VSHIPS AS THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!! |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 02:05:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Lots of people believe tier 2 battlecruisers are perfect and doesn't understand why they have to be rebalanced. These people forget or never experienced how tier 2 battlecruisers made frigates, cruisers and battleships obsolete in most pvp situations and embrace their current "one shipclass must rule them all" balance (T3 cruisers aside).
I suspect that those "lots of people" who thought Tier 2 BCs were perfect probably also didn't even know the harbinger or myrmidon existed. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mund Richard
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 02:06:00 -
[1109] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:Lots of people believe tier 2 battlecruisers are perfect and doesn't understand why they have to be rebalanced. These people forget or never experienced how tier 2 battlecruisers made frigates, cruisers and battleships obsolete in most pvp situations and embrace their current "one shipclass must rule them all" balance (T3 cruisers aside).
I suspect that those "lots of people" who thought Tier 2 BCs were perfect probably also didn't even know the harbinger or myrmidon existed. Oh, sure they did! Those were the ships that were ALSO perfectly fine, specially with active armor tanking. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
292
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 03:29:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Tier 2 battlecruisers have done wonders for new players and regular pvpers. Cheap relative fast ships with near battleship dps at very affordable prices. Ofcourse people like them, and I had fun too :-)
But you surely must have noticed the absense of cruisers (and other shiptypes like tier 1 BC and battleships) in nearly all pvp scenarios? Basically you could ask yourself a lot of questions and tier 2 battlecruisers would be the answer to 8/10 - Im glad Eve is going through tiericide and bringing back versatility. I just hope more work is put into ship bonuses and slot layout than the initial BC thoughts as it's a wonderfull chance. |
|
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
268
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 04:20:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Super disappointed. The frig and cruiser changes got me wet, but this is the opposite.
Myrmidon and brutix: are the same basically. The extra Low is nice for the brutix but it's still just a bad Talos. The Myrm is the Myrm. No real difference.
Cyclone: Another minmatar double utility hi-slot? Didn't you learn after the debacle of the stabber? (remember, the worst cruiser at its role in the game now?) Hurricane: Just another nerf. Although gz on taking a hi-slot instead of a low.
Drake: Still racial damage bonus. Half your ships have it half don't. Decide which its going to be and do it. Ferox: Whoever wanted to make it different from the Naga succeeded. Now it's super awful and the naga isn't. Why would you even fly one when the drake tanks and DPS's better than it and from better range? And the naga out-snipes it so its still a pointless ship.
Prophecy: I'm intrigued, it's a vexor but tanky... Harbinger: Same as above, it's an oracle with more slots and worse damage/range. Drone defence for frigs is nice, but it needs it since it can't alpha-strike frigs like an oracle.
You guys really didn't think this one through that well tbh. Split them into 2 roles like cruisers. Tier 3's will always be faster, have more dps and more range but there is room in there for other stuff, like Tanking bonuses (already sorted) and TACKLE/EWAR BONUSES. I'd like to see a hurricane with 7.5% ROF on guns and a web range bonus, maybe a ferox that has an ECM bonus. A Brutix with scram range bonus. The harb with TD bonuses maybe? Or maybe the proph would suit that better tbh.
|
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
268
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 04:48:00 -
[1112] - Quote
If you want to see more T1 BC's using link then make them:
A) Easy to fit B) More powerful than T3 links (Nerfing T3 links is a good way of achieving this) C) *Important* make fleet boosting limited range, similar to omni's for drone. D) Reduce the ammount of training needed to effectively use links.
If BC's all had 1 link they specialised in combined with the above, you would see fleets of them each with 1 link fitted each. I know the skillpoint issue is by far the biggest hurdle for younger players, and forcer older players to train alt's. If leadership is easier to train people would be more inclined to skill for link and incorporate them into their fits.
Personally i'd like to be able to make use of links solo. And i mean *truely solo*. I want to jump into a gate-camp and turn my link on and start fighting, without other people around or in fleet. It's like giving BC's a third bonus that is completely unique to the fit they want. VERSATILITY! |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
406
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 04:54:00 -
[1113] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:If you want to see more T1 BC's using link then make them:
A) Easy to fit B) More powerful than T3 links (Nerfing T3 links is a good way of achieving this) C) *Important* make fleet boosting limited range, similar to omni's for drone. D) Reduce the ammount of training needed to effectively use links.
If BC's all had 1 link they specialised in combined with the above, you would see fleets of them each with 1 link fitted each. I know the skillpoint issue is by far the biggest hurdle for younger players, and forcer older players to train alt's. If leadership is easier to train people would be more inclined to skill for link and incorporate them into their fits.
Personally i'd like to be able to make use of links solo. And i mean *truely solo*. I want to jump into a gate-camp and turn my link on and start fighting, without other people around or in fleet. It's like giving BC's a third bonus that is completely unique to the fit they want. VERSATILITY!
Why would I buy the T3 for doing links for a billion isk if I can get a t1 battlecruiser to do just as good a job. T3 = Versatility T2= Specialization T1= Cheap
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
607
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 05:34:00 -
[1114] - Quote
fukier wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Did I miss why the Drone Battle Cruisers have one less slot than all the rest? Other than the fact that this is standard practice for drone bonused ships? they do that due the utility of drones... they can do anything... which is why you get one less slot...
Not when they only have enough drone bay for ONE flight of drones, and only ONE drone bonus (+damage).... they get 1 role... which is why they should get the same slots (or bonuses for other drone roles, and / or more drone bay). There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
607
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 05:55:00 -
[1115] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: At a MINIMUM, Gallente drone bays should be able to hold at least another flight of drones. Too often in a fight you have to warp out, and if you're only using drones for meaningful dps, then you're leaving lots of your dps on the field when you warp out---especially if those drones are SLOW Heavy drones. Well, yea, my suggestion "solves" both: Dessies go with lights, Cruiser/BC with mediums, and all gallente have precisely two (ok, so I'm hoping for 2.5 with the Myrm, but I *am* suggesting a paper dps nerf so please forgive me ), amarr three maxed flights, each translating into two smallers. No odd flights, no missing an Ogre or Hobgoblin when you have only Hammerhead spares left in the bay. Post at the top (yay, I got another first new page) now with math!
I would like to add, that Amarr drone boats should offer some kind of bonus to their 'other' drones as well. They are giving them these huge drone bays (I am not complaining, its nice to have options in the glove box), for all of this versatility... offer some bonus to said versatility. Even if its something small, like +2% bonus to web / ewar strength per level.
You may start to see things other than just flights of combat drones getting popped like balloons out there. ;) As it is, there is almost too much drone bay (even in pvp, I don't normally go through THAT many drones before needing a station to repair, etc anyway). There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
929
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 06:16:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote: Personally i'd like to be able to make use of links solo. And i mean *truely solo*. I want to jump into a gate-camp and turn my link on and start fighting, without other people around or in fleet.
This is something I agree with. Fleets should not give you any artificial advantage and I don't see how one man fleet is any different from 2 man one in RP persective. These link interfaces surely can create null-connection of some sort to transmit all their goodies to themselves without having to transmit them to someone else too. 14 |
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
607
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 06:28:00 -
[1117] - Quote
With the absolute flood of Drone ships they have been putting into game lately, I truly hope they have some grand plans for drones in regards to AI, UI, and functionality.
Signed /A drone bunny There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
Rhoaden
VC Academy
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 06:40:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Can we get a +1 for neut/Drone prophecy ?
|
Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
410
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 07:44:00 -
[1119] - Quote
zahg wrote:I really like your t1 cruiser changes as i do for the BC change and BS change coming soon.
But what i do not like is that once again you remove an advantage to the solo players by making the navy and faction ships absolutly useless to pvp next to the t1 ones. A T1 caracal tank more, tackle better, have more speed, more CPU than a navy caracal....its just one from all the others.
Pimp was a way to give an extra boost to your solo ship against blobs (because lets say it, eve is all about blobs nowaday).
I'd like to see some serious thinking about the navy and faction.
Otherwise, thank you for all the efforts you do to make the game better for PVP. pie and navy and t2 ships having been rebalanced yet. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
214
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 08:43:00 -
[1120] - 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 |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 08:54:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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? from what i could understand all command ships will get a bonus to 2 links, and have decent offensive capabilities. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Kitsune Jones
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 09:31:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Stop faffing around with giving ships weird numbers of drones. It's a terrible mechanic and just winds up with ships that can't use a matched flight of drones, while mismatched drone flights are as fundamentally smart as making a ship that mounts two large, one medium, and three small turrets. The result is a ship that sucks equally against all targets.
If you make a drone ship, give it the bandwidth to handle a full flight of the drone size for it. If you want to make Gallente ships definitively better with drones, do it by giving them a bigger drone bonus, not by making Amarr ships unable to use as many drones. Then give Amarr ships the bigger bays, but don't screw the Gallente by only giving them enough for a single batch of drones. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 10:59:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Kitsune Jones wrote:Stop faffing around with giving ships weird numbers of drones. It's a terrible mechanic and just winds up with ships that can't use a matched flight of drones, while mismatched drone flights are as fundamentally smart as making a ship that mounts two large, one medium, and three small turrets. The result is a ship that sucks equally against all targets.
If you make a drone ship, give it the bandwidth to handle a full flight of the drone size for it. If you want to make Gallente ships definitively better with drones, do it by giving them a bigger drone bonus, not by making Amarr ships unable to use as many drones. Then give Amarr ships the bigger bays, but don't screw the Gallente by only giving them enough for a single batch of drones.
[Edit: Actually, on second thought, weird numbers of drones are acceptable if the ship bonus includes something like 'For every level your drone bandwidth increases by...' so that they can field a full flight of drones by the time they hit level 5. It's fine if a drone boat starts off as a mediocre drone boat as long as it can be made into a good drone boat with skill.] I'd have to agree with this. Drone bandwidth should always be a full multiple of the designated size. The 2/2/1 drone flight is an idiotic concept that only ever happened because of ships having these weird numbers, and because min/max'ers think that every little green bar that can be filled must be filled, no matter whether that makes sense or not. Take that 25 drone bandwidth and dump those itemization points into something that matters, like drone bay for instance, or anything else really. Give the ship another gun . . . or 250 more points of structure HP . . . anything at all would be more useful than the mixed up toys drone bandwidth. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:21:00 -
[1124] - Quote
I'm starting to agree with those people who say "odd" drone bandwidth sizes are weird an impractical.
I see two possible solutions to this issue, if, indeed CCP believes it is an issue.
A) Lower bandwidth down to 50 M/Bit and increase Damage/HP bonus accordingly.
B) Increase bandwidth and replace damage + HP bonus with a tracking/optimal + HP range bonus.
Also. The Brutix and Myrmidon, like the Drake and the Ferox, sharing the same tanking bonuses should be reviewed.
In the case of the Brutix and Myrmidon. We need to figure out which ship should drop the Active Armour bonus.
The Brutix would benefit from either a Tacking, Falloff or MWD Cap use bonus.
The Myrmidon would benefit from either a Drone control range or a Drone MWD speed bonus.
Last point. All these BC's should have a utility high and the fitting to fill it with a gang link.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:29:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm starting to agree with those people who say "odd" drone bandwidth sizes are weird an impractical.
I see two possible solutions to this issue, if, indeed CCP believes it is an issue.
A) Lower bandwidth down to 50 M/Bit and increase Damage/HP bonus accordingly.
B) Increase bandwidth and replace damage + HP bonus with a tracking/optimal + HP range bonus.
Also. The Brutix and Myrmidon, like the Drake and the Ferox, sharing the same tanking bonuses should be reviewed.
In the case of the Brutix and Myrmidon. We need to figure out which ship should drop the Active Armour bonus.
The Brutix would benefit from either a Tacking, Falloff or MWD Cap use bonus.
The Myrmidon would benefit from either a Drone control range or a Drone MWD speed bonus.
Last point. All these BC's should have a utility high and the fitting to fill it with a gang link.
Proph should have a higher damage bonus and 50 bandwith
Would also make it far more different from the myrm.
|
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:30:00 -
[1126] - Quote
Maybe an definition of "roles" would be helpful.
There is an BC line capable of running with cruiser from the agility, and for sniping. The old "tier 3" line.
There should be an line with flexible damage and tanky for doing Level 3 PvE and PvP with more defense style. I would say, this is the Myrmidion, the new Prophecy, an missile Cylone could do it. For Caldari, a missile Ferox with RoF. These ships should have 6x weapon slots, five for drone boats.
The balanced PvP Battlecruiser should be modelled in the direction of the old Hurricane. Good roamers, aggressive ships. - Capable fit long range without extra mods for people skilled with AWU 4. - Capable to fit short range + better tank. - Speedier then the defensive BCs, as speedy as the Attack Cruisers. You can't mix, if it can't fly together. - No boni to tracking to hit smaller stuff. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:50:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Proph should have a higher damage bonus and 50 bandwith
Would also make it far more different from the myrm.
Considering this, the Prophecy would need a 20% per level bonus to Damage and HP of drones in order for 50M/Bit bandwidth to be equal to 75M/Bit. This would raise some issues of damage application on smaller targets as a flight of smalls would inflict just under 200 dps (Hobgoblin II's) before damage mods.
This would mean the Prophecy would have almost no vulnerability to frigates due to very high damage light drones + missiles.
I am not averse to this option however.
I would Suggest that the Myrmidon would be different however in that it would field 125M/Bit bandwidth but switch it's drone bonus to a 10% per level Drone tracking, optimal range and HP. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:52:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: Proph should have a higher damage bonus and 50 bandwith
Would also make it far more different from the myrm.
Considering this, the Prophecy would need a 20% per level bonus to Damage and HP of drones in order for 50M/Bit bandwidth to be equal to 75M/Bit. This would raise some issues of damage application on smaller targets as a flight of smalls would inflict just under 200 dps (Hobgoblin II's) before damage mods. This would mean the Prophecy would have almost no vulnerability to frigates due to very high damage light drones + missiles. I am not averse to this option however. I would Suggest that the Myrmidon would be different however in that it would field 125M/Bit bandwidth but switch it's drone bonus to a 10% per level Drone tracking, optimal range and HP.
I think 15 would be more then enough
The applied dps would be far greater since ogre's are lol
|
Mund Richard
274
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:57:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote:missile Ferox with RoF. Vat? Tanky Ferox with missiles? What do you want the Drake to become then?
Attack BC line being cruiser-level agile and then sniping, mkay. Tanky BC line for defensive play, ok. And then you want a PvP balanced line that can keep up with the Attack BC, while being able mount a tank for brawling... less okay.
I'm all for the speedy/tanky/ganky redefinition, Caldari may not need the two overtanked ones, nor the Gallente, but feels like it needs some refinement (just like my post did). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
37
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:14:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm starting to agree with those people who say "odd" drone bandwidth sizes are weird an impractical. Odd bandwidth can work with stasis drones in a very limited number of cases - when smaller drones are fast enough to catch the target and slow it down, then larger drones overtake and give it a hug. It could also work with neutralizing drones, if they had different cycle time - much the same as neut modules... but they dont.
The only thing that would really justify that wierd bandwidth is sub-capital drone control unit. |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:29:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm starting to agree with those people who say "odd" drone bandwidth sizes are weird an impractical. Odd bandwidth can work with stasis drones in a very limited number of cases - when smaller drones are fast enough to catch the target and slow it down, then larger drones overtake and give it a hug. It could also work with neutralizing drones, if they had different cycle time - much the same as neut modules... but they dont. The only thing that would really justify that wierd bandwidth is sub-capital drone control unit.
I do hope you're joking.. Stasis drones slow ships down about as much as asking them nicely.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
929
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:29:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote: The balanced PvP Battlecruiser should be modelled in the direction of the old Hurricane. Good roamers, aggressive ships. - Capable fit long range without extra mods for people skilled with AWU 4. - Capable to fit short range + better tank. - Speedier then the defensive BCs, as speedy as the Attack Cruisers. You can't mix, if it can't fly together.
lol, nice try. Happily, that is unlikely to happen. 14 |
Bastion Arzi
Pro Synergy ARK.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:36:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Why is the harbinger going to lose a turret? |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:49:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Bastion Arzi wrote:Why is the harbinger going to lose a turret?
It's actually gaining 0.25 of a "virtual" turret with the increased damage bonus |
Bastion Arzi
Pro Synergy ARK.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:50:00 -
[1135] - Quote
the changes will increase harbinger dps then? |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:53:00 -
[1136] - Quote
Bastion Arzi wrote:the changes will increase harbinger dps then?
The Harbinger will have the equivalent of 9 turrets instead of 8.75 at the capacitor and fitting costs of 6 guns instead of 7. It did also recieve a fairly hefty nerf to it's mobility and a little nerf to HP so it will depend on how you fit it to whether or not you get a DPS buff out of it. |
Bastion Arzi
Pro Synergy ARK.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:57:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Bastion Arzi wrote:the changes will increase harbinger dps then? The Harbinger will have the equivalent of 9 turrets instead of 8.75 at the capacitor and fitting costs of 6 guns instead of 7. It did also recieve a fairly hefty nerf to it's mobility and a little nerf to HP so it will depend on how you fit it to whether or not you get a DPS buff out of it.
can u tell me how u worked this out please?
i thought
7 turrets each doing say 100 dps (just for simplicity sake) so in total 700 dps + 5% = 735
6 turrets doing 100 dps each = 600 dps then plus 10% only = 660
forgive me if im wrong |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 13:02:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Bastion Arzi wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Bastion Arzi wrote:the changes will increase harbinger dps then? The Harbinger will have the equivalent of 9 turrets instead of 8.75 at the capacitor and fitting costs of 6 guns instead of 7. It did also recieve a fairly hefty nerf to it's mobility and a little nerf to HP so it will depend on how you fit it to whether or not you get a DPS buff out of it. can u tell me how u worked this out please? i thought 7 turrets each doing say 100 dps (just for simplicity sake) so in total 700 dps + 5% = 735 6 turrets doing 100 dps each = 600 dps then plus 10% only = 660 forgive me if im wrong
At Battlecruiser level 5 skill the bonus is (old) 25% and (new) 50%
So 7 guns doing 100 dps old (level 5 skills) = 700 x 1.25 = 875 and 6 guns doing 100 dps new (level 5 skills) = 600 x 1.5 = 900
So the buff is only apparant at a level 5 skilled pilot. |
Bastion Arzi
Pro Synergy ARK.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 13:05:00 -
[1139] - Quote
right thanks |
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Hephaestus LLC Get Off My Lawn
116
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 13:17:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote:Maybe an definition of "roles" would be helpful. For Caldari, a missile Ferox with RoF.
Not only no, but **** no. Please stop trying to put missiles on every Caldari hull. "My hotdrop was bigger."
"Accidental cyno best cyno." |
|
Mund Richard
274
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 13:25:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Bastion Arzi wrote:right thanks edit: sry tl:dr whole thread - when are these changes happening? SOON(TM). Between now and spring-summer expansion.
The first 3 pages are possibly useful to read btw, Harbi change and the rest was discussed there first round. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
352
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 13:52:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:
In the case of the Brutix and Myrmidon. We need to figure out which ship should drop the Active Armour bonus.
The Brutix would benefit from either a Tacking, Falloff or MWD Cap use bonus.
The Myrmidon would benefit from either a Drone control range or a Drone MWD speed bonus.
As you stated, there needs to be a change to one of the active tanking bonuses.
The Tracking you've suggested on the brutix is omo, a no go... That's a bonus used by the attack line which the thorax, talos, and megathron are part of. The MWD bonus? Yea, that's just a bad bonus... The Falloff bonus, like the tracking bonus, will make the Brutix just too similar to the talos. Saying that... I'm far more in favor of the Brutix keeping the active tank bonus with some serious revisions to the bonus. This would put it in the Incursus, Brutix, Hyperion "Combat" Line.
The Myrmidon is the one that I strongly believe should be losing it's active bonus in favor of another Drone related bonus. MWD speed or Drone tracking would interesting additions. |
Mund Richard
274
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:04:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:The Tracking you've suggested on the brutix is omo, a no go... That's a bonus used by the attack line which the thorax, talos, and megathron are part of. The MWD bonus? Yea, that's just a bad bonus... The Falloff bonus, like the tracking bonus, will make the Brutix just too similar to the talos. Saying that... I'm far more in favor of the Brutix keeping the active tank bonus with some serious revisions to the bonus. This would put it in the Incursus, Brutix, Hyperion "Combat" Line.
The Myrmidon is the one that I strongly believe should be losing it's active bonus in favor of another Drone related bonus. MWD speed or Drone tracking would interesting additions. Or - since you are thinking in ship-lines - somehow become more like something between the Vexor and the Domi.
...Gee, I wonder how that could be achieved.
Ok, on a more serious tone: A second drone-related bonus would help it's 100 bandwidth more. As it is now, droneships with over 50 bandwidth can only apply their damage to scrammed targets. Yes, even an MWDing shield-tanked battleship will reduce the damage Ogres do to it. All the way down to zero, if it's a Phoon, or some other more agile ship (any minnie basically).
Ogre MWD speed: 1050 Phoon MWD speed: 1154 - not even catching it Domi MWD speed: 1005 - Even catching a hostile Space Potato will take longer than... well, anyone's patience
Ogre orbit speed: 375 - So once it gets into range of any MWD BS and turns the MWD off, it gets left behind, can start chasing again... That can't be good for applied dps And in case anyone is wondering, the Ogre's orbit speed is also below any AB BS, not that I have seen any lately.
...and ...you know, this is a BC, so it should be able to hunt other BCs and Cruisers, and on that level things get even worse obviously. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:25:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:
In the case of the Brutix and Myrmidon. We need to figure out which ship should drop the Active Armour bonus.
The Brutix would benefit from either a Tacking, Falloff or MWD Cap use bonus.
The Myrmidon would benefit from either a Drone control range or a Drone MWD speed bonus.
As you stated, there needs to be a change to one of the active tanking bonuses. The Tracking you've suggested on the brutix is omo, a no go... That's a bonus used by the attack line which the thorax, talos, and megathron are part of. The MWD bonus? Yea, that's just a bad bonus... The Falloff bonus, like the tracking bonus, will make the Brutix just too similar to the talos. Saying that... I'm far more in favor of the Brutix keeping the active tank bonus with some serious revisions to the bonus. This would put it in the Incursus, Brutix, Hyperion "Combat" Line. The Myrmidon is the one that I strongly believe should be losing it's active bonus in favor of another Drone related bonus. MWD speed or Drone tracking would interesting additions.
But the issue with dropping the active tank bonus from the Myrmidon is that it actually works on that ship. Dual or Tri rep Myrms are actually good small scale PvP options and with the "unkown" factor of active armour tanking getting tweaked we might be loosing a ship that is actually exceptional at what it does. All this being said, a Brutix with 6 low slots and a dual or tri rep fit might actually be fantastic too.
The problem is that we are all uninformed. We can not make any judgement of the active tank bonus without knowing what the plans for active tanking actually are. CCP Fozzie. Please release this infomation sooner rather than later so we can apply it to this ship balance pass. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1626
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:29:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Saying that... I'm far more in favor of the Brutix keeping the active tank bonus with some serious revisions to the bonus. This would put it in the Incursus, Brutix, Hyperion "Combat" Line.
Interestingly the only one from these that works with an active tank without ******** amounts of links and drugs is the Incursus
...which has +10% per level to armor reps.
Small reppers have worked even without any bonuses, and on Incursus the gained reps from a SAR II are on par with SASB (similar fitting, )
So why only 7.5% on medium reppers
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
474
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:56:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Part of why the Incursus works is also because of the cycle time of SAR, amount repaired / second is almost perfect when seen in relation to EHP of the things .. that ratio breaks down completely with MAR or Goddess forbid LAR.
Hopefully all factors will be accounted for when decisions about the future of active armour are made.
PS: @Devs: GIVE ACTIVE ARMOUR BLOG! |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:32:00 -
[1147] - Quote
I doubt they will change bonuses on Gallente hulls. It seems they are going for something like
Drone boats: Prophecy and Myrmidon, with Gallente hull more oriented towards small scale pvp with its active tanking and a little more gank, and Amarr hull with bigger buffer and a smaller drone brandwidth.
Brawlers: Brutix and Ferox, with Gallente hull again being more specialized for small scale combat with more damage and active tanking while the Ferox has better buffer and with its optimal easier time switching targets and applying damage in larger battles.
Missile boats: Cyclone and Drake, where Cyclone is faster and with its bonus to active tanking more suited for small scale/solo and Drake for bigger fleets.
Gunboats: Hurricane and Harbinger, atm totally unbalanced in the favor of the cane in every department
This is what they are going for, two ships for each "role", one better suited for small scale combat and one for fleets. And i like the idea, especially since they didnt completely ruin the hulls and specialize them in one or the other niche. It kinda sucks for pilots who dont want to crosstrain and want to stay Gallente and be involved in large scale fleet battles, but then again medium blasters are not really a great weapon for this purpose to begin with.
They need to revert the nerf to Harbinger fitting and tank, take another look at drone boats, give all BC one utility high and take away some cpu from Cyclone, that thing can fit whatever you want with 0 fitting skills, raise repair amount for Gallente to 10% per level at least until the changes to armor tanking go live.
|
Doddy
Dark-Rising
830
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:43:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Arathella wrote:
Why not? Is it appropriate to bring this up in the BC rebalancing feedback? As for "this is how it's more or less been for a very very long time": Ishtar - 15 slots, Demios - 15 slots
I'm sure the ishtar will lose a slot or the deimos will gain a slot in the HAC pass.
tbh the ishtar is already balanced by having such limited weapon slots. This is generally a better way of looking at it than raw slots.
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:44:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:I doubt they will change bonuses on Gallente hulls. It seems they are going for something like
Drone boats: Prophecy and Myrmidon, with Gallente hull more oriented towards small scale pvp with its active tanking and a little more gank, and Amarr hull with bigger buffer and a smaller drone brandwidth.
Brawlers: Brutix and Ferox, with Gallente hull again being more specialized for small scale combat with more damage and active tanking while the Ferox has better buffer and with its optimal easier time switching targets and applying damage in larger battles.
Missile boats: Cyclone and Drake, where Cyclone is faster and with its bonus to active tanking more suited for small scale/solo and Drake for bigger fleets.
Gunboats: Hurricane and Harbinger, atm totally unbalanced in the favor of the cane in every department
This is what they are going for, two ships for each "role", one better suited for small scale combat and one for fleets. And i like the idea, especially since they didnt completely ruin the hulls and specialize them in one or the other niche. It kinda sucks for pilots who dont want to crosstrain and want to stay Gallente and be involved in large scale fleet battles, but then again medium blasters are not really a great weapon for this purpose to begin with.
They need to revert the nerf to Harbinger fitting and tank, take another look at drone boats, give all BC one utility high and take away some cpu from Cyclone, that thing can fit whatever you want with 0 fitting skills, raise repair amount for Gallente to 10% per level at least until the changes to armor tanking go live.
Thing is though is that the drake is still a brawler or at least its OP tank would suggest it is. It would really be a better ship with a ROF bonus and a utility high for a link as caldari are the only ones without any utility highs and has two heavily tanked ships |
Mund Richard
275
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:48:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Thing is though is that the drake is still a brawler or at least its OP tank would suggest it is. It would really be a better ship with a ROF bonus and a utility high for a link as caldari are the only ones without any utility highs and has two heavily tanked ships Agreed that the Caldari have two brawlers (though Ferox with 5 mids and 7 unbonused a bit nerfed for it's resist bonus), the only two heavily-tanked no utility highslot depends on how you precieve the Myrm to have zero or five of them. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:50:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Thing is though is that the drake is still a brawler or at least its OP tank would suggest it is. It would really be a better ship with a ROF bonus and a utility high for a link as caldari are the only ones without any utility highs and has two heavily tanked ships Agreed that the Caldari have two brawlers (though Ferox with 5 mids and 7 unbonused a bit nerfed for it's resist bonus), the only two heavily-tanked no utility highslot depends on how you precieve the Myrm to have zero or five of them.
Really the Brutix needs to be Harbingerised and have 7 high slots, 6 guns and a 10% damage bonus. This way it gets the utility high. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:53:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote: Thing is though is that the drake is still a brawler or at least its OP tank would suggest it is. It would really be a better ship with a ROF bonus and a utility high for a link as caldari are the only ones without any utility highs and has two heavily tanked ships Also droneboats don't need so much tank only brawlers do and as such the ferox and brutix should be the most heavily tanked.
Brawler as in up close, in your face good damage ship, and Drake really is not it that group. That was rough grouping but it seems they are going for something like it. So Gallente will probably be screwed with rep bonuses. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:56:00 -
[1153] - Quote
As with the cruiser and frigate rebalancing this initial sweep of changes looks crude at best with some very big questions that it's currently impossible to answer. To my mind the most pressing issues around these changes, and the following battleship changes, revolve around ;
1. Active repair does not scale.
2. Active shield tanking is considerably better than active armour tanking - to some degree because of the amount of rep possible - it is possible to active shield rep yet be cap insensitive through ASBs - it is possible to remain fast and mobile whilst shield tanking
3. Drone bay size is overly limiting for some ships relative to their bandwidth. If a slot is sacrificed for the ability to fly more drones it seems unbalanced to not allow replacements for lost drones. Smartbombs are a specific drone defence, and very effective too when used correctly, so being in a position to have your whole bonused dps wiped out in a couple of smartbomb cycles renders those ships ineffective. Similarly for bombs.
4. Effective turrets seem to be out of balance given there is no redeeming counter feature for the lower turret ships.
5. Command links on these ships would benefit from the proposed 2% bonus slated for tier 3s. Unbonused links are weak and would continue to see little use on anything other than command ships and tier 3s.
6. Gallente ships both getting the repair bonus seems very odd given the diversity in every other racial ship line. It's too restrictive for Gallente pilots, you have very little real choice between these ships.
7. I've no objection to the ferox optimal bonus, limited as it is for blasters at medium sizes. The suggestion of a medium rail change is very welcome and could make this a much more worthwhile bonus for pve and pvp.
8. The bugbear of speed penalties from armour tanking remain as daunting as ever and desperately require attention as you move to the ships that suffer most. As well as the compounding effect to speed of plate mass and rigs I would also point out that mwd mass is far more crippling to battleship classes than any amount of plates you could choose to add.
The list could go on to ever decreasing but still annoying non-ship features, but motsly they would not need to be considered alongside ship balancing. Those listed above are so fundamental that I doubt any ship rebalance could be completely successful without resoving these |
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
608
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:59:00 -
[1154] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:I doubt they will change bonuses on Gallente hulls. It seems they are going for something like
Drone boats: Prophecy and Myrmidon, with Gallente hull more oriented towards small scale pvp with its active tanking and a little more gank, and Amarr hull with bigger buffer and a smaller drone brandwidth.
Brawlers: Brutix and Ferox, with Gallente hull again being more specialized for small scale combat with more damage and active tanking while the Ferox has better buffer and with its optimal easier time switching targets and applying damage in larger battles.
Missile boats: Cyclone and Drake, where Cyclone is faster and with its bonus to active tanking more suited for small scale/solo and Drake for bigger fleets.
Gunboats: Hurricane and Harbinger, atm totally unbalanced in the favor of the cane in every department
This is what they are going for, two ships for each "role", one better suited for small scale combat and one for fleets. And i like the idea, especially since they didnt completely ruin the hulls and specialize them in one or the other niche. It kinda sucks for pilots who dont want to crosstrain and want to stay Gallente and be involved in large scale fleet battles, but then again medium blasters are not really a great weapon for this purpose to begin with.
They need to revert the nerf to Harbinger fitting and tank, take another look at drone boats, give all BC one utility high and take away some cpu from Cyclone, that thing can fit whatever you want with 0 fitting skills, raise repair amount for Gallente to 10% per level at least until the changes to armor tanking go live.
Quoted for truth.
Id like to add as well... the Prophecy having smaller bandwidth is odd, but be careful with going even smaller as some people have recommended, as it is a BC and still should be a viable threat to other BC's and BS's (which means at least some access to large drones, assuming the drone pass makes them more viable) There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
294
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:03:00 -
[1155] - Quote
The active rep actually makes the Brutix interesting as long it has enough armor buffer to work. The damage bonus makes people less willing to fit autocannons and only 4 medslots will see dual rep being possible with a cap booster, however I doubt many will use triple rep setups... I wont cry about this
Myrmidon atm is a beast, however it is rarely used in the designed role with blasters and an okay tank. It's always dual ASB and gank or triple rep with AC's. This is fine for me but at the same here is a chance to change the Myrmidon bonus to someting attractive and inspiring.
I would be happy to see Myrmidon lose the repair bonus and get a bonus rewarding people who fit blasters or railguns. Tracking bonus could be interesting as it fits the line of ships and helps where those damage oriented people have Ogres on the field? Bring on versatility and diversity...
Pinky Denmark |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:50:00 -
[1156] - Quote
I am really pleased with the changes to the ferox, I've always liked that ship and do use them whenever I fancy a change from flying Amarr.
One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.
"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good. |
Shinzhi Xadi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:57:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus.
THIS.
I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race! |
Mund Richard
275
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 17:02:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :( It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. THIS. I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race! Almost all Brutixes I see are shield-tanked in PvE, and don't reach out to longpoint range with short-range ammo.
But I do agree, thought taking it out will make a cap booster even more important for the Harbi (in case you didn't fear neut enough before to put one on), driving another nail in the coffin of shield fits. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
275
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 17:20:00 -
[1159] - Quote
I know that you are balancing T1 BCs.. but I always had a question about T2 BCs... Why all factions have 2 with the same base ship? doesn't the EOS for example look like a myrmy? but we have 2 brutix... just ask the designers to make new skins... Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
Mund Richard
275
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 17:43:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:I know that you are balancing T1 BCs.. but I always had a question about T2 BCs... Why all factions have 2 with the same base ship? doesn't the EOS for example look like a myrmy? but we have 2 brutix... just ask the designers to make new skins... I would welcome swapping one T2 looks for the T1 it matches. Nighthawk -> Drake Eos -> Myrm
Although Amarr will be fun, how neither of them is a drone boat. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1628
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 19:10:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Nah,
I'd rather see them invest a bit more resources, and make completely new designs for all T2 ships. Some of them have just different textures on the same model. Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
468
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:02:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Roime wrote:Nah,
I'd rather see them invest a bit more resources, and make completely new designs for all T2 ships. Some of them have just different textures on the same model.
Also this. |
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Black Core Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:05:00 -
[1163] - Quote
One possible armor solution for the active armor repping folks could be new armor modules that are toned down passive (or active?) armors that also have some neuting reflection and/or repping bonus. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:06:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. THIS. I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race!
Its just style points and making lasers amarr only. They can nerf the lasers and reduce cap usage and replace those bonuses with for example rate of fire etc. but the end result would be the same. I personally like it, some ppl dont, but its not really a balance issue.
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
134
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:13:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Roime wrote:Nah,
I'd rather see them invest a bit more resources, and make completely new designs for all T2 ships. Some of them have just different textures on the same model.
Yes, its high time this game had more art assets. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
925
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:13:00 -
[1166] - Quote
CCP Fozzie...... |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
134
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:14:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. THIS. I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race! Its just style points and making lasers amarr only. They can nerf the lasers and reduce cap usage and replace those bonuses with for example rate of fire etc. but the end result would be the same. I personally like it, some ppl dont, but its not really a balance issue.
People are content using lasers without a cap bonus, as long as there's a laser damage bonus. The high cap CONSUMPTION is what keeps lasers amarr-only, not the cap bonus. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
54
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:28:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Kitsune Jones wrote:Stop faffing around with giving ships weird numbers of drones. It's a terrible mechanic and just winds up with ships that can't use a matched flight of drones, while mismatched drone flights are as fundamentally smart as making a ship that mounts two large, one medium, and three small turrets. The result is a ship that sucks equally against all targets.
If you make a drone ship, give it the bandwidth to handle a full flight of the drone size for it. If you want to make Gallente ships definitively better with drones, do it by giving them a bigger drone bonus, not by making Amarr ships unable to use as many drones. Then give Amarr ships the bigger bays, but don't screw the Gallente by only giving them enough for a single batch of drones.
[Edit: Actually, on second thought, weird numbers of drones are acceptable if the ship bonus includes something like 'For every level your drone bandwidth increases by...' so that they can field a full flight of drones by the time they hit level 5. It's fine if a drone boat starts off as a mediocre drone boat as long as it can be made into a good drone boat with skill.] I'd have to agree with this. Drone bandwidth should always be a full multiple of the designated size. The 2/2/1 drone flight is an idiotic concept that only ever happened because of ships having these weird numbers, and because min/max'ers think that every little green bar that can be filled must be filled, no matter whether that makes sense or not. Take that 25 drone bandwidth and dump those itemization points into something that matters, like drone bay for instance, or anything else really. Give the ship another gun . . . or 250 more points of structure HP . . . anything at all would be more useful than the mixed up toys drone bandwidth. Along this line, I'd love to see Ishtar buffer with Guardian-Vexor-like +1 drone (and bandwidth) per level.
|
Tursarius
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:47:00 -
[1169] - Quote
I would like to know why the gallente battlecruisers have a signature radius 15m smaller than a battleship...This seems a little excessive. Gallente battlecruisers are the only battlecruisers that are as large as a battleship when shield tanked. Is this a subtle method to prevent shield tanking gallente? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
223
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 21:13:00 -
[1170] - Quote
These changes are quite good IMO, if armor tank is fixed ; we desperately need to see the changes planed for armor tanking, because that's pretty much the only concern people have, even if they often don't see it. See : active armor tanking bonus are crap ; harbinger is crap ; let's shield tank my ship plz. All these kind of comments wouldn't be if armor tank changes were released.
As for the Harbinger, I don't know about cap or fiting, though moaning about it not able to fit 1600mm plate + MWD + biggest guns is silly (because no BC is able to do it), as is crying about the tank nerf : Tier 2 need their nerf, and that go with a tank nerf. If you look closer to the tanks, they are homogenised ; and the Harbinger take the role of the attack combat BC, while the Prophecy is the obvious brick ; base hp difference is 250 and the same goes for all BC.
Harbinger, and gallente ships should be seen with a future armor rebalance in mind ; its useles to moan about them or their bonuses until we know more about future of armor tanking. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
353
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 21:16:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Last thing we need is 1500 dps ishtar...
Like c'mon people, lets try and not be ******** with our suggestions.
|
Catherine Laartii
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 21:42:00 -
[1172] - Quote
These are COMBAT battlecruisers, CCP Fozzie! The caldari already have a sniping boat, and it's called the Naga! Please, PLEASE do 6 mids on the ferox and swap range for damage! The moa and merlin have worked; you have no reason not to continue that line! :<
If you're dropping a highslot on the myrmidon, I hope you're ready to change the model to accommodate that...
Brutix doesn't need that rep bonus. Swap for tracking or firing rate, and we'll finally get our gallente blaster bc we've always tried to fit it out to be.
Prophecy is GORGEOUS. It's perfect. No touchy.
Harb is ok...should actually do more dps with less fitting hassles.
Drake is...the same. Firing rate bonus would be a good substitute for kin damage; it'll help go the same route as the harbe with doing more with less.
Cane is fine; needed nerf.
Cyclone is...interesting. Should be a better brawler boat now, and a little more flexible on offense in general.
Ferox, drake, and brutix still need their bonuses changed to be viable with cruiser and bc updates. Ferox especially; a ship that good looking needs good bonuses to go along with it. |
Catherine Laartii
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 21:49:00 -
[1173] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
It may be true that more people use rails on the ferox than blasters, but that's because the ferox is one of the only ships where medium rails can ever effectively be used. If you gave ALL railguns a 50% optimal bonus and swapped the ships' range bonuses for a related gun bonus for damage or tracking, you'd simultaneously fix railguns and the ships that use them. It would ACTUALLY allow caldari and gallente hybrid boats to use blasters and rails interchangeably, and provide them with comparable dps to arty and beam lasers. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4266
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:44:00 -
[1174] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at. you shouldn't make fun of people's weight problem
people are no less people because they have crumbs orbiting them |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 01:53:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.
"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good. Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD. |
Mund Richard
276
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 02:16:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.
"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good. Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD. What I don't get though, is why not multitudes of 200 instead, that leads to the n*250-s.
After a skill of 5 in the appropriate skill, 250 becomes 312,5, which is almost as bad as 937,5 for and ending of 750. Compared to these, 625 from 500 sounds nice.
And of course, after the first shield extender or armor plate, you can forget about the whole thing. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 02:46:00 -
[1177] - Quote
[NEW Prophecy]
800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Armor Layering Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Warp Disruptor II Remote Sensor Dampener II, Targeting Range Dampening Script
Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x 22
130k EHP with 2 CPU to spare and 30 PG for ~45M ISK
363 DPS w/ Hammerhead IIs, 410 DPS with 3 Ogre IIs, or 273 w/ Hobgoblin IIs |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 03:07:00 -
[1178] - Quote
These changes are horrid... what teh ****. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
571
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 03:13:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.
"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good. Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD. What I don't get though, is why not multitudes of 200 instead, that leads to the n*250-s. After a skill of 5 in the appropriate skill, 250 becomes 312,5, which is almost as bad as 937,5 for and ending of 750. Compared to these, 625 from 500 sounds nice. And of course, after the first shield extender or armor plate, you can forget about the whole thing. Only you would never have a 500 when moving in 200 increments. That said it would provide a much cleaner multiplier. |
Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 03:19:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. THIS. I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race! I think there's some sleight of hand happening with the harby's bonuses.
Basically, the harby has 2 "standard" bonuses: a 5% bonus to gun damage and a second 5% bonus to gun damage, that stack additively ('cane's bonuses stack multiplicatively). Harby also has a cap-use pseudo-bonus. Effectively, it gets a double-strength bonus and a weak bonus rather than two normal bonuses. Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
|
Daniel Whateley
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 04:06:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Survey the situation more carefully for the extra low slots on ferox, it used to only have 4 lows, if this change comes out youll be able to fit a damage control and 2 tracking enhancers and mags, and they're not buffing, they're balancing, but it seems like most of the ships i've been flying are getting buffed and the drake needed that, its tank was far too powerful (1200dps tank passive?) now it'll be around 960ish, more in par with the other races. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1423
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 05:46:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. THIS. I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race! I think there's some sleight of hand happening with the harby's bonuses. Basically, the harby has 2 "standard" bonuses: a 5% bonus to gun damage and a second 5% bonus to gun damage, that stack additively ('cane's bonuses stack multiplicatively). Harby also has a cap-use pseudo-bonus. Effectively, it gets a double-strength bonus and a weak bonus rather than two normal bonuses.
the cap bonus should be IMO integrated into the ship capacitor by default. Cap dependent ships have enough problems already. Caldari/Minmatar can just burn till the cap is (almost) empty and shoot while doing it. Amarr ships are disabled if you fly them the same way. ASBs made the situation worse and made capacitor even less important for min/caldari. Not to mention that the medium slot count of amarr ships is very limited so you often can't fit cap boosters.
i am curious how CCP wants to tackle the active local tank issue without introducing something like a ASB for armor. (e.g ancillary resistance boost module) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
177
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:27:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga? Caldari have two range bonused hybrid platforms. One gets outfitted with eight guns that I dare say are pretty quality, and also has a damage bonus on top of that. The other gets seven, either of guns in the 'they're ok I guess' range, or the 'competing with HMLs for worst weapon system in EVE' ones. And it's also slower and only kind of tougher. I see no point in the Ferox existing as it is because the Naga outperforms it. I guess the addition of a lowslot to the Ferox might let some more damage oriented fits happen for close range setups, but really, will it pull through?
Is there going to be any incentive for using Drakes over Cyclones? Like... Ever? I do see that there's a resistance bonus versus a shield boost one, but IMO what just breaks the Drake compared to the Cyclone is the lack of being able to choose damage types. Basically if you're expecting Drakes to be anywhere at all, fit kinetic hardeners and they just flounder because their DPS with any other missile type is kind of really poor given the lack of any kind of bonus whatsoever.
The other thing that perpetually confuses me is why Gallente ships keep getting far more structure than any other faction. What purpose does this serve? Do people actually hull tank? In real fights?
At least you succeeded in bringing sub-BC Caldari ships into the usability zone. Ferox doesn't look like it's gone in, Drake's on uneven territory. Maybe it'll actually be ok with HAMs and have a role as a semi-tough short range missile brawler type thing or something, I dunno. But what I am sure of is that that kinetic only damage bonus is not helping it. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:35:00 -
[1184] - Quote
How come the harbingers second bonus only partly counters their favored weapons inherent weakness? That is stupid, minmatar get a second bonus to their guns range instead of rate of fire and they still use less cap. Give the harbinger a 3rd bonus. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1635
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:59:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Aglais wrote: The other thing that perpetually confuses me is why Gallente ships keep getting far more structure than any other faction. What purpose does this serve? Do people actually hull tank? In real fights?
Certain Gallente frigates people do indeed hull tank, as a decent tank is possible only with a Damage Control on them. However the reason is the nature of active tanking- you'll be likely to dip multiple times into structure when running active armor tank. Just like active shield tank dips into armor. Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 07:21:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga? Caldari have two range bonused hybrid platforms. One gets outfitted with eight guns that I dare say are pretty quality, and also has a damage bonus on top of that. The other gets seven, either of guns in the 'they're ok I guess' range, or the 'competing with HMLs for worst weapon system in EVE' ones. And it's also slower and only kind of tougher. I see no point in the Ferox existing as it is because the Naga outperforms it. I guess the addition of a lowslot to the Ferox might let some more damage oriented fits happen for close range setups, but really, will it pull through?
Is there going to be any incentive for using Drakes over Cyclones? Like... Ever? I do see that there's a resistance bonus versus a shield boost one, but IMO what just breaks the Drake compared to the Cyclone is the lack of being able to choose damage types. Basically if you're expecting Drakes to be anywhere at all, fit kinetic hardeners and they just flounder because their DPS with any other missile type is kind of really poor given the lack of any kind of bonus whatsoever.
The other thing that perpetually confuses me is why Gallente ships keep getting far more structure than any other faction. What purpose does this serve? Do people actually hull tank? In real fights?
At least you succeeded in bringing sub-BC Caldari ships into the usability zone. Ferox doesn't look like it's gone in, Drake's on uneven territory. Maybe it'll actually be ok with HAMs and have a role as a semi-tough short range missile brawler type thing or something, I dunno. But what I am sure of is that that kinetic only damage bonus is not helping it. Ferox is a blaster boat, and range bonus is good in bigger fights so you can project that damage with less need to waste time flying into range. And if there is logi support you should use Drake instead of Cyclone, dont forget how tanky that hull is. And more hull is always useful even if you dont hull tank, bigger buffer = more time to gtfo or get repped. |
Raavi Arda
Solaris Project Border World Enterprises
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 07:49:00 -
[1187] - Quote
So... TL;DR version is: Drake: NERF NERF NERF! Make it a useless ship! Why not just remove this ship from the game? It's bad already after the missile nerf, now it gets hit where it was still keeping up: the defenses, turning it into a completely useless ship. The removal of the utility high hurts even more since I'll now have to remove a launcher (even less DPS!) to get my ganglink...
Cane: Not so bad but still a rather nasty hit. Removal of the high slot hurts...
Myrm: Drone boats are useless already in PvE but kept their place in PvP... not anymore! Neut Myrm was a great addition to any gang, now it gets seriously screwed.
Harbi: What looks like a nerf initially is actually a buff. Less turrets but FAR more firepower on the remaining ones (+25%!). Loss of PG/CPU hurts but with -1 turret - not so much. Same goes for cap.
So I guess we're heading back to the days when Amarr ships were THE only ones that mattered. Fly Amarr or be useless. Raavi Arda |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:00:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Why not take a page from the original Talos' playbook and drop the 7.5%/level active armor tank bonus on the Brutix for a 5%/level stasis webifier strength bonus? This results in 75% webs at BC 5, which is a considerable advantage but not nearly as dominating as 90% webs. For reference, two unbonused webs yield an 80.9% velocity reduction, and two hypothetical 25% bonused webs yield a 91% velocity reduction--marginally better than a single web on one of the web-bonused pirate faction ships, but considerably better than two webs on an unbonused ship.
I'd fly it with such a bonus, and it would be distinct from other ships filling a similar role (esp. the Talos). |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
132
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:09:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:How come the harbingers second bonus only partly counters their favored weapons inherent weakness?
Lasers are powerful by default. Take for instance an unbonused battlecruiser with 6 guns (I'm using Ferox for this, except for range on hybrids where I'm using Brutix to get the base number). Let's assume 2 weapon upgrades in lows and use of most popular ammo (short range with ACs, IN Multifrequency + Scorch with lasers and CN Antimatter + Null with Blasters).
With 425mm AutoCannons II, it'll deal 329 dps at 1.5+12, with Heavy Neutron Blaster II it'll get 449 dps at 2.25+6.25 or 358 at 6.3+8.75, while with Heavy Pulse Lasers II, it'll get 367 dps at 7.5+5 or 292 at 22.5+5. That means that unbonused, anywhere beyond about 3.4 km where blasters drop under them, lasers will have superior damage to every other gun. As soon as you add a damage bonus, the dps goes through the roof (see Abaddon, Nightmare, Armageddon, Oracle for examples). So in a way, cap use is their balancing factor, you have the potential to do the most damage, but you also risk draining your ship and leave it defenseless. The cap bonus then offsets this risk at the cost of what could be a second damage bonus, resists or whatever. Had lasers not been working like that, CCP would be forced to lower their damage in order to balance them - and I'm sure we don't want that, do we?
Quote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga?
Sturdier ship, meaning it's a better Blaster boat.
Quote:Is there going to be any incentive for using Drakes over Cyclones? Like... Ever?
Drakes do more damage vs. kinetic targets and Cyclone only pulls ahead on other damage types if it uses utility slots for turrets. Most Cyclones are likely to be fitted with neuts or something similar, so Drakes will tend to deal more damage. |
Bastion Arzi
Pro Synergy ARK.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:01:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Hi, just wondering when these changes ar implemented will we have to strip ship fittings before the patch or will that happen automatically?
Also if it does happen automatically where will the unfitted modules go? |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
100
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:13:00 -
[1191] - 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. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1635
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:30:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Bastion Arzi wrote:Hi, just wondering when these changes ar implemented will we have to strip ship fittings before the patch or will that happen automatically?
Also if it does happen automatically where will the unfitted modules go?
They actually "stay" on the ship, but are offline (greyed out) and you can then remove them manually, there's no empty slot under them. At least so far. Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 10:04:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Raavi Arda wrote:So... TL;DR version is: Drake: NERF NERF NERF! Make it a useless ship! Why not just remove this ship from the game? It's bad already after the missile nerf, now it gets hit where it was still keeping up: the defenses, turning it into a completely useless ship. The removal of the utility high hurts even more since I'll now have to remove a launcher (even less DPS!) to get my ganglink...
Cane: Not so bad but still a rather nasty hit. Removal of the high slot hurts...
Myrm: Drone boats are useless already in PvE but kept their place in PvP... not anymore! Neut Myrm was a great addition to any gang, now it gets seriously screwed.
Harbi: What looks like a nerf initially is actually a buff. Less turrets but FAR more firepower on the remaining ones (+25%!). Loss of PG/CPU hurts but with -1 turret - not so much. Same goes for cap.
So I guess we're heading back to the days when Amarr ships were THE only ones that mattered. Fly Amarr or be useless.
Drake still has awesome tank and does solid damage, you can still use Myrmidon as neut ship, and Harbinger is actually nerfed to the ground with its 30dps boost and -30pg nerf. In my book that is a bad trade off, especially on a ship that was already a ***** to fit even with implants and max skills.
I should learn to ignore posts that start with all caps and exclamation marks. They are full of stupid. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 11:28:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga?
There will be a small niche for the Ferox as an inside-web-range brawler. Now, you'd probably be right to say that the Ferox would be better with a damage bonus in that role, notwithstanding the better range flexibility of range-bonused blasters, but if the Ferox has a damage bonus would there be any incentive to fly the Moa over the Ferox? Any incentive would only be related to mobilitiy, but by giving the Ferox mobility poor enough to make the Moa relevant would end up favouring the optimal bonus.
I thought about a tracking bonus instead for the Ferox for a bit - tracking and optimal would help the rail Ferox relative to the Naga - but I don't think it's a battlecruiser's job to be fighting frigates. |
Mund Richard
277
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 12:02:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Aglais wrote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga? but if the Ferox has a damage bonus would there be any incentive to fly the Moa over the Ferox? That's like asking if there's any reason to fly the Rupture over the Cane.
Oh look! A race that has one of it's perfectly working cruisers scaled up for BC level without touching it's recepie for win in any way! Who would have guessed, that it's the WINMatar? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1638
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 12:13:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Optimal range bonus translates into increased applied damage in a very concrete way when using blasters in practical brawling situations. Ferox can shoot AM at ranges where Brutix needs to switch to null, bringing them close to each others in real dps.
The difference between Naga and Ferox is clear, Ferox is much more capable of handling tackle-range combat due to fitting medium guns, and having actual tank. Even a blaster Talos with it's awesome tracking bonus struggles at close range, large guns are helpless compared to medium guns when you go to scram range.
This makes an armor Brutix a very interesting option, which is just currently just plain worse than a buffer Myrm, which has more of everything, tank, dps, range and utility.
Unfortunately it still comes short, even with 6 lows it has a slot for a magstab- it does not have enough grid to fit a full rack of neutrons and plate without two ACRs, all Vs, Genos and a PG-3. New Myrm achieves the same dps (which applies better) with one DDA, but can fit a T2 plate with just one ACR and no implants, resulting in bigger tank and dual webs.
Only thing the Brutix has going for it is slightly better mobility, which however is a absolutely mandatory to be able to use medium blasters in the first place (range < scram), whereas Myrm will be able to deliver 469 vs 158 drone dps out to (theoretical) maximum of 60km.
Proposed Brutix might not be such a good choice over, say, AB+800mmII+Neutrons Thorax... which trades some paper EHP and two turrets for tracking bonus, speed and 2.5 times smaller sig.
Armor rep just needs to be buffed up to 10% for the Brutix to make any sense.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Mund Richard
277
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 12:21:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Roime wrote:whereas Myrm will be able to deliver 469 vs 158 drone dps out to (theoretical) maximum of 60km. Of course, you are assuming the 1km/sec MWDing (not orbit speed!) Ogres catch up to the target (plated battleship, or no MWD?), who doesn't shoot the non-repping and limited in supply drones down as opposed to shooting at the ship that is know to fit a helluva rep making a fight long. A fight, that once it's 7 drones are out is about shooting a punching bag. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
432
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 13:26:00 -
[1198] - Quote
This thread needs more devposts... Seriously 1 in 60 pages i a bad ratio. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1638
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 13:56:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Roime wrote:whereas Myrm will be able to deliver 469 vs 158 drone dps out to (theoretical) maximum of 60km. Of course, you are assuming the 1km/sec MWDing (not orbit speed!) Ogres catch up to the target (plated battleship, or no MWD?), who doesn't shoot the non-repping and limited in supply (btw 600? 750 sig?) drones down as opposed to shooting at the ship that is know to fit a helluva rep making a fight long. A fight, that once it's 7 drones are out is about shooting a punching bag.
Like I said, theoretical. In practice we're talking probably under long point ranges, which is still a lot more than blasters. There is more flexibility in range, not huge, and also flexibility in the way your ship can maneouver on the field without it affecting your applied dps.
Drone sig radius seriously needs to be looked at, they are just insanely too large now.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
433
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 14:27:00 -
[1200] - Quote
You don't put ogres on an unwebbed/scrammed target unless you really REALLY want to lose your ogres. |
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 16:05:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Raavi Arda wrote:So... TL;DR version is: Drake: NERF NERF NERF! Make it a useless ship! Why not just remove this ship from the game? It's bad already after the missile nerf, now it gets hit where it was still keeping up: the defenses, turning it into a completely useless ship. The removal of the utility high hurts even more since I'll now have to remove a launcher (even less DPS!) to get my ganglink...
Cane: Not so bad but still a rather nasty hit. Removal of the high slot hurts...
Myrm: Drone boats are useless already in PvE but kept their place in PvP... not anymore! Neut Myrm was a great addition to any gang, now it gets seriously screwed.
Harbi: What looks like a nerf initially is actually a buff. Less turrets but FAR more firepower on the remaining ones (+25%!). Loss of PG/CPU hurts but with -1 turret - not so much. Same goes for cap.
So I guess we're heading back to the days when Amarr ships were THE only ones that mattered. Fly Amarr or be useless. Drake still has awesome tank and does solid damage, you can still use Myrmidon as neut ship, and Harbinger is actually nerfed to the ground with its 30dps boost and -30pg nerf. In my book that is a bad trade off, especially on a ship that was already a ***** to fit even with implants and max skills. I should learn to ignore posts that start with all caps and exclamation marks. They are full of stupid.
I'm going to take this advice, too. People need to learn that just because they see a number go down on a ship, it isn't suddenly a terrible ship. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
177
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 16:07:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Raavi Arda wrote:So... TL;DR version is: Drake: NERF NERF NERF! Make it a useless ship! Why not just remove this ship from the game? It's bad already after the missile nerf, now it gets hit where it was still keeping up: the defenses, turning it into a completely useless ship. The removal of the utility high hurts even more since I'll now have to remove a launcher (even less DPS!) to get my ganglink...
You forget that gang linking is more of a utility role and that you should be expected to be losing something for it. T1 ships are not 'do everything'. That's T3s.
As for your complaint for the Drake losing tank... What? Still has that shield resist bonus, still has the highest shield HP out of all of the battlecruisers... I don't see the losses there. That's not where the problem lies.
The thing is, I think HML Caracals are still kind of usable because of the fact that the Caracal has an RoF bonus. Not the rather dumb kinetic only damage bonus the Drake is stuck with. There are some ships this evidently works fine on (ie. Condor). But the Drake is no longer one of those ships, and honestly, here's what I think.
Cyclone should keep it's RoF bonus. Make it the 'DPS' missile boat. Drake on the other hand, should get a damage bonus to missiles in general. Not just kinetic (which is a boot to the head more than anything else IMO). Then we have the 'alpha' missile boat too. It shows that both factions have missiles in their repertoire, and at the same time it gives them different styles of use as well.
Also at the people who cleared up my hull tanking question: that seems to actually make sense now. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 16:33:00 -
[1203] - Quote
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. |
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
609
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 16:45:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Commander Ted wrote:How come the harbingers second bonus only partly counters their favored weapons inherent weakness? Lasers are powerful by default. Take for instance an unbonused battlecruiser with 6 guns (I'm using Ferox for this, except for range on hybrids where I'm using Brutix to get the base number). Let's assume 2 weapon upgrades in lows and use of most popular ammo (short range with ACs, IN Multifrequency + Scorch with lasers and CN Antimatter + Null with Blasters). With 425mm AutoCannons II, it'll deal 329 dps at 1.5+12, with Heavy Neutron Blaster II it'll get 449 dps at 2.25+6.25 or 358 at 6.3+8.75, while with Heavy Pulse Lasers II, it'll get 367 dps at 7.5+5 or 292 at 22.5+5. That means that unbonused, anywhere beyond about 3.4 km where blasters drop under them, lasers will have superior damage to every other gun. As soon as you add a damage bonus, the dps goes through the roof (see Abaddon, Nightmare, Armageddon, Oracle for examples). So in a way, cap use is their balancing factor, you have the potential to do the most damage, but you also risk draining your ship and leave it defenseless. The cap bonus then offsets this risk at the cost of what could be a second damage bonus, resists or whatever. Had lasers not been working like that, CCP would be forced to lower their damage in order to balance them - and I'm sure we don't want that, do we?
With the proliferation of Neuts in game nowadays, and the upgrades to other weapon systems (most notably projectiles, but missiles and hybrids have seen some love as well), lasers are no longer that much ahead. Then you start to factor in the secondary ship bonuses that others are beginning to get (RoF bonus + damage, or Damage + tracking), which Amarr is forced to lose out on just for the ability to be able to fire their weapons for more than a minute or so, and the problem exacerbates.
1 Damage type, slower tracking, already is a balancing factor. I agree with the other poster in that fitting for lasers should be accounted for in another way. Losing out on secondary bonuses just for the ability to mount the weapons and use them, in particular on a Race of ships with the highest cap vulnerability, highest cap use, and lowest mid slots of the races already, is not as balanced as it was 6 yrs ago.
There are also secondary things that indirectly affect the landscape (capless weapons, asb's, etc) as a whole.
Just my take on it,
~Z There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
217
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 17:34:00 -
[1205] - 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 |
Mund Richard
278
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 18:06:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Roime wrote:whereas Myrm will be able to deliver 469 vs 158 drone dps out to (theoretical) maximum of 60km. Of course, you are assuming the 1km/sec MWDing (not orbit speed!) Ogres catch up to the target (plated battleship, or no MWD?), who doesn't shoot the non-repping and limited in supply (btw 600? 750 sig?) drones down as opposed to shooting at the ship that is know to fit a helluva rep making a fight long. A fight, that once it's 7 drones are out is about shooting a punching bag. Like I said, theoretical. In practice we're talking probably under long point ranges, which is still a lot more than blasters. In practice:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:You don't put ogres on an unwebbed/scrammed target unless you really REALLY want to lose your ogres. What he said. An ogre will not catch anything faster than a plated BS unless it's scrammed (or out of cap).
If it's scrammed, it's within blaster range*. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 19:12:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Commander Ted wrote:How come the harbingers second bonus only partly counters their favored weapons inherent weakness? Lasers are powerful by default. Take for instance an unbonused battlecruiser with 6 guns (I'm using Ferox for this, except for range on hybrids where I'm using Brutix to get the base number). Let's assume 2 weapon upgrades in lows and use of most popular ammo (short range with ACs, IN Multifrequency + Scorch with lasers and CN Antimatter + Null with Blasters). With 425mm AutoCannons II, it'll deal 329 dps at 1.5+12, with Heavy Neutron Blaster II it'll get 449 dps at 2.25+6.25 or 358 at 6.3+8.75, while with Heavy Pulse Lasers II, it'll get 367 dps at 7.5+5 or 292 at 22.5+5. That means that unbonused, anywhere beyond about 3.4 km where blasters drop under them, lasers will have superior damage to every other gun. As soon as you add a damage bonus, the dps goes through the roof (see Abaddon, Nightmare, Armageddon, Oracle for examples). So in a way, cap use is their balancing factor, you have the potential to do the most damage, but you also risk draining your ship and leave it defenseless. The cap bonus then offsets this risk at the cost of what could be a second damage bonus, resists or whatever. Had lasers not been working like that, CCP would be forced to lower their damage in order to balance them - and I'm sure we don't want that, do we? With the proliferation of Neuts in game nowadays, and the upgrades to other weapon systems (most notably projectiles, but missiles and hybrids have seen some love as well), lasers are no longer that much ahead. Then you start to factor in the secondary ship bonuses that others are beginning to get (RoF bonus + damage, or Damage + tracking), which Amarr is forced to lose out on just for the ability to be able to fire their weapons for more than a minute or so, and the problem exacerbates. 1 Damage type, slower tracking, already is a balancing factor. I agree with the other poster in that fitting for lasers should be accounted for in another way. Losing out on secondary bonuses just for the ability to mount the weapons and use them, in particular on a Race of ships with the highest cap vulnerability, highest cap use, and lowest mid slots of the races already, is not as balanced as it was 6 yrs ago. There are also secondary things that indirectly affect the landscape (capless weapons, asb's, etc) as a whole. Just my take on it, ~Z You have good points, but Amarr is still an excellent race overall due to how well their armor scales up within fleets. Both with, and without, resistance bonuses. So nothing really needs to be done.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1646
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 19:23:00 -
[1208] - Quote
I know Mund, I surprisingly fly drone ships in PVP. I'm also not talking exclusively about solo.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 19:33:00 -
[1209] - Quote
Is the situation with heavy drones on cruisers/BCs going to get unfucked? It's really bad, so I thought I'd sperg about it since there will be more of these ships expected to use them. Everyone else is doing instant damage out to 50km or whatever with med gun tracking, while these ships have vulnerable heavy drones trundling about unable to catch a drake. ****'s dumb.
How about some drone love in general, like making them less awful vs. moving targets that they are faster than?
I'm all over myrmidons and that prophecy, but I'm never going to fly them with wonky bandwidth, no spares and no projection against things that aren't webbed and scrammed. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 19:54:00 -
[1210] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Is the situation with heavy drones on cruisers/BCs going to get unfucked? It's really bad, so I thought I'd sperg about it since there will be more of these ships expected to use them. Everyone else is doing instant damage out to 50km or whatever with med gun tracking, while these ships have vulnerable heavy drones trundling about unable to catch a drake. ****'s dumb.
How about some drone love in general, like making them less awful vs. moving targets that they are faster than?
I'm all over myrmidons and that prophecy, but I'm never going to fly them with wonky bandwidth, no spares and no projection against things that aren't webbed and scrammed. You can get 849 DPS out of a myrmidon with 3 Ogres, a rack of blasters, and 3 mag stabs. 757 with a Valkyrie flight instead. Know how much the double DPS bonus of a hurricane gets you with comparable fit? 564. Harbinger? 671
I'm not seeing an issue. Web and Scram your target, blow him up. If you can't do that, get a buddy to do it for you. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 19:57:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Is the situation with heavy drones on cruisers/BCs going to get unfucked? It's really bad, so I thought I'd sperg about it since there will be more of these ships expected to use them. Everyone else is doing instant damage out to 50km or whatever with med gun tracking, while these ships have vulnerable heavy drones trundling about unable to catch a drake. ****'s dumb.
How about some drone love in general, like making them less awful vs. moving targets that they are faster than?
I'm all over myrmidons and that prophecy, but I'm never going to fly them with wonky bandwidth, no spares and no projection against things that aren't webbed and scrammed. You can get 849 DPS out of a myrmidon with 3 Ogres, a rack of blasters, and 3 mag stabs. 757 with a Valkyrie flight instead. Know how much the double DPS bonus of a hurricane gets you with comparable fit? 564. Harbinger? 671 I'm not seeing an issue. Web and Scram your target, blow him up. If you can't do that, get a buddy to do it for you.
If a drone ship is as inflexible as a blaster ship, there's no point flying one. Also 3 mag stabs is total **** fit. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:01:00 -
[1212] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Is the situation with heavy drones on cruisers/BCs going to get unfucked? It's really bad, so I thought I'd sperg about it since there will be more of these ships expected to use them. Everyone else is doing instant damage out to 50km or whatever with med gun tracking, while these ships have vulnerable heavy drones trundling about unable to catch a drake. ****'s dumb.
How about some drone love in general, like making them less awful vs. moving targets that they are faster than?
I'm all over myrmidons and that prophecy, but I'm never going to fly them with wonky bandwidth, no spares and no projection against things that aren't webbed and scrammed. You can get 849 DPS out of a myrmidon with 3 Ogres, a rack of blasters, and 3 mag stabs. 757 with a Valkyrie flight instead. Know how much the double DPS bonus of a hurricane gets you with comparable fit? 564. Harbinger? 671 I'm not seeing an issue. Web and Scram your target, blow him up. If you can't do that, get a buddy to do it for you. If a drone ship is as inflexible as a blaster ship, there's no point flying one. Also 3 mag stabs is total **** fit.
Then don't fly it like a blaster ship. You're not forced to use Ogres all the time just because your bandwidth is 75.
Edit: 3 damage mods on a Cane and Harby is ***fit too. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
418
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:09:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Any one else see a problem when you fit mag-stabs on a drone ship instead of DDAs? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:15:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Any one else see a problem when you fit mag-stabs on a drone ship instead of DDAs? Rack of blasters with mag stabs: 470 dps Drones with equal DDAs: 487 if you do that whole 2x Ogre, 2x warrior, 1x valk thing 322 if 5 valks
So no. It depends on what you want to do. 3 damage mods is an extreme example to highlight how the damage potential of the myrmidon is perfectly fine compared to the damage potential of other ships.
If you want utility and flexibility, don't fill your bay with ogres and complain when they can't reach the target. Fit utility. If you still think there's a problem with the hull, present the problem. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
571
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:25:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Any one else see a problem when you fit mag-stabs on a drone ship instead of DDAs? Rack of 5 blasters with mag stabs: 470 dps Drones with equal DDAs: 487 if you do that whole 2x Ogre, 2x warrior, 1x valk thing 322 if 5 valks So no. It depends on what you want to do. 3 damage mods is an extreme example to highlight how the damage potential of the myrmidon is perfectly fine compared to the damage potential of other ships. If you want utility and flexibility, don't fill your bay with ogres, throwing 5 blasters in your high and fill the lows with DDAs and complain when the ogres can't reach the target. Fit smart. If you still think there's a problem with the hull, present the problem. Saying that using the drone DPS option on what is supposed to be the more DPS focused of the 2 drone boats would be unfeasible kinda does point out an issue though. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
418
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:26:00 -
[1216] - Quote
The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:29:00 -
[1217] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro.
Drone bonused ships aren't always using drones as the 'primary' weapon. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
418
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:33:00 -
[1218] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. Drone bonused ships aren't always using drones as the 'primary' weapon. Well that is the problem. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:35:00 -
[1219] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. Drone bonused ships aren't always using drones as the 'primary' weapon. Well that is the problem.
Dominix is about 50/50. There are others, like ishkur and vexor. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:37:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. That's apples and oranges, as the stabber only has 2 launcher hardpoints, and the DPS is objectively worse that way.
I"m explaining the flexibility that the myrm offers. Part of that flexibility is the DPS to rival battleships if you want to go with a shield, gankfit. Part of that flexibility is whether you want to do your DPS mainly through your drones, or mainly through your highslots. Or whether you want blasters in those highslots at all (or autocannons).
At cursory glance, I could see an issue with the size of the drone bay, as its so much smaller than the prophecy. This is the only issue coming to mind. Wait, no there's one more. Active armor bonus. That's a biggie. But claiming the myrm NEEDS to be able to throw more ogres in the bay? Questionable. The suggestion that ogres are too slow (this is the original claim that spurred my first post on the Myrm)? Laughable. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:40:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote: At cursory glance, I could see an issue with the size of the drone bay, as its so much smaller than the prophecy. This is the only issue coming to mind. Wait, no there's one more. Active armor bonus. That's a biggie. But claiming the myrm NEEDS to be able to throw more ogres in the bay? Questionable. The suggestion that ogres are too slow? Laughable.
CCP have decided that giving gallente small dronebays is a good idea, for some reason. I don't get it at all. It's terrible. And yeah, armour tanking is horrible. Fozzie said something would be done, but I doubt it. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
419
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:44:00 -
[1222] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. Drone bonused ships aren't always using drones as the 'primary' weapon. Well that is the problem. Dominix is about 50/50. There are others, like ishkur and vexor. Dominix Neutron blasters 601DPS Drones 475DPS. Vexor Neutron Blasters 280DPS Drones 314DPS Ishkur Neutron Blasters 175DPS Drones 99DPS
I don't call any of that 50/50 Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:47:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. Drone bonused ships aren't always using drones as the 'primary' weapon. Well that is the problem. Dominix is about 50/50. There are others, like ishkur and vexor. Dominix Neutron blasters 601DPS Drones 475DPS. Vexor Neutron Blasters 280DPS Drones 314DPS Ishkur Neutron Blasters 175DPS Drones 99DPS I don't call any of that 50/50
Your numbers are off, and they're not far off 50/50 anyway, considering that blasters are going to do more paper since they're extreme short range. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:49:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. Drone bonused ships aren't always using drones as the 'primary' weapon. Well that is the problem. Dominix is about 50/50. There are others, like ishkur and vexor. Dominix Neutron blasters 601DPS Drones 475DPS. Vexor Neutron Blasters 280DPS Drones 314DPS Ishkur Neutron Blasters 175DPS Drones 99DPS I don't call any of that 50/50 All perfectly functional ships. Like the Myrmidon
Heck the Ishkur doesn't even get a drone DAMAGE bonus but no one's complaining about him. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:49:00 -
[1225] - Quote
Then please fix my numbers, no fitting Max skills ect... Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:51:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote: All perfectly functional ships. Like the Myrmidon
When did I ever say other were disfunctional ships? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:52:00 -
[1227] - Quote
I don't even get what we're talking about. I'm here to say how **** drones are, not whether their proportional damage is too high or low compared to the other weapons on the ships they're used in. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 20:56:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote: All perfectly functional ships. Like the Myrmidon
When did I ever say other were disfunctional ships? Well I guess I'm no longer sure what I'm arguing against anymore. Originally I responded to someone claiming Ogres were broken or something. Then it became a discussion about how the Myrm needed help. But there's been more arguments counter to that in this thread while the supportive arguments went away. So I no longer have anything to argue against. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:00:00 -
[1229] - Quote
i believe we are all on the same page that dones need a major overhaul, but we are all looking at things form different angles. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:06:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:i believe we are all on the same page that dones need a major overhaul, but we are all looking at things form different angles.
I think the capabilities of Heavy Drones versus Sentry Drones in general needs another serious look. And drones need a new UI built from scratch. The racial differences might bear another look. Maybe not. |
|
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
177
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:10:00 -
[1231] - 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'll clarify. It may do similar (or slightly inferior) damage compared to the Drake. The Cyclone's launchers would not be damage bonused and pack less of a punch than the Drake's but make up for it by firing faster to not fall behind. The Drake meanwhile does not fire as fast, but hits much harder. Something to that extent. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:15:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Aglais wrote: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'll clarify. It may do similar (or slightly inferior) damage compared to the Drake. The Cyclone's launchers would not be damage bonused and pack less of a punch than the Drake's but make up for it by firing faster to not fall behind. The Drake meanwhile does not fire as fast, but hits much harder. Something to that extent. The cyclone shines with the ROF bouns as it affects all damage types, where the drake is restricted to kinetic damage only, so i agree the cyclone should keep the ROF bouns. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Norrin Ellis
Venture Racing
188
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:34:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Disregarding for a moment the fact that drones are a terrible weapon system since Retribution, I'm curious why the Amarr get the best drone boat in the class. Whatever happened to the Gallente being drone specialists?
Armor resist bonus is vastly superior to an armor repair effectiveness bonus. The Prophecy can carry 3 full max. bandwidth flights of drones, while the Myrmidon gets only 1.75 flights at max. bandwidth. Prophecy has options for supplemental weapons, while the Myrmidon is locked into hybrid turrets.
The Prophecy is a drone boat that is essentially immune to energy neutralizing effects (missiles / resist bonuses / huge swarm of drones), while the Myrmidon is heavily cap dependent (active tank / [most likely] blasters) with too few drones to offset the handicap.
Do you guys just sit around thinking up ways that you can gimp the Federation in its alleged area of expertise? CEO, Venture Racing Retired Senior Banker, EVE Online Hold'Em |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:40:00 -
[1234] - Quote
The Myrmidon is not locked into hybrid turrets Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:46:00 -
[1235] - Quote
Norrin Ellis wrote:Disregarding for a moment the fact that drones are a terrible weapon system since Retribution, I'm curious why the Amarr get the best drone boat in the class. Whatever happened to the Gallente being drone specialists?
Armor resist bonus is vastly superior to an armor repair effectiveness bonus. The Prophecy can carry 3 full max. bandwidth flights of drones, while the Myrmidon gets only 1.75 flights at max. bandwidth. Prophecy has options for supplemental weapons, while the Myrmidon is locked into hybrid turrets.
The Prophecy is a drone boat that is essentially immune to energy neutralizing effects (missiles / resist bonuses / huge swarm of drones), while the Myrmidon is heavily cap dependent (active tank / [most likely] blasters) with too few drones to offset the handicap.
Do you guys just sit around thinking up ways that you can gimp the Federation in its alleged area of expertise?
ACs fit better, keep running after you cap out 20s into the fight, have better range and can choose damage type. They're more common than hybrids on myrmidons, I think. Not that what people typically fit is important. |
Norrin Ellis
Venture Racing
188
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 21:49:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:The Myrmidon is not locked into hybrid turrets Pardon my oversight there. I forgot that everyone pretty much fits the Winmatar weapons (projectiles) on everything. CEO, Venture Racing Retired Senior Banker, EVE Online Hold'Em |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis R.E.P.O.
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 22:11:00 -
[1237] - Quote
Myrmidon has more room for capacitor boosters than prophecy does. To counter the cap dependence argument brought up earlier. |
Mund Richard
279
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 23:51:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Myrmidon has more room for a capacitor boosters than prophecy does. To additionally counter the cap dependence argument brought up earlier as if the projectile turret argument didn't do that too. I do agree with the projectile argument. With your last one, less so. Proph can also fit projectiles/HAMs, has 4 mids that are the minimum for a PvP and the Cap Booster, and has more lows for tank+gank, not to mention the best tank bonus in game, thus either using less cap, or repping more for the same number of reps - if you want to set it up so, with a DC or extra EAMN, and still have room for a plate.
Maybe it cannot supply 3 reppers that easily (or at all), but a Myrm has only 3 lows left then, with two the Proph still has 5. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
General Foom
Exodus Combined Industries
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 01:14:00 -
[1239] - Quote
I think we just need to cross our fingers and hope Fozzie does something about active armor
ASB's were a stab at addressing active shield tanks
so it follows armor is next?
having active armor reps that are competitive against there buffer cousins would increase build diversity and make ships with active bonuses good at the same time ....
CCP Fozzie wrote:
What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.
i believe hes hinted at it already
|
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
609
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 02:32:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:i believe we are all on the same page that dones need a major overhaul, but we are all looking at things form different angles. I think the capabilities of Heavy Drones versus Sentry Drones in general needs another serious look. And drones need a new UI built from scratch. The racial differences might bear another look. Maybe not.
I have to disagree with you on your feeling that Heavy Drone speed is fine. Ogres are so slow as to be useless unless the target is: 1) BS sized or larger (granted, this is what they are designed for) 2) Webbed / scrammed 3) The drones are dropped off very close by so no travel time is needed.
I do agree with you that Heavy vs Sentry needs work. However, I also feel all of the drones except a select few (warrior II's, for example) need adjustments in speed, signature, mwd speed, combat speed, tracking, etc.
I also agree that a whole new UI is needed for them.
~Z There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
|
Dewgong
Drama Llamas Dark Therapy
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 05:03:00 -
[1241] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:[quote=Omnathious Deninard][quote=TrouserDeagle][quote=Omnathious Deninard]Heck the Ishkur doesn't even get a drone DAMAGE bonus but no one's complaining about him.
That's the thing though, at the Frigate level, drones have a bigger impact by just being out there than compared to BC tiers. A normal flight of lights are deadly to frigs, just like mediums can be deadly to cruisers, but once you get to the BC level, Mediums aren't too much to deal with. It's like a fly buzzing near your ear the whole time. The Ishkur doesn't even need a drone damage bonus. It would be borderline OP if it had one.
Even with a damage bonus, when you got BCs that can either tank through it or out run mediums, it's ********. Sure, you got EWAR drones of various sorts, but honestly, a drone boat can't afford to use them unless you give it extra drones to control or something else.
Hell, give the Proph the ability to fit Drone control units (at most two). |
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
177
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 06:55:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The problem is not the hull, it when it becomes better to buff the secondary weapons of the ship rather than primary weapon. You would be laughed at if you put 2 bcu on a stabber and only one gyro. Drone bonused ships aren't always using drones as the 'primary' weapon. Well that is the problem. Dominix is about 50/50. There are others, like ishkur and vexor. Dominix Neutron blasters 601DPS Drones 475DPS. Vexor Neutron Blasters 280DPS Drones 314DPS Ishkur Neutron Blasters 175DPS Drones 99DPS I don't call any of that 50/50
All lvl 5. If you specialize in drones, you will logically have more sp in drones than gunnnery, so the gap will be larger even though the numbers will be lower.
Neutron Blaster Cannon II x 6 (Void) 562dps Ogre II x 5 793dps
The ratio is 3:2, or 60% dps coming from drones and 40% from guns.
Edit: However, if you DO NOT fit DDAs, guns do slightly more damage than drones. Same if you fit the same number of MagStabs as DDAs. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
217
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:41:00 -
[1243] - 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 |
Nat Howe
Ball Punching Ninja Midgets
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 08:08:00 -
[1244] - Quote
About the Brutix... Easy fix, drop its active rep bonus for a tracking bonus imo :D make it into exactly what the talos isn't a rounded dps platform that can hit big and small, less dmg and range than a talos. but better tracking on smaller targets.
also IMO give the myrm a ful 125m3 drone bandwith :( its soooo niche as it is. It's too slow even nano'd, its range sucks with autos or blasters, and its only good as uber buffer or double/tripple tanked brawler. so not versatile. |
Nat Howe
Ball Punching Ninja Midgets
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 08:10:00 -
[1245] - Quote
duplicate* erased |
Dewgong
Drama Llamas Dark Therapy
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 09:44:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Going on with that, perhaps all tier 1 BCs should be geared more towards anti-cruiser while the tier 2s are geared more towards fleet/larger ships? |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1648
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 09:58:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Dewgong wrote:Going on with that, perhaps all tier 1 BCs should be geared more towards anti-cruiser while the tier 2s are geared more towards fleet/larger ships?
I think the whole point of tiericide is to remove tiers and make all the hulls equally useful. Gearing them towards specific types of targets might contradict with this goal.
Luc Chastot wrote: Neutron Blaster Cannon II x 6 (Void) 562dps Ogre II x 5 793dps
The ratio is 3:2, or 60% dps coming from drones and 40% from guns.
Edit: However, if you DO NOT fit DDAs, guns do slightly more damage than drones. Same if you fit the same number of MagStabs as DDAs.
So what you are actually saying that on many so-called drone ships guns do more damage than drones, unless you fit them especially for drone damage. Drones are primary damage by design only on few select hulls, and even those hulls have some kind of bonus to guns. "Drones are primary weapon" is one of the oldest myths in EVE, and as a pure Gallente pilot I just wish people would forget it, the ships don't work that way.
But well, back to topic, does it look like most of the draft changes beside Harby are fine, and the most pressing rebalancing issues are actually active armor tanking and drones? Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
169
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 11:07:00 -
[1248] - Quote
please give the prophecy 5 turrets or 5 launchers not a 4/4 split :(
tbh id rather have it a T1 HAM boat as a mini damnation with the resistance and a ROF bonus with 5 launchers :-P
|
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 11:48:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Nat Howe wrote:
also IMO give the myrm a ful 125m3 drone bandwith :( its soooo niche as it is. It's too slow even nano'd, its range sucks with autos or blasters, and its only good as uber buffer or double/tripple tanked brawler. so not versatile.
Giving the Myrmidon 125mbit of bandwidth would make 2 ships useless:
Ishtar and Dominix.
Redesigning the Ishtar to be a droneboat and still be very different from the usual droneboat would be doable, however making the dominix outperform the myrmidon as a droneboat would be very hard to achieve and probably break it. Also, even with 75 mbit now, the Myrmidon can already pound pretty well on things it catches (don't comeup with 'YEAH WHEN IT CATCHES', that's what makes the myrmidon balanced. If it could catch everything, it would tear apart everything.), giving it the 100mbit makes it by far more dangerous as it already is. The use of a 3H-2M drone setup or 4H will significantly boost it's damage on big targets, and the ability to drop 4 sentries instead of 3 as now will make it more dangerous to ships that want to stay out of closerange, even small ships approaching.
If you really want to see a 125mbit Myrm though, what might be an approach to distinguish the myrm from the ishtar is the following:
Reduce Ishtar Bandwitdh/Bay to 75/125(175 or whatever) and give the Ishtar a bonus onto HAC skill which increases number of drones controlled by 1 per level. This would be hard to balance though, since it could use 5x Medium drones + a flight of EC-300... which could be a pain in the ass for everyone else. But it would be a totally different droneboat - thus specialized - than all the others out there right now.
But this Thread is about BC, so that shouldn't be discussed here - maybe i'll just start a thread and propose it there. |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 12:03:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Nat Howe wrote: also IMO give the myrm a ful 125m3 drone bandwith :( its soooo niche as it is. It's too slow even nano'd, its range sucks with autos or blasters, and its only good as uber buffer or double/tripple tanked brawler. so not versatile.
What it needs is a bigger drone bay.
As proposed, a shield tanked sentry Myrm will trivialize PvE content more than the Drake ever did. On the other hand, its lack of spares will be a pretty significant hindrance it in PvP. |
|
Rancor Kane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 13:00:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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?
For that to work:
- The Damage bonus should be a R.o.F. bonus - The mass/Speed/Agility Bonus should be looked at again - Shield should be looked at as well.
If you just change the the Resistance bonus for a velocity bonus it will be a sitting duck brick that fires from ranges that don't realy matter.
not realy pro changing it this way or against it, but i you remove the risistance the Damage modifier should be a general or Rof |
Mund Richard
281
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 13:50:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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? The Myrm being a BC, currently having issues (as perceived by some), and suggestions are given how to fix the hull's problem for/with the tools it has.
Drake : yea, been suggested, in fact, if you read the only blue post in the middle (hint: first post has a link), you get your DEV answer there. There was lots of opinions over it since forever in this thread. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
493
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:24:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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?
Bad idea, results in too much overlap with the Caracal, just like giving the Ferox a damage bonus (but with the Moa, obviously).
Since cruisers and BCs use the same weapons size, we can't have BCs effectively being big cruisers - it defeats the point of tiericide. Battlecruisers need to have different roles, relative to cruisers, which very likely requires different bonuses and significantly inferior mobility. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3079
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:38:00 -
[1254] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
266
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:46:00 -
[1255] - Quote
Well after Looking at all these ships for quite a while here is my feedback:
Prophecy: Moving this ship into a Drone boat seems to be a good idea. Problems arise only in the bandwidth issue. The best solution to this would be to reduce bandwidth to 50 M/Bit and increase the damage and HP bonus to 15 or 20% per level.
Harbinger: Excellent setup for the 6 guns with the 10% damage bonus. The ship only has problems in fitting and mobility.
Ferox: Very good setup and differentiates it from the Moa with the 10% optimal. Ship lacks a utility high for a gang link though. Suggest moving the extra low slot to a high slot for a gang link or utility.
Drake: Has a similar problem to the Ferox in that it lacks the utility high. Suggest reducing launcher hardpoints to 6 and increasing damage bonus to 10% per level. Also consider removing Kinetic only damage.
Brutix: Excellent setup. However like the Ferox and the Drake it lacks a utility high. Reduce number of gun slots to six and increase damage bonus to 10% per level.
Myrmidon: Although an excellent setup the drone bay is really too small. The 100 M/Bit bandwidth also causes other issues. Suggest increasing drone bandwidth to 125M/Bit and changing the drone damage bonus to a drone tracking bonus. Increase Drone bay to 250 m3 (2x 125m3)
Cyclone: The damage output of the 5 launchers is a little lackluster. Instead of increases number of launchers to 5, I would suggest increasing the RoF bonuse to 7.5% per level. Also consider moving a utility high slot to a mid. Dual utility highs are bad. We have already seen this on the Hurricane.
Hurricane: No complaints. Seems bang on. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:54:00 -
[1256] - Quote
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.
Will there be a nerf for tier 3s on feb 12th as well? |
Mund Richard
281
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:10:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote: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? Bad idea, results in too much overlap with the Caracal, just like giving the Ferox a damage bonus (but with the Moa, obviously). Since cruisers and BCs use the same weapons size, we can't have BCs effectively being big cruisers - it defeats the point of tiericide. Battlecruisers need to have different roles, relative to cruisers, which very likely requires different bonuses and significantly inferior mobility. If so, why is the Cane still an up-scaled Rupture? More (or at least equal) slots everywhere, same awesome bonuses, same utility high. Unless I'm missing something.
Or is that one ok, since it's WINMatar? Or it's iconic, and has been so since forever, so no one cares? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
60
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:40:00 -
[1258] - Quote
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.
Will the summer expansion make my Raven the best battleship of New Eden again?
Six years ago my Raven did get nerfed into oblivion and beyond because all the forums were complaining about the uber-solo-bbq-wtf-pwn-mobile Raven that they made that terrible missile tracking and the current scapegoats are the Tengu and the Drake.
And my apologies for getting sidetracked in advanced. |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
172
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:41:00 -
[1259] - Quote
TrouserDeagle 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. Will there be a nerf for tier 3s on feb 12th as well?
whats wrong with them?? they are fine the way they are. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
713
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:45:00 -
[1260] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:TrouserDeagle 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. Will there be a nerf for tier 3s on feb 12th as well? whats wrong with them?? they are fine the way they are.
they all need to loose a high slot and loose some agility...
then they are fine...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
441
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:55:00 -
[1261] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:TrouserDeagle 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. Will there be a nerf for tier 3s on feb 12th as well? whats wrong with them?? they are fine the way they are.
....
If you think that you're an idiot. |
Gelatine
EverBroke Geeks
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 16:00:00 -
[1262] - Quote
My feedback:
While I've accepted most of the balancing efforts so far, I was under the impression that this balancing was going on to give more varied uses and options to fit our ships. The opposite appears to be true and these ships in particular seem to be very specific in their usefulness which is what the advanced versions are supposed to be. I can pretty much guess how these ships will be fit for PvP, and I don't expect much deviation from those fits no matter who you fly with. I expected these changes wouldn't just balance the ships, but make them more interesting - maybe add to the lore of EVE, but no we get cookie cutter boring.
I suggest you add a small fixed role bonus to each of these ships that is directly countered by it's racial opposite to keep things interesting. |
Extraterra
German Angels Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 16:07:00 -
[1263] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
I agree with this ... Better then a useless armor rep bonus |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
441
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 16:09:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Extraterra wrote:Zagdul wrote: Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
I agree with this ... Better then a useless armor rep bonus
Stop trying to make it a ******** shield blaster kiter.
|
Extraterra
German Angels Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 16:17:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Extraterra wrote:Zagdul wrote: Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking) Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
I agree with this ... Better then a useless armor rep bonus Stop trying to make it a ******** shield blaster kiter.
Ok switch the extra Med Slot to Low Slots ... but no Armor Rep Bonus Please :) .. its bull**** |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
937
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 16:19:00 -
[1266] - Quote
Tier 3 BC are getting a general mobility nerf. That has been hinted at for a while. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 16:40:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tier 3 BC are getting a general mobility nerf. That has been hinted at for a while.
how about dropping them down from highest tier weapons and giving them ~attack cruiser capacitor |
Extraterra
German Angels Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:05:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:IMO 2 Gallente Combat BC sharing same obsolete armor repair bonus is bad idea. Brutix would make great ship if it have another bonus. Giving it armor resists would make it to "Amarrish". What do you think of following second bonuses?
1) Increase maximum armor amount by X% per level (Pretty much like current armor T3 defensive bonuses). 2) Reduce penalty from armor modules and rigs by X% per level. 3) Mobility bonus (MWD Capacitor cost, AB duration cycle, MWD speed bonus etc). 4) Tackling bonus. It would be handful to have something like "Increase the range of Warp Disruptors and Warp Scramblers by X% per level" since brutix is slow armor ship with extremely close-range weapons so it might help to get in melee. 5) Drone damage bonus so it will be all-gank ship.
Now to Ferox. Medium-size turret sniping just doesn't work. The fact that player fit 250mm on Ferox might be caused by that Ferox is actually a "Noob Trap". New player see nice-looking ship, read description and bonuses and decide that it will work as sniping ship. Actually, what targets would you expect to be shot by medium rails?
+1 for 1) Increase maximum armor amount by X% per level (Pretty much like current armor T3 defensive bonuses) +1 for 4) Tackling bonus. It would be handful to have something like "Increase the range of Warp Disruptors and Warp Scramblers by X% per level" since brutix is slow armor ship with extremely close-range weapons so it might help to get in melee. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:43:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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?
A rof bonus and a bonus to missile velocity would be excellent on the drake. Passive tanking is fine for this one. It makes sense that the ships that are designed for closer range combat and brawling have the bonus to resists making the progression for rail pilots obvious.
Merlin --> Moa --.> Ferox --> Rokh. (Hybrid weapon system - resist bonus for closer range work)
Kestrel --> Caracal --> -Drake --> Raven (should all have a rof bonus and a velocity bonus for missiles - shield systems not so important as range and kiting should be a large part of the tank).
|
Seleucus Ontuas
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:59:00 -
[1270] - Quote
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.
Well, that's actually faster than I was expecting for the BCs, will the Attack BCs also be going out with this patch? Also, any news on TDs, TCs and TEs affecting missiles?
With that said, please, do not give us two Gallente BCs with a self-rep Bonus. Just keep the self-rep bonus on the Brutix and give the Myrmidon a 5% Hybrid Turret bonus along with the 10% bonus to Drones. And if want people to use 250mm Rails on the Ferox, you need to give it more PG. |
|
Nat Howe
Ball Punching Ninja Midgets
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:10:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Quote: also IMO give the myrm a ful 125m3 drone bandwith :( its soooo niche as it is. It's too slow even nano'd, its range sucks with autos or blasters, and its only good as uber buffer or double/tripple tanked brawler. so not versatile.
Giving the Myrmidon 125mbit of bandwidth would make 2 ships useless:
Ishtar and Dominix.[/quote]
Not really... The myrm isn't going to tank or have the highslot versatility of the domi, and it wont sig tank like an Ahac.
Really its an achieved median between the two, seeing as its still slow and the ishtar isnt'. its relatively large sig for a BC sized tank whereas the domi is a beast. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:13:00 -
[1272] - Quote
Seleucus Ontuas 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. Well, that's actually faster than I was expecting for the BCs, will the Attack BCs also be going out with this patch? Also, any news on TDs, TCs and TEs affecting missiles? With that said, please, do not give us two Gallente BCs with a self-rep Bonus. Just keep the self-rep bonus on the Brutix and give the Myrmidon a 5% Hybrid Turret bonus along with the 10% bonus to Drones. And if want people to use 250mm Rails on the Ferox, you need to give it more PG.
For the sake of balance it would have to be a 5% bonus to drones to go alongside a 5% bonus to hybrids. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2669
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:23:00 -
[1273] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tier 3 BC are getting a general mobility nerf. That has been hinted at for a while. how about dropping them down from highest tier weapons and giving them ~attack cruiser capacitor
Confirming that a paper tiger with no tiger is worth flying.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:30:00 -
[1274] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tier 3 BC are getting a general mobility nerf. That has been hinted at for a while. how about dropping them down from highest tier weapons and giving them ~attack cruiser capacitor
I'm a bit confused by this, you want to remove the option of battleship sized weapons from the T3 BC's and cut their cap!
What would be the point of owning/flying them.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
477
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:38:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Stop trying to make it a ******** shield blaster kiter.
In case you haven't noticed yet it's what this ship is now if you want to keep "mobility" and deliver some dps before you miserably die kitted by everything able to run guns/mwd for 2min. Gank mining barges and freighters it's mostly at what this ship is good for, NICE !! -meaning that crap rep bonus is already an unused bonus so, let me ask you please, stop asking CCP to make this ******* ship the bullshit it is because of some nerds infantile trauma.
With 5mids 5 lows, and if it keeps that awful active armor rep you can choose mobility dps AND tackle at cost of tank (shield) or armor graveyard fits (5 lows it's enough) and fill your mids with webs scrams painters mwd or whatever crap.
Of course we have no clue about active tanking changes but it's not news flash CCP neither, and as far as I'm concerned I'm not convinced at all this tanking mode will ever be viable enough for anything else than graveyard camps, specially using overheat mechanics.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:45:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tier 3 BC are getting a general mobility nerf. That has been hinted at for a while. how about dropping them down from highest tier weapons and giving them ~attack cruiser capacitor Confirming that a paper tiger with no tiger is worth flying. -Liang
Just saying maybe they should have to work with some fitting constraints, rather than being able to fit the largest tier of whatever. Also I'd be fine if everyone stopped flying them, they're pretty horrible. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2669
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:58:00 -
[1277] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tier 3 BC are getting a general mobility nerf. That has been hinted at for a while. how about dropping them down from highest tier weapons and giving them ~attack cruiser capacitor Confirming that a paper tiger with no tiger is worth flying. -Liang Just saying maybe they should have to work with some fitting constraints, rather than being able to fit the largest tier of whatever. Also I'd be fine if everyone stopped flying them, they're pretty horrible.
They have a great many constraints already - ranging from fitting to being very fragile to being very weak to smaller ships. Honestly, if you think they're pretty horrible why aren't you campaigning for a boost? Oh right - it isn't exactly how you want everyone else to play the game.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:05:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tier 3 BC are getting a general mobility nerf. That has been hinted at for a while. how about dropping them down from highest tier weapons and giving them ~attack cruiser capacitor Confirming that a paper tiger with no tiger is worth flying. -Liang Just saying maybe they should have to work with some fitting constraints, rather than being able to fit the largest tier of whatever. Also I'd be fine if everyone stopped flying them, they're pretty horrible. They have a great many constraints already - ranging from fitting to being very fragile to being very weak to smaller ships. Honestly, if you think they're pretty horrible why aren't you campaigning for a boost? Oh right - it isn't exactly how you want everyone else to play the game. -Liang
wgat. I think they're way overpowered, and that even if you nerf them a little bit down from their ridiculous current state, having a cruiser with 8 bonused battleship guns might always end up being overpowered. delete tbh. |
androch
Chillwater Ltd Persona Non Gratis
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:19:00 -
[1279] - Quote
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? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
147
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:25:00 -
[1280] - Quote
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. |
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
218
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:26:00 -
[1281] - 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 -
[1282] - 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 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3082
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:37:00 -
[1283] - 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.
We have some plans to help mitigate those challenges but nothing quite ready to announce yet. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
428
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:44:00 -
[1284] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. We have some plans to help mitigate those challenges but nothing quite ready to announce yet. You have been so secretive lately, lots of big plans but no words on them. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 21:21:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. We have some plans to help mitigate those challenges but nothing quite ready to announce yet. You have been so secretive lately, lots of big plans but no words on them.
IRRITATING ISN'T IT
|
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Hephaestus LLC Get Off My Lawn
116
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 22:25:00 -
[1286] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:You have been so secretive lately, lots of big plans but no words on them.
Probably because he knows exactly how the gaming populace would react if he announced some proposed changes, and they didn't go through exactly as iterated. Sorry, but **** people and their false sense of entitlement, because way too many are ungrateful bastards. "My hotdrop was bigger."
"Accidental cyno best cyno." |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2684
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 22:54:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:You have been so secretive lately, lots of big plans but no words on them. Probably because he knows exactly how the gaming populace would react if he announced some proposed changes, and they didn't go through exactly as iterated. Sorry, but **** people and their false sense of entitlement, because way too many are ungrateful bastards.
Quoting for the mother ******* truth.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
430
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 23:00:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:You have been so secretive lately, lots of big plans but no words on them. Probably because he knows exactly how the gaming populace would react if he announced some proposed changes, and they didn't go through exactly as iterated. Sorry, but **** people and their false sense of entitlement, because way too many are ungrateful bastards. The only rebuttal I have is what happened with the winter AI changes, the information was released too late to make the necessary changes before it went live. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2685
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 23:33:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:You have been so secretive lately, lots of big plans but no words on them. Probably because he knows exactly how the gaming populace would react if he announced some proposed changes, and they didn't go through exactly as iterated. Sorry, but **** people and their false sense of entitlement, because way too many are ungrateful bastards. The only rebuttal I have is what happened with the winter AI changes, the information was released too late to make the necessary changes before it went live.
Game Designers can at least be trusted to make fairly reasonable decisions without much personal greed getting in the way. Players, OTOH, are absolutely 100% willing to utterly destroy a game's long term success for winning a fight tomorrow or making a few more ISK today.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
William R Blake
VC Academy
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 23:34:00 -
[1290] - Quote
i will ask 1 thing and 1 thing only from you..please change the Ferox 2nd bonus to turret damage bonus at least 5% ifs not blaster or railgun specific at 10% |
|
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 00:25:00 -
[1291] - Quote
After thoroughly looking through the stats:
Prophecy: Drone boat?? Ummm ok i guess dont fly them. 75 bandwidth? lol wut
harbinger: lul wut? good luck fitting anything decent on that ****. doesn't really need the +25 drone bay but ok sure
Ferox: looks pretty decent dont really fly them
Drake: good nerf, fine with that
Brutix: agree with everyone else, dont need two ships bonused to armor repair, whatever you do dont give it 5 mids, people already shield tank them
Myrm: looks good
Cyclone: Missile boat? not sure how i feel about that. as ive flown the cyclone extensively, i think the dps would be to low to be competitive. Definitely does not need another low slot. As a shield brawler it is already using all its mid slots trying to fit tank and tackle. Def needs another mid instead of low. 50 drone bandwidth/bay is much appreciated though. ******* annoying using split drones. Btw when are you actually going to take more than 30 mins to fix ASB's? the asb 'nerf' is a ******* joke.
Hurricane: Still going to be king by the looks of it. Lol @ 3 launchers though wtf? even two is going full ******, with one utilty high nobody will be fitting a missile launcher, except the noob fit canes that i constantly kill.
Pretty **** balancing there tbh
People were already bitching about cruisers having bc stats this is a massive nerf to most bc and with the recent buff to t1 cruisers makes it even worse. Where is the line? Because i dont see it.
@CCP Fozzie I know you were/are a long time EVE player fozzie before CCP hired you. I didn't know you before, i dont know your playstyle, i hardly know anything about you, but this is some of the worst balancing ive seen. You have been playing EVE for what, years now? I find it hard to believe you dont know the strength and weakness of each ship by now, and what it will take to make them balanced. Hurricane has been king for years now, and as much as i love the cane, it's time for a change.
Sorry for calling you out like that, maybe I dont know what im talking about, after all CCP hired you not me. Please be clear this is not a personal attack on you, I am just trying to rap my head around your mentality, are these your personal changes, or is it "Team Five-0". After the many nerfs to criminal activities in highsec, removal of static frigate plexes, lowsec space being generally ignored, and my play style being slowly phased out by CCP, I am genuinely concerned about the future of the EVE i have enjoyed playing for almost 3 years now.
/endrant p.s. sorry about any types, reallly stoned atm. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
148
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 04:10:00 -
[1292] - Quote
DR BiCarbonate wrote:After thoroughly looking through the stats:
Prophecy: Drone boat?? Ummm ok i guess dont fly them. 75 bandwidth? lol wut
harbinger: lul wut? good luck fitting anything decent on that ****. doesn't really need the +25 drone bay but ok sure
Ferox: looks pretty decent dont really fly them
Drake: good nerf, fine with that
Brutix: agree with everyone else, dont need two ships bonused to armor repair, whatever you do dont give it 5 mids, people already shield tank them
Myrm: looks good
Cyclone: Missile boat? not sure how i feel about that. as ive flown the cyclone extensively, i think the dps would be to low to be competitive. Definitely does not need another low slot. As a shield brawler it is already using all its mid slots trying to fit tank and tackle. Def needs another mid instead of low. 50 drone bandwidth/bay is much appreciated though. ******* annoying using split drones. Btw when are you actually going to take more than 30 mins to fix ASB's? the asb 'nerf' is a ******* joke.
Hurricane: Still going to be king by the looks of it. Lol @ 3 launchers though wtf? even two is going full ******, with one utilty high nobody will be fitting a missile launcher, except the noob fit canes that i constantly kill.
Pretty **** balancing there tbh
People were already bitching about cruisers having bc stats this is a massive nerf to most bc and with the recent buff to t1 cruisers makes it even worse. Where is the line? Because i dont see it.
@CCP Fozzie I know you were/are a long time EVE player fozzie before CCP hired you. I didn't know you before, i dont know your playstyle, i hardly know anything about you, but this is some of the worst balancing ive seen. You have been playing EVE for what, years now? I find it hard to believe you dont know the strength and weakness of each ship by now, and what it will take to make them balanced. Hurricane has been king for years now, and as much as i love the cane, it's time for a change.
Sorry for calling you out like that, maybe I dont know what im talking about, after all CCP hired you not me. Please be clear this is not a personal attack on you, I am just trying to rap my head around your mentality, are these your personal changes, or is it "Team Five-0". After the many nerfs to criminal activities in highsec, removal of static frigate plexes, lowsec space being generally ignored, and my play style being slowly phased out by CCP, I am genuinely concerned about the future of the EVE i have enjoyed playing for almost 3 years now.
/endrant p.s. sorry about any types, reallly stoned atm.
He was in PL... Too busy doing easy mode PvP to actually know how things work.
Good point about the massive cruiser buff. It makes the nerfs to the BC's draw too much similarity to the cruisers and not enough middle ground from cruiser to BS.
The lines of thought on these ships is ******** and allows for lack of quality and diversity among ships. 2 drone BC's that do basically the same thing with obviously skewed balance in bonuses to favor one over the other. 2 Missile BC's.
EVEN WORSE, continued proliferation of drone bays on every god damn ship in game because the Dev's can't figure out how to balance w/o them.
I mean seriously, why don't we just toss out the 4 races and not even worry about diverse game play anymore.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
428
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 05:23:00 -
[1293] - Quote
I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but I looked through the Dev comments and didn't see a response to it, but...
CCP had recently stated that they were going to try to get away from damage specific bonuses on missile boats because it partially negated one of the very benefits of missiles.
They explained that away on the destroyers(though I think it would have been better to make the minmatar a brawler and the caldari range), but my point is.
Why does the Drake still have a kinetic specific damage bonus?
It definitely would have helped with the recen hml nerfed had the drake been given a bonus towards all damage types, or at least a RoF bonus instead.
It seems to me that the drake is going to remain in the current boat it's in which is basically seeing less and less use everyday, and no one is bothering to replace them once they're destroyed unless they're still working on training for something else....
I'll await a reply if chosen for one.... |
Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 06:01:00 -
[1294] - Quote
i believe the myrmadon needs 125mbit and 200m3 for drones cause it IS the step between vexor and domi. maybe keep the 5 highs but -1 turret. or something. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 06:46:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but I looked through the Dev comments and didn't see a response to it, but...
CCP had recently stated that they were going to try to get away from damage specific bonuses on missile boats because it partially negated one of the very benefits of missiles.
They explained that away on the destroyers(though I think it would have been better to make the minmatar a brawler and the caldari range), but my point is.
Why does the Drake still have a kinetic specific damage bonus?
Look again.
Hint: it's in the longest CCP post in this thread, which just so happens to be linked in the first post as well. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 07:00:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:i believe the myrmadon needs 125mbit and 200m3 for drones cause it IS the step between vexor and domi. maybe keep the 5 highs but -1 turret. or something. 100 mb/s bandwidth IS in the middle of a Vexor (75 mb/s) and Domi (125 mb/s). Surprising, yes.
What it actually does need is the ability to fit two full flights of drones, whatever the indended size is. It's not a fair request to have drone ships not have enough bay to even field a second set of drones, especially with the Myrm's indended heavies. If the choice comes to warp out and save the ship or wait for them to slowboat back, the answer is obvious. Leaving your dps on the field is painful enough--not being able to launch another set for round 2: that's just not fair to ask. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 07:46:00 -
[1297] - Quote
I think this should be on test server for at least a month before release, they are really rushing it. Also 60+ pages of comments (and at least 10% of them were actually mature, informative and well written, new record) and still no response from the devs.
Wishlist: fix drone boats give caldari utility high slot nerf cyclone fitting, that thing can fit literally anything and for the love of god dont nerf harbinger that much |
To mare
Advanced Technology
159
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 07:53:00 -
[1298] - Quote
i think the changes so far are pretty good (except for the armor nerf on the harby)
prophecy is nice myrm was about time it got a bandwith boost brutix i would switch the rep bonus for something more gunboat oriented falloff or tracking cyclone will be a bigger breacher and the breacher actually its pretty damn good hurricane will still be good ferox its already good now as a shield tanking blasterboat with 1 more turret it will be even better drake nothing changes really
also i think this is a more tricky rebalance than the previous ones because frig and cruiser just got a heck of a boost so most of the players where happy with that. now here we are talking about a nerf/tweaking wich was long time overdue on one of the most popular class of ship (just because they are too good in the current status) so alot of people will complain but for the greater good of EVE keep going
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
149
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 08:48:00 -
[1299] - Quote
To mare wrote:i think the changes so far are pretty good (except for the armor nerf on the harby)
prophecy is nice myrm was about time it got a bandwith boost brutix i would switch the rep bonus for something more gunboat oriented falloff or tracking cyclone will be a bigger breacher and the breacher actually its pretty damn good hurricane will still be good ferox its already good now as a shield tanking blasterboat with 1 more turret it will be even better drake nothing changes really
also i think this is a more tricky rebalance than the previous ones because frig and cruiser just got a heck of a boost so most of the players where happy with that. now here we are talking about a nerf/tweaking wich was long time overdue on one of the most popular class of ship (just because they are too good in the current status) so alot of people will complain but for the greater good of EVE keep going
It's not long overdue after a series of power creeping the tiers of ships below BC. By the simple nature of making Cruisers and Frigates way more durable and faster, BC's got nerfed. Going overkill by nerfing the BC class directly on top of those other changes means there's hardly a justification for a ship 3x the cost of minerals and no real role if the changes go through as proposed.
Drake has a problem with a stupid tank bonus when it should have never ever gotten one from the start. It needs to swap out the resist for missile velocity and remove the role of brawler. Otherwise, it's stealing both the Ferox and the Cyclones primary roles.
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.
Harbinger was always pretty good, but just lacked a slight bit of fittings... dunno why they changed anything other than maybe swapping a mid for an extra low.
Myrm is one of the only decent changes if they would just add more drone bay for 2 flights of drones.
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.
Cyclone is just flat stupid and another ode to the failure of class distinction CCP has been tossing around for years.
Hurricane is one of the few BC's finally balanced and yet they go and change it more with this patch.
I think everyone nailed the problem with the Brutix on the head. Bump up the Active repair to 10% per level and do something about it's high slots. Brutix could easily get a 7.5 or 10% damage bonus for one less gun and allow it to get a utility high slot. Then fix active repair and plating issues with ships and you might finally see it be useful.
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
219
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 09:22:00 -
[1300] - 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 |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
150
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 09:50:00 -
[1301] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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?
What kind of crack are you smoking with the range? You want an optimal bonus on a blaster that has **** all optimal to begin with? Apply damage much easier on the slowest BC with the shortest range weapon of all 12 choices even with the optimal really means that much to you?
The fact that people even fly the blaster ferox is mind blowing loltastic pvp. It's a straight up troll ship and nothing more. People who buy into it being effective (which apparently includes the devs not supprisingly) are drinking some amazing juice of wonderment.
To answer your question about the oracle, it's a joke of Teir 3 design that you can even fit a 1600 plate on it. Proper balance would have never allowed that in the first place. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
159
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:20:00 -
[1302] - Quote
with the current game status there is still no point to use a cruiser over a BC in a worthwile fleet, BC are still the best bang for the buck and they are not getting such a big nerf, some of the are actually being boosted ferox optimal bonus make sense being able to deal full blaster dps at 10km is good, if i have to choose between 6 turrets + dmg bonus and 7 turret+ optimal bonus the last one is a clear winner to me |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:23:00 -
[1303] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:What kind of crack are you smoking with the range? You want an optimal bonus on a blaster that has **** all optimal to begin with? Apply damage much easier on the slowest BC with the shortest range weapon of all 12 choices even with the optimal really means that much to you? Based on the comments about the optimal range being "great" for it, people seem to think that it's enough of a "role" for the ship to have this weird little niche where it can pull some marginal range edge on other blaster boats while using Null. That's more of an excuse than a role though, to justify keeping a bonus that doesn't make sense for any role the boat is actually going to fill. The point of a "role" is for the ship to have one thing it is very good at, and for the "bonus" to take a strong point and make it stronger, not to just barely enable a marginal tactic that might work in some way, some of the time, in some situations, if flown exactly right, against the ideal opponent. |
Greenlike ish
Incursion Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:50:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Hello.
In short, the current myrmidon has several issues: (1) It is going to have to compete with the new prophecy. With its 7 lowslots it can fit any kind of armor tank the myrmidon can with its 6 lowslots, but better because of the nature of the 5% resist bonus compared to the 7.5% armor repair bonus (in case of active tanks, in the case of armor buffer tanks it would be miles ahead of the myrmidon). Add to that the fact that with the 7th lowslot the prophecy can always fit 1 more Drone Damage Amplifier, where the myrmidon will be out of slots. However the prophecy is not the problem, trying to active tank the myrmidon is. Active tanking takes more slots to be effective compared to a buffer tank. Slots the myrmidon dedicates at the expense of drone damage output. This is because the slot layout still follows the old way drone boats were set up. The drone boats advantage compared to ships with turrets has always been that it could do max drone dps without needing to fit damage amplifiers in your lowslots, which meant you had a better tank compared to the turret armor fitted ships. DDA changed that, so the myrm needs to evolve a little.
(2) The drone bay is to small to carry at least two flights of the dps drone configurations you want to bring. It should be able to field 2x the 100 mbit flight, and have a little extra for about 5 to 7 light drones, so a drone bay of at least 225 is recommended.
My ideas for the new myrmidon then. I'll explain point by point and add my reasoning behind this. Please bear with me for wall of text.
- Keep the 6 high slots: 5 turret points and 1 utility. The myrmidon model has 6 obviously placed high slots. If you only allow it 5 high slots in the fiting window, it might cause confusion and it will put the model to shame. By keeping 6 fittable high's atleast the slot layout follows the look of the ship.
- Change the 7.5% armor repair bonus to a 5% medium blaster bonus This will make the ship fit into the shipline Vexor (4 bonussed blasters + 75 mbit bonussed drones) => Myrmidon (5 bonussed blasters + 100 mbit bonussed drones) => Dominix (6 bonussed blasters + 125 mbit drones). I know this will add considerable punch to the dps of the ship, so there will be other changes to it to mitigate this considerable increase to its DPS, please read on.
- Remove the 5th middle slot. This has two reasons, as I'm about to explain. Firstly the myrmidon needs to lose a slot somewhere to compensate for keeping 6 highslots. Second, and this is very important: it will give more incentive to armor tanking and mitigate it's ability for high dps due to the bonussed guns and drones. Why is this necessary you might ask?
I think if the myrm would keep the 5th middle slot while gaining the gun bonus and losing the active armor rep bonus, it would almost exclusivly be flown as a shieldtanked ship with damage modules in the lows. 5 midslots would be an open invitation to apply the typical high DPS brutix fits (shield extenders + damage mods + biggest guns you can strap on) but with higher overall EHP. It would be flown either with extenders and invunerability fields for buffer EHP or 2x XLASB and an invulnerability field for enormous burst active tank. With it's bonussed guns and drones, and 6 lows full of damage modules, would allow it to put out over a 1000 dps while having to much EHP / active tank, resulting in a massivly overpowered ship.
To resolve this, the 5th midslot needs to go. As a result, you'll see more diverse fittings. Players will be left with the similar options like the new and improved vexor: Either shieldtank it with an extender and a invulnerability field to get very high DPS with enough EHP to last a bit, or armortank it for a lot more EHP and full tackle, compensated by a loss of some DPS, but still have enough left do dish out some pain. A myrmidon with 4 midslots would have the same choices: either shieldtank it (like the current brutix fitted for max dps) with some extenders, put on the biggest guns and all the damage modules and dish out HIGH DPS, offset by a MODEST EHP with more versatility than the current gankbrutix due to the drone ranges. It could also be armor(buffer) tanked for good DPS with MORE EHP and full tackle.
I really think this will result in a more balanced myrmidon, with good fitting diversity that can catch players offguard.
Please let me know what you think of my suggestion.
Kind Regards, Greenlike Ish |
Mund Richard
281
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:08:00 -
[1305] - Quote
Greenlike ish wrote:In short, the current myrmidon has several issues: [...] Please let me know what you think of my suggestion. You outlined the reasoning quite well. It takes the shield and tripple rep myrm away, and gives us a ship a bit less reliant on it's tiny drone bay for damage, more in line with the rest of the gallente ships, such as not rewarding fitting ACs.
As I've been complaining about how two active rep bonused Gallente ships are not needed, also how it doesn't quite fill the hole between the Vexor and the Domi, that's one way to do it.
It will still be only effective on a scram+webbed target, so no change there, the extra 5th is also nice for a web, but ah well.
OFC if it's the Brutix loosing the active rep bonus (and getting a utility high by loosing a turret but gaining strength to the blasters?), that's also interesting.
Not sure which I'd pick for the tank loss. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:27:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but I looked through the Dev comments and didn't see a response to it, but...
CCP had recently stated that they were going to try to get away from damage specific bonuses on missile boats because it partially negated one of the very benefits of missiles.
They explained that away on the destroyers(though I think it would have been better to make the minmatar a brawler and the caldari range), but my point is.
Why does the Drake still have a kinetic specific damage bonus? Look again. Hint: it's in the longest CCP post in this thread, which just so happens to be linked in the first post as well.
My bad, can't believe I missed that, but I guess I read the question and assumed it was about range.
Yeah, between ADHD, Dyslexia, and astigmatism it gets a little difficult to read from time to time. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1666
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:36:00 -
[1307] - Quote
Greenlike ish wrote: How to turn the Myrmidon into slowly flotating lossmail with less tank than other BCs and no ability to catch anything
1) your first issue is tank compared to Prophecy, but your suggestion does not address this in any way
2) why Prophecy shouldn't have 100mbit/s then, as it has a big drone bay?
Myrmidon can do over 1000 dps now, and while you acknowledge that adding 25% more to turrets "might be kinda much", chopping off a midslot does not actually reduce the dps in any way, just turns it into a useless glass cannon, like the current Brutix,but slower. Or a Prophecy, with much less tank.
Your suggestion would just ruin a working active tanker.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Greenlike ish
Incursion Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:49:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Roime wrote:Greenlike ish wrote: How to turn the Myrmidon into slowly flotating lossmail with less tank than other BCs and no ability to catch anything
1) your first issue is tank compared to Prophecy, but your suggestion does not address this in any way 2) why Prophecy shouldn't have 100mbit/s then, as it has a big drone bay? Myrmidon can do over 1000 dps now, and while you acknowledge that adding 25% more to turrets "might be kinda much", chopping off a midslot does not actually reduce the dps in any way, just turns it into a useless glass cannon, like the current Brutix,but slower. Or a Prophecy, with much less tank. Your suggestion would just ruin a working active tanker.
An active tanker soon to be overshadowed by the prophecy if it remains as it is. With the prophecy's resist bonus it can do dual or triple rep myrmidon fits just as well, and even better. Unless you think the solution is giving the myrmidon 10% armor repair amount bonus, which could potentionally swing the tripe rep armour myrm into close to OP territory.
(1) I don't see how my proposed myrmidon would have any less tank than a buffertanked hurricane or harbinger? It won't match up to a prophecy tankwise, but it will outperform it significantly dps wise (which should make it appealing in a different way and thus used).
(2) Amarr drone ships typically have a very large drone bay, but limitid bandwith ( vexor 75, arbirator 50) Giving the prophecy the same bandwith as the myrmidon would make the current myrmidon even more redundant.
(3) current myrmidon can indeed pull over a 1000 dps now, shieldfitted. Chopping off the midslot does not reduce that dps if you shieldfit it (which is the only strenght next to extra speed that a shieldfitted myrm has), but it limits the amount of EHP you can get out of your shieldfit, and limits your tackle abilities. So you can indeed pump out big dps, but will find it harder to do so/live long enough. Just like the current gankbrutix, but with a bit more oomph and a bit more versatility. That's the way current shieldfitted myrmidons are used today anyways.
By removing that 5th slot you also create some more incentive to consider armor tanking it. You'll pull more EHP out of the ship, but with the damage bonus to guns and drones still put out good enough dps and you can use full tackle.
(4) atleast the gunbonus will limit the people using autocannons on the gallente ship. I think that's nice. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
298
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:53:00 -
[1309] - Quote
William R Blake wrote:i will ask 1 thing and 1 thing only from you..please change the Ferox 2nd bonus to ANY OTHER USABLE bonus i dont care how much % you put for the bonus but please! for the love of god drop the optimal range bonus!
Actually the Ferox is one of the ships looking very interesting with a 16% damage increase and extra lowslot for tracking enhancer/damage control/whatever.
Problem is Drake sharing the resist bonus with an extra medslot and ridiculous low dps with the same old boring kinetic bonus. Drake had to be nerfed and the HP change will do this, but the HP and range versatility was the only thing making Drake attractive and we finally have a change to get an exciting attack ship with dps to compete with the other ships for aggressive flying... But lets see.
That info really makes me doubt how dedicated CCP are to make all 8 interesting and exciting. Still crossing fingers though with all the good suggestions.
PS. Ferox does still need hybrid rebalance finished. CCP dropped it like a warm poo instead of making the last tweaks they promised. Railguns really need a higher alpha - the gap to arty is just too huge even if the arty doesn't have the same dps... And then ofcourse the ammunition is a mess... |
Greenlike ish
Incursion Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:53:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Greenlike ish wrote:Roime wrote:Greenlike ish wrote: How to turn the Myrmidon into slowly flotating lossmail with less tank than other BCs and no ability to catch anything
1) your first issue is tank compared to Prophecy, but your suggestion does not address this in any way 2) why Prophecy shouldn't have 100mbit/s then, as it has a big drone bay? Myrmidon can do over 1000 dps now, and while you acknowledge that adding 25% more to turrets "might be kinda much", chopping off a midslot does not actually reduce the dps in any way, just turns it into a useless glass cannon, like the current Brutix,but slower. Or a Prophecy, with much less tank. Your suggestion would just ruin a working active tanker. An active tanker soon to be overshadowed by the prophecy if it remains as it is. With the prophecy's resist bonus it can do dual or triple rep myrmidon fits just as well, and even better. Unless you think the solution is giving the myrmidon 10% armor repair amount bonus, which could potentionally swing the tripe rep armour myrm into close to OP territory. (1) I don't see how my proposed myrmidon would have any less tank than a buffertanked hurricane or harbinger? It won't match up to a prophecy tankwise, but it will outperform it significantly dps wise (which should make it appealing in a different way and thus used). In this way it does adress my concern with the prophecy's better tank ability compared to the myrmidon, by making the myrmidon excel at something else: DPS. This reasoning follows the lore nicely too: Amarr = tanky tanky and Gallente = spanky spanky. (2) Amarr drone ships typically have a very large drone bay, but limitid bandwith ( vexor 75, arbirator 50) Giving the prophecy the same bandwith as the myrmidon would make the current myrmidon even more redundant. (3) current myrmidon can indeed pull over a 1000 dps now, shieldfitted. Chopping off the midslot does not reduce that dps if you shieldfit it (which is the only strenght next to extra speed that a shieldfitted myrm has), but it limits the amount of EHP you can get out of your shieldfit, and limits your tackle abilities. So you can indeed pump out big dps, but will find it harder to do so/live long enough. Just like the current gankbrutix, but with a bit more oomph and a bit more versatility. That's the way current shieldfitted myrmidons are used today anyways. By removing that 5th slot you also create some more incentive to consider armor tanking it. You'll pull more EHP out of the ship, but with the damage bonus to guns and drones still put out good enough dps and you can use full tackle. (4) atleast the gunbonus will limit the people using autocannons on the gallente ship. I think that's nice.
|
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1666
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:09:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Greenlike ish wrote:An active tanker soon to be overshadowed by the prophecy if it remains as it is. With the prophecy's resist bonus it can do dual or triple rep myrmidon fits just as well, and even better. Unless you think the solution is giving the myrmidon 10% armor repair amount bonus, which could potentionally swing the tripe rep armour myrm into close to OP territory.
Why is being overshadowed by Proph as an active tanker an issue, but not as buffer tanker? Myrm would still have more dps and utility mids. Yes, I think 10% rep bonus would be a solution that promotes it's use as an active tanker, which is considered fun by many pilots, it brings variation to buffer/gank pvp and increasing active tanking is one stated goal of CCP.
Quote:(1) I don't see how my proposed myrmidon would have any less tank than a buffertanked hurricane or harbinger? It won't match up to a prophecy tankwise, but it will outperform it significantly dps wise (which should make it appealing in a different way and thus used).
Harbinger has 500 more base armor, Cane has 750 more shield.
Quote:(2) Amarr drone ships typically have a very large drone bay, but limitid bandwith ( vexor 75, arbirator 50) Giving the prophecy the same bandwith as the myrmidon would make the current myrmidon even more redundant.
I don't get your point, Gallente ships typically have high bandwidth and smaller drone bays? Giving Myrm the same way would just make Prophecy much worse drone boat, no?
Quote:(3) current myrmidon can indeed pull over a 1000 dps now, shieldfitted. Chopping off the midslot does not reduce that dps if you shieldfit it (which is the only strenght next to extra speed that a shieldfitted myrm has), but it limits the amount of EHP you can get out of your shieldfit, and limits your tackle abilities. So you can indeed pump out big dps, but will find it harder to do so/live long enough. Just like the current gankbrutix, but with a bit more oomph and a bit more versatility. That's the way current shieldfitted myrmidons are used today anyways.
By removing that 5th slot you also create some more incentive to consider armor tanking it. You'll pull more EHP out of the ship, but with the damage bonus to guns and drones still put out good enough dps and you can use full tackle.
I'd argue that the current shield Myrms are used because it can fit dual XLASBs or a decent buffer, and reducing that tanking potential while making it gankier would not increase it's appeal. Armour tanked you'd just end up with vastly lower buffer than the Prophecy.
Quote:(4) atleast the gunbonus will limit the people using autocannons on the gallente ship. I think that's nice.
I think having the option to fit any guns is nice.
What about the Brutix then compared to your Myrm?
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Greenlike ish
Incursion Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:36:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Quote:Why is being overshadowed by Proph as an active tanker an issue, but not as buffer tanker? Myrm would still have more dps and utility mids. Yes, I think 10% rep bonus would be a solution that promotes it's use as an active tanker, which is considered fun by many pilots, it brings variation to buffer/gank pvp and increasing active tanking is one stated goal of CCP. I can see the tempting side of a 10% armor repair bonus, however I feel like it suits the Brutix more (will explain lower down)
Quote:Harbinger has 500 more base armor, Cane has 750 more shield. Point noted, the myrmidons armor should be brought in line with those then. It's tank ought to be comparable to what a harbinger/cane can pull off.
Quote:I don't get your point, Gallente ships typically have high bandwidth and smaller drone bays? Giving Myrm the same way would just make Prophecy much worse drone boat, no? My proposed change would still give the myrmidon the bigger drone bandwith, but atleast it would also have enough drone bay to suit 2 full flight's of 100 mbit and have a flight of lights. Barely having room for 1 flight of 100 mbit and some spares is very troublesome for a drone boat.
Quote:I'd argue that the current shield Myrms are used because it can fit dual XLASBs or a decent buffer, and reducing that tanking potential while making it gankier would not increase it's appeal. Armour tanked you'd just end up with vastly lower buffer than the Prophecy. Sure fitting a dual XLASB tank on a myrmidon works, but that has more to do with the ancillery shield boosters than the ship itself. I just think that by dropping the 5th mid in favor of a 6/4/6 slot layout would still give incentive to armor tank the myrmidon when it loses the active rep bonus in favor of a gun bonus. You'll have the option of big gank with a bit of tank or tank with a bit of gank and tackle.
If you take my proposed idea of the gun bonus and keeping the 6 high slots so the slot layout matches the turret points visible in the ship model, which slot would you drop then (cause it needs to lose 1 to keep the 6)? If you drop the lowslots to 5 you'll never see an armor tanked myrmidon again ...
Quote:(4) atleast the gunbonus will limit the people using autocannons on the gallente ship. I think that's nice.
It hasn't become impossible to fit autocannons to it, if you're that much into autocannons ...
What about the Brutix then compared to your Myrm?
I would suggest letting the brutix keep it's active armor repair bonus, but increase it to 10%. Gun bonus of 10% to medium hybrid damage. As for the slot layout: 6 turrets and a utility high, 4 mids, 6 lows. The idea behind this beeing that a brutix needs speed and tank more than anything to work. Armor tanking with an active tank allows it to do exactly that. Tackle, have speed, put out dps, tank, all in an attractive little package. |
Colt Blackhawk
Forced Penetration Hopeless Addiction
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:27:00 -
[1313] - Quote
1st: Forget all that gallente whining about the myrmidon and brutix. We had already several releases and what did we get?
*new destroyers: Only the algos is good. The rest is.... crap. Especially corax.
*I think most peeps agree that the vexor is probably the best and most versatile combat cruiser.
*new frigates: again only usable frig is the tristan and the rest is crap. Breacher, Kestrel, Tormentor (rofl) can-¦t compete with tristan.
So what do we get now? Overpowered Brutix and myrm?
Stop the whining peeps.
edit: I whine about ugly gal and cal ships in comparison to amarr and minmatar :P |
Heribeck Weathers
Dred Nots
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:29:00 -
[1314] - Quote
I think CCP should shake up the ships bonus more than just adjust them
Drake: -1 low, +1 mid, Bonus: +5% to missle RoF per lvl, and +5% to ecplostion velocity of missle per lvl. and add a buff to base speed
Ferox: switch optimal bonus for a fall off bonus, some how get it a utility high
Brutix: -1 turet slot, Bonus: +10% to hybrid turret damage per lvl, +5% to turret tracking per lvl.
Myrmidon: -1 turet slot, +25m3 bandwith, +50m3 drone bay
Cain: give it alittle grid back for that poor armor cain
Cyclone: i would like to see how curent missle idea works out first.
Prophocy: would liek to see how this one works out too
Harbbringer: little more CPU, and make armor rigs not slow ships down so much gosh dang it. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1677
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:39:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Vexor has always been the best cruiser, and you forgot:
Talos, far above the other tier 3s Incursus aka the new Rifter Imicus, the frigate after which all the other T1 scanning frigs were modelled Proteus, the only PVP T3 Best assault frigs Only working HAC Best supers Only EWAR that can win a Falcon
So is it really too much to ask that we also get the best combat BCs?
This is Gallente Online and you just have to adapt.
@ Greenlike ish
Ok, so you want to make the Myrm like current Brutix, and Brutix an improved Myrm but without drones. I don't really get why, but we'll see what Fozzie thinks.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
361
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:41:00 -
[1316] - Quote
Roime wrote:Vexor has always been the best cruiser, and you forgot:
Talos, far above the other tier 3s Incursus aka the new Rifter Imicus, the frigate after which all the other T1 scanning frigs were modelled Proteus, the only PVP T3 Best assault frigs Only working HAC Best supers Only EWAR that can win a Falcon
So is it really too much to ask that we also get the best combat BCs?
This is Gallente Online and you just have to adapt.
@ Greenlike ish
Ok, so you want to make the Myrm like current Brutix, and Brutix an improved Myrm but without drones. I don't really get why, but we'll see what Fozzie thinks.
This is easily one of the worst posts I've ever read.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1678
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 19:02:00 -
[1317] - Quote
I'm that good ;-)
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1698
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 19:06:00 -
[1318] - Quote
@ Frozzie:
I would really like your feedback in regards to 5% resist bonus vs 7.5% Rep Bonus.
As clearly outlined in this thread, the 5% resist bonus is simply better than the 7.5% repair bonus.
A.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at active repping than the active rep bonused ship. B.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at buffer tanking, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant. C.) The Resist bonus is BETTER for Remote Reps, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant.
I don't want to homogenize the line-up, but it really doesn't seem right for the ship with an active rep bonus to be outclassed by the resist bonus in every situation...
Frankly, if you want to limit the use of a bonus to a specific type of tanking, make it so it's Superior at that limited role!!!
Alternatively, please the other "balancing factors" that you justify the inferior active rep bonus... Do they have much better cap regen? More generous dps potential? More .... I'd like to understand your balancing perspective! |
Saramiir
Norsk Lakseoppdrett
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 19:18:00 -
[1319] - Quote
The drake just looks sad now. Ham drake doesn't do "THAT" much dps compared to a Brutix/Cane/Harb(esp after buff) will just smother it in damage.
And it becomes even slower.
HML nerf was needed as the weapon system was just too good.
But.
Make the kin dmg bonus a RoF bonus atleast so it has something going for it, might be worth considering HML's after this goes live then(speed nerf makes it even worse to keep range vs speedy ships and it's agility got really shat on) so a slight HAM dmg bonus and changable damage types would be kinda helpful to make up for some of this)
As of now I'd just fly any other BC instead, and I have HM spec 5, only the Tengu is worth using with HML's now really.
If you keep going in this direction you might aswell just give it a 25% Kinetic Shield resist bonus instead of an All shield resist bonus and a 25% Kinetic Damage bonus to Hornets. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
338
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:11:00 -
[1320] - Quote
Roime wrote:Vexor has always been the best cruiser, and you forgot:
Talos, far above the other tier 3s Incursus aka the new Rifter Imicus, the frigate after which all the other T1 scanning frigs were modelled Proteus, the only PVP T3 Best assault frigs Only working HAC Best supers Only EWAR that can win a Falcon
So is it really too much to ask that we also get the best combat BCs?
This is Gallente Online and you just have to adapt. Ok, ill give you the talos . . . in fact they should probably remove the drone bay on that thing . . . The Incursus lacks a utility high to tackle anything with a neut the Imicus isnt really used in PvP confirming that the tengu and loki arent a PvP T3s? Ok, their assault frigates are pretty good too . . . but the other ships hold their own; it isnt a wide margin by any means Ever hear of a zealot? or a vagabond? in fact which gallente HAC works well in PvP? well the Aeon is pretty popular too, and IIRC the Avatar is the most popular titan, but they also have the worst carrier. pretty much everyone agrees that ECM > Dampening even if dampening can beat ECM in a 1v1 |
|
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:16:00 -
[1321] - Quote
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, 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. |
Greenlike ish
Incursion Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:33:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Roime wrote:Vexor has always been the best cruiser, and you forgot:
Talos, far above the other tier 3s Incursus aka the new Rifter Imicus, the frigate after which all the other T1 scanning frigs were modelled Proteus, the only PVP T3 Best assault frigs Only working HAC Best supers Only EWAR that can win a Falcon
So is it really too much to ask that we also get the best combat BCs?
This is Gallente Online and you just have to adapt.
@ Greenlike ish
Ok, so you want to make the Myrm like current Brutix, and Brutix an improved Myrm but without drones. I don't really get why, but we'll see what Fozzie thinks.
Something along those lines yes. I did not intend to sound as if I wanted gallente to be even better with my post. I only wanted to share my idea about the battlecruisers I am most familiar with. I don't feel I should comment on cruisers I haven't flown as much as the myrmidon and brutix. It is up to others to make interesting suggestions for the battlecruisers they know and fly. |
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Hephaestus LLC Get Off My Lawn
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:35:00 -
[1323] - Quote
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. "My hotdrop was bigger."
"Accidental cyno best cyno." |
Lili Lu
671
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:58:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:@ Frozzie: I would really like your feedback in regards to 5% resist bonus vs 7.5% Rep Bonus. As clearly outlined in this thread, the 5% resist bonus is simply better than the 7.5% repair bonus. A.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at active repping than the active rep bonused ship. B.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at buffer tanking, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant. C.) The Resist bonus is BETTER for Remote Reps, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant. I don't want to homogenize the line-up, but it really doesn't seem right for the ship with an active rep bonus to be outclassed by the resist bonus in every situation... Frankly, if you want to limit the use of a bonus to a specific type of tanking, make it so it's Superior at that limited role!!! Alternatively, please the other "balancing factors" that you justify the inferior active rep bonus... Do they have much better cap regen? More generous dps potential? More .... I'd like to understand your balancing perspective! Which is why in an earlier post I suggested that they consider givng the Gallente BCs an hp per level bonus instead of the 7.5% active armor bonus. This could be either a % based bonus like the old Auguror used to get (10% armor hp per level) or a whole number like 500 armor hp per level. Obviously either the % or the raw number bonus can be set at whatever value doesn't imbalance the game but is meaningful for these ships.
They, like all Gallente ships, are steered toward blasters usually by the balancing dept. Amarr ships it seems are steered toward pulses because the grid on beams is always such a ***** :S But anyway, whereas the amarr resist bonus ends up acting like a free eanm, the armor hp bonus could be set at a value that it ends up acting like a free 800 or 1600 plate. This would actually be useful to ships that are meant to armor tank but also somehow have the speed and agility to try to tackle a target and hold it close. Not having to fit a (or fewer) plate(s) would be a valuable addition to these ships and make them more viable. As things are now so many of these ships are twisted into thin shield buffer glass cannons because the plate and armor rig penalties conflict so directly with what these ships are trying to do in the damage department. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:03:00 -
[1325] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:@ Frozzie: I would really like your feedback in regards to 5% resist bonus vs 7.5% Rep Bonus. As clearly outlined in this thread, the 5% resist bonus is simply better than the 7.5% repair bonus. A.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at active repping than the active rep bonused ship. B.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at buffer tanking, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant. C.) The Resist bonus is BETTER for Remote Reps, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant. I don't want to homogenize the line-up, but it really doesn't seem right for the ship with an active rep bonus to be outclassed by the resist bonus in every situation... Frankly, if you want to limit the use of a bonus to a specific type of tanking, make it so it's Superior at that limited role!!! Alternatively, please the other "balancing factors" that you justify the inferior active rep bonus... Do they have much better cap regen? More generous dps potential? More .... I'd like to understand your balancing perspective! Which is why in an earlier post I suggested that they consider givng the Gallente BCs an hp per level bonus instead of the 7.5% active armor bonus. This could be either a % based bonus like the old Auguror used to get (10% armor hp per level) or a whole number like 500 armor hp per level. Obviously either the % or the raw number bonus can be set at whatever value doesn't imbalance the game but is meaningful for these ships. They, like all Gallente ships, are steered toward blasters usually by the balancing dept. Amarr ships it seems are steered toward pulses because the grid on beams is always such a ***** :S But anyway, whereas the amarr resist bonus ends up acting like a free eanm, the armor hp bonus could be set at a value that it ends up acting like a free 800 or 1600 plate. This would actually be useful to ships that are meant to armor tank but also somehow have the speed and agility to try to tackle a target and hold it close. Not having to fit a (or fewer) plate(s) would be a valuable addition to these ships and make them more viable. As things are now so many of these ships are twisted into thin shield buffer glass cannons because the plate and armor rig penalties conflict so directly with what these ships are trying to do in the damage department.
Even if armour tanking had 0 penalties at all, I think shield buffer would still be better. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1680
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:07:00 -
[1326] - Quote
5% resist bonus is still not better in active tanking than 7.5% to rep amount, but yes, the other points are true.
Do they matter? Are all BCs supposed to be equal in every role?
Make the rep bonus to 10% if it needs buffing, but don't ruin the niche use. Active tanking is good for the game.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1711
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:11:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:@ Frozzie: I would really like your feedback in regards to 5% resist bonus vs 7.5% Rep Bonus. As clearly outlined in this thread, the 5% resist bonus is simply better than the 7.5% repair bonus. A.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at active repping than the active rep bonused ship. B.) The Resist bonus is BETTER at buffer tanking, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant. C.) The Resist bonus is BETTER for Remote Reps, where a ship's local rep bonus is irrelevant. I don't want to homogenize the line-up, but it really doesn't seem right for the ship with an active rep bonus to be outclassed by the resist bonus in every situation... Frankly, if you want to limit the use of a bonus to a specific type of tanking, make it so it's Superior at that limited role!!! Alternatively, please the other "balancing factors" that you justify the inferior active rep bonus... Do they have much better cap regen? More generous dps potential? More .... I'd like to understand your balancing perspective! Which is why in an earlier post I suggested that they consider givng the Gallente BCs an hp per level bonus instead of the 7.5% active armor bonus. This could be either a % based bonus like the old Auguror used to get (10% armor hp per level) or a whole number like 500 armor hp per level. Obviously either the % or the raw number bonus can be set at whatever value doesn't imbalance the game but is meaningful for these ships. They, like all Gallente ships, are steered toward blasters usually by the balancing dept. Amarr ships it seems are steered toward pulses because the grid on beams is always such a ***** :S But anyway, whereas the amarr resist bonus ends up acting like a free eanm, the armor hp bonus could be set at a value that it ends up acting like a free 800 or 1600 plate. This would actually be useful to ships that are meant to armor tank but also somehow have the speed and agility to try to tackle a target and hold it close. Not having to fit a (or fewer) plate(s) would be a valuable addition to these ships and make them more viable. As things are now so many of these ships are twisted into thin shield buffer glass cannons because the plate and armor rig penalties conflict so directly with what these ships are trying to do in the damage department.
The resist bonus vs Rep bonus is relevant to Minmatar-Caldari Shield Ships as well as Gallente-Amarr Armor ships. They addressed the discrepency between the punisher and the incursus by boosting the active rep bonus of the incursus to 10%/level. I was wondering if Frozzie was thinking along those lines for the Gallente BC's... although I personally think only one of their BC's should be "Tank Oriented". |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
221
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:13:00 -
[1328] - 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 |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1711
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:27:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Roime wrote:5% resist bonus is still not better in active tanking than 7.5% to rep amount, but yes, the other points are true.
Do they matter? Are all BCs supposed to be equal in every role?
Make the rep bonus to 10% if it needs buffing, but don't ruin the niche use. Active tanking is good for the game.
I like the active tanking bonus... and want to see one of the Gallente BC's keep it... (I really like my triple rep myrm)...
And something I want to point out to you... a 5% Resist bonus is AS GOOD if not better than a 7.5% Rep bonus when active repping. Give the general utility of a resist bonus compared to the limited utility of a rep bonus, should the rep bonused ship simply be better at active tanking than a resist bonus ship? In my thoughts... yes... |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
479
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:30:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Roime wrote:Talos, far above the other tier 3s Incursus aka the new Rifter Imicus, the frigate after which all the other T1 scanning frigs were modeled
You forgot to mention these are all that good shield tanked.
Quote:Proteus, the only PVP T3
Try the HAM Legion some day, you'll see why by yourself (Prot is nice, I like it but...), Loki is awesome and Tengus scale quite well for fleets.
Good yes, best no. Fact that small hybrids were already fine before hybrids buff has probably something to do with this.
Best joke ever Roime, haha thx ;) Well you're right about something, at least now can fit a full rack of high tier blasters.
Since most current super fleets are armor we can exclude all shield ones, once this is done Nyx might get an extra dps but Eon gets a far tougher tank, so it's 50/50, Titans I don't know if you see those that much but I know more having Golden dildos than green ones.
Note the best EWAR that can win a Falcon, Is another Falcon?
I'm not saying neither Gallente is total crap. The line up got a little better after hybrids rebalance but it just feels like a bad patch you're waiting for another patch to fix. Those "can" work in such small niche it makes no sense this race even existing in the game. If frigates became good and cruisers finally usable I still can't tell my self to armor fit any Thorax when it gets a huge dps boost and mobility by simply shield fit it, now tell me how awesome this is. Gallente are in deep need for years for some important mechanics to change and actually have higher class ships scaling with large fleets other than Ranis, Lachesis, Oneiros, Proteus (heavy tackle...)
I want to see more green and camo in fleets, not less. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:48:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:camo
no more, please |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
365
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 21:50:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Roime wrote:5% resist bonus is still not better in active tanking than 7.5% to rep amount, but yes, the other points are true.
Stop posting crap romie... 5% resistance IS better than 7.5% bonus to rep... In terms of the dps of the tank (fail eft stat) the rep bonus ship has like a 3% advantage. In practice this modest increase in tank strength does not make up for the starting ehp advantage of a ship with a resistance bonus. In terms of armor tanks, "breaking even" takes many many minutes. For BCs this break even time is longer than you have cap charges to run your tank...
The truth is that a resistance 5% bonus IS better than a 7.5% rep bonus. Failure to understand this means you're either ignorant to the reality of these bonuses or you are intentionally sticking your head in the sand.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:26:00 -
[1333] - Quote
Balance ships, not bonuses. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
73
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:27:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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. That is "an argument," but it's not "compelling." What that argument points out is that the Caldari have a solid, well bonused and balanced long range missile attack ship in every class EXCEPT battlecruiser, which makes no sense at all. Also, if you want a Caldari "brawler," then look to the Merlin / Moa / Ferox / Rokh line; the ships that obviously have the shield resist bonus to make it happen. As it is the Ferox and Rokh are somewhat odd birds in that lineup due to the optimal bonus, but that could be fixed by realigning the Ferox with the Moa rather than the Rokh. Given that you CAN actually snipe with large rails, the Rokh might legitimately keep its optimal bonus, but it just does nothing for the Ferox, and it means that Caldari have no really strong brawler in the BC class at all.
Especially where training for the weapon system is the major SP investment people make as they develop a combat character in the first year or so, it makes a lot more sense to let them pick a weapon system, and thus a line they will be training through for a good while, and know that the capabilities and playstyle they have selected will be supported in the expected way as they progress up through each ship class. And they also know that if they want to be more flexible, then they can just train the "other" designated weapon line, and easily step into ships that fit that other style.
The pattern they've established is Attack = Medium DPS and Agility + Long Range + Weak Tank; Combat = High DPS + Medium Agility + Short Range + Strong Tank. Obvious solution is obvious: Drake = ROF + Velocity - Shield resist; Ferox = Damage + Tracking + Shield Resist.
|
TheFace Asano
Deadly Execution
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:55:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote: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. That is "an argument," but it's not "compelling." What that argument points out is that the Caldari have a solid, well bonused and balanced long range missile attack ship in every class EXCEPT battlecruiser, which makes no sense at all. Also, if you want a Caldari "brawler," then look to the Merlin / Moa / Ferox / Rokh line; the ships that obviously have the shield resist bonus to make it happen. As it is the Ferox and Rokh are somewhat odd birds in that lineup due to the optimal bonus, but that could be fixed by realigning the Ferox with the Moa rather than the Rokh. Given that you CAN actually snipe with large rails, the Rokh might legitimately keep its optimal bonus, but it just does nothing for the Ferox, and it means that Caldari have no really strong brawler in the BC class at all. Especially where training for the weapon system is the major SP investment people make as they develop a combat character in the first year or so, it makes a lot more sense to let them pick a weapon system, and thus a line they will be training through for a good while, and know that the capabilities and playstyle they have selected will be supported in the expected way as they progress up through each ship class. And they also know that if they want to be more flexible, then they can just train the "other" designated weapon line, and easily step into ships that fit that other style. The pattern they've established is Attack = Medium DPS and Agility + Long Range + Weak Tank; Combat = High DPS + Medium Agility + Short Range + Strong Tank. Obvious solution is obvious: Drake = ROF + Velocity - Shield resist; Ferox = Damage + Tracking + Shield Resist.
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.
I would agree to get rid of the only kinetic damage bonus, though. Just not fun or compelling to use. It isn't a concern to me on the corax / condor, but on the Drake that will be the stepping stone from cruisers to battleships it just doesn't make sense. The Cyclone at the moment (even though I feel it needs a +1 launcher) looks like a better choice for a new pilot, although 5x HAMS on a Caracal is pretty good dps...
|
Mund Richard
281
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 23:06:00 -
[1336] - Quote
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). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
TheFace Asano
Deadly Execution
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 23:14:00 -
[1337] - Quote
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. |
Rain6639
Team Evil
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 03:34:00 -
[1338] - Quote
resist bonuses for the drake and ferox? \o/ Want To Adopt: any 2003 children to work as passive income minor alts in the PLEX trade.. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 03:46:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Gallente get a 2.5% repper bonus and 5% resist bonus? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
223
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 06:07:00 -
[1340] - 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 |
|
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 06:54:00 -
[1341] - Quote
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. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
224
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 07:24:00 -
[1342] - 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 |
NoPantsPanda
Olde Eden Salvage And Pest Control
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 08:53:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Dewgong wrote: With the number of BCs that can field a full flight of medium drones or lights, a drone boat has to be able to field Heavies to really stand out, or have enough of a 'something else' to make them stand out. The default '10% more damage per level' just doesn't really cut it when you're at the BC level. Sure you can send like, two heavies and some mediums, but seriously, that's just not really a great move, it's why mixed damage/weapon platforms don't preform well (minus the Typhoon, but :Battleship: happens with that)
Edit: Also, if you can give a role bonus to the drone boats of like can use up to 7 drones at once, the Myrm and the Proph (moreso the proph) instantly become decent and worth the time to actually bother fitting up. Sure they can't use heavies, and the non-bonused turrets/launchers become less of an embarrassment. Sure they can't use heavies, but I think it's a fair substitute.
I agree with this line of thinking. If drone boats got a bonus to number of drones out at a given time, this would greatly add to their utility while also increasing damage potential to be more in line with other ships of their class. Limit Prophecy/Myrm to use of light/medium drones and give them a role bonus of +2-3 deployable drones. Using 7-8 medium drones puts the damage output (336-384 dps, Hammerhead IIs, All V on a Domi) basically in between 5 mediums (240) and 5 heavies (475). |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1689
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:19:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: I'm not saying neither Gallente is total crap. The line up got a little better after hybrids rebalance but it just feels like a bad patch you're waiting for another patch to fix. Those "can" work in such small niche it makes no sense this race even existing in the game. If frigates became good and cruisers finally usable I still can't tell my self to armor fit any Thorax when it gets a huge dps boost and mobility by simply shield fit it, now tell me how awesome this is. Gallente are in deep need for years for some important mechanics to change and actually have higher class ships scaling with large fleets other than Ranis, Lachesis, Oneiros, Proteus (heavy tackle...)
I want to see more green and camo in fleets, not less.
While I was 99% off-topic troll replying in that post (there are no "best" ships in the whole game) I think CCP has done great job balancing races and ships, and this has resulted in massive explosion of variety on the battlefield. I see all races represented equally in lowsec and wormholes, meaning pilots are able to fly the ships that they like and not be disadvantaged. In my case I fly only Gallente and I often feel like I have the ideal tool for the job in solo and small gang situations. This might not be the case in large fleets, but I don't know **** about that scene and can't comment much on it.
That said, I'm honestly not sure how balanced the game would be if Gallente ships would be as viable in large 0.0 fleets as they are in small ones.
I see no issues fitting ships with whatever tank that works for the fit.
@ Jerick
5% resist bonus is more universal, it helps with buffer and a bit with active tanking, rep bonus helps only when you have reppers fitted. This is the discussion, some see this as an issue. Rep and res bonuses yield about equal results on single repper fits, but rep bonus pulls ahead big time on multirepper setups, and even more when you add heat, drugs and links.
It's a simple fact- every additional armor repper is bonused, whereas resists bonus still just cuts the same amount of incoming damage, no matter how many reppers you run. Rep bonus gives you more mileage out of Exile (+rep amount) and heat (-rep time).
Buffer is very close to irrelevant when running active tanks in practice, your survival depends on the amount of repaired damage. Active armor has a narrow zone of viability, if incoming damage approaches the numbers where unplated armor EHP differences start to matter before you get rep cycles in, you're hosed.
Repping a big chunk of damage in once repper cycle is more advantageous than receiving a little bit less damage and repping a lot less. Resist -bonuses triple repper is worse than rep-bonused.
This is why I prefer to keep the bonus as rep amount, but would like to see it buffed up to 10% in order to keep up with the current typical DPS in solo and small gang engagements, which has steadily increased in the past years. Would 5% resist bonus make these Gallente BCs viable for fleets? I doubt, their weapon systems are a bigger issue.
I like variation between ships, active tank bonuses support this.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hidden Snake
Genco Fatal Ascension
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:30:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Kiting ASB nano cyclone will be pretty nice .... who needs drake when you can have this baby ... and then the tearfall calling for nerfbat will come.
Ferox is ok now ... will be better with more slots. I can imagine Ferox fleet supported by new Ospreyes. Based on CCPs conflict of interests I propose all who protest agains CCP Fozzie behaviour ad this to your sig.-á HIGH FIVE is LOW FIVE CCP.-á |
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:51:00 -
[1346] - Quote
To much micromanagment discussion.
Define three roles. a) Tanky BC with PvE direction, Myrmidion, new Prophecy.... b) agile, high dps, Naga, Tornado.... c) ?
I would go for a double-damage bonus with 7x turret for variant C. Less agility then the b-type BCs, but also the smallest signature of the BCs. Aggressive, high DPS ships with mediocre tank and not to good at range. Ships for roamings, enough firepower to kill the promised small scale targets in 0.0. Ships that go for Admiral Nelsons quote: " No captain can do very wrong by laying his ship side to side with his enemy". Group C would be, Harbinger, Brutix, Drake and Hurricane.
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. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
268
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 11:46:00 -
[1347] - Quote
I can't wait to shield tank my Prophecy and armour tank my Cyclones and Ferox's. It's going to be hilarious |
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 12:05:00 -
[1348] - Quote
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. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 12:35:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Since bot the Hurricane and Harbinger are in the similar position, being pushed into medium range versatile gunboat niche, you really should take another look at the Harbinger. Harbinger was really good before (even if somewhat unpopular because of fitting problems), after these nerfs i feels it will really be a distant second choice compared to the cane, having much lower speed, fitting limited by cpu and pg even with max fitting skills, worst agility in class, bad tank. I think its too much to pay for good damage projection.
Harbinger was really well balanced, it needed great fitting skills to use properly, solid tank and speed and good damage over great range. It was a ship that really didnt need touching at all, maybe just little tweaks like mass that applied to every ship in class. Losing 32pg for a ~30dps boost at bc lvl5 is not what the hull needed. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
224
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 13:42:00 -
[1350] - 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 |
|
Mund Richard
282
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 14:09:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Kraschyn Thek'athor wrote:To much micromanagment discussion.
Define three roles. a) Tanky BC with PvE direction, Myrmidion, new Prophecy.... b) agile, high dps, Naga, Tornado.... c) ?
I would go for a double-damage bonus with 7x turret for variant C. I do like the post up to this point, if I read "Tanky BC with survival in mind" instead of PvE focus.
A) Tanky ship, focused on outlasting it's foes, manouverability and offense weaker. B) Ship with oversized guns, focusing on blowing stuff up faster/further away to avoid getting popped, weak defense. C) Ships with fair tank and double bonus to medium-sized weaponry*.
*assuming it's the Brutix and not the Myrm, in that case drone+gun like the Vexor.
Not that it's anything new, has been asked for already a few times. And the missile Ferox is a "bad" idea, do leave a medium hybrid ship for the Caldari. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
480
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 14:18:00 -
[1352] - Quote
Roime wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: I'm not saying neither Gallente is total crap. The line up got a little better after hybrids rebalance but it just feels like a bad patch you're waiting for another patch to fix. Those "can" work in such small niche it makes no sense this race even existing in the game. If frigates became good and cruisers finally usable I still can't tell my self to armor fit any Thorax when it gets a huge dps boost and mobility by simply shield fit it, now tell me how awesome this is. Gallente are in deep need for years for some important mechanics to change and actually have higher class ships scaling with large fleets other than Ranis, Lachesis, Oneiros, Proteus (heavy tackle...)
I want to see more green and camo in fleets, not less.
While I was 99% off-topic troll replying in that post (there are no "best" ships in the whole game) I think CCP has done great job balancing races and ships, and this has resulted in massive explosion of variety on the battlefield. I see all races represented equally in lowsec and wormholes, meaning pilots are able to fly the ships that they like and not be disadvantaged. In my case I fly only Gallente and I often feel like I have the ideal tool for the job in solo and small gang situations. This might not be the case in large fleets, but I don't know **** about that scene and can't comment much on it. That said, I'm honestly not sure how balanced the game would be if Gallente ships would be as viable in large 0.0 fleets as they are in small ones
Yeah I know you enough (Tanya/Lyn] to know you were like trolling a little bit, just wanted to point out some obvious stuff since you left the door opened.
In fact I can perfectly agree with you in this simple way: specific bonused WH's and situations like station/gate camping and very small engagements Gallente have a lot going for them, often shield tanked which is my main issue.
However if you remember my posting with my previous forum troll alts you know my feelings. I just can't accept Gallente ships shouldn't be useful in a larger spectrum of engagements and players choices. The game play is far too restrictive, while this isn't a problem when you have the choice like I do because I've understood my best path was to train every single race ships up to command ships, it's a huge barrier for newer players.
The new player has to commit to this game for about 1 year at least to get those core elite certificates to the top so he can get the best out of his Gallente ships fittings, meaning his specialization is not that worthy because he does not have the choice of whatever aspect in the game but a very limited engagement type.
The newbie around came because he has heard about gigantic fleet fights with focking space ships !! -Why in hell can't he fly his stupid space potato in fleets??-because it's just plain crap? It's not his fault, it's not even other players advice trolling comments or advices fault, it's only because game mechanics around those ships are bad, awful, and have no sense for a game claiming from the beginning 'large fleet fights' and 'do whatever you want' or 'your actions have an impact'. I want this to change, I want that each and every single Gallente pilot has the choice and the same important role every other ship or race in the game can bring without having to pass by the obvious step ranis/lachesis/oneiros/proteus. I want more, I want that awful noob to get in his fleet with his Mega and actually feel his worth of something, have the feeling he participated to something greater and his actions HAD positive effects on the fight outcome.
So, yep I'm not satisfied and will never be as long as every single pilot in this game and whatever race he chooses to fly means he's choosing restrictive game play and area of this game, just because it's not Eve'ish and totaly not "sandbox" |
Pantson Head
All Your Machariel Belong to Ham Industrial Technonauts
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 15:15:00 -
[1353] - Quote
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! |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
224
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 15:24:00 -
[1354] - 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 |
Mund Richard
282
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 15:33:00 -
[1355] - Quote
Pantson Head wrote:Not long, but still didn't read; Gief armor drake! So you like the Prophecy as soon as it's an Amarr Drake instead.
And... truth be told, it would make sense, the T2 hulls will be laser/missile - and we already have the Harbi to fill out the laser spot - so why would the T1 hull make any sense with anything but missiles? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Dewgong
Drama Llamas Dark Therapy
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 16:06:00 -
[1356] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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... As the proph is right now, it is already is quite versatile. All it really needs is the 4th mid, a bit more cpu, and maybe at least a 50M3 drone bay
The changes, while tempting, aren't really any better with the loss of the highs and addition of the second weapon type in such strong force. Also, while the extra low is nice, the Proph already has enough. |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 16:18:00 -
[1357] - Quote
Overall, I think changes look promising although some of them will probably have to be adjusted. Personally, I like that the drake was not changed much. Although, it could be discussed whether the kinetic damage bonus could be changed for a generic one, I do not think that the shield resists should be dropped in favour of another missile bonus. Since it is a slow ship it will be difficult for it to run away quickly so it needs to be able to take a beating. Furthermore, although the changes are primarily focused on PVP, there is also PVE where I think the strong tank which the resists provides is also important. An although the Caldari missile ships tend to follow a certain pattern in relation to the bonuses they get, i.e. they tend not to have resistances, there is nothing that states that the drake cannot deviate from that pattern GÇô there usually is an exception to the rule. I also do not think that the drake will receive any bonus that extends the range of the missiles. I think part of the aim of the heavy missile nerf was to reduce the range of the drake, and if the drake receives a range bonus this will counter the heavy missile range nerf and I doubt that CCP will give the drake some of its striking range back. Overall, I think the drake is fairly balanced, if not very exciting GÇô especially in combination with the heavy missile nerf which makes it necessary to make compromises in terms of fitting.
|
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
949
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 16:27:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Any chance of an update before the weekend? |
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
179
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 17:32:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Any chance of an update before the weekend?
So, is it me or devs communicated a lot more until just before Retribution? I don't mind radio silence during the holidays, but this thread means we're back on track, and so far we've only got the original dev post and one update. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2707
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 20:59:00 -
[1360] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Any chance of an update before the weekend? So, is it me or devs communicated a lot more until just before Retribution? I don't mind radio silence during the holidays, but this thread means we're back on track, and so far we've only got the original dev post and one update.
Fozzie was on New Eden Radio a couple of days ago and discussed this thread and some of the things in it. I remember one of the things he specifically commented on was the down sides of armor tanking (Brutix/Myrm) and the Harbinger's pitiful CPU.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
151
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:36:00 -
[1361] - Quote
Roime wrote:5% resist bonus is still not better in active tanking than 7.5% to rep amount, but yes, the other points are true.
Do they matter? Are all BCs supposed to be equal in every role?
Make the rep bonus to 10% if it needs buffing, but don't ruin the niche use. Active tanking is good for the game.
5% resist is always better because the alternative requires that you have capacitor to even apply the bonus. Resistance increases EHP, increases repair amount, and requires no capacitor to have an effect on the ship. The repair amount bonus always requires you to get off repairs and does nothing to increase ship EHP. In fact, it does the opposite because it requires you to give up more slots to make the most use of it. |
Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:59:00 -
[1362] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're planning to release these ships in the Retribution 1.1 release scheduled for Feb 12th
Let me know what you think!
Do we get some decent testing time to tell you how badly you've broken the ships, or are we just going to get thrown in the deep end?
I would much rather wait 3-4 months and have ships that have been redesigned properly, taking in account all information gained from the players and then balanced accordingly rather than just thrown at us with limited time for us to work out how to use them again, before the inevitable wheeling away once more for further tweaking.
If these changes had been announced as "These are the proposed, please test them on the test server, let us know what you think" then I would be more than happy to go out, fly them for a while and let you know what is happening, what to fix and what is unbalanced. A review a couple of weeks into the testing to see what the forums say about the changes, monitor the ships that have gained a rise/fall in popularity - which is a slight imbalance anyway since some ships will always be popular - and then build up on that information.
Giving yourselves less than a month to get this sorted doesn't give me the greatest confidence that these ship rebalances have been thought of in a "proper" manner. I maybe one of the few players to have the patience to wait for the product to be finished in a manner that, while not appeasing everyone, gives each of the ships a unique flair but at the same time not utterly gimping them beyond usage, which I fear will happen in this "mini-expansion". Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows |
Spr09
East India Ore Trade The East India Co.
57
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 00:10:00 -
[1363] - Quote
Just please, for the love of god, don't give me a missile Sleipnir. |
B'reanna
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 01:55:00 -
[1364] - Quote
Spr09 wrote:Just please, for the love of god, don't give me a missile Sleipnir. it will be a missile claymore |
kyle6949
Critical Mass Inc. Nexus Fleet
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 03:59:00 -
[1365] - Quote
I agree that the proper time needs to be taken in rebalancing the BC's. After all you guys took a couple of months to make the changes to the cruiser and smaller hulls; so I think equal time should be given here. Also from what I read the other day all the BC's are supposed to have a total of 17 slots and ulness my math is wrong both the Myrmidon and Prophecy have 16 which puts them at a disadvantege to the other ships from the loss of a high, mid, or low slot.
Anothjer possible change for the myrmidon if you want to keep it at only 5 turret slots is to give it a turret dmg bomus and maybe a resits bonus instead of the rep bonus if that was to also go away.
I definately agree that either more time needs to be dedicated to this study or some testing needs to be done on the ttest server to find the best balance formula for the upcoming changes. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
437
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 04:30:00 -
[1366] - Quote
Who cares if all the battlecruisers are meh. At least one of them is going to be better and everyone can just quickly adapt to using nothing but that one. As long as one ship is better than all the others thats all I care about. If the FOTM is t1 cruisers so be it, the caracals will blot out the sun. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
224
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 07:20:00 -
[1367] - 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 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
303
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 08:01:00 -
[1368] - Quote
They're on the test server already, fyi. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 10:34:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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? It doesn't sound like they care much whether they're "good or not." They're just going to go ahead and do them like this because that's what they already did. Since the cruisers were done, it feel like they're just over ship rebalancing now.
It's a lot of work, doing stuff. And then people complain anyway. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 10:36:00 -
[1370] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:As long as one ship is better than all the others thats all I care about. And that's HOW WE DO. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
366
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:05:00 -
[1371] - Quote
kyle6949 wrote:I agree that the proper time needs to be taken in rebalancing the BC's. After all you guys took a couple of months to make the changes to the cruiser and smaller hulls; so I think equal time should be given here. Also from what I read the other day all the BC's are supposed to have a total of 17 slots and ulness my math is wrong both the Myrmidon and Prophecy have 16 which puts them at a disadvantege to the other ships from the loss of a high, mid, or low slot.
Anothjer possible change for the myrmidon if you want to keep it at only 5 turret slots is to give it a turret dmg bomus and maybe a resits bonus instead of the rep bonus if that was to also go away.
I definately agree that either more time needs to be dedicated to this study or some testing needs to be done on the ttest server to find the best balance formula for the upcoming changes.
Proph and myrmidon have 16 slots because they are drone ships. Drone ships almost always have -1 slot in comparison to similar ships of their same class.
|
Mund Richard
283
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:12:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Proph and myrmidon have 16 slots because they are drone ships. Drone ships almost always have -1 slot in comparison to similar ships of their same class. Except when they do not, and seeing as how the Harbringer can almost fit as many drones extra over her bandwidth than the Myrm, I'd like Fozzie to say if they really insist on such a bonus for a notoriously overtanked ship with so easy to pop drones that once droneless is defanged ("new" modus operandi to fight tripple rep myrms: kill drones, point and laugh), while the Harbi can still pew just fine with 9 effective turret's worth. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:36:00 -
[1373] - Quote
My only comment is that the Ferox needs an extra mid slot, not an extra low slot.
Given the Ferox isn't and still isn't going to be great on capacitor, that means a mid slot is also taken up by a cap booster in many combat fits.
It is a shield boat after all, and it shares the same number of mid slots as a couple of the armor tankers... something very wrong with that for an entirely shield focused ship.
Have to see how the capacitor holds out with an extra turret, but this feels like it will still be a very tight fit and frankly, right now, its hard to justify the extra costs of the battlecruisers compared to the new T1 cruisers.
We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Mund Richard
283
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 12:23:00 -
[1374] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:My only comment is that the Ferox needs an extra mid slot, not an extra low slot.
Given the Ferox isn't and still isn't going to be great on capacitor, that means a mid slot is also taken up by a cap booster in many combat fits.
It is a shield boat after all, and it shares the same number of mid slots as a couple of the armor tankers... something very wrong with that for an entirely shield focused ship. While I do not claim it makes sense, and would like a 6th mid on the Ferox possibly...
6 mids: Drake (shield resist bonus) 5 mids: Cyclone (shield boost bonus), Ferox (shield resist bonus), Myrm (Armor rep bonus) 4 mids: Amarr x2, Brutix, Cane Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1712
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 13:01:00 -
[1375] - Quote
tl,dr; True, there are no Gallente line ships in current large fleet doctrines. Is it a problem, when it works the other way around too? Will the current fleet doctrines hold forever?
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Yeah I know you enough (Tanya/Lyn] to know you were like trolling a little bit, just wanted to point out some obvious stuff since you left the door opened.
ahhh.. gotcha
Quote:In fact I can perfectly agree with you in this simple way: specific bonused WH's and situations like station/gate camping and very small engagements Gallente have a lot going for them, often shield tanked which is my main issue.
Without going into much details in this thread, I disagree with those points and also see no issues in fitting shield tank on ships that benefit from the speed.
Quote:However if you remember my posting with my previous forum troll alts you know my feelings. I just can't accept Gallente ships shouldn't be useful in a larger spectrum of engagements and players choices. The game play is far too restrictive, while this isn't a problem when you have the choice like I do because I've understood my best path was to train every single race ships up to command ships, it's a huge barrier for newer players.
The new player has to commit to this game for about 1 year at least to get those core elite certificates to the top so he can get the best out of his Gallente ships fittings, meaning his specialization is not that worthy because he does not have the choice of whatever aspect in the game but a very limited engagement type.
"Larger spectrum of engagements" means that most Gallente ships are not usable in null blobs as line ships. However, it's also true that most ships in general aren't usable in null blobs, in the doctrine chosen by the alliance. It's not a racial issue tbh, you have to train a specific ship and fit to be fleet compatible.
Quote:The newbie around came because he has heard about gigantic fleet fights with focking space ships !! -Why in hell can't he fly his stupid space potato in fleets??-because it's just plain crap? It's not his fault, it's not even other players advice trolling comments or advices fault, it's only because game mechanics around those ships are bad, awful, and have no sense for a game claiming from the beginning 'large fleet fights' and 'do whatever you want' or 'your actions have an impact'. I want this to change, I want that each and every single Gallente pilot has the choice and the same important role every other ship or race in the game can bring without having to pass by the obvious step ranis/lachesis/oneiros/proteus. I want more, I want that awful noob to get in his fleet with his Mega and actually feel his worth of something, have the feeling he participated to something greater and his actions HAD positive effects on the fight outcome.
What about that noob in his Drake who wants to fly in a wormhole fleet? I mean it's not his fault that he trained a Drake, but do you want to change the mechanics also so that he could fly his chosen ship and contribute something? Just like the older player who made the mistake of training for a Tengu, he is faced with a choice of training for another race, or everybody's favourite. the Falcon. Isn't this is also your definition of restrictive gameplay? What about the guy who wants to fly the ranis/lach/prot? Should Tengus given long points as well?
Quote:So, yep I'm not satisfied and will never be as long as every single pilot in this game and whatever race he chooses to fly means he's choosing restrictive game play and area of this game, just because it's not Eve'ish and totaly not "sandbox"
Well, in the end most of the engagements in EVE are small gang. They are far more accessible, found in all areas of space and available for all ship classes. This is the scenery, and currently all races have perfectly viable options to fly in them.
If you want to get into large fleets, you have to be a member in a null alliance, limiting your gameplay freedom considerably. It's all about choices.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
299
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 13:02:00 -
[1376] - Quote
We would all like a 6th medslot on the Ferox, however it would seem more balanced in general with 5 medslots and resist bonus if the Drake gets 6 medslots and no resist bonus... Drake will get far more interesting with a more aggressive bonus set. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 14:11:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:We would all like a 6th medslot on the Ferox, however it would seem more balanced in general with 5 medslots and resist bonus if the Drake gets 6 medslots and no resist bonus... Drake will get far more interesting with a more aggressive bonus set.
Balanced? Compared to what? It is supposed to be a better gunnery boat and have more options than Cruisers and less than Battleships.
Here is the progress chart:
Merlin : 4 mid slots Moa: 5 mids slots Ferox: 5 mid slots Rokh: 6 mid slots
Compared to say Amarr:
Punisher: 4 low slots Maller: 6 low slots Prophecy: 7 low slots Abaddon: 7 low slots
The issue for Caldari, is those mid slots are also used for MWD, Cap Boosters, and if you're lucky - a point. For the 'Best' shield race, this seems a tad harsh given they all come with EM resistance holes the size of Texas that also has to be 'fixed'.
5 mid slots is not enough on such an expensive boat given the advantages the Moa has now.
The Moa owns the Ferox. The Moa can deal very similar damage with less guns, move twice as fast (Ideal for a blaster boat), has a far smaller signature (So takes far less damage than the Ferox), and can reach 50,000 EHP in a fleet fit.
So the question is, why upgrade to a slower Ferox with a signature size of a small moon?
With only minor changes to power grid, in a typical buffer fit, the Ferox can still not fit 7 Heavy Neutron Blasters OR 7 250 Rails, and it will need that extra low slot, just to fit a Reactor Control or Power Diagnostic.
The only way to fit within the normal power grid to downgrade weapon sizes to the smaller versions, instantly gimping the range and DPS and popping a tracking enhancer in the low instead, but even with that, you don't get the same sort of ranges as before.
While the ship overall has more EHP than the cruisers, its also has the largest signature of all the Battlecruisers, which basically means that everything below battleship size will be hitting pretty much perfectly.
And lets say you are going to use a snipe Railgun Ferox fit to take advantage of the range bonus, well theres the Naga for that. Money spent on a Ferox sniper is money wasted.
So lets say you want a mid range fit Ferox fit with Railguns. With Javelins it still only reaches 14km optimal range and does around 400 DPS. If you want to reach further, DPS is going to drop significantly, and those 7 guns don't seem all that worth it anymore DPS wise.
For the overall ship cost, and given I can reach further and do similar DPS in a Heavy Missile Caracal - again with smaller signature and far better speed, the Ferox is an incredibly difficult sell frankly. It already has very low usage numbers. These changes means it will still have very low usage numbers.
So, conclusion: The extra low slot is basically worthless as it is just used to fix powergrid issues.
The Ferox should be a mini Rokh.
But its powergrid, and low mid slot count (Unlike a Rokh, this ship relies on its MWD and Cap Booster to move around to do its damage) completely gimp the thing. Please give it enough powergrid to fit its weapons with a normal MWD/Buffer fit, and it needs 6 mid slots to be offer the tank and options needed to justify upgrading from a 5 mid slot Moa.
Ditch the low slot change. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
383
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 14:26:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Here is the progress chart:
Merlin : 4 mid slots Moa: 5 mids slots Ferox: 5 mid slots Rokh: 6 mid slots
Compared to say Amarr:
Punisher: 4 low slots Maller: 6 low slots Prophecy: 7 low slots Abaddon: 7 low slots
Yeah, take those midslots from Amarr ships and give them to Caldari. Those are useless in Amarr ships. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 14:59:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Moonaura wrote:Here is the progress chart:
Merlin : 4 mid slots Moa: 5 mids slots Ferox: 5 mid slots Rokh: 6 mid slots
Compared to say Amarr:
Punisher: 4 low slots Maller: 6 low slots Prophecy: 7 low slots Abaddon: 7 low slots Yeah, take those midslots from Amarr ships and give them to Caldari. Those are useless in Amarr ships.
Well, given that Amarr are basically the race that gets 5% armour bonus, in the same way Caldari get 5% shield bonus, the comparison is a fair one.
While Amarr have to use at least say, two low slots for Damage Modules, that still leaves them able to fit Cap Boosters, and Propulsion, along with Point, with ease. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
383
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 15:20:00 -
[1380] - Quote
If you use more than 3 midslots for tank on Ferox/Drake you're overtanking.
"Bu... but I have to use at least 2 LSEs to be competitive." |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 15:39:00 -
[1381] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:If you use more than 3 midslots for tank on Ferox/Drake you're overtanking.
"Bu... but I have to use at least 2 LSEs to be competitive."
And you forgot that lowslots are shared between tank (suitcase is of them too!), TEs, signal amps, damage mods, overdrives, nanos, various fitting mods...
Could you also show us shield tanked Harbinger/Prophecy with MWD+LSE+at least one resist mod+point+web+paint+cap booster.
Troll harder. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 15:47:00 -
[1382] - Quote
How much EHP do you need if 60k isn't enough on BC? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
224
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 15:56:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Wow ! I can't believe it ! People are actually complaining about caldari ship not being effective enough at shield tanking !
Seriously people, in what world do you live ? Can't you keep in mind how ship perform in the game currently before posting about balancing the future ones ?
And remember : as long as we don't know what Fozzy have in mind for armor tank, we can't really complain about armor ships being bad because of armor. And the same goes for armor bonuses.
More globaly, I think they have been rather conservative with most BC (exceptions being Cyclone and Prophecy) to avoid the risk of breaking the balance. Until now, we had very popular tier2 BC, often considered overpowered, and tier1 BC rather weak. They just put them all in a middle ground, and I think its a good thing. I think BC have been a reference for all this tiericide, and modifying them too much now could be dangerous for balance. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:02:00 -
[1384] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:How much EHP do you need if 60k isn't enough on BC?
Depends what you're trying to do with it Jorma and whether you are supported by logistics, and how many you are trying to fight against. Will a 60k EHP fit be enough to kill a tripple tank Myrmiddon? Doubtful.
Will 60k EHP be enough to survive long enough to get repairs if fighting say, a 30 man gang? Tricky.
And you also put aside the fact that this ship has a very large signature, increased yet further by both the shield modules and rigs, and amplified by the MWD when in use.
You say that 3 slots is enough for a tank on a Caldari ship. I agree, but the Ferox doesn't really have that option in an all round fit, it only has 2 slots for the mid slot tank. 2 is not enough.
Typically this will be an Invul, or a EM fixer, with an LSE. But the Ferox has capacitor issues. And it has to use the MWD longer because its slower, and blasters don't reach far. And unless you have other pointers in the fleet, a point is required.
You can of course drop the cap booster, and 'hope' that your enemy is in range. And you can drop the point if you're in a fleet capable of bringing more. But this still all rather leaves the Ferox as looking a bit crap doesn't it?
How often do you see Ferox's roaming around? If they were so great, I'm sure they'd be used. But they aren't. Why? Because for the cost, there are a lot better choices.
My point?
With these changes, it still pretty useless. There are far cheaper options and other options that work better at battlecruiser level, including its sister ship.
Give it another mid slot and more power grid, and we actually have something viable. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:12:00 -
[1385] - Quote
Myrm this and Myrm that.
How much EHP do you need against kiting armor Harbinger? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3215
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:18:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Just a quick note guys, Sisi is up and running with a working market now. This build has the BC versions from the OP. They are going to change somewhat in the version I'm working on now, but your feedback on this iteration is still valuable. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
728
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:35:00 -
[1387] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Just a quick note guys, Sisi is up and running with a working market now. This build has the BC versions from the OP. They are going to change somewhat in the version I'm working on now, but your feedback on this iteration is still valuable.
you tease!
tell us what you are planning...
its killing me...
i haz to know... (entitlement overload i know!)
seriously awesome that you got this on sisi so fast...
you guys rock!
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
LordJohnn
Melnie Vanagi The Fourth District
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:37:00 -
[1388] - Quote
I cant understand way you debaff all caldari ships? Drake ... am speechless Ferox ... there is no such thing as sniping in eve ... can i do a head shot??? long range battle ... yes, but not sniping |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
306
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:49:00 -
[1389] - Quote
I really hope that either the Myrm gets it's high and gun back, or you do a remodel. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
49
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 18:10:00 -
[1390] - Quote
LordJohnn wrote:I cant understand way you debaff all caldari ships? Drake ... am speechless Ferox ... there is no such thing as sniping in eve ... can i do a head shot??? long range battle ... yes, but not sniping
Drake still has incredible tank ability compared to any other battlecruiser, and is still largely the same as before other than that.
Ferox can be very strong, tanky blaster ship, and the optimal range bonus gives it opportunity to do damage at 15-20km with its blasters, which is a incredibly useful attribute. It's even viable in a mid-ranged 250mm railgun fit for medium sized engagements, it can do very decent damage at the 30km range mark with easy flexibility to hit much further if you need it. Not sure what youre talking about in nerfing them both, as ferox got buffed in every way. |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
300
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 20:41:00 -
[1391] - Quote
You guys are nuts if you think comparing Amarr lowslot layouts with Caldari medslot layouts - especially when the total rebalance isn't done yet... However I am not that keen on 7 battlecruiser lowslots which I explained in an earlier post.
I agree we all want more medslots but fact is the Ferox tanks fine with 5 and a resist bonus. However it will obviously stink in comparison if the Drake will have 6 and a resist bonus. Which is why I think CCP should consider making people happy with a more aggressive aproach on the Drake... |
Marko box
Pod Liberation Authority Exodus.
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:36:00 -
[1392] - Quote
So i guess any criticism is too late now with changes allready on sisi? But ill post this anyways. That agility nerf and mass increase on drake is totally unnesesery nerf to any kind of kiting fit and basicly limits the ship to a close range brawler. In 2010/11 when we saw huge drake fleets in 0.0 everyone was crying for drake nerf, saying that it has too much ehp. And 2 years later you are nerfing its agility?! Why?! It seems like an unvaranted change. Instead of looking at the insane peak recharge rate on this ship and the abillity with some fits passivly tank same dps as a medium armor rep. Thats the reason why its the only bc in game which can tank lvl 4 missions. Isnt that more out of line? Please reconsider that change as it will make the drake much more boring ship to pvp in and marginalize it again to PVE and maybe suport fleets in 0.0. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 23:26:00 -
[1393] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:You guys are nuts if you think comparing Amarr lowslot layouts with Caldari medslot layouts - especially when the total rebalance isn't done yet... However I am not that keen on 7 battlecruiser lowslots which I explained in an earlier post.
I agree we all want more medslots but fact is the Ferox tanks fine with 5 and a resist bonus. However it will obviously stink in comparison if the Drake will have 6 and a resist bonus. Which is why I think CCP should consider making people happy with a more aggressive aproach on the Drake...
Pinky, the comparison was not clear, appologies.
What I was trying to show is that, as far as potential tank slots go, for Amarr, they have a 7 slot low slot ship, akin to say, a battleship, but naturally without the same sort of damage output and now very reliant on drones. Caldari Moa and Caldari Ferox both share 5 slots, and given the Ferox doesn't get a DPS bonus like the Moa, it DPS is practically identical, even with the extra guns.
Basically the Ferox now, is a fatter, slower Moa, that still has to use a MWD to get in range when blaster fit, and frankly, for the small amount of EHP extra it gets, at a massive increase in signature, and at half the speed - I think the Ferox is basically not worth much.
Why spend a lot more ISK, for basically a pretty similar boat? If anything, the Moa is better than the Ferox, because of its signature and speed.
I'm not suggesting 7 mid slots for the Ferox, far from it, if you read my earlier post, I was asking for it to have 6 - the same as the Drake. You can suggest the Drake be more aggressively fit, but I believe that is the role the Naga fills, the Drake doesn't really do the DPS to allow it to really win in that role, given the explosion issues of HAMs, and the nerfs applied to Heavy Missiles.
With 6 mid slots the Ferox would be a good step between a Moa and a Rokh - a role that it is basically supposed to fill. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
245
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 23:53:00 -
[1394] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma.....
I'll put my money on a Active Armor Tanking implant set. Do I win a prize?
There better be a Shield EHP implant set at the same time. We all want 1 million EHP Command ships you know :) We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
301
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 02:57:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Moa : 5 turrets x 1,25 dps bonus = 6,25 turrets Ferox : 7 turrets = 7,00 turrets
Yes - Moa and Ferox has equal amounts of medslots and tanking potential (with more HP on Ferox), however with 5 lowslots compared to 3 lowslots on a Moa, the Ferox will be far able to do 2 more lowslot mods than the Moa. Whatever you do the difference is subtle but still very valuable...
So dont judge the Ferox based on what other ships have or not. It still has at least 12% more dps, way more hitpoints and hopefully fitting for bigger guns. On top of this you get 2 lowslots to add either more dps, tracking, range or whatever your Moa might be missing.
The only thing wrong with only having 5 medslots is the obvious lack of tackle that REALLY helps a gunship (mwd/web/scram as well as a strong tank) but that has always been difficult with Caldari ships and not something terrible once you get to live with it.
Pinky
PS. Pirate implants really ruin the experience for many people flying without - they should nerf the bonus to the half and maybe the results would be more in line with the rest of Eve. Anyway believing implants will fix active tanking is absurd... |
Mund Richard
283
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 04:31:00 -
[1396] - Quote
Agreed that it's not pirate implants that fix tanking.
Moa... it also has only half the signature of the Ferox, and quite a bit more speed.
Quote:Yes - Moa and Ferox has equal amounts of medslots and tanking potential (with more HP on Ferox), however with 5 lowslots compared to 3 lowslots on a Moa, the Ferox will be far able to do 2 more lowslot mods than the Moa. Whatever you do the difference is subtle but still very valuable... The Moa has 4 now, so only 1 less.
The Ferox will still beat a Moa on 1v1 ofc, but it is an easier to hit target as well, making the better tank needed. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
459
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 06:34:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Tried the cyclone. It is literally worse than it was before.
I'd like auto-cannons back on the cyclone personally. And more of em. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 09:38:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... I'll put my money on a Active Armor Tanking implant set. Do I win a prize? There better be a Shield EHP implant set at the same time. We all want 1 million EHP Command ships you know :)
You forgot that shield recharges over time, armor doesn't.
That would be way to make shield tanking even more OP. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
459
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 10:53:00 -
[1399] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger.
These pilots do not exist.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
500
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 11:24:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Marko box wrote:So i guess any criticism is too late now with changes allready on sisi? But ill post this anyways. That agility nerf and mass increase on drake is totally unnesesery nerf to any kind of kiting fit and basicly limits the ship to a close range brawler.
TBH if you want a kitey T1 HM/HAM ship, you should be flying a Caracal.
BCs obsoleting cruisers has long been a serious problem and I'm glad that some sort of separation between the classes is opening up. |
|
elitatwo
Congregatio
60
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 11:24:00 -
[1401] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Just a quick note guys, Sisi is up and running with a working market now. This build has the BC versions from the OP. They are going to change somewhat in the version I'm working on now, but your feedback on this iteration is still valuable.
Now that I had the chance to take a look at the battlecruiser changes I have a feeling on how they would do on TQ.
So my first impressions in no perticular order,
The Drake: I tried both HML and HAM fits and with the loss of a high slot came a little help in the fitting department and both launchers fit with ease. She is still an awesome kiter or a scary brawling boat with up to 600 dps! I like
The Ferox: Now I can see what you did there . I tried active and buffer fits with heavy ion blaster II's and Null M this sturdy little boat feels like a slower Adrestia at least in the range department. I'm afraid she still feels like is a little heavy when you take 180-¦ turns but you can dish out blaster ammo until the edge of a long point. I like
The Myrmidon: My poor Myrmidon what hath they done to you?? She feels like a terrible bigger Vexor both can't perfom on either the blaster or the drone department. You can active armor tank or buffer tank, both will make her just terrible slow and with the speed bonus from armor rigs just not capable of doing what she likes - closing in a brawl. The Vexor will still outperform the Myrmidon in the speed damage department.
I don't know what a solution would be? Either make the Myrmidon faster or remove the armor rig "speed bonus" to reach a zero speed gimp at armor rigging V.
I can't say I like it but yet I would have liked my Myrmidon to be a tankier Vexor capable of doing things either with 5 guns or drones and omg-solo-bbq-pwn-style with the both of them combined.
The Brutix: My dear Brutix and her bigger sister both got the short straw in the upcoming changes and like the Myrmidon she just can't get in close to beat someone like the gallente do. She is another too slow battlecruiser who cannot get in range and active or buffer armor tanking make it even worse. One the damage department she is still the Brutix we all know - best to stay out of her way.
On a sidenote a tiny bit offtopic, if armor tanking would not make a skirmish boat slower, they could. I even proposed a change for the active repair modules cycle time to be reduced so you my not need those rigs to perfom well.
Another thing and please accept my apologies in advance because I still need some time before I can fly amarr boats but I like to say a few things about them too.
In New Eden not everything that is bigger means that it is better and on that note it puzzles me why it is not possible to fit larger guns on larger ships. When I use my eft or pyfa to setup ships I find it difficult to fit a full rack of neutron blasters or heavy pulse lasers on gallete or amarr boats. Amarr ships tend to be very tight on cpu and powergrid and god forbid they take other guns then focussed medium pulses. The same goes for gallente ships not capable of fitting neutron blasters, except for the Talos.
Dear CCP Fozzie, a very common pvp setup for a ship looks like this, - guns in the highs, a neut if you can - mwd, point or scram, web if you can, cap injector if you can and ewar if you can - damage mod, tracking enhacer, damage controll II
If you manage to fit the above, you have a pvp boat ready to go but you still need to fit a tank of your liking on them if you have slots to put them into. Sadly armor repair modules need more powergrid altogether since you need at least two of those to compete with one shield booster, so be generous with grid please at least for gallente and amarr ships, matar don't need powergrid. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
116
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:06:00 -
[1402] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Just a quick note guys, Sisi is up and running with a working market now. This build has the BC versions from the OP. They are going to change somewhat in the version I'm working on now, but your feedback on this iteration is still valuable.
What's going to happen with tier 3s? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:12:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:If you use more than 3 midslots for tank on Ferox/Drake you're overtanking.
"Bu... but I have to use at least 2 LSEs to be competitive."
And you forgot that lowslots are shared between tank (suitcase is of them too!), TEs, signal amps, damage mods, overdrives, nanos, various fitting mods...
Could you also show us shield tanked Harbinger/Prophecy with MWD+LSE+at least one resist mod+point+web+paint+cap booster.
I think Jorma is trying for a staff position at CCP... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:46:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Also it doesn't make any sense that the Drake and Ferox have smaller signatures than the Brutix and Myrmidon. We all know that ship signature is heavily influenced by shield size, the caldari ships have bigger shields (as they should) but have smaller signatures. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but this doesn't seem right. |
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 14:03:00 -
[1405] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Just a quick note guys, Sisi is up and running with a working market now. This build has the BC versions from the OP. They are going to change somewhat in the version I'm working on now, but your feedback on this iteration is still valuable. What's going to happen with tier 3s?
Nothing atm Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 20:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-áFollow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN, like me on facebook http://facebook.com/wigglesGRN or check out my blog http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
250
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 14:05:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Moonaura wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... I'll put my money on a Active Armor Tanking implant set. Do I win a prize? There better be a Shield EHP implant set at the same time. We all want 1 million EHP Command ships you know :) You forgot that shield recharges over time, armor doesn't. That would be way to make shield tanking even more OP.
Well, lets see, there is the million EHP Damnation - entirely passive tank, compared to the Vulture which has to overload its hardeners to reach at best, 400,000 EHP.
Given the way the shield recharge works - it only hits peak recharge around 25%, and only offers about say, a 100-150 at most in terms of actual hp back a second, then yeah, of course, 600,000 EHP less and a far larger signature is a bonus for us! lol
Lets not even talk about the difference for Titan's overall EHP when it comes to shields, where the numbers are even more painful for shield pilots. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 14:12:00 -
[1407] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Moonaura wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... I'll put my money on a Active Armor Tanking implant set. Do I win a prize? There better be a Shield EHP implant set at the same time. We all want 1 million EHP Command ships you know :) You forgot that shield recharges over time, armor doesn't. That would be way to make shield tanking even more OP. Well, lets see, there is the million EHP Damnation - entirely passive tank, compared to the Vulture which has to overload its hardeners to reach at best, 400,000 EHP. Given the way the shield recharge works - it only hits peak recharge around 25%, and only offers about say, a 100-150 at most in terms of actual hp back a second, then yeah, of course, 600,000 EHP less and a far larger signature is a bonus for us! lol Lets not even talk about the difference for Titan's overall EHP when it comes to shields, where the numbers are even more painful for shield pilots.
How much Damnation's armor recharges per second?
Oh, and comparing officer fit vs T2 fit isn't smart. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
250
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 15:02:00 -
[1408] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
How much Damnation's armor recharges per second?
Oh, and comparing officer fit vs T2 fit isn't smart.
Fair call. But the Damnation doesn't need to go above T2 to completely own in the Command Ship department.
[Damnation, T2 Damnation] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25 X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Hobgoblin II x5
[Vulture, T2 Vulture] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
EM Ward Field II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25 Large Shield Extender II 10MN Microwarpdrive II
Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Hobgoblin II x5
Notes: The reason you need a small cap booster on both fits - is that the best way to disable a command ships gang links is to cap drain it. This helps negate this issue, and is considered best practice as a lack of gang links is generally considered, a bad thing.
So, the Damnation with slaves hits: 556,093 EHP with a signature of 265
The Vulture with halo set (The best thing currently for a shield buffer fleet fit like this) hits: 214,547 with a signature of 291
Spot the difference?
Now, the passive recharge which, you think makes the Vulture somehow awesome. Well again - its not constant - it is only that figure around 25% - comes in at 594 a second.
This equates to, 35640 over a minute - if - and somehow magically - the enemy keeps it at 25% perfectly, for 10 minutes - then... finally, you could argue about how awesome that somehow the Vulture is better.
When you reach titan level, the difference can be as much as 20 million EHP between say, the Erebus, and the Leviathan when being boosted.
And agreed, passive shield recharge is a factor, albeit nowhere near as powerful as you make out. But it would be very easy for CCP to release a shield EHP implant set, that also nerfed shield recharge time. Easy.
But shields should always have less EHP than Armor, but not quite as dramatic a difference as this.
The reason is that the armor tanks only activate at the end of the cycle, rather than shields that activate at the start. Which is a factor in logistics backed fights.
The calls for a buffer implant for shields is an entirely fair one, and one of the biggest imbalances in the current game.
Anyway. I am on the test server and will be posting some numbers for the Ferox in all its glory lol compared to say, the Prophecy. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 15:29:00 -
[1409] - Quote
Yeah, implant set for shield buffer and decrease shield recharge time. |
Mund Richard
284
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 15:35:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
How much Damnation's armor recharges per second?
Oh, and comparing officer fit vs T2 fit isn't smart.
Fair call. But the Damnation doesn't need to go above T2 to completely own in the Command Ship department. Compared two ships with 6 possible tank slots, while reducing one's to five, instead of saying "it's dependent on cap transfer". Then you bring in slave set (worth more than the ship I believe) for T2 fits, knowing shield has nothing similar. And you compare a ship with two tanking bonuses to another that has only one. I'm not saying the Vulture doesn't need help, hell even without the first two I mentioned, the Damnation still has a good 50% more EHP on a fit I just threw together from yours, and I didn't even put T2 plates on it! Then again... notice how that 50% more EHP is somewhat like as much armor the Damnation gets from Command Ships skill? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
224
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 15:38:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
How much Damnation's armor recharges per second?
Oh, and comparing officer fit vs T2 fit isn't smart.
Fair call. But the Damnation doesn't need to go above T2 to completely own in the Command Ship department. [Damnation, T2 Damnation] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25 X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Hobgoblin II x5 [Vulture, T2 Vulture] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II EM Ward Field II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25 Large Shield Extender II 10MN Microwarpdrive II Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M 250mm Railgun II, Javelin M Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Hobgoblin II x5 5 slots tank vs 6 slots tank. You can't have everything. What are the speed of these ships, with and without MWD ? |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
250
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 15:53:00 -
[1412] - Quote
170 ms on the Damnation, 175 ms on the Vulture. I reckon that 5 ms might swing in the Vultures favour instead of the extra EHP
I just love the tears when the math doesn't lie.
But lets get back on Topic. The battlecruiser changes V1.
The Prophecy. Or as we all know it, the 'Flying Turkey'.
All it needed before was some basting and a nice bit of stuffing. It's got both.
Buffer fit: 83,790 EHP with a single plate - 72+ resists across the board, Explosive and Kinetic in the 80's and ability to overload.
This is not all tank btw, the low slots include 2 T2 Drone Damage modules, given that is the ships bonus etc.
I've plopped for the HAM version fit here as well, which gives it 154 DPS from the missiles 421 from the DPS with 3 Ogres, Aka just like the Myrmiddon.
It has a MWD
It has a Web
It has a Target Painter
It has a Scrambler
And...
It has a Medium Cap Drain
With all this on? It lasts 2:20 minutes. That includes the MWD folks. Its cap stable with the cap drain on it.
And you guys are giving me grief? About a 50,000 EHP fit Ferox that has a Scram on it? And does the same DPS and needs a Reactor Control II module to actually fit the guns it uses? And a cap that lasts the same amount with the MWD on?
And you're saying the Ferox would be over powered with another mid slot?
What are you chaps smoking? Please pass it along so I can see rainbows and fairies dancing around the shield recharge rate.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt09ws_eduard-khil-trololo-song-official-video-yyyyyy-yyyy-yyyyyyy-yyyyyyyyyyy-yyyyy_music#.UPwSrSegPyo We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 16:42:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:170 ms on the Damnation, 175 ms on the Vulture. I reckon that 5 ms might swing in the Vultures favour instead of the extra EHP I just love the tears when the math doesn't lie
You should compare Vulture to Prophecy. Damnation has two tanking bonuses while Vulture only has one.
After that you should compare ASB Vulture to dual-MAR Damnation. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 16:43:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Okay, for me, this is what I can get out of the Ferox. I don't have the resists trained to V only IV, so actual numbers will be a tiny amount higher, but that goes for the Prophecy as well as the Ferox numbers I've given.
DPS:
The Ferox fit is with 7 Heavy Neutron Blasters, aka the best range and DPS blaster available for the Ferox.
Gun DPS with Void in a 5km optimal, 8km fall off is 650 dps, albeit with a tracking penalty.
With Null you're getting 18km optimal, 9.5 fall off, and 465 dps, again with a tracking penalty.
Drones add another 99 DPS.
Null ammo then, is definitely the way to go, because the ship really doesn't have the capacitor to use the MWD for long. For best damage, you're going to want to scoot around the battlefield getting into optimal ranges with your best damage ammo of course, and the Ferox with an Invul and Scram on, can do this for 2:50 seconds.
There isn't the powergrid to fit a Medium Cap booster, so we'll have to go with a Small. This fixes the cap issue and helps keep the tank up against a cap drainer if lucky. This fixes the capacitor issue however.
EHP then, because an active tank would be both difficult, and to get any real numbers out of it, a 500m set of implants and blue pill boosters, and ideally... a Vulture or Tengu tagging along ;) You could always go for newly nerfed Ancillary Shield Boosters and hope that 60 seconds isn't as long a time to reload as you imagine.
56,118 EHP
Unlike the Prophecy, none of the resists are in the 60's and 70's. None hit over 80 like the Prophecy with its Kinetic and Explosive resists.
If you want to risk the Capacitor issues and hope you're not running around after stuff, then you can fit a second LSE, but only a Meta 4 one. The fitting is just a tiny bit short of fitting a better T2.
This takes the EHP up to:
67.138 EHP
Or, about 20 less than the Prophecy.
And last but not least, the signatures and speeds:
Prophecy with the Experimental MWD is 893 ms
The Ferox with the same MWD is 1061
Signature of the Ferox with 1 LSE is around 350.
With two 2 LSE: its going to be around 400.
The Prophecy comes in at 270.
And the Ferox doesn't have the Cap stable Cap Drain, Web, Point and Target Painter. Admittedly, it does have instant damage guns like the Ferox, and isn't reliant on drones travelling speed.
But in a fist fight, which is what both of these ships are designed to do, there will be only one winner. The Ferox will be webbed, scrammed, target painted (Because its signature needs it right?) and cap drained, so it can't shoot, can't tank and eaten alive by drones.
So, please, pretty please CCP Fozzie. More Powergrid to fit the weapons it flys with and +1 midslot. Lose the new lowslot.
Otherwise, the Ferox is basically just a waste of ISK. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 16:53:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Moonaura wrote:170 ms on the Damnation, 175 ms on the Vulture. I reckon that 5 ms might swing in the Vultures favour instead of the extra EHP I just love the tears when the math doesn't lie You should compare Vulture to Prophecy. Damnation has two tanking bonuses while Vulture only has one. After that you should compare ASB Vulture to dual-MAR Damnation.
Why would I compare the Vulture to a T1 Battlecruiser? Besides the Prophecy would win. It would cap drain the Vulture, kill the hardeners and guns, web it, scram it, and laugh as the drones swarmed around it. But the Vulture is hardly on the field to do damage or fill that role.
I'm well aware of the over sized AB fit on the Vulture. It's all happiness and joy until its webbed by a Rapier, and frankly, it a deep, complex fight, is impossible to use it like that, unless it stays off grid.
I'm done running numbers for you anyway Jorma. You clearly have a good insight into the game, I respect your opinion. But things like signature size, EHP, resists and yes - the amount of e-war modules you can use, all matter in the game. The picture they paint is very clear, and very bias.
There are some ships that the Caldari win EVE in, like the Rokh, but it still struggles to fit a point on the damn thing if you want to go nuts with the tank numbers and it is incredibly reliant on 800 Cap Boosters.
I'd like to see the Ferox changed, it wouldn't unbalance the state of play at all, but it would give Caldari gunnery pilots something that worked. Right now, honestly, the Moa wins. And wins and wins. Because it costs a fraction of the ISK and does the same job and heck, it even fits better. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:01:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Why would I compare the Vulture to a T1 Battlecruiser? Besides the Prophecy would win. It would cap drain the Vulture, kill the hardeners and guns, web it, scram it, and laugh as the drones swarmed around it. But the Vulture is hardly on the field to do damage or fill that role.
What happens to that Prophecy when Vulture pilot brings in 10 Maels? |
Mund Richard
284
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:05:00 -
[1417] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Moonaura wrote:Why would I compare the Vulture to a T1 Battlecruiser? Besides the Prophecy would win. It would cap drain the Vulture, kill the hardeners and guns, web it, scram it, and laugh as the drones swarmed around it. But the Vulture is hardly on the field to do damage or fill that role. What happens to that Prophecy when Vulture pilot brings in 10 Maels? And the relevance of that is...? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
384
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:08:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Moonaura wrote:Why would I compare the Vulture to a T1 Battlecruiser? Besides the Prophecy would win. It would cap drain the Vulture, kill the hardeners and guns, web it, scram it, and laugh as the drones swarmed around it. But the Vulture is hardly on the field to do damage or fill that role. What happens to that Prophecy when Vulture pilot brings in 10 Maels? And the relevance of that is...?
"If you have a fair fight in EVE you're doing something wrong." |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:09:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Moonaura wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
How much Damnation's armor recharges per second?
Oh, and comparing officer fit vs T2 fit isn't smart.
Fair call. But the Damnation doesn't need to go above T2 to completely own in the Command Ship department. Compared two ships with 6 possible tank slots, while reducing one's to five, instead of saying "it's dependent on cap transfer". Then you bring in slave set (worth more than the ship I believe) for T2 fits, knowing shield has nothing similar. And you compare a ship with two tanking bonuses to another that has only one. I'm not saying the Vulture doesn't need help, hell even without the first two I mentioned, the Damnation still has a good 50% more EHP on a fit I just threw together from yours, and I didn't even put T2 plates on it! Nor that Buffer Armor doesn't have (a lot?) more things going for it. Then again... notice how that 50% more EHP is somewhat like as much armor the Damnation gets from Command Ships skill?
Actually... we live in an era where the Slave Set is well within many veteran pilots grasp, and I flew in an alliance that used them regularly, not only on the Damnation, but the normal Armor battleships and Guardians as well. These days they fly Navy Apoc's for giggles.
In fairness, I gave the Vulture a Halo set to balance it out. Take both the implant sets away, and you still end up with a massive different in EHP, and the Vulture with a signature size of a small moon.
Low-grade implants sets get fairly close to these numbers are not that expensive. A Rokh hull sells for 250m these days, so two Rokhs = one implant set. And in lowsec, the chances of losing the implants are incredibly low if you know how to exit the field immediately.
With massive alliances milking moons via cartels, and still a legacy of FW farming leaving many with fat wallets, a lot of folks use expensive stuff. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Leon Kalfren
The vampire piggyz
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:42:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Wow Good Job Messing Up my game play for an other 2 month of retraining to be able to use Either Hurricaine or Cyclone Since im Gun Shield now i cant use the cyclone and cant use the Huricaine aswell
at least if your gona make the cyclone a missile boat make it a real one and remove all gun slot for more missile
Ps i was already prefering to stay in my rupture than moving to the cyclone now im stuck in it not by choice but cause of the messup your planning |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:50:00 -
[1421] - Quote
Leon Kalfren wrote:Wow Good Job Messing Up my game play for an other 2 month of retraining to be able to use Either Hurricaine or Cyclone Since im Gun Shield now i cant use the cyclone and cant use the Huricaine aswell
at least if your gona make the cyclone a missile boat make it a real one and remove all gun slot for more missile
Ps i was already prefering to stay in my rupture than moving to the cyclone now im stuck in it not by choice but cause of the messup your planning
Yeah, the fact it isn't all missile hard points is a strange one, given that they said they are going to make the Typhoon all missiles as well, and now there are pure missile Minmitar frigates and cruisers. I really want to be here to see the tears for the Typhoon kick in. Should go something like this:
'I felt a great disturbance on the forums, as if millions of typhoon pilots suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened to the 1400 DPS Typhoon' We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:51:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Okay, for me, this is what I can get out of the Ferox. I don't have the resists trained to V only IV, so actual numbers will be a tiny amount higher, but that goes for the Prophecy as well as the Ferox numbers I've given.
DPS:
The Ferox fit is with 7 Heavy Neutron Blasters, aka the best range and DPS blaster available for the Ferox.
Gun DPS with Void in a 5km optimal, 8km fall off is 650 dps, albeit with a tracking penalty.
With Null you're getting 18km optimal, 9.5 fall off, and 465 dps, again with a tracking penalty.
Drones add another 99 DPS.
Null ammo then, is definitely the way to go, because the ship really doesn't have the capacitor to use the MWD for long. For best damage, you're going to want to scoot around the battlefield getting into optimal ranges with your best damage ammo of course, and the Ferox with an Invul and Scram on, can do this for 2:50 seconds.
There isn't the powergrid to fit a Medium Cap booster, so we'll have to go with a Small. This fixes the cap issue and helps keep the tank up against a cap drainer if lucky. This fixes the capacitor issue however.
EHP then, because an active tank would be both difficult, and to get any real numbers out of it, a 500m set of implants and blue pill boosters, and ideally... a Vulture or Tengu tagging along ;) You could always go for newly nerfed Ancillary Shield Boosters and hope that 60 seconds isn't as long a time to reload as you imagine.
56,118 EHP
Unlike the Prophecy, none of the resists are in the 60's and 70's. None hit over 80 like the Prophecy with its Kinetic and Explosive resists.
If you want to risk the Capacitor issues and hope you're not running around after stuff, then you can fit a second LSE, but only a Meta 4 one. The fitting is just a tiny bit short of fitting a better T2.
This takes the EHP up to:
67.138 EHP
Or, about 20% less than the Prophecy. That is quite a jump down.
And last but not least, the signatures and speeds:
Prophecy with the Experimental MWD is 893 ms
The Ferox with the same MWD is 1061
Signature of the Ferox with 1 LSE is around 350.
With two 2 LSE: its going to be around 400.
The Prophecy comes in at 270.
And the Ferox doesn't have the Cap stable Cap Drain, Web, Point and Target Painter. Admittedly, it does have instant damage guns like the Ferox, and isn't reliant on drones travelling speed.
But in a fist fight, which is what both of these ships are designed to do, there will be only one winner. The Ferox will be webbed, scrammed, target painted (Because its signature needs it right?) and cap drained, so it can't shoot, can't tank and eaten alive by drones.
So, please, pretty please CCP Fozzie. More Powergrid to fit the weapons it flys with and +1 midslot. Lose the new lowslot.
Otherwise, the Ferox is basically just a waste of ISK.
Why in the hell are you comparing the Prophecy to the Ferox. The Drake would be the proper comparison. Ferox/cane/harby/Brutix? are the damage battlecruisers while Drake/proph/Cyclone/Myrm? are the tanky ones.
The Ferox is perfect where it is with these changes. 800 DPS 60,000 EHP is plenty and that is with web/point/prop. 7 Low slot prophecy may be to much but i am not sure yet.
As far as the Brutix and the Myrm please do not force two active armor tanking bonuses on us its so boring. Give it to one of em and give the other something else.
Wiv
Oh and PS please atleast spend some time flying the ships you are talking about in this thread. We have so many people who do not have a clue. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 18:07:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Its not 800 DPS, its 650 at 5km range against something that is slow and has a good chunky signature size that the tracking nerf doesn't kick it.
Like the Brutix it has to use the MWD to get in close to reach peak damage, which it doesn't have much capacitor for and is pretty slow to boot.
So in reality, it's typical DPS is more like 400-500 with longer range ammo (And that number includes the 100 DPS of the drones). Unlike the Brutix, Harbinger and Cane, it doesn't have the mid slots to control the fight in any meaningful way, at best it has a single point. So no web, no painter, no cap drain, no track disruptor - none of that is possible if you give it a normal tank. That's quite a kicker.
It's signature is also far larger than a Cane, Harbinger and Brutix, so it takes more damage than the other ships you've mentioned and it certainly isn't fast. Despite the bonus, its resists are far lower than the Amarr options, which impinges on tank numbers when back by shield logsitics ships.
With so few mid slots, its ability to active tank is nerfed, so it really is best with a buffer fit. Given the extra damage it takes due to it signature, and similar speeds to other BC, the buffer number fit isn't actually all that high given the size and speed of the ship.
If you read my earlier posts, I point out that the Moa can reach similar DPS numbers, while being faster, small sig and far cheaper, and is far more able to get in range for peak damage. For the money the Ferox isn't a good boat. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Sivney Quincannon
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 18:12:00 -
[1424] - Quote
I'm completely confused as to what direction CCP is heading with Minmatar.
Why the decision to go with missiles as opposed to drone bonuses? Why continue with the split weapon layouts? What are the advantages of piloting Minnie ships as opposed to the other races? (Quoting "flexibility" over and over to new pilots holds very little water these days.)
Honestly, adapting to some of these changes to Minmatar, especially scrambling to train T2 missiles of every flavor, is extremely frustrating. Feel like I have been spinning my wheels ever since the expansion...
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 18:27:00 -
[1425] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Its not 800 DPS, its 650 at 5km range against something that is slow and has a good chunky signature size that the tracking nerf doesn't kick it. The drones add another 100, but 750 dps in EFT and realistic in game damage are two completely different things.
Like the Brutix it has to use the MWD to get in close to reach peak damage, which it doesn't have much capacitor for and is pretty slow to boot.
So in reality, it's typical DPS is more like 400-500 with longer range ammo (And that number includes the 100 DPS of the drones). Unlike the Brutix, Harbinger and Cane, it doesn't have the mid slots to control the fight in any meaningful way, at best it has a single point. So no web, no painter, no cap drain, no track disruptor - none of that is possible if you give it a normal tank. That's quite a kicker.
It's signature is also far larger than a Cane, Harbinger and Brutix, so it takes more damage than the other ships you've mentioned and it certainly isn't fast. Despite the bonus, its resists are far lower than the Amarr options, which impinges on tank numbers when backed by shield logistics ships.
With so few mid slots, its ability to active tank is nerfed, so it really is best with a buffer fit. Given the extra damage it takes due to it signature, and similar speeds to other BC, the buffer number fit isn't actually all that high given the size and speed of the ship.
If you read my earlier posts, I point out that the Moa can reach similar DPS numbers, while being faster, small sig and far cheaper, and is far more able to get in range for peak damage. For the money the Ferox isn't a good boat.
[Ferox, Standard blasterox]
Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Warp Disruptor II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M [Empty High slot]
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
This is a pretty standard fit for the current Ferox.
564 DPS at 5 opt 3k falloff. 564 gun 80 drone 728 DPS overheated ~60,000 EHP with 66em 63th 72kn 77ex resists
Your looking at 658 DPS + 80 from warriors on the new Ferox for a total of 738 or 836 overheated.
Sure the moa is faster with less tank and a smaller sig. It is good that the Moa has some advantages just like all the rest of the cruisers. And the money is not much of a difference.
Also shield tanked ships always have a higher signature radius as well as reduced EWAR. They get speed and damage mods to make up for this. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
251
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 18:43:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:
Your looking at 658 DPS + 80 from warriors on the new Ferox for a total of 738 or 836 overheated.
Sure the moa is faster with less tank and a smaller sig. It is good that the Moa has some advantages just like all the rest of the cruisers. And the money is not much of a difference.
Also shield tanked ships always have a higher signature radius as well as reduced EWAR. They get speed and damage mods to make up for this.
Well, overloading guns, is... well... short lived at best. 7 guns produce a lot of heat. And that fit is fine as long as everything is nice enough not to kite you. You have 2:30 minute of capacitor as you run around the battlefield with the MWD. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 18:53:00 -
[1427] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Wivabel wrote:
Your looking at 658 DPS + 80 from warriors on the new Ferox for a total of 738 or 836 overheated.
Sure the moa is faster with less tank and a smaller sig. It is good that the Moa has some advantages just like all the rest of the cruisers. And the money is not much of a difference.
Also shield tanked ships always have a higher signature radius as well as reduced EWAR. They get speed and damage mods to make up for this.
Well, overloading guns, is... well... short lived at best. 7 guns produce a lot of heat. And that fit is fine as long as everything is nice enough not to kite you. You have 2:30 minute of capacitor as you run around the battlefield with the MWD.
You are in a brawler setup if you are getting kited then you are likely going to die. At least the Ferox with its optimal bonus and null allows you to do damage out to long point range. 2:30 seconds is forever in PVP. Null still gives you a respectable 550 DPS 470 + 80 from drones or 620 DPS overheated. The 5 low slots also give you plenty of room for different mods be they damage mods tracking enhancers or nano/overdrives. The new Ferox will be a very effective ship.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Ubat Batuk
Real Simple Academy
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 20:14:00 -
[1428] - Quote
What a joke. Soon a frig will do more damage than a BC. All this nerfing makes me sick. I do not pay my subscription for this crap. I want to play without having to buy Plex in addition to the subscription and all you seem to be doing is to ensure that people can't make enough isk so that they have to buy Plex. I am disgusted.
Please focus on expanding the game instead of these stupid configuration changes that **** people off.
Of course it's so easy to change a few parameters rather than design and develop new features. Let me guess all developers are busy with something else. This work doesn't need developers.
And, yes I do expect this post to be deleted like many of my previous ones including the likes received. A bit inconvenient right?
Ubat X X X
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
461
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 20:52:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Leon Kalfren wrote:Wow Good Job Messing Up my game play for an other 2 month of retraining to be able to use Either Hurricaine or Cyclone Since im Gun Shield now i cant use the cyclone and cant use the Huricaine aswell
at least if your gona make the cyclone a missile boat make it a real one and remove all gun slot for more missile
Ps i was already prefering to stay in my rupture than moving to the cyclone now im stuck in it not by choice but cause of the messup your planning
^ Seriously. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
95
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 21:18:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:What a joke. Soon a frig will do more damage than a BC. All this nerfing makes me sick. I do not pay my subscription for this crap. I want to play without having to buy Plex in addition to the subscription and all you seem to be doing is to ensure that people can't make enough isk so that they have to buy Plex. I am disgusted.
Please focus on expanding the game instead of these stupid configuration changes that **** people off.
Of course it's so easy to change a few parameters rather than design and develop new features. Let me guess all developers are busy with something else. This work doesn't need developers.
And, yes I do expect this post to be deleted like many of my previous ones including the likes received. A bit inconvenient right?
Ubat X X X
WTH are you talking about?
1st off this is a point release not an expansion. Second these changes help create a whole new game for those who PVP. No longer will it be rifters/drakes/canes online. The meta has already began to move away from the old gold standard of ships. This is content at its finest. You also only have 3 devs working on balancing as well as other projects.
We do not need a bunch of theme park rides. We need tools to create our own content within the sandbox. The effort to make every ship in eve viable is a great example of giving us the tools to shape our own sandbox.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Zombie Ninja Space Bears
91
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 21:26:00 -
[1431] - Quote
Sivney Quincannon wrote:I'm completely confused as to what direction CCP is heading with Minmatar. Why the decision to go with missiles as opposed to drone bonuses? Why continue with the split weapon layouts? What are the advantages of piloting Minnie ships as opposed to the other races? (Quoting "flexibility" over and over to new pilots holds very little water these days.) Honestly, adapting to some of these changes to Minmatar, especially scrambling to train T2 missiles of every flavor, is extremely frustrating. Feel like I have been spinning my wheels ever since the expansion... EDIT: Also. Please discontinue painting my Minimatar ships with camo patterns. There are no trees or shrubbery in space.
the direction is quite clear. have a gun- and a missile focuses line of ships ranging from frigs to bs. missiles were the secondary weapon-system for minnies since as long as i can remember. these days any ship and its mother gets drones, so missiles are fine. splitting the ships into those lines is actually a good idea as it gives incentives for younger players to stick with one line and don't try to train both at the same time. training missiles, guns, shield and armor at the same time was what i did, because everytime i reached a new class of ships the whole distribution was different, again.
two turret slots for your utility highs doesn't make the (new) cyclone a split weapon boat. it just means you could fit turrets in those utilities if you so desire. the cane can currently fit missile launchers in its utilities too, but isn't concieved a split weapon boat. new cyclone is fine. maybe not the strongerst dps boat but it's active tank is definitely on the sturdy site of life. and it has enough cpu to run complex calculations for the CERN while having an dual boost tank and tripple BCU active.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
461
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 21:49:00 -
[1432] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Sivney Quincannon wrote:I'm completely confused as to what direction CCP is heading with Minmatar. Why the decision to go with missiles as opposed to drone bonuses? Why continue with the split weapon layouts? What are the advantages of piloting Minnie ships as opposed to the other races? (Quoting "flexibility" over and over to new pilots holds very little water these days.) Honestly, adapting to some of these changes to Minmatar, especially scrambling to train T2 missiles of every flavor, is extremely frustrating. Feel like I have been spinning my wheels ever since the expansion... EDIT: Also. Please discontinue painting my Minimatar ships with camo patterns. There are no trees or shrubbery in space. the direction is quite clear. have a gun- and a missile focuses line of ships ranging from frigs to bs. missiles were the secondary weapon-system for minnies since as long as i can remember. these days any ship and its mother gets drones, so missiles are fine. splitting the ships into those lines is actually a good idea as it gives incentives for younger players to stick with one line and don't try to train both at the same time. training missiles, guns, shield and armor at the same time was what i did, because everytime i reached a new class of ships the whole distribution was different, again. two turret slots for your utility highs doesn't make the (new) cyclone a split weapon boat. it just means you could fit turrets in those utilities if you so desire. the cane can currently fit missile launchers in its utilities too, but isn't concieved a split weapon boat. new cyclone is fine. maybe not the strongerst dps boat but it's active tank is definitely on the sturdy site of life. and it has enough cpu to run complex calculations for the CERN while having an dual boost tank and tripple BCU active.
So its basically a prophecy. All tank, no gank.
But instead of buffer, its active.
The balancing needs major work. Nothing is changing, they are just being switched around. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
96
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 22:13:00 -
[1433] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Sivney Quincannon wrote:I'm completely confused as to what direction CCP is heading with Minmatar. Why the decision to go with missiles as opposed to drone bonuses? Why continue with the split weapon layouts? What are the advantages of piloting Minnie ships as opposed to the other races? (Quoting "flexibility" over and over to new pilots holds very little water these days.) Honestly, adapting to some of these changes to Minmatar, especially scrambling to train T2 missiles of every flavor, is extremely frustrating. Feel like I have been spinning my wheels ever since the expansion... EDIT: Also. Please discontinue painting my Minimatar ships with camo patterns. There are no trees or shrubbery in space. the direction is quite clear. have a gun- and a missile focuses line of ships ranging from frigs to bs. missiles were the secondary weapon-system for minnies since as long as i can remember. these days any ship and its mother gets drones, so missiles are fine. splitting the ships into those lines is actually a good idea as it gives incentives for younger players to stick with one line and don't try to train both at the same time. training missiles, guns, shield and armor at the same time was what i did, because everytime i reached a new class of ships the whole distribution was different, again. two turret slots for your utility highs doesn't make the (new) cyclone a split weapon boat. it just means you could fit turrets in those utilities if you so desire. the cane can currently fit missile launchers in its utilities too, but isn't concieved a split weapon boat. new cyclone is fine. maybe not the strongerst dps boat but it's active tank is definitely on the sturdy site of life. and it has enough cpu to run complex calculations for the CERN while having an dual boost tank and tripple BCU active. So its basically a prophecy. All tank, no gank. But instead of buffer, its active. The balancing needs major work. Nothing is changing, they are just being switched around.
Looks to me like the cyclone will put out about 600 DPS with hams and drones 700 with overheat. Apparently it has both tank and gank. This DPS number can get higher if one wanted to throw some turrets into those utility highs.
To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Jita iswhereIsit
University of Caille Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 22:34:00 -
[1434] - Quote
The Brutix is tight on PG, makes trying to fit reppers quite difficult as the pay off is you lose dps in fitting electrons. I think having 5% bonus to armor resist per level would make more sense than the rep bonus that the Myrm already has. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
386
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 22:46:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:What a joke. Soon a frig will do more damage than a BC. All this nerfing makes me sick. I do not pay my subscription for this crap. I want to play without having to buy Plex in addition to the subscription and all you seem to be doing is to ensure that people can't make enough isk so that they have to buy Plex. I am disgusted.
Please focus on expanding the game instead of these stupid configuration changes that **** people off.
Of course it's so easy to change a few parameters rather than design and develop new features. Let me guess all developers are busy with something else. This work doesn't need developers.
And, yes I do expect this post to be deleted like many of my previous ones including the likes received. A bit inconvenient right?
Ubat X X X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1723
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 00:43:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:What a joke. Soon a frig will do more damage than a BC. All this nerfing makes me sick. I do not pay my subscription for this crap. I want to play without having to buy Plex in addition to the subscription and all you seem to be doing is to ensure that people can't make enough isk so that they have to buy Plex. I am disgusted.
Please focus on expanding the game instead of these stupid configuration changes that **** people off.
Of course it's so easy to change a few parameters rather than design and develop new features. Let me guess all developers are busy with something else. This work doesn't need developers.
And, yes I do expect this post to be deleted like many of my previous ones including the likes received. A bit inconvenient right?
Ubat X X X
This rebalancing does not have anything to do with your PLEXes, and your feedback is not constructive nor doesn't appear at all informed or considered.
These "stupid configuration changes" are what the game needs and what players want.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
956
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 00:44:00 -
[1437] - Quote
We shouldn't have to be burdened with horrible active repping bonus on both Gallente BCs. I can see that the repping bonus works for Myrm, but please don't force it onto the Brutix (repping bonus on Brutix is only used on lol-gimmick fits). There has to be something better for brutix like falloff or tracking bonus to turrets.
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
254
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 01:20:00 -
[1438] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:You are in a brawler setup if you are getting kited then you are likely going to die. At least the Ferox with its optimal bonus and null allows you to do damage out to long point range. 2:30 seconds is forever in PVP. Null still gives you a respectable 550 DPS 470 + 80 from drones or 620 DPS overheated. The 5 low slots also give you plenty of room for different mods be they damage mods tracking enhancers or nano/overdrives. The new Ferox will be a very effective ship. Wiv
Hey Wiv, I appreciate its a brawler, but lets go over the 2:30 seconds - thats optimal, thats not having warped in, or used the guns already, or anything else that used the cap up. So, its far less than that in actuality, and the Ferox does need to use the MWD to move around. If you do forgo top damage and use the Nulls, please don't discount the fact it gets a 25% tracking nerf. So 550 DPS on EFT is not really 550 DPS unless you're shooting a Battleship or larger. And even some battleships it won't hit at that.
As for the low slots? The new low slot the Ferox has is automatically filled by a Reactor Control II, or you ditch a bunch of shield rigs and pop in 10m ISK a pop Ancillary power rigs. Otherwise - you can't actually fit the guns you're giving these numbers for with any sort of tank that is.
If the Ferox was so freaking awesome, why isn't everyone flying it? Because it ain't. Its been the poor pick of the bunch for a long long time, only really beaten by the pointless Prophecy before this change. Even the Cyclone has been popular lately with the Ancillary shield booster.
More powergrid allows it to fit the weapons its supposed to use, with a moderate buffer tank. And instead of the extra lowslot, an extra midslot would be genuinely useful. An extra low slot to just fit a power grid is not an extra lowslot. Its just there for fitting, and its not even an exotic fit or anything crazy. Its just a MWD and LSE with guns on.
I have three Ferox's in my hangar. I look at them. And I just can't get the will to undock them. I know they will fail hard. Having basically - the same ship - with just 1 gun more instead of a missile launcher, and a low slot to give me the joy of a reactor control to fit it. Not exactly the improvement Caldari folks were after. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Cajun Style
Shattered Planet
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 01:21:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Leon Kalfren wrote:Wow Good Job Messing Up my game play for an other 2 month of retraining to be able to use Either Hurricaine or Cyclone Since im Gun Shield now i cant use the cyclone and cant use the Huricaine aswell
at least if your gona make the cyclone a missile boat make it a real one and remove all gun slot for more missile
Ps i was already prefering to stay in my rupture than moving to the cyclone now im stuck in it not by choice but cause of the messup your planning Yeah, the fact it isn't all missile hard points is a strange one, given that they said they are going to make the Typhoon all missiles as well, and now there are pure missile Minmitar frigates and cruisers. I really want to be here to see the tears for the Typhoon kick in. Should go something like this: 'I felt a great disturbance on the forums, as if millions of typhoon pilots suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened to the 1400 DPS Typhoon'
Consider not being stupid. Those are utility highs. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
254
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 01:25:00 -
[1440] - Quote
Jita iswhereIsit wrote:The Brutix is tight on PG, makes trying to fit reppers quite difficult as the pay off is you lose dps in fitting electrons. I think having 5% bonus to armor resist per level would make more sense than the rep bonus that the Myrm already has.
Given that is really Amarr's gig, I doubt that will happen. It would be nice to see it get a unique and relevant bonus, in the same way the new destroyers all vary and have interesting bonuses. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
254
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 01:28:00 -
[1441] - Quote
Cajun Style wrote:Moonaura wrote:Leon Kalfren wrote:Wow Good Job Messing Up my game play for an other 2 month of retraining to be able to use Either Hurricaine or Cyclone Since im Gun Shield now i cant use the cyclone and cant use the Huricaine aswell
at least if your gona make the cyclone a missile boat make it a real one and remove all gun slot for more missile
Ps i was already prefering to stay in my rupture than moving to the cyclone now im stuck in it not by choice but cause of the messup your planning Yeah, the fact it isn't all missile hard points is a strange one, given that they said they are going to make the Typhoon all missiles as well, and now there are pure missile Minmitar frigates and cruisers. I really want to be here to see the tears for the Typhoon kick in. Should go something like this: 'I felt a great disturbance on the forums, as if millions of typhoon pilots suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened to the 1400 DPS Typhoon' Consider not being stupid. Those are utility highs. P.S. @ Moon's last post, the new ferox actually looks totally killer.
It looks totally killed lol. I will await the vast hordes of Ferox's that will no doubt be unleashed against us, and laugh as they die without capacitor to their new Prophecy overlords.
Thanks for calling me stupid. I'm doing something right then! We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Cajun Style
Shattered Planet
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 01:49:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Cajun Style wrote:Moonaura wrote:Leon Kalfren wrote:Wow Good Job Messing Up my game play for an other 2 month of retraining to be able to use Either Hurricaine or Cyclone Since im Gun Shield now i cant use the cyclone and cant use the Huricaine aswell
at least if your gona make the cyclone a missile boat make it a real one and remove all gun slot for more missile
Ps i was already prefering to stay in my rupture than moving to the cyclone now im stuck in it not by choice but cause of the messup your planning Yeah, the fact it isn't all missile hard points is a strange one, given that they said they are going to make the Typhoon all missiles as well, and now there are pure missile Minmitar frigates and cruisers. I really want to be here to see the tears for the Typhoon kick in. Should go something like this: 'I felt a great disturbance on the forums, as if millions of typhoon pilots suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened to the 1400 DPS Typhoon' Consider not being stupid. Those are utility highs. P.S. @ Moon's last post, the new ferox actually looks totally killer. It looks totally killed lol. I will await the vast hordes of Ferox's that will no doubt be unleashed against us, and laugh as they die without capacitor to their new Prophecy overlords. Thanks for calling me stupid. I'm doing something right then!
Yeah the prophecy looks like a monster tbh
NP :P
I get what they did with the harby guns, but the real question is why nerf the speed/agility so damned hard?
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 01:53:00 -
[1443] - Quote
After playing on sisi, i have to admit, i really like all of the redesigned battlecruisers. Since i have a nice amount of skillpoints primarily towards (battle)cruiser sized ships i've been able to fit everyone of them. There are a few minor things i would love to see improved, 10 / 15 cpu and power here or there, a bit more agility or some other tiny tweaks that would make me able to fit my prefered fits without implants or fitting modules, i'm actually quite happy with the ships atm.
However, and this is something i don't think anyone has seen or posted about yet, is that the role of the Battle CRUISER is going to be different from upcomming redesign. They are actually going to be pushed more in a clear role, instead of beeing allround the top ship in many situations. What i've seen so far, is that the Battlecruiser will become an ship wich will excell in killing cruiser sized ships (as the destroyer is to the frigates) while becomming vulnerable to the Battleships. Unlike the destroyers however, the Battlecruiser hulls main purpose will not be pure dps, but the'll be able to kill there smaller (even T2) cruisers by sustained dps + Tank.
With the Combat Battlecruiser in the role of sustained Anti-cruiser sized dps, Tank and Link capabilities, I like the road where this is heading. No there not going to be the best choice for Solo PvP, but on a hull that supports GANG Links, that isn't nessicerily a bad thing!
I hope the destinction will become better visible, when the T2 (Battle)Cruisers, Attack line Battlecruisers and Battleships redesigning has gone trough. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
305
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 03:19:00 -
[1444] - Quote
After a little testing (not much yet):
Ferox looks really nice and nasty - especially for teamwork. Obviously 5 medslots is way too little for a slow shield tanker to do proper solo tackle, but I like the Ferox like this (as long Drake doesn't get 6 medslots and keep the resist bonus).
The only thing striking me is how nice the Railguns "seems" but then wonder why anyone would fit them in the current game. Forget about sniping with this... It's just not worth even trying. Only thing you get is versatility with decent dps at close range at the cost of tracking and lots of dps.
Drake looks super boring. The only comment I have until we see the new suggestions is buff the cpu just a little...
The Prophecy is a nice and solid ship. It suits the role as drone boat and T1 command ship perfectly, however: Without a laser bonus this ship will be a monstrous bait ship and people will use it for bait only...
Why not give it drone bonus and a bonus towards guns - give it another hi-slot instead and just 6 lowslots. Throw the resist bonus after the Harbinger and fix the wrong 10% damage bonus. Dont get me wrong I love the Prophecy as it is now, but you need to keep focus on lasers for this beauty even as a drone boat. Give people a reason to do it...
Pinky |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 04:54:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:PS. With Cyclone becoming primarily a misile ship with an active tank it could easily benefit from moving a lowslot to a medslot. Active tanking isn't easy to fit (guess why Raven sucks in pvp). Also if it need to fit a command processor for 2 warfare links in the utility hi-slots this would be a very good move. This isn't a deal breaker ofcourse - people can always fit nanofibers and co-processors in those lowslots :-) Raven isn't that good in PvP because large missiles are immensely underpowered. Raven also has some PG issues but otherwise in theory being able to fit 6 torps and 2 heavy neuts very nice. It's not an active tanking issue. |
Cytherion
Critical Strike
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:29:00 -
[1446] - Quote
Has anyone thought about Command Ships? In all honesty, Command Ships need a "buff". I have invested years in command ship (nighthawk / sleipnir) with support skills and yet it just feels underplayed, underpowered. Links are nice to run but it should not gimp the ship. They are sturdy ships, hard to train for and in the end the experience is not very rewarding. These ships should be top tier and a popular choice of squad leaders / fleet commanders. Yet its not flown on a regular basis.
I also think they need to deal higher in terms of damage, be electronically superior and have a higher base resistance to jamming and dampening. I don't care if you want to add a few months more of training but please make these ships part of the mainstream eve population. I am not asking them to be a I WIN button ships but still considering the price it takes to make them elite is not worth their role.
"The Role they play is not incentive enough to take them out in a fleet" |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 05:36:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Cytherion wrote:Has anyone thought about Command Ships? In all honesty, Command Ships need a "buff". I have invested years in command ship (nighthawk / sleipnir) with support skills and yet it just feel underplayed, underpowered. Links are nice to run but it should not gimp the ship. They are sturdy ships, hard to train for and in the end the experience is not very rewarding. These ships should be top tier and a popular choice of squad leaders / fleet commanders. Yet its not flown on a regular basis.
I also think they need to deal higher in terms of damage, be electronically superior and have a higher base resistance to jamming and dampening. I don't care if you want to add a few months more of training but please make these ships part of the mainstream eve population. I am not asking them to be a I WIN button ships but still considering the price it takes to make them elite is not worth their role.
"The Role they play is not incentive enough to take them out in a fleet" Did you seriously ask for the Sleipnir to get buffed? In terms of the combat oriented Command Ships, the Sleipnir and, to a slightly lesser degree, the Absolution are absolutely fine - in fact those two ships should be the benchmark for the other Command Ships to meet. Nighthawk and Astarte however do need buff, although the issue with the Astarte is largely due to active armor tanking. As for the link oriented Command Ships, CCP already said they were going to buff them significantly so that T3 links didn't make them obsolete. |
Cytherion
Critical Strike
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 06:08:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Cytherion wrote:Has anyone thought about Command Ships? In all honesty, Command Ships need a "buff". I have invested years in command ship (nighthawk / sleipnir) with support skills and yet it just feel underplayed, underpowered. Links are nice to run but it should not gimp the ship. They are sturdy ships, hard to train for and in the end the experience is not very rewarding. These ships should be top tier and a popular choice of squad leaders / fleet commanders. Yet its not flown on a regular basis.
I also think they need to deal higher in terms of damage, be electronically superior and have a higher base resistance to jamming and dampening. I don't care if you want to add a few months more of training but please make these ships part of the mainstream eve population. I am not asking them to be a I WIN button ships but still considering the price it takes to make them elite is not worth their role.
"The Role they play is not incentive enough to take them out in a fleet" Did you seriously ask for the Sleipnir to get buffed? In terms of the combat oriented Command Ships, the Sleipnir and, to a slightly lesser degree, the Absolution are absolutely fine - in fact those two ships should be the benchmark for the other Command Ships to meet. Nighthawk and Astarte however do need buff, although the issue with the Astarte is largely due to active armor tanking. As for the link oriented Command Ships, CCP already said they were going to buff them significantly so that T3 links didn't make them obsolete.
Well I was talking mechanics of command ships in general. But yes, Nighthawk at the moment even with max skills invested is nothing more than a brick specially with heavy missiles nerfed, I really dont feel like flying it. Some say fly it like a HAM drake...that would just defeat the purpose.
Anyways, while Sleipnir is nice ship and I fly it quite a bit, I sincerely hope it will not be changed to be drifted to missile platform like the Cyclone. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 06:57:00 -
[1449] - Quote
Cytherion wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Cytherion wrote:Has anyone thought about Command Ships? In all honesty, Command Ships need a "buff". I have invested years in command ship (nighthawk / sleipnir) with support skills and yet it just feel underplayed, underpowered. Links are nice to run but it should not gimp the ship. They are sturdy ships, hard to train for and in the end the experience is not very rewarding. These ships should be top tier and a popular choice of squad leaders / fleet commanders. Yet its not flown on a regular basis.
I also think they need to deal higher in terms of damage, be electronically superior and have a higher base resistance to jamming and dampening. I don't care if you want to add a few months more of training but please make these ships part of the mainstream eve population. I am not asking them to be a I WIN button ships but still considering the price it takes to make them elite is not worth their role.
"The Role they play is not incentive enough to take them out in a fleet" Did you seriously ask for the Sleipnir to get buffed? In terms of the combat oriented Command Ships, the Sleipnir and, to a slightly lesser degree, the Absolution are absolutely fine - in fact those two ships should be the benchmark for the other Command Ships to meet. Nighthawk and Astarte however do need buff, although the issue with the Astarte is largely due to active armor tanking. As for the link oriented Command Ships, CCP already said they were going to buff them significantly so that T3 links didn't make them obsolete. Well I was talking mechanics of command ships in general. But yes, Nighthawk at the moment even with max skills invested is nothing more than a brick specially with heavy missiles nerfed, I really dont feel like flying it. Some say fly it like a HAM drake...that would just defeat the purpose. Anyways, while Sleipnir is nice ship and I fly it quite a bit, I sincerely hope it will not be changed to be drifted to missile platform like the Cyclone. I wouldn't want the Sleipnir to be a missile boat or for the Absolution to be a drone boat. There's certainly no need for it. Anyway,
Nighthawk buff is actually very simple. The bonuses aren't terrible, but the ship's stats are. It's one of the most frustrating ships to fit and for this reason alone it doesn't do anything that a drake can't do just as well (if not better). The only thing a Nighthawk does better is being able to fit over 1K DPS passive shield recharge tank, but with the isk and sp required to fly such a nighthawk, it really begs the question: why didn't you just go for a Tengu? |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1728
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 07:15:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Any news on the armor tanking fixes?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Cytherion
Critical Strike
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 07:17:00 -
[1451] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: I wouldn't want the Sleipnir to be a missile boat or for the Absolution to be a drone boat. There's certainly no need for it. Anyway,
Nighthawk buff is actually very simple. The bonuses aren't terrible, but the ship's stats are. It's one of the most frustrating ships to fit and for this reason alone it doesn't do anything that a drake can't do just as well (if not better). The only thing a Nighthawk does better is being able to fit over 1K DPS passive shield recharge tank, but with the isk and sp required to fly such a nighthawk, it really begs the question: why didn't you just go for a Tengu?
+1 to that.
offtopic I am trying to refrain from posting my opinions about T3s in this thread ( x1 lvl training for subsystems..really? its like giving a 16yr old kid, keys to a ferrari..all I can say it train it, have fun while fotm lasts..) |
Corben Arctus
EVE University Ivy League
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 08:59:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Cytherion wrote: Anyways, while Sleipnir is nice ship and I fly it quite a bit, I sincerely hope it will not be changed to be drifted to missile platform like the Cyclone.
It has already been confirmed that the Claymore will be a missile ship. Sleipnir will keep the dakka dakka. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 09:24:00 -
[1453] - Quote
Anyone with some good harbinger fits? I was trying for some time yesterday but simply could not find a solid armor fit. That thing runs out of pg with just guns, plate and afterburner. And cpu is so low that you just have to go over it out no matter what. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
342
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:32:00 -
[1454] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Notes: The reason you need a small cap booster on both fits - is that the best way to disable a command ships gang links is to cap drain it. This helps negate this issue, and is considered best practice as a lack of gang links is generally considered, a bad thing. So, the Damnation with slaves hits: 556,093 EHP with a signature of 265 The Vulture with halo set (The best thing currently for a shield buffer fleet fit like this) hits: 214,547 with a signature of 291 Spot the difference? Now, the passive recharge which, you think makes the Vulture somehow awesome. Well again - its not constant - it is only that figure around 25% - comes in at 594 a second. This equates to, 35640 over a minute - if - and somehow magically - the enemy keeps it at 25% perfectly, for 10 minutes - then... finally, you could argue about how awesome that somehow the Vulture is better. When you reach titan level, the difference can be as much as 20 million EHP between say, the Erebus, and the Leviathan when being boosted. And agreed, passive shield recharge is a factor, albeit nowhere near as powerful as you make out. But it would be very easy for CCP to release a shield EHP implant set, that also nerfed shield recharge time. Easy. But shields should always have less EHP than Armor, but not quite as dramatic a difference as this. The reason is that the armor tanks only activate at the end of the cycle, rather than shields that activate at the start. Which is a factor in logistics backed fights. The calls for a buffer implant for shields is an entirely fair one, and one of the biggest imbalances in the current game. This conversation has zero relevance to this thread, but here goes . . .
You realize that the damnation you just fitted out has the align time agility and turning radius of a planet right?
See the thing is that your vulture could keep up with a hurricane fleet, fairly easily, but the damnation could never keep up with an armor HAC gang, and it wouldnt have the signature to tank with it either as it would need to swap out the slaves for a halo set.
in eve there is no better or worse, it all depends on the situation . . . |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
459
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:41:00 -
[1455] - Quote
... So umm can we get some info on that Jove BC on the test server?? - Nulla Curas |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts.
120
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:46:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Also it doesn't make any sense that the Drake and Ferox have smaller signatures than the Brutix and Myrmidon. We all know that ship signature is heavily influenced by shield size, the caldari ships have bigger shields (as they should) but have smaller signatures. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but this doesn't seem right.
It won't because the Drake and ferox will fit Shield mods, enlarging their signature far over that of the Brutix and the Myrmidon.
Just like the mass of the Drake and Ferox are higher than those of the Brutix and Myrmidon wich will settle when they fit plates.
See it like a their racial experties grants them to make their base plate lighter and their base shields more compact.
|
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:54:00 -
[1457] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:... So umm can we get some info on that Jove BC on the test server??
It's not Jove, it is SoCT |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
255
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:59:00 -
[1458] - Quote
Sigras wrote: This conversation has zero relevance to this thread, but here goes . . .
You realize that the damnation you just fitted out has the align time agility and turning radius of a planet right?
See the thing is that your vulture could keep up with a hurricane fleet, fairly easily, but the damnation could never keep up with an armor HAC gang, and it wouldnt have the signature to tank with it either as it would need to swap out the slaves for a halo set.
in eve there is no better or worse, it all depends on the situation . . .
Actually, if you read the thread and the comments previously, it was relevant, as it was all to do with a much earlier comment and shield recharge, which in its way, was relevant to EHP numbers on the Ferox.
As you will see if you continue in the thread, I soon get back to the Prophecy and Ferox. Please feel to rip into those lol
Alas, the Damnation is win. The Vulture is mildly quicker, but it isn't some Minmitar spring chicken that you might think it is. And besides, when webbed etc, what good is having a lot less EHP and a larger signature anyway?
Given any boosting command ship is intended to be used in larger fights, its a fair bet to say it may well be webbed if primary and will rely on its resists and buffer to survive. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 11:06:00 -
[1459] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote: ...whine about not using 800mm...
[New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Reactive Armor Hardener Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Optical Tracking Computer I,Optimal Range Script
Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I,Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I,Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I,Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I,Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I,Imperial Navy Multifrequency M Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I,Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Drones Hammerhead II x5, Hobgoblin II x5 |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
462
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 11:47:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:
The Prophecy is a nice and solid ship. It suits the role as drone boat and T1 command ship perfectly, however: Without a laser bonus this ship will be a monstrous bait ship and people will use it for bait only...
Why not give it drone bonus and a bonus towards guns - give it another hi-slot instead and just 6 lowslots. Throw the resist bonus after the Harbinger and fix the wrong 10% damage bonus. Dont get me wrong I love the Prophecy as it is now, but you need to keep focus on lasers for this beauty even as a drone boat. Give people a reason to do it...
Amarr ships without lasers tend to be the best ones.. Unless you're blobbing.
|
|
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
459
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 13:03:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Allandri wrote:ChromeStriker wrote:... So umm can we get some info on that Jove BC on the test server?? It's not Jove, it is SoCT
Pff close enough lol - Nulla Curas |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 13:04:00 -
[1462] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Apostrof Ahashion wrote: ...whine about not using 800mm... ...posts incredibly stupid harbinger fit ...
That fit uses T1 guns, and thats even worse than downgrading to Medium Pulse, they use more PG and cant use scorch. And Reactive Armor Hardeners suck. And warp scrambler with short range guns on a ship with 300m/s is hilarious. And you still could not put anything in that utility high. Cookie cutter Maller fits have ~10k less ehp, ~50 less dps and move 4x faster.
thanks for proving my point. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
305
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 13:06:00 -
[1463] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:PS. With Cyclone becoming primarily a misile ship with an active tank it could easily benefit from moving a lowslot to a medslot. Active tanking isn't easy to fit (guess why Raven sucks in pvp). Also if it need to fit a command processor for 2 warfare links in the utility hi-slots this would be a very good move. This isn't a deal breaker ofcourse - people can always fit nanofibers and co-processors in those lowslots :-) Raven isn't that good in PvP because large missiles are immensely underpowered. Raven also has some PG issues but otherwise in theory being able to fit 6 torps and 2 heavy neuts very nice. It's not an active tanking issue.
Trust me the Raven does nice dps against battlecruisers and up (Faction torpedos hti well). Yes it has powergrid issues making it difficult to use the 2 utility hi-slots to their max - However the real problem is the lack of pvp tank. 6 medslots just isn't enough for a decent active tank and the largest shield extenders are pretty useless on battleships. |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
107
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 13:18:00 -
[1464] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... Out with it man. Still that at least tells me they may be trying to make active armor tanking not suck any more.
Yay at the myrmidon drone buff. Boo at the -1 turret.
Hopefully the Ferox fares well with these changes. it's a ship I've always wanted to love, but have trouble when it's uses are so limited by being tier 1 |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
240
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 13:56:00 -
[1465] - 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 |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 14:51:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Wivabel wrote:You are in a brawler setup if you are getting kited then you are likely going to die. At least the Ferox with its optimal bonus and null allows you to do damage out to long point range. 2:30 seconds is forever in PVP. Null still gives you a respectable 550 DPS 470 + 80 from drones or 620 DPS overheated. The 5 low slots also give you plenty of room for different mods be they damage mods tracking enhancers or nano/overdrives. The new Ferox will be a very effective ship. Wiv Hey Wiv, I appreciate its a brawler, but lets go over the 2:30 seconds - thats optimal, thats not having warped in, or used the guns already, or anything else that used the cap up. So, its far less than that in actuality, and the Ferox does need to use the MWD to move around. If you do forgo top damage and use the Nulls, please don't discount the fact it gets a 25% tracking nerf. So 550 DPS on EFT is not really 550 DPS unless you're shooting a Battleship or larger. And even some battleships it won't hit at that. As for the low slots? The new low slot the Ferox has is automatically filled by a Reactor Control II, or you ditch a bunch of shield rigs and pop in 10m ISK a pop Ancillary power rigs. Otherwise - you can't actually fit the guns you're giving these numbers for with any sort of tank that is. If the Ferox was so freaking awesome, why isn't everyone flying it? Because it ain't. Its been the poor pick of the bunch for a long long time, only really beaten by the pointless Prophecy before this change. Even the Cyclone has been popular lately with the Ancillary shield booster. More powergrid allows it to fit the weapons its supposed to use, with a moderate buffer tank. And instead of the extra lowslot, an extra midslot would be genuinely useful. An extra low slot to just fit a power grid is not an extra lowslot. Its just there for fitting, and its not even an exotic fit or anything crazy. Its just a MWD and LSE with guns on. I have three Ferox's in my hangar. I look at them. And I just can't get the will to undock them. I know they will fail hard. Having basically - the same ship - with just 1 gun more instead of a missile launcher, and a low slot to give me the joy of a reactor control to fit it. Not exactly the improvement Caldari folks were after.
To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Cytherion
Critical Strike
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 15:00:00 -
[1467] - Quote
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 |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
366
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 15:30:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Cytherion wrote:
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
Why are you not a fan of the current BC changes? After spending some time on test server I can say that all 8 of the combat BCs are functioning rather well. Some specific changes need to be made (more grid/cpu on harbie, less mass on cane) but overall it's a MASSIVE step forward in terms of overall ship usage and general balance.
If fozzie takes this same style of balancing up the Command line we can easily assume that all commands will be getting an additional slot (except sliepnir and claymore), reworked fittings, and more base hp. We will also be receiving 4 new Combat oriented Commands as the old fleet commands will be reworked to be just as functional as the field commands.
|
Ashlar Vellum
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 16:00:00 -
[1469] - Quote
I'm quite concerned about the harb, -25 cpu is too much in my opinion. It would be almost impossible to make something useful out of it for low sp players and extremely tight fits for high sp players. Fozzie please take one more look at it. |
Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:16:00 -
[1470] - Quote
I won't try to speak specifically about the other changes to BCs, but I am happy they are getting the 'tiercide' treatment. Some interesting things happening. I do want to speak about the changes Harbinger specifically though. I'm a little confused on your thought process here and why you made the changes you did, especially when you seemingly are aware of the actually issues of the Harbinger.
In a previous post you seemed to recognize at least one of the problems with armor tanking and maneuverability:
"What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!
(your response) I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment."
You seem to understand the issues with active armor tanking rigs and mass issues. You recognize that active armor rigs shouldn't have the large mass addition to active armor tanking ships that they do now. One could see then, that the reason you added mass to the Harb, was in anticipation of the removal of the mass addition from active armor rigs. The problem here is that no one fits the Harb for active tanking, and yet you added mass to the ship anyway. Can you please discuss this? It doesn't seem to make much sense to make this already sluggish ship even slower, especially when you have taken away PWG making it even harder to fit plates/a decent fit without sacrificing rigs or getting implants. *Note - this is NOT the case with other BCs.
Seemingly, you reduced the PWG and CPU because, even though you -1 turret, you pumped up the damage bonus to 10%, making the projected damage in effect every so slightly better. However, even before with 7 turrets and the original amount of PWG and CPU it was still unreasonably hard to fit a decent tank + (edit) heavy pulses on.
Mynna explains this pretty well:
"The problem people who have with the Harbinger have is that decent fits require unreasonably large compromises. You have to jump through some pretty serious hoops to get both heavy pulse lasers and a 1600mm plate on, like "ditch two trimarks for a CPU and Grid rig and add in a CPU implant" compromises. Even if you drop to an 800mm plate, you still need an implant. It can also drop to smaller guns, but that's a ~14% loss of range and damage, and it still requires a CPU implant too. Compare that to the prophecy and myrmidon, which can fit a 1600mm plate with no problems. Or compare it to the hurricane - to fit a 1600mm plate and 425mm autos, it either uses one fitting rig, or downgrades the guns to 220mm ACs, which is a only a ~5% loss in damage/range. Or it can go all the way down to dual 180mm ACs, which is a 17% loss of range and 10% loss of damage, more similar to the price the harbinger pays...but in return, it gets to actually use its utility high, fitting a neut or something. Even a lot of Tech 1 cruisers have an easier time fitting a plate than a Harbinger does.
So no, it's not actually "fine"."
Mass addition to the prophecy doesn't even make sense either because it makes sense to go EHP over active armor tanking (given the assumed reduction in active armor tanking rigs).
Could you explain?:
- What the point of the mass addition to the Harbinger was? (because even if active armor rigs get reduced in mass addiction, people don't fit the Harb for active armor tanking)
- Why the reduction in PWG and CPU, when it was already unreasonable hard to fit a Harb? (-1 turret doesn't fix the fitting issue)
In summary, I don't understand the reduction in PWG and addition to mass. Taking away PWG from the already hard to decently fit Harb + adding mass makes your changes very confusing and wrong - unless you're trying to make this ship useless. Basically, we can either fit crappy guns along w/ trimarks and a decent tank to be an unreasonably slow, low DPS ship (even for Amarr) or sacrifice any good rigs to get an absolute crap tank (compared to other BCs and slow Amarr ships) and have good DPS.
And if anyone tries to claim that "it's like a mid-grade Armageddon" you're missing the fact that the Armageddon can fit a massive passive tank and not sacrifice DPS. |
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:46:00 -
[1471] - 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=73530All 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 |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:58:00 -
[1472] - Quote
ccp's plan is to allow all command ships to be either a dps platform or a boosting platform so that the sleipnir could be used for boosting just as well as the claymore for killing ships Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:22:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Nerf all command boosts. Both on grid and off grid. It is really a terrible mechanic. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Mund Richard
285
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:08:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0
Should someone have missed it.
So... How many were complaining before, that the Harbi is too easy to fit in PG and restrictive in CPU? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
961
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:42:00 -
[1475] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... I know this is late, but active armor repping is only good for solo'ish fighting - even with the incursus' massive repping bonus.
One Gallente BC should be for solo'ish (which fits really well for the Myrm + drones), and one ought to be able to contribute to gangs and fleets (the Brutix with turrets).
|
Mund Richard
285
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:53:00 -
[1476] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... I know this is late, but active armor repping is only good for solo'ish fighting - even with the incursus' massive repping bonus. One Gallente BC should be for solo'ish (which fits really well for the Myrm + drones), and one ought to be able to contribute to gangs and fleets (the Brutix with turrets). Well, these aren't the patchnotes yet, and there is at least one more iteration in the works I think, so it's not too late to stress:
Why would any lineup need BOTH ships with active tank bonuses?
Heck, I'm not convinced on both being passive as well, but at least those scale for fleets (though 5 mids is a tad bit...). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
577
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:33:00 -
[1477] - Quote
Prophecy:
The lack of a turret/launcher damage bonus encourages spending as much powergrid as possible on defensive mods, then fitting the highs with whatever is left. It is simply not a sensible choice to spend 30% of your powergrid on 4 HAM launchers that will only contribute 30% of your total dps (assuming 2x drone damage mods and 5x hammerheads). Lasers have even worse powergrid to dps ratios.
The fix is rather simple: remove the turret hardpoints, reduce launcher hardpoints to 2 and the number of highslots by 2, add a +100% damage to heavy and heavy assault missile damage" role bonus. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:05:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:So... How many were complaining before, that the Harbi is too easy to fit in PG and restrictive in CPU?
No one, with a reasonable fit you go over cpu and pg. -32pg (skills and -1 turret taken into account) may not seem as much but it really did make an incredibly hard to fit ship an useless ship. Compare it to the cane, after fitting just guns on harby and cane the cane has over 100 more cpu and almost 50 more pg to fit on the same number of slots. And is also much faster, now has the same ehp, does more damage when closer than 12-15km. There is no reason to fly Harbinger over Hurricane, now more than ever. And this is a balancing patch, i really expected the gap between the two to close not grow bigger. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 01:29:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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=73530All 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.
Oh but it will be so fun when a pilot will have to be on grid with the fleet to boost it, and won't be able to do anything else than tank and hope his fleetmates keep him alive. Would you allow a Sleipnir to keep some small drones please, so he can at least look at them chasing rabbits?
This is a bad idea, and especially if you keep in mind the humongous training times needed to actually fly a Command Ship properly
In fact, it's quite obvious that a Sleipnir, once made able to sport some serious command links won't be able to do the same DPS it would do when fitted for pure 1V1, for the simple reason that it will need to use highslots for links, and quite likely a lowslot or more for fitting mods. But why in hell one should nerf the ship which is so fine as it is, to make it a brick-in-space and nothing else? It doesnt' make sense to suggest ships must be stuck in one role and that's it, so why should they be able toto change fittings? Each pilot can choose how he likes to use his ship depending from the role but keep in mind that the people flying it are PLAYING A GAME so they still need to be doing something fun, a pilot doesn't deserve to be bored to hell just because he is in a booster role... And also, where's the "sandbox" going there?
Sleipnir is a very fine ship, if it will be able to fit more command links it will be a choice of the pilot to either downgrade the DPS and/or speed a lot and keep a nice tank, or keep some decent DPS and speed while going "naked", maybe just with some hardener and relying on spider tanking. It's good to give more options and fine-tune things, but it's bad to put spaceships on a railway and make them dumb and boring. |
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos
135
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 03:10:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Prophecy:
The lack of a turret/launcher damage bonus encourages spending as much powergrid as possible on defensive mods, then fitting the highs with whatever is left. It is simply not a sensible choice to spend 30% of your powergrid on 4 HAM launchers that will only contribute 30% of your total dps (assuming 2x drone damage mods and 5x hammerheads). Lasers have even worse powergrid to dps ratios.
The fix is rather simple: remove the turret hardpoints, reduce launcher hardpoints to 2 and the number of highslots by 2, add a +100% damage to heavy and heavy assault missile damage" role bonus.
The Mrym still fits guns. Cause you know, more DPS is more DPS. ANd the only things that have 100% bonus to damage are faction/T2 BSs I think. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. -Paper |
|
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 04:34:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Now that we have seen the armor tanking changes, let me just say that active rep bonus is horrible, and likely wasted on anything above frig size.
Myrm might as well be a Minmatar ship, because it is still best with shields and projectiles.
The only reason some people are OK with keeping the active bonus on the Myrm is because a very small segment of players like triple rep solo/small gang PvP with that ship. Seems like catering to a very small segment of the player base (sorry 3MAR Myrm lovers), get rid of actve rep bonus on both Gallente hulls IMO.
I get that the new mod will free up a mid and lows, but even with the new mod the bonus is still much worse than the resist bonus. The Myrm will still be a ship with a very small niche. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 06:36:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Now that we have seen the armor tanking changes, let me just say that active rep bonus is horrible, and likely wasted on anything above frig size.
Myrm might as well be a Minmatar ship, because it is still best with shields and projectiles.
The only reason some people are OK with keeping the active bonus on the Myrm is because a very small segment of players like triple rep solo/small gang PvP with that ship. Seems like catering to a very small segment of the player base (sorry 3MAR Myrm lovers), get rid of actve rep bonus on both Gallente hulls IMO.
I get that the new mod will free up a mid and lows, but even with the new mod the bonus is still much worse than the resist bonus. The Myrm will still be a ship with a very small niche. You do realise that 1 load of charges from a single Medium Ancillary Armor Repper will provide more HP than a T2 1600mm Plate even without overheat or rigs right?
Add in overheating, some nano pump rigs and one of those new rigs that benefit OH reps and you have an insane amount of burst rep. Add in the fact that armor already has higher base resists than shields and you have a very decent armor buff. I think you just dismissed everything because the buff didn't happen exactly the way you wanted it to. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:52:00 -
[1483] - Quote
I don't like how some BCs don't have a utility high. What are Caldari explorers supposed to use between the Heron and the Tengu? To fit a probe launcher you have to sacrifice a turret/launcher for all Caldari cruisers and battlecruisers now. On top of that, new players who use cruisers and battlecruisers for exploration are also more likely to bother with salvaging mag sites and overseer wrecks. So wheres the salvager go? Take off another turret/launcher for that? Use salvaging drones? I don't wanna know how long it will take them to salvage an overseer wreck... and can't use them on the cans.
I hope that the Gnosis is part of a new exploration line-up of ships and not a once-off gift... though that would homogenize things a bit. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:29:00 -
[1484] - Quote
ok, after getting on the test server and trying some of the fittings out, i have no idea what your guys' problem is . . .
The following are the stats I got with my skills, (all weapon specialization 4, acceleration control 4 and BC 5)
The Harbinger Fits fine and has great damage projection, though it is quite a bit slower than the other ships. I chose valkyeries so I could be doing 3 damage types.
903 m/s (with MWD) (will be faster with new armor upgrades skill and buff to 800mm RRTP) 47,835 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + gets a medium cap booster to keep its guns and MWD running + web and LR point.
The Hurricane still a great ship though it did slow down a bit with the patch, the only modification I had to make was to drop a neut; i choose hobgoblins instead of warriors so I would be doing 3 damage types.
1249 m/s (with MWD was 1311 before patch, so it lost 62 m/s) 39,938 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 576 DPS (barrage + hobgoblins in eve fitting screen) (Sorry they didnt have RF EMP on the test server) + 1 medium neut to deal with small tackle that gets in close. + LR point
The Brutix This ship might actually be viable after the patch . . . i cant believe it . . . I cant remember the last time I actually said that i might consider flying a brutix. Again I chose valkyeries because of the damage type.
Active Tanking 1204 m/s (with MWD no rigs simulating the rig changes) 34,199 EHP (in eve fitting screen, tank stats below estimated) 789 DPS (void + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + 321 DPS tank** (see below) + web and scramble + cap booster
Buffer Tanking 1012 m/s (with MWD will be faster with new armor upgrades skill but using a 1600mm RRTP so no buff there) 50,805 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 830 DPS (void + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + web and scramble + cap booster
I estimated the tank using a Medium Innefficient Armor Repair Unit and a Medium Automated Carapace Restoration because they should rep the exact amount that a boosted AAR will also used an auxiliary nano pump and a nanobot accelerator, but I didnt want to go through the math to simulate the new rig overloading
I got the tank numbers by averaging the resist numbers together and dividing the average HP repaired per second by that number.
TL;DR I did some testing on the test server, I dont think the hurricane or harbinger are sufficiently gimped, nor do I believe the brutix was over buffed.
My review of the drone ships will be coming up next, sry dont have caldari or missile skills . . . |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:43:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Now that we have seen the armor tanking changes, let me just say that active rep bonus is horrible, and likely wasted on anything above frig size.
Myrm might as well be a Minmatar ship, because it is still best with shields and projectiles.
The only reason some people are OK with keeping the active bonus on the Myrm is because a very small segment of players like triple rep solo/small gang PvP with that ship. Seems like catering to a very small segment of the player base (sorry 3MAR Myrm lovers), get rid of actve rep bonus on both Gallente hulls IMO.
I get that the new mod will free up a mid and lows, but even with the new mod the bonus is still much worse than the resist bonus. The Myrm will still be a ship with a very small niche. You do realise that 1 load of charges from a single Medium Ancillary Armor Repper will provide more HP than a T2 1600mm Plate even without overheat or rigs right? Add in overheating, some nano pump rigs and one of those new rigs that benefit OH reps and you have an insane amount of burst rep. Add in the fact that armor already has higher base resists than shields and you have a very decent armor buff. I think you just dismissed everything because the buff didn't happen exactly the way you wanted it to.
Actually I dismissed it because the rep bonus is of limited use. Unlike the Prophecy bonus, the rep bonus is useless with remote reps or buffer tanks. I had zero complaints about the new mods. New mods are great. Armor rep bonus is not. It continues to shoehorn the Myrm into a very small niche. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 10:41:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
The Harbinger Fits fine and has great damage projection, though it is quite a bit slower than the other ships. I chose valkyeries so I could be doing 3 damage types.
903 m/s (with MWD) (will be faster with new armor upgrades skill and buff to 800mm RRTP) 47,835 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + gets a medium cap booster to keep its guns and MWD running + web and LR point.
Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu
Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight.
|
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 11:51:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Why don't we give the Brutix a +10% armor HP per level bonus instead of forcing both Gallente BCs to active tank or waste a bonus? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
476
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:34:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Why don't we give the Brutix a +10% armor HP per level bonus instead of forcing both Gallente BCs to active tank or waste a bonus?
Because as it is it will be ******* win with AAR's?
Massive reppage, decent cap, facemelt dps and SPEED TO CATCH CANES |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
328
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:58:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu
Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight. And it need AWU 5 or it will break pg limit as well. And cruisers now can squeeze in a 1600plate. Sup. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:35:00 -
[1490] - Quote
Yeah im ********. But still 800mm plate and you cant fit tracking computer or tech2 distruptor without an implant is a big deal. And there is no way to fit that utility high. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1767
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:36:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Lack of utility highs sort of demotivates from using gang links on many of these BCs.
Not sure if good or bad.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
SMT008
Wormholers Anonymous Transmission Lost
498
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:14:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu
Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight. And it need AWU 5 or it will break pg limit as well. And cruisers now can squeeze in a 1600plate. Sup.
Nothing to argue about. The fitting requirements of the new Harbinger are bad and should be fixed. Period. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
154
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:37:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Fitted out a Harbinger on Sisi the same way as I have mine on TQ minus one HPL II. Sighed deeply. Awaiting Fozzie update. The FMPL Harbinger was a dark time in my life. Please don't send me back there now that I have emerged into the light. |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:57:00 -
[1494] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Can you make a role bonus for BC so they can fit T1 links without having a respective racial warfare skills(Skirmish Warfare Specialist ie) and have a flat bonus of 200-300% of the base value(equvalent to levels 3-4 of that skill) so that they will be able to provide 5-10% bonuses after 3-4 days of character training giving a nice newbie command ships?
I suggest that training chain for command ships should look like this:
BC -> Leadership V -> xxx Warfare V -> xxx Warfare Specialist IV, Warfare Link Specialist IV -> Command ships -> Link specialist V -> Cybernetics V |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
258
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:07:00 -
[1495] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Can you make a role bonus for BC so they can fit T1 links without having a respective racial warfare skills(Skirmish Warfare Specialist ie) and have a flat bonus of 200-300% of the base value(equvalent to levels 3-4 of that skill) so that they will be able to provide 5-10% bonuses after 3-4 days of character training giving a nice newbie command ships? I suggest that training chain for command ships should look like this: BC -> Leadership V -> xxx Warfare V -> xxx Warfare Specialist IV, Warfare Link Specialist IV -> Command ships -> Link specialist V -> Cybernetics V
This would make it very hard to see who was a gang bonus ship in a T1 battlecruiser gang, something that can add significant numbers to a gang tank or abilities. Its important to know what ships may be giving the bonuses. The Gang Link visual effect is limited and identical to the Sensor Booster visual effect, making finding it, next to impossible. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:14:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Moonaura wrote: This would make it very hard to see who was a gang bonus ship in a T1 battlecruiser gang, something that can add significant numbers to a gang tank or abilities. Its important to know what ships may be giving the bonuses. The Gang Link visual effect is limited and identical to the Sensor Booster visual effect, making finding it, next to impossible.
Does not that makes a perfect disguise for field command ships? |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:20:00 -
[1497] - Quote
I played around on testserver again last night with a friend... Not much changed from ealier opinions, but still many of the ships felt surprisingly close to being good ships.
Ferox : I love it ! ! Drake : Still awesome, but seems to lack just a little more cpu (about 10 cpu)
- only thing bothering me is Drake not only having 1 more medslot but also share the resist bonus. It would make more sense to me if one had 6 medslots and no resist bonusm while the other had 5 and a tank bonus. And ofcourse the lacking warfare link options...
Prophecy : I love it ! ! It's sweet... Harbinger : Seems to tank worse than the other battlecruisers with only decent dps? Need to test more...
- Again like the Caldari ships it bothers me to see a 7 lowslot prophecy with a resist bonus and the harbinger with 6 lowslots and no tank bonus. The Prophecy should give the resist bonus to the Harbinger and get a laser bonus to reward players using lasers instead of autocannons...
Hurricane : Still awesome as always. Cyclone : I kind of really like it, but it's not easy to get a proper tank with limited cpu and only 5 medslots. I made it work but would not be easy to find a good setup with warfare links. I think it's alright if given a bit more cpu? Single ASB setups really need a helping hand though after the last nerf...
Brutix : Didn't get to try it yet Myrmidon : Seemed to work okay but wasn't performing as well as I thought. I only got to try it once though but I always feel like I have a medslot too much. More testing required for me... |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
485
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:21:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Why don't we give the Brutix a +10% armor HP per level bonus instead of forcing both Gallente BCs to active tank or waste a bonus?
Why would you want to make your ship even slower than already is? As far as armor modules/rigs drawbacks go a +10% armor per level means you're adding mass, decreasing even further it's agility and speed.
You don't want any of these drawbacks when flying blaster ships except some Serpentis ones (because bonus and base ship stats) or limited edition snowflakes (Adrestria). With a 28km point+off grid links on a missile or autos ship you get a hell of pointing distance, speed and agility. All you'll be able to do is watch your ship melt and insult EFT dps numbers "but...but..."
You see, the problem at the start comes from small stuff put all together, then add OGB and figure out why, except with some snowflakes, you shouldn't armor tank your ships but shield and fill all those lows with dmg mods and nanos. Haven't seen yet the active armor tanking changes but can only expect another brick in the wall of silliness that is armor tanking. -á-á-á-á-á-á / |__|-á-á-á This is a tears cup, fill it !
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
353
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:43:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Sigras wrote:
The Harbinger Fits fine and has great damage projection, though it is quite a bit slower than the other ships. I chose valkyeries so I could be doing 3 damage types.
903 m/s (with MWD) (will be faster with new armor upgrades skill and buff to 800mm RRTP) 47,835 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + gets a medium cap booster to keep its guns and MWD running + web and LR point.
Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight. And it need AWU 5 or it will break pg limit as well. And cruisers now can squeeze in a 1600plate. They have this new thing now called an adaptive nano plating that you can use instead of a EANM; it takes no CPU at all . . . you should check it out! |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:55:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Sigras wrote: They have this new thing now called an adaptive nano plating that you can use instead of a EANM; it takes no CPU at all . . . you should check it out!
Someone already pointed out that i am stupid, but that still does not change the fact that the ship is a ***** to fit. I already downgraded every other module on it. And also if you downgrade EANM you wont get ehp the op reported. And its a fit that uses 800mm plate. Even cruisers now can fit 1600.
|
|
Prisoner No14
The Random Tangent
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 17:14:00 -
[1501] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
They are buffing its armor? |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 19:07:00 -
[1502] - Quote
First things first, the cruiser changes were amazing. These changes have brought some new dynamics to the EvE battlefield. I understand that BCs have been the mainstay of EvE players for a long time now, but what do you expect when BS fleets cost upwards of 200m for a ship. I mean I'm Internet space rich, but even I couldn't afford to replace a BS every day....
...but now we've hit the BCs tiericide and we've reached a point of downgrading their EHP to only slightly higher than the new combat cruisers and only slightly higher DPS than the new attack cruisers. That sounds great except for the penalties of the ship being a BC: lower speed, higher sigs, triple the cost, etc. These overall nerfs (yes, I understand some ships have received some buffs, but I personally view these all as almost all negative changes). There either needs to be a massive reduction in their mineral requirements, or there needs to a complete overhaul and a buffing of all Tier 1 and 2 BCs to current level of the FOTY ships (cane/drake).
Now the things I mentioned above aren't really my main concern. I was, however, quite upset to see that Gallente ships have kept their bonuses that make them utterly worthless in small gang and large fleet fights. As people have mentioned earlier in this post, the triple rep Myrm is great because its primary DPS is its drones, thus allowing it to have damage projection and the ability to devote all of its mid and low slots to tank. Drones and autocannons take no cap, which also means the Myrm can focus all of its cap on repping. But due to the limitations of armor reppers that are still present, you're still looking at fighting at most 3 guys.
This does not carry over to the brutix by any means. Fit rail guns for lol damage projection and you're dead when the enemy gets under 10km. Fit blasters and you're dead if they stay outside of 6km. The brutix doesn't have any viable active tanking setup due to the limitations that are hybrid weapons and the need for cap to use those hybrids. Now people may argue that the new AAR "god send" from Fozzie is the brutix's saving grace and the changes to the active armor tanking rigs are mana from heaven.....The brutix received a 50PG buff, but when you look at the changes to active armor tanking rigs (which are a must for active tanking), you won't be able to fit your ship due to PG issues.
Fozzie, you have time to be a hero for the Federation. Make the brutix a viable fleet ship that has two bonuses that are useable for fights involving more than 2 people. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
487
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 19:16:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Prisoner No14 wrote:They are buffing its armor?
What for?
It still can fit 6x425mm T2 +1 med neut+mwd and shield mods +scram and all those lows full of dmg mods+nano or DCU
Yep you get a free slot for a salvager or link on top.
Cane is fine and first of all, real men arty fit their canes !
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
374
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 19:57:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Cane is fine and first of all, real men arty fit their canes !
Mass addition was over the top and clearly harboring some personal distaste for the ship.
The cane has been nerfed harder than any other of the tier2 bcs, by far. Whats needed is a rollback of the +300000 mass to probably 175000.
|
Carlos Jaegar
Nulli-Secundus
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 20:06:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Really liking the new Cyclone - it's perfectly good with 5 launchers (HAMs) |
SuicidalPancake
Capital Storm. WHY so Seri0Us
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 21:04:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Bout time. Can't wait for these changes -á |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2808
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 21:05:00 -
[1507] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Cane is fine and first of all, real men arty fit their canes ! Mass addition was over the top and clearly harboring some personal distaste for the ship beyond the objective of balance. The cane has been nerfed harder than any other of the tier2 bcs, by far. Whats needed is a rollback of the +300000 mass to probably 175000.
Um. No. The Cane was not nerfed as hard as the Binger, by any stretch of the imagination.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 21:27:00 -
[1508] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Cane is fine and first of all, real men arty fit their canes ! Mass addition was over the top and clearly harboring some personal distaste for the ship beyond the objective of balance. The cane has been nerfed harder than any other of the tier2 bcs, by far. Whats needed is a rollback of the +300000 mass to probably 175000.
Fire up your EFT, fit your cane with mwd and add a 400mm plate to simulate mass addition. 23m/s less. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
354
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 07:30:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Sigras wrote:They have this new thing now called an adaptive nano plating that you can use instead of a EANM; it takes no CPU at all . . . you should check it out! Someone already pointed out that i am stupid, but that still does not change the fact that the ship is a ***** to fit. I already downgraded every other module on it. And also if you downgrade EANM you wont get ehp the op reported. And its a fit that uses 800mm plate. Even cruisers now can fit 1600. The EHP comes from the fitting screen with the modules on it on the test server . . . i can post screen shots if you dont believe me.
I do have really good fitting skills, so that is part of it, but saying the ship is impossible to fit HPL2s and a plate + MWD is wrong; i was even able to slam a cap booster on there . . . In fact, you might even be able to get away with a 1600mm plate if you change the trimarks for ACRs and drop the cap booster for a scramble . . .
I should try that . . . |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 08:15:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Sigras wrote: the harb with a 1600mm RRTP; needed to swap the medium cap booster for a small, and one of the trimarks for an ACR
882 m/s (with MWD down from 903 with an 800 plate and 3 trimarks) 51,572 EHP (in eve fitting screen up from 47,835 with the 800 plate) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + Only gets a small cap booster + web and LR point.
This is slower but has like 10% more HP . . . not sure which you want to pick.
And again, the problem with that is you are limited by CPU and PG. You have to downgrade everything and even then you need a fitting rig/cpu implant and AWU 5 for fit that is only decent. Try to fit Hurricane, it can fit everything the Harbinger can but it does not need to downgrade EANM, point, damage control etc. And can use that utility high, you can get away with AWU4 etc.
The problem is that this is a balancing patch and the gap between Harbinger and other bc only grow bigger. It has crap tank, is incredibly slow, lowest agility in class, hardest fitting. It brings nothing on the table except damage projection with mediocre dps.
Not like any alliance/corporation had Harbingers in their doctrines like Drake and Hurricane, not like anyone ever said "they fly harbys we are fuck3d". There was really no reason to nerf it this much. |
|
SMT008
Wormholers Anonymous Transmission Lost
499
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 09:19:00 -
[1511] - Quote
There is no point talking about the Harbinger. The fitting requirements have been and will still be too tight.
If the main Amarrian gunboat can't reach the level of the ArmorCane, then something's wrong.
Buff its fitting requirements so that it can at least fit a 1600mm T2, Heavy Pulses and a MWD without any fitting mods. Then maybe cancel the CPU nerf and that should do. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
247
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 09:45:00 -
[1512] - 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 |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
590
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 11:32:00 -
[1513] - Quote
I also found the fitting on the Harbinger very restrictive. It's worse than before.
The Brutix needs to have its active tanking bonus replaced by something else. The Myrmidon is already quite capable in this area and makes the Brutix' active tanking bonus redundant. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
490
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:28:00 -
[1514] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:There is no point talking about the Harbinger. The fitting requirements have been and will still be too tight.
If the main Amarrian gunboat can't reach the level of the ArmorCane, then something's wrong.
Buff its fitting requirements so that it can at least fit a 1600mm T2, Heavy Pulses and a MWD without any fitting mods. Then maybe cancel the CPU nerf and that should do.
Who the **** says you should be able to fit all the tank you want, mobility and gank?
I'm fine with the harb needing a ACR to use Heavies as long as canes need ACR's to fit 420's
Takeshi Yamato wrote:I also found the fitting on the Harbinger very restrictive. It's worse than before.
The Brutix needs to have its active tanking bonus replaced by something else (falloff bonus). The Myrmidon is already quite capable in this area and makes the Brutix' active tanking bonus redundant.
Stop trying to change every god damn ship in the game into a fecking shield kiter ffs. Brutix will be one of the best god damn BC's to come out of these changes/armor changes. |
Sabine Vynneve
Fistful of Finns Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:34:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Is there any new more detailed information on how (and if) capital ship skill requirements will change? Latest mention I can find is the blog post from last year simply saying that capital skills will require only racial battleship IV, but new skills will be introduced instead. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Zombie Ninja Space Bears
96
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:43:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Sigras wrote: the harb with a 1600mm RRTP; needed to swap the medium cap booster for a small, and one of the trimarks for an ACR
882 m/s (with MWD down from 903 with an 800 plate and 3 trimarks) 51,572 EHP (in eve fitting screen up from 47,835 with the 800 plate) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + Only gets a small cap booster + web and LR point.
This is slower but has like 10% more HP . . . not sure which you want to pick.
And again, the problem with that is you are limited by CPU and PG. You have to downgrade everything and even then you need a fitting rig/cpu implant and AWU 5 for fit that is only decent. Try to fit Hurricane, it can fit everything the Harbinger can but it does not need to downgrade EANM, point, damage control etc. And can use that utility high, you can get away with AWU4 etc. The problem is that this is a balancing patch and the gap between Harbinger and other bc only grow bigger. It has crap tank, is incredibly slow, lowest agility in class, hardest fitting. It brings nothing on the table except damage projection with mediocre dps. Not like any alliance/corporation had Harbingers in their doctrines like Drake and Hurricane, not like anyone ever said "they fly harbys we are fuck3d". There was really no reason to nerf it this much.
the cane has so much more PG to fit a tank with, because autocannons do not eat as many grid as puls laser do. iirc, autocannons have the smallest fitting requirements. this is the reason behind the powergrid nerf for the cane in the last patch, however you cant reduce the cane's PG much more because then its getting impossible to fit arties (iirc the guns with the highest pg demand). if you ask me, the enormous disparity between artie and autocannon is a bad heritage from earlier days. as for the comparison between harbinger and cane, harbinger should get some more fittings. its good to have a restricting fitting resource, but restricting in both CPU and PG is over the top. i guess a slight restriction in CPU for the harbinger would be good, as to have a sanitiy check on utility fit to the med slots, but PG should only be an issue for extreme chases, where you try to fit the biggest version of everything.
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:34:00 -
[1517] - Quote
Try to fit beams on harbinger. Lol. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
992
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:58:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:Fozzie, you have time to be a hero for the Federation. Make the brutix a viable fleet ship that has two bonuses that are useable for fights involving more than 2 people. +1 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3610
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:12:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Ok time to get feedback on the next iteration.
Once of the things we have refocused on since this thread started is that with warfare link changes potentially on the not too distant horizon we needed to build these ships for the warfare links we want rather than the warfare links we have. The ability to use warfare links is a key part of what gives these ships their identity, even if that has been watered down in recent years. As such we're working to ensure that each of these ships can fit a warfare link without sacrificing a bonused highslot. We eventually want links to be something you use on field and part of that will be ensuring that you can use links while also also enjoying the normal on-grid gameplay.
To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high, and given the Brutix and Drake the "double damage bonus fewer weapons" treatment.
We've also taken feedback from this thread and Sisi testing to make some adjustments to some other ships.
Most notably: The Harb was simply too hard to fit, and I had been too aggressive in reducing its fittings to go along with the slot change. So we've returned some fittings and brought it back to its old align time (while keeping the mass a bit higher). The Myrm was suffering too much from not being able to hold two full flights of drones, so we've doubled the dronebay buff to ensure that you can always have a full set of spares. The rep bonuses on both Gallente combat battlecruisers remain in this version. I do feel that they can be well served by the bonus and still remain unique to each other's playstyle. I am however not set in stone on the issue and won't rule out changing it either before or after 1.1 if it appears the current bonuses are not able to keep them both fun and unique enough.
I'm about to update the OP to the new values, our changes in this version relative to the originally posted version are:
Prophecy: Hull: -250
Harbinger: Powergrid: +100 CPU: +25 Agility: -0.014 Align time: -0.2s
Ferox: Highslots: +1 Lowslots: -1 Powergrid: +150 Hull: -250 Agility: +0.01 Mass: -260,000
Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Launchers: -1 Powergrid: -40 CPU: -15 Hull: -250
Brutix: Change Medium Hybrid damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Turrets: -1 Powergrid: -75 Hull: -250 Mass: +250,000 Align time: +0.01s
Myrmidon: Dronebay: +25
Cyclone: Powergrid: -100 Shields: +250 Armor: -250 Hull: +250 Capacitor: +600 Cap Recharge time: +158s Sensor strength: +1
Hurricane: Lock Range: +5km Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Seleucus Ontuas
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:19:00 -
[1520] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Yun Kuai wrote:Fozzie, you have time to be a hero for the Federation. Make the brutix a viable fleet ship that has two bonuses that are useable for fights involving more than 2 people. +1
Fozzie, this feels a bit like a let down. C'mon man, either the Brutix or the Myrmidon has to lose the rep bonus. I've been using the Ferox as a fleet ship since January, but I'd really like to be able to use a Gallente ship for fleet and not rely on Caldari. |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:27:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Gonna miss the 5th low on the Ferox, it was really nice to have. The reasons are sound though.
Nice to see the harbinger got the needed buffs.
Can't imagine anyone will complain about the max-skill buffs to DPS you just gave the brutix and drake, too. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:29:00 -
[1522] - Quote
Alright. Liking the harb changes. Also liking the added utility to all BC's. The brutish seems to come out of these changes decently, with slightly higher fitting having removed a gun. The cyclone also seems to have received a slight indirect buff, giving it a slightly larger role as a multi-damage type BC compared to the Drake as it now has more launcher DPS when using any damage type other than kinetic.
Overall, liking these changes. Not qualified enlightened to talk about any other ships. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
102
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:31:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Seleucus Ontuas wrote:Fozzie, this feels a bit like a let down. C'mon man, either the Brutix or the Myrmidon has to lose the rep bonus. I've been using the Ferox as a fleet ship since January, but I'd really like to be able to use a Gallente ship for fleet and not rely on Caldari. Still feels like the Ferox needs +1 midslot and the Drake needs to lose the shield resist. Just make a clear break between the "attack" boat and "combat" boat in each race; every race needs one boat that is good at each. The tier 3s are not "attack" ships, they're dedicated snipers and gank wagons. Right now all the tier 1/2 boats are some sort of half-hearted hybrid without any clear roles between them. And the 10% kinetic bonus on the Drake is even worse of a bad thing than 5% was. Just swap it to RoF + Velocity. It is plain silly for the Drake firing heavy missiles to have the same effective range as a Caracal firing lights. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
154
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:31:00 -
[1524] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Harbinger: Powergrid: +100 CPU: +25
Thank you, thank you, thank you. My fit will live on. I might even be able to make one of my mids T2 after this patch! |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:37:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Seleucus Ontuas wrote:Fozzie, this feels a bit like a let down. C'mon man, either the Brutix or the Myrmidon has to lose the rep bonus. I've been using the Ferox as a fleet ship since January, but I'd really like to be able to use a Gallente ship for fleet and not rely on Caldari. Still feels like the Ferox needs +1 midslot and the Drake needs to lose the shield resist. Just make a clear break between the "attack" boat and "combat" boat in each race; every race needs one boat that is good at each. The tier 3s are not "attack" ships, they're dedicated snipers and gank wagons. Right now all the tier 1/2 boats are some sort of half-hearted hybrid without any clear roles between them. And the 10% kinetic bonus on the Drake is even worse of a bad thing than 5% was. Just swap it to RoF + Velocity. It is plain silly for the Drake firing heavy missiles to have the same effective range as a Caracal firing lights.
These are both the combat boats. The Attack boats are the Tier 3 BCs.
To the specific criticisms: Another mid on the ferox means losing either the utility high it just got back or another low. Neither is acceptable.
The drake's kinetic bonus helps to keep it distinct from the Cyclone. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
127
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:38:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Would you stop putting utility highs on ranged ships? They really have no use at all.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't have the grid or cap for a gang mod in there. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:44:00 -
[1527] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Would you stop putting utility highs on ranged ships? They really have no use at all.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't have the grid or cap for a gang mod in there. Even if they gave out more PG and CPU to fit a warfare link there will be people using that for other modules. That high slot would still be empty and people will ask for more PG and CPU. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:47:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Seleucus Ontuas wrote:Fozzie, this feels a bit like a let down. C'mon man, either the Brutix or the Myrmidon has to lose the rep bonus. I've been using the Ferox as a fleet ship since January, but I'd really like to be able to use a Gallente ship for fleet and not rely on Caldari. Still feels like the Ferox needs +1 midslot and the Drake needs to lose the shield resist. Just make a clear break between the "attack" boat and "combat" boat in each race; every race needs one boat that is good at each. The tier 3s are not "attack" ships, they're dedicated snipers and gank wagons. Right now all the tier 1/2 boats are some sort of half-hearted hybrid without any clear roles between them. And the 10% kinetic bonus on the Drake is even worse of a bad thing than 5% was. Just swap it to RoF + Velocity. It is plain silly for the Drake firing heavy missiles to have the same effective range as a Caracal firing lights. The difference between "attack" and "combat" you're suggesting is incorrect.
The current Tier 3 BCs (Oracle, Tornado, Talos, Naga) are the "attack" BCs. All the existing BCs, including ALL in this post, are "combat" BCs. Combat BCs, as I understand it, are meant to be longer lasting, generally lower dps BCs.
That doesn't meant there's not room in the "combat" BCs for more attack flavor vs tanky flavor, and in the end, the BC line would be a range from most tanky (Prophecy) to medium tank/gank (Harbinger) to most ganky (Oracle)--using Amarr ships as the example.
The Minmatar and Amarr BCs already share this structure (their ships and bonuses are appropriate for this "tank/gank scale" approach); other races ships would just need to similarly be adjusted:
Gallente: Myrmidon most tanky, Brutix medium tank/gank (would need its bonuses adjusted for -rep amount bonus, +weapon-related one), Talos most ganky [*] Caldari: Ferox most tanky, Drake medium tank/gank (would need the shield resist dropped for a weapon-related bonus), Naga most ganky |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:47:00 -
[1529] - Quote
I do have a concern of my own actually, regarding the drake. My understanding (or assumption, anyway) was that the -10 cpu/grid you gave it before was supposed to make certain fits just a little more difficult to fit; it did this with varying degrees of success.
You've now ripped off a launcher, but only removed 40 grid and 15 CPU (50 and 18.75 with the respective skills at 5). An HML II at max skills is 41.3 CPU and 94.5 grid, a HAML II, 37.5 and 101.7. So you've undone the previous minor fitting nerf, and actually given it a net fitting buff.
The same can be said for the Brutix, but in that case it's understandable, and fine - it gives them some room to work with for the new armor tanking tools if they so choose.
Is the fitting buff to the drake intended, or is it going to be offset by other, as of yet unanounced changes? This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Neville Smit
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:14:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: Gallente: Myrmidon most tanky, Brutix medium tank/gank (would need its bonuses adjusted for -rep amount bonus, +weapon-related one), Talos most ganky +1 for ^^^^ this.
I like all the BC adjustments as now refined, except the Brutix bonus, which I think needs to be a mild weapon-focused boost, not repper-focused. That would differentiate it from the Myrm. The Talos is already all gank, so that works.
|
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:14:00 -
[1531] - Quote
I am not sure I am happy with these changes. I was happy with the reduction in utility highslots across the board. I understand that these ships are designed to be t1 command link ships but more often then not these highs will be filled with neuts and more neuts is not a good thing. Honestly more command links is not a good thing either. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:24:00 -
[1532] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Myrm was suffering too much from not being able to hold two full flights of drones, so we've doubled the dronebay buff to ensure that you can always have a full set of spares. The rep bonuses on both Gallente combat battlecruisers remain in this version. I do feel that they can be well served by the bonus and still remain unique to each other's playstyle. I am however not set in stone on the issue and won't rule out changing it either before or after 1.1 if it appears the current bonuses are not able to keep them both fun and unique enough. Prophecy: Hull: -250
Brutix: Change Medium Hybrid damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Turrets: -1 Powergrid: -75 Hull: -250 Mass: +250,000 Align time: +0.1s
Myrmidon: Dronebay: +25
I get what you are planning, but the module is not in game yet, and planning for it does not make much sense till after its tested. The assumption is that the new Repper module will make the Myrmidon and the Brutix bonuses all better. It should be toyed with first else it will fall down the rabbit hole to go along with the Reactive Armor Hardener (a great idea which is still having issues being adopted).
Myrmidon with 2 flights of heavies.. good move. You are making the ship solely a drone dps platform though.. and to make it viable, you will have to give the myrm a Drone Microwarp Drive boost per BC level on the hull also.
I would probably do the same with the prophecy
|
Seleucus Ontuas
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:38:00 -
[1533] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Seleucus Ontuas wrote:Fozzie, this feels a bit like a let down. C'mon man, either the Brutix or the Myrmidon has to lose the rep bonus. I've been using the Ferox as a fleet ship since January, but I'd really like to be able to use a Gallente ship for fleet and not rely on Caldari. Still feels like the Ferox needs +1 midslot and the Drake needs to lose the shield resist. Just make a clear break between the "attack" boat and "combat" boat in each race; every race needs one boat that is good at each. The tier 3s are not "attack" ships, they're dedicated snipers and gank wagons. Right now all the tier 1/2 boats are some sort of half-hearted hybrid without any clear roles between them. And the 10% kinetic bonus on the Drake is even worse of a bad thing than 5% was. Just swap it to RoF + Velocity. It is plain silly for the Drake firing heavy missiles to have the same effective range as a Caracal firing lights. These are both the combat boats. The Attack boats are the Tier 3 BCs. To the specific criticisms: Another mid on the ferox means losing either the utility high it just got back or another low. Neither is acceptable. The drake's kinetic bonus helps to keep it distinct from the Cyclone.
I'd be more in favor of the Ferox losing the new High slot and the new Turret for a 6th Mid. Remove the Ferox Resist bonus and give it a 5% Hybrid Turret Damage Bonus. Then on the Drake, let it keep its Resist bonus, and move it to a 7/5/5 layout. But, that's more than likely never going to happen. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:47:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:I am not sure I am happy with these changes. I was happy with the reduction in utility highslots across the board. I understand that these ships are designed to be t1 command link ships but more often then not these highs will be filled with neuts and more neuts is not a good thing. Honestly more command links is not a good thing either. Oh and also fozzie we all vote no to both Gal battlecruisers with active tanking bonuses. Give us one ship that is not forced into a specific tanking type. We want to be able to have options without completely wasting a bonus. Wiv
I think there concept is to try to have a new method of tanking that does not involve a HUGE buffer tank, issue is that people do not like Active Tanks because they can be neuted (aka the sole reason that people are saying taking away a gun and putting in a high utility slot won't lead to people using Warfare links, but will lead to people putting on Neuts and Vampires to kill the readheaded, Cap Using Gallente Ship (Or the Harbringer), which will then lead to gallente's using the mids for Cap Batteries...
You can't remove capacitor use completely from tanking, but balancing the ships on a currently non-existent module (actually 3 non-existant modules, as the new armor rep module requires a consumable boosters, and at least 1 Rig slot to fit the new Armor repper rig, and the corresponding skill books to use them..
The issue is not the bonus with the ship... its the module the ship needs to use to get the bonus. The module requires capacitor, which can be negated/removed. The armor resistance passive bonus requires no capacitor utilizing module, and does not have a counter or a method of reducing the "resistance", while Reppers can be reduced by wiping out the capacitor of the pilot.
I do not believe that 3 new modules and a whole new skill is the solution to the Gallente Battlecruiser ship bonuses.... but we have not seen them in use yet. |
Mund Richard
286
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:47:00 -
[1535] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high Drone ships: 11 low+midslots The rest: 10 low+midslots Ferox: 9 low+midslots
Doesn't that hurt the Ferox a bit too much?
Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
980
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:50:00 -
[1536] - Quote
I actually love what they did with the Ferox. Most fits were including a RCU in a low slot. By increasing the power grid by 150 they gave it back a low as well as give it a utility slot. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:58:00 -
[1537] - Quote
The prophecy change is kind of meaningless - it's perhaps the most powerful of the new BCs (at least in small scale combat), and losing a little hull doesn't really make much difference to its capabilities one way or another. The Brutix and Harbinger changes are both very nice, but the nerf to the cyclone is both baffling and utterly debilitating to a ship that was already very tight on fitting room - you already needed one or two fitting mods to do much of anything with the hull and it wasn't particularly strong compared to the other new BCs, so I'm not sure why it received such a harsh nerfing; the loss of PG moves it from competitive to essentially worthless. |
FistyMcBumBasher
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:18:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Can we get a reason for removing 100 of the Cyclone's powergrid? I don't exactly see why it was necessary |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
145
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:35:00 -
[1539] - Quote
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:Can we get a reason for removing 100 of the Cyclone's powergrid? I don't exactly see why it was necessary
Missile launchers are easier on grid and harder on cpu than equally sized turrets. |
Acac Sunflyier
Burning Star L.L.C.
509
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:44:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Does this mean the skill changes are happening? There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn! |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:49:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:but the nerf to the cyclone is both baffling and utterly debilitating to a ship that was already very tight on fitting room - you already needed one or two fitting mods to do much of anything with the hull and it wasn't particularly strong compared to the other new BCs, so I'm not sure why it received such a harsh nerfing; the loss of PG moves it from competitive to essentially worthless.
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:Can we get a reason for removing 100 of the Cyclone's powergrid? I don't exactly see why it was necessary
Because it doesn't need it in the first place. I'm looking at a variety of setups here. 2x LSE passive tank with HAMs and neuts; sure it wastes the bonus, but it's a valid use of the ship for some situations. Or replace the LSE with LASBs - that one actually has fitting issues, but they're CPU, not grid, and it works with a coproc or rig.
You know what the common theme amongst all these fits is?
If you remove 125 grid from them (100 plus 25 from Engineering 5), they all still fit, often with room to spare. That first setup only uses 1262, the second, 1315, out of 1500. You can swap a neut on either for a single gang link and still not have grid problems.
We can get a little more exotic, I guess. HAMs, two neuts and an XLASB fits, now we have to make some trades. As is, this fit comes up 3% short on CPU and 2% short on grid even now, so -100 grid means you run an ACR as well as the CPU rig to make it fit. Or maybe downgrade a medium neut to a small. You're getting an 850+ DPS tank, I think you can afford the sacrifice.
Maybe we want to get all fancy and have a cheap ganglink platform? HAM, 2x LSE II, invuln, 3x BCS II, DCII, 10mn MWD, plus two gang links. A coproc and command processor round out the lows and the mids, respectively, and we already need two CPU rigs as it is. But it fits now. Post-patch, you run either an ACR or an implant... or you just don't care, because who runs their bonuses on the front lines anyway?
Basically, normal combat fits fit before and after the patch without an issue, more specialized or gimmicky fits require a bit more tweaking.
What I'm saying is that the cyclone is fine and losing 100 grid isn't a big deal. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:53:00 -
[1542] - Quote
So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane?
Riiiiiight.
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:55:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high Drone ships: 11 low+midslots The rest: 10 low+midslots Ferox: 9 low+midslots Doesn't that hurt the Ferox a bit too much?
I really enjoyed the Ferox with the extra Low. Now I am not so sure. I really hope no one was wasting that extra slot with a reactor control..... unless you were using stupid overtanked fits and then .... oh nevermind. The Ferox was perfect before these changes.
Not so sure the Brutix needed its mass raised either. 1200 m/s is not overly scary.
Once again utility highs will be filled with neuts. Cruisers will have no chance against battlecruisers as they have little to no utility slots of their own. They also have very week capacitors.
Maybe this is CCPs way of balancing tanking types as armor ships will atleast be able to fit cap boosters.
I say again down with command bonuses and down with the over propagation of utility highslots.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:57:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane? Riiiiiight.
My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus, there are valid reasons for both) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups... which themselves don't require going too much further to fit. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:03:00 -
[1545] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Tsubutai wrote:So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane? Riiiiiight. My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups. Your "fine" solutions all involve at least one of ignoring bonuses, multiple fitting mods, undersized tanking mods, or frigate sized modules. By your logic, the original version of the new harbinger was fine because if you used autocannons and a couple of ANPs, it fit quite comfortably. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:11:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Fozzie - Any chance you could check to make sure all of those can fit a gang link without completely and utterly gimping the rest of the fit with 3 fitting mods or something? |
Amaloy Jeqcovy
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:11:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Two flights of drones is the only "balancing" the Myrmidon needs.
On grid boosters = fail. Off grid != out of range; Out of system = out of range! (seriously, only your bug reporting speed is the lacking networking ability. It takes 60 seconds to send 45 bytes of text with login! FAIL! [Yes, I run a web server!])
Are you trying to balance out the people that came to EVE because everyone else balanced the noobs to elite? I don't want you to give players like me (3 months) any hand outs. That will just mess up what I have at a year, and even more what I have at 5! Quit muckin' about with the ships... (don't make them softer!!!!!!!!)
One thing you gotta realize is that ships will be popular by their kills. If a guy in my alliance kills 5 billion players with a venture, that thing will be a popular ship. Don't balance it out, you made it equal you just don't realize it's use. (these kills exist)
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:12:00 -
[1548] - Quote
the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit and the ferox is still not quite there and imo should get its range bonus buffed to 15% the slot move is also not benefiting it =/ the PG buff is tho =D the other changes are mostly good even though I think the brutix lost a bit of its flavor by loosing a turret also I very much hope that the myrmidon will get pushed up a bit in the remodel pipe to fix its empty hardpoint.... Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Amaloy Jeqcovy
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:25:00 -
[1549] - Quote
I have an idea: let's "balance" the game until the people that left WoW to come here hate you! Or, conversely, you could realize that sometimes a brick works better than a bat...
You want balancing? Look at what the actual statistics for death are (yeah, I'm a sick man) and model your ships after that!
Truth be told, here in the US most deaths are not due to firearms. There is a high number due to baseball bats, so brawler ships (like the myrmidon) are right up our alley! (bare knuckle boxer, me!) |
Montaire
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:26:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote: the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit and the ferox is still not quite there and imo should get its range bonus buffed to 15% the slot move is also not benefiting it =/ the PG buff is tho =D the other changes are mostly good even though I think the brutix lost a bit of its flavor by loosing a turret also I very much hope that the myrmidon will get pushed up a bit in the remodel pipe to fix its empty hardpoint....
Maybe you are supposed to need to make some sacrifices to put an XL booster on a battle cruiser hull... |
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:26:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote: the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit
Yeah poor Cyclone, needs to use two slots now for 14k shield boost in a fight. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:30:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:mynnna wrote:Tsubutai wrote:So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane? Riiiiiight. My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups. Your "fine" solutions all involve at least one of ignoring bonuses, multiple fitting mods, undersized tanking mods, or frigate sized modules. By your logic, the original version of the new harbinger was fine because if you used autocannons and a couple of ANPs, it fit quite comfortably.
Y'know, I feel the passive fit is valid in some circumstances, but lets set it aside for now since you seem overly fixated on it. And let's drop the false equivalency of the Harbinger, since as I'm about to show you, it doesn't even apply anyway.
So how about one normal, likely fit - dual LSB tanked HAMs. Seems reasonable - run one LSB at a time for a more sustainable tank under light damage, or slam both on for a big tank.
[NEW Cyclone, HAMs] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Co-Processor II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Hornet EC-300 x5 Hobgoblin II x5
1315/1500. Seems like it'll be fine after the patch. Tighter, sure - 1315/1375 - fit it fits, so that's that.
I don't really consider LASBs to be "undersized" so much as XLSBs are oversized. But I'll indulge you, so lets look at the XLASB fit.
[NEW Cyclone, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Co-Processor II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
500 DPS, two medium neuts, 916 DPS tank for as long as your boosters last, yes? Fits for now, but we come up exactly four grid short thanks to Fozzie.
So, what happens if we think about it for a bit instead of immediately whining? Well, we can always trade the Co-Proc (already mandatory) for an RCU II, and swap the ACR (also mandatory, even now) for a second POU. But we're still 2% over. What else can we do? Hmm, how about swap the DCU for a best named, and swap the T2 Warp Disruptor for a best named, or even just use a scrambler instead. Or we can just use an implant instead, that works too.
How about that, it fits now. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
158
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:55:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Mynna, even after the GMP buff, webs are still mandatory on HAM ships that are geared to very small scale pvp, for damage application and for range control, so posting webless setups because they produce nice-at-first-glance tank numbers in EFT is kind of meaningless. Second, saying that you consider LASBs to be "right-sized" is all well and good, but you have to consider the environment in which the ship's going to be operating. If the changes go live in their current incarnation, you'll be seeing 80k EHP drakes with full tackle and excellent resists, 100k+ EHP prophecies (or active tanking setups that tank well over 600 dps and have good neut resistance), myrms tanking 700-900 dps, and brutixes tanking 600-odd dps while pushing the best part of 1k dps of their own - all with full tackle and similar or better outgoing/applied dps than the cyclone. Given those circumstances, LASB-based tanks are woefully inadequate - once you factor in cycle time and reloads, you wind up with a sustained tank of something like 360 dps, or about 70k total EHP before reloading if you use the ASBs as a burst tank. Ultimately, all your fits are showcasing is a tank-bonused BC that is far less durable than other tank bonused hulls, has mediocre dps, and cannot field supplementary tackle or ewar. It's simply not a viable ship given the options available.
I also like how you refute the claim about the number of fitting mods required after the grid changes by posting an XLASB setup with three fitting mods... that still won't fit without an implant. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:21:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Mynna, even after the GMP buff, webs are still mandatory on HAM ships that are geared to very small scale pvp, for damage application and for range control, so posting webless setups because they produce nice-at-first-glance tank numbers in EFT is kind of meaningless. This is true now, with autocannons, as well as post-patch with missiles. The web makes the tank weaker, but is required effectiveness while soloing.
Tsubutai wrote:Second, saying that you consider LASBs to be "right-sized" is all well and good, but you have to consider the environment in which the ship's going to be operating. If the changes go live in their current incarnation, you'll be seeing 80k EHP drakes with full tackle and excellent resists, 100k+ EHP prophecies (or active tanking setups that tank well over 600 dps and have good neut resistance), myrms tanking 700-900 dps, and brutixes tanking 600-odd dps while pushing the best part of 1k dps of their own - all with full tackle and similar or better outgoing/applied dps than the cyclone. Given those circumstances, LASB-based tanks are woefully inadequate - once you factor in cycle time and reloads, you wind up with a sustained tank of something like 360 dps, or about 70k total EHP before reloading if you use the ASBs as a burst tank. Ultimately, all your fits are showcasing is a tank-bonused BC that is far less durable than other tank bonused hulls, has mediocre dps, and cannot field supplementary tackle or ewar. It's simply not a viable ship given the options available. The XLASB fit I posted boosts about 38.8k EHP on its average resist (68.75%), which is an average tank of 370 DPS including reload time. The LASB fit will boost about 30.8k EHP total, for an average tank of about 294 DPS, including reload time, though it has the benefit of getting to choose to have that either all at once or over a lengthier period.
If you're arguing that when the ships are compared against each other in a 1v1 environment, the tank fielded by an ASB cyclone comes off as a bit lacking, then (provided the numbers you claim about other BC tanks are accurate, I haven't checked myself) you're right. That has nothing to do with the cyclone losing 100 grid and will not be changed by fozzie allowing it to keep 100 grid. If you want to make a compelling argument to fozzie about it, I suggest you present several setups for other battlecruisers that showcase this issue, and then try to make an argument for why he should care about the comparison of the tanks in a 1v1 environment that ignores all other factors. Good luck.
Quote:I also like how you refute the claim about the number of fitting mods required after the grid changes by posting an XLASB setup with three fitting mods... that still won't fit without an implant. Right now, the pre-tiericide XLASB setup requires two to three fitting mods depending on which sacrifices you choose to make. The original cyclone Fozzie proposed requires three fitting mods to make an XLASB setup work, period. With his proposed grid nerf, the setup can continue to be made to work by either using a piece or two of named gear, or by using an implant. So basically, little to nothing about using an XLASB cyclone has changed. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:26:00 -
[1555] - Quote
I was very much hoping to see that Armor Rep go away on the Brutix, especially after reading that whole mess on Armor tanking 2.0.
Fozzie, please rethink this and give GAL a different option beyond local armor rep. Its like forcing both the Hurricane and the Cyclone to have shield boost. That would suck and would be met with howls. There are places/times for local reps, and there are places where buffer is better and it would be nice to have that option. It just makes sense Fozzie. I understand some bizarre desire to make a big Incursus but the Mrym is sufficient no? |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
982
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:24:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Let me throw this Ferox out there as a comparison to the Cyclone just for fitting purposes.
High: Heavy Ions II x 7 Small Nuet II Mid: Experimental 10MN MWD X-LASB Adaptive Invuln II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: DC II TE II MFS II x 2 Rigs: Shield rigs to taste
Look Ma! No fitting mods or rigs! |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2824
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:32:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:I was very much hoping to see that Armor Rep go away on the Brutix or the Mrym, especially after reading that whole mess on Armor tanking 2.0.
Fozzie, please rethink this and give GAL a different option beyond local armor rep. Its like forcing both the Hurricane and the Cyclone to have shield boost. That would suck and would be met with howls. There are places/times for local reps, and there are places where buffer is better and it would be nice to have that option. It just makes sense Fozzie.
You always have the option of ignoring the rep bonus. I say keep them. What, are you telling me you're going to get fleets of Myrmidons and Neutron Brutixes together? Confirming drones and Blasters are great fleet weaponry.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:40:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Let me throw this Ferox out there as a comparison to the Cyclone just for fitting purposes.
High: Heavy Ions II x 7 Small Nuet II Mid: Experimental 10MN MWD X-LASB Adaptive Invuln II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: DC II TE II MFS II x 2 Rigs: Shield rigs to taste
Look Ma! No fitting mods or rigs! Of course! How could I be so stupid, all I have to do to make the cyclone work is downsize the missile launchers!
[NEW Cyclone, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Damage Control II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Stasis Webifier II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
Perfect, right?
(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.) This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:44:00 -
[1559] - Quote
I do have to wonder at some of these changes... the switch from a 5% per level bonus to damage on the Drake to a 10% for example... then dropping a high-slot. Some of these it's like we're not thinking about a specific role so much as a general 'does damage and reps or buffer tanks'
I was really hoping for specific roles for these ships... Heck, I was hopping some of them would loose the ability to fit fleet bonus modules so there'd be a bit more specialization.
I can see there's the kernel for some good ideas in some of these. I really like the Hurricane being setup as an all out damage ship, as that's really the role we've seen it used in quite a bit. On the flip side, I really am not that fond of turning the Cyclone into a missile boat.
I still can not figure out for the life of me why the stupid 10% cap usage bonus continues to survive on Amarrian ships. If laser cap usage is such an issue, increase the capacitor of the Amarrian ships. Or better yet, a bonus to cap injection if you really want to consider other possibilities. I always said that Amarrian ships use ammo... it's call cap boosters charges. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2825
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 01:11:00 -
[1560] - Quote
mynnna wrote:(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.)
He's using medium blasters... ?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
59
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 01:43:00 -
[1561] - Quote
You can't fit a gang link to a BC without gimping it's fit supurbly, especially with the nerfing of fittings on the tier 2 BC's.
When will you learn, you need to reduce the fitting requirements of gang links if you want people to use them on combat bc's, otherwise they'll just use off grid t3's and after you nerf them, it'll just **** off all those people like me with just about every leadership skill at V and no way to use that benifit when I'm not in a big gang because you can't bloody fit gang links to bc's and still have a viable combat fit.
Idea:
Why don't you do what you did with co-ops cloaks and get rid of the 99% reduction etc, so you can just have a can, can not fit and have the gang link fitting requirements reduced dramatically. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 02:06:00 -
[1562] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:mynnna wrote:(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.) He's using medium blasters... ? -Liang
Guns have two or three sizes of weapons in each class. Pulse lasers have focused medium and heavy, medium blasters have electron, ion and neutron, autocannons have dual 180, 220 and 425mm. So it's possible to make things fit by dropping to a smaller size, ergo using ion blasters instead of neutron.
Missiles don't get that luxury. They have long range and short range. Rapid light launchers are a notable and mostly useless exception. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
316
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 02:06:00 -
[1563] - Quote
So what happened to the rest of the feedback?
- People concerned about breaking the normal bonus patterns (serious advantage to lv 5 guys too)
- Drake absolutely being locked into a kinetic only role - 50% difference over other ammo types is a huge mistake...
- Drake being pretty low on cpu already - how will you get to fit that warfare link?
- Brick prophecy resist bonus and 7 lowslots vs. glass harbinger no tank bonus and only 6 lowslots? Why not compensate lacking tank bonus with that extra slot? Let one have an extra slot but the other one have a resist bonus. Harbinger would appreciate,
- Ferox and Drake sharing same resist bonus, about same range/dps +/- but Ferox having 1 more medslot and doesn't have the same need for web to do damage to close range targets?
- The drone boats not getting any reward for using racial turrets on their ship but being able to fit much better tanks when choosing ACs?
Lots of questions and observations gone unanswered... Damn you - the frigs and cruisers were awesome but you don't appear to have a genuine interest in listening much :-( But thank you for accomodating warfare links at least
|
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
48
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 02:31:00 -
[1564] - Quote
I went into this thinking that tier one battlecruisers would be turned into dedicated T1 command ships and tier two would be dedicated combat or attack ships, instead we got this... Some of these decisions I'm really not sure about.
The Ferox, Prophecy, Brutix, and Cyclone would have been better as T1 command ships really in my opinion. The Tier three battlecruisers are used mostly as snipers so having the tier two turned into mid or short range brawler type attack or combat ships makes the most sense to me.
I don't know why they've gone this route as it seems much more like they're just trying to get rid of the tiers instead of giving the ships dedicated roles.
Myrmidon for example... I'd love to see that ship turned into an 'attack' type battlecruiser sort of like the Hurricane. Set it up with bonus to hybrids and drones, no defense bonuses and you actually have what it looks like... a fast moving, face ripping, skirmishing battlecruiser.
The Drake would be a brawling brick with a full load of missiles, bonused to rate of fire instead of kinetic damage maybe? I mean mission runners are going to be upset at being forced to use a specific damage type with their missile ship.
The Harbinger would get a bonus to something else... as that stupid 10% to laser cap usage is one of those things I think is an artifact of older ideas on balancing. What, I have no idea. |
Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 02:46:00 -
[1565] - Quote
I have a niggling concern about the "1 less up-bonused weapon" model. All other things being equal, you've effectively given the ship a free slot. I assume this is compensated for by tighter fitting requirements, forcing you to spend low or rig slots for fitting mods?
(ie 6 launchers + co-processor vs 7 launchers is effectively moving a low slot to a high slot, not simply freeing up a high)
On lasers:
- Have you considered the effect of giving the harby a boost to capacitor recharge rather than a reduction in cap usage?
- Are lasers actually 25% more effective than (say) projectiles, before hull bonuses? The logic of a cap reduction is, to me, that lasers are 25% better than other weapons (ie with a full level 5 hull boost), but that this is balanced by crippling cap use. Thus, a cap use reduction is basically fitting magic to allow use of these "25% improved" weapons, and thus an implicit bonus. Does this actually follow in-game? Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 02:49:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Addendum: is it intended that the drake and cyclone don't get bonuses to Rapid Light Missile Launchers? Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
982
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 03:24:00 -
[1567] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:mynnna wrote:(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.) He's using medium blasters... ? -Liang Guns have two or three sizes of weapons in each class. Pulse lasers have focused medium and heavy, medium blasters have electron, ion and neutron, autocannons have dual 180, 220 and 425mm. So it's possible to make things fit by dropping to a smaller size, ergo using ion blasters instead of neutron. Missiles don't get that luxury. They have long range and short range. Rapid light launchers are a notable and mostly useless exception.
I'm making the point that the Cyclone needs some love with fitting grid. Here is how I would fit it.
High: HAM II x 5 Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator Small Unstable Power Fluctuator Mid: Experimental MWD X-LASB Adaptive Invuln II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: Internal Force Field Array BCU II x 2 Nano II x 2 Rigs: Shield EM x 2 Shield Thermal
The fit clears by 27.5 PG and 3.75 CPU. That is stupid tight with alot of expensive meta gear. 40 more CPU would make me happy- full DC II and a third BCU. |
Oskie
Love for You Lawful Insanity
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 03:28:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote: Still feels like the Ferox needs +1 midslot and the Drake needs to lose the shield resist. Just make a clear break between the "attack" boat and "combat" boat in each race; every race needs one boat that is good at each. The tier 3s are not "attack" ships, they're dedicated snipers and gank wagons. Right now all the tier 1/2 boats are some sort of half-hearted hybrid without any clear roles between them. And the 10% kinetic bonus on the Drake is even worse of a bad thing than 5% was. Just swap it to RoF + Velocity. It is plain silly for the Drake firing heavy missiles to have the same effective range as a Caracal firing lights.
Except that both boats are "Combat" Battlecruisers.
Though, like you, I would love it if rebranding the t3's as attack battlecruisers means that there is a new round of medium-weapon-using, low tank, high speed, possibly ganglink-free "attack" battlecruisers that is in the pipe. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 03:37:00 -
[1569] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:I have a niggling concern about the "1 less up-bonused weapon" model. All other things being equal, you've effectively given the ship a free slot. I assume this is compensated for by tighter fitting requirements, forcing you to spend low or rig slots for fitting mods?
(ie 6 launchers + co-processor vs 7 launchers is effectively moving a low slot to a high slot, not simply freeing up a high)
In this specific case, they're trying to free up a high-slot and leave a bit of fitting so as to encourage use of gang-links in BC gangs. Also, this is also in anticipation of the removal of off-grid links, as that's something else they're trying to change. So when you have to bring links on grid, it'll be useful to have a BC with links there with you. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 03:42:00 -
[1570] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:mynnna wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:mynnna wrote:(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.) He's using medium blasters... ? -Liang Guns have two or three sizes of weapons in each class. Pulse lasers have focused medium and heavy, medium blasters have electron, ion and neutron, autocannons have dual 180, 220 and 425mm. So it's possible to make things fit by dropping to a smaller size, ergo using ion blasters instead of neutron. Missiles don't get that luxury. They have long range and short range. Rapid light launchers are a notable and mostly useless exception. I'm making the point that the Cyclone needs some love with fitting grid. Here is how I would fit it. High: HAM II x 5 Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator Small Unstable Power Fluctuator Mid: Experimental MWD X-LASB Adaptive Invuln II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: Internal Force Field Array BCU II x 2 Nano II x 2 Rigs: Shield EM x 2 Shield Thermal The fit clears by 27.5 PG and 3.75 CPU. That is stupid tight with alot of expensive meta gear. 40 more CPU would make me happy- full DC II and a third BCU. Well if you're willing to compromise, the meta 3 webs and scrams are only slightly worse, are even easier on fitting, and are substantially cheaper. Can't help you on the IFFA/BCU's though. But you also have 2 neuts on there. That's a lot of utility, even if one is a small. And it does have a full 50/50 drones for more utility or damage.
Personally I think a tiny bit more CPU would be good, but 40 seems like an awful lot, if you ask me. Of course, as you compared to the Ferox, it might be a bit tight on fittings. Ah well. It's up to Fozzie. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
3488
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 04:14:00 -
[1571] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We eventually want links to be something you use on field As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time. If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you.
There are other problems with forcing links to be on field including the fact that the only way to get the best industrial bonuses is to use a several billion isk ship that's completely immobile and defenseless for five minute blocks of time - forcing the bonuses to be on grid won't bring the ship on grid, it will simply mean that the only reason anyone will ever use the industrial core is for compression jobs.
There are ways to solve the problem of invincible OGB ships - forcing all of them to be on grid is not one of the more comprehensive solutions. Malcanis for CSM 8 Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
398
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 04:42:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Does this mean the Harby won't be the laughing stock now? Looking good!! How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 05:16:00 -
[1573] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We eventually want links to be something you use on field As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time. If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you. There are other problems with forcing links to be on field including the fact that the only way to get the best industrial bonuses is to use a several billion isk ship that's completely immobile and defenseless for five minute blocks of time - forcing the bonuses to be on grid won't bring the ship on grid, it will simply mean that the only reason anyone will ever use the industrial core is for compression jobs. There are ways to solve the problem of invincible OGB ships - forcing all of them to be on grid is not one of the more comprehensive solutions. In that case you'll probably want your booster to be a tech 3 cruiser instead of a battlecruiser or command ship. In the future it won't boost as well but it's a more mobile boosting platform with more links. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
635
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 07:04:00 -
[1574] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We eventually want links to be something you use on field As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time.
The solution to this is that fleet links arent exclusive to the fleet booster, anyone can activate them who have them on their ship, however if multiple people have them active, it still only counts as a single boost overall (prioritizing highest skill boosts)
Thus your fleet could be fighting on two grids and have drakes with a siege link on both grids and thus get boosts quite easily on both.
I am pretty sure they are decoupling boost link modules from fleet booster type boosts (since they will be on grid only) so this is probably fairly easy to do...
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We eventually want links to be something you use on field If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you.
This is an issue with warp speed differences overall, not links, devs have said they would like to scale warp speeds more so the warp speed interceptors would get places much quicker than other ships without a warp speed bonus (which is currently barely different for anything less than 20-30 au which is the majority of warp distances), however, there hasn't been anything particularly done about this because it would change how fast you can get around the game in general.
Another change that they should bring to mitigate the issue with catching an opponent after a warp with links (Because it is a reasonable issue) is have smaller ships able to utilize warfare links. Like a command frigate of sorts with quick warp speed and assault-frigate sort defenses.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1816
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 08:46:00 -
[1575] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Mynna, even after the GMP buff, webs are still mandatory on HAM ships that are geared to very small scale pvp, for damage application and for range control, so posting webless setups because they produce nice-at-first-glance tank numbers in EFT is kind of meaningless. Second, saying that you consider LASBs to be "right-sized" is all well and good, but you have to consider the environment in which the ship's going to be operating. If the changes go live in their current incarnation, you'll be seeing 80k EHP drakes with full tackle and excellent resists, 100k+ EHP prophecies (or active tanking setups that tank well over 600 dps and have good neut resistance), myrms tanking 700-900 dps, and brutixes tanking 600-odd dps while pushing the best part of 1k dps of their own - all with full tackle and similar or better outgoing/applied dps than the cyclone. Given those circumstances, LASB-based tanks are woefully inadequate - once you factor in cycle time and reloads, you wind up with a sustained tank of something like 360 dps, or about 70k total EHP before reloading if you use the ASBs as a burst tank. Ultimately, all your fits are showcasing is a tank-bonused BC that is far less durable than other tank bonused hulls, has mediocre dps, and cannot field supplementary tackle or ewar. It's simply not a viable ship given the options available.
I also like how you refute the claim about the number of fitting mods required after the grid changes by posting an XLASB setup with three fitting mods... that still won't fit without an implant.
Shield tanks are not supposed to have full tackle, that's a huge factor in the balance.
Seems like you want to be able to fit all:
superior tank full tackle damage speed
Where is the compromise?
Armor tanking has full tackle, that is the gain for losing speed, damage and having less tank.
Cyclone has more grid than a Myrmidon, and LASBs use less grid than MAR IIs, and even less after active armor rig penalty change.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
356
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 08:56:00 -
[1576] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We eventually want links to be something you use on field As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time. The solution to this is that fleet links arent exclusive to the fleet booster, anyone can activate them who have them on their ship, however if multiple people have them active, it still only counts as a single boost overall (prioritizing highest skill boosts) Thus your fleet could be fighting on two grids and have drakes with a siege link on both grids and thus get boosts quite easily on both. If only there were a boost that only applies to certain groups or wings of people with a fleet . . .
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If I'm part of a small gang chasing potential targets around the interceptors are going to need the benefit of skirmish gang links, but because they have different warp speeds there's two options here, neither of which are attractive at all: either the interceptor warps after the target alone and loses the fleet bonus, or it warps along with the boosting ship - while that ensures the interceptor will have the skirmish bonuses when they land, you're cutting the ceptor down to less than a quarter of its original warp speed and so chances are you won't be able to catch up with a target that's warped off ahead of you. This is an issue with warp speed differences overall, not links, devs have said they would like to scale warp speeds more so the warp speed interceptors would get places much quicker than other ships without a warp speed bonus (which is currently barely different for anything less than 20-30 au which is the majority of warp distances), however, there hasn't been anything particularly done about this because it would change how fast you can get around the game in general. Another change that they should bring to mitigate the issue with catching an opponent after a warp with links (Because it is a reasonable issue) is have smaller ships able to utilize warfare links. Like a command frigate of sorts with quick warp speed and assault-frigate sort defenses. I would actually like to see fast warping T2 destroyers able to fit gang links at 1% per level bonus.
They could be command corvettes or something like that. This would also give gang links to fast roaming frigate wolf packs, as right now even T3 ships arent fast enough to keep up with them. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1816
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 09:01:00 -
[1577] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok time to get feedback on the next iteration.
Once of the things we have refocused on since this thread started is that with warfare link changes potentially on the not too distant horizon we needed to build these ships for the warfare links we want rather than the warfare links we have. The ability to use warfare links is a key part of what gives these ships their identity, even if that has been watered down in recent years. As such we're working to ensure that each of these ships can fit a warfare link without sacrificing a bonused highslot. We eventually want links to be something you use on field and part of that will be ensuring that you can use links while also also enjoying the normal on-grid gameplay.
I like this a lot, a BC or two supporting a cruiser gang :)
Brutix got a mild dps buff, which is nice because the armor changes mean that it will be more often used as burst armor tanker, than going all out shield gank.
Myrmidon is harder to fit, slower and relies on insta-poppable heavies to reach competitive dps - hard to find many reasons why I would fly it instead of the very promising Brutix.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1816
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 09:08:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Akturous wrote:You can't fit a gang link to a BC without gimping it's fit supurbly, especially with the nerfing of fittings on the tier 2 BC's.
When will you learn, you need to reduce the fitting requirements of gang links if you want people to use them on combat bc's, otherwise they'll just use off grid t3's and after you nerf them, it'll just **** off all those people like me with just about every leadership skill at V and no way to use that benifit when I'm not in a big gang because you can't bloody fit gang links to bc's and still have a viable combat fit.
Idea:
Why don't you do what you did with co-ops cloaks and get rid of the 99% reduction etc, so you can just have a can, can not fit and have the gang link fitting requirements reduced dramatically.
He just did it
If you don't think a link BC is strong enough, fly a CS? Being forced to make compromises in fitting is really a vital ingredient in balance. Choose whether you think having links is more important than having 50 more dps.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 09:45:00 -
[1579] - Quote
So, just to review how the new Myrmidon compares to the new Prophecy...
The Prophecy gets:
- More grid.
- More CPU.
- Higher speed.
- A smaller signature.
- A resist bonus that works with all three forms of armor tanking (buffer, local active, and fleet RR) instead of a repper bonus that only works for local active repping.
- HP heavily concentrated in armor (where it matters for the vast majority of an armor ship's life) instead of being split out to structure (where it matters for a much shorter length of time unless you're in a gimmick hull tank) and shields (which only matter at the very start of a fight unless you want to toss out a hull bonus entirely and fly your drone-boat BC as a shield tank).
- An extra low slot that, in combination with the non-stacking-penalized ship resist bonus, will allow the Prophecy to fully and completely outtank the Myrmidon in an otherwise similar fit.
- A deeper drone bay.
- The ability to fit missiles, though why you would do so is beyond me. Unless you're already skilled for missiles, but not for projectiles.
The Myrmidon gets:
- An extra turret hardpoint, which is not such an advantage once you consider that its guns are guaranteed to be unbonused.
- An extra mid slot, which - since the Prophecy already has that magic number of four - is also not such an advantage unless you're comparing which can shield tank harder.
- Slightly better lock range, which - given how far out it is - only matters if I've already given up the fifth turret to fit a drone link augmenter. Or, alternatively, if I am being a hilariously bad player and trying to snipe in a ship with five medium turrets and no gun bonuses.
- Higher sensor strength, but not enough to actually make a difference unless you happen to be sitting exactly above that ECM pilot's break point between "can jam" and "can't jam".
- A repper bonus which will only ever let the Myrm outsurvive the Prophecy's higher EHP and almost-as-good-for-active-tanking resist bonus in hilariously unlikely situations. Don't even get me STARTED on what happens when I add the Prophecy's extra low slot into that.
- HP split more evenly between the three types than the Prophecy, which helps if you want to shield tank or go the Elite Hull Tanking route, but does nothing to help out the armor tanking that's supposedly the ship's go-to method.
- A drone bandwidth advantage that won't matter until drones are fixed because heavies are currently trash and anyone who wants a fourth sentry will want to fly a different ship so they can have a fifth.
...Why would I ever fly an armor Myrmidon after these changes, again? |
Mund Richard
286
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:05:00 -
[1580] - Quote
Roime wrote:Brutix got a mild dps buff, which is nice because the armor changes mean that it will be more often used as burst armor tanker, than going all out shield gank.
Myrmidon is harder to fit, slower and relies on insta-poppable heavies to reach competitive dps - hard to find many reasons why I would fly it instead of the very promising Brutix. +
Weasel Leblanc wrote:So, just to review how the new Myrmidon compares to the new Prophecy...
The Prophecy gets: [list of good stuff]
The Myrmidon gets: [list of stuff not quite working out]
...Why would I ever fly an armor Myrmidon after these changes, again? The two posts after one another = "Why would you use the Myrm?"
And all three get bonuses to the new rep modules, so that is not the saving grace. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:24:00 -
[1581] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We eventually want links to be something you use on field As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time. The solution to this is that fleet links arent exclusive to the fleet booster, anyone can activate them who have them on their ship, however if multiple people have them active, it still only counts as a single boost overall (prioritizing highest skill boosts) Thus your fleet could be fighting on two grids and have drakes with a siege link on both grids and thus get boosts quite easily on both. I am pretty sure they are decoupling boost link modules from fleet booster type boosts (since they will be on grid only) so this is probably fairly easy to do...
Or people could HTFU? ^^ |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
370
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:38:00 -
[1582] - Quote
10%/lvl for harbinger -1gun its a dps boost. -1 guns from myrmi and same bonuses as before it's a nerf.
This is the balance ???? WTF ? All CCP developer lost his brain ? Another drone boat nerf. Bravo. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
493
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:05:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Look at the drone bay characteristics and say that again .. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
161
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:11:00 -
[1584] - Quote
First, a request: can we not do this chop-posts-up-and-reply-piecemeal thing? It makes for really snippy and annoying discussion.
Second, I'm not at all sure where you got the idea that I'm talking exclusively about 1v1s or arguing on that basis, and casting my arguments in that way is a cheap and lazy way of trying to delegitimise them. Comparisons of different ships' abilities to control the terms of an engagement, tank, and apply damage are relevant for pvp regardless of scale. I have consistently said that I am talking about the use of the tank-bonused BCs in small-scale combat (i.e. fights involving no more than 1-10 people per side), and comparing their performance on that basis. I'm focusing on small scale pvp because that's the environment in which active tanking bonuses are useful and we're discussing a ship with an active tanking bonus; if that seems unreasonable to you, say so, but don't try and mischaracterise my position in order to avoid defending your own.
To reiterate: the original version of the new cyclone had an unremarkable tank by the standards of tank-bonused BC hulls, mediocre damage with little room for utility, and required at least two fitting mods to achieve a useful setup. Knocking 100 PG off from that baseline means that the only way to fit the hull is to either accept a tank that is much weaker than that achieved by other tank-bonused BC hulls (and several BCs with no tanking bonus, for that matter) with no compensatory advantages, or to go ahead and use 3+ fitting mods.
Third, your statement that the current cyclone and the original version of the new one both require three fitting mods is way off base. If we just look at dual medium neut setups:
[Cyclone, XLASB - TQ dual neut] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Co-Processor II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Hammerhead II x3 Hobgoblin II x2
[NEW Cyclone, HAM - original new] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Co-Processor II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Hammerhead II x5
Note that neither uses more than two fitting mods. Also, talking about the fitting of the current TQ versions of any tier 1 BC is pretty meaningless because it's widely acknowledged that they were unreasonably short on fitting room and they've all received either significant increases in fitting space or have had changes that indirectly increase their fitting room (e.g. revised slot layouts or changes to their primary weapon systems). You can do perfectly reasonable Prophecy, Brutix, and Ferox fits that require at most one fitting mod; the cyclone alone stands out in needing 3+ in order to be at all competitive.
Finally, your response to Zarnak's post about the Ferox was spectacularly off-base and disingenuous. Using ion blasters rather than neutrons is a perfectly reasonable choice - you trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room and slightly better tracking. You're not giving up on a hull bonus, you're not changing your engagement profile or susbtantially altering your ship's capabilities, you're just giving yourself a little fitting headroom. Comparing it to an RLML cyclone, which loses ~40% of a HAM setup's damage output, ignores the hull bonus, and has a completely different operating range/engagement profile, is absurd. FWIW, if I were going to fit up a straight brawling blaster ferox after the changes, I'd go with this:
[NEW Ferox, XLASB - ions] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Internal Force Field Array I
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Warrior II x5
Note that it requires only one fitting mod and has full tackle with more tank and damage than the cyclone.
(fake edit: jesus that's a long post) |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
103
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:40:00 -
[1585] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Mariner6 wrote:I was very much hoping to see that Armor Rep go away on the Brutix or the Mrym, especially after reading that whole mess on Armor tanking 2.0.
Fozzie, please rethink this and give GAL a different option beyond local armor rep. Its like forcing both the Hurricane and the Cyclone to have shield boost. That would suck and would be met with howls. There are places/times for local reps, and there are places where buffer is better and it would be nice to have that option. It just makes sense Fozzie. You always have the option of ignoring the rep bonus. I say keep them. What, are you telling me you're going to get fleets of Myrmidons and Neutron Brutixes together? Confirming drones and Blasters are great fleet weaponry. -Liang
Of course you can armor buffer or shield tank it too...but flying a ship where you are not using one of its bonuses is not optimizing the ship. That is one of the reasons why the Brutix is used more rarely than other BC's, because you can fly a different option where you always get the benefit of both bonuses regardless of how you tank it.
To add to it its also a poor choice because an armor local repping blaster boat is sub-optimal when facing other BC's, particularly ones that always Neut. In fact the whole idea of close in brawlers that have to use guns and tank that require cap is completely stupid. So yea, If you want to fly a repping boat? YOU can do so all day long in either the Mrym or the Brutix. But how about another option that isn't pigeon holed into one purpose? Is that really asking too much? It just makes sense to have a bit more..... I don't know balance? |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
161
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:57:00 -
[1586] - Quote
Roime wrote:Shield tanks are not supposed to have full tackle, that's a huge factor in the balance. This is simply untrue. Off the top of my head, the following shield tankers can all fit class-appropriate tanks with full tackle:
Condor, Breacher, Slasher, Merlin, Jaguar, Harpy, Hawk, Caracal, Moa, Ferox, Drake
The shield ships that can't do it fall into one of three categories: fleet BS (Rokh, Scorpion), useless piles of crap that see very little use in pvp because of their severe limitations (hi Raven, 'sup nighthawk), and mid-range turret based ships that are several hundred m/s faster and a lot more agile than other ships in their class, operate outside web/scram range, and can use their superior speed and maneuverability to control transversal against targets and thus apply effective damage without requiring additional tackle (vaga, tempest, old nanocane, old rupture, etc.). The new cyclone certainly doesn't belong to the latter group - it uses missiles and drones for damage rather than turrets with good range, isn't appreciably faster than its counterparts (before heat/implants, it's about 80 m/s faster than a brutix with identical agility), and is most well-suited to close range brawling. It's also clearly not a fleet ship, and so only two options remain: full tackle or useless pile of crap.
Quote:Seems like you want to be able to fit all:
superior tank full tackle damage speed The original version of the new HAM cyclone had less DPS than most other close range BCs (just over 600 before heat when fit with three damage mods and loading rage HAMs), an unremarkable tank, and no substantial advantage in terms of speed or maneuverability. The revised version is substantially weaker. You're talking nonsense. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 13:08:00 -
[1587] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:10%/lvl for harbinger -1gun its a dps boost. -1 guns from myrmi and same bonuses as before it's a nerf.
This is the balance ???? WTF ? All CCP developer lost his brain ? Another drone boat nerf. Bravo.
It got drone bandwith and bay. |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 13:14:00 -
[1588] - Quote
With these changes and the armor tanking tweaks, Brutix starts looking promising. However, I doubt it will be capable of tanking well in larger fleet as a blaster brawler BC, therefore this role remains open. Ferox would need a damage boost to qualify, imo.
And if we are trying to keep gang links in mind, the Hurricane would have to sacrifice the neut to fit the link. And neuts are kinda minmatar trademark. Please don't murder cane any further! |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1817
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 13:40:00 -
[1589] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Roime wrote:Shield tanks are not supposed to have full tackle, that's a huge factor in the balance. This is simply untrue. Off the top of my head, the following shield tankers can all fit class-appropriate tanks with full tackle: Condor, Breacher, Slasher, Merlin, Jaguar, Harpy, Hawk, Caracal, Moa, Ferox, Drake The shield ships that can't do it fall into one of three categories: fleet BS (Rokh, Scorpion), useless piles of crap that see very little use in pvp because of their severe limitations (hi Raven, 'sup nighthawk), and mid-range turret based ships that are several hundred m/s faster and a lot more agile than other ships in their class, operate outside web/scram range, and can use their superior speed and maneuverability to control transversal against targets and thus apply effective damage without requiring additional tackle (vaga, tempest, old nanocane, old rupture, etc.).
Ok, I'm baffled - what is the actual drawback of shield tanking then?
Re: Cyclone, I confess, I didn't really examine it's stats before this latest revision so I probably spoke nonsense.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 13:47:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Can you give the Brutix more powergrid? I want to use the new utility high for a medium nosferatu but they use 200 powergrid which is more than the heavy ion blaster uses. |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
316
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 14:03:00 -
[1591] - Quote
Because you want to fit a nosferatu doesn't mean that is the intended thing to place there - The utility slot is designed for warfare links and if you want to fit a nosferatu you will have to compromise on the rest of your fit. Unless ofcouse the fitting ends off balance but thats why they are being tested.
Pinky |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 14:47:00 -
[1592] - Quote
this is sad for the ferox it will still be in the shadow of the superior brawler drake EVEN though the drake isn't a natural brawler considering the range of missiles the ROF bonus makes much more sense than the sh resist.
Myrmidon is also a bit odd considering the line of hybrid drone ships that are versatile allowing for shield tanking high dps ships at least consider the railgun algos design here.
And why the high sig radius still they are based on cruiser hulls afterall amarr bs shouldn't have lower sig than any shield buffed bc. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 14:48:00 -
[1593] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Because you want to fit a nosferatu doesn't mean that is the intended thing to place there - The utility slot is designed for warfare links and if you want to fit a nosferatu you will have to compromise on the rest of your fit. Unless ofcouse the fitting ends off balance but thats why they are being tested.
Pinky
Or unless its a Prophecy, in which case it can easily fit a cap drain and is cap stable ;) We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
370
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 14:52:00 -
[1594] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Look at the drone bay characteristics and say that again ..
Realy, thats a damage boost ? LOL Still idiots playing with FW.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1818
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:12:00 -
[1595] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Look at the drone bay characteristics and say that again .. Realy, thats a damage boost ? LOL Still idiots playing with FW.
Yes, Myrm got 65 more drone dps, which is more than one Neutron Blaster II shooting Void, giving it a net gain of 15 dps.
It was already the second gankiest BC in game @ 1124dps (50.6K EHP, scram, prop, heated max gank LSE no-implants fit), so can't really complain.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:14:00 -
[1596] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Because you want to fit a nosferatu doesn't mean that is the intended thing to place there - The utility slot is designed for warfare links and if you want to fit a nosferatu you will have to compromise on the rest of your fit. Unless ofcouse the fitting ends off balance but thats why they are being tested.
Pinky
Why don't they just make the utility/Warfare slot on the Battlecruisers Solely a Warfare slot (You are already retrofitting the BC's now, might as well go hogwild). Hell just change the slot itself to only fit a gangmod... lets just shoot the utility slot in the foot and make it fit what we expect the battlecruisers to fit, those being Warfare/Gang Mods.
The concept of the utility slot is bad in itself specifically for battlecruisers due to the Warfare modules. You want neutralizers in your highslots, use a cruiser or a battleship's utility slots.... you want it on a Battlecruiser, you will have to give up a gun for it, the "utility" slot is solely for Warfare modules. Of course if you do that, you'll have to redo warfare modules in itself (they need an update regardless).
I know, no one wants to give up their Neutralizer/Nos/SmartBomb... but if you want to get people using these T1 battlecruiser with Warfare Modules.. there goes the simple answer.
To rectify the module issue and the skill training people may or may not have, create a set of modules to do the following
1) Minimum leadership/module training, Module effects only the ship pilot (self warfare module, no gang support, 1/2 the effect of an actual warfare module, does not stack with other gangmods (gets overwritten by superior gang mod of those who are the booster in the fleet "Sorry no double dipping"). Module Training Cost requires leadership 3, and the warfare specialist training to 1. Change the requirement for the Warfare specialist down from leadership 5 to leadership 3, but still require leadership 5 for the current T1 Gang Mods.
Q) how do you stop people from just fitting either Armor resistance modules, shield resistance modules, etc.
A) You don't. What you do is give people flying battlecruisers a method of fitting a self selected Warfare Module of their own choosing. The want their resist higher, they can fit the module themselves (ibet less effective than the fleetwide version, but requires much less training). They want their repair quicker, their choice, shields harder, their choice, speed faster, also their choice.
Q) Some ships would be overpowered with such a choice?
A) As these BC's can only fit 1, and they are only at half power, it should have relatively minimal impact, but make the ship overall more enjoyable for the pilot. If it gets out of hand, balance the ship by giving it a bonus to a certain type of module.
Its somewhat of a ridiculous solution, but as an option to quell the whole utility highslot... just make it a pure gang module slot, and lock out any other equipment from going in there. If people want something else in there highslot, let them give up a gun... if they do not want to, then they can make a friend who can fly something else to do it. There is no solo/utlimate ship fit that can do it all. Battlecruisers were suppose to be more of a "group" ship |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
370
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:19:00 -
[1597] - Quote
Roime wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Look at the drone bay characteristics and say that again .. Realy, thats a damage boost ? LOL Still idiots playing with FW. Yes, Myrm got 65 more drone dps, which is more than one Neutron Blaster II shooting Void, giving it a net gain of 15 dps. It was already the second gankiest BC in game @ 1124dps (50.6K EHP, scram, prop, heated max gank LSE no-implants fit), so can't really complain.
without implant and 1124dps in your dream. And that 65 more damage is 23 dps but 100+ dps for harbinger. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
225
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:39:00 -
[1598] - Quote
Let's battlecruisers fit whatever they want ! BS mod are the norm anyway ! I want a best gun, full tank, cruiser speed BC ! Let's ruin cruisers again ! ... |
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:43:00 -
[1599] - Quote
Hi CCP Fozzie, Just following up on the latest changes. I've been prodding for cheap effective gang link platforms. With changes to high slots the ferox joins the cyclone as a decent dual link platform. So far I haven't be able to achieve a decent dual link 'armor' BC fit due to lack of CPU, maybe the command processor module is too CPU hungry? Would changes to it open up a can of worms? Anyway readers pls like if you think a non gimped dual gang link armor bc should be a option.
Neug |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3664
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:45:00 -
[1600] - Quote
Neugeniko wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie, Just following up on the latest changes. I've been prodding for cheap effective gang link platforms. With changes to high slots the ferox joins the cyclone as a decent dual link platform. So far I haven't be able to achieve a decent dual link 'armor' BC fit due to lack of CPU, maybe the command processor module is too CPU hungry? Would changes to it open up a can of worms? Anyway readers pls like if you think a non gimped dual gang link armor bc should be a option.
Neug
I plan to evaluate the fitting costs of warfare link modules at a later point, but we're trying to keep the changes for 1.1 manageable so they'll stay the same for now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
SMT008
Wormholers Anonymous Transmission Lost
501
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:50:00 -
[1601] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I want a best gun, full tank, cruiser speed BC ! Let's ruin cruisers again ! ...
Best guns ?
Of course (And even then, depends on which BC you're talking about). What ship is supposed to fit 425mms if you can't fit them on a Hurricane ? What caldari ship is supposed to fit Heavy Neutrons ? None, except the god damn Ferox.
Best guns is fine.
Full tank ? Well, they're battlecruisers. Cruisers can fit those mods already, why BCs shouldn't ?
Cruiser speed BC ? Now that's just plain wrong. Battlecruisers weren't all that fast compared to the rebalanced T1 cruisers, and now they're receiving a speed/agility nerf. What are you complaining about ?
CCP Fozzie, you listened to the complains, fixed most of what was wrong.
Good job, I look forward to what you've got in store for battleships |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1820
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:57:00 -
[1602] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote: without implant and 1124dps in your dream. And that 65 more damage is 23 dps but 100+ dps for harbinger.
[Myrmidon, Ribikoka's Dream]
Internal Force Field Array I Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Ogre II x2 Hammerhead II x2 Hobgoblin II x1
Practical everyday fit? No, but these kinds of edge case fits are something to be aware of when considering damage output potential of ships.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
390
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 15:58:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:10%/lvl for harbinger -1gun its a dps boost. -1 guns from myrmi and same bonuses as before it's a nerf.
This is the balance ???? WTF ? All CCP developer lost his brain ? Another drone boat nerf. Bravo.
Please stop posting about things you clearly know nothing about.
As many others have said, +25m3 nets more dps than the loss of a turret... So when you go ahead and say "the myrmidon is nerfed!" you're either not very smart, or intentionally trolling. For your sake i'm going to assume the latter.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
391
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:06:00 -
[1604] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:And that 65 more damage is 23 dps but 100+ dps for harbinger.
Harbinger with 2 HSs and 1 Burst Aerator (BC5, 5% energy turret damage implant, 5% rof implant) gained: IN Multifrequency: ~17 turret dps Conflag: ~20 turret dps Scorch: ~14 turret dps
So, I don't know where you got that 100+ dps from. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
225
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:18:00 -
[1605] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Best guns ?
Of course (And even then, depends on which BC you're talking about). What ship is supposed to fit 425mms if you can't fit them on a Hurricane ? What caldari ship is supposed to fit Heavy Neutrons ? None, except the god damn Ferox.
Best guns is fine.
Full tank ? Well, they're battlecruisers. Cruisers can fit those mods already, why BCs shouldn't ?
Ever heard about fitting choices ? You don't seem to have. What choice are you making when you can fit your Cyclone with XLASB, HML, medium neutS and everything ? What choice are you making if you can fit your Harbinger with a whole rack of pulse, a 1600mm plate and everything you can need ?
Easy fitting was a reason for the nerf of the Hurricane, remember ?
Want to fit a whole rack of neutron blasters ? forget the 1600mm plate ; forget the double LSE too. You know, choose between tank and gank ? |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:22:00 -
[1606] - Quote
Roime wrote:Ribikoka wrote: without implant and 1124dps in your dream. And that 65 more damage is 23 dps but 100+ dps for harbinger.
[Myrmidon, Ribikoka's Dream] Internal Force Field Array I Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I Ogre II x2 Hammerhead II x2 Hobgoblin II x1 Practical everyday fit? No, but these kinds of edge case fits are something to be aware of when considering damage output potential of ships.
Please u tard bring to me this crap fitted myrm against my harbinger and let see how fast die |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:28:00 -
[1607] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie the myrmidon still has a full rack of guns tut tut... Also why does the prophecy have such excessive tank wasn't that supposed to be part of the nerf to bc's also drake still has better base hp why? |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1821
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:32:00 -
[1608] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:
Please u tard bring to me this crap fitted myrm against my harbinger and let see how fast die
Is that a public call-out for a 1vs1?
Just say when, baby, I'm game
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:39:00 -
[1609] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:@CCP Fozzie the myrmidon still has a full rack of guns tut tut... Also why does the prophecy have such excessive tank wasn't that supposed to be part of the nerf to bc's also drake still has better base hp why?
Because the Prophecy is meant to be similar to a Drake and be more tanky, for less DPS, given these are these ships could be considered 'Fleet' boats because of the resist bonus.
You can drop the tank down and go crazy DPS if you want, which is also great. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:48:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Tried the Ferox and Drake out. Both feel fine now you've increased the Power Grid on the Ferox so it can fit the guns, an LSE and MWD. I'd still like 6 mid slots on the Ferox, but I guess Santa didn't get the memo. Appreciate this perhaps pushes it too far.
I can make use of that high slot though, and its far more useful to me than the low slot.
Agree with others, that the Drake could do with 10 more CPU. Depending what you're doing, its to limiting. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
360
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:53:00 -
[1611] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote: Finally, your response to Zarnak's post about the Ferox was spectacularly off-base and disingenuous. Using ion blasters rather than neutrons is a perfectly reasonable choice - you trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room and slightly better tracking. You're not giving up on a hull bonus, you're not changing your engagement profile or susbtantially altering your ship's capabilities, you're just giving yourself a little fitting headroom. Comparing it to an RLML cyclone, which loses ~40% of a HAM setup's damage output, ignores the hull bonus, and has a completely different operating range/engagement profile, is absurd. FWIW, if I were going to fit up a straight brawling blaster ferox after the changes, I'd go with this:
You're just completely oblivious to sarcasm aren't you, holy cow. The use of is a dead giveaway to most people. My point was that the Cyclone has no reasonable way to "trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room", which makes holding up a ferox that does exactly that disingenuous in its own right, as does holding up a current version of the cyclone that does the same thing (by using 180mm instead of 220mm ACs).
Anyway, like I said before - I think the cyclone is fine. If you don't, I'm the wrong person to argue with. Put together your argument complete with fits and stats for several ships for comparison... all stats, speed, tank, DPS, etc... present them to Fozzie, and see if you can convince him. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
263
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 16:59:00 -
[1612] - Quote
Roime wrote:Ribikoka wrote:
Please u tard bring to me this crap fitted myrm against my harbinger and let see how fast die
Is that a public call-out for a 1vs1? Just say when, baby, I'm game
And I'll frapps it :) We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1678
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 17:02:00 -
[1613] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Roime wrote:Ribikoka wrote:
Please u tard bring to me this crap fitted myrm against my harbinger and let see how fast die
Is that a public call-out for a 1vs1? Just say when, baby, I'm game And I'll frapps it :)
I was hoping someone would.... simply seeing a harbinger killmail would not tell the whole tale. :)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Mund Richard
287
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 17:11:00 -
[1614] - Quote
mynnna wrote: My point was that the Cyclone has no reasonable way to "trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room", which makes holding up a ferox that does exactly that disingenuous in its own right, as does holding up a current version of the cyclone that does the same thing (by using 180mm instead of 220mm ACs).
Anyway, like I said before - I think the cyclone is fine. And it was a fair point to consider. But I like sarcasm, so I was biased for your post.
Moonaura wrote:Roime wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Please u tard bring to me this crap fitted myrm against my harbinger and let see how fast die Is that a public call-out for a 1vs1? Just say when, baby, I'm game And I'll frapps it :) Please do, and link everywhere.
In fact, make it best two out of three! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
231
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 17:14:00 -
[1615] - Quote
SMT008 wrote: Best guns ?
Of course (And even then, depends on which BC you're talking about). What ship is supposed to fit 425mms if you can't fit them on a Hurricane ? What caldari ship is supposed to fit Heavy Neutrons ? None, except the god damn Ferox.
Best guns is fine.
Full tank ? Well, they're battlecruisers. Cruisers can fit those mods already, why BCs shouldn't ?
Damn straight. I hate it when I have to think about what I put on my ship. Clever fitting choices are for suckers. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 17:15:00 -
[1616] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Moonaura wrote:Roime wrote:Ribikoka wrote:
Please u tard bring to me this crap fitted myrm against my harbinger and let see how fast die
Is that a public call-out for a 1vs1? Just say when, baby, I'm game And I'll frapps it :) I was hoping someone would.... simply seeing a harbinger killmail would not tell the whole tale. :)
Or a sh*t fitted myrmi mail, which has low EM tank and need to move short range to reach his target or lost his half damage.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
995
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 17:18:00 -
[1617] - Quote
Quote:Practical everyday fit? No, but these kinds of edge case fits are something to be aware of when considering damage output potential of ships. This Myrm fit is really fun to fly. Not great against some ships, but puts out omgwtfpwn dps from a ship that is usually not the primary. |
SMT008
Wormholers Anonymous Transmission Lost
501
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 17:19:00 -
[1618] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:SMT008 wrote:Best guns ?
Of course (And even then, depends on which BC you're talking about). What ship is supposed to fit 425mms if you can't fit them on a Hurricane ? What caldari ship is supposed to fit Heavy Neutrons ? None, except the god damn Ferox.
Best guns is fine.
Full tank ? Well, they're battlecruisers. Cruisers can fit those mods already, why BCs shouldn't ?
Ever heard about fitting choices ? You don't seem to have. What choice are you making when you can fit your Cyclone with XLASB, HML, medium neutS and everything ? What choice are you making if you can fit your Harbinger with a whole rack of pulse, a 1600mm plate and everything you can need ? Easy fitting was a reason for the nerf of the Hurricane, remember ? Want to fit a whole rack of neutron blasters ? forget the 1600mm plate ; forget the double LSE too. You know, choose between tank and gank ?
Fitting choices. Sure. You either fit tank and short-range guns, or don't fit tank and long-range gun.
That's a good choice.
Not being able to fit a tank and best short-range guns when a T1 cruiser is capable of doing it, that's just not right.
Glad it had been fixed.
You sound like someone who would have been fine with pre-buff Caracals. You're apparently the 1%
Quote:Damn straight. I hate it when I have to think about what I put on my ship. Clever fitting choices are for suckers.
Don't talk like you don't understand what you've read. Having to choose between a tank and long-range guns is fine. Having to choose between an obscene tank and good guns is fine. Not being able to fit a reasonable tank (Yes, a single 1600mm plate is reasonable on a BC considering most cruisers can fit it) along with good guns doesn't work.
Now please, don't talk about clever fitting choices. This rebalancing is clearly trying to make unfittable/unused ships fittable/used again. This is exactly what's happening.
If you don't like it, well, tell Fozzie about it. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
229
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 18:08:00 -
[1619] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Don't talk like you don't understand what you've read. Having to choose between a tank and long-range guns is fine. Having to choose between an obscene tank and good guns is fine. Not being able to fit a reasonable tank (Yes, a single 1600mm plate is reasonable on a BC considering most cruisers can fit it) along with good guns doesn't work.
Cruiser with 1600mm plate can barely fit medium guns (yeah, even lowest grade), so your assertion is a bit dishonest. BC already have more dps and tank than cruisers because of their base stats.
1600mm is not more reasonnable than on a cruiser, only a little less overtanked. And actually, reasonable would be more like the 2 mid shield tank a *lot* of BC were fielding some times ago (50kehp, like with a 800mm plate, versus 65-70kehp of a 1600mm plate BC). 1600mm plate is BS module, you remember ?
Truth is that no sub BS ship ever was able to fit top tier guns with MWD on top of a 1600mm plate without fiting mods. That's only a wet dream from apparently a lot of people, but that don't mean it's normal.
Oh, and lower tier guns exists for a reason too : fitting choices ; and that's not supposed to be binary like your ridiculous "LR with no tank vs SR with tank". |
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 18:19:00 -
[1620] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. [] 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. [] 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct.[]
My suggestion is to change the bonus to a hybrid tracking bonus, that is useful no matter what the range and its still distinct.
|
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
264
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 19:18:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. [] 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. [] 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct.[]
My suggestion is to change the bonus to a hybrid tracking bonus, that is useful no matter what the range and its still distinct.
No, actually the range bonus is very useful on the Ferox, and when scaled to the Rokh, is one of the few reasons that ship has potential with blasters.
There are plenty of ways to improve tracking, through enhancers, faction ammo, tracking computers, and the drop boosters, as well as any additional e-war such as webs, target painters etc.
But I would say, that the Damage bonus on the Moa was the right move at cruiser size because its mobile.
Off topic: I'm wondering if that is the way to go when they finally get to the Eagle to be akin to the Moa if at all possible, you can because you can be more mobile. And well... 'Eagle', because everyone flies those right? Oh wait! We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
264
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 19:21:00 -
[1622] - Quote
Meh. Moved this post into my last post. Hello page 82. Life treating you well? We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Joss Portera
Pyongyang's Finest
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 19:37:00 -
[1623] - Quote
DRAKE -15 CPU WHYYYYYYYYYY |
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
48
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 20:00:00 -
[1624] - Quote
I don't know some of this feels like some of the problems with these changes is because it's trying to force both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 hulls into the exact same role... the fleet boosting ship. A better approach would have been to balance each ship with a specific role in mind... some examples.
Tier 1s - The T1 Command Ships Brutix-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Damage Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP
- 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level
- 2% bonus to Information Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Cyclone-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Speed Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP
- 5% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Damage per Level
- 2% bonus to Skirmish Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Ferox-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/Long Range Sniper for Large Scale Fleet PvP
- 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Range per Level
- 2% bonus to Siege Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Prophecy-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Survivability Ship for Large Scale Fleet PvP
- 5% bonus to Armor Resistances per Level
- 2% bonus to Armor Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Tier 2s - The Combat or Attack Battlecruiser Drake-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Survivability 'Combat' Battlecruiser
- 10% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Range per Level
- 5% bonus to Shield Resistance per Level
Harbinger-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser
- 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage per Level
- 10% bonus of Medium Energy Turret Tracking per Level
Hurricane-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser
- 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Damage per Level
- 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire per Level
Myrmidon-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser
- 5% bonus to Drone Hitpoints and Damage per Level
- 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level
Tier 3s - The Pocket Battleships Really they're great as they are.
If you want us to fit Gang Links, give a bonus to doing it? While Battlecruisers may have originally been meant as a fleet booster, they're not all used in that role. The Drake for example is heavily used both as a fleet line ship in 0.0 (Combat Ship) and a mission runner with a Passive Shield Tank. The Cyclone is used a lot in roaming gangs (like many Minmatar ships) because of its speed and maneuverability. |
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania
Yoyodyne corporation Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 20:18:00 -
[1625] - Quote
Saul Elsyn wrote:I don't know some of this feels like some of the problems with these changes is because it's trying to force both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 hulls into the exact same role... the fleet boosting ship. A better approach would have been to balance each ship with a specific role in mind... some examples. Tier 1s - The T1 Command ShipsBrutix-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Damage Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP
- 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level
- 2% bonus to Information Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Cyclone-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Speed Ship for Small Scale Gang PvP
- 5% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Damage per Level
- 2% bonus to Skirmish Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Ferox-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/Long Range Sniper for Large Scale Fleet PvP
- 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Range per Level
- 2% bonus to Siege Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Prophecy-class Battlecruiser - Role: Fleet Boosting/High Survivability Ship for Large Scale Fleet PvP
- 5% bonus to Armor Resistances per Level
- 2% bonus to Armor Warfare Gang Link Boost Amount per Level
Tier 2s - The Combat or Attack BattlecruiserDrake-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Survivability 'Combat' Battlecruiser
- 10% bonus to Heavy, Light, and Assault Missile Range per Level
- 5% bonus to Shield Resistance per Level
Harbinger-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser
- 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage per Level
- 10% bonus of Medium Energy Turret Tracking per Level
Hurricane-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser
- 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Damage per Level
- 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire per Level
Myrmidon-class Battlecruiser - Role: High Damage 'Attack' Battlecruiser
- 5% bonus to Drone Hitpoints and Damage per Level
- 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level
Tier 3s - The Pocket BattleshipsReally they're great as they are. If you want us to fit Gang Links, give a bonus to doing it? While Battlecruisers may have originally been meant as a fleet booster, they're not all used in that role. The Drake for example is heavily used both as a fleet line ship in 0.0 (Combat Ship) and a mission runner with a Passive Shield Tank. The Cyclone is used a lot in roaming gangs (like many Minmatar ships) because of its speed and maneuverability.
Bonuses to gank links should be for those flying command ships. Your idea is just dumb. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 20:29:00 -
[1626] - Quote
The brutix seems to have too much CPU and not quite enough PG. It could stand to lose a little CPU to gain at least 3% more PG. Otherwise it cannot fit 6 tech 2 ions a MWD, medium cap booster, and two tech 2 armor repairers. It certainly won't be able to fit that after the active tanking rig penalties are changed to penalize PG usage from repairers. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 21:17:00 -
[1627] - Quote
The role of regular BC's being used as cheap command ships may see a significant return depending on what changes CCP does to them. They aren't used much now because you can do it better with a ship that you don't have to risk. If CCP changes links to only effect ships on grid with them then there will be many fleets where people may not want to risk that shiny command ship or T3, but will certainly be willing to use a regular BC to give a boost, albeit not as good as a proper command ship. Still this difference could still be the deciding factor depending on the match up.
In fact I'm quite looking forward to using it as such again. I've found the Mrym to be a good cheap command ship in the past as you could still maintain a decent tank with 1-2 links fit and still have some utility with your drones for the good of the gang.
|
Resilan Bearcat
Cold Moon Destruction Transmission Lost
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 21:43:00 -
[1628] - Quote
My first reaction on seeing the proposed changes for the Gallente ships was WTH! Why put an active bonus on both Gallente battlecruiers? I have been following this thread throughout, and I confess that I still have the same reaction. One ship being a drone platform and the other being a blaster platform is one layer of differences. Why remove the second layer of differences for only one race? Regardless of how they play, this change doesn't make any sense to me.
I fly exclusively in small gangs and almost always have logistics support. While I do not fly battlecruisers often, I do like them and will use them on occassion for fun. I was hoping to see more use from them with the balance pass. However, given the proposed changes, I would never choose to fly a Gallente battlecruiser which is my primary and highest skilled weapon system.
It does not matter to me if the secondary bonus is damage oriented like the Hurricane or passive tanking or some other bonus. Almost anything would be better than duplicating the Myrmidon's active armor bonus in my opinion.
For what it is worth, I vote no on the active armor bonus for the Brutix. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
161
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 22:44:00 -
[1629] - Quote
mynnna wrote:You're just completely oblivious to sarcasm aren't you, holy cow. The use of is a dead giveaway to most people. My point was that the Cyclone has no reasonable way to "trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room", which makes holding up a ferox that does exactly that disingenuous in its own right, as does holding up a current version of the cyclone that does the same thing (by using 180mm instead of 220mm ACs). Anyway, like I said before - I think the cyclone is fine. If you don't, I'm the wrong person to argue with. Put together your argument complete with fits and stats for several ships for comparison... all stats, speed, tank, DPS, etc... present them to Fozzie, and see if you can convince him.
OK, let me get this straight. Your argument re: the cyclone and ferox is as follows:
- The new Ferox has sufficient fitting room to accommodate a full rack of bonused weapons along with a strong XLASB tank and full tackle without having to use fitting mods or downsize to frigate sized modules
- To achieve a comparable fit with a cyclone, you need at least three fitting mods or to start downsizing left right and center
- Therefore, the cyclone's fitting room is perfectly adequate
- sarcasm lol lol
Pointing out that turret ships have more options than missile boats in terms of weapons doesn't negate the fact that all ships need sufficient fitting room to accommodate the weapons they're designed to use, a reasonable tank, and an appropriate number of ewar/tackle/utility/damage mods, and that the revised cyclone fails pretty badly on that score.
As for saying I should be presenting my argument to the devs rather than you, that seems like a pretty smart idea. I think I'll do that by initially posting a brief comment outlining my opinion in the official battlecruiser changes feedback thread and then elaborating on my position if it's challenged. Sound good to you? |
NetheranE
The Cariest Of Bears
29
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 02:05:00 -
[1630] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:mynnna wrote:You're just completely oblivious to sarcasm aren't you, holy cow. The use of is a dead giveaway to most people. My point was that the Cyclone has no reasonable way to "trade in ~5% of your dps and a little range for a lot of extra fitting room", which makes holding up a ferox that does exactly that disingenuous in its own right, as does holding up a current version of the cyclone that does the same thing (by using 180mm instead of 220mm ACs). Anyway, like I said before - I think the cyclone is fine. If you don't, I'm the wrong person to argue with. Put together your argument complete with fits and stats for several ships for comparison... all stats, speed, tank, DPS, etc... present them to Fozzie, and see if you can convince him. OK, let me get this straight. Your argument re: the cyclone and ferox is as follows:
- The new Ferox has sufficient fitting room to accommodate a full rack of bonused weapons along with a strong XLASB tank and full tackle without having to use fitting mods or downsize to frigate sized modules
- To achieve a comparable fit with a cyclone, you need at least three fitting mods or to start downsizing left right and center
- Therefore, the cyclone's fitting room is perfectly adequate
- sarcasm lol lol
Pointing out that turret ships have more options than missile boats in terms of weapons doesn't negate the fact that all ships need sufficient fitting room to accommodate the weapons they're designed to use, a reasonable tank, and an appropriate number of ewar/tackle/utility/damage mods, and that the revised cyclone fails pretty badly on that score. As for saying I should be presenting my argument to the devs rather than you, that seems like a pretty smart idea. I think I'll do that by initially posting a brief comment outlining my opinion in the official battlecruiser changes feedback thread and then elaborating on my position if it's challenged. Sound good to you?
If you're talking a double XLASB tank, then you should honestly just shaddaup. ****'s already broken as **** and will get nerfed into the ground shortly I hope.
As for a single XLASB tank, you should shaddaup. I have on fit on SiSi right now, which is prefectly up the ally of what a Cyclone does now, but with HAMs. AKA, it does its job BETTER now. Standard Faction LSB fit still works, and a dual LASB fit is just fine.
Cyclone is great, less bitching more reality plox. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
152
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 03:25:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Prophecy is just a mind blowingly bad and unoriginal concept. What Battleship line does this even pretend to mimic? You were better off going optimal + resist and finally fixing medium beams for any flavor there. That, plus a nerf to the PG on the Oracle or some other good change to 1600 plates fitting on it would have made a pulse or beam prophecy concept pretty cool.
Still the dual repair bonus on the Gallente BC's,,, [face palm]
Ferox is fine if you finally ******* nerf web stacking and fix the tracking formula, but your track record on either thus far speaks volumes for my faith.
The dual resist bonus on the Caldari is a fricking joke and should have never existed. I can't believe the drake has yet to lose it's tanking capacity, thus stealing a lot of the role of the Ferox. Best thing you could do for the Ferox is to dump the drake resist bonus. |
Daniel Whateley
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 04:05:00 -
[1632] - Quote
I see a lot of words like Nerf and Buff, read the intended changes more carefully, if you put into calculation the new changes they are balancing each ship out to fit their "intended role" the slight cpu reduction or power reduction is nothing your losing a whole turret slot, even the harbinger... the 600 less power amount but they're making your regen time -800 your actually gaining about 2gj\s regen and because of that your getting a "damage buff" for people who use cap boosters anyway thats a pretty impressive trade off, why complain about -0.90 powergrid when your actually gaining an extra 250 from dropping a gun, your also getting a damage bonus in most cases on those ships, and the tier 2 bc's are getting pulled back slightly to meet their tier 1 equivilant, and as for the "Very Small drake nerf" your lucky they don't take your launcher away cause a ham drake now does close to 600dps since the missile changes. |
Hefty TheFirst
The Athenian Group
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 04:22:00 -
[1633] - Quote
Hi,
This is my first month playing Eve Online. Eve is a great game but it's very punishing for new players.
I loved the drake the most of the current ships and I made a plan to start training towards the drake and it's core skills. Now I have read about the drake and I saw it got nerfed a few times in the past.
So I just read the patch notes and I feel incredibly ripped off... My whole first month in this game goes towards just getting into the drake and now it gets this epic nerf.
My whole first month feels wasted...
I mean why "fix" something that's not broken in the first place?
Regards: Hefty |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
317
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 05:08:00 -
[1634] - Quote
Only had time to look at fits before server shut down, but here are a few observations about PG/CPU:
- Dual Rep Brutix w/ Ions and a medium cap booster likely need about 80 more base PG (even using 1 ACR rig) to work with a warfare link for AWU 4 players... I missed 70,7 PG with my skills for a T1 link.
- A Myrmidon is versatile enough and should be okay. The new drone bay makes good sense. Im fitting my with a 1600 plate and single MAR so I need about 83 PG with my skills, but that isn't the same as saying the Myrm needs more PG.
- Harbinger is okay with focused medium pulse, but with those it doesn't seem fair to have the super low cpu... 25 more base cpu would make it an easier for for AWU 3 and 4 players as it really is very tight compared to other ships.
- Prophecy seems spot on - nice to fit without having too much either. Cool hehe
- Drake definitely need more cpu to be worth anything - It's super tight. I'd ideally like 15 cpu back, but even 5-10 base CPU would be cherished. It's just very tough even downgrading lots of things to get enough for a decent fit while having a warfare link...
- Ferox is very easy to fit w/Blaster setups and seems balanced no matter if you want to fit ions, neutrons, 200mm or 250mm railguns...
- Didn't really get to look at Cyclone and Hurricane, but I had lots of trouble fitting a solid shield tanker and it's difficult to judge the CPU/PG on a cyclone when you're pretty much forced to use XL and L ASB to be competitive resulting in Co-Processor and cpu rigs alike. I think it would definitely benefit from powergrid and cpu though.
Will have to see how they fly, but Im still rather frustrated with only getting response on very few of the comments - especially regarding bonus.
Pinky Denmark |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 06:27:00 -
[1635] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this:
1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type that also a huge PvE disadavantage for new players.
I hope that those side-effects are not intended. |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
1405
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 06:58:00 -
[1636] - Quote
Well... Drake did lose a missile slot too... Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
505
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 08:30:00 -
[1637] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type that also a huge PvE disadavantage for new players. I hope that those side-effects are not intended.
It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
124
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 08:38:00 -
[1638] - Quote
Hefty TheFirst wrote:Hi,
This is my first month playing Eve Online. Eve is a great game but it's very punishing for new players.
I loved the drake the most of the current ships and I made a plan to start training towards the drake and it's core skills. Now I have read about the drake and I saw it got nerfed a few times in the past.
So I just read the patch notes and I feel incredibly ripped off... My whole first month in this game goes towards just getting into the drake and now it gets this epic nerf.
My whole first month feels wasted...
I mean why "fix" something that's not broken in the first place?
Regards: Hefty The thing is they're fixing something that was really broken. Now it's not so broken, but it's still a fine ship. Put HAM launchers in the highs, basically PODLA the thing, and you've got a solid ship post patch. Using pre-nerf ships, could you have come up with any comparison between the Ferox and the Drake? Nobody flew the Ferox, except as an ice miner, or ironically *hipster!*.
Yes, you've put time towards training it, but it will still be a good ship, just not as stupid as it was before. Admittedly, though, a good portion of its power was in HML's. Thank god those were brought to par (though they're actually probably still above par for long range weapons...)
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. I hope that those side-effects are not intended. This however is something I can also agree with. I mean, it's hard to balance. It's hard to be that Dev that has to make those decisions. It's the same with the Harbinger. You're at a huge disadvantage if you don't have BC V. Newer players are getting the short end of the stick.
I'm actually kind of wondering if we wouldn't be better off getting a role bonus of 25% then leaving the skill bonuses at 5% per level. I know that would put things even farther ahead (though not by much), but it would rebalance things a bit for newbies. Or hell, even a 20% role bonus or something. Hell, that would come out equivalent to 9 turrets/launchers, as these changes will have them, but without a huge disparity between newbies and vets.
Also to adress Sinigr's concerns, you could even make that a 20% role bonus to missile damage on the Drake while leaving the per level bonus as kinetic only, thus lessening the damage difference between kinetic and all other damage types. You still have specialization for more effectiveness, but you aren't as forced into using kinetic only.
Gypsio III wrote: It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.
They might be. But I doubt that that is the reason. They wanted to free up a high for links, without cutting out any other slots. Likely an unintentional side effect. Besides, as a T1 ship there should be a moderate entry level for effectiveness. Mastery of course should take more time, but the difference between mastery and effectiveness shouldn't be too vast on a T1 ship. T2 ships though should absolutely punish those who attempt to enter them prematurely. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 08:49:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.
New players often pick ships not because of gameplay benefits but based on aesthetics and advises of more experienced ones. Trading amount of weapons for higher bonuses is actually a positive effect in itself for those who have perfect skill set so they will still tell newcomers "get a Drake, it's still good". Also many players pick their empire because of aesthetics/lore, so if someone likes missiles and energy shields more than autocannons he/she should be punished when moving up to battlecruisers.
PS: Drake is so touchy subject for many posters here, they seem to blindly hate it as if it burned their dog. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:01:00 -
[1640] - Quote
Hefty TheFirst wrote:Hi,
This is my first month playing Eve Online. Eve is a great game but it's very punishing for new players.
I loved the drake the most of the current ships and I made a plan to start training towards the drake and it's core skills. Now I have read about the drake and I saw it got nerfed a few times in the past.
So I just read the patch notes and I feel incredibly ripped off... My whole first month in this game goes towards just getting into the drake and now it gets this epic nerf.
My whole first month feels wasted...
I mean why "fix" something that's not broken in the first place?
Regards: Hefty
Hello. It is true that Eve is punishing for new players, but with some enthusiasm you can participate in bigger things faster than you think. Even after the nerfs Drake is still or we be a fine ship. Your time focusing on it is not wasted. Let's see what skills are needed for using Drake effectively:
1. Battlecruisers - which is also a skill for any other BC. 2. Heavy missiles - even after taking a hit, they are still good on Tengu. Other missile skills are useful on Stealth Bombers and such. 3. Shield tanking - numerous ships in Eve use shield as primary defense. Not only Caldari, but also most Minmatar, some Gallente and even Amarr ships can be fitted for shield-tanking. 4. Core skills that are used for all ships are always useful.
Moreso 1 month in Eve is not that much, if you stay here for a while you will eventually find yourself thinking "This skill takes only a month to train to V". |
|
darkness reins
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:19:00 -
[1641] - Quote
harbs gonna suck. brutix needs rep bonus replaced and all these.bcs need at least 1 utility high for a warfare.link. |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
1406
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:22:00 -
[1642] - Quote
I'm currently training BC V atm... In the end though, this change does mean a slight boost to my Drakes damage (after bonuses, the equivelent of 9 launchers vs 8.75), assuming I fit only Scourge missiles for damage.
Downside though, of course, will be quite a large drop in DPS should I choose to field a different missile type. Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
505
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:25:00 -
[1643] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Gypsio III wrote: It's almost as if CCP is trying to persuade new players to fly something other than a bearing Drake. Fancy that.
They might be. But I doubt that that is the reason. They wanted to free up a high for links, without cutting out any other slots. Likely an unintentional side effect. Besides, as a T1 ship there should be a moderate entry level for effectiveness. Mastery of course should take more time, but the difference between mastery and effectiveness shouldn't be too vast on a T1 ship. T2 ships though should absolutely punish those who attempt to enter them prematurely.
I don't have a quote for this, but I'm pretty sure that CCP did say that they were unhappy with the newbie's general progression of "get in a BC as fast as possible and ignore cruisers". But certainly removing that philosophy fits in with the principle of tiericide.
Now, certainly the primary intent for the 10% Drake kinetic bonus is to free up a highslot for a link. But the fundamental problem with BCs is that they're too good at doing too many things and they need to be less flexible, and the 10% bonus fits in with that, while simultaneously creating further distinction between the Drake and the Caldari T1 cruiser missile cruiser. |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:37:00 -
[1644] - Quote
great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol |
SMT008
Wormholers Anonymous Transmission Lost
501
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:41:00 -
[1645] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol
Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong.
Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ? |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 09:44:00 -
[1646] - Quote
I can remember a Amarr-Rocket-Frig with a "5% damage to EM Rockets and Light Missiles and 2,5% to other Damage-Types" Why not do the same with the Drake? Instead of the "10% to kinetic" make "10% to kinetic and 5% to other Damage-Types" with this kinetic is still the top Damage for the Drake, but other missiles are also a little bit more effektive |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:04:00 -
[1647] - Quote
I personally love the active rep bonus on the Brutix. And would like for it to stay. Ferox is imho fleet variant of that ship.
On the other hand Brutix suffers from PG issue. I am not sure how much PG reduction (if any) CCP Fozzie is planning for medium armour repairs. But right now when fitted with 2x T2 MAR, MWD and Medium cap booster it cant fit full rack of ion blasters. And I did not calculate proposed PG increase from the rigs.
If this ship is supposed to be active armour tanker (and I hope it is) giving it enough PG to fit reasonably while utilizing both bonuses is a way to go. Or drop the active rep bonus (which would make me sad panda). |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:13:00 -
[1648] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Recoil IV wrote:great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong. Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ?
i can fly all bc`s an i have no favourited.but seriosly,they had to nerf drake even more? |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
1408
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:15:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:SMT008 wrote:Recoil IV wrote:great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong. Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ? i can fly all bc`s an i have no favourited.but seriosly,they had to nerf drake even more? Hey... it got just under a 3% damage bonus at lvl V... Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:21:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:SMT008 wrote:Recoil IV wrote:great job killing battlecruisers fozzie.i hope you can sleep well at night lol Great job not telling anyone what you think is wrong. Or is it because your favorite BC was slightly nerfed and/or changed ? i can fly all bc`s an i have no favourited.but seriosly,they had to nerf drake even more?
All tier 2 battlecruisers were used quite extensively. CCP wanted to buff tier 1 battlecruisers a bit while toning tier 2 battlecruisers down a bit (i.e nerf). The most popular ones will be toned down more for apparent reason. |
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:23:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Well most popular of BC on any meaningful levels are Tier 3 BC nowadays. |
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
6527
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:26:00 -
[1652] - Quote
I usually don't fly Caldari very much, but from gathering my first experiences with the Moa (I refused to fly this ship for years just because of its spectacular ugliness) I think I can understand the problem people have with the new Ferox now. Caldari sniper line: -Cormorant (D) -Ferox (BC) -Naga (BC) -Rokh (BS)
So what's clearly missing is a fast and cheap sniper in the cruiser class that is just a little more durable than the cormorant. Having two snipers in the BC class instead is just a little meh, especially since the Naga does this job so good already that there should really be no need for an alternative.
Suggestion: Switch the boni between Moa and Ferox- make Moa the cruiser-class sniper and Ferox the mid-range dps powerhouse. Please don't feed me. |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:28:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Well most popular of BC on any meaningful levels are Tier 3 BC nowadays.
Yes. And the are getting a tone down (nerf) as well. The details are not known but will probably be in form of agility and/or top speed adjustment. |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:45:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Ferox :(
Also did you notice that you have killed 3rep myrm? (because with new pg you can't fit 3 reps and full set of medium guns of any type, and if you take 4 guns instead of 5 you will have less dps than current tranq one has, even considering additional heavy drones)
PS. Well whatever, as long as tier3 exist, all other bc's dont have place in current meta (except maybe a victim role) |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 10:55:00 -
[1655] - Quote
Sad part in potential tier 3 nerf is that it can make anything that not Battleshp, T2+ or faction is irrelevant. |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 11:00:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Sad part in potential tier 3 nerf is that it can make anything that not Battleshp, T2+ or faction is irrelevant.
Yeah, because ships with tank of BC, speed of cruiser and range and dps of BS for 150 mil are obviously not overpowered and well balanced for price/effectivity |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 11:18:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Schmell, you just forget that new CCP doctirne is "Price does not matter". |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 11:31:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Schmell wrote: Yeah, because ships with tank of BC, speed of cruiser and range and dps of BS for 150 mil are obviously not overpowered and well balanced for price/effectivity
Speed of cruisers and range/dps of BS. They dont have tank level of BC but actually closer to T1 cruisers. I personally think that Tier 3 BC are most balanced of all BC. They dont make neither cruisers non BS obsolete while being useful for so many purposes. |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 11:42:00 -
[1659] - Quote
An exaple: Assume that there is a cruiser chasing a "well-balanced BC". The cruisers MWD speed is around 2 km/s. The T3 battlecruiser's is 2km/s. So the BC can just burn away from the cruiser and force angular speed to zero which basicly means that T3 BC's are not vulnerable to an insanely large number of ships which they are actually SHOULD be vulnerable to. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
988
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 11:45:00 -
[1660] - Quote
The devs have hinted over and over again that the tier 3 BC are getting a speed/mobility nerf. |
|
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 11:49:00 -
[1661] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:The devs have hinted over and over again that the tier 3 BC are getting a speed/mobility nerf. I don't see how a mobility nerf is better than tracking nerf (guns damage formula rework) in terms of keeping T3 BC's within their Attack(high damage and speed, low tank) role. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 11:55:00 -
[1662] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote:An example: Assume that there is a cruiser chasing a "well-balanced BC". The cruisers MWD speed is around 2 km/s. The T3 battlecruiser's is 2km/s. So the BC can just burn away from the cruiser and force angular speed to zero which basicly means that T3 BC's are not vulnerable to an insanely large number of ships which they are actually SHOULD be vulnerable to.
Common assumption that to compare 2 ships in Eve you should make a theoretical unplausible duel scenario with not gates/stations or eve warp-disruption modules involves. One thing that tier3 BC usually bad is killing small ships (Talos is expception because of drones). |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 12:05:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:One thing that tier3 BC usually bad is killing small ships (Talos is expception because of drones). Do I understand correctly that you state that Tier 3 BC being bad at killing cruiser-sized ships? What ship size do you call small? |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 12:17:00 -
[1664] - Quote
I call frigates and low-sig desstroyers small ships. Cruisers and BC are medium-sized ships. Just check names on modules (weapons, armor repaire etc) designed for cruisers and frigates. |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 12:21:00 -
[1665] - Quote
In that case how is your statment opposes my example? Or do you think that ships fitted with BS-sized guns should be able to kill cruiser-sized ships?
To clarify my position: I state that T3 BC are able and killing cruisers. I state that they should not. Just as the Stealth Bombers that also wear BS-sized guns. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
265
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 12:25:00 -
[1666] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:I usually don't fly Caldari very much, but from gathering my first experiences with the Moa (I refused to fly this ship for years just because of its spectacular ugliness) I think I can understand the problem people have with the new Ferox now. Caldari sniper line: -Cormorant (D) -Ferox (BC) -Naga (BC) -Rokh (BS)
So what's clearly missing is a fast and cheap sniper in the cruiser class that is just a little more durable than the cormorant. Having two snipers in the BC class instead is just a little meh, especially since the Naga does this job so good already that there should really be no need for an alternative.
Suggestion: Switch the boni between Moa and Ferox- make Moa the cruiser-class sniper and Ferox the mid-range dps powerhouse.
Both ships are now fine. The Moa has speed and signature on its side to get in close, and the Ferox does very nice DPS for a Battlecruiser at 35m ISK, given the step up to a Rokh will cost 230m ISK. The range bonus is a good thing even for Blasters. Ferox also now has less mass so it gets in range faster.
If you want more DPS out of a Battlecruiser, theres the Naga. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
265
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 12:39:00 -
[1667] - Quote
People seem to think that the Drake is now a poor PVE choice because of the way it's going to get bonuses. I think in reality, people just got far to comfortable with the Drake being the default goto mission ship.
EVE will always change like this, which is why there are no longer nano battleships scooting around the field with 4 MWD on.
But with the changes to the Caracal, it can happily roll level 2 and level 3 missions, the latter of which is what people were using the Drake in, at a fraction of the cost. Surely that is a good thing? 35m for a new player is a lot for a hull they may well lose from lack of experience, which isn't good in terms of retaining them in the game if they throw their toys out the pram.
The Caracal can fit either a decent buffer, or speed, or active tank. It has the slots to do that, and it can fire any type of damage and will take less damage due to its signature and speed combination. At the price, I'd say this is a great ship to get new players into, with a ton of flexibility.
For Level 4 missions solo, a Drake is 'doable' but not exactly ideal. Really you're entering BS and T2 territory there.
Would I like to see a ROF bonus on the Drake? Yeap. Would I like it to have -5 instead of -15 cpu. Yeap. Does it still have an incredible tank? Yes by golly it does. Does it still do decent damage - with HAMS yes.
Will we see the return of the Nano drake? Probably not.
But thats how things go.
As for the Ferox. I'd have loved for it to get a 6th mid slot, but it seems unlikely its going to happen. It did get more power grid so that the low slot is no longer needed for a power grid module, so thats good news. And it did get an extra gun and top utility slot. With a little bit of out of the box thinking, this means it could be great in a small gang. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 12:56:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote: To clarify my position: I state that T3 BC are able and killing cruisers. I state that they should not. Just as the Stealth Bombers that also wear BS-sized guns.
Lets analyze your postition. You state that T3 BC should loose to cruisers. You admit that T3 BC are ineffective againsts frig-size targets. Tier 3 BC are also weaker than battleships in most situations because of cruiser-sized tank (they pop under BS fire like bubble-wrap). They are inefficient in PvE because of combination of low tank and bad tracking. So what do you think about their purpose? Probably you want them to be another useless gimicky ships like Ferox was for years.
I see Tier3 BC are akin to destroyers. Destroyers have a bit more tank and much more DPS than Frigs. They are designed to kill frigs very fast be die to cruisers. Same with Tier3 BC: they are essentialy cruisers with increased firepower, they obliterate cruisers but cannot stand a fire of battleships. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1838
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 13:25:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Tier 3s obliterate cruisers? http://shivafurnace.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15500079
He had no chance whatsoever, new Rax goes +3000m/s when you step on it, and eats through that lol"tank" in no time.
Tr3 mobility was over the top before cruiser rebalance, now I don't really see much issue with them. Tr3s still die like flies all over New Eden, every time I fit a new Talos I expect to lose it real soon to some stupid, and I've never been disappointed so far :D
They are all absolutely worthless for brawling, can be killed with any ship class and aren't exactly cheap on your KB. They have their place and are fun to fly imo.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Carlos Jaegar
Nulli-Secundus
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 13:48:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Did the Cyclone lose some grid with the latest Sisi patch? |
|
Mund Richard
291
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 14:17:00 -
[1671] - Quote
Carlos Jaegar wrote:Did the Cyclone lose some grid with the latest Sisi patch? Is it something like this? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Carlos Jaegar
Nulli-Secundus
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 14:21:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Carlos Jaegar wrote:Did the Cyclone lose some grid with the latest Sisi patch? Is it something like this? Yes :'-( |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
317
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 14:24:00 -
[1673] - Quote
The Railgun sniper ship is pretty much dead because railguns doesn't hit very hard compared to artillery and even way smaller ships can easily get away before getting in trouble. However "someone" didn't complete the hybrid rebalance as they promised...
Also when it comes to Naga and Rokh I really hope the Rokh gets that damage bonus because getting the range bonus when you already have the guns with the longest range isn't very good. Especially with the Naga really outperforming Rokh on the weapon systems is just plain wrong... |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
507
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 14:31:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:The Railgun sniper ship is pretty much dead because railguns doesn't hit very hard compared to artillery and even way smaller ships can easily get away before getting in trouble. However "someone" didn't complete the hybrid rebalance as they promised...
Also when it comes to Naga and Rokh I really hope the Rokh gets that damage bonus because getting the range bonus when you already have the guns with the longest range isn't very good. Especially with the Naga really outperforming Rokh on the weapon systems is just plain wrong...
Despite not having a damage bonus, I think the general feeling is that the Rokh is fine. I mean, it's No. 1 on the top 20!. The resist bonus is probably too useful in the logi-supported fleets to be thrown away like that. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
229
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 14:38:00 -
[1675] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:PS. just because lots of tier 3 ships are lost everyday doesn't mean they are not overpowered. They are the shipclass with the most subcap dps in the entire game and pretty much hits harder than any battleship out there except a few. They do this while being so fast they can force even interceptors and similar to a low transversal and easily pop them (Talos can do it at least) if they do it right. Yes they die a lot - but in the hands of good pilots they don't give other shiptypes a fair chance atm. Comparing a good pilot to a bad one *always* lead to the same result, whatever the ship they fly.
An inty is between 2 and 3 times faster than a Talos. If the inty get poped, he made a mistake. 1v1, inties are tier3BC killers, including the Talos ; the same way BC are cruiser killers. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
267
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 14:51:00 -
[1676] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:The Railgun sniper ship is pretty much dead because railguns doesn't hit very hard compared to artillery and even way smaller ships can easily get away before getting in trouble. However "someone" didn't complete the hybrid rebalance as they promised...
Also when it comes to Naga and Rokh I really hope the Rokh gets that damage bonus because getting the range bonus when you already have the guns with the longest range isn't very good. Especially with the Naga really outperforming Rokh on the weapon systems is just plain wrong... Despite not having a damage bonus, I think the general feeling is that the Rokh is fine. I mean, it's No. 1 on the top 20!. The resist bonus is probably too useful in the logi-supported fleets to be thrown away like that.
Agreed. The Rokh is awesome and its range bonus when using Blasters is perfect and a real advantage. The Naga is a glass cannon. The Rokh is a Cannon surrounded by the best damn shield tank possible.
I hope it isn't dramatically changed in anyway in the summer.
It still is tight to fit with the 6 mid slots, if you add a MWD, Cap Booster, and Point, that only leaves 3 and it has some serious resistance holes to fill despite its 5% bonus. But all in all, I'd say this ship is at the sweet spot.
The focus should be on... the Raven :)
Regarding the Cyclone, Powergrid is not such a big deal when using Missile launchers over guns, thus it has less powergrid given its new role. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
SMT008
Wormholers Anonymous Transmission Lost
503
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:23:00 -
[1677] - Quote
I think we're at a point where the changes in the OP are quite good. Some ships are more powerful than others, all of them have a possible fit that doesn't suck.
Some popular fits (Triplerep Myrmidons) will have to adapt a bit, some new doctrines (Harbingerfleet, Prophecyfleet ?) will rise.
Except for the armor rep bonus on both gallente BC, there isn't much to be worried about.
Fozzie, how long until we get to see what's going to change for battleships ? |
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
620
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:26:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this: ...... 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type that also a huge PvE disadavantage for new players.I hope that those side-effects are not intended.
Just as a note on that #3:
--I guess you could say that the Prophecy will be able to change damage types if it loads up with missiles, but they are unbonused, and drones (as they stand at least) you really don't get options in that regard. Each class of drones has one stand out that is too superior from the rest, and therefore others are rarely used.
The Harbinger is unchangeable in damage type, so is the Oracle.
- Gallente, pretty much the same as Amarr.
-Minmatar .... ok, this is true, they switch damage types, just like Caldari. But projectile weapons are currently one of the favored weapons systems in pvp for a few reasons. There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
Soras Evadon
Red Fleet
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:30:00 -
[1679] - Quote
so...when can we expect more new content again? like stuff to make the game fun again so i quit slacking and ignoring it due to repetitive pve and repetitive killboard farming being the only things to do? or do you really plan to keep releasing these "rebalance" things every so often and pretending it's some sort of major change? seems to be that i only see something that's actually new every year or so. the rest consists of rehashing the same old or tossing new graphics on uninspired aging gameplay. (end oldfag bitter rant)
as to the new changes, bring the teir 1s up to the former teir 2-¦s-¦, not this middle of the road garbage, they look like an inflated cruiser toy for cheap blobs and not a stepping stone to a battleship for the new peeps. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1842
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:37:00 -
[1680] - Quote
Rebalancing makes the game fun again for everybody, and not just people who have decided to waste their sub on repetitive PVE and repetitive killboard farming.
As you understand, EVE is not designed to please just those two marginal audiences.
Battlecruisers are not a stepping stone to anything, they are are ship class serving a certain function in combat. Tier 2s are toned down because they were too good at serving all of the functions in combat.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
136
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:37:00 -
[1681] - Quote
Concerning the myrmidon, the choice to drop a turret and high slot and grant more droneage was a good one. It places more emphasis on the drones and gives more damage from the drone damage amplifier. Also, the choice to grant more drone bay was also a good one since it allows you to fit two fights of heavies or have one flight of heavies, one of mediums, and one of lights.
The myrmidon also seems to have just the right amount of PG and CPU. Given the nature of it's slots it should be the tankier of the two combat BCs. To that end it should have a cargo hold of 475 m3 instead of 400 m3. The brutix, given it's slot layout and powergrid, should be geared more towards plating and given a cargo hold of 400 m3 instead of 475 m3. Perhaps an alternative to the active tanking bonus on the brutix would be a tracking bonus. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:50:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Agreed. The Rokh is awesome and its range bonus when using Blasters is perfect and a real advantage. The Naga is a glass cannon. The Rokh is a Cannon surrounded by the best damn shield tank possible. I hope it isn't dramatically changed in anyway in the summer. The fact that there is nothing at all wrong with it pretty much guarantees they will shank it somehow, "because it's overused." I'm betting it will get a huge drone bay buff, lose the shield resist bonus in favor of ECM falloff and shield boost, and then be converted to a 4 missile / 4 turret high slot layout. It will also need to give up 500 powergrid and CPU, "to force you to make some compromises when fitting it." |
Soras Evadon
Red Fleet
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 15:57:00 -
[1683] - Quote
Roime wrote:Rebalancing makes the game fun again for everybody, and not just people who have decided to waste their sub on repetitive PVE and repetitive killboard farming.
As you understand, EVE is not designed to please just those two marginal audiences.
Battlecruisers are not a stepping stone to anything, they are are ship class serving a certain function in combat. Tier 2s are toned down because they were too good at serving all of the functions in combat. so explain the variations in doing missions with rats that are still brick stupid, and the variations in pvp that occur outside of switching hull now and then due to rebalancing. oh, and mining is still mining, am i missing any of the major things to do? then again, if you-¦re happy with it, good for you. some of us wish for a little more variation than pushing the F keys and sometimes dragging and dropping icons against a different looking background. i-¦ve given all playstyles a try by now and after a little over 5 years it's simply the same old in too many ways with too little of the promised innovation being delivered. the new modules and destroyers are a start, but it tends to stay at that, a start and a grinding halt.
also battlecruisers are not a stepping stone...i take it you started in a battleship with a 1337 SP amount? i seem to recall a ****** little thing with a civi gun being my start and enjoying being able to advance up the ladder into a better ship for missions or the low sec faffing i did back then. compare the stats to the larger cruisers, they look a little too similar still. teir 1 and 2 is i agree stupid, as the teir 1-¦s were often less desirable, however bringing them all up to the teir 2 stat would have been a better option if i-¦m asked.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1843
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:04:00 -
[1684] - Quote
I've never found, caught and destroyed a target solo or in a fleet just by pressing F-keys. It might happen in null, where the strategic and tactical gameplay takes place on a fleet level. You could try leading an alliance war campaign if you don't like being a grunt. I'm very happy sneaking in wormholes, or zooming around lowsec, ty.
Nothing really forces you to advance this imaginary ladder of ships of yours. Many pilots never fly anything bigger than cruisers, or dedicate themselves completely to frigs.
Back to topic, battleships is a nice example in this context- tier 2 BCs were so good, that they have nearly obsoleted battleships from many areas of New Eden.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:05:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Roime wrote:Battlecruisers are not a stepping stone to anything, they are are ship class serving a certain function in combat. Tier 2s are toned down because they were too good at serving all of the functions in combat. I guess you missed that whole part where you're required to train them in order to move up from cruisers to battleships. The silly thing is that the New Skill Plan was based on the premise that BCs are "a whole other class of ships," over and above cruisers in every way, and now they're rebalancing the BC hulls as if they're just "cruisers with gang links," acting like it's a "problem" that they're better than cruisers in every way, other than being bigger and slower.
You can have it one way or the other: either they're a whole other class of ships, as the new skill plan dictates they are; or they're just cruisers with gang links, in which case the "new" racial BC skill being wedged between cruiser and BS is just . . . utter BS.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
317
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:18:00 -
[1686] - Quote
I didn't compare good pilots with bad pilots - I said tier 3 battlecruisers give good pilots more "win" than most other ships give a good pilot. Ofcourse bad pilots will fail horrible and repeatedly trying to pull off the same things... I'd like to see them becoming stronger for newer players and weaker for experienced players. Definitely a speed nerf will help this a lot.
And yes except for only having 6 medslots the Rokh is nice due to the resist bonus and blasters with an optimal bonus should never be under estimated. However the Rokh only really shines in numbers or endurance with dual ASB setups. I agree Raven need a lot more focus, but I still think Rokh would be much cooler without being overpowered if it had a damage bonus. For sure you dont need a range bonus as a railboat because rails are already the longest ranged gunnery weapon. And Naga is much better sniper anyway doing 25% more alpha with a smaller target signature and much better velocity and agility while it doesn't really need the extra range for anything.
All this said I'd really like to get the last points of the battlecruisers adressed before moving on though. Harbinger really need the resist bonus from Prophecy because it has only 6 lowslots and a laser cap bonus is pretty mehh these days. The Prophecy really need a bonus towards laser guns to be more attractive than being a 7 lowslot and resist baitship with autocannons because drones doesn't care about what guns and it doesn't have bonus for them anyway.
Pinky
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:25:00 -
[1687] - Quote
mmm... anyone else concerned that the cyclone and harbinger have the same drone bandwidth as the brutix? especially as the barbinger gets extra drone-bay space fozzie tried a similar stunt with the bellicose until people protested. |
Soras Evadon
Red Fleet
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:26:00 -
[1688] - Quote
Roime wrote:I've never found, caught and destroyed a target solo or in a fleet just by pressing F-keys. It might happen in null, where the strategic and tactical gameplay takes place on a fleet level. You could try leading an alliance war campaign if you don't like being a grunt. I'm very happy sneaking in wormholes, or zooming around lowsec, ty.
Nothing really forces you to advance this imaginary ladder of ships of yours. Many pilots never fly anything bigger than cruisers, or dedicate themselves completely to frigs.
Back to topic, battleships is a nice example in this context- tier 2 BCs were so good, that they have nearly obsoleted battleships from many areas of New Eden. so you don't activate guns by clicking or pressing F keys or whatever you mapped it to? sorcery and witchcraft! done wormholes, the daily respawn thing got old and most i-¦ve found have been uninhabited and generally not worth running for "fun", low sec i-¦ve been in plenty, in the end though it still amounts to shooting ships with your ship, hence lack of anything new, like actual fun exploration or missions that somehow progress or provide a challenge, or perhaps immersion of some form and maybe have reasons to shoot other players besides the red minus stuff, and i-¦m not talking that silly faction warfare that's about as uninspired as null sec territorial pissing.
nothing forces us to advance? what? skill ladder. look at it. and i agree, plenty of the battleships just aren't worth a damn compared to the BCs at certain roles, however these changes just make the BCs worse than those battleships, without trying to address the greater issue, which is some ships are plain useless or obselete due to past "rebalances" that ruined them. i prefer to call it scale tilting, not rebalancing.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1848
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:39:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Starts to sound like you are one of those who can't create content for themselves or others in a sandbox :(
No, skill ladder does not force you to train for bigger ships. If you want to, yes go ahead.
Anyway, these rebalance passes address exactly the greater issue you mention, removing tiers to make useless and obsolete ships useful again. Sometimes it means some ships are made less awesome, as is the case with most of BCs here. I think nobody was even expecting Drake and Cane getting massive buffs.
What CCP did to the cruisers was a resounding success, this pass probably doesn't cause similar joy around New Eden, but in the end balance on the widest scale matters more.
/offtopic, have a nice day
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Soras Evadon
Red Fleet
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:45:00 -
[1690] - Quote
Roime wrote:Starts to sound like you are one of those who can't create content for themselves or others in a sandbox :(
No, skill ladder does not force you to train for bigger ships. If you want to, yes go ahead.
Anyway, these rebalance passes address exactly the greater issue you mention, removing tiers to make useless and obsolete ships useful again. Sometimes it means some ships are made less awesome, as is the case with most of BCs here. I think nobody was even expecting Drake and Cane getting massive buffs.
What CCP did to the cruisers was a resounding success, this pass probably doesn't cause similar joy around New Eden, but in the end balance on the widest scale matters more.
/offtopic, have a nice day
you mean stuff like making rep drone rings to entertain myself? it's all fine and fair, but we can only work with what we-¦re given to a certain point. and no, it doesn't, however i doubt people sit static at frigs or cruisers for their entire in game life, rather those might be the prefered "fun" classes, as i have destroyers as mine, but it's not a reach that point and stop thing. and this is my point, the rebalance makes them all less than what they could have been, namely a fun step up from cruisers, but not a battleship. a better class rename with these stats would be "heavy cruiser". see the post refering to the prophecy being another AC myrm failship and so on. balance on the wide scale is that we got great cruisers, yes, but now we get some not so great chunky slow cruisers instead of battlecruisers.
|
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 16:49:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Roime wrote:Starts to sound like you are one of those who can't create content for themselves or others in a sandbox :(
No, skill ladder does not force you to train for bigger ships. If you want to, yes go ahead.
Anyway, these rebalance passes address exactly the greater issue you mention, removing tiers to make useless and obsolete ships useful again. Sometimes it means some ships are made less awesome, as is the case with most of BCs here. I think nobody was even expecting Drake and Cane getting massive buffs.
What CCP did to the cruisers was a resounding success, this pass probably doesn't cause similar joy around New Eden, but in the end balance on the widest scale matters more.
/offtopic, have a nice day
mm... kinda agree but atm the ferox is still much weaker than the drake they both have the same role only difference being weapon system which us sad i was excited about the ferox being better than the drake for taniking thus becoming worth flying instead of the drake as the being cheaper to lose argument wont exist anymore its always been the case that the drake is tankier has better range and easier to fit... now it even has a better slot layout ... tiers excuse no longer works in its favour as an excuse or as a cheaper option to use. |
Ragnar D IX
Ayn Rand Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 17:01:00 -
[1692] - Quote
I do not wish to sound like I'm whining... so with regard to parity for pvp, let me just say:
Minmatar ships have the nickname "WinMatar"
and
The Drake is roundly laughed at, besmirched, and maligned as a pvp ship.
I happen to believe, with regard to pvp, there is a terrible bias towards gunships.. which is unfortunate because I love the Drake and missile boats. If CCP wishes to bring some degreee of parity to pvp... my first recommendation is to award Tracking Disruptor bonus to Caldari ships, since they are generally missile boats, and are the most at disadvantaged vs gunships . If not all Caldari ships, at least give a TD bonus to the mainstay of Caldari pvp ships: the Drake.
Thank you and have a pleasant tomorrow. |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 17:19:00 -
[1693] - Quote
CCP Fozzie
* The "- 125 PG" on cyclone is way too harsh, HAMS are way more PG hungry than AC
1375 is really low for XL ASB fits when u go NOS + Neut in mind, it's already crippled by the cpu and most of the time the cyclone requires a +3% CPU implant.
Give us more room to have options
My 0.2 cents
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 17:25:00 -
[1694] - Quote
Ragnar D IX wrote: The Drake is roundly laughed at, besmirched, and maligned as a pvp ship. < snip > If not all Caldari ships, at least give a TD bonus to the mainstay of Caldari pvp ships: the Drake.
Thank you and have a pleasant tomorrow.
What? lol
I guess those thousands of Drake blobs were an illusion then. Drake has been, and will remain one of the most popular PvP ships in the game. Before the missile nerf, Nano Drake was one of the most popular small gang fittings as well.
And there is no way that a Minmitar E-War type will be making its way anytime soon to Caldari. Or we may as well just give up with racial bonuses and types altogether. Just fly a Belicose in fleet. Job done. It lights up targets like a Christmas tree. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 17:36:00 -
[1695] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Moonaura wrote:Agreed. The Rokh is awesome and its range bonus when using Blasters is perfect and a real advantage. The Naga is a glass cannon. The Rokh is a Cannon surrounded by the best damn shield tank possible. I hope it isn't dramatically changed in anyway in the summer. The fact that there is nothing at all wrong with it pretty much guarantees they will shank it somehow, "because it's overused." I'm betting it will get a huge drone bay buff, lose the shield resist bonus in favor of ECM falloff and shield boost, and then be converted to a 4 missile / 4 turret high slot layout. It will also need to give up 500 powergrid and CPU, "to force you to make some compromises when fitting it."
The past comments from CCP regarding the Rokh, is they actually see it as nicely balanced, and a benchmark that some of the other battleships should be closer too.
They haven't changed the Ferox dramatically, and I expect the Rokh to follow a similar pattern. It won't lose the 5% shield bonus, as that would leave the Caldari without any sort of fleet battleship capable of truly tanking with logistics support. The only shield battleship that works in a similar role is the Navy Scorpion, which has... range issues if you go for DPS with the worst weapon platform in the game: Torpedos.
For the Rokh to lose the range bonus, when the Ferox has it, makes no sense and it doesn't need a DPS bonus like the Moa. It's DPS is fine, although its tracking sucks with Void, so that has to be 'fixed' against sub battleship sized targets. But that is totally doable, and part of the challenge of getting the best out of the ship.
The only ship mentioned so far with any potential dramatic changes would be the Typhoon, which has been talked about turning into a full on Torpedo boat instead of the Hybrid it is today. Think Cyclone, but for Battleship. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1851
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 17:38:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Soras Evadon wrote:and this is my point, the rebalance makes them all less than what they could have been, namely a fun step up from cruisers, but not a battleship. a better class rename with these stats would be "heavy cruiser". see the post refering to the prophecy being another AC myrm failship and so on. balance on the wide scale is that we got great cruisers, yes, but now we get some not so great chunky slow cruisers instead of battlecruisers.
These new BCs have more dps, tank, slots and cap than cruisers, enabling very different types of fits than cruisers are able with their stronger limitations. On top of that BCs have the special ability to fit links.
Maybe BCs are meant to support cruisers, and not be the main ship?
idk, battlecruiser sounds rather cruiserish to me and these seem to fit the bill. Maybe you have some more detailed suggestions, because I don't exactly understand what you would like them to be?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Ragnar D IX
Ayn Rand Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 17:47:00 -
[1697] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Ragnar D IX wrote: The Drake is roundly laughed at, besmirched, and maligned as a pvp ship. < snip > If not all Caldari ships, at least give a TD bonus to the mainstay of Caldari pvp ships: the Drake.
Thank you and have a pleasant tomorrow.
What? lol I guess those thousands of Drake blobs were an illusion then. Drake has been, and will remain one of the most popular PvP ships in the game. Before the missile nerf, Nano Drake was one of the most popular small gang fittings as well. And there is no way that a Minmitar E-War type will be making its way anytime soon to Caldari. Or we may as well just give up with racial bonuses and types altogether. Just fly a Belicose in fleet. Job done. It lights up targets like a Christmas tree.
I dont consider "Blobs" of Drakes as an argument.... why does it take a 'blob' for it to be effective? Put enough of anything in a blob and you'll see results. In a 1v1 fight, generally, the Drake is at a disadvantage in both speed and dps . Now, one could point to the HAM Drake and offer an arguement, but you have to GET to the target in the first place.
i think you meant to say Amarr ewar... the Amarr ships get the TD bonuses. With regard to that, given that Caldari ships are pretty much bonused missile boats, it would make more sense to give it a TD bonus. Where ECM is problematic in that you have to use up mids to be race specific (and they do laughable damage, btw), TD would be effective vs gunships in general. |
Soras Evadon
Red Fleet
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:16:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Roime wrote: These new BCs have more dps, tank, slots and cap than cruisers, enabling very different types of fits than cruisers are able with their stronger limitations. On top of that BCs have the special ability to fit links.
Maybe BCs are meant to support cruisers, and not be the main ship?
idk, battlecruiser sounds rather cruiserish to me and these seem to fit the bill. Maybe you have some more detailed suggestions, because I don't exactly understand what you would like them to be?
like the old teir 2s, make them all on that standard, as i said before. not make them a heavy cruiser. see wikipedia for real world class definitions on heavy cruiser and battle cruiser, see which applies more. then simply improve the BS teir layouts. with these changes the smaller(non teir 3) BCs end up a fat cruiser with the teir 3 filling a proper BC role. eg: leave the utility slots, add slots to the former teir 1's and buff them to be a proper rival to the old teir 2. means links and choices, not middle of the road ships that don't offer too large a bonus over the attack cruisers or whatever they call the old teir 3s now unless you-¦re out for links. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:18:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Ragnar D IX wrote:
I dont consider "Blobs" of Drakes as an argument.... why does it take a 'blob' for it to be effective? Put enough of anything in a blob and you'll see results. In a 1v1 fight, generally, the Drake is at a disadvantage in both speed and dps . Now, one could point to the HAM Drake and offer an arguement, but you have to GET to the target in the first place.
i think you meant to say Amarr ewar... the Amarr ships get the TD bonuses. With regard to that, given that Caldari ships are pretty much bonused missile boats, it would make more sense to give it a TD bonus. Where ECM is problematic in that you have to use up mids to be race specific (and they do laughable damage, btw), TD would be effective vs gunships in general.
The Drake is at an advantage in both tank and range, and a MWD will easily get a Drake in range for HAM's unless its facing a proper kitey fit, in which case, all sorts of ships are at a disadvantage, and the kiter is prone to damage or death if caught.
You can't have 100,000 EHP + Awesome DPS + Awesome Speed + Awesome Range, its just not how EVE works and when it does, it gets Nerfed - Aka. Nano Drake.
And I confused TD for TP - a Target Painter would actually be useful on a Drake in all situations, where as a TD is very situational. But each of those is tied to another race, whether it be Amarr or Minmitar. To start giving different races, racial bonuses is nuts, which is why I'm against the Brutix getting a 5% Armor bonus? Because then where does it end? The Megathron would be next. Then why not the capital ships? Or... the titans?
Racial bonuses are called Racial bonuses for a reason :)
We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:23:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Moonaura wrote: Racial bonuses are called Racial bonuses for a reason :)
There are no such thing that officially called "Racial bonuses". It's just historicaly same empire's ships got similar bonuses for a sake of consistency. |
|
Mund Richard
295
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:24:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Racial bonuses are called Racial bonuses for a reason :) And some are more equal in more situations than others.
Not that I'm envious of other race's bonuses (not that I ain't), but if I - and many othes - feel like mine is not good, why do both my combat ships have it...
Because they are diverse enough? Well, I can fly the Prophecy at skill V just as much as the Myrm, and be less dependant on the limited (now mildly buffed) drone bay. Both use ACs anyways, so no change there as well, no need to cross-train
Did anyone plan to say anything about racial weapons? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
137
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:31:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Moonaura wrote:Racial bonuses are called Racial bonuses for a reason :) And some are more equal in more situations than others. Not that I'm envious of other race's bonuses (not that I ain't), but if I - and many othes - feel like mine is not good, why do both my combat ships have it... Because they are diverse enough? Well, I can fly the Prophecy at skill V just as much as the Myrm, and be less dependant on the limited (now mildly buffed) drone bay. Both use ACs anyways, so no change there as well, no need to cross-train Did anyone plan to say anything about racial weapons? You're making it sound like autocannons are the only weapons that go there. There's nothing stopping you from using blasters on the myrmidon or lasers on the prophecy. Just because it doesn't have a damage bonus to it doesn't mean it must have autocannons fit. I plan to use blasters on the prophecy and myrmidon. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Ragnar D IX
Ayn Rand Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:33:00 -
[1703] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Ragnar D IX wrote:
I dont consider "Blobs" of Drakes as an argument.... why does it take a 'blob' for it to be effective? Put enough of anything in a blob and you'll see results. In a 1v1 fight, generally, the Drake is at a disadvantage in both speed and dps . Now, one could point to the HAM Drake and offer an arguement, but you have to GET to the target in the first place.
i think you meant to say Amarr ewar... the Amarr ships get the TD bonuses. With regard to that, given that Caldari ships are pretty much bonused missile boats, it would make more sense to give it a TD bonus. Where ECM is problematic in that you have to use up mids to be race specific (and they do laughable damage, btw), TD would be effective vs gunships in general.
The Drake is at an advantage in both tank and range, and a MWD will easily get a Drake in range for HAM's unless its facing a proper kitey fit, in which case, all sorts of ships are at a disadvantage, and the kiter is prone to damage or death if caught. You can't have 100,000 EHP + Awesome DPS + Awesome Speed + Awesome Range, its just not how EVE works and when it does, it gets Nerfed - Aka. Nano Drake. And I confused TD for TP - a Target Painter would actually be useful on a Drake in all situations, where as a TD is very situational. But each of those is tied to another race, whether it be Amarr or Minmitar. To start giving different races, racial bonuses is nuts, which is why I'm against the Brutix getting a 5% Armor bonus? Because then where does it end? The Megathron would be next. Then why not the capital ships? Or... the titans? Racial bonuses are called Racial bonuses for a reason :)
I hear ya matey. I dont think the TD is that situational, however, as 3/4 races are centered on gunships... tho.. not sure you can affect the range of a BS enough to be worthwile. Dont get me wrong, I love the Drake and plan to fly it for pvp... I just dont like the bias to gunships for pvp, and since Caldari are pretty much only missile race... seems to make sense to bonus them with the TD. I have gone 1v1 with a Cane a couple times and won in a Drake... so, maybe i'm just full of it. |
Ragnar D IX
Ayn Rand Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:38:00 -
[1704] - Quote
I see the fact that that empty highslot was meant for the Warfare Link in the Drake occured to someone.
Unfortunately, the Drake will now lose a launcher, handicapping its DPS in a significant way. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:40:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Ragnar D IX wrote:I see the fact that that empty highslot was meant for the Warfare Link in the Drake occured to someone. Unfortunately, the Drake will now lose a launcher, handicapping its DPS in a significant way.
Its getting 5% more DPS per level than before to make up for it. Technically a DPS increase... We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:42:00 -
[1706] - Quote
And no Caldari are literally 50/50 between missiles and gunnery... Merlin/Kestrel, Moa/Caracal, Ferox/Drake Rokh/Moa and the Scorpion comes in as a e-war boat. They are not a missile race by any stretch, its just half of what they do. I would argue they are one of the best gunnery races since Hybrids were buffed. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
126
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:43:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Moonaura wrote:Racial bonuses are called Racial bonuses for a reason :) And some are more equal in more situations than others. Not that I'm envious of other race's bonuses (not that I ain't), but if I - and many othes - feel like mine is not good, why do both my combat ships have it... Because they are diverse enough? Well, I can fly the Prophecy at skill V just as much as the Myrm, and be less dependant on the limited (now mildly buffed) drone bay. Both use ACs anyways, so no change there as well, no need to cross-train Did anyone plan to say anything about racial weapons? You're making it sound like autocannons are the only weapons that go there. There's nothing stopping you from using blasters on the myrmidon or lasers on the prophecy. Just because it doesn't have a damage bonus to it doesn't mean it must have autocannons fit. I plan to use blasters on the prophecy and myrmidon. AC don't eat up cap, have lower fitting requirements, and have middling tracking. It amplifies your damage almost for free. And they have decent range.
Of course, you're right. You can use other things. AC's are just a no-brainer when you want something you can slap up in your highs, activate, and then forget, all while having no negative impact on your cap life. Also, you have selecatble damage types for when you actually ARE paying attention to your guns. |
Ragnar D IX
Ayn Rand Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 18:55:00 -
[1708] - Quote
When are the changes happening? I just looked at my Drake hull and got a boost on my resists, without any modules? Not sure if that is from the skills i just finished or if it is the BC change??? |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 19:03:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Ragnar D IX wrote:I see the fact that that empty highslot was meant for the Warfare Link in the Drake occured to someone. Unfortunately, the Drake will now lose a launcher, handicapping its DPS in a significant way.
It's funny, because with the exact same Drake fit from before but lacking one launcher I get about twenty more DPS than before thanks to the 10% damage bonus rather than 5%.
No real issues with the Drake at this point. With HAMs it's a respectable close-medium range ship, albeit a slow one. This was hardly a nerf compared to when HMLs were made buddies with medium railguns in the 'worst weapons in the game' club. And even then that was a completely different kind of nerf, not a tweaking like what is being done with the Drake now. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
137
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 19:03:00 -
[1710] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote: AC don't eat up cap, have lower fitting requirements, and have middling tracking. It amplifies your damage almost for free. And they have decent range.
Of course, you're right. You can use other things. AC's are just a no-brainer when you want something you can slap up in your highs, activate, and then forget, all while having no negative impact on your cap life. Also, you have selecatble damage types for when you actually ARE paying attention to your guns.
If ACs work for you I have no problem with that. Different weapons have their own advantages and disadvantages. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
|
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
1416
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 20:13:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Ragnar D IX wrote:I see the fact that that empty highslot was meant for the Warfare Link in the Drake occured to someone. Unfortunately, the Drake will now lose a launcher, handicapping its DPS in a significant way. Its getting 5% more DPS per level than before to make up for it. Technically a DPS increase... The new drake will lag behind the old one, until lvl IV where they will break even.... at V will the new drake get a nominal increase (just under 3%) over the old hull. Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
PavlikX
You are in da lock
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 21:05:00 -
[1712] - Quote
Well, why only 4 gun or launcher slots for Prophecy? Let it be 5 (both types) with 5 high slots entirely. |
Mund Richard
296
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 22:09:00 -
[1713] - Quote
PavlikX wrote:Well, why only 4 gun or launcher slots for Prophecy? Let it be 5 (both types) with 5 high slots entirely. Well, compared to the Myrm, having the option of fitting 4 HAMs ain't bad at all. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 22:27:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Dear Fozzie. You listen to players. Then hear me ! I'm new player, but i think i can say few things already about this or that.
I will repeat something i said before. Make Prophecy bandwitch 80. You had no problem adding 25 bay to myrmidon, then you will not have problem adding 5 bandwitch to Prophecy. Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
147
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 22:35:00 -
[1715] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch.
2 heavies, 2 mediums, 1 light drone. It's been used on 75 bandwidth ships extensively in the past. |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 22:45:00 -
[1716] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch. 2 heavies, 2 mediums, 1 light drone. It's been used on 75 bandwidth ships extensively in the past.
And this combination failed since always. I can explain how. So light and medium and heavy ? 3 diffrent types of tracking. Sure send this vs dunno cruiser and heavies will miss. Send this vs frigate and maybe light will hit. And even if all hit. Let's see how much damage upgrade is that over 5 mediums(75 bandwitch) : 5 x 24 damage = 120. 2 heavy + 2 medium +1 light =96+48+15=159. Sure it's upgrade over arbitrator but it's at tremendous cost of having 3 diffrent tracking , 3 diffrent signature drones, 3 diffrent SPEED drones. Maybe you like gimmick combos like this. I'm not asking for much really. Just 5 bandwitch.
I don't get myrmidon this , myrmidon that. Brutix this, Brutix that. "fozzie be gallente hero" etc. Hello ? So prophecy was worst BC ever and it does deserve more love than myrmidon and brutix combined. Hell yeah it deserves to be very best now once.
Talking about crap bonuses on your ships ? Well what about : 10% less cap usage of hybrid weapons per level ? Yeah ...
|
Mund Richard
296
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 22:48:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch. 2 heavies, 2 mediums, 1 light drone. It's been used on 75 bandwidth ships extensively in the past. Which does not make it good. Ogres are slower than almost any MWDing ships you are after (heck, including the Myrm itself - not to mention the new faster and lighter Prophecy) unless the target is scrammed, and the Ogre's guns have BS-sized resolution and tracking...
I still wish cruiser-sized drone boats had less bandwidth and a stronger drone damage bonus. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 22:54:00 -
[1718] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch. 2 heavies, 2 mediums, 1 light drone. It's been used on 75 bandwidth ships extensively in the past. Yep. I always fit two large guns, two medium, and one small on my gunboat battleships. It's freakin awesome. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 23:10:00 -
[1719] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch. 2 heavies, 2 mediums, 1 light drone. It's been used on 75 bandwidth ships extensively in the past. Which does not make it good. Ogres are slower than almost any MWDing ships you are after (heck, including the Myrm itself - not to mention the new faster and lighter Prophecy) unless the target is scrammed, and the Ogre's guns have BS-sized resolution and tracking... I still wish cruiser-sized drone boats that regularly field Ogres had less dronebay/bandwidth and a stronger drone damage bonus instead. Ogres are too slow, and I would hope more drone boats get bonuses similar to the new destroyers where they get extra drone speed bonus.
However, on the tracking and sig resolution, I believe that Ogres are closer to cruiser sized guns than BS sized guns: Ogre ii Sig 125 Tracking 0.36 Cruiser Neutron Blaster Sig 125 Tracking 0.1 BS Neutron Blaster Sig 400 Tracking 0.0433
So Ogre iis can track and shoot cruisers pretty well, might need it to get it tackled to actually hit it, but that applies to your ship's guns most of the times as well.
Also lets not forget the 3x sentry option. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
502
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 23:14:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:And this combination failed since always. I can explain how.... It is called target selection, with the max dps drone setup you obviously stay well clear of small/fast targets .. for general hunting using Valks is superior especially if one has neuts/webs available. Took on an "easy prey" Vexor in my Maller once .. he was full gank fit (including the odd drone mix) and shredded my boat so insanely fast it wasn't even funny .. so it is a matter of what one does with it that can be fail and not the 2.2.1 setup.
Naomi Anthar wrote:Talking about crap bonuses on your ships ? Well what about : 10% less cap usage of hybrid weapons per level ? Yeah ... Actually been thinking about that most hated bonus, being Amarr only and all. We have some active rep options coming our way and since Amarr has always been the cap race .. why not change the consumption bonus for a recharge bonus? Lets Amarr be the race that uses batteries (will need a slight boost too) while Gallente use injectors. |
|
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
6567
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 23:33:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Dear Fozzie. You listen to players. Then hear me ! I'm new player, but i think i can say few things already about this or that.
I will repeat something i said before. Make Prophecy bandwitch 80. You had no problem adding 25 bay to myrmidon, then you will not have problem adding 5 bandwitch to Prophecy. Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch.
Ok - since you are a new player you should know that about 90% of the posters here don't give a rat's ass about practical aspects such as tracking, range and damage projection. We don't fly those ships anyway, hell, most of don't even undock anymore. All we want is that Fozzie provides us some nifty EFT numbers.
Please don't feed me. |
adopt
Hostile. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
496
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 02:07:00 -
[1722] - Quote
An idea to make T1 booster ships viable, allow them to fit 3 links simultaneously, without any sort of gang link bonus. This makes them cheap disposable Leadership ships while not being as powerful as the CS/T3s. Shadoo > Always remember to fit Cynosural Field Generator I, have 450 Liquid Ozone in your cargo and convo a friendly Pandemic Legion member if you have a capital or super capital ship tackled.
|
Mund Richard
297
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 03:06:00 -
[1723] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:So Ogre iis can track and shoot cruisers pretty well, might need it to get it tackled to actually hit it, but that applies to your ship's guns most of the times as well.
Also lets not forget the 3x sentry option. I stand corrected, used sentries (that do have a BS gun resolution) for so long, that was the only 25mbps data I acknowledge.
3 sentry for the Proph, 4 for the Myrm. Though I must say, only sentries I saw lately in PvP were the NPC ones. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
360
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 03:07:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Qaidan Alenko wrote:Moonaura wrote:Ragnar D IX wrote:I see the fact that that empty highslot was meant for the Warfare Link in the Drake occured to someone. Unfortunately, the Drake will now lose a launcher, handicapping its DPS in a significant way. Its getting 5% more DPS per level than before to make up for it. Technically a DPS increase... The new drake will lag behind the old one, until lvl IV where they will break even.... at V will the new drake get a nominal increase (just under 3%) over the old hull. which is why things are balanced around max skills like they should be . . .
Have you ever flown a logistics ship with logistics 3? theyre all TERRIBLE, and logistics 4 only makes them kinda ok; it isnt until you get to logistics 5 that theyre really quite awesome . . .
The same thing with the recon ships . . .
If I were balancing around level 4 skills I would actually say that both of those ships need a buff but then they'd be totally overpowered at level 5.
The fact that they break even at level 4 is perfect |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
84
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 03:45:00 -
[1725] - Quote
Sigras wrote:which is why things are balanced around max skills like they should be . . .
Have you ever flown a logistics ship with logistics 3? theyre all TERRIBLE, and logistics 4 only makes them kinda ok; it isnt until you get to logistics 5 that theyre really quite awesome . . .
The same thing with the recon ships . . .
If I were balancing around level 4 skills I would actually say that both of those ships need a buff but then they'd be totally overpowered at level 5.
The fact that they break even at level 4 is perfect While I'd agree the Drake is in a good place. Can't say I do in regards to your idea of balancing. Should be poor at level 1, mediocre at II, decent at III, good at IV, and awesome at V. Having a ship that is useless at level II skill is pretty bad game design (ie. Recons and the crippling Cloak fit - fortunately being fixed). Higher level should be better, but low level skill shouldn't mean unusable.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
361
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 06:22:00 -
[1726] - Quote
oh thats not what i meant at all . . .
i just meant that if you have the option of either: 1. making a ship balanced at level 4 and totally OP at level 5 2. making the ship balanced at level 5 and not so great at level 4
you should pick #2 every time. |
Marcus Walkuris
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 11:15:00 -
[1727] - Quote
I might post more in-depth later.
But something more important right now is what seems to be lost in translation.
PLEASE DO NOT name Battlecruisers "Combat Battlecruisers".
That would be the equivalent of referring to "feline cats". A cat is a feline and a feline is a cat, there are no "feline cats" as a "definition" because there are no other kinds of cats they are all feline. So no "battle combat-knife", ergo no "combat battlecruisers". Please don't use the same meaning twice.
Definition of battle. bat-+tle /-êbatl/ Noun A sustained fight between large, organized armed forces. Verb Fight or struggle tenaciously to achieve or resist something: "he has been battling against the illness". Synonyms noun. fight - combat - action - war - fighting - struggle verb. fight - combat - struggle - contend - war - wrestle
Definition of Combat. com-+bat /-êk+ñm-îbat/ Noun Fighting between armed forces. Verb Take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable). Synonyms noun. battle - fight - action - fighting - struggle verb. fight - struggle - battle - wrestle - contend - war
Please don't put make the ship class a funny Engrish Pun. Ty. P.S. no my first language is Dutch not English :P. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
148
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 11:56:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:Atm 75 bandwitch ain't better than 50 to be honest. And 80 is obviously a upgrade over Arbitrator(2 heavy and 3 medium). Or care to explain me what you are sending from your droneboat with 75 bandwitch. 2 heavies, 2 mediums, 1 light drone. It's been used on 75 bandwidth ships extensively in the past. And this combination failed since always. I can explain how. So light and medium and heavy ? 3 diffrent types of tracking. Sure send this vs dunno cruiser and heavies will miss. Send this vs frigate and maybe light will hit. And even if all hit. Let's see how much damage upgrade is that over 5 mediums(75 bandwitch) : 5 x 24 damage = 120. 2 heavy + 2 medium +1 light =96+48+15=159. Sure it's upgrade over arbitrator but it's at tremendous cost of having 3 diffrent tracking , 3 diffrent signature drones, 3 diffrent SPEED drones. Maybe you like gimmick combos like this. I'm not asking for much really. Just 5 bandwitch.
Nobody ever said you SHOULD use that, I simply pointed out what's possible to send. Alternately, you can always send 3 gardes, 1 ogre and 4 hammers, 5 hammers, 5 hobbos, whatever suits your current needs, because nobody forces you to use max bandwidth all the time. With 225 drone bay, you'll have plenty of room to get several drone combos in one package anyway (specifically, that holds my 2-2-1 combo, 3 sentries, 5 mediums and 5 lights). The 2-2-1 combo is simply the best damage output for that bandwidth - you're right, it's best on large targets, where ogres hit, but then, if you have plenty of room to send out the lights instead, I simply fail to understand why you'd want to use that against a frigate? You don't use a hammer for screwing either, do you? |
pressveck
OPUS STYX Zombie Ninja Space Bears
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 13:36:00 -
[1729] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:pressveck wrote:Please rename them to Supportcruiser, because it is not an BATTLEcruiser anymore. Thats really ridiculous.
Oh, wait got a better idea. Remove them completely from EVE, than this story will come to an end. You have such amazing ideas, its a wonder CCP doesn't hire you.
Player Bash Post, awesome and helpful... |
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
621
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 14:56:00 -
[1730] - Quote
Ragnar D IX wrote: I hear ya matey. I dont think the TD is that situational, however, as 3/4 races are centered on gunships... tho.. not sure you can affect the range of a BS enough to be worthwile. Dont get me wrong, I love the Drake and plan to fly it for pvp... I just dont like the bias to gunships for pvp, and since Caldari are pretty much only missile race... seems to make sense to bonus them with the TD. I have gone 1v1 with a Cane a couple times and won in a Drake... so, maybe i'm just full of it.
I may be mistaken, but didn't they just increase missile speed by 50% or so? They travel much faster to their targets now, making them much more viable than they were before.
There has been some very large rather recent changes. It will take a few months for things to shake down and real averages to come out on numbers, but I personally have seen a lot more missile boats flying around daka-daka'ing since the missile update. I'll be interested in seeing the mid-long term ramifications.
~Z There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly |
|
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 17:16:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:PLEASE DO NOT name Battlecruisers "Combat Battlecruisers".
That would be the equivalent of referring to "feline cats". A cat is a feline and a feline is a cat, there are no "feline cats" as a "definition" because there are no other kinds of cats they are all feline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera Panthera leo (lion) Panthera onca (jaguar) Panthera pardus (leopard) Panthera tigris (tiger)
There is precedent for what CCP is doing. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but describing sub-divisions of the battlecruiser class of ships in this fashion is at least somewhat appropriate.
Still, look on the bright side. At least it's not as bad as saying "ATM Machine" or "DmC:Devil May Cry."
Edit: Also, I think that if you're going to make a comparison "combat battlecruiser" to "feline cat" it wold work better as "cat feline." Feline is the general group while (house) cat is a sub-group. "Feline cat" is more aesthetically pleasing, and likely more correct, but it doesn't match the framework CCP is using. |
Mund Richard
301
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 19:16:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Also, it's kinda the same deal as with Battleships. There will be Attack and Combat Battleships just as well (and the Scorpion just to mess things up, I'm ignoring it).
"Combat" in this sense shows that it's meant more for a general line of fighting instead of "Attack" which is more meant to go fast(er) and hit hard(er), raiding instead of proper siege if you will. Like how tier 3 BCs will have the "Attack" role, and will be made closer to BC weight and speed (or so I had the impression).
Would be kinda hard to find a battlecruiser, that's not meant for attacking or doing combat, that's the realm of T3 boosters. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 20:36:00 -
[1733] - Quote
For Punisher and Maller bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use was changed to bonus to all Armor Resistances. Why you are going to keep bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use for Harbinger??? Where is logic? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
502
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 20:54:00 -
[1734] - Quote
I want the Maller to get the harb treatment =< Lose a gun, more bonus, 1 utility
Would make the cap inherently better while letting you fit a nos
Then if they buffed nos's it might even not cap out. |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
616
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 20:59:00 -
[1735] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:I want the Maller to get the harb treatment =< Lose a gun, more bonus, 1 utility
Would make the cap inherently better while letting you fit a nos
Then if they buffed nos's it might even not cap out.
The Maller is pretty great as it is...Don't think it needs any more buffs. |
Marcus Walkuris
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 21:16:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Shereza wrote:Marcus Walkuris wrote:PLEASE DO NOT name Battlecruisers "Combat Battlecruisers".
That would be the equivalent of referring to "feline cats". A cat is a feline and a feline is a cat, there are no "feline cats" as a "definition" because there are no other kinds of cats they are all feline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PantheraPanthera leo (lion) Panthera onca (jaguar) Panthera pardus (leopard) Panthera tigris (tiger) There is precedent for what CCP is doing. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but describing sub-divisions of the battlecruiser class of ships in this fashion is at least somewhat appropriate. Still, look on the bright side. At least it's not as bad as saying "ATM Machine" or "DmC:Devil May Cry." Edit: Also, I think that if you're going to make a comparison "combat battlecruiser" to "feline cat" it wold work better as "cat feline." Feline is the general group while (house) cat is a sub-group. "Feline cat" is more aesthetically pleasing, and likely more correct, but it doesn't match the framework CCP is using.
While I acknowledge you agree with me and don't want to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. It is actually still inappropriate. In Latin all the forms that you wrote there are flawless examples of proper Latin language. In English someone may have a reason for speaking of a "dog canine" in Latin it is the other way around. Latin= "kanine species, house=dog" English is "dog of the species kanine" "Julius Cesar" Julius Emperor= Emperor Julius. Sorry for being pedantic, I am not trying to.... (lupus canis familiaris=dog).
However put "Combat Battlecruiser" is as non-sensical as using a word as a "garden tool rake" since a gardener in his infinite wisdom decided his rakes needed categorizing since he had several. That said I liked your post :D |
The Stifmeister Pie
PI industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 21:52:00 -
[1737] - Quote
Why is the drake still shackled to kinetic missiles? All ships should have a neutral bonus like the Caracal have now All ships have bonus to their weapons but not type of armor so does the Caldari ships should have... |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
502
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 22:02:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:I want the Maller to get the harb treatment =< Lose a gun, more bonus, 1 utility
Would make the cap inherently better while letting you fit a nos
Then if they buffed nos's it might even not cap out. The Maller is pretty great as it is...Don't think it needs any more buffs.
Confirming that you are bad.
The Maller has terrible cap and terrible tracking.. And has 3 mid slots so it has to choose between being able to hit stuff thats close to them and having enough cap to shoot their guns in the first place..
Its a T1 ship that more or less only works in armor cheepfleets. And that is only because it has a decent tank and can use scorch.
Its the worst combat cruiser by a wide margin if you look at its over all application.
If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
86
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 22:33:00 -
[1739] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great If a Maller has terrible tracking wouldn't it be a bad idea to be close enough to be in Nos range? I'm asking as a legit question cuz I have ZERO experience using lasers. I would of thought that a cap booster would be almost mandatory on a laserboat, leaving only 2 slots for prop and a point.
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 22:35:00 -
[1740] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Kahega Amielden wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:I want the Maller to get the harb treatment =< Lose a gun, more bonus, 1 utility
Would make the cap inherently better while letting you fit a nos
Then if they buffed nos's it might even not cap out. The Maller is pretty great as it is...Don't think it needs any more buffs. Confirming that you are bad. The Maller has terrible cap and terrible tracking.. And has 3 mid slots so it has to choose between being able to hit stuff thats close to them and having enough cap to shoot their guns in the first place.. Its a T1 ship that more or less only works in armor cheepfleets. And that is only because it has a decent tank and can use scorch. Its the worst combat cruiser by a wide margin if you look at its over all application. If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great The Stifmeister Pie wrote:Why is the drake still shackled to kinetic missiles? All ships should have a neutral bonus like the Caracal have now All ships have bonus to their weapons but not type of armor so does the Caldari ships should have... So because the Omen has a ROF bonus all amarr ships should have that? The Kestrel/caracal aren't tied to a damage type, The condor/drake are Live with it?
So my corp has been under wardecs constantly and there's nothing we can do about it, not even fight back...
Me and all my corp mates are all caldari pilots and used to run L4's happily. We have decent skills for caldari ships and missiles only.
At beginning we had little success but now our enemies learned that we can only fly caldari ships and use missiles decently and very poor skills on gunnery they just slap 2 kinetic hardeners on their ships and since drakes has been the only option against them there is nothing we can really do against them now. Our other damage types dps are laughable and with their hardeners we barely tickle them with kinetic missiles too.
This proposed change to drake will make it even worse. Is it really intended that you can counter these ships so easily? |
|
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
189
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 22:53:00 -
[1741] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:I might post more in-depth later.
But something more important right now is what seems to be lost in translation.
PLEASE DO NOT name Battlecruisers "Combat Battlecruisers".
That would be the equivalent of referring to "feline cats". A cat is a feline and a feline is a cat, there are no "feline cats" as a "definition" because there are no other kinds of cats they are all feline. So no "battle combat-knife", ergo no "combat battlecruisers". Please don't use the same meaning twice.
Definition of battle. bat-+tle /-êbatl/ Noun A sustained fight between large, organized armed forces. Verb Fight or struggle tenaciously to achieve or resist something: "he has been battling against the illness". Synonyms noun. fight - combat - action - war - fighting - struggle verb. fight - combat - struggle - contend - war - wrestle
Definition of Combat. com-+bat /-êk+ñm-îbat/ Noun Fighting between armed forces. Verb Take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable). Synonyms noun. battle - fight - action - fighting - struggle verb. fight - struggle - battle - wrestle - contend - war
Please don't put make the ship class a funny Engrish Pun. Ty. P.S. no my first language is Dutch not English :P.
CCP has defined the combat class of ships as high damage, high defense, low mobility ships. This means that when you read "Combat BC", you should read "high damage, high defense, low mobility battlecruiser". Again, what's your problem with calling them "combat battlecruisers"? Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1003
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 23:36:00 -
[1742] - Quote
Marcus Walkuris wrote:However put "Combat Battlecruiser" is as non-sensical as using a word as a "garden tool rake" since a gardener in his infinite wisdom decided his rakes needed categorizing since he had several. That said I liked your post :D Apparently there's nothing important left to discuss. /thread. |
Marcus Walkuris
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 00:46:00 -
[1743] - Quote
Luc Chastot. I understand their class definition, it doesn't make sense from a lingual point of view. That is all, it is using the same definition twice essentially. Tag the ship as "Combat class" in ship details. But don't name it, and shame it. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
317
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 01:41:00 -
[1744] - Quote
Having tested the Hurricane with a handfull of various fits/setups it looks like I always had plenty cpu and PG wasn't really an issue either. I've come to believe the Hurricane could easily be without 15-20 base cpu and still pull off amazing setups easily.
Pinky |
Rabbit P
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 03:06:00 -
[1745] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok time to get feedback on the next iteration.
Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Launchers: -1 Powergrid: -40 CPU: -15 Hull: -250
Brutix: Change Medium Hybrid damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Turrets: -1 Powergrid: -75 Hull: -250 Mass: +250,000 Align time: +0.1s
more and more ships are getting a 10% damage bonus per level I concern about this will make the ship's ability concentrate in one skill.
Refer to https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2153564#post2153564 "bonus is too big a part of the overall picture at the moment" and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2503173#post2503173 "and many players will find quickly training it to level 2-3 will get them most of the way to the bonus enjoyed by an older player at a far lower time commitment. "
It seem the 10% bones "won't get them most of the way to the bonus enjoyed by an older player " it is ok for T2 hull but may not for damage bonus on T1 hull.
Maybe that's not a big problem and difficult to find another way to free one high slot, but I just want to raise this concern . |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
960
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 04:55:00 -
[1746] - Quote
So Drake's damage output is now actually getting increased overall? That's unpredictable, to put it mildly. Who could have thought of it few months ago, back when you nerfed heavy missiles mainly because of Drake. 14 |
Mund Richard
302
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 05:03:00 -
[1747] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:So Drake's damage output is now actually getting increased overall? That's unpredictable, to put it mildly. Who could have thought of it few months ago, back when you nerfed heavy missiles mainly because of Drake. Only it's kinetic, the rest are getting nerfed.
But yes, it's funny. At least the Tengu isn't getting buffed. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
960
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 05:09:00 -
[1748] - Quote
All in all these changes now make very little sense if brining down what was probably the most OP ship class in the whole game (bar supers, ofc) was the initial goal. Binger and Drake now deal increased damage, Cane hardly loses anything at all. What's the point? There was a reason tier2s were that popular and they surely didn't become balanced just cause of you rolling out yet another OP class of battlecruisers (tier3s). Re-shaping tier1s is a good thing, but then again, seems like you're bringing more ships to tier2s level rather than fixing just them alone. How is that not a power creep? Now HACs and all the others will inevitably get boosted quite considerably, too. 14 |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
317
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 05:21:00 -
[1749] - Quote
I agree the amounts of dps and the amount of suddenly 10% bonus are very concerning. Don't forget however these gank mobiles have much less EHP than former tier 2 BCs with these changes and it will at least rule out Drakes for the same kind of fleets as before and cruisers have a much easier time taking down a battlecruiser after these changes. Unfortunately it is these amounts of dps screwing over active tanking, but apart from that the battlecruisers aren't that bad (still waiting for tier 3 balance).
Still I see lots of weird choices and decissions like Amarr having one 7 lowslot ship with resist bonus and one 6 lowslot ship with no tank bonus and a boring cap bonus to lasers... And both Gallente ships having a rep bonus just because they want to promote their new "forget-the-old-imbalance-and-use-our-new module" philosophy.
Also Drake and Ferox doing about the same dps, both having a resist bonus but Drake having one more medslot than the other. Ferox will need web more than anything though ofcouse it's very handy on a HAM Drake too.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
960
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 05:32:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote: Also Drake and Ferox doing about the same dps, both having a resist bonus but Drake having one more medslot than the other.
Right. I don't see how anyone can come with such an idea and still proclaim a tiercide. Extra high causes way less problems balance-wise than another low or mid. Should you give a NH 8th high right now hardly anyone would notice it, but make it another mid or low... wow, that would be gorgeous. 14 |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
503
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 13:20:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great If a Maller has terrible tracking wouldn't it be a bad idea to be close enough to be in Nos range? I'm asking as a legit question cuz I have ZERO experience using lasers. I would of thought that a cap booster would be almost mandatory on a laserboat, leaving only 2 slots for prop and a point.
Maller is to slow to dictate range, thus at some point your target will be closed to you. The Maller tracks other cruisers decently as long it has a web If nos was buffed and the change i suggested done the Maller could fit a web instead of a cap booster. It would probably still not be very good because lasers are kinda lol at everything other than doing the scorch thing. But it wouldn't be the pile of **** it is today.
Johnson Oramara wrote:
So my corp has been under wardecs constantly and there's nothing we can do about it, not even fight back...
Me and all my corp mates are all caldari pilots and used to run L4's happily. We have decent skills for caldari ships and missiles only.
At beginning we had little success but now our enemies learned that we can only fly caldari ships and use missiles decently and very poor skills on gunnery they just slap 2 kinetic hardeners on their ships and since drakes has been the only option against them there is nothing we can really do against them now. Our other damage types dps are laughable and with their hardeners we barely tickle them with kinetic missiles too.
This proposed change to drake will make it even worse. Is it really intended that you can counter these ships so easily?
If you know they fit kinetic missiles use other missiles... Even with the massive lack of damage bonus you will be hitting them in a completely untanked hole
Its not their or CCP's fault that you are being predictable. (Note that with the proposed changes you could train to use a cyclone in 2-3 days and give them a nasty surprise with their kin hardeners?) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
129
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 16:09:00 -
[1752] - Quote
amarr are the (victims of-) cap warfare race
people still want to lose all those cap bonuses apparently |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 16:10:00 -
[1753] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great If a Maller has terrible tracking wouldn't it be a bad idea to be close enough to be in Nos range? I'm asking as a legit question cuz I have ZERO experience using lasers. I would of thought that a cap booster would be almost mandatory on a laserboat, leaving only 2 slots for prop and a point. Maller is to slow to dictate range, thus at some point your target will be closed to you. The Maller tracks other cruisers decently as long it has a web If nos was buffed and the change i suggested done the Maller could fit a web instead of a cap booster. It would probably still not be very good because lasers are kinda lol at everything other than doing the scorch thing. But it wouldn't be the pile of **** it is today. Johnson Oramara wrote:
So my corp has been under wardecs constantly and there's nothing we can do about it, not even fight back...
Me and all my corp mates are all caldari pilots and used to run L4's happily. We have decent skills for caldari ships and missiles only.
At beginning we had little success but now our enemies learned that we can only fly caldari ships and use missiles decently and very poor skills on gunnery they just slap 2 kinetic hardeners on their ships and since drakes has been the only option against them there is nothing we can really do against them now. Our other damage types dps are laughable and with their hardeners we barely tickle them with kinetic missiles too.
This proposed change to drake will make it even worse. Is it really intended that you can counter these ships so easily?
If you know they fit kinetic missiles use other missiles... Even with the massive lack of damage bonus you will be hitting them in a completely untanked hole Its not their or CCP's fault that you are being predictable. (Note that with the proposed changes you could train to use a cyclone in 2-3 days and give them a nasty surprise with their kin hardeners?)
Well like i said previously shooting unbonused missiles has low dps. And my bad for being predictable but my concern is how easily they can overcome the whole damage bonus of the ship and dps with any other damage type missiles is just a joke, i mean it's good to have counters but isn't this way too limited? I mean other weapons cause atleast 2 different damage types that you need to tank for. Now if they fit 2 kinetic resists and adaptive one they have effectively countered my dps while using autocannons themselves able to shoot my weakest resists.
And yes, cyclone might do the trick but why isn't it limited to explosive damage bonus only then? Why the caldari hate? So i can't fly the ships i like and trained for effectively? |
elitatwo
Congregatio
63
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 18:43:00 -
[1754] - Quote
I just found an oddity on the Brutix on SiSi.
But first I am happy to report that it is now possible to fit a full rack of 6 heavy ion blaster II's, 2 medium reps, an mwd and a medium cap booster without fitting implants - yeay!!
The odd thing is that the Brutix now has around 100 cpu left and maybe 5 powergrid.
I hope with the upcoming changes she can trade some of the cpu for some powergrid.
Playing a little with fittings and the rare case scenario when a battlecruiser fits a warfare link, I give you a summary on the ships I can fly and fit and even fit a warfare link instead of a neut.
Myrmidon: You still have to ditch a gun, which still hurts my feelings. I rather have 4 bonused guns and 5 highs.
Brutix: Now with 6 gun slots and 7 highs she has the slot for the link module but she lacks the powergrid to do so. Maybe she could trade some cpu for the powergrid?
Ferox: With 7 gun slots and 8 highs she can fit a link module (yes or a neut) with ease, no fitting implants required
Drake: From 7 down to six launcher hardpoints she has the slot to fit a link module but she needs a little more cpu and powerdgrid to do so.
Prophecy: Fitting is no big deal for her, no matter what you want to do. The last high can be used for the dubious neut or a link module or a nos - I will leave that for everyone to decide on thier own. She is a very tanky droneboat on the lower end of the damage department which you may see as tradeof for being longer on the field anyway.
My apologies for not being able to make any concusions about the Harbinger, since I lack the skills to fit medium laser turrets and it would seem unwise for me to make conclusions on things I know nothing about (yet). |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
508
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 19:42:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Why is it that you think BC's should be able provide gang support without axing something from their 'personal' fits?
When we get to tweaking the CC's then the idea of linking + full fit will have its day, but for T1 .. more grid/CPU will inevitably lead to even more excessive buffer/gank fits with links never entering peoples thoughts, and that is even with links coming on-grid SoonGäó, T1 will/should be backup link platforms to T2/T3 specialized ditto. |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 20:49:00 -
[1756] - Quote
Could you at least sometimes think of PVEers?
Active shield-speed-dps tanked hurricane was so nice.. I've learned for a month with a bit to fully online it again, but now seems everything is damned and I have to... just sell my most loved ship?
Many other things seem to get worse as well.. Maybe except gallenteans and amarrs.
Hope to be heared, Shade. |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 20:53:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Or maybe there'll be a t2 version of each tier 2 BC, which will cost 300-400 mil isk and still be dedicated to pleasure of PVE as it can be on a BC?
Gosh, I'm willing to pay a billion just to get an operational Hurricane... |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
504
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 20:54:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great If a Maller has terrible tracking wouldn't it be a bad idea to be close enough to be in Nos range? I'm asking as a legit question cuz I have ZERO experience using lasers. I would of thought that a cap booster would be almost mandatory on a laserboat, leaving only 2 slots for prop and a point. Maller is to slow to dictate range, thus at some point your target will be closed to you. The Maller tracks other cruisers decently as long it has a web If nos was buffed and the change i suggested done the Maller could fit a web instead of a cap booster. It would probably still not be very good because lasers are kinda lol at everything other than doing the scorch thing. But it wouldn't be the pile of **** it is today. Johnson Oramara wrote:
So my corp has been under wardecs constantly and there's nothing we can do about it, not even fight back...
Me and all my corp mates are all caldari pilots and used to run L4's happily. We have decent skills for caldari ships and missiles only.
At beginning we had little success but now our enemies learned that we can only fly caldari ships and use missiles decently and very poor skills on gunnery they just slap 2 kinetic hardeners on their ships and since drakes has been the only option against them there is nothing we can really do against them now. Our other damage types dps are laughable and with their hardeners we barely tickle them with kinetic missiles too.
This proposed change to drake will make it even worse. Is it really intended that you can counter these ships so easily?
If you know they fit kinetic missiles use other missiles... Even with the massive lack of damage bonus you will be hitting them in a completely untanked hole Its not their or CCP's fault that you are being predictable. (Note that with the proposed changes you could train to use a cyclone in 2-3 days and give them a nasty surprise with their kin hardeners?) Well like i said previously shooting unbonused missiles has low dps. And my bad for being predictable but my concern is how easily they can overcome the whole damage bonus of the ship and dps with any other damage type missiles is just a joke, i mean it's good to have counters but isn't this way too limited? I mean other weapons cause atleast 2 different damage types that you need to tank for. Now if they fit 2 kinetic resists and adaptive one they have effectively countered my dps while using autocannons themselves able to shoot my weakest resists. And yes, cyclone might do the trick but why isn't it limited to explosive damage bonus only then? Why the caldari hate? So i can't fly the ships i like and trained for effectively?
Dude, it doesn't matter what ship you fly... If you only fly one ship its really freaking easy to set something up to kill it.
If you only flew harbingers all you would need is a semi fast ship with one TD to kill you for example... |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
509
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:15:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:...If you only flew harbingers all you would need is a semi fast ship with one TD to kill you for example... Only because CCP refuse to introduce the missing M/L pulse lasers .. give me Gatlings!!!!
I want the situational hyper-tracking, low-dps option with no fall-off to speak of for all my boats.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Zombie Ninja Space Bears
97
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:34:00 -
[1760] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:Or maybe there'll be a t2 version of each tier 2 BC, which will cost 300-400 mil isk and still be dedicated to pleasure of PVE as it can be on a BC?
Gosh, I'm willing to pay a billion just to get an operational Hurricane...
either switch to newcyclone, which should cater to your style much better then the cane, or train for a vargur which would be a one billion, fully operational, active shield tanked hurricane on steroids. should not take more then 2 days to train HAMs to a good niveau.
|
|
miiriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:43:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:Could you at least sometimes think of PVEers?
Active shield-speed-dps tanked hurricane was so nice.. I've learned for a month with a bit to fully online it again, but now seems everything is damned and I have to... just sell my most loved ship?
Many other things seem to get worse as well.. Maybe except gallenteans and amarrs.
Hope to be heared, Shade.
What exactly is being nerfed about your Hurricane for PVE? losing a high slot, WOW WHAT A WHOOPING HUGE NERF, stop whining and l2p, nothing is being nerfed about cane for PVE bar a tiny bit of velocity, loss of like... an unbonused launcher! WOW!
If that's too big of a nerf for you then I suggest you just quit ASAP |
Jane Travelstar
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:45:00 -
[1762] - Quote
Krisaana Stormrider wrote:Maybe I am missing something. Why is the Drake keeping the kinetic-only bonus? I figured this was a legacy thing that would surely be removed in the tier updates.
Has anyone ever explained the motivation for why this exists? +1
Seriously,
What are we doing here, running Guristas-only missions?! |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:52:00 -
[1763] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:Or maybe there'll be a t2 version of each tier 2 BC, which will cost 300-400 mil isk and still be dedicated to pleasure of PVE as it can be on a BC?
Gosh, I'm willing to pay a billion just to get an operational Hurricane... either switch to newcyclone, which should cater to your style much better then the cane, or train for a vargur which would be a one billion, fully operational, active shield tanked hurricane on steroids. should not take more then 2 days to train HAMs to a good niveau.
Missiles (any kind of) are just... cheated easy. You press f1 and look at the result, the only think your flight affects is incoming dps. Artillery needs special patterns to hit fast targets, need the ship to maneuver all the time and keep close to deal high damage while being able to go far and avoid it or just to shoot fast/small targets, and 1001 other things to do with a ship only tanked with his guns, medium SB and 10mn AB.. Oh yes, how could I have forget a damage control, the only module to keep the ship alive on some missions.
I like Fleet Issue Tempest, yes, but it's not that challenging. Vargur? Even more boring, not talking about its new appearance (a nightmare for me). |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 21:58:00 -
[1764] - Quote
miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:Could you at least sometimes think of PVEers?
Active shield-speed-dps tanked hurricane was so nice.. I've learned for a month with a bit to fully online it again, but now seems everything is damned and I have to... just sell my most loved ship?
Many other things seem to get worse as well.. Maybe except gallenteans and amarrs.
Hope to be heared, Shade. What exactly is being nerfed about your Hurricane for PVE? losing a high slot, WOW WHAT A WHOOPING HUGE NERF, stop whining and l2p, nothing is being nerfed about cane for PVE bar a tiny bit of velocity, loss of like... an unbonused launcher! WOW! If that's too big of a nerf for you then I suggest you just quit ASAP
It seems to be moved to armor. And yes, the launcher. And yes, the SPEED, which is unmatched now. I'll forget about t3s this time.
What is Hurricane? Fast agile thing with extreme dps (although not suited for most npcs resistances) without tank, which relies on its ability to outtrack and outrun enemies. |
miiriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:01:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:Could you at least sometimes think of PVEers?
Active shield-speed-dps tanked hurricane was so nice.. I've learned for a month with a bit to fully online it again, but now seems everything is damned and I have to... just sell my most loved ship?
Many other things seem to get worse as well.. Maybe except gallenteans and amarrs.
Hope to be heared, Shade. What exactly is being nerfed about your Hurricane for PVE? losing a high slot, WOW WHAT A WHOOPING HUGE NERF, stop whining and l2p, nothing is being nerfed about cane for PVE bar a tiny bit of velocity, loss of like... an unbonused launcher! WOW! If that's too big of a nerf for you then I suggest you just quit ASAP It seems to be moved to armor. And yes, the launcher. And yes, the SPEED, which is unmatched now. I'll forget about t3s this time. What is Hurricane? Fast agile thing with extreme dps (although not suited for most npcs resistances) without tank, which relies on its ability to outtrack and outrun enemies.
You can still easily do that. losing like 10 ms isn't a very big deal. |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:12:00 -
[1766] - Quote
miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:Could you at least sometimes think of PVEers?
Active shield-speed-dps tanked hurricane was so nice.. I've learned for a month with a bit to fully online it again, but now seems everything is damned and I have to... just sell my most loved ship?
Many other things seem to get worse as well.. Maybe except gallenteans and amarrs.
Hope to be heared, Shade. What exactly is being nerfed about your Hurricane for PVE? losing a high slot, WOW WHAT A WHOOPING HUGE NERF, stop whining and l2p, nothing is being nerfed about cane for PVE bar a tiny bit of velocity, loss of like... an unbonused launcher! WOW! If that's too big of a nerf for you then I suggest you just quit ASAP It seems to be moved to armor. And yes, the launcher. And yes, the SPEED, which is unmatched now. I'll forget about t3s this time. What is Hurricane? Fast agile thing with extreme dps (although not suited for most npcs resistances) without tank, which relies on its ability to outtrack and outrun enemies. You can still easily do that. losing like 10 ms isn't a very big deal. Hey, he's bigger now and that mass addition is going to decrease overal maneuvrability and AB speed. + I lose the launcher, almost 50 dps. Quite a lot for me. Maybe will have to switch another one to something else, one launcher isn't worth of carrying missiles for it.. |
miiriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:18:00 -
[1767] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:Could you at least sometimes think of PVEers?
Active shield-speed-dps tanked hurricane was so nice.. I've learned for a month with a bit to fully online it again, but now seems everything is damned and I have to... just sell my most loved ship?
Many other things seem to get worse as well.. Maybe except gallenteans and amarrs.
Hope to be heared, Shade. What exactly is being nerfed about your Hurricane for PVE? losing a high slot, WOW WHAT A WHOOPING HUGE NERF, stop whining and l2p, nothing is being nerfed about cane for PVE bar a tiny bit of velocity, loss of like... an unbonused launcher! WOW! If that's too big of a nerf for you then I suggest you just quit ASAP It seems to be moved to armor. And yes, the launcher. And yes, the SPEED, which is unmatched now. I'll forget about t3s this time. What is Hurricane? Fast agile thing with extreme dps (although not suited for most npcs resistances) without tank, which relies on its ability to outtrack and outrun enemies. You can still easily do that. losing like 10 ms isn't a very big deal. Hey, he's bigger now and that mass addition is going to decrease overal maneuvrability and AB speed. + I lose the launcher, almost 50 dps. Quite a lot for me. Maybe will have to switch another one to something else, one launcher isn't worth of carrying missiles for it..
50 dps?? not even a heavy assault missile launcher with all 5's and rage HAM does that much dps.
And what fit are you using exactly? |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:25:00 -
[1768] - Quote
6 650 artys 2 HMLs 10mn ab, tracking computer, med shield booster with boost amplifier dcu, pds, te, 3 gyros collision accelerator, ambit extension (thinking of swapping to something for range), semiconductor
5 hobgoblins 1 armor bot
shooting mostly plasma and titanium while still carrying some emps and fusions for npcs that love them, all kinds of missiles, quakes for angel BS reaching and exceeding 600 dps with this. The fit is mixed t2/faction. |
miiriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:32:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:6 650 artys 2 HMLs 10mn ab, tracking computer, med shield booster with boost amplifier dcu, pds, te, 3 gyros collision accelerator, ambit extension (thinking of swapping to something for range), semiconductor
5 hobgoblins 1 armor bot
shooting mostly plasma and titanium while still carrying some emps and fusions for npcs that love them, all kinds of missiles, quakes for angel BS reaching and exceeding 600 dps with this. The fit is mixed t2/faction.
[Hurricane, New Setup 2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
10MN Afterburner II Pithi B-Type Small Shield Booster Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Explosive Deflection Field II
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M Salvager II [empty high slot]
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
607 dps, cheaper faction ammo(slower RoF), can change gyro for more range, but even with 2 TE's it way outranges yours, tiny agi loss and 5-6 m/s loss is rather insignificant.
And warriors > hobgoblins for angels |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:43:00 -
[1770] - Quote
miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:6 650 artys 2 HMLs 10mn ab, tracking computer, med shield booster with boost amplifier dcu, pds, te, 3 gyros collision accelerator, ambit extension (thinking of swapping to something for range), semiconductor
5 hobgoblins 1 armor bot
shooting mostly plasma and titanium while still carrying some emps and fusions for npcs that love them, all kinds of missiles, quakes for angel BS reaching and exceeding 600 dps with this. The fit is mixed t2/faction. [Hurricane, New Setup 2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II 10MN Afterburner II Pithi B-Type Small Shield Booster Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Explosive Deflection Field II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M Salvager II [empty high slot] Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I 607 dps, cheaper faction ammo(slower RoF), can change gyro for more range, but even with 2 TE's it way outranges yours, tiny agi loss and 5-6 m/s loss is rather insignificant. And warriors > hobgoblins for angels
Anything more universal, without any refitting to run whatever mission out there? But I like the fitting (except the salvager and no TC), although it may have troubles in close. At least after some changes it's worth testing. (errrm what, small booster?!) |
|
miiriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:45:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote:miiriiah wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote:6 650 artys 2 HMLs 10mn ab, tracking computer, med shield booster with boost amplifier dcu, pds, te, 3 gyros collision accelerator, ambit extension (thinking of swapping to something for range), semiconductor
5 hobgoblins 1 armor bot
shooting mostly plasma and titanium while still carrying some emps and fusions for npcs that love them, all kinds of missiles, quakes for angel BS reaching and exceeding 600 dps with this. The fit is mixed t2/faction. [Hurricane, New Setup 2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II 10MN Afterburner II Pithi B-Type Small Shield Booster Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Explosive Deflection Field II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Fusion M Salvager II [empty high slot] Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I 607 dps, cheaper faction ammo(slower RoF), can change gyro for more range, but even with 2 TE's it way outranges yours, tiny agi loss and 5-6 m/s loss is rather insignificant. And warriors > hobgoblins for angels Anything more universal, without any refitting to run whatever mission out there? But I like the fitting (except the salvager and no TC), although it may have troubles in close. At least after some changes it's worth testing. (errrm what, small booster?!)
Pithi B small > medium t2 booster |
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:50:00 -
[1772] - Quote
More used to medium dread guristas. more boost at the cost of cap, and it's comparatively cheap. The fit lives around 6 minutes with my implants and skills. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Zombie Ninja Space Bears
97
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 23:12:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Shade Alidiana wrote: all the things you said.
if you don't want to train missiles for the cyclone, thats ok. i have flown the cane for a long time too, with a very similar fitting. however the cane is post-patch still fine for the things you want to do. there is now reason to boost it torwards PVE content.
(although off topic: i can't understand how you think the vargur is boring. you can do so much more PVE content with a vargur, the cane never could cope with.... but suit yourself ;) )
|
Shade Alidiana
PROSPERO Corporation
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 23:19:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Shade Alidiana wrote: all the things you said. if you don't want to train missiles for the cyclone, thats ok. i have flown the cane for a long time too, with a very similar fitting. however the cane is post-patch still fine for the things you want to do. there is now reason to boost it torwards PVE content. (although off topic: i can't understand how you think the vargur is boring. you can do so much more PVE content with a vargur, the cane never could cope with.... but suit yourself ;) )
that fit is what does any lvl4 out there for me since.. 2010? Maybe so. I continue to upgrade it and learn for it, some time ago becoming capable to do what i said: no re-entering. At any mission. What can Vargur offer me? Tank, mostly. It's generally tankier and more accurate than tempest and more cost-effecient, but.. Tempest is enough for l4s as well.
I started considering null/wh pve some time ago, still don't go to pvp because of.. just disliking blowing someone up. However it can couse interesting conversation after the fight. At the same time, I love shooting. So NPCs are like target drones.
P. S. I really love Naga now, but it can't boast completing every mission.. Sometimes it needs assistance to take orbiting frigs that are initially too close for rails to hit. And Hurri is always a ship for continuous joy of fight, when isk are not considered worth a thought (but with the concern to save ammo if possible) |
To mare
Advanced Technology
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 03:50:00 -
[1775] - Quote
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 (which is why the assault ships whit a 10% bonus have only 1 bonus and not 2 )
they put too much difference from lv4 to lv5
no one fit gang links now on BCs i dont see the situation changing anytime soon so i dont really see the reason for this last last rebalancing most of the ppl just want a free utility high for a neut also this last change really boost a ship wich dont need boosting the drake and it boost the brutix in a wrong way, that ship need its armor rep changed for something else i dont really care what give it back 7 turret and the 5% bonus and switch the rep bonus for something useful tracking, falloff, hell even another damage bonus but at leas it will use 2 bonus for the uber dps |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 04:36:00 -
[1776] - Quote
I'm confused about the Cyclone too.
I'd go as far and say I'm actually happy with Cyclone's current bonuses/layout - even if it is crap in public and on the field. I really don't know if the Sebiestor engineers are going to listen to this one :D. I'm not a fan of a Hurricane clone (no pun), so I understand the idea of going missiles as that is intended to be Minmatar's secondary. But in all honesty, I just find it doesn't fit this ship well.
Since it is a Command Ship's base hull, I was hoping if we could actually see more buddy-orientated traits. Somewhere, Ferox could need this too as the other two BCs outweight specific aspects. In other words, I'd almost want to see Cyclone/Ferox have additional midslots so they can at least be flexible enough to provide Ewar or buddy-buffing stuff. The role bonus imo should be changed to a general gang supporting modules bonus; that being Tracking Links, Remote Sensor Booster, ECCM.
Or heck, neut range, despite that being more of an Amarr trait. But you get my drift regarding some versatility/out of the box suggestion.
I don't see any sense in asking for more DPS as one would just have to go for Hurricane or anything else non-Ferox on Caldari BC side. Likewise, missile RoF for Cyclone -> meh. In other words, I don't really see why anyone should go for Cyclone when Hurricane is clearly going to be topdog - and I'm already excluding the Tornado. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
961
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 05:21:00 -
[1777] - 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 It's 66.(6)% actually (1*1.25/0.75) since bonuses multiply each other, but yeah...
No idea why CCP insists on such a big difference between cruisers and BCs. I mean, extra slot or two plus twice HP is already a fair trade for mobility, why should there also exist such a huge DPS gain from bonuses? This 'special treatment' case introduces a really dangerous precedent. 14 |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
998
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 05:32:00 -
[1778] - Quote
I got on today and tried out both the Harbinger and Cyclone. My current fit on TQ with the Harb is heavy pulses and a 1600 plate. In order to achieve that I need both a genolution set of implants (3% more pg) AND a medium ACR. I'm happy to say that the implants are enough with the future Harb to get the same fit without the rig helo. As I'm able to fit a third trimark the EHP doesn't take a hit.
You can of course skip the implants and use a MACR but your EHP will suffer then. The firepower was pretty jaw-dropping. I have damage implants. With those, conflag, two heat sinks, and a flight of Valkyries I was getting a blistering 890 DPS overheated. Room for a small nuet and a flight of lights gives the Harb some frigate protection. I took it into a few fights and it handled pretty well. A little slow to warp out but we all expected that.
The Cyclone is a ridiculously tight fit. I posted a fit for it earlier. Here it is again: High: HAM II x 5 Medium unstable neut Small unstable neut Mid: Experimental MWD X-LASB Adaptive Invuln II Faint Epsilon Scrambler Fleeting propulsion inhibitor Low: Internal force field array BCU II x 2 Overdrive II Nano II Rigs: EM shield x 2 Thermal
2-3 CPU to spare. I didn't have my geno set on this one. Consistent if mediocre DPS. One medium and one small neut is great utility even if it drives my OCD crazy. Great Burst tank. The one outstanding feature that is unsung is it's speed. 2268m/a overheated. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
259
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 07:38:00 -
[1779] - 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 |
Alghara
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 09:47:00 -
[1780] - Quote
About Prophecy.
Pls make a modification on the bandwitch 75 is really not easy to use.
Drone bonus (10%) ---> 12.5 % Bandwitch (75) --> 50
That will be better
Harbinger Still to difficult for the fitting ( we have some problem pwd or cpu) depend what you would like to fit.
Drake damage bonus on all resistance.
|
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 11:42:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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...
my complain its a boost for pvp where you goin to se kin anyway but i understand pve user. so thats my point give it back the 7 launcher and 5%bonus. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 12:11:00 -
[1782] - Quote
or give it a 10% Bonus to kinetic and 5% to the other Types. With this kinetic ist still the strongest, but it closes the gab betwenn the others An Amarr-Frig once hat a Bonus-split like this, only with EM on the strongest Site.
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 12:17:00 -
[1783] - Quote
Gosti Kahanid wrote:or give it a 10% Bonus to kinetic and 5% to the other Types. With this kinetic ist still the strongest, but it closes the gab betwenn the others An Amarr-Frig once hat a Bonus-split like this, only with EM on the strongest Site.
if it lose the resist bonus with that change its kind of fine to me 2 5% bonus 1 5% to all missile and a addictional 5% to kin sound reasonable but 10% dps bonus and a resist bonus its just too much |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 12:58:00 -
[1784] - Quote
on sisi I just lost to this drake
Quote: [Drake, New Setup 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
in my ferox
Quote: [Ferox, New Setup 2] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank?
Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse
giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further
yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range
alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
127
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 13:44:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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... Yeah, that's just one damage type compared tot he 'Cane's selectable damage on the Drake.
And on the Harb they had to put all that damage in one bonus because they NEEDED another bonus just so you can fire the guns. Something the 'Cane doesn't have to worry about.
Not gonna bother with the Brutix. Just going to ask when you saw them, if ever before now/this next patch.
And as someone pointed out earlier: 66% boost. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 13:59:00 -
[1786] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:on sisi I just lost to this drake Quote: [Drake, New Setup 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
in my ferox Quote: [Ferox, New Setup 2] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank? Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
its odd that CCP don't seem to see this problem at all atm the only reason to fly a ferox is that its cheaper than the drake so after the patch the ferox will be even more obsolete........
The bottom line is the drake still needs to be nerfed the drake is the only bc unchanged in any meaningful way |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:12:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L , 6 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 800 PWG (-50), 500 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4650(-819) / 3250(-658) / 3750(-156) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
something like this i think makes more sense and makes sure the ferox is actually tankier. Although i still think, sig radius is still too high across the board. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:13:00 -
[1788] - Quote
To mare wrote:Gosti Kahanid wrote:or give it a 10% Bonus to kinetic and 5% to the other Types. With this kinetic ist still the strongest, but it closes the gab betwenn the others An Amarr-Frig once hat a Bonus-split like this, only with EM on the strongest Site.
if it lose the resist bonus with that change its kind of fine to me 2 5% bonus 1 5% to all missile and a addictional 5% to kin sound reasonable but 10% dps bonus and a resist bonus its just too much
What I meant was one Bonus, not splittet in two. Like "10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage and 5% to EM, Therm and Explo-damage" |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:21:00 -
[1789] - Quote
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5200(+317) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
I think the ferox should be more like this a bigger buff to tank and speed as its barely been buffed at all and would give it stronger buffer than the cyclone which being a buffer tanked ship makes more sense. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:30:00 -
[1790] - Quote
Myrmidon: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% hybrid damage bonus 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M, 6 L, 4 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000(+106) / 4300(-388) / 4750(+453) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 200 (+50) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400
This is what the Myrmidon should look like following the vexor - domi line which allows for more shield fits |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
229
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 14:32:00 -
[1791] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote: it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank?
Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse
giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further
yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range
alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
You are seeing this the wrong way IMO, and your suggestion to increase the bonus to 20% instead of 10 is the symptom. Why don't you try a more kity fit with one or two TE in the lows instead of all these MFS ? With only one TE, you reach 417dps@10,8 + 11,3km with null. Fitted like your Drake was, you can even kite him, and that's playing the strength of the Ferox : the range bonus.
Because be honest : considering the bonuses, the Ferox is not the brawler one, even if you'd like it to be so ; whereas this Drake not a kiting ship at all (rage HAM : 15km range ; CN HAM : 20km range ; should your target go away from you, you won't hit her).
PS : and come on, you can't ask for full takle, kiting range and brawl dps AND ehp !! |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
999
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:13:00 -
[1792] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Crazy KSK wrote: it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank?
Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse
giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further
yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range
alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
You are seeing this the wrong way IMO, and your suggestion to increase the bonus to 20% instead of 10 is the symptom. Why don't you try a more kity fit with one or two TE in the lows instead of all these MFS ? With only one TE, you reach 417dps@10,8 + 11,3km with null. Fitted like your Drake was, you can even kite him, and that's playing the strength of the Ferox : the range bonus. Because be honest : considering the bonuses, the Ferox is not the brawler one, even if you'd like it to be so ; whereas this Drake not a kiting ship at all (rage HAM : 15km range ; CN HAM : 20km range ; should your target go away from you, you won't hit her). PS : and come on, you can't ask for full takle, kiting range and brawl dps AND ehp !!
+1
The Ferox has eight high slots and 7 turrets. Typo? If you need a web I would downgrade to Ions on the Ferox and use a X-LASB for a tank. It gives a much bigger bang for the buck. If you want a buffer then skip the web and fit two LSE and neutrons and accept being more of a fleet ship in that configuration.
|
PaNtHeeRa
Rep-X Hashashin Cartel
97
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 16:00:00 -
[1793] - Quote
I still dont get it... Wasnt the Drake supposed to lose its resist bonus? Shouldnt the Ferox be more like the Moa?
Most of the other ships are fine with the Armor repper changes coming. Still dont really care for the repper bonus on Gallente ships but we shall see how well it works with the changes. |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 16:43:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Could someone PLEASE explain to me why the harbinger is getting hit? It's already lackluster after the cruiser buffs and now it just seems like it'd be on-par with the others. There seems to be no reason why it needs to lose two slotsother than CCP hating the proliferation of the old ''good'' BCs. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
396
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 16:51:00 -
[1795] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:Could someone PLEASE explain to me why the harbinger is getting hit? It's already lackluster after the cruiser buffs and now it just seems like it'd be on-par with the others. There seems to be no reason why it needs to lose two slotsother than CCP hating the proliferation of the old ''good'' BCs.
Binger is loosing 1 slot and is actually better after the patch.
Stop being bad and basing your opinions off of fail forum posters please.
|
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 20:02:00 -
[1796] - Quote
I wish 'Combat Ships' were actually given a specific role... If I was doing this I'd divide them into 'Assault' and 'Artillery' types or 'Assault' and 'Siege' or something. Assault do more damage, maybe even have a role bonus to capacitor or powergrid use of weapons. Artillery have much greater range, maybe even a role bonus to range or something. Siege tank better...
Right now Combat Ships are kind of bland... they do damage and tank, and that's it. They really are just ships... |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
510
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 20:10:00 -
[1797] - Quote
Saul Elsyn wrote:I wish 'Combat Ships' were actually given a specific role... If I was doing this I'd divide them into 'Assault' and 'Artillery' types or 'Assault' and 'Siege' or something. Assault do more damage, maybe even have a role bonus to capacitor or powergrid use of weapons. Artillery have much greater range, maybe even a role bonus to range or something. Siege tank better...
CCP originally proposed a "bombardment" role, which sounds like your long-range "siege" thing. They deleted the "bombardment" idea after realising that it wasn't a role that could be restricted sensibly to a class of ships, but a fundamental ability of all ships. Meaning that any ship can fit long-range weapons and play the "bombardment" role - the only way to restrict it would be to give bonuses to, say, beam lasers - but that would result in a very restricted ship of limited value elsewhere, and basically just annoy everyone. |
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 20:21:00 -
[1798] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Saul Elsyn wrote:I wish 'Combat Ships' were actually given a specific role... If I was doing this I'd divide them into 'Assault' and 'Artillery' types or 'Assault' and 'Siege' or something. Assault do more damage, maybe even have a role bonus to capacitor or powergrid use of weapons. Artillery have much greater range, maybe even a role bonus to range or something. Siege tank better... CCP originally proposed a "bombardment" role, which sounds like your long-range "siege" thing. They deleted the "bombardment" idea after realising that it wasn't a role that could be restricted sensibly to a class of ships, but a fundamental ability of all ships. Meaning that any ship can fit long-range weapons and play the "bombardment" role - the only way to restrict it would be to give bonuses to, say, beam lasers - but that would result in a very restricted ship of limited value elsewhere, and basically just annoy everyone.
It could be done... I mean Destroyers get a 50% bonus to turret optimal range, sure you can fit blasters on a Cormorant but it's not what the ship excels at. I mean, that's one way to do it. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
517
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 20:39:00 -
[1799] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Crazy KSK wrote: it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank?
Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse
giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further
yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range
alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
You are seeing this the wrong way IMO, and your suggestion to increase the bonus to 20% instead of 10 is the symptom. Why don't you try a more kity fit with one or two TE in the lows instead of all these MFS ? With only one TE, you reach 417dps@10,8 + 11,3km with null. Fitted like your Drake was, you can even kite him, and that's playing the strength of the Ferox : the range bonus. Because be honest : considering the bonuses, the Ferox is not the brawler one, even if you'd like it to be so ; whereas this Drake not a kiting ship at all (rage HAM : 15km range ; CN HAM : 20km range ; should your target go away from you, you won't hit her). PS : and come on, you can't ask for full takle, kiting range and brawl dps AND ehp !!
Have to agree with this. 2 TE's 1 MFS would probably make it better however, the real brawling ship in between Ferox/Drake is definitively HAM's Drake imo. Fit 250's, some tank, mfs (thx range bonus) and faction point (28km) on that Ferox, kill that Drake like a pro with no chance of hitting you.
Even if the PG difference in between Ferox/Brutix still makes me look like this (c'mon the shield ship having more pg than the the armor one supposed to fit pg hungry modules? -no wonder it's so crappy hehe)
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 21:07:00 -
[1800] - Quote
BTW why so much hate on AC for the Cyclone?
When you look at it.... it's not a bigger Breacher or Bellicose
It's *****n Oversized Thrasher
I'm questioning meself why use HAMS that do 30% less damage to any Cruiser that goes beyond 200m/s mark. Yes use a web, the problem is that the Cyclone is supposed to be a Tanking BC, given the not the best 5 MED slot layout for a shield tanker, throwing away an invuln field for a web is a big loss in tank... A tank that will struggle since most BC will do much more DPS
If The cyclone has to go BIG oversized Bellicose style
Add a BONUS ROF to RAPID LIGHT MISSILES please.
.2 cents |
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
90
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 21:40:00 -
[1801] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank? It's almost like the ship is designed to favor rail-based LR combat with the option of being a mediocre brawler if need be...
'Course med rails are terrible at the moment. But CCP has stated the intention of fixing them. Maybe Fozzie has a plan?
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
508
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 23:01:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Crazy KSK wrote: it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank?
Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse
giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further
yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range
alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
You are seeing this the wrong way IMO, and your suggestion to increase the bonus to 20% instead of 10 is the symptom. Why don't you try a more kity fit with one or two TE in the lows instead of all these MFS ? With only one TE, you reach 417dps@10,8 + 11,3km with null. Fitted like your Drake was, you can even kite him, and that's playing the strength of the Ferox : the range bonus. Because be honest : considering the bonuses, the Ferox is not the brawler one, even if you'd like it to be so ; whereas this Drake not a kiting ship at all (rage HAM : 15km range ; CN HAM : 20km range ; should your target go away from you, you won't hit her). PS : and come on, you can't ask for full takle, kiting range and brawl dps AND ehp !! Have to agree with this. 2 TE's 1 MFS would probably make it better however, the real brawling ship in between Ferox/Drake is definitively HAM's Drake imo. Fit 250's, some tank, mfs (thx range bonus) and faction point (28km) on that Ferox, kill that Drake like a pro with no chance of hitting you. Even if the PG difference in between Ferox/Brutix still makes me look like this (c'mon the shield ship having more pg than the the armor one supposed to fit pg hungry modules? -no wonder it's so crappy hehe)
Medium blasters aren't supposed to be viable at god damn point range >_<
TE's seriously need to be nerfed to put a stop to all this nonsense.
|
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
127
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 02:24:00 -
[1803] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Have to agree with this. 2 TE's 1 MFS would probably make it better however, the real brawling ship in between Ferox/Drake is definitively HAM's Drake imo. Fit 250's, some tank, mfs (thx range bonus) and faction point (28km) on that Ferox, kill that Drake like a pro with no chance of hitting you. Even if the PG difference in between Ferox/Brutix still makes me look like this (c'mon the shield ship having more pg than the the armor one supposed to fit pg hungry modules? -no wonder it's so crappy hehe) Medium blasters aren't supposed to be viable at god damn point range >_< TE's seriously need to be nerfed to put a stop to all this nonsense. 250's are medium rails, not blasters. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 02:25:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Crazy KSK wrote: it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank?
Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse
giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further
yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range
alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
You are seeing this the wrong way IMO, and your suggestion to increase the bonus to 20% instead of 10 is the symptom. Why don't you try a more kity fit with one or two TE in the lows instead of all these MFS ? With only one TE, you reach 417dps@10,8 + 11,3km with null. Fitted like your Drake was, you can even kite him, and that's playing the strength of the Ferox : the range bonus. Because be honest : considering the bonuses, the Ferox is not the brawler one, even if you'd like it to be so ; whereas this Drake not a kiting ship at all (rage HAM : 15km range ; CN HAM : 20km range ; should your target go away from you, you won't hit her). PS : and come on, you can't ask for full takle, kiting range and brawl dps AND ehp !! no amount of TEs is gonna make it able to hit that far and still do enough dps to win against the drake and yes a ham drake can kite very well with its 30km javelin the ferox with 3 TEs and one mag stab (sacrificing the dcu resulting in even less tank) you only end up doing pathetic 231dps at 24km while the drake with javelin does ~400 while the ferox has still much less tank
all this is pointless cause the ferox will loose even at point blank due to the massive tank difference
no im just asking for the same the drake already has
just find me a situation in that the drake will loose against the ferox
Zarnak Wulf wrote:The Ferox has eight high slots and 7 turrets. Typo? If you need a web I would downgrade to Ions on the Ferox and use a X-LASB for a tank. It gives a much bigger bang for the buck. If you want a buffer then skip the web and fit two LSE and neutrons and accept being more of a fleet ship in that configuration. yes that was a typo, fixed now so now I fit a X-LASB, throw in a standard blue pill,overheat of course. that indeed gives me more shield then before(14495 -> 17887) still not enough to match the drake tho with its 18535 shield now if I get lucky I might get one more cycle out of my cap buffing me to 19180 shield in total hurray! but wait the drake has one more invul and I traded my neutrons for ions so I now do less dps then the drake!
once again I could ditch the web for an invul myself but then the drake could kite me to his liking and I would do even less dps possibly even not enough to break his passive recharge
now you tell me why my fc would want me to fly a ferox over a drake? even with 2 lse it has less tank then the drake and only ~100dps more
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:It's almost like the ship is designed to favor rail-based LR combat with the option of being a mediocre brawler if need be...
'Course med rails are terrible at the moment. But CCP has stated the intention of fixing them. Maybe Fozzie has a plan? so how do you think the ferox can be made to out-snipe tier 3 bc? at 60k the lower tracking of large rails get makes little difference the naga however does 760dps at 50km the ferox only 266 a small buff to med rails would surely not make it competitive against the naga even with its superior tank that is worse then the drakes tank and the drakes HMs that do 370 @ 62km all medium long range weapons would have to receive a massive buff in general to make it competitive in that department sadly that can't happen cause then heavy missiles would either be out-shadowed or would have to be buffed again
Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
90
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 02:45:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:so how do you think the ferox can be made to out-snipe tier 3 bc? Beats the hell out of me. I'll leave that to folks who actually get paid to come up with a solution (ie. CCP). And certainly don't envy the person that gets stuck with that job. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 03:30:00 -
[1806] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:on sisi I just lost to this drake Quote: [Drake, New Setup 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
in my ferox Quote: [Ferox, New Setup 2] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
it was a straight up brawl I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor still lost with the drake about 20% shields left I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank? Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-) that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose edit: fixed the ferox turrets (took it from eft where it only has 6 heh)
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 To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 03:39:00 -
[1807] - Quote
Saul Elsyn wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Saul Elsyn wrote:I wish 'Combat Ships' were actually given a specific role... If I was doing this I'd divide them into 'Assault' and 'Artillery' types or 'Assault' and 'Siege' or something. Assault do more damage, maybe even have a role bonus to capacitor or powergrid use of weapons. Artillery have much greater range, maybe even a role bonus to range or something. Siege tank better... CCP originally proposed a "bombardment" role, which sounds like your long-range "siege" thing. They deleted the "bombardment" idea after realising that it wasn't a role that could be restricted sensibly to a class of ships, but a fundamental ability of all ships. Meaning that any ship can fit long-range weapons and play the "bombardment" role - the only way to restrict it would be to give bonuses to, say, beam lasers - but that would result in a very restricted ship of limited value elsewhere, and basically just annoy everyone. It could be done... I mean Destroyers get a 50% bonus to turret optimal range, sure you can fit blasters on a Cormorant but it's not what the ship excels at. I mean, that's one way to do it.
Yeah, that's one way to do it.
However, weapon systems are still too narrowed down not making it all too easy to bring in "bombardment" playsets. In my opinion, we'd need a lot more of this "breaking the rules" style of thing we see on ships like Tornadoes or even Steathbombers; I'm referring to actually bringing an interesting mix of large weapons on uncommon ships.
Stealth Bombers get Torps. Tornadoes are BCs that have access to hardhitting Large Turrets.
Now my suggestion isn't the best. It is just an example, but somewhere I was always hoping for more ships that could apply torpedoes, and it wouldn't have to be the main thing. Just a minor special.
So in this example, maybe it would be viable to see a Cyclone with Torps? I know the majority hates split-weapons, which is likely the reason why Typhoon will be going full torp, but I really don't see that much of a success if Cyclone goes the HML/HAM route. I'm probably seeing things too dark (must be the sunglasses) but I have this feeling that you (CCP) are pulling a "tiericide Rifter" on us here.
However, I really would be interested in a "downsized phoon" style of a Cyclone. Four turrets, zomg four torps. Torps require the target to be tackled and webbed so it is not like Cyclone would become that powerful. Or remove a highslot to be stuffed to a med or low slot, whatever.
But this would also call for some decent changes for Ferox and other BCs of their genre; preferrably just as cool. Torps are slow, but if one can get their target webbed," kapowie! :3" as somebody would say. I'd disagree with Cruise Missiles usage as those are clearly too extreme for non-BS ships. *forgets about oldschool SBs swiftly*
On the other hand, I don't want to break other people's perspective on Cyclone as my ideas are certainly far out, so I'll just wait and read further.
Quote:so how do you think the ferox can be made to out-snipe tier 3 bc? Vladimir Norkoff said it perfectly with "Beats the hell out of me". Ferox got its bum handed to itself by the tier3 BC. It probably has to get access to XL-Rails to outsnipe xD!
Nonetheless, this is why I indirectly also suggested more of a support-BC change for Ferox and Cyclone because most other BCs do the DMG-part everybody is so crazy about much much much better. That is my impression. I am not sure if this is the reality. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
363
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 06:24:00 -
[1808] - Quote
so on the test server, the brutix only has 6 turrets, and the fittings got changed but the damage bonus never got updated?
Looks like the same thing happened to the drake too.
the harbinger is missing 25 PG (currently has 1400, and the OP says it should be 1425 not sure which is wrong) but got the extra CPU the OP says it should have.
looks like all the other fitting and balance changes went through from the update on the 23rd, but im wondering why the partial changes?
and the armor changes never went through . . . no AAR, and the rigs still slow you down . . . it looks like none of the armor changes are on the test server.
anyone else having this problem? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
508
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 07:37:00 -
[1809] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Have to agree with this. 2 TE's 1 MFS would probably make it better however, the real brawling ship in between Ferox/Drake is definitively HAM's Drake imo. Fit 250's, some tank, mfs (thx range bonus) and faction point (28km) on that Ferox, kill that Drake like a pro with no chance of hitting you. Even if the PG difference in between Ferox/Brutix still makes me look like this (c'mon the shield ship having more pg than the the armor one supposed to fit pg hungry modules? -no wonder it's so crappy hehe) Medium blasters aren't supposed to be viable at god damn point range >_< TE's seriously need to be nerfed to put a stop to all this nonsense. 250's are medium rails, not blasters.
At least one of those guys was talking about blasters to point range, was to lazy to go back and find his post :P |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 09:43:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Wivabel 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
Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
264
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:03:00 -
[1811] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Wivabel 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 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3762
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:44:00 -
[1812] - Quote
Sigras wrote:so on the test server, the brutix only has 6 turrets, and the fittings got changed but the damage bonus never got updated?
Looks like the same thing happened to the drake too.
the harbinger is missing 25 PG (currently has 1400, and the OP says it should be 1425 not sure which is wrong) but got the extra CPU the OP says it should have.
looks like all the other fitting and balance changes went through from the update on the 23rd, but im wondering why the partial changes?
and the armor changes never went through . . . no AAR, and the rigs still slow you down . . . it looks like none of the armor changes are on the test server.
anyone else having this problem?
There should be another Sisi update asap to correct the problem, only some of the changes were ported onto this update.
The 10% bonuses for the Brutix and Drake are actually there, but the description change didn't make it onto this Sisi build. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
271
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 11:46:00 -
[1813] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, any thoughts on changing the -25 CPU on the Drake?
Its a tad harsh. The Cyclone has more CPU now, on top of a vastly improved power grid. I think this cut is a bit too deep. Make it -15 otherwise every other fit is going to have a co-processor and / or overclocking rig.
It will never be FOTM again with the missile changes anyway, so why kill the CPU so hard? Its a shield missile boat after all - the highest use of CPU in any variety. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:02:00 -
[1814] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie so are there going to be any more changes here before you release them? I don't think anyone is satisfied with the ferox being so inferior to the barely touched drake. |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:48:00 -
[1815] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:@ CCP Fozzie so are there going to be any more changes here before you release them? I don't think anyone is satisfied with the ferox being so inferior to the barely touched drake. Not sure how many came here looking for satisfaction, leaving with what they came for. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Snape Dieboldmotor
In Exile.
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:53:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:@ CCP Fozzie so are there going to be any more changes here before you release them? I don't think anyone is satisfied with the ferox being so inferior to the barely touched drake.
If you are comparing the Ferox to a buffer fit Drake then it is surely inferior, however if you fit it with an active tank it should be just as good. I support the idea of two different but equal Caldari BC's. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
399
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 13:00:00 -
[1817] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There should be another Sisi update asap to correct the problem, only some of the changes were ported onto this update.
The 10% bonuses for the Brutix and Drake are actually there, but the description change didn't make it onto this Sisi build.
Newest test patch (today) still has not corrected the description issue.
This "new" patch also only seems to have changed to grid requirements on med and large reppers... No AAR, no rig changes.... What's the deal here?
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:13:00 -
[1818] - Quote
Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:@ CCP Fozzie so are there going to be any more changes here before you release them? I don't think anyone is satisfied with the ferox being so inferior to the barely touched drake. If you are comparing the Ferox to a buffer fit Drake then it is surely inferior, however if you fit it with an active tank it should be just as good. I support the idea of two different but equal Caldari BC's.
Actually I have just done a bunch of testing and the ferox has beaten the drake everytime when similarly fit. fights starting at zero drake gets to shoot first no overheating or piloting other then the ferox sets keep at range and the drake sets aproach. outside of 5km the drake may have a better chance though I have not tested it yet.
ferox / drake rack of neutrons with void / rack of ham II with scourge rage LSE x1, invuln x2, point / LSE x2, invuln x2, point DC, MFS x3 / DC, BCU x3 Field extender x2, EM rig x1 / Field extender x3 Ferox kills drake with 50% structure remaining
rack of neutrons with void / rack of ham II with scourge rage LSE x1, invuln x1, web, point / LSE x2, invuln x1, web, point DC, MFS x3 / DC, BCU x3 Field extender x2, EM rig x1 / Field extender x3 Drake dies with Ferox still in shield.
The Ferox wins these fights mainly because of its damage type. The drakes tank is weekest or second weekest to thermal damage depending on rig choice mainly so the 100 more DPS of the Ferox is magnified by the fact that it is hitting the drake at its weaker resist points.
Also for the guy above. The Ferox and drake have the same base speed but the ferox has a lighter mass giving it a higher speed when using an afterburner or MWD plus it has better agility. Web scram Ferox can easily run from a tank fit point only Drake. Yes scram and web turn off at 9/10 km but by that time your Ferox is at top speed and will likely be outside of drake point range before the drake can get up to its full speed. Overheating only makes this manuever easier.
PS. I did not spell or grammer check this so it is probobly Fail English.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:42:00 -
[1819] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sigras wrote:so on the test server, the brutix only has 6 turrets, and the fittings got changed but the damage bonus never got updated?
Looks like the same thing happened to the drake too.
the harbinger is missing 25 PG (currently has 1400, and the OP says it should be 1425 not sure which is wrong) but got the extra CPU the OP says it should have.
looks like all the other fitting and balance changes went through from the update on the 23rd, but im wondering why the partial changes?
and the armor changes never went through . . . no AAR, and the rigs still slow you down . . . it looks like none of the armor changes are on the test server.
anyone else having this problem? There should be another Sisi update asap to correct the problem, only some of the changes were ported onto this update. The 10% bonuses for the Brutix and Drake are actually there, but the description change didn't make it onto this Sisi build.
the sisi update today has the drake and brutix updates Live on Eve Radio Wednesdays 20:00 GMT with me & friends blabbering on about Eve and stuff-áFollow me on twitter http://twitter.com/WigglesGRN, like me on facebook http://facebook.com/wigglesGRN or check out my blog http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog
|
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:51:00 -
[1820] - Quote
I have doubts about comparing Ferox with Drake. Even if they're both Caldari and BC, feels like the Apples and Oranges thing. Ferox won't gain much from being compared to Drake (typo xD). The tiericide should ensure it does not stay an underdog (regardless how many times you've seen it on the field nowadays - though I'd doubt that feature too).
I for one had hardly seen it. |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
325
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 14:51:00 -
[1821] - Quote
so Fozzie - how far are we? Should we continue to come with inputs or are you already working on other ships and not touching these again? Sorry for ranting in here but it's like certain things just gets ignored?
Pinky |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:03:00 -
[1822] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:@ CCP Fozzie so are there going to be any more changes here before you release them? I don't think anyone is satisfied with the ferox being so inferior to the barely touched drake. If you are comparing the Ferox to a buffer fit Drake then it is surely inferior, however if you fit it with an active tank it should be just as good. I support the idea of two different but equal Caldari BC's. Actually I have just done a bunch of testing and the ferox has beaten the drake everytime when similarly fit. fights starting at zero drake gets to shoot first no overheating or piloting other then the ferox sets keep at range and the drake sets aproach. outside of 5km the drake may have a better chance though I have not tested it yet. ferox / drake rack of neutrons with void / rack of ham II with scourge rage LSE x1, invuln x2, point / LSE x2, invuln x2, point DC, MFS x3 / DC, BCU x3 Field extender x2, EM rig x1 / Field extender x3 Ferox kills drake with 50% structure remaining rack of neutrons with void / rack of ham II with scourge rage LSE x1, invuln x1, web, point / LSE x2, invuln x1, web, point DC, MFS x3 / DC, BCU x3 Field extender x2, EM rig x1 / Field extender x3 Drake dies with Ferox still in shield. The Ferox wins these fights mainly because of its damage type. The drakes tank is weekest or second weekest to thermal damage depending on rig choice mainly so the 100 more DPS of the Ferox is magnified by the fact that it is hitting the drake at its weaker resist points. Also for the guy above. The Ferox and drake have the same base speed but the ferox has a lighter mass giving it a higher speed when using an afterburner or MWD plus it has better agility. Web scram Ferox can easily run from a tank fit point only Drake. Yes scram and web turn off at 9/10 km but by that time your Ferox is at top speed and will likely be outside of drake point range before the drake can get up to its full speed. Overheating only makes this manuever easier. PS. I did not spell or grammer check this so it is probobly Fail English. Wiv
Any drake pilot with sense would kill the ferox by not going anywhere near a ferox in void range the drake has massive range advantage and better tank the drake doesn't need to brawl to win and thus shouldn't have a better brawler profile. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
326
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:52:00 -
[1823] - Quote
at least 15km on HAM range and possible more with a rig is a huge advanateg for Drake - And it has a spare med for a web to keep Ferox away from Blaster optimal... Start the fight at 20-30km and the Ferox will suddenly be in trouble everytime even with Null ;-) |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:54:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:at least 15km on HAM range and possible more with a rig is a huge advanateg for Drake - And it has a spare med for a web to keep Ferox away from Blaster optimal... Start the fight at 20-30km and the Ferox will suddenly be in trouble everytime even with Null ;-)
Ferox is faster not alot but enough. Drake does not get 2 choose To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:38:00 -
[1825] - Quote
Fozzie
I' d like to get your point as how you see at CCP the Cyclone's role?
How the HAM Cyclone will perform better than the old one?
In case of fighting vs a cruiser I checked how much (real) DPS an AC Cyclone can apply to LSE fit Bellicose, the cruiser is spining at 5km with a AB around the Cyclone.
220AC + rockets Cyclone with 2 gyro + 1 TE wil hit a Bellicose for 400 DPS (5 drones DPS included) in 3.5 - 9 km range
HAM Cyclone + 2 x150mm + drones nets me 300 - > 275 DPS in 3.5 - 9 km range
Both AC and HAM versions have equal DPS arround 13.5 km range beyond wich HAM is gettin an advantage.
So how it should be flown? It's not a brawling short range BC, nor multi-purpose like the old one (3 x Rocket Launchers vs frig) To be effective it needs a web or a Target Painter . A module i cant fit it because i wont trade off the TANK the only ACE this ship has.
It can use T2 missiles, the give very nice DPS vs other BC but below that class of opponent it's DPS is laughable. The 5th low slot helps boost dps but honestly i'll trade it for a mid slot any day.
6 slot ? MWD Scram Invul Field XL ASB Boost AMP WEB
The theoreticall DPS will be lower but it can be applied to more targets...
I feel the new Cyclone to be very limited in engagements solo and even in gank.
It will be good at :
Baiting - it already does this job Tank sentry aggro - the old one does it well Force enemy to waste ammo/missiles on you since your dps will be good only vs BC - Sitational
I'm sad that the ship that helped me learn EVE life the hard way will become from a underdog a waterpistol. The exception is fighting other BC where it can have a niche
Just my point of view |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3778
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:29:00 -
[1826] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:so Fozzie - how far are we? Should we continue to come with inputs or are you already working on other ships and not touching these again? Sorry for ranting in here but it's like certain things just gets ignored?
Pinky
We're not announcing more ship changes until well after the 1.1 patch release. My focus continues to be the 1.1 changes and making sure they're as good as they can be at release.
As for Sisi, we got an update deployed at 14:13 this afternoon that should have updated everything. I've been in meetings since then so I'm logging on to confirm that everything's there now.
If any of you find anything that didn't properly copy over let me know. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:45:00 -
[1827] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:so Fozzie - how far are we? Should we continue to come with inputs or are you already working on other ships and not touching these again? Sorry for ranting in here but it's like certain things just gets ignored?
Pinky We're not announcing more ship changes until well after the 1.1 patch release. My focus continues to be the 1.1 changes and making sure they're as good as they can be at release. As for Sisi, we got an update deployed at 14:13 this afternoon that should have updated everything. I've been in meetings since then so I'm logging on to confirm that everything's there now. If any of you find anything that didn't properly copy over let me know.
So you're going to leave the ferox as the turd of the bc's ... awesome i think i'll leave mine to rot until you can be arsed to fix them... great work fozzie :P |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3781
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:55:00 -
[1828] - Quote
Remember, just because something's on Sisi doesn't mean we can't change it anymore.
FYI We are aware that Attack Battlecruisers and Blockade Runners are not showing proper brackets, dropping wrecks or showing up on scan results on Sisi. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:56:00 -
[1829] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:so Fozzie - how far are we? Should we continue to come with inputs or are you already working on other ships and not touching these again? Sorry for ranting in here but it's like certain things just gets ignored?
Pinky We're not announcing more ship changes until well after the 1.1 patch release. My focus continues to be the 1.1 changes and making sure they're as good as they can be at release. As for Sisi, we got an update deployed at 14:13 this afternoon that should have updated everything. I've been in meetings since then so I'm logging on to confirm that everything's there now. If any of you find anything that didn't properly copy over let me know. So you're going to leave the ferox as the turd of the bc's ... awesome i think i'll leave mine to rot until you can be arsed to fix them... great work fozzie :P And furthermore although you're reasoning for the optimal range bonus is valid i don't think you are getting how little the dps is compared to other weapon systems which considering that's the point of blasters..... and that one switch of bonus would at least give it a role again as otherwise the drake just stomps all over it.
you realize the ferox does about 725 dps Armor brutix 734 shield cane 755 armor cane less then 700 Ham Drake 650. With close range ammo and drones. Tank and gank is pretty comparable between all the battle cruisers i have tested. (Drake,armor/shield cane, armor/shield brutix, Ferox.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:56:00 -
[1830] - Quote
From the recent posts it is obvious that there are quite a few different opinions about the drakeGÇÖs resistance bonus. These are just a few thoughts - not that they are very important in any way.
Personally, I would like to keep its resistance, but that is just my personal preference.
I think that a lot of people assumed/hoped that the drake would lose the resistance bonus, but the initial suggested changes and the later revised changes all indicate that the drake will keep its bonus. Furthermore, I recall CCP Fozzie stating that after the heavy missile rebalancing he thought the drake only needed smaller changes http://evenews24.com/2013/01/11/dev-post-keeping-up-with-ccp-fozzie/.
Furthermore, I think that the heavy missile changes set the future level for the drakeGÇÖs long range strike and damage capability compared to other battle cruisers and I think another missile bonus instead of the resistance bonus will unbalance the heavy missile changes. Therefore, I would not be surprised if the drake keeps the resistance bonus rather than getting another missile bonus.
In spite of whatever you think about PVE, the drake remains an important ship for new players for running missions and I think the tank the drakesGÇÖ resistance bonus provides remains important in PVE. This could also be a reason why the drake seems to keep its resistance bonus.
All the above it just me guessing GÇô I could be wrong about all of it.
There have also been some differing posts about the ferox and the drake with the ferox being inferior to the drake.
First of all I think that if you want to compare the two ships you may want to use comparable fits just to be fair.
Secondly, assuming that the drake is balanced compared to other battle cruisers except the ferox, and that the ferox is inferior to the drake, I think that by e.g. removing the resistances of the drake to balance it compared to the ferox you effectively unbalance the drake compared to all other battle cruisers. I think it would be better just to GÇ£fixGÇ¥ the ferox. Please note that I have not checked whether my assumptions are true GÇô they may be completely wrong.
Thirdly, I think it should be taken into account that the ships are not the same and may be used differently.
And I guess, if you expect to meet a drake there is a good chance that you would be well of having high kinetic resistances.
|
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
470
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:10:00 -
[1831] - Quote
Yo Foz-man-- I really appreciate your decision to put utility highs back in! One thing that eats more paste than an ancillary armor repper though is the new Cyclone-- either it needs another high and another launcher or it needs a bigger damage bonus. Right now it can't compete with the Drake for damage at all, can't touch the Drake for tank, it only has one more utility slot, and it's not significantly more mobile than a Drake either.
IMHO you could:
- Give the Cyclone much better mobility and scan res, making it the better skirmishing option in spite of its poor DPS output - Give it damage to compete with the Drake, meaning the Cyclone would trade some tank for better mobility but otherwise be similar - Give it a much bigger shield boosting bonus (enough to make fitting an actual, cap-injected, reasonably-sized-booster tank viable in PvP; currently even an XL ASB-- which doesn't even fit practically at all-- only gives a Cyclone a ~500 dps tank... not a number that inspires great confidence even in the smallest of small-gang combat)
Personally I'd prefer either a DPS buff or a generous mobility / scan res boost. Either would give the Cyclone a fun role (Slightly faster but less-tanky Drake or really nasty fast / heavy tackler with moderate DPS output).
Either way, as it stands 380 DPS with 2x BCUs, rage HAMs and solid missile skills is really disappointing compared to the Drake's ~525, especially given that the Cyclone is only ~300m/s faster than the Drake and their agility is essentially identical. Sure, the Cyclone gets one extra utility slot, but in most scenarios adding a medium neut isn't worth dumping 160 dps and ~10k shield EHP. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
329
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 21:21:00 -
[1832] - Quote
The balance between those 8 battlecruisers in combat is actually okay... They will fit into Eve fine outperforming cruisers in some areas, but not in others. It has been a good job when it comes to the result.
Many of the questions and ideas I had was focused on the way this balance is achieved...
What worries me have been listed earlier - Things like fitting concerns (fitting prophecy vs harbinger feels very different in stress levels) and concerns about suddenly giving ships new 10% bonus and having a rather confusing way of distributing bonus and amount of slots.
Why not make the 2 Gallente ships different in the ways they tank? Why not give the Ferox a resist advanatge over the Drake when the last one has 6 medslots? Why does the Prophecy have to have both more lowslots and a tank bonus compared to the Harbinger that has an obsolete cap bonus and has to have a 10% pr level damage bonus to be compatible?
These are the questions I cannot understand have been unanswered and not even reflected over. But suddenly the thread doesn't matter anymore and we might or might not see these things brought up anytime soon. This is what happened with hybrids - they got a few easy buffs and it was promised to look into them some more - then nothing happened and though blasters are nasty the Railguns are still not very attractive (just like Beam lasers)... |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 22:12:00 -
[1833] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:The balance between those 8 battlecruisers in combat is actually okay... They will fit into Eve fine outperforming cruisers in some areas, but not in others. It has been a good job when it comes to the result.
Many of the questions and ideas I had was focused on the way this balance is achieved...
What worries me have been listed earlier - Things like fitting concerns (fitting prophecy vs harbinger feels very different in stress levels) and concerns about suddenly giving ships new 10% bonus and having a rather confusing/non-logic way of distributing bonus and amount of slots.
Why not make the 2 Gallente ships different in the ways they tank? Why not give the Ferox a resist advantage over the Drake when the last one has 6 medslots? Why does the Prophecy have to have both more lowslots and a tank bonus compared to the Harbinger that has an obsolete cap bonus and has to have a 10% pr level damage bonus to be compatible?
These are the questions I cannot understand haven't been answered or not even reflected over.
But suddenly the thread doesn't matter anymore and we might or might not see these things brought up anytime soon. This is what happened with hybrids - they got a few easy buffs and it was promised to look into them some more - then nothing happened and though blasters are nasty the Railguns are still not very attractive (just like Beam lasers)...
PS. I still love you and I know you're suddenly busy with armor things - But it would be nice with comments on some of those thoughts even if it takes some time for a decent reply. Afterall many people spend lots of time giving you input.
I agree 100% with this.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 22:26:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Yo Foz-man-- I really appreciate your decision to put utility highs back in!
OK I may have lied about the Cyclone. If you consider drone DPS as well its output isn't so bad. It could still use a little more speed, agility, and scan res though IMHO. Just a little something to differentiate it from the Drake-- something to trade that ~10k shield EHP for...
edit:
Oh, and the Hurricane. Upon casual inspection, the Hurricane now appears to be kind of... sad. It sort of does similar DPS to other BCs, but with a vastly shorter engagement range and way less tank. The only respect in which it's not average or below average is mobility, where it has a marginal advantage over other ships (still only ~400m/s faster than a Drake with MWD). With 2x damage mods and 2x TE, the DPS output of a 220 Cane shooting faction EMP is only ~40 DPS greater than that of a Brutix shooting Null (which has better range even with only 1 TE)-- and that's with the Cane fielding Warrior IIs and the Brutix not using drones... launch a flight of Hammerheads on the Brutix and it does almost 100 more DPS using long range ammo than the Cane does using closerange. To top things off, the Brutix has 10k more EHP, better agility, and is only 100m/s slower than the Cane.
This doesn't seem right. The Cane shouldn't be objectively inferior in pretty much every respect to a Brutix, Drake, or Cyclone. To buff and differentiate it a little I'd consider giving the Cane a falloff bonus and boosing its base speed a bit; I think its DPS output is about right but it should project damage significantly better than something like a Brutix. Just looking at a DPS graph for both ships (220 AC Cane with 2x Gyro 2x TE and a 5 Neutron, 1 Ion Blaster Brutix with 2x MFS 1x TE, both using long-range ammo and a flight of Warriors / Hammerheads, respectively) the Brutix has a massive DPS advantage over the Hurricane at close range (~200 DPS) while the Hurricane has a marginal advantage over the Brutix at longer range (the gap peaks at ~100 DPS at around 25km and shrinks back down as range increases). Adding a falloff bonus (and a hint of speed-- think +250m/s MWD speed) to the Cane would flatten out that DPS curve a bit and make the Cane a compelling kiting ship (where it's often worth trading tank and some DPS output for better damage projection and a speed advantage) rather than simply leaving it as an inferior brawling ship (the Drake, Cyclone, and Brutix all outclass the Cane in this role-- I haven't done any analysis vs the other BCs in this capacity but I suspect that these ships represent the best comparisons since they all currently lean towards buffer-fit, close-range, high-damage setups).
The cane has a HUGE advantage in being un-neutable something i wish they would rectify.. And its still versatile.
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 22:30:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:The balance between those 8 battlecruisers in combat is actually okay... They will fit into Eve fine outperforming cruisers in some areas, but not in others. It has been a good job when it comes to the result.
Many of the questions and ideas I had was focused on the way this balance is achieved...
What worries me have been listed earlier - Things like fitting concerns (fitting prophecy vs harbinger feels very different in stress levels) and concerns about suddenly giving ships new 10% bonus and having a rather confusing/non-logic way of distributing bonus and amount of slots.
Why not make the 2 Gallente ships different in the ways they tank? Why not give the Ferox a resist advantage over the Drake when the last one has 6 medslots? Why does the Prophecy have to have both more lowslots and a tank bonus compared to the Harbinger that has an obsolete cap bonus and has to have a 10% pr level damage bonus to be compatible?
These are the questions I cannot understand haven't been answered or not even reflected over.
But suddenly the thread doesn't matter anymore and we might or might not see these things brought up anytime soon. This is what happened with hybrids - they got a few easy buffs and it was promised to look into them some more - then nothing happened and though blasters are nasty the Railguns are still not very attractive (just like Beam lasers)...
PS. I still love you and I know you're suddenly busy with armor things - But it would be nice with comments on some of those thoughts even if it takes some time for a decent reply. Afterall many people spend lots of time giving you input. I agree 100% with this. Wiv
It does seem a bit disrespectful fozzie doesn't seem to have listened to us at all on bc's and made even less changes in response it kind of seems like a rushjob and that he is too busy for this thread in particular... which he probably is but what does that tell you? |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
631
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 22:30:00 -
[1836] - Quote
Don't complain about Minmatar ships not having the same hitpoints or dps as other races. Minmatar is supposed to excel in other areas. The main symptom of the "Winmatar problem" was Minmatar ships being too good in a direct fight while still having all their other advantages. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 22:33:00 -
[1837] - Quote
Just give the Ferox a DPS bonus so it's atleast partially useful and still not the ugly duckling people use for novelty.
I mean c'mon, it's a pretty straight forward fix. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 22:53:00 -
[1838] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:Just give the Ferox a DPS bonus so it's atleast partially useful and still not the ugly duckling people use for novelty.
I mean c'mon, it's a pretty straight forward fix.
Comments like this are the reason CCP seems to not be listening. People who have no clue what they are talking about spewing random buff my ship rabble rabble rabble without even checking out the changes.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
470
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 00:12:00 -
[1839] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote: The cane has a HUGE advantage in being un-neutable something i wish they would rectify.. And its still versatile.
Unlike the Cyclone and Drake or any droneboat you mean, whose weapons use cap? Oh wait...
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Don't complain about Minmatar ships not having the same hitpoints or dps as other races. Minmatar is supposed to excel in other areas. The main symptom of the "Winmatar problem" was Minmatar ships being too good in a direct fight while still having all their other advantages.
Yes I see your point given how the Cane does less dps, has less tank, and has worse range than the other ships mentioned while having essentially the same mobility. Definitely an unfair advantage. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 00:26:00 -
[1840] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:ConranAntoni wrote:Just give the Ferox a DPS bonus so it's atleast partially useful and still not the ugly duckling people use for novelty.
I mean c'mon, it's a pretty straight forward fix. Comments like this are the reason CCP seems to not be listening. People who have no clue what they are talking about spewing random buff my ship rabble rabble rabble without even checking out the changes. Wiv
You are literally ********. True story.
Merlin; 5% Resists, 5% Damage Moa; 5% Resists, 5% Damage Ferox; 5% Resists, 10% Optimal Range
Kestrel; 10% Missile Velocity, 5% Damage Caracal; 10% Missile Velocity, 5% RoF Drake; 5% Resists, 5% Kinetic
Whodathunk that by using CCPs previous logic that simply making the Drake have a velocity bonus over the resists and keep the damage, while keeping a tank & damage bonus to hybrids, would infact fix alot of the issues. Crazy right? I mean your fantastic ability to shitpost with no proper idea of actual PvP or ship use is super fantastic awesome, but maybe try using *logic* to your arguments and you might get somewhere gg.
Oh, wait, is this the point where you go on about how "supa awsum" cruiser rails are and how the optimal range is the most awsum defining aspect of an otherwise useless ship?
Hey, pro tip, try coming up with a reason to keep the optimal range, do it, seriously, I can't wait to hear about your ability to tickle a target at 60km with 200 DPS and tank "a whole fleet of naggas" as you know, combining a range bonus for what is essentially an extra long range weapon system which is pretty ****** in itself with a tank bonus makes sense right. Right?
Do you actually play EvE? Serious question, as your infalliable logic about how these things work astounds me. |
|
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1001
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 01:53:00 -
[1841] - Quote
A lot of the bonuses are in place in an attempt to make each ship in a crowded environment their own unique snowflake. The battlecruisers have to balance against each other. On top of that they can't obsolete or overshadow the work just done on the cruisers.
The Moa has a damage bonus and a shield resist bonus. It has the equivalent of 6.25 turrets vs. the Ferox's 7. It has a good tank but not at the Ferox's level. If you gave the Ferox the same damage bonus rather then the optimal - i.e. - what everyone is asking for- then you have a super Moa. What then, is the purpose of the Moa? There is also the question of whether or not the Ferox could actually apply Blaster damage being as cumbersome as it is. With neutrons, one tracking enhancer, and Null you can get 11km + 11km of optimal and falloff. That's pretty nice. The Moa at least can get some speed behind it. The Ferox? Not so much.
When you compare the Brutix to the Ferox you get another favorable comparison - 9 effective turrets vs. 7. The Brutix has to have it's tank and gank compete for the same slots. The Ferox does not. The Brutix edges ahead with damage but the Ferox has range on it. It's a nice comparison.
The Brutix still has a tanking bonus because there isn't anything better for it. Tracking? We would then be comparing it to the Talos or Thorax. Falloff? The current and future Deimos might not like that.
What about the Drake keeping it's shield resist bonus? The caracal. It's bonuses are for velocity and a general 5% damage bonus. That's where most people would like to see the Drake go. That would dwarf the caracal.
The end result of all this balancing is there are awkard angles that will never quite fit. Naga vs. Ferox. Drake vs. Ferox. Etc. Etc. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 02:27:00 -
[1842] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:Wivabel wrote:ConranAntoni wrote:Just give the Ferox a DPS bonus so it's atleast partially useful and still not the ugly duckling people use for novelty.
I mean c'mon, it's a pretty straight forward fix. Comments like this are the reason CCP seems to not be listening. People who have no clue what they are talking about spewing random buff my ship rabble rabble rabble without even checking out the changes. Wiv You are literally ********. True story. Merlin; 5% Resists, 5% Damage Moa; 5% Resists, 5% Damage Ferox; 5% Resists, 10% Optimal Range Kestrel; 10% Missile Velocity, 5% Damage Caracal; 10% Missile Velocity, 5% RoFDrake; 5% Resists, 5% KineticWhodathunk that by using CCPs previous logic that simply making the Drake have a velocity bonus over the resists and keep the damage, while keeping a tank & damage bonus to hybrids, would infact fix alot of the issues. Crazy right? I mean your fantastic ability to shitpost with no proper idea of actual PvP or ship use is super fantastic awesome, but maybe try using *logic* to your arguments and you might get somewhere gg. Oh, wait, is this the point where you go on about how "supa awsum" cruiser rails are and how the optimal range is the most awsum defining aspect of an otherwise useless ship? Hey, pro tip, try coming up with a reason to keep the optimal range, do it, seriously, I can't wait to hear about your ability to tickle a target at 60km with 200 DPS and tank "a whole fleet of naggas" as you know, combining a range bonus for what is essentially an extra long range weapon system which is pretty ****** in itself with a tank bonus makes sense right. Right? Oh and please bring up the Rokh argument as battleship and cruiser weapons are the same with Large Rails being semi useful and Medium rails being the hilarious feather duster of weapon systems. Do you actually play EvE? Serious question, as your infalliable logic about how these things work astounds me. Oh hey, even did an edit to post like a scrublord and sign off with my name incase you didn't see in the left of the post who posted as that seems to be the thing the cool kids are doing. - Con
The optimal range bonus allows you to engage targets out to point range with medium blasters. The 7 turrets on the Ferox and the 3 magstabs you can put in your lows Provide about 725 DPS including drones and void. Void with the optimal bonus is effective out to Scram Web range were a blaster Ferox wants to operate in. The Ferox has 5 mids and a resist bonus allowing it to get about a 60,000 EHP tank and full tackle. It is not overly fast but it is faster then ships like the drake and ships with plates. The optimal bonus actually allows the ship to still be capable of putting up a fight even when being kited. The Utility high does allow for a neut or nos if desired though you have to use a rig slot for a fitting rig or use a small.
It is not **** posting I am doing I have actually tested the ships I speak about on sisy. If you look back a few pages you can see all my posts with fits and all the rest of the reasons the Ferox is fine.
If the Ferox was to receive a 5% per lvl damage bonus you would have 900+ DPS 60-75000 EHP Feroxs running around. Yeah thats what we need......
The optimal Bonus allows the Ferox to perform well in its blaster roll and it gives it the ability to hit things at range. It also gives it flavor and allows you to fly it differently than a Brutix for instance.
As far as rails go medium rails suck we all know it. I never said anything about putting rails on the Rox. That is what the Naga is for.
You sir are another example of someone who has not even bothered to test the ship with the current changes. Rabble rabble rabble they took my ship? and didn't make it stupidly OP.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
364
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 04:27:00 -
[1843] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Oh, and the Hurricane. Upon casual inspection, the Hurricane now appears to be kind of... sad. It sort of does similar DPS to other BCs, but with a vastly shorter engagement range and way less tank. The only respect in which it's not average or below average is mobility, where it has a marginal advantage over other ships (still only ~400m/s faster than a Drake with MWD). With 2x damage mods and 2x TE, the DPS output of a 220 Cane shooting faction EMP is only ~40 DPS greater than that of a Brutix shooting Null (which has better range even with only 1 TE)-- and that's with the Cane fielding Warrior IIs and the Brutix not using drones... launch a flight of Hammerheads on the Brutix and it does almost 100 more DPS using long range ammo than the Cane does using closerange. To top things off, the Brutix has 10k more EHP, better agility, and is only 100m/s slower than the Cane. What on earth are you using the rest of the PG for if youre only fitting 220s?! I have 425s, a T2 shield extender, a T2 MWD and a T2 medium neut and I have 77 grid to spare . . .
You must be doing something with that PG either that or youre wasting it . . .
Also, have you tried to put a TE + mag stab on a brutix while still fitting a tank? 4 slot armor tanks are not that awesome. Lastly, what are you using your last low for? one DCU, 2 TE, 2 gyrostabs, whats in the last low, and why is it not a third gyrostab?
sure its a bit more fragile than before, and not quite as fast, but this is basically the same fit that's been raping 0.0 for the past 2 years; if you need the space, you can downgrade to a meta 4 MWD/LSE and im sure it will fit without great fitting skills. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 04:35:00 -
[1844] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:A lot of the bonuses are in place in an attempt to make each ship in a crowded environment their own unique snowflake. The battlecruisers have to balance against each other. On top of that they can't obsolete or overshadow the work just done on the cruisers.
The Moa has a damage bonus and a shield resist bonus. It has the equivalent of 6.25 turrets vs. the Ferox's 7. It has a good tank but not at the Ferox's level. If you gave the Ferox the same damage bonus rather then the optimal - i.e. - what everyone is asking for- then you have a super Moa. What then, is the purpose of the Moa? There is also the question of whether or not the Ferox could actually apply Blaster damage being as cumbersome as it is. With neutrons, one tracking enhancer, and Null you can get 11km + 11km of optimal and falloff. That's pretty nice. The Moa at least can get some speed behind it. The Ferox? Not so much.
When you compare the Brutix to the Ferox you get another favorable comparison - 9 effective turrets vs. 7. The Brutix has to have it's tank and gank compete for the same slots. The Ferox does not. The Brutix edges ahead with damage but the Ferox has range on it. It's a nice comparison.
The Brutix still has a tanking bonus because there isn't anything better for it. Tracking? We would then be comparing it to the Talos or Thorax. Falloff? The current and future Deimos might not like that.
What about the Drake keeping it's shield resist bonus? The caracal. It's bonuses are for velocity and a general 5% damage bonus. That's where most people would like to see the Drake go. That would dwarf the caracal.
The end result of all this balancing is there are awkard angles that will never quite fit. Naga vs. Ferox. Drake vs. Ferox. Etc. Etc. Y'know what? You can just take your logic and common sense and go #$^& the hell off. That shiite has no place here on EvE Forums! This is a place for PvEing beard-strokers to wax poetic about things they know nothing about, or for diehard XXXhardcore PvPers to throw tantrums about not getting a new pwnmobile. So get a clue and get your shitte together... or GTFO!
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
332
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 05:25:00 -
[1845] - Quote
it's not good to compare bonus from frigates and cruisers when BC's fit in between cruisers and battleships like destroyers do between frigates and... and... Asssault frigates
I think it's cool not to have the entire line of caldari hybrid ships the exact same bonus and the Ferox is very nice as it is right now. In my opinion it is the Drake sticking out not only having a resist bonus as the only missile ship, but at the same time having 1 more medslot and doing almost the same damage at a longe range. The balance is fine, but it doesn't seem logical when I bet Drake could have been much more attractive and creating better versatility with a more combat oriented sets of bonus.
I mean why not a 5% RoF and 5% kinetic damage? People can use the medslot advantage for invuln if they want similar tank as ferox, web if they like to dominate range over the Ferox or something else. This Drake would do more dps than now, but as a slower ship and now without a resist bonus I am sure it could be balanced. Anyway this was just an example of ways to create more flavour. More examples are further back but hasn't even been "discussed and pushed aside for other ideas" - They have merely been ignored :-( |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
127
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 06:54:00 -
[1846] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Y'know what? You can just take your logic and common sense and go #$^& the hell off. That shiite has no place here on EvE Forums! This is a place for PvEing beard-strokers to wax poetic about things they know nothing about, or for diehard XXXhardcore PvPers to throw tantrums about not getting a new pwnmobile. So get a clue and get your shitte together... or GTFO!
This is arguably one of the best spiels I've ever read on this forum. My god, this is gold. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3444
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:50:00 -
[1847] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:ConranAntoni wrote:Wivabel wrote:ConranAntoni wrote:Just give the Ferox a DPS bonus so it's atleast partially useful and still not the ugly duckling people use for novelty.
I mean c'mon, it's a pretty straight forward fix. Comments like this are the reason CCP seems to not be listening. People who have no clue what they are talking about spewing random buff my ship rabble rabble rabble without even checking out the changes. Wiv You are literally ********. True story. Merlin; 5% Resists, 5% Damage Moa; 5% Resists, 5% Damage Ferox; 5% Resists, 10% Optimal Range Kestrel; 10% Missile Velocity, 5% Damage Caracal; 10% Missile Velocity, 5% RoFDrake; 5% Resists, 5% KineticWhodathunk that by using CCPs previous logic that simply making the Drake have a velocity bonus over the resists and keep the damage, while keeping a tank & damage bonus to hybrids, would infact fix alot of the issues. Crazy right? I mean your fantastic ability to shitpost with no proper idea of actual PvP or ship use is super fantastic awesome, but maybe try using *logic* to your arguments and you might get somewhere gg. Oh, wait, is this the point where you go on about how "supa awsum" cruiser rails are and how the optimal range is the most awsum defining aspect of an otherwise useless ship? Hey, pro tip, try coming up with a reason to keep the optimal range, do it, seriously, I can't wait to hear about your ability to tickle a target at 60km with 200 DPS and tank "a whole fleet of naggas" as you know, combining a range bonus for what is essentially an extra long range weapon system which is pretty ****** in itself with a tank bonus makes sense right. Right? Oh and please bring up the Rokh argument as battleship and cruiser weapons are the same with Large Rails being semi useful and Medium rails being the hilarious feather duster of weapon systems. Do you actually play EvE? Serious question, as your infalliable logic about how these things work astounds me. Oh hey, even did an edit to post like a scrublord and sign off with my name incase you didn't see in the left of the post who posted as that seems to be the thing the cool kids are doing. - Con The optimal range bonus allows you to engage targets out to point range with medium blasters. The 7 turrets on the Ferox and the 3 magstabs you can put in your lows Provide about 725 DPS including drones and void. Void with the optimal bonus is effective out to Scram Web range were a blaster Ferox wants to operate in. The Ferox has 5 mids and a resist bonus allowing it to get about a 60,000 EHP tank and full tackle. It is not overly fast but it is faster then ships like the drake and ships with plates. The optimal bonus actually allows the ship to still be capable of putting up a fight even when being kited. The Utility high does allow for a neut or nos if desired though you have to use a rig slot for a fitting rig or use a small. It is not **** posting I am doing I have actually tested the ships I speak about on sisy. If you look back a few pages you can see all my posts with fits and all the rest of the reasons the Ferox is fine. If the Ferox was to receive a 5% per lvl damage bonus you would have 900+ DPS 60-75000 EHP Feroxs running around. Yeah thats what we need...... The optimal Bonus allows the Ferox to perform well in its blaster roll and it gives it the ability to hit things at range. It also gives it flavor and allows you to fly it differently than a Brutix for instance. As far as rails go medium rails suck we all know it. I never said anything about putting rails on the Rox. That is what the Naga is for. You sir are another example of someone who has not even bothered to test the ship with the current changes. Rabble rabble rabble they took my ship? and didn't make it stupidly OP. Wiv Nice analysis.
I have hope that medium rails will be looked at soon and be brought into line (possibly to be followed by beam lasers). When that happens that will add even more versatility to the Ferox and perhaps give us a real reason to occasionally choose a rail Ferox over a rail Naga for certain situations.
(I'm not dissing what has already been done with rails in general. Other than the mediums they are in pretty good shape, but mediums are a tough one.) To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
130
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 15:49:00 -
[1848] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: I have hope that medium rails will be looked at soon and be brought into line (possibly to be followed by beam lasers). When that happens that will add even more versatility to the Ferox and perhaps give us a real reason to occasionally choose a rail Ferox over a rail Naga for certain situations.
(I'm not dissing what has already been done with rails in general. Other than the mediums they are in pretty good shape, but mediums are a tough one.)
Medium rails are fine. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
517
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 16:42:00 -
[1849] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: I have hope that medium rails will be looked at soon and be brought into line (possibly to be followed by beam lasers). When that happens that will add even more versatility to the Ferox and perhaps give us a real reason to occasionally choose a rail Ferox over a rail Naga for certain situations.
(I'm not dissing what has already been done with rails in general. Other than the mediums they are in pretty good shape, but mediums are a tough one.)
Medium rails are fine.
Its long range ammo on short range guns + TE's that overpowered.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3444
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 17:30:00 -
[1850] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: I have hope that medium rails will be looked at soon and be brought into line (possibly to be followed by beam lasers). When that happens that will add even more versatility to the Ferox and perhaps give us a real reason to occasionally choose a rail Ferox over a rail Naga for certain situations.
(I'm not dissing what has already been done with rails in general. Other than the mediums they are in pretty good shape, but mediums are a tough one.)
Medium rails are fine. Its long range ammo on short range guns + TE's that overpowered. Debatable, but I think we can safely leave that to Fozzie to sort out. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 17:48:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: I have hope that medium rails will be looked at soon and be brought into line (possibly to be followed by beam lasers). When that happens that will add even more versatility to the Ferox and perhaps give us a real reason to occasionally choose a rail Ferox over a rail Naga for certain situations.
(I'm not dissing what has already been done with rails in general. Other than the mediums they are in pretty good shape, but mediums are a tough one.)
Medium rails are fine. Its long range ammo on short range guns + TE's that overpowered. Debatable, but I think we can safely leave that to Fozzie to sort out.
Yeah if you wait like 5 years. |
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 18:03:00 -
[1852] - Quote
*personal opinion in a feedback thread*
I don't see how this rebalancing pass will improve the Cyclone.
You can arguably squeeze more dps out of a cruiser. It can still do a splendid burst tank, but it wasn't hurting in that department in the first place and this has not changed.
With 5 only launcher hard points it is too weak, in my opinion; you need to slot 3 ballistic control systems to get the dps of its new main weapon systems above 350 with faction ammo.. (I am looking at HAMs)
If you take into account that ballistic control systems need more cpu than gyrostabilizers, we are back to square one with a co-processor pretty much imperative to tie the fit together.
Why not give it 6 launcher hard points? The nerfed drake has 6, after all... and tiericide is meant to put these on equal footing.
The extra low slot is nice, but I am kind of at a loss what to put there currently, seeing as how this vessel is the definition of a shield tanker. I think an extra med slot would have been a better choice..
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 18:27:00 -
[1853] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Remember, just because something's on Sisi doesn't mean we can't change it anymore.
FYI We are aware that Attack Battlecruisers and Blockade Runners are not showing proper brackets, dropping wrecks or showing up on scan results on Sisi. This being so, please look at Gallente Combat BCs once more and replace ONE of their active repair bonuses to something useful. Both ships don't need active bonuses. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
334
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 18:30:00 -
[1854] - Quote
I agree one of the major factors why long range doesn't work well is the short range weapons having very long range with T2 ammo... But Rails and Beams are not fine - You can double their alpha and artillery will still have way more alpha (and they even lack a top tier arty). The problem with the long range hybrids and energy weapons is whenever you hit someone you barely tickle them and at range you can't exactly force people to sit still while getting killed unless you got tacklers - and if you have tacklers it's usually way better to sit next to it with short range dps monsters.
Obviously we can find good situations for beams and rails - Ferox is a super nice support ship with rails and antimatter. But Im sure statistics for weapon use in pvp tells you exactly what works and doesn't. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 19:12:00 -
[1855] - Quote
I always thought of rails as a PvE weapon platform because of their downsides. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
43
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 20:50:00 -
[1856] - Quote
Fozzie please answer the question: are those side-effects of Drake 10% dmage bonus intended? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2515131#post2515131
Quote: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type for PvE.
Just simple one-letter answer y/n is enough. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3802
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:17:00 -
[1857] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie please answer the question: are those side-effects of Drake 10% dmage bonus intended? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2515131#post2515131Quote: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type for PvE.
Just simple one-letter answer y/n is enough.
All of those factors have been considered yes.
The stronger focus on kinetic damage is a nerf to the ship but considering how strong it is in dps and tank I believe that it will still be competitive. Note that the Condor shares the 10% kinetic bonus per level and I don't think anyone can argue that it is crippled as a result.
The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:38:00 -
[1858] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie please answer the question: are those side-effects of Drake 10% dmage bonus intended? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2515131#post2515131Quote: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type for PvE.
Just simple one-letter answer y/n is enough. All of those factors have been considered yes. The stronger focus on kinetic damage is a nerf to the ship but considering how strong it is in dps and tank I believe that it will still be competitive. Note that the Condor shares the 10% kinetic bonus per level and I don't think anyone can argue that it is crippled as a result. The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest.
about as much a nerf as lasers has having to use em and thermal. The drake needs a much stronger across the board nerf. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
638
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 22:08:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie please answer the question: are those side-effects of Drake 10% dmage bonus intended? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2515131#post2515131Quote: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type for PvE.
Just simple one-letter answer y/n is enough. All of those factors have been considered yes. The stronger focus on kinetic damage is a nerf to the ship but considering how strong it is in dps and tank I believe that it will still be competitive. Note that the Condor shares the 10% kinetic bonus per level and I don't think anyone can argue that it is crippled as a result. The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest. about as much a nerf as lasers has having to use em and thermal. The drake needs a much stronger across the board nerf.
Only in giant fleets does the drake have any meaningful impact. On the small scale its pretty lacklustre. After these changes it will be more fair on a large scale but be less useful on a small scale. I think that's fine, however it doesnt need any more nerfing than what has been proposed already.
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 22:45:00 -
[1860] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie please answer the question: are those side-effects of Drake 10% dmage bonus intended? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2515131#post2515131 Quote: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type for PvE.
Just simple one-letter answer y/n is enough. All of those factors have been considered yes. The stronger focus on kinetic damage is a nerf to the ship but considering how strong it is in dps and tank I believe that it will still be competitive. Note that the Condor shares the 10% kinetic bonus per level and I don't think anyone can argue that it is crippled as a result. The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest. about as much a nerf as lasers has having to use em and thermal. The drake needs a much stronger across the board nerf. Only in giant fleets does the drake have any meaningful impact. On the small scale its pretty lacklustre. After these changes it will be more fair on a large scale but be less useful on a small scale. I think that's fine, however it doesnt need any more nerfing than what has been proposed already. the outperformed ferox begs to differ |
|
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1010
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 23:21:00 -
[1861] - Quote
Can a Drake even kill a X-LASB fit Ferox before the reload? It looks like it would be very close. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 23:28:00 -
[1862] - Quote
Quote:The stronger focus on kinetic damage is a nerf to the ship but considering how strong it is in dps and tank I believe that it will still be competitive. Note that the Condor shares the 10% kinetic bonus per level and I don't think anyone can argue that it is crippled as a result.
This is just silly. The Condor is the designated Caldari tackle frigate. Its damage is trivial and irrelevant, and nobody cares about any damage bonus it has next to the 80% tackle cap reduction mod. Insisting that the monodamage bonus on the Drake is fine is the same as giving the Condor a cap use bonus only to warp disruptors and not scrams, for no apparent reason, and then just insisting that it's fine next to the other tackle frigates that have a universal bonus.
At least you finally admit that the monodamage bonus is a "nerf," but the problem here is that it's not the nerf that was needed. The problem before was that the Drake did good damage at long range AND had a stupidly strong tank. You could have dealt with that issue in a straightforward, simple way, following the clear pattern that you already set up in the successful frigate and cruiser rebalancing. Instead you just went off in the weeds, randomly making the "better" BCs worse, and not making the bad BCs better in any clear way.
You also still haven't given any rational reason to explain why Caldari have a viable, clearly focused, long range attack missile ship in every category except Battlecruiser. How do you justify having the Kestrel, the Caracal, and the Raven being set up like they are, and then leaving the Drake as the odd bird out, having nothing in common with the rest of the missile boats for this race, other than being ugly and slow, and using missiles?
It's obvious that the Ferox cannot be the "attack" ship here, because medium rails just don't cut it in that role. The only thing it can be good at is the combat role, which you still refuse to let it actually be by giving it a sensible damage bonus rather than the silly optimal buff. And the tier 3s are not attack ships; they're snipers, because they use large weapons, which can't hit diddly that is small, moving, or close.
So why do we have two "tank" ships with mediocre DPS and range, a dedicated gank wagon, and no attack ships at all in the battlecruiser class? These aren't just cruisers with gang links, as you have clearly told us by making them a whole other class that we are forced to train through between cruisers and battleships. So why is this class not balanced in the same sensible way as the others?
You can keep on spinning this however you want, but the fact remains that the Drake as it stands now is not "balanced," it's just worse. It could easily have been made very good at one thing, without being good at everything, which is the reason everyone complained about it in the first place (and which was ostensibly the entire goal of this "rebalancing," or so you told us when it all began).
You also can't get around the fact that, since the HML nerf, the Drake is now in the position of having the exact same effective range with heavy missiles as a Caracal firing light missiles; and that is just silly.
Obvious answer is obvious: remove the resist bonus and add the same ROF + velocity bonus that you gave all of the other dedicated Caldari missile attack boats, so that the ship is no longer a do everything problem child, but it is good at doing what all of the other attack boats in this race are obviously assigned to do (good long range damage with complete damage flexibility, countered by slow speed and a modest tank). |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
161
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 23:43:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Can a Drake even kill a X-LASB fit Ferox before the reload? It looks like it would be very close. Depends on the ferox fit to a large extent. An electron fit with em/therm/kin resist rigs should win handily if it can ensure that the fight occurs within ~5 km. An ion fit that can only run two resist rigs would have more difficulty. That said, talking exclusively about which ship would win an honorable 1v1 is kind of neither here nor there; as a general pvp ship, the HAM drake significantly outperforms the blaster ferox (whether XLASB or buffer fit) in terms of damage projection, raw damge output, and resists, without losing much of anything in any other respect. If anything, I think the drake should have its resist bonus swapped for a shield HP bonus - that'd make the ferox more attractive by comparison in situations involving RR without hurting the drake's tank as a solo ship. For reference, the fits I'm basing this on are below:
[NEW Drake, HAM + small neut] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
[NEW Ferox, XLASB - electrons] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I
Warrior II x5 |
Theia Matova
Pink Bunny Recreation Assembly
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 00:24:00 -
[1864] - Quote
Drake will remain the cap neut immune imba super tank.. You speak of balancing and you do not fix the real issue. Drake is super t1 bc that no other can beat in many situation. Drake needs nerf dropping base defense from shields so few prosent wont do. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 00:32:00 -
[1865] - Quote
Theia Matova wrote:Drake will remain the cap neut immune, imba super tank.. You speak of balancing and you do not fix the real issue. Drake is super t1 bc that no other can beat in many situations. Drake needs nerf dropping base defense from shields so few prosent wont do.
Oh and amarr and gallente need more loving.. Its nice that amarr gets missiles, drones are nice but not my favorite piece of pie.
This balancing has been long waited do it right. PLEASE
To be fair they are not entirely neut resistant now. Active hardeners no longer give a resist bonus when they are not turned on. Previously it was 15% per resist on a T2 Invuln that was not turned on. It is not much but it is something.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
MOL0TOK
State War Academy Caldari State
542
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 01:43:00 -
[1866] - Quote
Crazy! Don't toch Harbinger, 6 turret vs 6 turret on Hurrigane is stupidly, as vs T1 Amarr cruisers... -æ-+-+, -¦-î-Ä -+ -¦-â-¦-â -¦-+-é-î! / to Kerzhakoved / |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1011
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 04:38:00 -
[1867] - Quote
I logged onto the test server again hoping to try out some of the AARs. No such luck as they aren't seeded yet. I did take a second look at the Harb as it had it's PG adjusted to the proper spot. Funny fact- the following fit:
High: Heavy Pulse II x 6 Empty slot Mid: Experimental MWD Web Scram Cap Recharger II Low: Rolled 1600 plate DC II EANM II x 2 HS II x 2 Rigs: Trimarks x 3
It all fit without implants or fitting rigs and mods. PG left over? 0.0 . Someone at CcP measured that out just right. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
334
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 04:57:00 -
[1868] - Quote
Thank you for offering some hindsights on the kinetic Drake bonus variant mr. F - Would you be able to go in depth about your arguments about Drake/Ferox and Myrm/Brutix sharing the same tank bonus instead of creating more flavour? Afterall the Proph/Harb doesn't and the Harb would seem to benefit more from a gun bonus while the Harb could really need the tank bonus instead of the cap bonus... |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 05:00:00 -
[1869] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I logged onto the test server again hoping to try out some of the AARs. No such luck as they aren't seeded yet. I did take a second look at the Harb as it had it's PG adjusted to the proper spot. Funny fact- the following fit: High: Heavy Pulse II x 6 Empty slot Mid: Experimental MWD Web Scram Cap Recharger II Low: Rolled 1600 plate DC II EANM II x 2 HS II x 2 Rigs: Trimarks x 3 It all fit without implants or fitting rigs and mods. PG left over? 0.0 . Someone at CcP measured that out just right.
Is there enough PG left over to make the Cap Recharger a small booster? If possible I'd like to cram some cap boosting on there for when needed. |
Thelonious Blake
Bulgarian Experienced Crackers
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 06:12:00 -
[1870] - Quote
I haven't read all the comments and IDK if this was proposed...
CCP Fozzie, could you consider giving tech 1 battlecruiser hulls something like 1% bonus per level to gang link strenght (or a static bonus like 3-4%)? I think it won't be OP. That way they could become low-end command ships and people will consider more often actually fitting gang links on their bcs.
Regards. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
366
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 06:27:00 -
[1871] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Please consider alternatives before implementing such changes. There are 3 additional rather huge side effects for this: 1. New players will be at even harder disadvantage using Drake. It requires BC II to operate which will give +20% to kinetic damage. Difference between +20% and +50% is too huge to ignore, hence flying Drake will require BC 5. 2. Kinetic damage will be 1.5x times higher than other damage types. I think this is dangerously close to Stealth Bomber territory where you are forced to use 1 single damage type under any circumstances. Drake will loose last remains of flexibility. 3. Caldari will become the only race without battlecruiser that can change damage type that also a huge PvE disadavantage for new players. I hope that those side-effects are not intended. This is an idiotic way of looking at things . . .
1. comparing level 2 with level 5 is misleading when arguing that the change is worse for people with less SP, what you need to do is compare on a level by level basis. at level 2 it is 0.5 launchers worth of damage less, at level 3 its 0.25 launchers less, at level 4 its the same, and at level 5 its 0.25 launchers better . . . now is that really so much worse than it is now?
2. While youre statement is technically correct, the way you state the numbers is intentionally misleading, kinetic does 50% more damage than any other type. And yes, it is a nerf to the drake because it needs the nerf.
3. the drones that the gallente and amarr ships use to "switch damage types" get shot at by pirates . . . not exactly optimal, also every drone other than the gallente ones do less damage, kinda like how every missile the drake fires except for kinetic does less damage. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
166
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 06:38:00 -
[1872] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest.
the problem is said Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest use 2 bonus to get that dps the drake and all the others 10% bonused ship use just 1 bonus and after that they have another useful bonus.
|
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:09:00 -
[1873] - Quote
Unfortunately I didn't read 93 pages and I think it already was discussed.
But.
We have armor rep bonus ships and shield boost bonus ships. Its quite clear. But what i didnt understand is that WHY matar have only 1 BC with shield boost bonus (cyclone and his T2 version) and gallent 2 (brutix and myrm). Is that fair? Why i should chose brutix instead of myrm? Because of active tank we need to downgrade our blasters and myrm dps quite good with low blaster because of drones. Same with amarr and caldari. Why caldari have 2 ships with resist bonus in BC class and amarr only 1? Mb it is time to change ferox and brutix bonus? We dont need "snipe" bonus on ferox because we have imbalanced Naga or Talos for that. Few gallent ships have bonus on falloff (catalyst for example). So what if you give falloff bonus for brutix?
A lit bit of concern.
Gallent havnt ships for fleet fight. Well it is only 3 of them - Proteus as heavy takler, Lach as takler in shield fleet and logist (and guards still better in fleets fight). Megathrone and dominix aren't used for a long time. Because drones is garbage in massive pvp (not fighter or FB, just drones) and Megathrone have realy low range with blaster instead of shield rokh that can work on 50km with good dps and strong tank. Yeah, Mega is armor tank. You know how long can shoot amarr Apoc with Pusle (thats close weapon like blasters)? 90+km. Dps quite low (like 300) but at 50km dps realy good. And still strong armor tank. And where I have to use Mega? Only solo at gate camp? Maybe it is time to change and mega bonus too? For falloff? Or maybe it is time finaly redesing blasters for something useful at fleet fight. ATM gallent ships with blaster useful in solo. But solo isnt all PvP in EvE.
And if new player in EvE start to train gallent ships because he doesnt know about for what this ships used for. He will be disappoint when try to drive this boats in fleet fights. Ofc you can say: " So train amarr, matar or caldari". But is that a balance? "You can use amarr, caldariand matar ships in solo, small-scale and fleet fight PvP, but gallents only for solo"?
So, my point is give gallent few ships for fleets fight. If brutix would have bonus on falloff it will be ok in armor hurri fleet. For now poor brut useless in many ways :( |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
511
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 08:31:00 -
[1874] - Quote
To mare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The higher damage bonus does give a stronger benefit from training, but the dps gap between skill levels on the Drake is still lower than it is on the Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest.
the problem is said Hurricane/Rupture/Tempest use 2 bonus to get that dps the drake and all the others 10% bonused ship use just 1 bonus and after that they have another useful bonus.
Balance ships, not bonuses. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1011
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 09:34:00 -
[1875] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Is there enough PG left over to make the Cap Recharger a small booster? If possible I'd like to cram some cap boosting on there for when needed.
You would need a 1% PG implant. |
Caxton Verticorda
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 10:36:00 -
[1876] - Quote
I seriously hope CCP are trolling us with this one. |
Fallen Angel III
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 10:44:00 -
[1877] - Quote
GJ dickslamming the BCs,
Frigate changes where awesome, Crusier changes where good, Battlecruiser changes are bad,
I see a pattern?
Battleship changes ******* terrible?
|
Fallen Angel III
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 11:00:00 -
[1878] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I logged onto the test server again hoping to try out some of the AARs. No such luck as they aren't seeded yet. I did take a second look at the Harb as it had it's PG adjusted to the proper spot. Funny fact- the following fit: High: Heavy Pulse II x 6 Empty slot Mid: Experimental MWD Web Scram Cap Recharger II Low: Rolled 1600 plate DC II EANM II x 2 HS II x 2 Rigs: Trimarks x 3 It all fit without implants or fitting rigs and mods. PG left over? 0.0 . Someone at CcP measured that out just right. Is there enough PG left over to make the Cap Recharger a small booster? If possible I'd like to cram some cap boosting on there for when needed.
No cap rechargers use 1 PG where as Cap boosters (small uses 5 PG) also, fitting cap rechargers to a PVP ship...gtfo |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
518
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 11:25:00 -
[1879] - Quote
Fallen Angel III wrote:GJ dickslamming the BCs, Frigate changes where awesome, Crusier changes where good, Battlecruiser changes are bad, I see a pattern? Battleship changes ******* terrible? Battlecruiser changes are bad
Its because you want epic buffs instead of balance work.
Battlecruiser changes are fine.
So far, i hope tier3's get nerfed as much as they should |
Caxton Verticorda
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 12:00:00 -
[1880] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Its because you want epic buffs instead of balance work.
Battlecruiser changes are fine.
So far, i hope tier3's get nerfed as much as they should
I just want my Prophecies to not be drone boats. |
|
Fallen Angel III
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 12:13:00 -
[1881] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Fallen Angel III wrote:GJ dickslamming the BCs, Frigate changes where awesome, Crusier changes where good, Battlecruiser changes are bad, I see a pattern? Battleship changes ******* terrible? Battlecruiser changes are bad Its because you want epic buffs instead of balance work. Battlecruiser changes are fine. So far, i hope tier3's get nerfed as much as they should
No i dont want epic buffs, dont get me wrong i like some of the changes but others did not really need changing or only need changing a little example..harbinger, at 50 pg then its fine maybe change the cap bonus to a tracking bonus orrange bonus, Ferox drop the range bonus for a damage bonus just little things not revamping all of them... |
Yxilan
Elitist Jerks
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 12:33:00 -
[1882] - Quote
Can you post a couple of Brutix fits that actually use Neutrons and Armor reps effectively?
Unless you bring about some Ancillary Armor Rep - That reps at the start of the cycle, not the end, i still think it's mostly a wasted bonus since people will still use pure shield gank nano fits.
Take a look at killmails - thorax, vexor, brutix, talos - all have use shield nano fits to try to be competitive.
There's something wrong with your design for this supposed "armor tanking" race.
So maybe....
A drop the rep and add a speed bonus so that the shortest ranged guns in eve actually have a chance to get in and deal damage
B heaven forbid balance armor repping so it's on par with ancillary shield reps.
C since you're giving Amarr drones (destroyer and BC) and minmatar missiles (destroyer and BC) maybe give the 5% Brutix Armor Resist? Or even better, shield buff?
PS Gallente ships are notorious for not having enough powergrid to fit guns and armor... and you're reducing powergrid? Acording to the first post the Cyclone - a shield tank ship, is going to have just 25 less powergrid than the Brutix, what gives? |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:51:00 -
[1883] - Quote
Fallen Angel III wrote:GJ dickslamming the BCs, Frigate changes where awesome, Crusier changes where good, Battlecruiser changes are bad, I see a pattern? Battleship changes ******* terrible? Battlecruiser changes are bad
In a previous Developer blog it was said that battleships won't get very many changes. The biggest change will probably be the conversion of the typhoon to a missile boat. Everything else will probably be HP, PG/CPU, and mineral cost adjustments. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 13:51:00 -
[1884] - Quote
Yxilan wrote:I have only one request oh mighty CCP
Could you PLEASE show us a couple of PVP Brutix fits that actually use the rep bonus? Have you ever tried running neutrons and armor reps at the same time? Because it doesnt work. HAM/Autocannons and XASBs work like a charm though.
You're giving the Gallente the shortest range and the second highest cap usage guns in the game... so your idea is to make their ships slow and give them high cap usage armor reps. It just doesn't work. Why can i fit a full rack of the best guns/launchers on all my other ships AND use their designated tank/buff to full effect but most of the gallente ships run out of powergrid half way through the fit?
Take a look at killmails - thorax, vexor, brutix, talos - all have use shield nano fits to try to be competitive.
There's something wrong with your design for this supposed "armor tanking" race.
In every other game out there the meelee/close quarter specialist is either the fastest or the tankiest thing around so he can actually get in there at have a chance to deal his damage.
In EVE Mimnatar are faster and have better range, Amarr are tankier and have better range. I honestly never understood that.
So again, please show me a Brutix or even better, a Hyperion fit that use neutrons and armor reps and can stand up to a maelstrom ar abaddon.
Highs 6x Heavy Neutron Blaster II 1x Small EMP Smartbomb II Medium power 1x Small Capacitor Booster II 1x Stasis Webifier II 1x Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I 1x Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Low power 1x Damage Control II 1x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1x Medium Armor Repairer II 1x Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer 1x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1x Reactive Armor Hardener Rig Slot 1x Medium Ancillary Current Router I 1x Medium Nanobot Accelerator I 1x Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Charges 946x Null M 558x Void M 17x Navy Cap Booster 400 1,000x Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Drones 5x Hammerhead II These numbers are with my skills so results may very slightly.
EHP ~30000 with about a 700 DPS tank maybe more maybe less I would need to do more math. The test server is not calculating the aar correctly.
Speed ~1190 M/s ~1650m/s overheated
DPS Void 772/CN Anti 708/null 596 (155 from Hammerheads)
IMO not to bad
If you decide to 1600 plate it you get about 55000 ehp 850 dps and 980 m/s give or take depending on skills.
I am not totally sold on the repeated tank bonuses but with the changes to armor tanking and especially active armor tanking you are now capable of flying fast active armor tanked ships. We still have the problems of slot competition and speed rigs reducing armor but speedy active armor tanked gallente ships are looking much more viable. I think a shield gank brutix still has a place in eve but active armor fast brawlers will be much more common and effective. We will not really know until the armor changes hit TQ.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
90
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 14:06:00 -
[1885] - Quote
I still don't understand the rationale for both of the gallente ships getting the active armour repair bonus. You may be improving armour repair (though even that is still a poisoned chalice) but you've condemned these ships to be 1 trick ponies that everyone can counter with a neut or to continue as we are and ignore the bonus completely and end up with a (superior to armour) shield tanked ship.
Please, either give us a bloody good reason to justify this or give us some alternatives. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1011
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 14:09:00 -
[1886] - Quote
Are you using implants to fit that? |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 14:19:00 -
[1887] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Are you using implants to fit that?
Nope
I have almost max fitting skills armor rigging is at 4
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 15:07:00 -
[1888] - Quote
Wivabel wrote: Highs 6x Heavy Neutron Blaster II 1x Small EMP Smartbomb II Medium power 1x Small Capacitor Booster II 1x Stasis Webifier II 1x Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I 1x Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Low power 1x Damage Control II 1x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1x Medium Armor Repairer II 1x Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer 1x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1x Reactive Armor Hardener Rig Slot 1x Medium Ancillary Current Router I 1x Medium Nanobot Accelerator I 1x Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Charges 946x Null M 558x Void M 17x Navy Cap Booster 400 1,000x Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Drones 5x Hammerhead II These numbers are with my skills so results may very slightly.
EHP ~30000 with about a 700 DPS tank maybe more maybe less I would need to do more math. The test server is not calculating the aar correctly.
Speed ~1190 M/s ~1650m/s overheated
DPS Void 772/CN Anti 708/null 596 (155 from Hammerheads)
IMO not to bad ...
Your capacitor certainly won't last long with that fit, especially if you overload one or two repairers. I'd only use a downgraded single cap booster if it were a plated fit. There's a lot I don't like about that fit, but if you want to fly it go ahead. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
129
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 16:11:00 -
[1889] - Quote
Yxilan wrote:Can you post a couple of Brutix fits that actually use Neutrons and Armor reps effectively?
Unless you bring about some Ancillary Armor Rep - That reps at the start of the cycle, not the end, i still think it's mostly a wasted bonus since people will still use pure shield gank nano fits.
Take a look at killmails - thorax, vexor, brutix, talos - all have use shield nano fits to try to be competitive.
There's something wrong with your design for this supposed "armor tanking" race.
So maybe....
A drop the rep and add a speed bonus so that the shortest ranged guns in eve actually have a chance to get in and deal damage
B heaven forbid balance armor repping so it's on par with ancillary shield reps.
C since you're giving Amarr drones (destroyer and BC) and minmatar missiles (destroyer and BC) maybe give the 5% Brutix Armor Resist? Or even better, shield buff?
PS Gallente ships are notorious for not having enough powergrid to fit guns and armor... and you're reducing powergrid? Acording to the first post the Cyclone - a shield tank ship, is going to have just 25 less powergrid than the Brutix, what gives?
It's almost as if you read none of the changes at all.
The Brutix is losing PG, yes, but it also drops a gun and comes out ahead there. Also, they're reducing the PG cost of MAR's by 20% in the same patch. They're making rigs increase the PG cost of reppers, but if you have armour rigging 5 even putting on 3 active rigs actually reduces the amount of PG they cost over current.
They are coming out with an AAR, though it doesn't rep at the beginning of the cycle. Fozzie has noted the advantages of shield and wants to give shield tanking a more effective penalty (or increase the effect sig radius has on ships).
How about you take a look over here before you post again.
And yes, active rep bonuses are worse than resistances. We all know that. I think Fozzie intends to balance around that, or at least I hope he plans to. |
Yxilan
Elitist Jerks
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 16:15:00 -
[1890] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:
Edit Ions IMO work way better because they allow a medium cap booster and a medium Nos or neut. Tradeoffs are gooooooood.
That's the problem, they're the only race that is force to make tradeoffs because they can't fit their ships.
why do you have 1125 pwg on the brutix - an armor bc... and 1100 on the Cyclone - a shield bc of the same class? Or better yet 1250 PWG on the Ferox
Need i remind you shield mods use more CPU, armor uses more POWERGRID.
Large Shield Extender II - 165 PWG / 46 CPU - 2625 HP 800 Reinforced Steel Plate II - 230 PWG / 28 CPU - 2400 HP Medium Shield Booster II - 13 PWG / 58 CPU - 90 HP / 3s 60 Cap That's 30 HP/s for 20 cap before skills Medium Armor Repairer II - 173 PWG / 28 CPU - 320 HP/ 12s 160 Cap That's 26.(6) HP/s for 13 cap before skills Large Shield Booster ii - 165 PWG / 115 CPU - 240 HP/ 4s 165 Cap That's 60 HP/s for 41 cap
And not you get to the fun part Large ASB - 150 PWG / 100 CPU - 390 HP/ 4s Cap Charges - That's 97.5 HP/s
So please explain the logic for giving the ferox, a blaster + shield ship more power grid than the brutix, a blaster + armor ship?
CCP Fozzie wrote::Updated most recently Jan 23rd:
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L (+1), 6 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1125 PWG (-25), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(+135) / 4750(-133) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12500000 (-750,000) / 8.2s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Myrmidon: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(-188) / 4750(+453) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 200 (+50) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400
Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 2 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1100 PWG (-110), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+605) / 3750(-156) / 3750(+331) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+662.5) / 750s(+166.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Ladar (+1) Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Let me know what you think!
Wouldn't it make more sense for armor ships to have more powergrid then shield ships? |
|
Lili Lu
676
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 16:34:00 -
[1891] - Quote
Yxilan wrote: Large Shield Extender II - 165 PWG / 46 CPU - 2625 HP 800 Reinforced Steel Plate II - 230 PWG / 28 CPU - 2400 HP Medium Shield Booster II - 13 PWG / 58 CPU - 90 HP / 3s 60 Cap That's 30 HP/s for 20 cap before skills Medium Armor Repairer II - 173 PWG / 28 CPU - 320 HP/ 12s 160 Cap That's 26.(6) HP/s for 13 cap before skills Large Shield Booster ii - 165 PWG / 115 CPU - 240 HP/ 4s 165 Cap That's 60 HP/s for 41 cap And not you get to the fun part Large ASB - 150 PWG / 100 CPU - 390 HP/ 4s Cap Charges - That's 97.5 HP/s So please explain the logic for giving the ferox, a blaster + shield ship more power grid than the brutix, a blaster + armor ship? CCP Fozzie wrote::Updated most recently Jan 23rd:
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L (+1), 6 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1125 PWG (-25), 435 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(+135) / 4750(-133) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12500000 (-750,000) / 8.2s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Myrmidon: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(-188) / 4750(+453) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 200 (+50) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 (+5) Cargo capacity: 400
Cyclone: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 2 turrets, 5 Launchers Fittings: 1100 PWG (-110), 525 CPU (+100) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+605) / 3750(-156) / 3750(+331) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+662.5) / 750s(+166.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Ladar (+1) Signature radius: 250 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Let me know what you think!
Wouldn't it make more sense for armor ships to have significantly more powergrid then shield ships? Since Shield ships get ~20% more CPU anyway? Wow, thanks for pointing this out. Had totally missed the generous fittings on the Ferox. This stupid state of affairs mimics what they tried to do with the destroyers originally. They gimped the fittings on the Gallente destroyers in some attempt to restrict them to blasters and totally rule out any viable rail fits.
Here they are doing it again at the BC level, and even worse in that you will be able to make a better blaster boat out of a Ferox than a Brutix. Fozzie, please stop this. I know you put some work into it but I highly doubt the active armor changes are enough to induce people to try to use the ship bonus. I think most will still strap on a flimsy shield tank and all gank in the lows. And then they will still have an inferior blaster ship as compared to a ferox.
Please reconsider an hp per level bonus to replace the active armor bonus. Active armor simply doesn't work at this size. And for god's sake ungimp the fittings on the above ships that aren't Ferox. I mean wtf
The only reason active armor works on the Incursus is because it's a frig. It's either fighting in small scale engagements where active repping is viable, or it's gatting alpha'd by something larger where the ship bonus doesn't matter anyway.
edit - and I'm still not seeing any mention of increased shield regen time on BCs as a class for pve purposes. There needs to be some nerf to this. Thank you for reducing the Drake shield hp a little. But unless some slight nerf is given to shield regen we will still have people passive shielding their pve bcs, and we will still have Drakes out tanking any BC or BS (once the cap charges or pastes are spent). Even the BCs with more low slots have been passive shielded. I doubt that was ever intended. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 16:58:00 -
[1892] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Yxilan wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense for armor ships to have significantly more powergrid then shield ships? Since Shield ships get ~20% more CPU anyway?
Wow, thanks for pointing this out. Had totally missed the generous fittings on the Ferox. This stupid state of affairs mimics what they tried to do with the destroyers originally. They gimped the fittings on the Gallente destroyers in some attempt to restrict them to blasters and totally rule out any viable rail fits. Here they are doing it again at the BC level, and even worse in that you will be able to make a better blaster boat out of a Ferox than a Brutix. Fozzie, please stop this. I know you put some work into it but I highly doubt the active armor changes are enough to induce people to try to use the ship bonus. I think most will still strap on a flimsy shield tank and all gank in the lows. And then they will still have an inferior blaster ship as compared to a ferox. Please reconsider an hp per level bonus to replace the active armor bonus. Active armor simply doesn't work at this size. And for god's sake ungimp the fittings on the above ships that aren't Ferox. I mean wtf The only reason active armor works on the Incursus is because it's a frig. It's either fighting in small scale engagements where active repping is viable, or it's gatting alpha'd by something larger where the ship bonus doesn't matter anyway. edit - and I'm still not seeing any mention of increased shield regen time on BCs as a class for pve purposes. There needs to be some nerf to this. Thank you for reducing the Drake shield hp a little. But unless some slight nerf is given to shield regen we will still have people passive shielding their pve bcs, and we will still have Drakes out tanking any BC or BS (once the cap charges or pastes are spent). Even the BCs with more low slots have been passive shielded. I doubt that was ever intended.
I have been flying dual repper astartes and brutixes on the test server (im lucky enough to have a stack of AARs) and I have been pretty happy. With the AAR added your cap is actually more stable because you are not perma running the AAR unless you are under overwhelming DPS. I make sure to fit medium cap boosters with navy 400s. this seems to be enough to tank and fend off 1 medium neut. The brutix with its utility high can now rather easily fit either a nos or a neut which allows for defensive or offensive cap warfare. The gal ships are comparably fast when active armor tanked ~1200m/s.
As far as tank strength I took a dual rep tanked Astarte up against a dual xl asb sleipner on the test server and did really well. Random other dudes crashed the party but the ships were pretty even.
http://sisi.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=14936 astarte loss missing slot is AAR of course. http://sisi.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=14937 Sleipner loss
The links only work if you copy and paste blame CCP or my fail forum skills.
Sure fits can be argued but it went pretty well.
Go check out the new changes and then come back and comment you may be surprised at what you find. I have not done enough testing myself but it deffinetly feels much much better now armor tanking that is.
Edit. I also agree with the idea that the AAR should be able to be run at either the reduced rep rate or the nanite repair rate. It should be selectable. It would really solidify this module.
edit again: A little more PG would not be bad on a ship that basicly needs a class apropriate cap booster to function. I would like to be able to fit neutrons with a PG rig and an empty or undersized utility slot. Ions would allow for medium utility high and electrons for overtanked crazy fits.Using the brut for example.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 18:26:00 -
[1893] - Quote
It is still not clear why gallent and caldari have 2 ships with same spec? Or maybe CCP change there "vision" about attack and combat ships? Because both (brut\myrm and drake\ferox) have "combat" spec... And why ferox still has bonus on optimal? Someone use medium railguns? For what? Naga ftw |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 19:18:00 -
[1894] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:It is still not clear why gallent and caldari have 2 ships with same spec? Or maybe CCP change there "vision" about attack and combat ships? Because both (brut\myrm and drake\ferox) have "combat" spec... And why ferox still has bonus on optimal? Someone use medium railguns? For what? Naga ftw
Both the old tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers are combat battlecruisers. Tier 3 are attack battlecruisers.
Many of us believe the bonus sharing kinda sucks but it has nothing to do specificaly with attack vs combat Hulls. It only really sucks from a diversity standpoint as the ships seem relatively well balanced against each other and against other classes of ships.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 19:32:00 -
[1895] - Quote
Concerning the defensive bonuses to the ships there seem to be an odd pattern:
Amarr-Caldari alliance GÇô resistance bonuses.
Gallente-Minmatar alliance GÇô active tank bonuses.
Amarr vs. Minmatar GÇô each faction has one battle cruiser with a defensive bonus.
Caldari vs. Gallente GÇô each faction has two battle cruisers with defensive bonuses.
Coincidence or intent, I do not know. Judge by yourself.
This may be completely irrelevant information, and I do not know whether this in any way affects the decision how to balance the battle cruisers at all. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
366
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 20:19:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Fallen Angel III wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I logged onto the test server again hoping to try out some of the AARs. No such luck as they aren't seeded yet. I did take a second look at the Harb as it had it's PG adjusted to the proper spot. Funny fact- the following fit: High: Heavy Pulse II x 6 Empty slot Mid: Experimental MWD Web Scram Cap Recharger II Low: Rolled 1600 plate DC II EANM II x 2 HS II x 2 Rigs: Trimarks x 3 It all fit without implants or fitting rigs and mods. PG left over? 0.0 . Someone at CcP measured that out just right. Is there enough PG left over to make the Cap Recharger a small booster? If possible I'd like to cram some cap boosting on there for when needed. No cap rechargers use 1 PG where as Cap boosters (small uses 5 PG) also, fitting cap rechargers to a PVP ship...gtfo So i guess all those titan pilots should just quit now huh? |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 21:40:00 -
[1897] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:Both the old tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers are combat battlecruisers. Tier 3 are attack battlecruisers. Tier 3s are not attack ships. They are snipers and large target bashers. There are no "attack" BCs in the current plan. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
400
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 21:46:00 -
[1898] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote: Tier 3s are not attack ships. They are snipers and large target bashers. There are no "attack" BCs in the current plan.
You are simply not correct, sorry.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1024
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:59:00 -
[1899] - Quote
Yxilan wrote:Can you post a couple of Brutix fits that actually use Neutrons and Armor reps effectively?
It works! The ec-600's keep dps off the Brutix long enough for the reppers to do their job. (But it's a gimmick fit)
[Brutix,Active Repper]
Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II
10MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Vespa EC-600 x5
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
113
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:03:00 -
[1900] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Yxilan wrote:Can you post a couple of Brutix fits that actually use Neutrons and Armor reps effectively?
It works! The ec-600's keep dps off the Brutix long enough for the reppers to do their job. (But it's a gimmick fit) [Brutix,Active Repper] Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II 10MN Microwarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Vespa EC-600 x5
You realize that the Brutix no longer has 7 turret slots right ??????????
Just when I thought my work here was almost done...............lol
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1024
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:07:00 -
[1901] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:You realize that the Brutix no longer has 7 turret slots right ?????????? Just when I thought my work here was almost done...............lol Wiv It'll be even better then! |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
113
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:13:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Wivabel wrote:Both the old tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers are combat battlecruisers. Tier 3 are attack battlecruisers. Tier 3s are not attack ships. They are snipers and large target bashers. There are no "attack" BCs in the current plan.
You realize that the attack class of ships are defined by higher speed and agility with less tank and more gank right. Exactly what the tier 3 battlecruisers provide to the battlecruiser class.
You can also use most attack cruisers in the sniper role for instance 200mm rail thorax is a pretty effective sniper out to medium range. You do not see this much because the tier 3 battlecruisers just do it so much better. The tracking gained from medium long range weapons vs larges is not worth the damage lost.
Wiv
To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
113
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:14:00 -
[1903] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Wivabel wrote:You realize that the Brutix no longer has 7 turret slots right ?????????? Just when I thought my work here was almost done...............lol Wiv It'll be even better then!
Yes get on sisi and try it you may be surprised. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Yxilan
Elitist Jerks
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:35:00 -
[1904] - Quote
Having to use 3 powergrid rigs just to be able to fit what would be pretty much standard equipment kinda proves my point, don't you think? When's the last time you had to use 3 PG or CPU rigs to get a Drake fitted, Or a Cyclone. The Cyclone can easly fit LARGE booster, not medium, but large.
There should be a little more equality across the board. Why can most ships can fit the best guns and their designated buffer or tank according to their bonuses and basic stats, not to mention shield reppers can easily fit oversized modules going all the way up to XLarge boosters on a BC and especially on command ships if you're really feeling cheesy.... whereas other have to struggle to get their standard modules to fit. |
Theia Matova
Pink Bunny Recreation Assembly
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:48:00 -
[1905] - Quote
Caxton Verticorda wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: Its because you want epic buffs instead of balance work.
Battlecruiser changes are fine.
So far, i hope tier3's get nerfed as much as they should
I just want my Prophecies to not be drone boats.
Consider that flying a prophecies is flexible but to master that ship now you will need to train 3 different weapon systems. Drones, laser, launchers. I consider laser quite no good to anything but long range sniping due to the huge cap suck since amarr did get the lovely active armor tanking that sucks rest of your cap. My prediction will be that lasers will be out of fashion very quickly due to the cap suck and limited damage type. I do not want drones.. But i do not see other possibilities than missiles or drones for amarr...
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
114
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:53:00 -
[1906] - Quote
Yxilan wrote:Having to use 3 powergrid rigs just to be able to fit what would be pretty much standard equipment kinda proves my point, don't you think? When's the last time you had to use 3 PG or CPU rigs to get a Drake fitted, Or a Cyclone. The Cyclone can easly fit LARGE booster, not medium, but large.
There should be a little more equality across the board. Why can most ships can fit the best guns and their designated buffer or tank according to their bonuses and basic stats, not to mention shield reppers can easily fit oversized modules going all the way up to XLarge boosters on a BC and especially on command ships if you're really feeling cheesy.... whereas other have to struggle to get their standard modules to fit.
He linked you a TQ fit that had none of the changes applied to it. It is irrelevant to the discussion. That being said you cannot really get an effective dual rep neutron Blaster fit on the Brutix. not without using a small cap booster and that is not enough for dual repairers. With Ions however you can get a pretty mean setup though I think you are right to ask for atleast enough power grid on the Brutix to be able to fit Neutrons while using 1 PG rig. Other ships have less problems when fitting the biggest guns and tank. It should require max fitting skills of course.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1024
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 01:46:00 -
[1907] - Quote
Seems to me that if I remove a heavy neutron blaster that I can also remove 2x ancilliary current routers. So... maybe that fit does work well. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
129
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 02:06:00 -
[1908] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Wivabel wrote:You realize that the Brutix no longer has 7 turret slots right ?????????? Just when I thought my work here was almost done...............lol Wiv It'll be even better then! Yeah, they're reducing the number of turrets from 7 to 6, but increasing the damage bonus from 5% per level to 10% per level, and reducing the PG need of MAR's by 20%. And despite reducing PG by 25, they're reducing PG need greatly by removing the need for another gun. I'd say all in all the Brutix is getting a nice buff. I'm not sure if it'll be where it needs to be, but it's definitely a buff. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 02:56:00 -
[1909] - Quote
Honestly, I don't think medium neutrons should be considered standard equipment for tech 1 BCs and cruisers unless gank fit. Tech 2 ships should be able to fit them and some tank. You pay enough for them. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1011
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 04:17:00 -
[1910] - Quote
Tried out the new Brutix. First some implants -
Genolution CA-1 Genolution CA-2 Surgical Strike 905 Medium Hybrid Damage 805 (fun fact - this is only 11m to 12m on TQ) Motion Prediction 705
Now - I actually do have two clones set up this way on TQ for low sec combat. (except they have +4 attributes on slots 2, 3, and 5 and a 605 and 1005 for small and large hybrids as well.)
I was able to fit a Brutix as follows:
High: Heavy Neutron II x 6 Small Neut II Med: 10 MN Experimental MWD Medium Electrochemical Cap Booster Web II Scram II Low: MAAR Medium Vestment Accommodation Armor Repairer EANM II DC II MFS II x 2 Rigs: Armor Nanobot Accelerator Armor Nano Pump MACR
And a flight of T2 Valkyries.
The firepower was insane of course. 781 DPS with Null. 1061 DPS with Void. The tank I could not find a good fight to truly test it. Vangels... (why are these seeded anyways?) Large gangs.....
My first impressions - Firepower good. Tank questionable. Cap is a huge issue. I think most people will either do Ions, MAAR + MAR, one MFS and a medium cap booster. Or they will do Neutrons, a MAAR, two MFS and a small cap booster and just go for broke.
The above fit is ridiculous for all but low sec. I'd probably take off a MFS II and throw on another EANM II. It just didn't seem to have the same zip that the ASB offers. On the other hand it definitely took more abuse then a pure shield fit would.
|
|
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 14:31:00 -
[1911] - Quote
Fitting mods required on low skill fits = you fail. Fitting mods required on max skilled fits = ship fail. It's already been said, but putting up fits where fitting rigs and implants are required to get on the same class of modules that other hulls can fit naturally only shows that they're doin' it wrong. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
115
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 15:14:00 -
[1912] - Quote
These are in sisi stats with my skills so beware how eve calculates EHP differently then most popular fitting tools.
Brutix with neutrons and t2 800 mm plate gets 60000 EHP with dual web point microwarpdrive and about 780 DPS while going about 1000m/s with Armor honeycombing 5 and armor rigging 4 Meta 4 800mm plate gets you about 56000 EHP and a speed of roughly the same as the Ferox.
Ferox gets 60000 EHP with neutrons 1 large shield extender 2x invuln point microwarpdrive 725 dps and its speed is about 1038.
These stats make it seem like both ships are capable of fitting the biggest guns with class appropriate tank. Both ships can Downgrade guns and get better tanks be they bigger buffer tanks or Strong active tanks. Not to bad IMO. I am not sure how other battlecruisers fit into this comparison but these two are equal.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Nomistrav
Maverick Conflict Solutions
149
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 16:15:00 -
[1913] - Quote
This looks more like a nerf to the Gallente Battlecruisers than anything else.. Increased sig radius, reduced turret slot on the Myrmidon - Brutix is getting less EHP
I mean, honestly, is the horse not dead yet? Should be fixing the Brutix, not making it worse. One low slot doesn't seem nearly well enough of a fix to solve the massive issue of Active Armor Tanking.
I dunno - maybe I should just give up and go back to flying Amarr. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
367
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 16:51:00 -
[1914] - Quote
yeah because losing almost a million mass, gaining a tank slot and some extra fitting headroom is a nerf . . . |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
93
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 16:56:00 -
[1915] - Quote
Well, having fitted and flown the brutix round sisi briefly I can confirm that it does handle better with the altered rig penalty, but I'd also agree with the other posters that the pg is way too tight. It's difficult to fit a dual rep tank with ions, neutrons are totally out of the equation. Given that this means you either go lower dps and range and get a tank that's decent but not fantastic, or you go with a tank that's still subpar even with the maar to try get neutrons on, or you go with the asb as so many already do. I'm still going ASB I suspect. The continued vulnerability to neuts is such a major drawback with the maar that it really is still a no-brainer.
So if Fozzie thinks the capless active tanking is a step too far he needs to remove the asb. I've said it already, so have others. It was part of the reasoning behind the way ccp was seeding bpcs from rat drops rather than bpos on the markets. It's time to change the asb to use cap or get rid of it. I don't want the aar buffed to be cap-free, i just want a level playing field. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 17:52:00 -
[1916] - Quote
This. And the rest. But I'm totallly for its removal.
Invent other means for special tanking. ASB (and eventually AAR) just is not really that good for the long run. Seen that form in other games and it just tears down the gameplay over time.
Somewhere though, ASBs/AARs would be fine for the frigs classes. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 18:55:00 -
[1917] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:This looks more like a nerf to the Gallente Battlecruisers than anything else.. Increased sig radius, reduced turret slot on the Myrmidon - Brutix is getting less EHP.
You know the myrmidon got more drone bandwidth, right? If anything the damage increased since the drone damage amplifier will be more effective on this ship. Most BCs got their HP reduced a little as well, not just the brutix. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
54
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 18:57:00 -
[1918] - Quote
The EFT warrior'ing is strong in this thread... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
229
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 20:21:00 -
[1919] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Well, having fitted and flown the brutix round sisi briefly I can confirm that it does handle better with the altered rig penalty, but I'd also agree with the other posters that the pg is way too tight. It's difficult to fit a dual rep tank with ions, neutrons are totally out of the equation. Given that this means you either go lower dps and range and get a tank that's decent but not fantastic, or you go with a tank that's still subpar even with the maar to try get neutrons on, or you go with the asb as so many already do. I'm still going ASB I suspect. The continued vulnerability to neuts is such a major drawback with the maar that it really is still a no-brainer.
So if Fozzie thinks the capless active tanking is a step too far he needs to remove the asb. I've said it already, so have others. It was part of the reasoning behind the way ccp was seeding bpcs from rat drops rather than bpos on the markets. It's time to change the asb to use cap or get rid of it. I don't want the aar buffed to be cap-free, i just want a level playing field. Why don't you consider medium neutron blaster a kind of tachyon beam laser for cruiser ? Why shouldn't you make some sacrifice to fit neutron blasters ? Not to mention the already insane dps with ions BTW... |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
96
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 21:07:00 -
[1920] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Nikuno wrote:Well, having fitted and flown the brutix round sisi briefly I can confirm that it does handle better with the altered rig penalty, but I'd also agree with the other posters that the pg is way too tight. It's difficult to fit a dual rep tank with ions, neutrons are totally out of the equation. Given that this means you either go lower dps and range and get a tank that's decent but not fantastic, or you go with a tank that's still subpar even with the maar to try get neutrons on, or you go with the asb as so many already do. I'm still going ASB I suspect. The continued vulnerability to neuts is such a major drawback with the maar that it really is still a no-brainer.
So if Fozzie thinks the capless active tanking is a step too far he needs to remove the asb. I've said it already, so have others. It was part of the reasoning behind the way ccp was seeding bpcs from rat drops rather than bpos on the markets. It's time to change the asb to use cap or get rid of it. I don't want the aar buffed to be cap-free, i just want a level playing field. Why don't you consider medium neutron blaster a kind of tachyon beam laser for cruiser ? Why shouldn't you make some sacrifice to fit neutron blasters ? Not to mention the already insane dps with ions BTW...
I'll simply point you to all of the other bc that can happily fit their largest weapon types with a full tank. This is about balancing the ships. For all bar a select few to be able to have a full fit without fitting mods/rigs is not balance. |
|
Yxilan
Elitist Jerks
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 21:31:00 -
[1921] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Why don't you consider medium neutron blaster a kind of tachyon beam laser for cruiser ? Why shouldn't you make some sacrifice to fit neutron blasters ? Not to mention the already insane dps with ions BTW...
For the same reason we don't consider Autocanons a kind of Artilary and Pulse Lasors a kind of Rail Guns.
Neutrons are equivalent to 425mm Autocanons, Heavy Pulse Lasers and Heavy Assault Missile Launchers.
When's the last time you had to use implants and rigs to fit HAMS on a Drake? or 425s on a Hurricane? Or Heavy Pulse on a Harbringer or Absolution?
Bottom line is those ALWAYS fit. But neutrons don't because someone feels blaster boats need to have the short end of the stick.
On any other ship i fly, i use implants and pc/cpu only when i want something EXTRA out of the ship, like an X-Large ASB or a SECOND plate. or 2 nasty neuts next to my guns.
There isn't even an Xlarge armor repper for that matter. With a rig and a coproc i get TWO XL ASBs on my maelstrom and the best guns. And it runs beautifuly. Heck if i bother to buy a Vargur that thing can tank 6000 DPS with ZERO cap.
Bottom line 1. Armor repping is still strictly inferior. 2. Reduced powergrid on many of the Gallente ships so they can't be fit like all the other races 3. The Brutix in particular could use a different bonus than armor rep. How about Microwarp Speed or Consuption bonus? |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 22:09:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:These are in sisi stats with my skills so beware how eve calculates EHP differently then most popular fitting tools. Brutix with neutrons and t2 800 mm plate gets 60000 EHP with dual web point microwarpdrive and about 780 DPS while going about 1000m/s with Armor honeycombing 5 and armor rigging 4 Meta 4 800mm plate gets you about 56000 EHP and a speed of roughly the same as the Ferox. Ferox gets 60000 EHP with neutrons 1 large shield extender 2x invuln point microwarpdrive 725 dps and its speed is about 1038. These stats make it seem like both ships are capable of fitting the biggest guns with class appropriate tank. Both ships can Downgrade guns and get better tanks be they bigger buffer tanks or Strong active tanks. Not to bad IMO. I am not sure how other battlecruisers fit into this comparison but these two are equal. EDIT I just fit up an armor cane with a meta 4 1600 plate 425s microwarpdrive anc crurrent router and trimarks 581 dps and a 54000 ehp tank 0.o Wiv Ok... And now fit active armor brutix and active shield cyclone. And tell me. What of those ships have to downgrade their weapons and what ships have realy trouble in fiting? Then watch their stats. DPS, working range, tank. Dont forget that LASB dont need cap for use and hps more then MAAR...
I realy dont understand (and as i see many posters too) WHY caldari and gallent BC have 2 ships with same bonus (brut\myrm ferox\drake)? CCP for the Holy Cat, make ferox\drake and brut\myrm another bonus instead of resist\rep amount! Brutix would be great with falloff bonus and drake shoudnt be so tanky.
EDIT:
About downgrade neutrons to ions or even elec. Scramb range - 9km and web 10. While you "utlra close" ion and elec have 12km (ion) and 9 km(elec) optimal+falloff range with NULLS! You havnt slots for TC or TE, you are armor tanking, not shield :{ So. You takle enemy and enemy takle you (scram+web both). So you at 9-10km from him with ~50 m\s speed. Same for your enemy. Your dps (for example 600 with voids) would be 20-50 at that range with nulls while you have ele or ions with nulls just for deliver some dps to your enemy. This works fine only for large weapons (and "fine" means that you can deal some "good" (300-400) dps at 10 km. And ~0 at 15km). Know why? Downgraded blaster w\o TE and TC coz most gallen armor tank with less slots than amarr that have greatly range for "close" weapons |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
97
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 22:35:00 -
[1923] - Quote
Yxilan wrote:[quote=Bouh Revetoile]
Bottom line 1. Armor repping is still strictly inferior. 2. Reduced powergrid on many of the Gallente ships so they can't be fit like all the other races 3. The Brutix in particular could use a different bonus than armor rep. How about Microwarp Speed or Consuption bonus?
1. I agree, but I think it needs the ASB changing/nerfing rather than armour tanking being buffed beyond the AAR proposal
2. agree totally
3, Agree totally, but imo not the mwd consumption/cap bonus. That's a dreadful bonus on any ship, and makes no sense to the brutix at all. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 23:21:00 -
[1924] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:...
1. I agree, but I think it needs the ASB changing/nerfing rather than armour tanking being buffed beyond the AAR proposal
... No, armor does need a boost after the damage increases over the past 3-4 years. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 23:24:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Ok. I just fit next BC (for all fits i had PG +3% imp, i have AWU 5, Eng 5, Elect 5, Elect Upg 5 and Eng Upg 4 ):
Passive armor brutix 800mm T2 plate. Bacause even with 2 MACR and +3% PG imp its not enough for 1600. Or downgrade 3 neuts to ions+3% PG imp + 2 MACR. Armor hurricane - dont look at DPS. I have low skill for proje weapons. It also 425 Meta4. 1 free med slot for every you want. But you'll still have a lot of PG for T2. Or you can fit 220 and 1 neut. Active armor brutix with 1 ion and 5 neut. Rigs - nano and ax. Active cyclone i also have low skills for missile. Its meta4 HAM. But as you can see a lot of pg free. Btw 1 rig - purger, and em+therm resis rigs. 2 LASB free for fit. Active tank myrm - 2 neut+3 ions. Same rigs like active brutix (ogres in dronebay) Passive myrm - 1600 T2 plate. 2 neuts+3 ions. Not sure that TC good choice. But no PG for booster. Btw 2 MACR.
So.
Hurricane and cyclone much easy to fit. They have more EHP, better work distance and much faster. And good balance between solo ship and fleet ship. If i want solo? I pick cyclone., its better. Fleet? Sure hurr. And what about gallent? If i want solo, i choose...??? And if i want fleet, i choose hurric? Great...
Yes. Its better than was (for brutix with +1 low) but with that PG... Srsly? Myrm need 2 MACR just for fitting like hurr? |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 00:16:00 -
[1926] - Quote
Drop the guns down to electrons on the myrmidon and you have plenty of PG for tank. Its strength is in its drones, not guns. That's why the myrmidon should be the tankier of the two BCs and why I'd rather buffer the brutix. It requires less PG on a buffer fit since you can downgrade the cap booster or eliminate it altogether. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 00:27:00 -
[1927] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Drop the guns down to electrons on the myrmidon and you have plenty of PG for tank. Its strength is in its drones, not guns. That's why the myrmidon should be the tankier of the two BCs and why I'd rather buffer the brutix. It requires less PG on a buffer fit since you can downgrade the cap booster or eliminate it altogether.
Which also leads to the rep bonus on the brutix being useless. So if ccp will give it a different bonus I'll agree with you, but if they remain with the rep bonus it just makes no sense whatsoever |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 00:46:00 -
[1928] - Quote
Actually, I'm a fan of kil2's buffer fit + single rep. It could easily be adapted to the brutix with an undersized cap booster. I fought an XL-ASB blaster ferox with it on the test server before the AAR was seeded and was an extremely close fight. If I had battlecruisers V or the medium AAR I would have won.
I also put together the new prophecy with electrons, a small nos, buffer fit + rep. Haven't tested it in combat yet, but it looks interesting. It's also more visually attractive than I thought. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
335
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 01:43:00 -
[1929] - Quote
Minor tweaks (since nobody want to touch a finger unless it smells like a grave mistake...)
Brutix
I fit a Brutix like this and I am 12,27 PG short of being able to fit a rig to enhance my active tank: 6x T2 Ions, T2 Warfare Link, MWD, Cap Booster (both best named), 2 x T2 MAR, 2 x T2 EANM and 1 x T2 MFS. I was using 1 ACR rig and no other rigs.
I have perfect fitting skills apart from missing armor rigging level 5 - do I really need implants and/or more than 1 ACR rig to use those rigs or any hybrid rigs? And then what do you expect from AWU 3 or 4 players? 10 more base PG would provide a ~13,75 extra powergrid on the fit which should be enough and seemingly very fair to allow max skilled players a little playspan (T2 MWD, T2 cap booster, trying to avoid the ACR rig etc etc)
Harbinger
I've tried to fit a Harbinger in various configurations mixing focused and heavy pulse lasers with dual MAR and 1600 plate setups and it all comes back striking me very balanced on the powergrid side, however almost all of them except the most downgraded and underpowered would not be able to fit even a T1 Warfare Link even if I fit a POU rig (CPU). Compared to all other battlecruisers I believe the Harbinger NEED 25-30 base cpu to work. The ship is already heavily undertanked and only have the dps and optimal ranges working for it yet seems limited to an bigger extent than any other ship.
Drake
The Drake will be fine for most things, however if you want to fit a Warfare Link the Drake need at least 10 more base CPU - Even for the most scraped and gimped fit I could be persuaded to fly... A setup much less attractive than any of the other warfare link fitted battlecruisers. So plz consider adding extra cpu to the Drake...
Hurricane
Completely unlike the other battlecruisers I've fitted up (and I tried all of them with different setups) The Hurricane always came up with more cpu than necesary. Cut it tight - Remove 20 base cpu and people can still fit almost anything they want without implants or cpu rigs. Even the most cpu intensive shield cane setup I tried only required the minimal tweak to fit. And still way easier fitting than any other battlecruiser.
Cyclone
I am truly clueless about the ideas behind the Cyclone - Obvously trying to active tank the ship with HAMs for getting the most dps out of only 5 launcher slots, however no matter what I am trying I feel locked into only just 1 Viable setup:
5 x T2 HAM, T2 Medium Neutralizer, T2 Warfare Link, Named MWD, T2 Invuln, 2 x Large ASB, T2 Scrambler, T2 DC, 2x Nanofiber, 2x T2 BCS 1x POU rig (CPU) CPU/PG remaining: 0,3CPU/1,5PG
But the Cyclone really need at least 3 BCS and as said I couldn't get any other viable setups without having tons of PG remaining and a lot of CPU short. I could go single Large ASB and 2x Invuln freeing up 150 PG and 50 CPU to get a 3rd BCS, but since the last ASB nerf going with single boosters sould be a mistake unless it's possible to oversize it. But it isn't...
I'd definitely like an extra 30 or 35 base cpu, but I don't know if it's enough... You can do a lot of tanking, but with limited dps compared to other battlecruisers you need other advantages. The extra utility slot might work, as well as a good base velocity. But 5 slots for an active shield tank is on the edge already and it looks like you need at least 1 slot of E-war to give you any advantage. Certainly it's near impossible to dictate range without a web and impossible to outsmart a ship with less dps unless you can Tracking disrupt it or something similar.
I don't know... I'd really consider finding an extra medslot for the Cyclone, some extra cpu or I don't know what to do with it. Having a ship with so few possible working setups seems wrong.
Pinky
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
115
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 02:14:00 -
[1930] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Minor tweaks (since nobody want to touch a finger unless it smells like a grave mistake...)
Brutix
I fit a Brutix like this and I am 12,27 PG short of being able to fit a rig to enhance my active tank: 6x T2 Ions, T2 Warfare Link, MWD, Cap Booster (both best named), 2 x T2 MAR, 2 x T2 EANM and 1 x T2 MFS. I was using 1 ACR rig and no other rigs.
I have perfect fitting skills apart from missing armor rigging level 5 - do I really need implants and/or more than 1 ACR rig to use those rigs or any hybrid rigs? And then what do you expect from AWU 3 or 4 players? 10 more base PG would provide a ~13,75 extra powergrid on the fit which should be enough and seemingly very fair to allow max skilled players a little playspan (T2 MWD, T2 cap booster, trying to avoid the ACR rig etc etc)
Harbinger
I've tried to fit a Harbinger in various configurations mixing focused and heavy pulse lasers with dual MAR and 1600 plate setups and it all comes back striking me very balanced on the powergrid side, however almost all of them except the most downgraded and underpowered would not be able to fit even a T1 Warfare Link even if I fit a POU rig (CPU). Compared to all other battlecruisers I believe the Harbinger NEED 25-30 base cpu to work. The ship is already heavily undertanked and only have the dps and optimal ranges working for it yet seems limited to an bigger extent than any other ship.
Drake
The Drake will be fine for most things, however if you want to fit a Warfare Link the Drake need at least 10 more base CPU - Even for the most scraped and gimped fit I could be persuaded to fly... A setup much less attractive than any of the other warfare link fitted battlecruisers. So plz consider adding extra cpu to the Drake...
Hurricane
Completely unlike the other battlecruisers I've fitted up (and I tried all of them with different setups) The Hurricane always came up with more cpu than necesary. Cut it tight - Remove 20 base cpu and people can still fit almost anything they want without implants or cpu rigs. Even the most cpu intensive shield cane setup I tried only required the minimal tweak to fit. And still way easier fitting than any other battlecruiser.
Cyclone
I am truly clueless about the ideas behind the Cyclone - Obvously trying to active tank the ship with HAMs for getting the most dps out of only 5 launcher slots, however no matter what I am trying I feel locked into only just 1 Viable setup:
5 x T2 HAM, T2 Medium Neutralizer, T2 Warfare Link, Named MWD, T2 Invuln, 2 x Large ASB, T2 Scrambler, T2 DC, 2x Nanofiber, 2x T2 BCS 1x POU rig (CPU) CPU/PG remaining: 0,3CPU/1,5PG
But the Cyclone really need at least 3 BCS and as said I couldn't get any other viable setups without having tons of PG remaining and a lot of CPU short. I could go single Large ASB and 2x Invuln freeing up 150 PG and 50 CPU to get a 3rd BCS, but since the last ASB nerf going with single boosters sould be a mistake unless it's possible to oversize it. But it isn't...
I'd definitely like an extra 30 or 35 base cpu, but I don't know if it's enough... You can do a lot of tanking, but with limited dps compared to other battlecruisers you need other advantages. The extra utility slot might work, as well as a good base velocity. But 5 slots for an active shield tank is on the edge already and it looks like you need at least 1 slot of E-war to give you any advantage. Certainly it's near impossible to dictate range without a web and impossible to outsmart a ship with less dps unless you can Tracking disrupt it or something similar.
I don't know... I'd really consider finding an extra medslot for the Cyclone, some extra cpu or I don't know what to do with it. Having a ship with so few possible working setups seems wrong.
Pinky
AAR would probobly get that brutix to be able to fit active rigs. It has lower PG needs then t2 armor reps.
To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
|
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 03:26:00 -
[1931] - Quote
I tried the prophecy out in some combat on the test server and it seems to do decent in tackling big things others wouldn't want to get close to. It doesn't have the DPS of the rest, but it sure survives a lot longer. I don't have a problem fitting what I want to it, either.
I could have a lot of fun in this ship. I have always preferred tanking ships more heavily than fitting for more gank instead. Even with 5 out of 7 lows dedicated to buffer I was able to get over 85k EHP on the lowest resist, explosive. That's assuming the reactive armor hardener stays at 15% all.
I'll still fly the myrmidon, but I may like the prophecy more. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 06:41:00 -
[1932] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Drop the guns down to electrons on the myrmidon and you have plenty of PG for tank. Its strength is in its drones, not guns. That's why the myrmidon should be the tankier of the two BCs and why I'd rather buffer the brutix. It requires less PG on a buffer fit since you can downgrade the cap booster or eliminate it altogether. You mean drop guns in passive tank? It was like: "Oh, i could fly with armor hurri fleet!" . And with elec i just fit +1 trim if i still want to fit med cap b. Because hurri w\o cap b. could fly ~6 min with MWD on. And why Drake doesnt need to drop something? Or Cyclone to fit their strongest tank? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
87
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 07:25:00 -
[1933] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:Perihelion Olenard wrote:Drop the guns down to electrons on the myrmidon and you have plenty of PG for tank. Its strength is in its drones, not guns. That's why the myrmidon should be the tankier of the two BCs and why I'd rather buffer the brutix. It requires less PG on a buffer fit since you can downgrade the cap booster or eliminate it altogether. You mean drop guns in passive tank? It was like: "Oh, i could fly with armor hurri fleet!" . And with elec i just fit +1 trim if i still want to fit med cap b. Because hurri w\o cap b. could fly ~6 min with MWD on. And why Drake doesnt need to drop something? Or Cyclone to fit their strongest tank? The part I bolded and italicized for you shouldn't be new or surprising. It's just keeping with the times.
In these times, obviously there's a bias developing (developed) toward shield tanking. New modules, skills, etc. coming out (or out) all show some bias toward shield tanking over armor: RAH comes out--requires a skillbook to make it useful; no similar skill book required to make ASBs more effective, load more charges, cycle faster, etc. ASB comes out--not limited in number able to be fit, no cap use; AAR coming out--still takes cap, limited to one per ship. Armor mass reduction being introduced--for the cost of a skillbook and training! New shield-oriented skill books in recent patches/expansions--(crickets).
It seems fairly clear that the powers that be at CCP want players to continue to easily be able to jump into a shield ship to join the mindless drake null blobs quickly while leaving armor tanking as an option "for vets," since it requires many more skills (read: time) to be as effective as a shield tanker out of the box (not really, ASB cap independence + speed advantage don't really compare to armor's crippling cap dependence (with armor ships' weapons, too!) and slow speed penalties--this doesn't even take into account that in order for armor ships to "catch up" to shield ones they need to use MWDs, which completely negate the low-sig advantage of armor...).
|
Draek Andorii
Black Salmon
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 08:16:00 -
[1934] - Quote
Just dropped by to say I'd give up the Drake's tiny (if any) damage buff to keep everything else the same. Just because it was a good boat doesn't mean it needed to be nerf'd in every single area. Disappointed by that method of thought. |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 09:08:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Draek Andorii wrote:Just dropped by to say I'd give up the Drake's tiny (if any) damage buff to keep everything else the same. Just because it was a good boat doesn't mean it needed to be nerf'd in every single area. Disappointed by that method of thought. Drake have shield pool like BS. Is it ok? Why my myrm or proph have ~13-15k of armor and drake could even 25k of shield with insane resist? Its "balance"... |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
161
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 09:50:00 -
[1936] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:Draek Andorii wrote:Just dropped by to say I'd give up the Drake's tiny (if any) damage buff to keep everything else the same. Just because it was a good boat doesn't mean it needed to be nerf'd in every single area. Disappointed by that method of thought. Drake have shield pool like BS. Is it ok? Why my myrm or proph have ~13-15k of armor and drake could even 25k of shield with insane resist? Its "balance"...
Frankly, given that I prefer the PODLA Drake, I would have preferred for the devs to drop a large portion of Drake's tank and shift it more towards a kiter. Sadly, they decided for it to stay the Brick. Sucks, but oh well, can't help it now. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
231
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 11:32:00 -
[1937] - Quote
These fitting copmplaints are silly. If any, BC should be harder to fit, not easier. There's no point to lower grade weapon if any ship can fit the larger ones without any sacrifice.
BTW, start to look at ship stats, abilities and performance on battlefield before crying about low fitting. With ions, a brutix can go well over 700dps with a good tank. And as Wivabel showed, neutron+800mm plate work fine, with insane dps and huge tank. Even with electron, the Brutix have more dps than the hurricane with 425mm+HAM. Do you know what balance mean ?
Some people here look like childrens. You are not looking at balance, only at stupid and irrelevant fitting config without any link to ship efficiency. The only argument I see for these fitting cries is "I want to fit anything without thinking !", and that's not the way it should be.
Oh, and complaining about blasters not hitting far enough is completely stupid, and even more now with the armor rebalance.
This look more like a wish list tha, a balancing thread. |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 12:00:00 -
[1938] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:These fitting copmplaints are silly. If any, BC should be harder to fit, not easier. There's no point to lower grade weapon if any ship can fit the larger ones without any sacrifice.
BTW, start to look at ship stats, abilities and performance on battlefield before crying about low fitting. With ions, a brutix can go well over 700dps with a good tank. And as Wivabel showed, neutron+800mm plate work fine, with insane dps and huge tank. Even with electron, the Brutix have more dps than the hurricane with 425mm+HAM. Do you know what balance mean ?
Some people here look like childrens. You are not looking at balance, only at stupid and irrelevant fitting config without any link to ship efficiency. The only argument I see for these fitting cries is "I want to fit anything without thinking !", and that's not the way it should be.
Oh, and complaining about blasters not hitting far enough is completely stupid, and even more now with the armor rebalance.
This look more like a wish list tha, a balancing thread. So, why i have no problem to fit drake, cyclone, hurri w\o downgrade somthing and even more! I fit oversized mods! And why when i try do that for gallent and amarr i get realy big problem?
"Insane" dps with ions and "even" elec is about for 3-4km. Let's take a look: As i wrote before, you get scrambl at most situations in pvp when try get close then 10-11km. So, you have your scrambl on enemy with web. But an enemy use scrambl on you. So your speed like 50 m/s and enemy speed same. Tell me, how you would deal "insane" damage with ions and "even" ele at 8-10 km? You have no TC or TE, because all your low slots need for tanking and med slot points\cap b.
If you think, that BC need problem with fit, change other shield BC to have same problem as armor have. But i dont need downgrade weapons even in armor fit hurri with 1600mm plate. |
Sae Eto
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 14:40:00 -
[1939] - Quote
Yxilan wrote: When's the last time you had to use implants and rigs to fit HAMS on a Drake? or 425s on a Hurricane? Or Heavy Pulse on a Harbringer or Absolution?
http://imgur.com/MmbeDiN http://imgur.com/SXDywhs
Just sayin'. |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 15:08:00 -
[1940] - Quote
Fit 1 PDS instead of 1 BCS and use imp for 1% pg Fit
And btw. 21k shield pool. Passive tank brutix only 11-13 and need to downgrade weapons. And if you have recons in you fleet you could also use this fit. Its impossible to make something similar with armor tank ships. (or w\o weapons or prop mod) |
|
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
247
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 16:37:00 -
[1941] - Quote
As someone who has created his character using only one race's tech, saying I'm less than thrilled with the changes to the Prophecy would be an understatement. WTH is going on? I think the Prophecy hull is one of the most beautiful in the game. I couldn't care less that the Harbinger is getting a dmg bonus. It already has a dmg bonus and already does more dmg than a Prophecy. Yet I've still chosen to fly a Prophecy in most situations, even with less dps, just because its a better-looking ship. Since I won't be flying a Myrm or a Hurricane any time soon, what do I have to look forward to?
-2 turrets -200 pwg -419 shields -395 hull - align time + drones _________
combat bc?
If I wanted drones, I'dve created a Gallente character. Drones suck. The Amarr are the energy weapon/armor repping race. They're alligned with Caldari so some missle bonuses/boats make sense. Turning one of the most-beautiful ships in the game into a drone boat will ensure that I'm forced to fly fugly Harbingers from now on and I'm not too happy about that. I've been looking for this thread and couldn't find it because its hidden in features and ideas. When I read it, I actually had to log out. If you wanted tears, here you go.
Pretty unhappy here.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
335
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 17:01:00 -
[1942] - Quote
The only reason AAR and ASB are easier to fit is because the prototypes are to be compared with T1 variants - Testing T2 normal reps vs T1 (meta 0) Ancillary mods doesn't give the right picture entirely...
Pinky |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
115
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 17:14:00 -
[1943] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:The only reason AAR and ASB are easier to fit is because the prototypes are to be compared with T1 variants - Testing T2 normal reps vs T1 (meta 0) Ancillary mods doesn't give the right picture entirely...
Pinky
True but Meta 4 tends to have lower fitting requirements then meta 0 and equal effectiveness with Meta 5/T2 mods. It is probobly best to compare things with what is currently in game rather than what may come in the future. Not that I do not agree with your point.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
335
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:08:00 -
[1944] - Quote
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. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
36
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 20:26:00 -
[1945] - Quote
Hey Fozzie, I see that one of our points of contention about the change with the cyclone is that it is competing with the Drake to fill the same slot. Why not look at making it an armor tanked ship instead so that it fills a different role than the drake, sort of as an in your face brawler with hams and an armor buffer? Change out the boost bonus for armor rep or resists or anything really. I know it seems like it would hurt the Matari overall, but I feel like it would be more beneficial to the platform. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
30
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 22:08:00 -
[1946] - Quote
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.
that's better then an asb ferox. is it better then a asb cyclone too?
Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Seleucus Ontuas
Justified Chaos
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:46:00 -
[1947] - Quote
So when is either the Myrmidon or the Brutix losing its active rep bonus? I highly suggest the Myrmidon lose it's active rep bonus, otherwise you have 2 Drone boats with Bonuses to Drone Damage and Armor Tanking, which makes them overlap quite a bit. |
Ayvonne Corlinn
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 06:37:00 -
[1948] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Wivabel wrote:Both the old tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers are combat battlecruisers. Tier 3 are attack battlecruisers. Tier 3s are not attack ships. They are snipers and large target bashers. There are no "attack" BCs in the current plan.
CCP Fozzie wrote:The Tier 3 BCs will be rechristened Attack Battlecruisers and will have their own thread when we're ready to start gathering feedback. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
472
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 06:41:00 -
[1949] - Quote
More like when is the Myrmidon gonna be reverted into a viable ship? It sort of skirted the edge of viability before (you could go with either the triple-rep brawler fit or a surprise shield tanking setup) but now its down some high slots and still has god-awful agility (for god's sake, the Prophecy with one nano is more agile than a Myrm with two). So now you're stuck with a brick of a ship that can kind of tank things I guess (if the thing is a single opposing BC, for example) and does pretty mediocre damage in a format that's vulnerable to being exploded (hf when your drones get bombed or shot down). I guess it looks like an airfoil, which is cool?
v0v
Struggling to think of actual uses for the Myrm. As an active-tanked solo / small gang brawling ship it would need agility and speed to catch targets (which it hasn't got). As a fleet ship it's useless since it uses drones and has no buffer-tanking bonuses. Basically it's even more of a shitpile than it was before with pretty much zero redeeming qualities. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
472
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 06:45:00 -
[1950] - Quote
Basically I've been playing with the modded EFT and pretty much all the BCs except the Drake and Cyclone have been filed under the category of "ships I will never fly again given alternatives."
Granted, I tend to only evaluate ship performance based on their usefulness for solo and small-gang combat, but still... |
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
515
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 11:44:00 -
[1951] - Quote
I don't think you should be entirely surprised by the poor mobility of BCs. After all, if you want a mobile T1 medium-weapon platform you should be flying a cruiser. |
cooly 0
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 14:11:00 -
[1952] - Quote
crap crap more crap |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 16:19:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Ayvonne Corlinn wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Wivabel wrote:Both the old tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers are combat battlecruisers. Tier 3 are attack battlecruisers. Tier 3s are not attack ships. They are snipers and large target bashers. There are no "attack" BCs in the current plan. CCP Fozzie wrote:The Tier 3 BCs will be rechristened Attack Battlecruisers and will have their own thread when we're ready to start gathering feedback. They use oversized weapons, so unless they magically grow medium weapon bonuses of some sort, they'll remain exactly what they are; dedicated snipers and gank wagons, which are useless against any target that is not either very large, very slow, or very far away. That is not the performance envelope for any other hull that has been assigned the "attack" role up to this point. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1902
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 16:57:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Guess you've never flown or met a Talos or a solo Nado then.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
SetSail ForEpicFail
Tritanium Industries and Technology High Rollers
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:08:00 -
[1955] - Quote
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! |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
285
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:09:00 -
[1956] - 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 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
531
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 18:18:00 -
[1957] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:3, Agree totally, but imo not the mwd consumption/cap bonus. That's a dreadful bonus on any ship, and makes no sense to the brutix at all.
I'd like to see Brutix just loose this second bonus and get another mid slot instead. At least could get a decent shield tank pool and enough lows to to make it agile and ganky.
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
335
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 19:15:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Under no circumstance should the Prophecy with 7 lowslots and a resist bonus have more bandwith
- The Harbinger has a glass tank in comparison with only 6 lowslots, no tank bonus and only about 10% more dps... Thats obviously changing depending on fits etc but certainly not looking like a bright future for the Harbinger. I still don't get why they don't give the Harbinger the resist bonus and get the Prophecy something to reward laser users on the Prophecy. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
247
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 20:09:00 -
[1959] - Quote
I'm still trying to figure out why my people would even commission a drone ship. After sleeping on it, the idea that the eagle of the Amarr fleet would be turned into a drone boat that will do max dmg when loaded with Gallente (my sworn enemy's) tech, still makes absolutely no sense. The idea that thousands of Prophecy BCs, a sleek predator that should swoop down upon its foes, will instead all be fat-assed bricks stuffed with Hobgoblins in a few days, will go down as one of my least-favorite developments in a very long time. It just blows my mind. I would be remiss if I didn't voice my complaints here before this travesty occurs.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
87
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 21:56:00 -
[1960] - Quote
Remnant Madeveda wrote:Hey Fozzie, I see that one of our points of contention about the change with the cyclone is that it is competing with the Drake to fill the same slot. Why not look at making it an armor tanked ship instead so that it fills a different role than the drake, sort of as an in your face brawler with hams and an armor buffer? Change out the boost bonus for armor rep or resists or anything really. I know it seems like it would hurt the Matari overall, but I feel like it would be more beneficial to the platform. This is already called a Sacrilege...
|
|
serras bang
Active Fusion Cold Fusion.
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 23:58:00 -
[1961] - Quote
ok to wade in here as i usualy protect the cal pilots yes everyone im back to make your life hell on the forums.
few points to make on both the ferox and the drake.
1 why dose the ferox have a base lock range higher than the drake when we all know the drake will propabably out range it anyways.
2. why is the shielding on the drake being reduced if its gonna be effectively a space brick that can tank well but deal little dmg with the removal of a high launcher (witch i aint complaining about the lesser dps here)
3. why in gods name do we have all range setups ?
basicaly there my points and my thoughts are next.
it would seam more logical to allow the now space brick drake to be able to either tackle with high shields or to be able to ecceal at long range bombardment. if not both with the 100 km that damps can kick out to ( witch is a descusion for another time.)
secondly we have no real brawling lineup why not give the ferox a hybrid dmg bonus 1 cause of the damps ect and 2 so we can fit it with blasters and punch people in the face with it so to speack you see my point here.
that would give us both a long range bombardment ship and a very very close brawler. all you gotta do is add say another 500 shields onto the drake and change the bonus to the ferox as it stands now especialy with the naga fufilling the extream range and decent dps region. |
serras bang
Active Fusion Cold Fusion.
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 00:05:00 -
[1962] - Quote
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 |
Alex Logan
Ministry of Destruction SCUM.
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 01:28:00 -
[1963] - Quote
1) all stuff above SUCKS FAT CO....rmorant exhaust pipe...
2) be smarter than facebook. Develop a DISLIKE button!
3) soon when # dislikes > 1000 x # likes, nerf it
|
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 01:34:00 -
[1964] - 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
His Fit with Scourge Rage HAMs makes over 700 DPS according to EFT |
Denuo Secus
136
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 04:59:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:... 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.
Such a Drake wouldn't have much use in PvP. Rage HAMs and no web? Really?
The resist bonus is needed to make medium slots free for at least one web without gimping the Drake's tank completely. As soon as you don't use all med slots for tanking EHP numbers look comparable to other BCs.
You just described an extreme niche fitting option every shield tank has. In a similar manner I could bring an armor tank (Brutix, Harb) fitted as glass cannon with 3 damage mods + 3 TE (+ ofc high damage t2 ammo) and call it OP because of "over 1000 DPS" on a BC hull. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
287
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 08:21:00 -
[1966] - 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 |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
335
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 08:26:00 -
[1967] - Quote
If the Drake needs the 6th slot for a web what does the Ferox need?
Rage HAMs are better than you think - they just got buffed against smaller targets due to skill changes and cruiser/battlecruiser size really isn't that problematic... Against smaller ships apply drones and use faction HAMs. Also this might not be the best solo ship but a couple of HAM Drakes can take on a couple of most other Battlecruisers out with confidence. Mix in a tackler on each side and those Drakes starts to look horrible overpowered copared to other options.
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
287
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 08:41:00 -
[1968] - 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 |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
168
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 08:43:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Denuo Secus wrote:Such a Drake wouldn't have much use in PvP. Rage HAMs and no web? Really? The resist bonus is needed to make medium slots free for at least one web without gimping the Drake's tank completely. As soon as you don't use all med slots for tanking EHP numbers look comparable to other BCs. You just described an extreme niche fitting option every shield tank has. In a similar manner I could bring an armor tank (Brutix, Harb) fitted as glass cannon with 3 damage mods + 3 TE (+ ofc high damage t2 ammo) and call it OP because of "over 1000 DPS" on a BC hull. The new drake can easily field that sort of tank without compromising on tackle:
[NEW Drake, HAM + small neut] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
80k EHP before heat, 93k EHP with the invulns heated. Full tackle and 700 dps before heat/implants. If you downgrade the damage control to meta 3 or 4, you can fit a t2 long point instead of the scram. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1025
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 11:19:00 -
[1970] - Quote
Anybody have a good large gang setup for the Gallente Combat BCs yet? (Hint: Can we get rid of active rep bonus on one of these ships and change it to something useful for larger gangs?) |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1904
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 11:47:00 -
[1971] - Quote
I was playing with the new data files in EFT and came up with the following motives to fit active armor tank on a Brutix- list is not complete, add your own as you discover them!
1. You want a tank that can be neuted out 2. You prefer lower damage output 3. You think that shield buffer has too much EHP and choose smaller tank for altruistic purposes 4. You don't like to fit gang links 5. You like your Brutix slower 6. You only fight frigates
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
532
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 12:19:00 -
[1972] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Anybody have a good large gang setup for the Gallente Combat BCs yet? (Hint: Can we get rid of active rep bonus on one of these ships and change it to something useful for larger gangs?)
Yes, of course ! -But then I couldn't add anything else to Roimes exceptional and accurate list:
Roime wrote:I was playing with the new data files in EFT and came up with the following motives to fit active armor tank on a Brutix- list is not complete, add your own as you discover them!
1. You want a tank that can be neuted out 2. You prefer lower damage output 3. You think that shield buffer has too much EHP and choose smaller tank for altruistic purposes 4. You don't like to fit gang links 5. You like your Brutix slower 6. You only fight frigates
And then came up with something I think it's a better Gallente Brutix than previous or ever future Gallente Brutix:
High: 6 Neutron Blaster II +whatever wildcard offline (heat sync)
Mids: 1 Experimental 10MN Microwarp Drive - 2x Invulnerability field II - 1 Large shield extender II
Lows: 1 DCU II - 3x MFS II - 2x TE II
Rigs: 3x Core defense field extenders
Drones: 1set of light ECM 1 set of warriors II
Don't fly this all alone unless for giggles, in gangs with tackle/logis must be totally hilarious. If you want more tank, more distance and slightly less dps just move to Ferox.
Conclusion: never not shield fit your blaster ships.
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
204
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 12:25:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:More like when is the Myrmidon gonna be reverted into a viable ship? It sort of skirted the edge of viability before (you could go with either the triple-rep brawler fit or a surprise shield tanking setup) but now its down some high slots and still has god-awful agility (for god's sake, the Prophecy with one nano is more agile than a Myrm with two). So now you're stuck with a brick of a ship that can kind of tank things I guess (if the thing is a single opposing BC, for example) and does pretty mediocre damage in a format that's vulnerable to being exploded (hf when your drones get bombed or shot down). I guess it looks like an airfoil, which is cool?
v0v
Struggling to think of actual uses for the Myrm. As an active-tanked solo / small gang brawling ship it would need agility and speed to catch targets (which it hasn't got). As a fleet ship it's useless since it uses drones and has no buffer-tanking bonuses. Basically it's even more of a shitpile than it was before with pretty much zero redeeming qualities.
I am inclined to agree.
Just what role is it meant to fill these days, either in PvP (or PvE for that matter).
Aside from flavour/liking the model why would one undock it? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
231
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 12:33:00 -
[1974] - Quote
Roime wrote:I was playing with the new data files in EFT and came up with the following motives to fit active armor tank on a Brutix- list is not complete, add your own as you discover them!
1. You want a tank that can be neuted out 2. You prefer lower damage output 3. You think that shield buffer has too much EHP and choose smaller tank for altruistic purposes 4. You don't like to fit gang links 5. You like your Brutix slower 6. You only fight frigates
3. You may like full tackle and capacitor booster or double prop. And comparing mediocre shield buffer to good active tank is a bit silly. 5. Active armor wont be slower anymore... 6. Full tackle is always good, not only against frigates.
You seem to be largely exagerating. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
26
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 12:52:00 -
[1975] - Quote
Fozzie,
Why is it so hard to understand that no other race or ship class has two ships doing exactly the same role, and that nobody, and I mean no one, wants the two Gallente BCs to both be bad at engagements larger than a 1 v 1.
When I heard the BCs were getting changed I was overly excited to think about how the Brutix would finally become a viable fleet ship that was not always going to be primaried and has a real chance of surviving on the field alongside any armor cane. Instead the Eve community was slapped in the face. The Brutix is still left with too little PG, to little ehp, and a useless ship bonus.
There is a reason not many people have cried that the Myrm be changed to something different from the Brutix. The Myrm does its niche role well; taking on 1-2 other targets and usually coming out on top. The Brutix, on the other hand, is still bad at active tanking even with the extra low slot because it uses cap hungry reppers, cap hungry hybrids, and is plagued by PG issues.
So I'm asking you to change the active tanking bonus on the Brutix to something that benefits it in a fight over 3 people: a R.o.F bonus, a fall off bonus, a tracking bonus (that's what makes the thorax and talos good, even if it does compete with other ships). There is still plenty of time to address this issue. The Eve community is not going to be angry if CCP comes out and says, "we're delaying any changes until we get them right." |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1904
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 13:08:00 -
[1976] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: 3. You may like full tackle and capacitor booster or double prop. And comparing mediocre shield buffer to good active tank is a bit silly. 5. Active armor wont be slower anymore... 6. Full tackle is always good, not only against frigates.
You seem to be largely exagerating.
3 - it's not "liking", cap booster is mandatory with active armor tank, you need at least one. No, you can't fit dual prop with active armor tank. And this "mediocre" shield buffer has more total EHP even if MAAR+MAR combo gets to run all the 8 nanite cycles.
5 - yes it is, since shield buffer has low slots to fit with whatever you want, including nano or overdrive
6. Full tackle is good, yeah. But considering you need to give up tank, damage, mobility and cap life for that, that web is kinda pricey.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Natasha Rachmaninova
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 15:04:00 -
[1977] - Quote
I just wonder that the goal for rebalance is not even defined... When exactly are th bcs ballanced? Are they ballanced if they all are equally usefull in missions, incursions, pvp( 1on1/fleet )? Especialy in pvp... are they ballanced if every fight between 2 of the 8 ships ends everytime in a tie? |
Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
2151
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 16:22:00 -
[1978] - Quote
Roime wrote:I was playing with the new data files in EFT and came up with the following motives to fit active armor tank on a Brutix- list is not complete, add your own as you discover them!
1. You want a tank that can be neuted out 2. You prefer lower damage output 3. You think that shield buffer has too much EHP and choose smaller tank for altruistic purposes 4. You don't like to fit gang links 5. You like your Brutix slower 6. You only fight frigates
Wait, why is your brutix slower?
Are you using a armor resistance rig? The Drake is a Lie |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
1431
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:14:00 -
[1979] - Quote
8 days to go, before this Feb 12th deployment... So, I take it what we see here is what we will be getting? Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1904
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:46:00 -
[1980] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:Roime wrote:I was playing with the new data files in EFT and came up with the following motives to fit active armor tank on a Brutix- list is not complete, add your own as you discover them!
1. You want a tank that can be neuted out 2. You prefer lower damage output 3. You think that shield buffer has too much EHP and choose smaller tank for altruistic purposes 4. You don't like to fit gang links 5. You like your Brutix slower 6. You only fight frigates
Wait, why is your brutix slower? Are you using a armor resistance rig?
No, because it has 6 lows, so the shield fit has ample room to fit an OD or nano even after fitting more magstabs and TEs than the armor fit.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Callduron
173
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:56:00 -
[1981] - Quote
The issue of certificates came up at the CSM Town Hall on Sunday. Is someone going to look at the relevant certificates as part of the rebalancing process. Cyclones currently have Cruiser Projectile Turrets (Standard) on its recommended list.
(I notice this has been done for the Retribution rebalanced ships so well done there). |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3853
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:59:00 -
[1982] - Quote
Callduron wrote:The issue of certificates came up at the CSM Town Hall on Sunday. Is someone going to look at the relevant certificates as part of the rebalancing process. Cyclones currently have Cruiser Projectile Turrets (Standard) on its recommended list.
(I notice this has been done for the Retribution rebalanced ships so well done there).
Yes we've updated the recommended certificates for each of the Combat BCs as a part of this change. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
231
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 19:10:00 -
[1983] - Quote
Roime wrote:No, because it has 6 lows, so the shield fit has ample room to fit an OD or nano even after fitting more magstabs and TEs than the armor fit.
Oh ! My bad ! I forget you were required to fit all your six low slots with tank module if you armor tank.
And that plates were forbidden.
Or learn to fit an armor ship maybe ?
Shield != Armor ; If you don't have any use for those mid slot, fine for you, but don't talk about armor then.
And with 6 low slots, the Brutix will now have infinitely more options for fleet than he had before. This 6th low slot is a blessing and will allow him to do everything he already did better.
In fact, I think the Myrmidon will be the best solo option, and the brutix the prefered fleet option with good solo capabilities (and excellent at small gang). |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 19:19:00 -
[1984] - Quote
been on test server to try out the new rebalanced battlecruisers
the rezult?
prophecy - epic,even with my low drone skills i still menage to deal 450 dps with my ****** drone skills combo with heavy assault missile rack.decent tank ,play-a-ble. harbinger - surprized,but i think it could still use some work. drake - trolololoolo i`m back.epic dps with hams.decent dps with heavy.could use about 3-5 more pg to make that high slot usefull for anything if full dps/tank ham fitted.or move the high slot for utility to low or medium. ferox - yes!move the high slot for utility to low or medium. cyclone - meh compared to drake dps,at least give it 7 launchers instead of 5. hurricane - besides the fact that the pg has been nerfed already and loosing a high slot,cant say i like it.and bonuses remained the same :(. brutix - yes!but i`m not that happy with active armour tanking rigs increasing the pg usage or armor reppers. myrmidon - ???? cant say i like the negative 1 high slot.
overall its a pretty decent rebalance,except for hurricane and myrmidon. |
Yxilan
Elitist Jerks
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 23:37:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Kinda funny how CCP Fozzie ignored all the worries about the conflicting bonuses or the powergrid shortage, but was quick to assure us that Certificates will be taken care of right away.
If this is CCP's idea of approaching ship balance i wish you the best of luck and won't bother with this forum since most of the input is simply swept aside.
Fly safe! |
Seleucus Ontuas
Justified Chaos
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 00:25:00 -
[1986] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Roime wrote:No, because it has 6 lows, so the shield fit has ample room to fit an OD or nano even after fitting more magstabs and TEs than the armor fit.
Oh ! My bad ! I forget you were required to fit all your six low slots with tank module if you armor tank. And that plates were forbidden. Or learn to fit an armor ship maybe ? Shield != Armor ; If you don't have any use for those mid slot, fine for you, but don't talk about armor then. And with 6 low slots, the Brutix will now have infinitely more options for fleet than he had before. This 6th low slot is a blessing and will allow him to do everything he already did better. In fact, I think the Myrmidon will be the best solo option, and the brutix the prefered fleet option with good solo capabilities (and excellent at small gang).
It's a good thing you took the time to read what Roime was talking about. If you had, you would have noticed that it was specifically comparing a Shield Tank and an Active Armor Tank. If you're Active Armor Tanking, you do need to use all 6 of your low slots. Hell, an Active Armor Tank Prophecy would be better off if it used all 7 of its low slots for tank.
With that said, in both passive tanked situations, Armor Tanked and Shield Tanked, the Brutix has a wasted bonus; therefore, especially when looking at the Hurricane's track record, there's no reason why the Brutix has to have plates fitted to it over LSEs and Invuls. The bonus and slot layout makes it an Active Armor Tanked ship; not an Armor Tanked ship. The only ship that should be strictly considered such is the Prophecy; for reasons that should be quite obvious.
As for Fozzie's latest reply; I agree, its not what I would have liked to have heard. However, the question he replied too is an easy question for that stuff that they've already had plans for doing so. The fact of the matter is, someone on the balancing team must really like Gallente having 2 Active Rep BCs (such a reasoning is unimaginable to me) considering that it has been stated and hinted beforehand several times that one of the ships would be losing it. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Summer CSM Minutes show that Ytterbium was interested in removing the Rep Bonus from the Myrmidon.
The Talos helped Gallente out tremendously, but what people are looking for here is a Gallente BC that can go into a fight and Brawl, with decent DPS and good EHP. That is not the Talos. The Talos is a kiting ship, and Gallente pilots are happy to have a kitting BC, but we want a Brawling BC that isn't limited to simply fights involving 3 people or less. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
153
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 01:38:00 -
[1987] - Quote
Yxilan wrote:Kinda funny how CCP Fozzie ignored all the worries about the conflicting bonuses or the powergrid shortage, but was quick to assure us that Certificates will be taken care of right away.
If this is CCP's idea of approaching ship balance i wish you the best of luck and won't bother with this forum since most of the input is simply swept aside.
Fly safe!
The devs flat out said a while back they won't listen to most player criticism b/c we clearly don't now what we are doing and just want to moan.
They forgot about the fact that they clearly don't know what they're doing and that they have a 6 year recent track record to prove most of that. |
Remnant Madeveda
Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore
36
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:10:00 -
[1988] - Quote
So Fozzie,
No chance at making the Cyclone an armor ship instead of a shield ship? |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
289
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:21:00 -
[1989] - 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 |
Frozen Eddie Johnson
Aliastra Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:17:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Yxilan wrote:Kinda funny how CCP Fozzie ignored all the worries about the conflicting bonuses or the powergrid shortage, but was quick to assure us that Certificates will be taken care of right away.
If this is CCP's idea of approaching ship balance i wish you the best of luck and won't bother with this forum since most of the input is simply swept aside.
Fly safe!
These are pretty much my thoughts. Why in the hell did Fozzie even bother to make this thread? He clearly doesn't want to hear/doesn't care about feedback on this stuff, and it will launch as proposed from the start. If that's how he wants to do it, fine, but he should have saved everyone some trouble and just posted this as a dev blog with comments disabled. It would have the same net effect. |
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:21:00 -
[1991] - Quote
anyone got a lnik to the modified EFT then?
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 09:54:00 -
[1992] - Quote
Frozen Eddie Johnson wrote:Yxilan wrote:Kinda funny how CCP Fozzie ignored all the worries about the conflicting bonuses or the powergrid shortage, but was quick to assure us that Certificates will be taken care of right away.
If this is CCP's idea of approaching ship balance i wish you the best of luck and won't bother with this forum since most of the input is simply swept aside.
Fly safe! These are pretty much my thoughts. Why in the hell did Fozzie even bother to make this thread? He clearly doesn't want to hear/doesn't care about feedback on this stuff, and it will launch as proposed from the start. If that's how he wants to do it, fine, but he should have saved everyone some trouble and just posted this as a dev blog with comments disabled. It would have the same net effect.
I'm pretty sure Fozzie has taken the feedback from this thread on, in fact I know he has because the changes he made to the original rebalance to what we have now are almost exactly what my feedback on this rebalance was. So if you don't like the way things are now it kinda seems to be my fault too |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
231
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 10:28:00 -
[1993] - Quote
Frozen Eddie Johnson wrote:These are pretty much my thoughts. Why in the hell did Fozzie even bother to make this thread? He clearly doesn't want to hear/doesn't care about feedback on this stuff, and it will launch as proposed from the start. If that's how he wants to do it, fine, but he should have saved everyone some trouble and just posted this as a dev blog with comments disabled. It would have the same net effect. He take feedbacks, but most people here mistake balancing feedback and wishlist.
When you ask for the brutix and myrm not to share the armor rep bonus, it's a wish, not a balance concern.
Seleucus Ontuas wrote: It's a good thing you took the time to read what Roime was talking about. If you had, you would have noticed that it was specifically comparing a Shield Tank and an Active Armor Tank.
Oh, I understand, and then, he also wanted every advantage of shield tanking on its armor tanking brutix, am I right ?
Armor != Shield ; I already told it.
Seleucus Ontuas wrote: If you're Active Armor Tanking, you do need to use all 6 of your low slots. Hell, an Active Armor Tank Prophecy would be better off if it used all 7 of its low slots for tank.
Feel free to artifially restrict yourself because of religion ; though you look like those caldari pilots who never used hybrids because they were gallente weapons.
You are free to fit your ship with less than 6 tank modules on lows, as you are free to shield tank it or plate it. A bonus may be wasted, though the Brutix still have 50% (!!) bonus for hybrid damage, and can still sport 6 hybrid turrets, with 6 lows and 4 mids.
Seleucus Ontuas wrote: With that said, in both passive tanked situations, Armor Tanked and Shield Tanked, the Brutix has a wasted bonus; therefore, especially when looking at the Hurricane's track record, there's no reason why the Brutix has to have plates fitted to it over LSEs and Invuls. The bonus and slot layout makes it an Active Armor Tanked ship; not an Armor Tanked ship. The only ship that should be strictly considered such is the Prophecy; for reasons that should be quite obvious.
Fozzie balanced ships, not bonuses.
Armor rep bonus is obviously worst than a lot of other things, though is the brutix worse than any other ship ? I don't think so. Brutix already was a very good T1 BC, and it got an insane buff. I can't imagine it as a bad ship, despite the armor rep bonus. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3856
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 11:00:00 -
[1994] - Quote
The fact that I replied quickly to the certificate question doesn't mean it's necessarily any more important than other questions, just that it is easy and quick to answer.
In regards to the armor rep bonuses on the Gallente BCs, I posted earlier in the thread that I recognize that there are strong arguments to be made on both sides and that we are weighing the options. That statement is still valid. The desire for more varied tanking methods among the Gallente Combat BCs is a perfectly reasonable one, although the Brutix and Myrm do both stand up as very fun ships with distinct flying experiences in their current forms as well. Although we are getting close to release I don't want to lock these ships in place for 1.1 until I've had another discussion with some of the other developers internally.
I want to make sure we are all on the same page with how the feedback and iteration process works. I will always take all reasonably argued feedback from these threads into consideration and will strive to use that feedback to produce a better product. I am convinced that the process we go through here leads to better design outcomes than anything we could ever do by ourselves internally and that the expertise of the community is a crucial resource that should never be ignored. However taking feedback from the community is not the same thing as always doing exactly what every individual person wants. At the end of the day we need to make decisions based on the best interests of the game as a whole and sometimes I may disagree with some of you on some things.
It is also important to reiterate a few other things mentioned earlier.
- We do not intend all bonuses to be made equal, we balance the ships as a whole and part of that is recognizing that some bonuses are going to be more powerful individually than others and planning accordingly.
- We also have no intention to fire and forget with our ship balancing. No matter what form these ships hit TQ with in 1.1, we will be evaluating use in the 'wild' and making more decisions based on that information.
I can definitively state for the record btw that we won't be making the Cyclone an armor bonused ship for Retri 1.1. The cyclone's bonus alongside the extra speed, utility highs and more generous fittings collectively serve to create a ship that is useful in its own right, distinct from the Drake, and fits well with the overall thematic pattern of Minmatar ships.
I'm Down wrote:The devs flat out said a while back they won't listen to most player criticism b/c we clearly don't now what we are doing and just want to moan.
They forgot about the fact that they clearly don't know what they're doing and that they have a 6 year recent track record to prove most of that. You know I always have time for you. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Pankora t'Pastamancer
Four Gun Broken Toys
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 11:01:00 -
[1995] - Quote
Jin alPatar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Please rethink this part. Active local tank bonuses are not competitive with the resist bonus.
Active tank bonuses need to be larger across the board. Please update. :) |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 11:52:00 -
[1996] - Quote
Pankora t'Pastamancer wrote:Jin alPatar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Please rethink this part. Active local tank bonuses are not competitive with the resist bonus. Active tank bonuses need to be larger across the board. Please update. :)
Balance ships, not bonuses. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1906
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 11:59:00 -
[1997] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Pankora t'Pastamancer wrote:Jin alPatar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Please rethink this part. Active local tank bonuses are not competitive with the resist bonus. Active tank bonuses need to be larger across the board. Please update. :) Balance ships, not bonuses.
Ok, BCs with active tank bonuses are not competitive with resist bonuses except in 1vs1 situations.
Easiest way to fix this is to rebalance the bonuses.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 12:30:00 -
[1998] - Quote
I would say the difference from the original changes are quite large and that Fozzy as always has responded to feedback well.
I have quite enjoyed the test server as I generally don't get many BC fights.
Pretty pleased with the Myrm not sure why people are not keen on it. Don't think I have lost a relatively even fight in it and that is even fighting the EHP monster HAM drake. I do think the active tank bonus is of benefit here.
Prophecy, fit in a similar manner EHP is higher with no real loss in active tank ability, balance ships not bonuses I guess, Myrm has a touch more DPS, and I do like the extra mid. Given the prophecy has a low instead of a mid and less turrets the Myrms fittings seem harsher. May swap between the two.
Brutix - beat a cane first time I took it out, got hammered by a Talos a little while latter.
Not as convinced by the rep bonus here but struggling to think what would be better.
I understand people want a gang/fleet ship but not sure what bonus would give thus the edge to make it a choice over the Talos.
Tracking is too much like the Thorax, falloff would clash with Diemos without the speed so I guess another tank bonus perhaps 10% Armour hit points per level or a 10% reduction to mass and fitting for armour plates.
I wrote all this before the last few posts but here it is. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
534
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 12:35:00 -
[1999] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The fact that I replied quickly to the certificate question doesn't mean it's necessarily any more important than other questions, just that it is easy and quick to answer. In regards to the armor rep bonuses on the Gallente BCs, I posted earlier in the thread that I recognize that there are strong arguments to be made on both sides and that we are weighing the options. That statement is still valid. The desire for more varied tanking methods among the Gallente Combat BCs is a perfectly reasonable one, although the Brutix and Myrm do both stand up as very fun ships with distinct flying experiences in their current forms as well. Although we are getting close to release I don't want to lock these ships in place for 1.1 until I've had another discussion with some of the other developers internally. I want to make sure we are all on the same page with how the feedback and iteration process works. I will always take all reasonably argued feedback from these threads into consideration and will strive to use that feedback to produce a better product. I am convinced that the process we go through here leads to better design outcomes than anything we could ever do by ourselves internally and that the expertise of the community is a crucial resource that should never be ignored. However taking feedback from the community is not the same thing as always doing exactly what every individual person wants. At the end of the day we need to make decisions based on the best interests of the game as a whole and sometimes I may disagree with some of you on some things. It is also important to reiterate a few other things mentioned earlier.
- We do not intend all bonuses to be made equal, we balance the ships as a whole and part of that is recognizing that some bonuses are going to be more powerful individually than others and planning accordingly.
- We also have no intention to fire and forget with our ship balancing. No matter what form these ships hit TQ with in 1.1, we will be evaluating use in the 'wild' and making more decisions based on that information.
I can definitively state for the record btw that we won't be making the Cyclone an armor bonused ship for Retri 1.1. The cyclone's bonus alongside the extra speed, utility highs and more generous fittings collectively serve to create a ship that is useful in its own right, distinct from the Drake, and fits well with the overall thematic pattern of Minmatar ships. I'm Down wrote:The devs flat out said a while back they won't listen to most player criticism b/c we clearly don't now what we are doing and just want to moan.
They forgot about the fact that they clearly don't know what they're doing and that they have a 6 year recent track record to prove most of that. You know I always have time for you.
Don't take away my theoretical dual rep brutix that i will probably never actually fly because links =< |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 12:58:00 -
[2000] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Yxilan wrote:Kinda funny how CCP Fozzie ignored all the worries about the conflicting bonuses or the powergrid shortage, but was quick to assure us that Certificates will be taken care of right away.
If this is CCP's idea of approaching ship balance i wish you the best of luck and won't bother with this forum since most of the input is simply swept aside.
Fly safe! The devs flat out said a while back they won't listen to most player criticism b/c we clearly don't now what we are doing and just want to moan. They forgot about the fact that they clearly don't know what they're doing and that they have a 6 year recent track record to prove most of that. A lot of players ask for unreasonable things, and some things are flat out silly. Just like the request someone made that the cyclone should get 7 launchers. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
533
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 13:56:00 -
[2001] - Quote
Seleucus Ontuas wrote:The Talos helped Gallente out tremendously, but what people are looking for here is a Gallente BC that can go into a fight and Brawl, with decent DPS and good EHP. That is not the Talos. The Talos is a kiting ship, and Gallente pilots are happy to have a kitting BC, but we want a Brawling BC that isn't limited to simply fights involving 3 people or less.
Again, this Talos is only good as it is because it's shield tank and often ASB tank, fit it with armor and it's not even half of what it is with shield tank.
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 14:20:00 -
[2002] - Quote
Roime wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Pankora t'Pastamancer wrote:Jin alPatar wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Please rethink this part. Active local tank bonuses are not competitive with the resist bonus. Active tank bonuses need to be larger across the board. Please update. :) Balance ships, not bonuses. Ok, BCs with active tank bonuses are not competitive with resist bonuses except in 1vs1 situations. Easiest way to fix this is to rebalance the bonuses.
Good fixes, not easy fixes.
Blanket changes are almost always a bad idea - resulting in undeserved boosts to ships that don't need boosting while not fixing the ships that do need help.
Take the 2009 projectile changes, the major benefactors of which were the Sleipnir, Hurricane, Thrasher and Rifter, ships already highly competitive in their classes. Take the recent hybrid changes didn't fix medium rails while giving an undeserved boost to small blasters and small rails. Take the recent application of GMP to unguided missiles was very welcome for torps but unnecessary for rockets.
Let the AAR changes settle in, then balance active-bonused ship individually - or just alter active-tanking, of course. For example, the Sleipnir doesn't need boosting relative to its field CS counterparts, while it would be absurd to give the Claymore an increased shield boost bonus when its role dictates that it needs a HIC-style resist bonus. |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 14:34:00 -
[2003] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Seleucus Ontuas wrote:The Talos helped Gallente out tremendously, but what people are looking for here is a Gallente BC that can go into a fight and Brawl, with decent DPS and good EHP. That is not the Talos. The Talos is a kiting ship, and Gallente pilots are happy to have a kitting BC, but we want a Brawling BC that isn't limited to simply fights involving 3 people or less. Again, this Talos is only good as it is because it's shield tank and often ASB tank, fit it with armor and it's not even half of what it is with shield tank. Like everything else, execept maybe ship with armor resist bonus/rep bonus. You said nothing that is new i'm afraid. Shield or gimp - talos is just one of many examples. Sure people do armor tanking - mostly Amarr because we got no choice(frigates can even go with 2 mids and both laser cruisers got just 3 mids). |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
639
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 14:54:00 -
[2004] - Quote
just give the myrm or brutix a bonus to armor amount instead of resists and be done with it, say its the gallente's new badass armor tech or something. |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts.
123
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 14:57:00 -
[2005] - Quote
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.
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
291
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 15:08:00 -
[2006] - 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 -
[2007] - 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 |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
477
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 15:20:00 -
[2008] - Quote
Can the harbinger have a 3rd bonus other than capacitor use? I don't think something that missle and projectile boats get for free should be considered a bonus. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Lili Lu
679
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 15:31:00 -
[2009] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:just give the myrm or brutix a bonus to armor amount instead of resists and be done with it, say its the gallente's new badass armor tech or something. Yes. I suggested this in a couple earlier posts itt. No response.
For a long time the auguror had such a bonus. It was % based. But alternately CCP could get more control on the actual amount by making it a purely hp amount bonus per level.
Such a bonus is more comparable to resist bonuses and thus allows fleet usage and not just solo. The AARs are not going to equate to ASBs unless CCP nerfs ASBs some more. That appears unlikely unfortunately. So AARs can be part of the game for those seeking solo play for any race of ships they want to armor tank. But please don't lock both (or either in my mind) Gallente BCs into this style of play and leave them gimped for gang/fleet usage.
I suppose if the repper bonus has to stay on one of the ships it would be better left on the Myrm, as drones and fleet use are less synched (at least pending more drone adjustments).
Another thing about an hp bonus is that there are the misnamed and inadequate "regenerative" armor platings (would like to buy some very slow regen from these for ss'd repping after a fight and they might see some use). So a one could view a Gallente armor hp bonus as simply a built in regenerative plating. Nothing game or backstory breaking with such a bonus. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 15:34:00 -
[2010] - 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.
The Cyclone: Only outdamages the Drake by 2/3rds of a launcher equivalent while using any damage type other than kinetic, but is outdamaged by the Drake by 2 and 1/3rd of a launcher whenever using kinetic. That's a small plus to the cyclone for diversity, but a big one to the Drake for pure DPS.
The Cyclone: Has a bonus that is only ~3% or something like that more effective than the Drake for active tanking, but substantially less effective while buffer tanking or recieving incoming reps. It also has a smaller tank than a Drake.
The Drake: Was also widely considered OP before this patch, and will probably continue on after the patch it just fine of a state. They nerfed some stats a bit... but it's not downright terrible, that's for damn sure. Calm down.
So yeah, don't lose it over this. It's still gonna be a good ship. And now it has more cargohold for boosters, missiles, paste, and loot. They haven't really ****** the Drake over yet.
As to the people wanting more launchers on the Cyclone: that's treading all over the toes of the Drake. As it is, the Drake has superior raw DPS, but when it diversifies it is inferior. With one more launcher it's only weaker than the Drake when using kinetic by 1 effective launcher, while being far more powerful while diversifying (equivalent to 2 launchers). With 2 more launchers every missile type is more powerful than the Drake. Even kinetic, the Drakes "niche". |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
337
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 15:45:00 -
[2011] - Quote
I am in no doubt you are using the feedback for your work and I hope you are not as arrogant/ignorant as the lack of replies could suggest to certain tinfoil worshippers. Apart from the sudden lack of visible presence in the balance threads after only a single adjustment I feel you have provided the community well with information in a clear and respectfull way. Thank you...
However I would as a player giving feedback really appreciate some form of counter-arguments to the more serious questions and suggestions instead of a generic "I think I'm right in the first place and we might look into things again later". At least as a player we get to know how you are thinking if you reply.
The question "why do both gallente ships have the same active tank bonus instead of other interesting options?" was answered with "We think it's interesting enough" and "we're changing active armor repairing". Personally I agree both the Myrmidon and the Brutix are very interesting as they are now, but as a whole you haven't fixed any of the Myrmidon issues while you had the chance (better as ASB tank, mostly fits autocannons instead of blasters, stinks in fleets etc)
The question "Why does harbinger have the obsolete cap bonus?" wasn't really answered and the ship seems harder to fit than others while being super fragile with no tank bonus and 1 less lowslot than the Prophecy...
And ofcourse I looked a lot into fittings and ships like Cane and Proph have plenty fittings while I struggle with Harbinger and funny enough your cyclone which has a very generous fitting.
Would it be an idea to create a feedback thread for each race battlecruisers after the patch? I still can't forget how the hybrid rebalance was dumped like your boss told you to drop everything and start working on ships immediately...
Pinky |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
115
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 15:59:00 -
[2012] - Quote
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.
To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts.
123
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:06:00 -
[2013] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:
The Cyclone: Only outdamages the Drake by 2/3rds of a launcher equivalent while using any damage type other than kinetic, but is outdamaged by the Drake by 2 and 1/3rd of a launcher whenever using kinetic. That's a small plus to the cyclone for diversity, but a big one to the Drake for pure DPS.
The Cyclone: Has a bonus that is only ~3% or something like that more effective than the Drake for active tanking, but substantially less effective while buffer tanking or recieving incoming reps. It also has a smaller tank than a Drake.
The Drake: Was also widely considered OP before this patch, and will probably continue on after the patch it just fine of a state. They nerfed some stats a bit... but it's not downright terrible, that's for damn sure. Calm down.
So yeah, don't lose it over this. It's still gonna be a good ship. And now it has more cargohold for boosters, missiles, paste, and loot. They haven't really ****** the Drake over yet.
As to the people wanting more launchers on the Cyclone: that's treading all over the toes of the Drake. As it is, the Drake has superior raw DPS, but when it diversifies it is inferior. With one more launcher it's only weaker than the Drake when using kinetic by 1 effective launcher, while being far more powerful while diversifying (equivalent to 2 launchers). With 2 more launchers every missile type is more powerful than the Drake. Even kinetic, the Drakes "niche".
I'm fully aware there is a kinetic damage superiority.
Many Sansha sips have a Damage superiority as well, not that you see them very often.
considering raw damage: Cyclone could bring 5 med scouts against 5 small scouts of a drake.
it has an extra high ustility against the drake.
it has:
More CPU More PG More Cap more speed less signature
250 more base hit points
It has a low slot vs a mid slot, low slots usualy have more options.
I need to play with fittings before I make a final judgement but: at first glance I see a ship that:
lost it's PVE mission diversity, and became Gurista and Serpentic specific.
It isn't able to bring much to PvP: so predictable you'd could almost say a laser wil sooner do kinetic damage than a Drake EM, because not only the Cyclone out damages the Drake when not using kinetic, so does the Caracal.
So at this point and I won't call it final untill I played arround with EFT and maybe with it in game.
the only use I see for it is.
Running Gurista/ Serpentis sites and Blob warfare (witch was one of the mein reasons people where compleining about it) |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:22:00 -
[2014] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote: I'm fully aware there is a kinetic damage superiority.
Many Sansha sips have a Damage superiority as well, not that you see them very often.
considering raw damage: Cyclone could bring 5 med scouts against 5 small scouts of a drake.
it has an extra high ustility against the drake.
it has:
More CPU More PG More Cap more speed less signature
250 more base hit points
It has a low slot vs a mid slot, low slots usualy have more options.
I need to play with fittings before I make a final judgement but: at first glance I see a ship that:
lost it's PVE mission diversity, and became Gurista and Serpentic specific.
It isn't able to bring much to PvP: so predictable you'd could almost say a laser wil sooner do kinetic damage than a Drake EM, because not only the Cyclone out damages the Drake when not using kinetic, so does the Caracal.
So at this point and I won't call it final untill I played arround with EFT and maybe with it in game.
the only use I see for it is.
Running Gurista/ Serpentis sites and Blob warfare (witch was one of the mein reasons people where compleining about it)
Well in PvP unless you're being extremely predictable, people will rather opt to use omni resists than slap a kinetic hardener on their ship to screw you over. It's not such a big deal there.
As for your comparison: yes, the cyclone has more CPU, more PG, more cap, more speed, and less signature. But as for the "more base HP", that's is wrong. Did you calculate the amount of base HP the Drake recieves when it takes 25% less damage than a Cyclone from everything? I feel that the bonus to this should be counted in HP, in incoming reps, and when you compare active rep amount there as well because it increases rep value by 33%. And as for the lows, the Drake has a magic number if you ask me. It can be gank fitted with the magical 3 BCU's and still have a slot left for a DCU. 2/1/nano is another choice if you want speed instead of slightly more gank. The mid however gives it more space to fit tank while having full tackle. And for the drones... now most BC's have a utility high. Put in a smartbomb and ignore the Cyclones drones as they won't be around for long.
I'm glad you aren't calling it final. I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. I think people are losing it over theory crafting without actually seeing how things are playing out. Yes, it has lost quite a bit of mission diversity. That will hurt it for mission running outside of Caldari space. But it might have been a bit too versatile and capable as a ship for running missions.
I don't think it'll be a problem. I think we'll see two viable ships in the Cyclone and Drake after the patch. I think a lot of people are overreacting to these changes. But I guess we'll see how it plays out. |
Misspi en Divalone
Exotic dancer training club Exotic Dancer Trainer Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:23:00 -
[2015] - Quote
In case the balancing team is running out of alternative ideas concerning active armor reps with Gallente. You could always try for a very unconventional hull HP, hull resist or crazy insane hull rep bonus. Now that would be something completely different.
Could also provide a bit of use for the generally useless reinforced bulkhead and hull repair mods.
Personally however I think it's not too bad both Myrmiddon and Brutix have an active rep bonus. It makes them interesting for small gangs with little or no logistic support. I'm not worried about shield versions being "better" as some might think. I think they aren't. A shield version might have more dps and have a slight speed benefit due to low slot propulsion modules but for those smaller gangs you want and need each and every med slot available for support modules rather then (shield) tank unless you only feel comfortable going for straight up ganks. You win those in just about any setup...
As for other suggestions I feel the Harbinger could use just a little more wiggle room for fitting and I'd like the Cyclone have one low slot moved to a med slot. I'll explain the reasoning for that last suggestion.
After the sneaky shield hardener change I really would like to have slightly more room for either shield resist amplifiers or a small/med cap booster. With a shield boost rather then shield resist bonus the Cyclone has become extremely vulnerable to cap warfare. The Cyclone does not have the benefit of having a built in resist bonus like Ferox or Drake. Sure ASB's don't use cap but without decent (passive) resists your shield will melt very fast. A nos in the high slots though doable isn't really going to cut it.I'm not too worried about the extra med slot being used up for even more ASB's. Limited cpu and low slots will take care of that. One less low slot also forces more hard choices on what to put in the low slots concerning tank/gank/speed/fitting.
I'm not too worried about the Cyclone becoming more like the Drake. Their characteristics still ensure they both have their use in different fleet/gang concepts. And after all the Cyclone is nothing but a pure shield tanker so it makes sense to pattern it like other active shield tankers like the Breacher, Maelstrom and it's T2 variant the currently unmodified Claymore. |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
23
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:27:00 -
[2016] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Can the harbinger have a 3rd bonus other than capacitor use? I don't think something that missle and projectile boats get for free should be considered a bonus.
Aren't you thankful you can shoot your guns at all ? Funny thing is even with 50% reduction lasers cap you out in no time. What a joke :D. Still love em lasers , will not betray them. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1020
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:36:00 -
[2017] - Quote
The Myrm has alot more playing room then the Brutix. The Myrm would still be popular with a :
Armor HP bonus (Occator has it so not unheard of) Drone tracking bonus Drone MWD bonus Hybrid tracking Hybrid damage
All of the above are consistent with the Gallente drone line. You can fit a 1600 plate on a Myrm and not care about downsizing the guns. Not so much with the Brutix. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
401
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:43:00 -
[2018] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:The Myrm has alot more playing room then the Brutix. The Myrm would still be popular with a :
Armor HP bonus (Occator has it so not unheard of) Drone tracking bonus Drone MWD bonus Hybrid tracking Hybrid damage
All of the above are consistent with the Gallente drone line. You can fit a 1600 plate on a Myrm and not care about downsizing the guns. Not so much with the Brutix.
I strongly agree with this sentiment. If one of the Gallente BC's is to lose the rep bonus, the myrmidon is the ideal candidate. Another drone bonus would be my unquestionable choice. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:55:00 -
[2019] - Quote
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.
You misunderstand.
Quote: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.
Indeed. Since we fly ships rather than bonuses, it is absurd to criticise a bonus as "bad" or "obsolete"; it is not useful to look at bonuses in isolation because bonuses do not exist in-game in isolation. As you say, what matters is the value of the ship as a whole.
The arguments of diversity and uniqueness also have merit. Even if a ship was agreed to deserve a tank boost, it might not be appropriate to move its active rep bonus to resist or EHP, if it resulted in a reduction of the diversity of ships and tanking style seen in game - the route to fixing active tanking doesn't involve deleting it. I appreciate that the diversity argument cuts both ways - where is the diversity in both Caldari/Gallente BCs having resist/rep bonuses? - but diversity still has to be balanced against inter-and intra-class balance, making it problematic IMO to give the Ferox a damage bonus, or the Brutix a tracking bonus in place of its rep bonus.
But this isn't to say that active-tank bonuses shouldn't be replaced on certain ships. Command ships, for example, need to survive as link platforms in fleet environments, and hence are entirely deserving of resist bonuses, just as seen for HICs, whose role puts them in a similar environment. In this case, any perceived lack of diversity of CS bonuses is trumped by the needs of their narrow tactical role.
In the specific case of the call for 10% rep bonuses, it has merit as part of a fix to active-tanking ships. But it shouldn't be applied across the board, it should be applied where needed. A 10% rep bonus for the Incursus would probably be excessive; the Sleipnir certainly has no argument for deserving a 10% boost bonus. Ultimately, it all comes back to fixing the ships that need fixing, rather than crudely applying blanket changes. Hence, balance individual ships rather than classes of bonuses.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1907
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 18:08:00 -
[2020] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: Good fixes, not easy fixes.
Blanket changes are almost always a bad idea - resulting in undeserved boosts to ships that don't need boosting while not fixing the ships that do need help.
Take the 2009 projectile changes, the major benefactors of which were the Sleipnir, Hurricane, Thrasher and Rifter, ships already highly competitive in their classes. Take the recent hybrid changes didn't fix medium rails while giving an undeserved boost to small blasters and small rails. Take the recent application of GMP to unguided missiles was very welcome for torps but unnecessary for rockets.
Let the AAR changes settle in, then balance active-bonused ship individually - or just alter active-tanking, of course. For example, the Sleipnir doesn't need boosting relative to its field CS counterparts, while it would be absurd to give the Claymore an increased shield boost bonus when its role dictates that it needs a HIC-style resist bonus.
I was referring to the hull bonuses, which only affect the said ships. I agree with you about weapon system etc wider changes and their more complex effects.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
116
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 18:34:00 -
[2021] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:
So at this point and I won't call it final untill I played arround with EFT and maybe with it in game.
"and maybe with it in game."
I mean no offense to the specific individual who said this but this is the problem with the majority of the posters in this thread. Put down the EFT and load up Sisi fly the new ships then come back and post your nonsense at least then you will have some practical experience to back it up.
Some Ship musing
Dual rep MAR2/MAAR Brutix stats without implants drugs fleet or a booster alt. Rigs: nano pump/nanobot acc/(anti-ex pump or anc current router depending on useful utility high or not.
No heat 1350 every 7.6 Seconds Heat 1476 every 6.5 Seconds
2 trimarks and a meta4 1600 give about 8757 raw armor you have to live 38 seconds for your active tank to be better. 3 trimarks 800t2plate 7492 you have to live for 32 seconds for your active tank to be better.
Its a pretty decent active tank for solo and small gang pew. You also get the benefit of being faster while active tanked. Add boosters drugs fleet bonuses and implants and you really have something. Of course the same can be said of armor buffer tanks.
I played around with a possible fleet fit brutix. 200mm rails get you a respectable 512 DPS @ 15 and 34 with cn anti(1x MFS 356 + 155 From drones) About 60000 EHP with 66% being the lowest resist. Not terrible IMO
Like has been said I still think the Brutix needs a little more PG. Also if one of the gal ships loses the active bonus make it the Myrm. The Myrm will benefit far more from other bonuses then the brutix will Give it a bonus to help it apply its drone damage. Anybody that uses heavy drones knows how challenging it can be.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
292
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:02:00 -
[2022] - 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 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3868
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:15:00 -
[2023] - Quote
In regards to the cap use bonus on the Harb I wrote something in the Combat Frigates thread back in August that I'm going to shamelessly copy-paste here since it still describes the :plan:
CCP Fozzie wrote:Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic. The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter: CCP Ytterbium wrote:All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward. That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
87
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:47:00 -
[2024] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:In regards to the cap use bonus on the Harb I wrote something in the Combat Frigates thread back in August that I'm going to shamelessly copy-paste here since it still describes the :plan: CCP Fozzie wrote:Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic. The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter: CCP Ytterbium wrote:All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward. That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board. 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.
|
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:55:00 -
[2025] - Quote
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. "Ain't I simply better off with capless ACs or blasters that do more damage and have better tracking?"
Depends on your definition of interesting.
Obviously, with the Harbi loosing a turret slot and gaining in energy weapon damage bonus, there is less interesting player decision there. The fitting of cap boosters maybe? At least the Harbi has the 4th mid for it, unlike every smaller category (T1?) of it's kind. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3868
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:58:00 -
[2026] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Cid Tazer
The Green Cross Red Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:01:00 -
[2027] - Quote
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.
Fozzie, out of curiousity, what is the plan for bonuses and drawbacks for each weapon system?
I get for Lasers it is: Bonus: Damage Drawback: High Cap use, limited damage types
Caldari it is: Bonus: Can do any damage type. Hits for consistent damage. Drawback: Delayed damage.
What about the rest of the systems/full list? |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1484
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:03:00 -
[2028] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:In regards to the cap use bonus on the Harb I wrote something in the Combat Frigates thread back in August that I'm going to shamelessly copy-paste here since it still describes the :plan: CCP Fozzie wrote:Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic. The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter: CCP Ytterbium wrote:All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward. That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.
in other words. lasers where once designed to be better as anything else but thats no longer the case since they are now balanced. They obviously still use cap and do only em/therm damage. So why are they still so OP that many amarr ships can live with one effective turret bonus? Its not like it makes the ships cap independent like most minmatar or caldari ships - which is a built in feature not even a bonus. a eve-style bounty system (done)-á dust boarding parties You fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:09:00 -
[2029] - Quote
Cid Tazer wrote:Fozzie, out of curiousity, what is the plan for bonuses and drawbacks for each weapon system?
I get for Lasers it is: Bonus: Damage Drawback: High Cap use, limited damage types
What about the rest of the systems/full list? Caldari? Since I made a joke last time, I'll try to be more serious. And then get corrected by those with more experience.
Laser: +: scorch, instant ammo swap, mid-range, small ammo -: cap usage, close range one lacks dps and tracking
Blaster: +: blaster dps -: some cap usage, short range (even compared to web on smaller hulls) OR extreme range but low damage/alfa
AC: +: selectable damage, no cap usage, easy fitting for AC, huge alfa for Arti, good combo with falloff bonus and TE -: long reload, weak optimal
Missile: +: no cap usage, selectable damage, not gun (no getting under them, having to keep a mind for tracking, ect) -: long reload, not gun (can't hit a target charging at you from 50km away like you can with guns, ect) Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
338
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:10:00 -
[2030] - Quote
I totally agree the lasers should not be changed to use less cap, however wasting a ship bonus to balance the drawback is a shame... Most Amarr laser boats are fighting with a passive armor buffer and for those with enough medslots a cap booster to avoid running out of cap.
A Harbinger with heavy pulse lasers does not need a cap bonus (much). People tend to fit reduction rigs and/or cap booster if they need it for PvP and cap rechargers for PvE. Being capstable should not be a goal... If an Amarr ship really require more cap why not boost the capacitor amount (and keep the cap/minute recharge the same) and maybe those cap amount rigs could be usefull?
Harbinger is atm super fragile as you barely have enough cpu to fit double EANM like any other armor BC without sacrificing dps - the only thing this ship has going for it...
Pinku |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
534
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:47:00 -
[2031] - Quote
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 agree with this
But its a bit tricky from a design point of view isn't it?
Because you would feel that with such a drawback should come ample power, but its hard to do that without making the weapon OP in certain situations.
What you REALLY REALLY need to do to fix lasers and laser boats is 1. 2. and 3. remove scorch from the equation entirely, too many ships rely on it entirely.
The entire design philosophy with amarr is kinda faulty, Their weaknesses are cap stability, speed and tracking... And at the same time they have very few utility highs (And if they do whoopdedoo since Nos is kinda ****) so their only choice is to use webs and cap boosters.. But a lot of the ships don't have the midslots you allow you to do that since "Amarr have few mids" (Give the punisher a 3. mid for crying out loud <.<) |
Vae Abeo
Vae Caudex Corporation
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 21:29:00 -
[2032] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1020
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 21:46:00 -
[2033] - Quote
Neut warfare has and looks like it will continue to take a big hit. A lot of the new frigates and cruisers don't have any utility high slots. Of those that do have utility slots many are forced to fit a class down due to fitting constraints. The Hurricane and Rupture for example have been cut from two to one utility slot. Many fits on the Rupture require it to fit a small neut rather then a medium sized one. I suspect the same may be true of the Hurricane when it rolls out on Feb 10....
The small rather then medium size is also true for the Ferox, Drake, Brutix, Harbinger.... even the new Cyclone with two utility highs can only fit a medium neut and a small neut if it wants to fit HAMs and an X-LASB - pretty mandatory stuff for it's hull. All of the frigates and cruisers that have been rebalanced are currently in heavy use in faction warfare - and in that arena I can tell you that the use of neutralizers in general has decreased dramatically.
Why is the Harbinger a red headed step-child on TQ currently? Fitting difficulties? They are going way. Cap weakness? It's primary competitor is losing it's trademark dual neut setup. A lot of the 'nerfs' the Harbinger is set to receive are red herrings. It's cap lasts the same because you have one less turret. It's fitting is actually much better. As such you can fit a third trimark instead of a MACR - which gives you close to the same EHP as it has now. On top of that you have more damage to look forward to as well as a flight of lights to give the ship more utility. I'm very much looking forward to the new Harbinger.
TL;DR - 'Neuts on everything!' is going away and the metagame is changing in ways that most haven't caught up to yet. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
87
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 21:48:00 -
[2034] - Quote
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. Thanks for the reply!
I honestly thought high cap use was to keep lasers off of other ships (looks at Myrm), and the reduced cap need was to keep them viable on Amarr ones. I wonder, then, if lasers have a built-in damage buff, why wouldn't Amarr ships receive +tracking or +optimal bonuses (or other creative bonuses (reduced power need, etc.) over +damage ones, given the built in damage buff? I have always sort of considered the -cap use is the weapon-related bonus on the hull.
At any rate, I appreciate the answer!
P.S. What happened to Team Game of Drones??
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 23:04:00 -
[2035] - Quote
Most Battlecruisers have an utility slot and fitting for a warfare link - currently those warfare links are more difficult to fit than medium neuts so having to downgrade for small utility modules shouldn't be an issue unless you got crazy expectations... |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 00:03:00 -
[2036] - Quote
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.
You have the right idea for once. I hope you can ignore all the 'feedback' the dps plebs give you. Removing cap bonus has not made good ships so far: abaddon can do it because all BS seem to require cap boosters for some reason, and that covers it, but punisher and maller are both trash, because on proper ships, midslots are life. I think amarr ships should mostly all have the bonus.
Btw, TEs, T2 ammo and drones. This had better be happening sooner than you guys doing rebalancing on every ship in the game. Stuff is broken. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1020
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 00:04:00 -
[2037] - Quote
Fozzie indicated earlier that the warfare links would have their fitting requirements tweaked when the rebalancing got to that stage. |
Annihilious
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 01:27:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Game changing name to "Nerf Online"... |
Flatiner
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 02:18:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Can I ask who in their stoned state of mind hired this goon? Seriously why dont you try doing something productive in this game that WE the player pay for instead of f**ki*g us in the butt every chance you get. At this rate you might as well apply for bankruptcy just like THQ did for not listening to the player base. Fix what needs to be fixed stop breaking items/ships what have you, that don't need your rediculous ideas or "improvments" as you all call them. I'm not the oldest player in eve but I feel as if this game has taking a change for the worse since they hired Fuzzie to the ccp team. Here's an idea why don't you ask your player base what they would like to see happen. Seriously tired of the "changes" to this game and can't wait for a new game to come along and stomp this one into the ground |
Nian Banks
Berserkers of Aesir
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 02:47:00 -
[2040] - Quote
Not impressed with the changes, I had hoped that CCP would just give the tier1 battlecruisers better speed/agility and more HP.
Why does every rebalance now = completely different bloody ship. Give us variants, MlI and MkII, New blueprints to research for the MkII and people can still have and produce their old faithful.
More ships FTW. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
136
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 03:26:00 -
[2041] - Quote
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. |
Lili Lu
680
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 05:51:00 -
[2042] - Quote
Flatiner wrote:Can I ask who in their stoned state of mind hired this goon? Seriously why dont you try doing something productive in this game that WE the player pay for instead of f**ki*g us in the butt every chance you get. At this rate you might as well apply for bankruptcy just like THQ did for not listening to the player base. Fix what needs to be fixed stop breaking items/ships what have you, that don't need your rediculous ideas or "improvments" as you all call them. I'm not the oldest player in eve but I feel as if this game has taking a change for the worse since they hired Fuzzie to the ccp team. Here's an idea why don't you ask your player base what they would like to see happen. Seriously tired of the "changes" to this game and can't wait for a new game to come along and stomp this one into the ground must be you're upset about the hm nerf and your pve tengu not performing like it used to. too bad. such a constructive tear filled post. can't wait for you to leave. o/ |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
294
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:06:00 -
[2043] - 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 |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1907
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:32:00 -
[2044] - Quote
Fozzie,
what were your goals for this balancing pass, and do you feel like they were met?
I personally was expecting at least one fleet-compatible BC per race, and the removal or fixing of useless hull bonuses. Unfortunately this didn't happen :/
Changing Cyclone and Prophecy weapon systems was in line with "2 weapon systems per race" -trend. Amarr drone battleship and full missile Minnie bs coming soon.
Looks like Drake will still very much Drake, Gallente shield tank, Amarr stuck with "unique" fitting bonus, Cyclone fits an XLASB.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Ra'Shyne Viper
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
57
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:35:00 -
[2045] - Quote
Holy nerfing drake, grats CCP, the drake will never be used AGAIN, EVER. literately has no value in anything anymore. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 08:47:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Not sure which post it was, but didn't Fozzie state recently that medium rails were going to be looked at again for the next release?
I've kept up with all the threads running in F&I but don't recall reading anything beyond that one quote...... |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
535
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 09:20:00 -
[2047] - Quote
TrouserDeagle 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. You have the right idea for once. I hope you can ignore all the 'feedback' the dps plebs give you. Removing cap bonus has not made good ships so far: abaddon can do it because all BS seem to require cap boosters for some reason, and that covers it, but punisher and maller are both trash, because on proper ships, midslots are life. I think amarr ships should mostly all have the bonus. Btw, TEs, T2 ammo and drones. This had better be happening sooner than you guys doing rebalancing on every ship in the game. Stuff is broken.
I dunno, i'm getting used to my drones constantly switching between AB/MWD and never doing any actual damage.
Things that laser boats need imo.
The cap bonus Utility high/nos buff Maybe a midslot or two?
t2 ammo rebalance (Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already) |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
166
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 09:35:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Roime wrote:Changing Cyclone and Prophecy weapon systems was in line with "2 weapon systems per race" -trend. Amarr drone battleship and full missile Minnie bs coming soon.
Technically, Amarr already have a drone battleship in Armageddon, it just isn't bonused and the bay is a bit small. I half expect them to double the size of the bay and give it the ability to fit turrets or missile launchers. Fozzie already said they're turning Typhoon into a missile boat.
Quote:Looks like Drake will still very much Drake
Nano Drake is getting hit pretty hard - testing it on SiSi, it really feels sluggish and "heavy". Meanwhile, Cyclone zips about just like your usual minmatar ship - I expect it to take over the nano role (though more of a mid range verrsion due to considerably shorter targetting range), while the Drakes will be delegated to the brick role. Since I always prefered the nano drake, it seems I'll be shifting over to the Cyclone after all.
Quote:Amarr stuck with "unique" fitting bonus
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Let's compare railguns and lasers - railguns have lower cap use, but also relatively low damage - they need the damage bonus of sorts to work decently (note: Rokh's range bonus doubles as damage bonus, since the pilot can downgrade ammo to shorter range, higher damage version). Meanwhile, lasers have high cap use, but also high damage. A cap bonus reduces their drain on the capacitor, but if you combine a laser with a damage bonus, you get a high cap use, very high damage weapon, an option other weapons systems simply don't have. Of course, it comes with a price - it's limited to EM/TH spectrum.
Quote: (Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already)
Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff) and over the whole ewar, because let's face it, playing a roulette with ECM isn't fun either. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
250
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 10:02:00 -
[2049] - Quote
I don't know what world you guys are living in, but the Amarr people most certainly do not need a "drone battleship." Where does this sacrelige end? Balance is one thing but that doesn't mean every race needs every kind of ship out there. With my enemy being the Gallente, the Amarr people would sooner launch a battleship designed to eat drones than harbor them. Our tech should be designed to COMBAT drones. Which is why Amarr drones suck. The Armageddon is a mini Bhaalorgn. Fit one full of neuts and see what you can do. What's missing isn't a drone bonus. What's missing is some kind of neut/vamp bonus. In any case, an energy weapon bonus should be primary and if at all, drones secondary. A drone battleship. What's next? Railgun bonuses on the Abaddon? Ya'll are going to kill me. If the future holds a New Eden full of Prophecies AND Armageddons all stuffed with Gallente drones because dps will always reign supreme, well won't that be a fine day for the Amarr race.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 10:21:00 -
[2050] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Roime wrote:(Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already) Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff) And by look over how they work, do you mean reduce the falloff they give to somewhere towards x1.5 for instance?
TD not affecting falloff the way TC does would make sense if the plan would be to let brawling ships at least stand a chance against kiters by going into deep falloff. Now how much that reflects the current state of affairs, is another thing. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Broxus Maximas
Shadow State SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 10:33:00 -
[2051] - Quote
I really am not impressed with the Gallente BC Changes. Why not change the Myrm to better fit the drone boat role. You could take away another high slot, give it +25 bandwidth, and change the armor rep bonus to drone tracking and speed bonus.
I also don't really feel that the Brutix change help make them more playable than they were before when compared to other BC variants
Finally, why for these "drone boats" is there no option to fit modules in their high slots that replace turrets and allow more drones to be controlled? Why not make drone boats actually drone boats capable of carrying more than 5 drones at the expense of losing their turrets.
|
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts.
124
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 11:54:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:[Well in PvP unless you're being extremely
Did you calculate the amount of base HP the Drake recieves when it takes 25% less damage than a Cyclone from everything?
And for the drones... now most BC's have a utility high. Put in a smartbomb and ignore the Cyclones drones as they won't be around for long.
I'm glad you aren't calling it final. I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. I think people are losing it over theory crafting without actually seeing how things are playing out. Yes, it has lost quite a bit of mission diversity. That will hurt it for mission running outside of Caldari space. But it might have been a bit too versatile and capable as a ship for running missions.
I don't think it'll be a problem. I think we'll see two viable ships in the Cyclone and Drake after the patch. I think a lot of people are overreacting to these changes. But I guess we'll see how it plays out.
No didn't bring resist and shield boost bonus in it, not takan the time to calculate that, so I went with the hull HP.
as for the smart bomb, it will be hell to fit with say 6 Heavy assault launchers, tackle and shields, the Cyclone has a lot less trouble by the way because it needs only 5 launchers and has more Powergrid.
but yeah I'll see how it ends. though I'd made my drakes ready for a long time in the hanger and bought my selfs some cyclones.
|
Luc Chastot
Zero Excavations You Failed the Mumble Test
199
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 11:59:00 -
[2053] - Quote
So Fozzie, have you reconsidered the second Myrm bonus? A clean, defined line between the Tristan, Algos, Vexor and Myrm would be a nice thing to have (turret + drone bonuses). Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Deditri
Space Road Truckers. Sev3rance
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 12:20:00 -
[2054] - Quote
Do not like, seems like a waste of engineering cycles to produce a change that is not making the players very happy.
I would say politely, back to the drawing board please. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 12:23:00 -
[2055] - Quote
Flatiner wrote:Can I ask who in their stoned state of mind hired this goon? Seriously why dont you try doing something productive in this game that WE the player pay for instead of f**ki*g us in the butt every chance you get. At this rate you might as well apply for bankruptcy just like THQ did for not listening to the player base. Fix what needs to be fixed stop breaking items/ships what have you, that don't need your rediculous ideas or "improvments" as you all call them. I'm not the oldest player in eve but I feel as if this game has taking a change for the worse since they hired Fuzzie to the ccp team. Here's an idea why don't you ask your player base what they would like to see happen. Seriously tired of the "changes" to this game and can't wait for a new game to come along and stomp this one into the ground
Well I beg to differ. If you actually play this game you would know that CCP Fozzie has made so many ships that were useless actually great to fly now. I find the variety of ships flown in game now staggering. I never know what I might find.
If you didn't know, these are the ships that have been made very useful and fun to fly that were pretty much useless before Fozzie touched them:
all T1 Exploration frigates All T1 Attack frigates All T1 EWAR frigates All T1 Logistics frigates (previously mining ships) 7 out of the 8 Combat frigates (the Rifter is now a lame ugly duckling)
All original Destroyers
All T1 Logistics Cruisers All T1 EWAR Cruisers All T1 Attack Cruisers 3 out of the 4 Combat Cruisers (The Maller is not quite as good as it should be)
At my count 19 of the above ships were probably never flown with serious intent and out of the 48 ships, only two could use a second balance pass (I'm looking at you Maller/Rifter)
also, can I haz your stuff? |
Sradoc
Space Road Truckers. Sev3rance
21
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 13:46:00 -
[2056] - Quote
Quote:The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger.
Those who enjoys the Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose game play do not expressively enjoy gimping the cyclone...how do you come up with this data?
I will stand corrected if someone can show me a thread that says eve players WISH they could make the cyclone a missile boat...
New Eve Player response: " Please Please CCP!! Make it MORE difficult to fly minmatar ships by making us train EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN TO 5 ! I thought I was on a roll getting my gunnery skills up but now I need to switch to missiles!! YAY!!! " (Cancel subscription).
Old Eve Players response: "dafaq?"
|
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:05:00 -
[2057] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:So Fozzie, have you reconsidered the second Myrm bonus? A clean, defined line between the Tristan, Algos, Vexor and Myrm would be a nice thing to have (turret + drone bonuses). Someone from CCP said before, that making drones a primary platform wouldn't really work out.
Considering that, compared to the Vexor the Myrm is only getting an upgrade in bandwidth as far as offense goes, and heavies aren't the easiest to use...
Now the damage potential of a shield Myrm against a web+scrammed target is already fair, if it had a blaster bonus, with an ASB setup it would be quite something.
The Prophecy has the Myrm's old 75mbps, so as far as racial asymmetry goes, having the Myrm with 75 as well (on top of the blaster bonus) would be somewhat strange.
Well, it will never outtank the 5% resist 7 low Proph, so might as well outgun it! Maybe 80 mbps? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
783
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:13:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:I don't know what world you guys are living in, but the Amarr people most certainly do not need a "drone battleship." Where does this sacrelige end? Balance is one thing but that doesn't mean every race needs every kind of ship out there. With my enemy being the Gallente, the Amarr people would sooner launch a battleship designed to eat drones than harbor them. Our tech should be designed to COMBAT drones. Which is why Amarr drones suck. The Armageddon is a mini Bhaalgorn. Fit one full of neuts and see what you can do. What's missing isn't a drone bonus. What's missing is some kind of neut/vamp bonus. In any case, an energy weapon bonus should be primary and if at all, drones secondary. An Amarr drone battleship. What's next? Railgun bonuses on the Abaddon? Ya'll are going to kill me. If the future holds a New Eden full of Prophecies AND Armageddons all stuffed with Gallente drones because dps will always reign supreme, well won't that be a fine day for the Amarr race.
YK you know the races have always been just fine with taking each others tech
the amarr invented the jumpdrive and the gallente/caldari invented the warp drive
also the races have a pact with each other to share all tech advances
also the amarr got capsule tech from the cal who got it from the jove
also their religion and the reclaimings centre around flying about and taking other people's stuff
their first priest emperor started it
the amarr were always meant to be a drone/laser race just as the gal are hybrids/drones, cal are hybrids/missiles and min are missiles/projectiles
btw the bhaal is made by a group whose faith is illegal in the amarr empire under religious law |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:25:00 -
[2059] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:[quote=Yonis Kador]
btw the bhaal is made by a group whose faith is illegal in the amarr empire under religious law
e: and a drone balance is deffo coming at some point soon i reckon
This would be all true , but curse/pilgrim/dragoon/sentinel ... makes me thinks that amarr is the neuting race along with Blood raiders. So sure blood raiders are illegal , but neuting doctrine aint thier thing only. |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:29:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:e: and a drone balance is deffo coming at some point soon i reckon At frig level, active armor repping bonus was fine, since at max skills a 10%/level bonus is 12.5% better than a 5% resist or something like that.
At BC level balancing we were promised buffs to armor, and the thread is still rolling, though I'm not quite enthusiastic about trying to fix armor tanking by introducing a module with "ancilary" in it's name that still uses the same cap and has a fitting limit of 1, but there's something going on at least.
With drones, for now there's only the promise that something will happen at some point. If the AI mess was good for anything, it was to remind folk about how drones aren't in the best shape in many ways. Yes, with the new and buffed DDAs, on a nearby serpentis-webbed target, they are doing fine dps, that one part is in better shape than ever before. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
784
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:29:00 -
[2061] - Quote
e: at Naomi
that's not what i was trying to say but yeah |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
470
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:30:00 -
[2062] - Quote
Sradoc wrote:Quote:The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger. Those who enjoys the Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose game play do not expressively enjoy gimping the cyclone...how do you come up with this data? I will stand corrected if someone can show me a thread that says eve players WISH they could make the cyclone a missile boat... New Eve Player response: " Please Please CCP!! Make it MORE difficult to fly minmatar ships by making us train EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN TO 5 ! I thought I was on a roll getting my gunnery skills up but now I need to switch to missiles!! YAY!!! " (Cancel subscription). Old Eve Players response: "dafaq?"
I've heard a ton of people asking for the cyclone not to be changed to a missile boat.
I agree with them.
If I wanted a shield tanking missile race, I'd use caldari. |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:35:00 -
[2063] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:If I wanted a shield tanking missile race, I'd use caldari. And now those who want to use missiles on a ship that can move and isn't forced to one kind of missile per launcher (which takes away the "selectable damage" part of launchers), can crosstrain into minnie. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
250
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:36:00 -
[2064] - Quote
Dear Benny Ohu,
The primary attributes of the Amarr race have always been energy weapons/armor repping. Caldari are missile/shields, Minnies are projectiles/speed, and Gallente are hybrids/drones. The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS.
I'm also well aware that the Bhaalgorn is a BR ship. (The camo is telling.) This does not negate the fact that if you load an Armageddon with neuts, it works pretty well as a poor man's Bhaalgorn. Neutageddon loadouts are commonplace online.
Yonis Kador "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
470
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:43:00 -
[2065] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Diesel47 wrote:If I wanted a shield tanking missile race, I'd use caldari. And now those who want to use missiles on a ship that can move and isn't forced to one kind of missile per launcher (which takes away the "selectable damage" part of launchers), can crosstrain into minnie.
Excuse me? Selectable damage? Caracal and kestrel want to have a word with you. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
784
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:49:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Yeah they've apparently always supposed to (during the capsuleer era) have been a drone race too from what I can gather, despite poor execution in the game. Note armour isn't a weapon and each other race has two weapons and an EWAR :P
My other point was that the Amarr really have no problem with taking other races' tech regardless
I agree on the Hobgob bit though :S i've always wanted the option of using Acolytes in my spaceships, even if it's just more EM damage on top of all the EM damage I'm doing anyway |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1909
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 14:57:00 -
[2067] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Dear Benny Ohu,
The primary attributes of the Amarr race have always been energy weapons/armor repping. Caldari are missile/shields, Minnies are projectiles/speed, and Gallente are hybrids/drones. The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS.
I'm also well aware that the Bhaalgorn is a BR ship. (The camo is telling.) This does not negate the fact that if you load an Armageddon with neuts, it works pretty well as a poor man's Bhaalgorn. Neutageddon loadouts are commonplace online.
Yonis Kador
Actually Amarr has never been armor repping race and always had drones. Arbi, Pilgrim, Curse and battleships with huge drone bays. Caldari has hybrids, missiles and uses shields. Minmatar projectiles, missiles and speed. Gallente is the armor repping race (fwiw) with hybrids and drones.
Minmatar is your enemy, btw.
Anyway these weapon system changes are just logical, every race has two weapon system lineups to provide variation and choices for pilots.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
470
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 15:05:00 -
[2068] - Quote
Roime wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:Dear Benny Ohu,
The primary attributes of the Amarr race have always been energy weapons/armor repping. Caldari are missile/shields, Minnies are projectiles/speed, and Gallente are hybrids/drones. The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS.
I'm also well aware that the Bhaalgorn is a BR ship. (The camo is telling.) This does not negate the fact that if you load an Armageddon with neuts, it works pretty well as a poor man's Bhaalgorn. Neutageddon loadouts are commonplace online.
Yonis Kador Actually Amarr has never been armor repping race and always had drones. Arbi, Pilgrim, Curse and battleships with huge drone bays. Caldari has hybrids, missiles and uses shields. Minmatar projectiles, missiles and speed. Gallente is the armor repping race (fwiw) with hybrids and drones. Minmatar is your enemy, btw. Anyway these weapon system changes are just logical, every race has two weapon system lineups to provide variation and choices for pilots.
Amarr barely had two weapon systems before they started pushing all the drone nonsense. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
784
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 15:10:00 -
[2069] - Quote
Gallente is sort of a half-enemy? There's a lot of Minmatar in the Federation and they're allies of the Minmatar, having secretly aided the minnies against the Amarr. They're not at war proper, though, both races are part of CONCORD and the Amarr and Gallente have an open trade agreement
Diesel47 wrote:Amarr barely had two weapon systems before they started pushing all the drone nonsense. amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
251
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 15:12:00 -
[2070] - Quote
As someone who has pretty much only been an Amarr character his entire time in EvE, I guess I just don't know what I'm writing about. I frequently spout off about topics on which I know absolutely nothing. So I stand corrected. Despite armor bonuses galore, armor implants rewarded in Amarr Cosmos, numerous low slots, and virtually no drone bonuses to be found (The Arbitrator (which I listed, and its t2 variants) as stated was the only exception.) the Amarr race is clearly a drone race and Gallente are my friends.
You learn something new every day.
I'll have to go shopping in Dodixie later and buy myself a Megathron. It should look great in my polished, golden hangar.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1909
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 15:17:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Good that you are still able to learn.
Mega does look good in any hangar :)
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
251
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 16:01:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Sarcasm is an art.
I'll work on it.
"He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
480
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 16:08:00 -
[2073] - Quote
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.
Just give the harbinger a 3rd bonus, or at least make whatever awesome stat it has over other battlecruisers show up in the description. I mean a drake gets a bonus to weapon damage and tank, meanwhile its weapons still use less cap than the harbinger. A bonus shouldn't be something that other ships get for free. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 16:23:00 -
[2074] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
Autocannons have no drawbacks at all. - Good dps on bonused ships - Good range via falloff and TE/TC - Good tracking - Selectable damage pattern - Capacitor-free - Easiest fitting - Large ammo capacity
In fact AC is so good that it is default option on hulls without damage bonuses. I bet that if there were projectile bonuses on all turrets ships we would very rarely see anything but autocannons. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
367
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:05:00 -
[2075] - Quote
Vae Abeo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .
Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)
the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.
Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?
TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . . |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Silent Infinity
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:23:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Roime wrote:(Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already) Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff) And by look over how they work, do you mean reduce the falloff they give to somewhere towards x1.5 for instance? TD not affecting falloff the way TC does would make sense if the plan would be to let brawling ships at least stand a chance against kiters by going into deep falloff. Now how much that reflects the current state of affairs, is another thing.
Whaaaaa? I think you need to play more man, Optimal and Fall-off both get done over by TDs equally. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1918
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:29:00 -
[2077] - Quote
No idea why my name is in that quote, someone messed up.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:33:00 -
[2078] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .
Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)
the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.
Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?
TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Eeh, I disagree. Blasters over small can all shoot out to long point range with Null loaded (assuming a TE or two), but don't get outrun by a close orbiting enemy ship. Also many blaster ships have enough mids to fit full tackle AND a cap booster so they aren't as susceptible to neuts. Also they don't take long to switch ammo either. So they get DPS, tracking, and don't typically suffer as far as neuting is concerned. And all large blasters and any range bonused/TE'd medium blaster ships have all the range they need. The projection at that range isn't as good as lasers, but is still sufficiently high. |
Callduron
174
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:39:00 -
[2079] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Callduron wrote:The issue of certificates came up at the CSM Town Hall on Sunday. Is someone going to look at the relevant certificates as part of the rebalancing process. Cyclones currently have Cruiser Projectile Turrets (Standard) on its recommended list.
(I notice this has been done for the Retribution rebalanced ships so well done there). Yes we've updated the recommended certificates for each of the Combat BCs as a part of this change.
Great work, many thanks! |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
28
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:48:00 -
[2080] - Quote
Fozzie,
I understand that having varied ships makes the game exciting. Hell, you made the game more exciting by making people fly more than just minmatar by making each ship good in it's own way while being able to compete with other races and other ships within the same race.
But that's the kicker, each ship has a role that makes it noticeably better at one role and not so good at another. That makes interesting game play. However, for the Gallente BC's you have resolved (for the time being) to have two ships compete at the same role through only slightly different means. There is no definable difference that says the Myrm does this better than the Brutix and vice versa. The Myrm just outright does it better leaving the Brutix to twiddle its thumbs and dream of what it could have been.
And I'll explain one more time what I mean. The Myrm, as many have said before, excels at taking on 1-2 targets and using its drones to kill the target. While it uses the drones for it's dps, the myrm can focus all of it's midslots to full tackle and cap boosters because of the cap intensive requirements of running active armor tanks. 99.9% of the time the Myrm fills it's high slots with projectile turrets because they also use no cap alongside drones which allows the Myrm to focus all of it's worth on staying alive.
Now, when you look at the Brutix, it has been graced with an additional low slot and a tiny amount of extra PG but to be honest it's not enough to save the active tanking role. Unlike the Myrm, the Brutix uses blasters (or broken railguns) to apply that amazing paper damage. Those use cap, are subject to bad tracking and awful engagement range. Again, unlike the Myrm, the Brutix cannot fit a full tackle set and enough cap boosters to feed the cap itensive armor reppers alongside hybrids. The Brutix needs a web if it plans to engage anything smaller than another BC, but it can't afford to fit one if it wants to be a true dedicated active tanker. Without full tackle, the Brutix can't control engagement ranges (even with it, it still won't be able to) and is sentenced to any early death if the other guy has a neut.
So we're left with two ships doing the same role (albeit with different means of doing damage) but with one ship fulfilling that role better. That leaves the Brutix in the same state of where it is now, stuck on the market or shield buffed. Take your time and come up wth a meaningful second bonus for the Brutix that will make it be chosen and actually useful in small gang and large gang armor fleets: RoF bonus, tracking bonus, falloff bonus, agility bonus, mwd cap penalty reduction, etc.
*P.S. - Why on Earth do both the Gallente BC's have bonuses to active armor tanking but have larger Hull HP than armor HP? That makes no sense, especially considering the extremely long cycle times of armor reppers in a pvp environment. That needs to be looked at as well, I for one do not enjoy having to pay a large repair bill every time my Gallente hull gets into it's massive structure. /me sends Fozzies his repair bills :D |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
536
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 18:45:00 -
[2081] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vae Abeo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . . Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection) the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range. Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster? TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Laser boats generally don't have the mids to have both cap and web.
Blasters are better in scram range in every single way as the tracking on all lasers is ****. And blasters use less than half the cap that lasers do.
That said the majority of the problem with amarr ships are the ships/slots/bonuses synergising badly with the WS |
Marcus Jonas
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:35:00 -
[2082] - Quote
thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:53:00 -
[2083] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes.
Thats why for ten years they've only had like 3 drone ships?
Personally I'm against making the races similar, or making ship progression derp-level easy.
Difference is good.
|
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
482
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:58:00 -
[2084] - Quote
Marcus Jonas wrote:thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job CCP has only buffed rockets and your an idiot. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
482
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:58:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes. Thats why for ten years they've only had like 3 drone ships? Personally I'm against making the races similar, or making ship progression derp-level easy. Difference is good. Its not easy its just sensible. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Marcus Jonas
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:01:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Marcus Jonas wrote:thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job CCP has only buffed rockets and your an idiot.
YOU ARE IDIOT THEY MAKE HAEVY ONE LOWER YOU NOOB SO SHUT UP AND DIE! |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:04:00 -
[2087] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: 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.
Autocannons have no drawbacks at all. - Good dps on bonused ships - Good range via falloff and TE/TC - Good tracking - Selectable damage pattern - Capacitor-free - Easiest fitting - Large ammo capacity In fact AC is so good that it is default option on hulls without damage bonuses. I bet that if there were projectile bonuses on all turrets ships we would very rarely see anything but autocannons.
Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:13:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vae Abeo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . . Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection) the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range. Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster? TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Blasters are great right now. Lasers are the worst.
With the new armor changes coming armor tanked blaster ships will be much faster. |
Marius8
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:13:00 -
[2089] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 6 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 800 PWG (-50), 500 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 3750(-156) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Change the kinetic damage bonus to a general damage bonus, and the drake will at least be useable and the changing in the shield reduces the tank on a passive tanked drake with almost 110 hp/s (that's to much reduction!!!!!). |
Ryomo Shimei
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:13:00 -
[2090] - Quote
marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something |
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
45
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:32:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.
I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those:
1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations. 2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages. 3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes. 4. Interdictor in a league of it's own. 5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3495
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:38:00 -
[2092] - Quote
A few points:
Amarr have always had a strong predilection towards drones. Along side their line of obviously drone dedicated T1 and T2 cruisers many of their other ships (BS in particular) have always sported larger drone bays than any other race but the Gallante. True, Gallante put a stronger emphasis on pure drone damage but for bay size and variety available Amarr has always ranked highly. Amarr pilots who have been in the game any length of time and not realized this have apparently been blinded by their lasers. Time to get with the program as the rebalancing makes this even more obvious.
For the record, Amarr have not traditionally been know as being an active armor tanking race... they have been known as the buffer armor tanking race. Big difference functionally. Gallante have always been a bit more flexible in this regard, but with active tanking being made more practical we should see it becoming a lot more main stream than it has been in the past.
And last but not least, it's going to be very amusing when Drakes remain the most commonly used mission running BC, and STILL a strong contender for med to large fleet engagements. I may have to book mark a few posts in this thread for future reference and nose rubbing. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:39:00 -
[2093] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.
I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those: 1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations. 2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages. 3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes. 4. Interdictor in a league of it's own. 5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU.
Aligity and speed are basically the same idea.
The fitting is great because of the low fitting requirements of the weapons system.
T2-resists are nice, but arties and the sabre don't provide enough advantages to say minmatar have many advantages.
Most of their power is due to ACs. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3495
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:45:00 -
[2094] - Quote
Ryomo Shimei wrote:marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something If Marcus wants to avoid confusion in the future he shouldn't say "rockets" when he apparently means heavy missiles (or all missiles).
Also adjustments are being made to missile range calculations so that what you see will pretty much be what you get... meaning if it says 15km then it means 15km. Of course, heavy missiles are still an excellent weapons system compared with all other medium long range weapons systems but I'll stop so as not to distract you from your panic and hand wringing. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
45
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:15:00 -
[2095] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Aligity and speed are basically the same idea.
The fitting is great because of the low fitting requirements of the weapons system.
T2-resists are nice, but arties and the sabre don't provide enough advantages to say minmatar have many advantages.
Most of their power is due to ACs.
Alltogether they have enough advantages. Something about autocannons have to go, either it selectable damage, cap-free usage, super-easy fitting or double benefit from TE/TC. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:20:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote: Now, when you look at the Brutix, it has been graced with an additional low slot and a tiny amount of extra PG but to be honest it's not enough to save the active tanking role. Unlike the Myrm, the Brutix uses blasters (or broken railguns) to apply that amazing paper damage. Those use cap, are subject to bad tracking and awful engagement range. Again, unlike the Myrm, the Brutix cannot fit a full tackle set and enough cap boosters to feed the cap itensive armor reppers alongside hybrids. The Brutix needs a web if it plans to engage anything smaller than another BC, but it can't afford to fit one if it wants to be a true dedicated active tanker. Without full tackle, the Brutix can't control engagement ranges (even with it, it still won't be able to) and is sentenced to any early death if the other guy has a neut.
And they removed a gun but increased the bonus to compensate for it, increasing its PG effectively. And they reduced the PG cost of medium reps by 20%. They've done a lot to help the Brutix PG wise. And subject to bad tracking?? What? Blasters? I will agree with the mids though. It can't afford to put in the cap boosters it needs to power the reps. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:27:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Abaut the Drake Damage-Bonus: Why not change the "10% to Kinetic Damage" to "5% to Damage, and additional 5% to Kinetik" Such a Bonus existet once for a Amarr-Frig, why not make it for the Drake. Like this, Kinetic ist still the superior Damage-Type which can make over 700 DPS, and the other Types would be at least a little bit usable. Not at much like Kinetik on the Drake, or overall the Damage on the Zyclone, but at least usable |
Lili Lu
681
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:38:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Marcus Jonas wrote:Commander Ted wrote:Marcus Jonas wrote:thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job CCP has only buffed rockets and your an idiot. YOU ARE IDIOT THEY MAKE HAEVY ONE LOWER YOU NOOB SO SHUT UP AND DIE!
Ryomo Shimei wrote:marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something
THESE POSTS ARE BEAUTIFUL, WHETHER SINCERE OR TROLL
I'm betting troll, and well crafted at that o7 But, there are unfortunately plenty of people in this game that honestly do have such reactions. |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Silent Infinity
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:50:00 -
[2099] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.
I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those: 1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations. 2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages. 3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes. 4. Interdictor in a league of it's own. 5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU.
1. Agility - Ok, so why are there so many pvp situations that people don't use Minmatar(Drake/tengu blobs, hellcats, etc.)? Agility is important, but not as lower is always better, often for fleet they want similar agility/align time not lowest. 2. Arties are nice but creative uses aren't limited to Arties. 3. Eh, best T2 Shield resist profile sure. Horrid for armor though where Amarr have the best. and then Gallente/Caldari T2 profiles are nice because whether you shield or armor tank you only have one big hole to fill, instead of two in the case of shield tanking Amarr or armor tanking Minmatar. Best profile, in some ways yes but not always. 4. Till T2 balancing comes around. 5. Pretty much, though AWU is still much needed, esp for arties. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
234
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 22:59:00 -
[2100] - Quote
Minmatar would *only* be fast, because that's not a lot of course... |
|
Alek Row
Silent Step
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 23:33:00 -
[2101] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: Alltogether they have enough advantages. Something about autocannons have to go, either it selectable damage, cap-free usage, super-easy fitting or double benefit from TE/TC.
You forgot a few things... Lowest optimal Low (lowest?) dps on paper Fights in falloff, even lower dps despite the good projection This may not be accurate, but you are only taking into account the weapon systems.
And now you can resort to other things, ships that simply work because of the slot layout, ship bonuses, ship stats, module combinations, whatever, and I agree, because taking into account weapon systems without their ships it's idiotic. So tell me, which Minmatar ship after the balancing pass is causing you trouble?
|
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
253
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 00:25:00 -
[2102] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Amarr have always had a strong predilection towards drones. Along side their line of obviously drone dedicated T1 and T2 cruisers many of their other ships (BS in particular) have always sported larger drone bays than any other race but the Gallante. True, Gallante put a stronger emphasis on pure drone damage but for bay size and variety available Amarr has always ranked highly.
Well Ranger, the Corax has a 450m3 cargo bay.
Using your logic, I guess it has a "strong predilection" toward being an Industrial ship.
The reason the Arbi t2 variants have that huge drone bay is because their primary attribute is a cap-hogging energy weapon bonus. Amarr = energy weapons. But the t1 Arbi is still, with no energy weapon bonus combined with drone bonuses, pretty much the only ship that fits the "Amarr drone ship" bill. One was already too many but the Curse and Pilgrim were such cool pvp ships, (because of the weapon bonuses - not the drones) nobody cared - myself included.
But this new blasphemy will put Gallente drones throughout the entire Amarr fleet and while that might look great on some balance spreadsheet somewhere - when I think about the practical implications of those changes, and the disregard for established thematic continuity, and the thousands upon thousands of NEW Amarr ships about to be stuffed with Gallente drones, my blood pressure rises.
It's an attack on the soul of my people.
Opinions vary.
"Obviously."
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 00:36:00 -
[2103] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:The Gallente have always been the drone race. Are you really coming in here and telling me that the Amarr people, my people, were "meant to be" a drone race too? Since when? Barring what, the Arbitrator, prior to all this "balancing," the Amarr have had virtually nonexistant drone attributes. As it should be. Drones are, and have always been, at least in the 5 years I've been playing EvE, the purvue of the Gallente. Gallente are the enemy. Just because every race has drones does not mean every race needs drone ships. To ensure max dps, primary drone bonuses on Amarr ships will ensure that they are going to be loaded with Gallente drones because Gallente (you know, the drone race) drones do the best dmg. And that inescapable truth, that my people's ships will be loaded with their enemy's tech as a result of these changes, is total BS. The state racial drones are in is another topic (rebalance drones so amarr/caldari are more useful). Amarr being a drone race or not... (following statements ignore Gallente) They had the only drone cruiser, the only BC that could field a full flight of mediums, a battleship capable of launching a full flight of heavies and navy faction have room spare (Phoon slightly ahead though), and on T2 level there's also the mini-curse also superb in drone bay. True, proper drone bonus was only on one hull.
On the other hand, they had all those rocket/HAM T2 ships tanks to Khanid, but how silly would it look if 3 races had missiles as secondary system, and only Gallente were left with drones, it's Much Better(TM) to have two shield+missile secondary and two armor+drone secondary for variation, than let's say armor+missile. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 01:08:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Roime wrote:(Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already) Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff) And by look over how they work, do you mean reduce the falloff they give to somewhere towards x1.5 for instance? TD not affecting falloff the way TC does would make sense if the plan would be to let brawling ships at least stand a chance against kiters by going into deep falloff. Now how much that reflects the current state of affairs, is another thing. Whaaaaa? I think you need to play more man, Optimal and Fall-off both get done over by TDs equally. And was that not precisely what we were talking about?
The symmetry is that beneficial modules affect falloff twice as much (TC/TE/TL 15% optimal vs 30X% falloff scripted).
With Tracking Disruptors, this is not true, since - just as you pointed out - both are reduced at the same percentage, instead of falloff being reduced twice as much. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Ryomo Shimei
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 01:58:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Ryomo Shimei wrote:marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something If Marcus wants to avoid confusion in the future he shouldn't say "rockets" when he apparently means heavy missiles (or all missiles). Also adjustments are being made to missile range calculations so that what you see will pretty much be what you get... meaning if it says 15km then it means 15km. A variety of skills and rigs will also now apply to HAM's that previously had no effect on them... you did train those skills as a missile user right? If not, time to get busy. Of course, heavy missiles are still an excellent weapons system compared with all other medium long range weapons systems but I'll stop so as not to distract you from your panic and hand wringing.
you are wrong the 15 km still are not 15km ... the missiles still need time to accellerate to full speed which takes away some km from the range so basicly atm 15km resuld in an efective range of 11km on an not moving target
and besides even is you now have skills that fit they are still way to short in range compared to other short range weapon systems and is an drake lost an missile atm its an loss of 1/7 dmg ... after the patch its 1/6 which is way to easy be done and an bad increase in dmg loss and since th defender missiles always hit it is an loss ... an turrent player even under an tracking desruptor can still hit with all guns and if ya speak of ballancing thats a point which always had caldari being weak and easyly to blow there dps so for the drake an enhanced launcher and less bonus would be the fairer way to adjust the drake
and then .. against an caldari you basicly only need to give as much as possible to kinetic ress since your forced to use em due to bonus ... all other factions can change the ammo as they like and so basicly the dmg efects they do so an +dons to heavy and heavy assault missiles instead of an +to one dmg type needs to be there in my eyes ... else all will play minmatar sooner or later because it will be the only logic choice then |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
180
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 02:16:00 -
[2106] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harbinger: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
When do you learn, that 10% less cap usage just to fire the weapons is NO BONUS? It just fixes an premade penalti which shouldn't be there at all!
Else the other races would need stuff like -10% PG need for Hybrid weapons just to fit the intended weapon system. Hybrid PG use must be doubled before of corse! Or -10% explosion velocity for HM and HAM just to hit BC size targets. Or +10% tracking speed for Projectil Weapons just to be able to track BC size enemys at all.
Give the Harby damage+optimal or damage+tracking. But not this bullshit of -10% cap usage for intended weapons :(. FIX LASER CAP USAGE and don't gimp Amarr ships with 1 real bonus and 1 "we need to fix the ****" wannabe crap! Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Silent Infinity
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 02:37:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Travasty Space wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Roime wrote:(Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already) Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff) And by look over how they work, do you mean reduce the falloff they give to somewhere towards x1.5 for instance? TD not affecting falloff the way TC does would make sense if the plan would be to let brawling ships at least stand a chance against kiters by going into deep falloff. Now how much that reflects the current state of affairs, is another thing. Whaaaaa? I think you need to play more man, Optimal and Fall-off both get done over by TDs equally. And was that not precisely what we were talking about? The symmetry is that beneficial modules affect falloff twice as much (TC/TE/TL 15% optimal vs 30X% falloff scripted). With Tracking Disruptors, this is not true, since - just as you pointed out - both are reduced at the same percentage, instead of falloff being reduced twice as much.
TDs affect falloff far more then they do optimal. Lets do a numbers comparison:
Zealot and Vaga as they both have single 10%/lvl range bonuses and largest medium short range guns are used with no TEs/TCs to start with.
Scorch - 34+5+2.5(Half way into secondary fall-off) = 41.5 km Range Conflag - 11+5+2.5 = 18.5 km range
Barrage - 3+27+13.5 = 43.5 km Faction EMP - 1.5+18+9 = 28.5 km Hail - 1.5+14+7 = 22.5 km
So at this point Projectiles can put their 25% dps out a bit past what lasers can, though inside of general kiting/brawling ranges lasers win out. lets apply an unbonused TD(-47.75% to both optimal and fall-off):
Scorch - 18+2.6+1.3 = 21.9 km Range Conflag - 5.9+2.6+1.3 = 9.8 km range
Barrage - 1.6+14+7 = 22.6 km Faction EMP - 0.8+9.4+4.7 = 14.9 km Hail - 0.8+7.1+3.1 = 11 km
With two TEs each and still under TD:
Scorch - 23+4.3+2.2 = 29.5 km Range Conflag - 7.6+4.3+2.2 = 14.1 km range
Barrage - 2+23+11.5 = 36.5 km Faction EMP - 1+15+7.5 = 23.5 km Hail - 1+12+6 = 17 km
So over the whole course of this we see that ACs have the range advantage over Pulses they should have, now looking at actually dps figures at 25km for long range ammo and 10 for short range(2 TEs/Damage mods for each ship):
Scorch - W/o TD 406, W/ TD 318 Conflag - W/o TD 568, W/ TD 419
Barrage - W/o TD 285, W/ TD 140 Faction EMP - W/o TD 416, W/ TD 310 Hail - W/o TD 439, W/ TD 279
So assuming both ships can reach the target Pulses with their optimal range are less affected then ACs. This doesn't look at bonused TDs, but it only gets worse. The only advantage fall-off has over optimal is the one is suppose to have, reach the target and put some DPS on the target. To change how TEs and such work would be to break the balance we currently have between ACs and Pulses. |
Flatiner
Ghost Net Industrialists Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 02:55:00 -
[2108] - Quote
@ Lili Lu -- Actually the tengu works fine in combat sites but thanks for the troll |
Lili Lu
682
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 04:48:00 -
[2109] - Quote
Flatiner wrote:@ Lili Lu -- Actually the tengu works fine in combat sites but thanks for the troll
What you haven't left yet. Aren't you going to cary through on your threat to do it? Just do it. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
367
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 05:19:00 -
[2110] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Sigras wrote: Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .
Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)
the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.
Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?
TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Eeh, I disagree. Blasters over small can all shoot out to long point range with Null loaded (assuming a TE or two), but don't get outrun by a close orbiting enemy ship. Also many blaster ships have enough mids to fit full tackle AND a cap booster so they aren't as susceptible to neuts. Also they don't take long to switch ammo either. So they get DPS, tracking, and don't typically suffer as far as neuting is concerned. And all large blasters and any range bonused/TE'd medium blaster ships have all the range they need. The projection at that range isn't as good as lasers, but is still sufficiently high. WTB a thorax/brutix/deimos that can afford a low to put a TE in . . .
without the TE, the optimal + falloff of the brutix is 6.3+8.8 with perfect skills, neutron blasters and null ammo . . . that means you do half damage at 15.1 km and basically no damage at 23.9 |
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 05:52:00 -
[2111] - Quote
Alek Row wrote: You forgot a few things... Lowest optimal Low (lowest?) dps on paper Fights in falloff, even lower dps despite the good projection This may not be accurate, but you are only taking into account the weapon systems.
And now you can resort to other things, ships that simply work because of the slot layout, ship bonuses, ship stats, module combinations, whatever, and I agree, because taking into account weapon systems without their ships it's idiotic. So tell me, which Minmatar ship after the balancing pass is causing you trouble?
Edited to rephrase the question Which Minmatar ship after the balancing pass you think it's better than other races ships, in their respective class?
I have not forgot those, I posted about advantages of Minmatar, not about disadvantages.
Lowest optimal is over-compensated by great falloff and enough fitting slots for a few TE/TC in most cases. Actually high dps, lowest is probably missiles - both on paper and projection. Here are 2 factors: a) Selectable damage => Projectiles exploit resist holes of a target while lasers/hybrids are stuck with 1 damage pattern. b) Minmatar ships are often have powerful RoF bonus or even double damage bonuses instead of useless placeholders like Armor Repair. Good damage projection on falloff range because of a good tracking via spare slots for TE/TC and ability to use close-range ammo for all situations. Other turrets force you to choose between range and dps/tracking, for Minmatar it's just always good dps/tracking/range.
I was talking about weapon systems because Fozzy stated that he likes drawbacks on weapon systems to make them more interestings. I would personally prefer to strip some power from Projectiles and build it back onto Minamatar hulls that use them.
Answer to your last question: I rarely fly T1 sub-bs ships so I cannot fully answer it. Thrasher is still best Destroyer. Scythe is probably best T1 "Logi". Slasher is probably best T1 "Interceptor". Other rebalanced ships are not best in class but still good.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1034
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 06:11:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:And they removed a gun but increased the bonus to compensate for it, increasing its PG effectively. And they reduced the PG cost of medium reps by 20%. They've done a lot to help the Brutix PG wise. And subject to bad tracking?? What? Blasters? I will agree with the mids though. It can't afford to put in the cap boosters it needs to power the reps. Personally I'm trying to figure out what the "different roles" these two ships will fill. Myrm - Active tanking 1v1 ship - that is good at close range and uses drones to kill the opponent. Brutix - Active tanking 1v1 boat - that is good at close range and uses turrets to kill the opponent.
Some role differentiation please. |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Silent Infinity
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 06:27:00 -
[2113] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Alek Row wrote: You forgot a few things... Lowest optimal Low (lowest?) dps on paper Fights in falloff, even lower dps despite the good projection This may not be accurate, but you are only taking into account the weapon systems.
And now you can resort to other things, ships that simply work because of the slot layout, ship bonuses, ship stats, module combinations, whatever, and I agree, because taking into account weapon systems without their ships it's idiotic. So tell me, which Minmatar ship after the balancing pass is causing you trouble?
Edited to rephrase the question Which Minmatar ship after the balancing pass you think it's better than other races ships, in their respective class?
I have not forgot those, I posted about advantages of Minmatar, not about disadvantages. Lowest optimal is over-compensated by great falloff and enough fitting slots for a few TE/TC in most cases. Actually high dps, lowest is probably missiles - both on paper and projection. Here are 2 factors: a) Selectable damage => Projectiles exploit resist holes of a target while lasers/hybrids are stuck with 1 damage pattern. b) Minmatar ships are often have powerful RoF bonus or even double damage bonuses instead of useless placeholders like Turret Capacitor Usage. Good damage projection on falloff range because of a good tracking via spare slots for TE/TC and ability to use close-range ammo for all situations. Other turrets force you to choose between range and dps/tracking, for Minmatar it's just always good dps/tracking/range. I was talking about weapon systems because Fozzy stated that he likes drawbacks on weapon systems to make them more interesting. I would personally prefer to strip some power from Projectiles and build it back onto Minamatar hulls that use them. Answer to your last question: I rarely fly T1 sub-bs ships so I cannot fully answer it. Thrasher is still best Destroyer. Scythe is probably best T1 "Logi". Slasher is probably best T1 "Interceptor". Other rebalanced ships are not best in class but still good.
Projectiles don't have the highest paper dps, that belongs to Lasers or Blasters. and for projection it is even with lasers. As for your reasons: Projectiles don't have true selectable damage, first off all ammo does kin and most do explosive damage as well with the T2 AC ammo being only explosive/kin which isn't going to always hit the holes. These bonuses bring the projectiles in line with other weapons like lasers with scorch due to how fall-off works. I'd like to see you use Hail for all situations.
Thrasher still has a role, isn't the best though. Scythe vs osprey is just like Scimitar vs Basi and your ignoring the armor side of things. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 06:40:00 -
[2114] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote: Projectiles don't have the highest paper dps, that belongs to Lasers or Blasters.
I've never said about highest dps, just high actual dps. If projectiles had higher dps than blasters they would be absurdly overpowered. |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 06:55:00 -
[2115] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:So assuming both ships can reach the target Pulses with their optimal range are less affected then ACs. This doesn't look at bonused TDs, but it only gets worse. The only advantage fall-off has over optimal is the one is suppose to have, reach the target and put some DPS on the target. To change how TEs and such work would be to break the balance we currently have between ACs and Pulses. Is the moral of the story that TD affects falloff more... ...or that T2 ammo(+hull) serves amarr superbly?
How about a Cane vs Harbi fight with faction ammo? *does math* (no/double TE and no/one TD) Interestingly, the TD does not affect how deep in falloff they are when the damage becomes equal again, so I have to take back the TD part.
On the other hand, the TE greatly improves things in the Cane's favor, not having to go as deep into falloff to outdps the Harbi. Without it, equal damage is regained at 86% into first falloff, while with two TEs at 68%.
TE-s greatly help the ACs, and then T2 ammo helps twice as much the Amarr (Cane having to go into second falloff). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1926
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 07:03:00 -
[2116] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Goldensaver wrote:And they removed a gun but increased the bonus to compensate for it, increasing its PG effectively. And they reduced the PG cost of medium reps by 20%. They've done a lot to help the Brutix PG wise. And subject to bad tracking?? What? Blasters? I will agree with the mids though. It can't afford to put in the cap boosters it needs to power the reps. Personally I'm trying to figure out what the "different roles" these two ships will fill. Myrm - Active tanking 1v1 ship - that is good at close range and uses drones (and turrets) to kill the opponent. Brutix - Active tanking 1v1 boat - that is good at close range and uses turrets to (and drones) kill the opponent. Some role differentiation please.
Isn't it enough that one is a ship and the other is a boat?
Although I actually think there is a difference, Myrm is that 1vs1 active tanker (5 mids and cap free dps make it superior), and Brutix is still the shield tanked gankwagon with as limited use as a solo BC, now just with even more dps but still a wasted hull bonus.
Triple-repping Brutix makes it pretty terrible, Electrons stink.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 07:14:00 -
[2117] - Quote
Roime wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Personally I'm trying to figure out what the "different roles" these two ships will fill. Myrm - Active tanking 1v1 ship - that is good at close range and uses drones (and turrets) to kill the opponent. Brutix - Active tanking 1v1 boat - that is good at close range and uses turrets to (and drones) kill the opponent.
Some role differentiation please. Isn't it enough that one is a ship and the other is a boat? Although I actually think there is a difference, Myrm is that 1vs1 active tanker (5 mids and cap free dps make it superior), and Brutix is still the shield tanked gankwagon with as limited use as a solo BC, now just with even more dps but still a wasted hull bonus. Triple-repping Brutix makes it pretty terrible, Electrons stink. Well, the Brutix receiving the best thing that can happen to an armor-tanked boat (enough mids for a shield tank and a loss of armor bonus) would have been too good to be true. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 08:37:00 -
[2118] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Roime wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Personally I'm trying to figure out what the "different roles" these two ships will fill. Myrm - Active tanking 1v1 ship - that is good at close range and uses drones (and turrets) to kill the opponent. Brutix - Active tanking 1v1 boat - that is good at close range and uses turrets to (and drones) kill the opponent.
Some role differentiation please. Isn't it enough that one is a ship and the other is a boat? Although I actually think there is a difference, Myrm is that 1vs1 active tanker (5 mids and cap free dps make it superior), and Brutix is still the shield tanked gankwagon with as limited use as a solo BC, now just with even more dps but still a wasted hull bonus. Triple-repping Brutix makes it pretty terrible, Electrons stink. Well, the Brutix receiving the best thing that can happen to an armor-tanked boat (enough mids for a shield tank and a loss of armor bonus) would have been too good to be true.
And if it's too good it never happens ? Welcome to Eve. But on serious note i would love to armor tanking to be fixed or at least a serious attempt to fix it. As for now those changes are joke. As for changes to BC's i would not complain that much. I don't see anything being particulary bad. Sure armor rep bonus ain't most dessired, but you better be happy with it or you will get reduced cap usage on hybrid weapons... |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
2062
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 09:04:00 -
[2119] - Quote
I have deleted some personal attacks from this thread. Do not crap up official threads, people. New Eden Community Representative GÇ+ New Eden Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 09:44:00 -
[2120] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Personally I'm trying to figure out what the "different roles" these two ships will fill. Myrm - Active tanking 1v1 ship - that is good at close range and uses drones (and turrets) to kill the opponent. Brutix - Active tanking 1v1 boat - that is good at close range and uses turrets to (and drones) kill the opponent.
Some role differentiation please. Lot of midslot + drones (capless) make the myrm better for solo. Railguns make the brutix better for fleet. |
|
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 09:55:00 -
[2121] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Personally I'm trying to figure out what the "different roles" these two ships will fill. Myrm - Active tanking 1v1 ship - that is good at close range and uses drones (and turrets) to kill the opponent. Brutix - Active tanking 1v1 boat - that is good at close range and uses turrets to (and drones) kill the opponent.
Some role differentiation please. Lot of midslot + drones (capless) make the myrm better for solo. Railguns make the brutix better for fleet. Rail Brutix for fleet?
Quite a narrow spot where it performs better than the other hybrid platforms in that role. Would rather tank shields with a Ferox (all the more since it kept the optimal bonus), leaving the lows free for magstabs and TE. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
166
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 11:34:00 -
[2122] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:
TDs affect falloff far more then they do optimal. Lets do a numbers comparison:
Zealot and Vaga as they both have single 10%/lvl range bonuses and largest medium short range guns are used with no TEs/TCs to start with.
Scorch - 34+5+2.5(Half way into secondary fall-off) = 41.5 km Range Conflag - 11+5+2.5 = 18.5 km range
Barrage - 3+27+13.5 = 43.5 km Faction EMP - 1.5+18+9 = 28.5 km Hail - 1.5+14+7 = 22.5 km
So at this point Projectiles can put their 25% dps out a bit past what lasers can, though inside of general kiting/brawling ranges lasers win out. lets apply an unbonused TD(-47.75% to both optimal and fall-off):
Scorch - 18+2.6+1.3 = 21.9 km Range Conflag - 5.9+2.6+1.3 = 9.8 km range
Barrage - 1.6+14+7 = 22.6 km Faction EMP - 0.8+9.4+4.7 = 14.9 km Hail - 0.8+7.1+3.1 = 11 km
With two TEs each and still under TD:
Scorch - 23+4.3+2.2 = 29.5 km Range Conflag - 7.6+4.3+2.2 = 14.1 km range
Barrage - 2+23+11.5 = 36.5 km Faction EMP - 1+15+7.5 = 23.5 km Hail - 1+12+6 = 17 km
So over the whole course of this we see that ACs have the range advantage over Pulses they should have, now looking at actually dps figures at 25km for long range ammo and 10 for short range(2 TEs/Damage mods for each ship):
Scorch - W/o TD 406, W/ TD 318 Conflag - W/o TD 568, W/ TD 419
Barrage - W/o TD 285, W/ TD 140 Faction EMP - W/o TD 416, W/ TD 310 Hail - W/o TD 439, W/ TD 279
So assuming both ships can reach the target Pulses with their optimal range are less affected then ACs. This doesn't look at bonused TDs, but it only gets worse. The only advantage fall-off has over optimal is the one is suppose to have, reach the target and put some DPS on the target. To change how TEs and such work would be to break the balance we currently have between ACs and Pulses.
so many words to just prove you dont have a clue about projected dps and the difference between shooting in optimal and shooting in falloff |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 11:48:00 -
[2123] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Alltogether they have enough advantages. Something about autocannons have to go, either it selectable damage, cap-free usage, super-easy fitting or double benefit from TE/TC.
ACs are made of win, but that doesn't mean CCP should nerf them into suckiness like they did with HMLs. My suggestion? Make them overheat faster than other guns, maybe 1 HP/cycle instead of 0.8 HP/cycle.
Also, laser turrets need to be buffed. I suggest increasing their tracking a bit (especially since most laser boats don't come with a tracking bonus) and make them drain a small amount of target's capacitor with each hit, maybe equal to 1-2% of inflicted damage (but should be restricted to T2 or sub-cap turrets only, since a cap draining effect on sieged Revelation could be game-breaking).
|
Morgred
Mordu's Military Industrial Command Darkspawn.
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 14:16:00 -
[2124] - Quote
arbitrator: droneboat curse: droneboat with ECM pilgrim: droneboat with ECM (makes sense)
prophecy: droneboat with half lasers and half missiles damnation: missileboat absolution: laserboat harbinger: laserboat Oracle: laserboat (this makes no sense)
I propose the harbinger be made a droneboat, as it has no t2 variants it would conflict with, proph has a t2 laserboat and a t2 missileboat but t1 is half one, half the other and half something else entirely? this makes no sense to me. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
136
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 14:56:00 -
[2125] - Quote
Morgred wrote:arbitrator: droneboat curse: droneboat with ECM pilgrim: droneboat with ECM (makes sense)
prophecy: droneboat with half lasers and half missiles damnation: missileboat absolution: laserboat harbinger: laserboat Oracle: laserboat (this makes no sense)
I propose the harbinger be made a droneboat, as it has no t2 variants it would conflict with, proph has a t2 laserboat and a t2 missileboat but t1 is half one, half the other and half something else entirely? this makes no sense to me. Totally makes sense. The Command ships rip out the drone bay to fit in all the warfare link computers. And the redundant weapon systems get slimmed down also, into the two varients. How does that not make sense? |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1037
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 17:09:00 -
[2126] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Lot of midslot + drones (capless) make the myrm better for solo. Railguns make the brutix better for fleet. Care to make a decent case for the Brutix railgun niche?
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 17:30:00 -
[2127] - Quote
Ferox is my favorite looking bc hull.. personally i like range weapons, but the range bonuses are USELESS. if anything it needs a damage or rate of fire bonus. caldari ships are way to slow to get and keep/hold range.
i dont really care for rails. they are useless and underpowered on caldari ships.
as the rest of us good pilots know, you have DPS, then you have effective dps. and the EDPS of rails is nonexistent vs most ships/fits. the gaylente (*SPIT*) can redeem themselves with damage bonuses, but the caldari dont have those. so at-least give them rate of fire or something.
also i wouldn't do silly kinetic damage bonus for drakes, thats not practical in actual combat. give them rate of fire, or proper damage bonuses...
caldari are suppose to be the "missile race" right? well lets make them look and act like it. -.-...
Ps CCP: until i get a gurista missile spewing, drone sending ferox and rokh of awesomeness, keep my missile slots on those 2 ships or ill cut you, and club some random russian.
i didnt see anything about the missile slots being there on the updated ferox, but you didnt say they were getting removed either. and i do so enjoy my missile ferox, night hawk wannabe. |
Lili Lu
682
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 18:21:00 -
[2128] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Lot of midslot + drones (capless) make the myrm better for solo. Railguns make the brutix better for fleet. Care to make a decent case for the Brutix railgun niche? Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35)
Brutix: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L (+1), 6 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1125 PWG (-25), 435 CPU (+10)
Bolded the pg and cpu. Seriously wtf.
Precisely. Ferox has an optimal bonus. Ferox has more pg and cpu. Why would anyone use a Bruitx for rails? Just get a Ferox. So XG is correct. The Gallente BCs have no role differntiation. They are both close range brawlers. And will probably still lose to ASB fit shield ships even with the prenerfed and cap dependant new armor stuff.
Now if instead the Brutix got some pg and got an armor hp bonus instead of a repper bonus you might see some rail fleet fits (even if medium long range guns aren't very good). |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Silent Infinity
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 19:46:00 -
[2129] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Travasty Space wrote: Projectiles don't have the highest paper dps, that belongs to Lasers or Blasters.
I've never said about highest dps, just high actual dps. If projectiles had higher dps than blasters they would be absurdly overpowered.
"Actually high dps, lowest is probably missiles - both on paper and projection."
Highlighted the important bits.
To mare wrote:so many words to just prove you dont have a clue about projected dps and the difference between shooting in optimal and shooting in falloff
All my numbers are accurate and as are my points. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 20:16:00 -
[2130] - Quote
About Cyclone/Ferox: This is only an idea. I'm well aware that this will not really fix much.
I have a counters-suggestion since everybody is around making DPS/Dmg or doing things that hurt... It is not really a good one though. I'm not all too sure if Signature Resolutions of Turrets are that decisive in to-Hit calculations nowadays. Nonetheless, it is a notable factor when shooting upon smaller targets.
More or less, it is about range, but perhaps this could be worth it. I don't know well the Ferox is with Rails, as I never used it with such - but provided it is used as a Blaster/Railboat, maybe this could help?
How about an additional role bonus for Ferox next to its ganglink bonus: - x% bonus-reduction to Signature Resolution for Ferox' turrets - Combine with Optimal Range bonus and a Tracking Comp, this could be dangerous vs Cruisers and smaller.
Cyclone could receive a nice (read: decent) Explosion Radius reduction bonus, or a decent Explosion Velocity bonus, so that its HVYs or HAMs could really hurt.
This is more about actually hitting targets more often, meaning more dmg than usual, and actually making slightly higher DPS as misses do not occur that often - and slow Explo-Velocity/Big ExploRadius dealing more damage as you hit.
The suggestion is more about in-battlefield action, not 1vs1 staring-at-each-other EFT duels. However, I do not know how THAT significant Sig-Resolution of Turrets are for the Ferox in this case.
|
|
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 20:25:00 -
[2131] - Quote
Don't really need a BC-sized frig-eater. That's what (papertank) dessies are for (and the RLML Caracal, think this is exactly the reason why neither Drake or Cyclone have a bonus to those). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 21:03:00 -
[2132] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote:About Cyclone/Ferox: This is only an idea. I'm well aware that this will not really fix much.
I have a counters-suggestion since everybody is around making DPS/Dmg or doing things that hurt... It is not really a good one though. I'm not all too sure if Signature Resolutions of Turrets are that decisive in to-Hit calculations nowadays. Nonetheless, it is a notable factor when shooting upon smaller targets.
More or less, it is about range, but perhaps this could be worth it. I don't know well the Ferox is with Rails, as I never used it with such - but provided it is used as a Blaster/Railboat, maybe this could help?
How about an additional role bonus for Ferox next to its ganglink bonus: - x% bonus-reduction to Signature Resolution for Ferox' turrets - Combine with Optimal Range bonus and a Tracking Comp, this could be dangerous vs Cruisers and smaller.
Decreasing a turret's sig resolution is the same as increasing its tracking. So it's just a different way of giving a tracking bonus. And as someone said above, I don't think we should make BCs too good at hitting small stuff, so I'd be wary of tracking bonuses anyway. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 21:03:00 -
[2133] - Quote
What else is there to be had if things were to come out as they are now?
Somewhere, I understand the Cyclone will be different with missiles, and at times, missiles are more reliable than turrets. But for Ferox? I have doubts it will be standing that well between Drake and Naga post-Tiericide.
edit: typoes |
Alek Row
Silent Step
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 21:32:00 -
[2134] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: I have not forgot those, I posted about advantages of Minmatar, not about disadvantages.
Lowest optimal is over-compensated by great falloff and enough fitting slots for a few TE/TC in most cases. Actually high dps, lowest is probably missiles - both on paper and projection. Here are 2 factors: a) Selectable damage => Projectiles exploit resist holes of a target while lasers/hybrids are stuck with 1 damage pattern. b) Minmatar ships are often have powerful RoF bonus or even double damage bonuses instead of useless placeholders like Turret Capacitor Usage. Good damage projection on falloff range because of a good tracking via spare slots for TE/TC and ability to use close-range ammo for all situations. Other turrets force you to choose between range and dps/tracking, for Minmatar it's just always good dps/tracking/range.
I was talking about weapon systems because Fozzy stated that he likes drawbacks on weapon systems to make them more interesting. I would personally prefer to strip some power from Projectiles and build it back onto Minamatar hulls that use them.
Answer to your last question: I rarely fly T1 sub-bs ships so I cannot fully answer it. Thrasher is still best Destroyer. Scythe is probably best T1 "Logi". Slasher is probably best T1 "Interceptor". Other rebalanced ships are not best in class but still good.
At this moment what ever you think it should happen to ACs, doesn't make sense. You are you adding all sort of bonus to ACs: TCs, TEs, slots, ship bonuses. You are not seeing the ACs at their "raw" state (which I understand and agree with, you can't talk about the weapons without their ships). But since they're re-balancing ships I don't see how is it possible to change any weapon system at this stage without breaking or overpowering a lot of stuff... but you never know.
Anyway, Trasher is still one of the best if not the best, but Scythe? Slasher as the best T1 Inty? What's their relation with those mighty AC's? ;-)
Let them rebalance ships first, and draw conclusions about the weapon systems later. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3507
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 22:09:00 -
[2135] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Amarr have always had a strong predilection towards drones. Along side their line of obviously drone dedicated T1 and T2 cruisers many of their other ships (BS in particular) have always sported larger drone bays than any other race but the Gallante. True, Gallante put a stronger emphasis on pure drone damage but for bay size and variety available Amarr has always ranked highly.
Well Ranger, the Corax has a 450m3 cargo bay. Using your logic, I guess it has a "strong predilection" toward being an Industrial ship. The reason the Arbi t2 variants have that huge drone bay is because their primary attribute is a cap-hogging energy weapon bonus. Amarr = energy weapons. But the t1 Arbi is still, with no energy weapon bonus combined with drone bonuses, pretty much the only ship that fits the "Amarr drone ship" bill. One was already too many but the Curse and Pilgrim were such cool pvp ships, (because of the weapon bonuses - not the drones) nobody cared - myself included. But this new blasphemy will put Gallente drones throughout the entire Amarr fleet and while that might look great on some balance spreadsheet somewhere - when I think about the practical implications of those changes, and the disregard for established thematic continuity, and the thousands upon thousands of NEW Amarr ships about to be stuffed with Gallente drones, my blood pressure rises. It's an attack on the soul of my people. Opinions vary. "Obviously." YK
Well, Gallante ships seem to always tend towards larger cargo bays. Seems to be (another) racial tendency.
The root issue that needs to be addressed is that Amarr (and Caldari) drones need to be reworked to actually be useful. I think that would resolve any lingering RP issues you may have.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3507
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 22:20:00 -
[2136] - Quote
Ryomo Shimei wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Ryomo Shimei wrote:marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something If Marcus wants to avoid confusion in the future he shouldn't say "rockets" when he apparently means heavy missiles (or all missiles). Also adjustments are being made to missile range calculations so that what you see will pretty much be what you get... meaning if it says 15km then it means 15km. A variety of skills and rigs will also now apply to HAM's that previously had no effect on them... you did train those skills as a missile user right? If not, time to get busy. Of course, heavy missiles are still an excellent weapons system compared with all other medium long range weapons systems but I'll stop so as not to distract you from your panic and hand wringing. you are wrong the 15 km still are not 15km ... the missiles still need time to accellerate to full speed which takes away some km from the range so basicly atm 15km resuld in an efective range of 11km on an not moving target and besides even is you now have skills that fit they are still way to short in range compared to other short range weapon systems and is an drake lost an missile atm its an loss of 1/7 dmg ... after the patch its 1/6 which is way to easy be done and an bad increase in dmg loss and since th defender missiles always hit it is an loss ... an turrent player even under an tracking desruptor can still hit with all guns and if ya speak of ballancing thats a point which always had caldari being weak and easyly to blow there dps so for the drake an enhanced launcher and less bonus would be the fairer way to adjust the drake and then .. against an caldari you basicly only need to give as much as possible to kinetic ress since your forced to use em due to bonus ... all other factions can change the ammo as they like and so basicly the dmg efects they do so an +dons to heavy and heavy assault missiles instead of an +to one dmg type needs to be there in my eyes ... else all will play minmatar sooner or later because it will be the only logic choice then
I really shouldn't respond to this until you take the time to use common courtesy and actually read the post you are responding to.
However, without wasting any more time than necessary on it...
I said that range calculations are going to be reworked to make the listed range more closely match actual range. Key words: "are going to be".
As to the rest, I get the strong feeling you really don't have any experience using HAM's in actual combat situations. HAM's are excellent IF USED CORRECTLY. No, you can't sit at 70km and kite your target with HAM's... that's not thier function as a close range weapons system. You need to be in a brawling setup (or a Cavalry setup as they used to be called) and use appropriate tactics. If done even half way well, they can be devastating. I'd go into the various tactics you can use to get even more effective range out of them but I think you can probably figure them out on your own if you think about it a bit.
I also notice you again completely ingore heavy missile setups, which is fine but it shows a certain lack of flexibility on your part. Heavy missiles are still very, very effective for a longer range alternative... if the rest of your fit compliments their use (as well as your tactics).
Drakes will continue to be one of the best BC's in common use for both PVE and PVP, and if anything I'm suprised they didn't cut their resistance bonus and replace it with a range bonus... but I understand that would put a lot of mission runners in a bad position. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1021
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 22:28:00 -
[2137] - Quote
Change the Myrmidon's rep bonus to a drone tracking bonus. You will fix the Brutix vs Myrmidon same tank issue. The Myrm has always had it's triple rep niche that worked and the Brutix has always been a bit broken. As such changing the Myrm rather then the Brutix may seem a bit odd. It's probably the only way to create a clear delineation between the Gallente BCs though. It also fits with how most of the Gallente ship line works as well.
The Drake is a more difficult proposition. If you give it a missile velocity bonus it could obsolete the Caracal again. But then again the Caracal has become quite the nano ship, so maybe not. Difficult to say.
Either way, I'd say the Drake vs Ferox and Myrm vs Brutix are the major sources of contention at this point. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
107
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 22:50:00 -
[2138] - Quote
+1 to that idea, but either way one or the other needs to go. Drone speed would make a lot of sense for BC combat which needs heavies to be faster. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
107
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 22:58:00 -
[2139] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Personally I'm trying to figure out what the "different roles" these two ships will fill. Myrm - Active tanking 1v1 ship - that is good at close range and uses drones (and turrets) to kill the opponent. Brutix - Active tanking 1v1 boat - that is good at close range and uses turrets to (and drones) kill the opponent.
Some role differentiation please. Lot of midslot + drones (capless) make the myrm better for solo. Railguns make the brutix better for fleet.
Why use a rail gun Brutix in a fleet, vice Ferox? I mean you can I suppose but then, as usual, your flying a boat that is not using it's 2 bonuses. With a rail Ferox you get the shield resist and better range. You might think that the range bonus isn't as cool as the damage, but with the ferox you can use a closer in ammo type and match things up quite nicely. Also look at the differences in base shield HP and sig size. All adds up to not the most ideal rail boat. If you want to rail gun support a fleet you could just go with a Talos no? |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1039
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 23:34:00 -
[2140] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Change the Myrmidon's rep bonus to a drone tracking bonus. You will fix the Brutix vs Myrmidon same tank issue. The Myrm has always had it's triple rep niche that worked and the Brutix has always been a bit broken. As such changing the Myrm rather then the Brutix may seem a bit odd. It's probably the only way to create a clear delineation between the Gallente BCs though. It also fits with how most of the Gallente ship line works as well. . I think the goal for many of us Gallente pilots is to have a valid fleet ship. Drone boat and active reps don't really fit that mold and ought to be combined together. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
538
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 23:43:00 -
[2141] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Travasty Space wrote: Projectiles don't have the highest paper dps, that belongs to Lasers or Blasters.
I've never said about highest dps, just high actual dps. If projectiles had higher dps than blasters they would be absurdly overpowered. " Actually high dps, lowest is probably missiles - both on paper and projection." Highlighted the important bits. To mare wrote:so many words to just prove you dont have a clue about projected dps and the difference between shooting in optimal and shooting in falloff All my numbers are accurate and as are my points.
Paper, dps, EFT and pyfa dps... gimmick !
How the heck can you talk about whatever gimmick paper dps brutix when Ferox can do the same at much different distance and actually apply it?
I don't care EFT/Pyfa show 1bazillion dps at 1.5km, I don't care at all, all I care is that using the Ferox at over web/scram range I'll be applying far mode dps than the lol gimmick bazillion DPS Brutix, and I'll kill it without a ounce of doubt. Faster, more tank, enough dps at ranges Brutix can't even do with rails in optimal...
C'mon, common sense some one or some sand over your eyes is just enough the moment it's signed "CCP" ?
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
538
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 23:54:00 -
[2142] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Either way, I'd say the Drake vs Ferox and Myrm vs Brutix are the major sources of contention at this point.
At this very moment it's no match for Brutix vs Ferox (even less vs Drake) and without gimmick triple rep Myrmidon vs Drake I'd give the Drake advantage without a doubt because:
1-plus lol reps = less low slots for buffer 2-lol reps aka "I micromanage warcraft like a boss" are funny vs noobs, one you are out of cap boosters you're just another idiot dieing and giving another gimmick killmail
Drake boosted with some implants it's about 850dps with about 90K EHP (high resists) and a huge natural shield regen.
Good luck finding noobs and idiots for those elite Eve players, gate and station games to prove/balance Gallente armor tanks are uber it's probably the most idiot think I've ever read about in whatever MMO game and god knows Eve is by far "special" nerds staging point. Well at this point I'm actually ashamed of sharing some of my free time with those, I don't feel very special but actually really stupid to accept such idiocy level.
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
253
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 00:13:00 -
[2143] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: [snip] The root issue that needs to be addressed is that Amarr (and Caldari) drones need to be reworked to actually be useful. I think that would resolve any lingering RP issues you may have.
Negative. Amarr drones will never outpower Gallente drones. I'd argue against it if it were proposed. The Gallente are the drone race. So my primary concern, that usage of my enemy's tech is being incentivized throughout the Amarr fleet will not change.
Besides, I don't see all races being made to suffer equally with each race having a BC being repurposed as a drone boat. The Prophecy is the red-headed stepchild here.
Let's take 2 missile launchers off the Drake, reduce it's powergrid, shields, hull, and align time - but increase the size of its drone bay - and see how the Caldari feel about that.
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
90
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 00:16:00 -
[2144] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:+1 to that idea, but either way one or the other needs to go. Drone speed would make a lot of sense for BC combat which needs heavies to be faster. Either that or give it a unique bonus to drone speed (overall) so those Ogres can get to their targets(and keep up!) like they are Hammerheads!
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
785
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 04:15:00 -
[2145] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Negative. Amarr drones will never outpower Gallente drones. I'd argue against it if it were proposed. The Gallente are the drone race. So my primary concern, that usage of my enemy's tech is being incentivized throughout the Amarr fleet will not change.
Besides, I don't see all races being made to suffer equally with each race having a BC being repurposed as a drone boat. The Prophecy is the red-headed stepchild here.
Let's take 2 missile launchers off the Drake, reduce it's powergrid, shields, hull, and align time - but increase the size of its drone bay - and see how the Caldari feel about that.
YK You need to get over this.
The Gallente invented drones. The Caldari invented frigates and fighters. The Amarr invented jumpdrives. The Gallente invented warpdrives. The Minmatar invented acceleration gates. A useful technology is not ignored ~because it's the enemy's invention~, it's taken and used against them. Also the EVE races have an agreement to share tech advances.
In the game, the Amarr have had larger drone bays than expected on their spaceships - bigger bays than the Caldari and Minmatar. They've also always had the only drone-based ships apart from the Gallente. CCP devs have stated that Amarr weapons are lasers, drones and tracking disruptors before the current round of balances. Amarr. Are. A. Drone. Race.
The Gallente invented drones and use drones extensively. This does not mean, in the game, Gallente drones should always be the most useful. You'll note that at the moment, Minmatar and Caldari drones are generally more useful than Amarr drones despite the fact that they are not drone races. (and Minmatar drones are often most effective in pvp) Amarr are meant to be drone race, it's just that most of their t1 ships weren't bonused for it (but having bigger bays) and there's a stupid imbalance in drone types. Now they're actually getting some bonused ships to better reflect what they are meant to be. Hopefully drones themselves will be redone soon. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 04:33:00 -
[2146] - Quote
Quote: Slasher as the best T1 Inty? What's their relation with those mighty AC's? ;-)
I fly Slasher regularly (even before tiericide). It is just so that the Slasher now is quite damn useful. It is swift, it aligns fast, has high scan res, 4 medslots <-- that alone is nice. Even more fun as a pesky scout, and you're not scaring people away because you were flying a Claw or Stiletto. So somewhere, Slasher is indeed a nifty T1 inty. Not the best, but it surely has its merits.
What I hate about tiericide is that it did not really help THAT much but more just handed the Ship-of-the-Month trophy to a different ship - not always, but that's usually the case. Certain ships are useful now, but others just went redheaded stepchild - dramatized, but I think some will agree. Excluding me, there were several actually decent suggestions to every ship by other forumgoers, but in the end, it went down.
Whatever. Slasher is a tackler, so ACs are there to shoot down drones in many cases. I do, at the very least.
*
I like the drone stuff that was mentioned here. But here too, Drones need a bit of revamping too, along with special stuff, like having them be a bodyguard and swallow damage. But that's asking for too much.
Somewhere, if were about drones for these specific BCs, I'd say give them the chance to fit the extra drone module... but then we'd have fleets lagging the hell out of the game ._.
|
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 04:36:00 -
[2147] - Quote
The myrmidon should retain that tank bonus since it tanks the best of the three gallente BCs. That's because it has the extra mid to fit another medium cap booster in. The brutix is the one that is mediocre and should have that tanking bonus changed to something else. The 475m3 cargo hold should go to the myrmidon to hold the cap boosters and the 400m3 cargo hold should go to the brutix. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
253
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 04:47:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Benny Ohu,
I don't think I'm going to let you decide what I need to "get over" today, but thanks for your comments. There is apparently a schism between EvE lore and ESTABLISHED THEMATIC GAMEPLAY. Ninety percent of the playerbase will no have idea what's been written but they do know what they've experienced in-game. What they've lived. As do I. These changes will affect my gameplay negatively, offend me, and I'm entitled to voice my opinions about that - since thats why the forums exist. You guys are just lucky I didnt know about this topic sooner because I don't feel even close to having complained enough yet.
The Amarr people are not (in-game) a drone race irrespective of what you think or what's been written and if my people have to suffer turning one of their most beautiful ships into something that will incentivize usage of their enemy's tech, I'm definately not going to "get over it" until it is forced upon me kicking and screaming.
If each race had to suffer the same changes, I still wouldn't like it, but I could live with it. It would be fair. But that didn't happen. So now I'm here to advocate for spreading that sweet love equally.
Drone drakes for everyone.
Why not?
What's good for the goose...
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Luc Chastot
Zero Excavations You Failed the Mumble Test
199
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 04:56:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Benny Ohu,
I don't think I'm going to let you decide what I need to "get over" today, but thanks for your comments. There is apparently a schism between EvE lore and ESTABLISHED THEMATIC GAMEPLAY. Ninety percent of the playerbase will no have idea what's been written but they do know what they've experienced in-game. What they've lived. As do I. These changes will affect my gameplay negatively, offend me, and I'm entitled to voice my opinions about that - since thats why the forums exist. You guys are just lucky I didnt know about this topic sooner because I don't feel even close to having complained enough yet.
The Amarr people are not (in-game) a drone race irrespective of what you think or what's been written and if my people have to suffer turning one of their most beautiful ships into something that will incentivize usage of their enemy's tech, I'm definately not going to "get over it" until it is forced upon me kicking and screaming.
If each race had to suffer the same changes, I still wouldn't like it, but I could live with it. It would be fair. But that didn't happen. So now I'm here to advocate for spreading that sweet love equally.
Drone drakes for everyone.
Why not?
What's good for the goose...
YK The Amarr have always been a drone race, lorewise and in-game, so you either get over it or get used to nobody caring about what you say because everyone else knows how things are. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
253
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 04:59:00 -
[2150] - Quote
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 "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
|
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 07:07:00 -
[2151] - Quote
Problem is that drones are a standard now. A lot of ships have them. Maybe this is somehow calling even more for a decent drone revamp, too.
While I understand Yonis Kador's standpoint, it is unfortunate that one has to go with the "deal with it or GTFO" part. It is unfortunately common in EVE. At the end of the day, no matter how much you're that tied to the game - be it lore or Eve-is-real - we're just paying customers who are filing digital complaints. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
785
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 07:47:00 -
[2152] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:ESTABLISHED THEMATIC GAMEPLAY
Benny Ohu wrote:In the game, the Amarr have had larger drone bays than expected on their spaceships - bigger bays than the Caldari and Minmatar. They've also always had the only drone-based ships apart from the Gallente. CCP devs have stated that Amarr weapons are lasers, drones and tracking disruptors before the current round of balances. Amarr. Are. A. Drone. Race. [...] You'll note that at the moment, Minmatar and Caldari drones are generally more useful than Amarr drones despite the fact that they are not drone races. (and Minmatar drones are often most effective in pvp) Amarr are meant to be drone race, it's just that most of their t1 ships weren't bonused for it (but having bigger bays) and there's a stupid imbalance in drone types. Now they're actually getting some bonused ships to better reflect what they are meant to be. Hopefully drones themselves will be redone soon.
l2r |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
341
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 08:11:00 -
[2153] - Quote
At the same time I'm still waiting fortracking enhancers to have the range modifier at least cut in half... Makes sense to have same stats as an un-scripted tracking computer rather than being better. This is a rather necesary nerf to certain shield/gank kiting setups and a boost to armor tanks and a rarely used module...
Pinky |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
785
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 08:21:00 -
[2154] - Quote
look imma not meaning to be a prick here
at first i was posting what i knew of the lore because you were on about blasphemy or something I figgured you were into that
but it's becoming clear you're talking in game terms and i did post about that as well
i think this is a misunderstanding based on this: that the intended 'drone' part of the amarr doctrine has been poorly executed in the game up until now and because the drone part of their ships never really got a chance to display itself it's affected how people see them - as a laser-only race
cal are getting hybrid ships that work, minnies missiles that work, amarr drones and gal hybrids, parts of their doctrines that didn't work properly but were intended |
Jaoming Tzu
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 09:40:00 -
[2155] - Quote
Apart from the same tank issue, the armor rep bonus on the Brutix and Myrmidon might come in handy with the announced ancillary armor repairers! Especially with the extra low slot on the Brutix and if i recall that right the proposed changes to decrease plate mass and a skill in that direction. Maybe a 800mm Plate + AAR or something could be interesting for fleet setups.... |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
538
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 09:54:00 -
[2156] - 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
You can count but you seem unwilling to actually read Eve universe back story and realize your opinion about Amarr and drones is false.
You don't like it, it's quite clear for everyone as it is quite clear for everyone you have some issues to understand what we're talking about.
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 10:06:00 -
[2157] - Quote
Jaoming Tzu wrote:Apart from the same tank issue, the armor rep bonus on the Brutix and Myrmidon might come in handy with the announced ancillary armor repairers! Especially with the extra low slot on the Brutix and if i recall that right the proposed changes to decrease plate mass and a skill in that direction. Maybe a 800mm Plate + AAR or something could be interesting for fleet setups.... I like the sound of the idea, but how would that work out well? Suggestions to the following welcome.
Buffering and active repping work differently, and do not interact with each other. Adding a module to increase one reduces the effectiveness of the other. A plate added is not getting you more reps. A repper added isn't making remote rep more efficient like another EAMN would. And they use different rigs to be efficient. Made worse by the more of these you fit, the less magstabs/TE you have in your lows. And since the AAR eats cap even with charges, you put a cap booster prolly in your 4th mid, so with a full tackle you don't have room left for a TC, thus a TE in the lows is the only way to improve range.
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:I can count the number of Amarr ships with drone bonuses on one hand. You can count but you seem unwilling to actually read Eve universe back story and realize your opinion about Amarr and drones is false. Add the Sentinel for being able to carry MORE drones than a bonused gallente frig, and you are at 5. Add the Navy Geddon for the sheer awesome of being able to field a full flight of heavies and then have some more left, and you need your other hand as well. I realise it's not a strong argument, but it's there. Harbi was the only non-Gallente BC that could field a full flight of mediums, now it will have spare room as well. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
253
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 10:34:00 -
[2158] - Quote
I don't really want to come across as a prick either but I don't write on the forums with any consideration of how my comments will be received. I only care about the issue at hand. (I'm a nice guy actually who laughs pretty much all day.) I also don't write often and don't write about things of which I know nothing. But when I do, I defend my pov like a mad dog and won't let go. We are all passionate about the game or else we wouldn't bother commenting at all.
I just fail to see what drone bays have to do with anything. All races have drone bays of varying sizes. All races also have cargo bays of varying sizes but no one is claiming that ships with larger than average cargo bays are Industrials. The bonuses seal the deal and where drones are concerned, the Amarr have few. People can cite backstory all day but that is a separate issue entirely from established gameplay. Lore =/= gameplay.
When I learned of the changes to the Prophecy, I was sitting in one. I was also training Yonis toward being able to pilot both a Damnation and an Absolution - mainly because they are Prophecy hulls. I couldn't care less how long that takes - for me, asthetics matter. That's what I want to fly. It's the entire reason I've been an Amarr character for so long. I'm in love with the look of their tech. When I mine, I do so in a system that I chose (through years of searching) not because of its resources but mainly because I find the system absolutely beautiful and could stare at that glorious vista forever. My point is that I'm not trying to win anything.
I've spent the past five years hating drones and believing that they were the purvue of my enemy. The word "drone" is practically synonymous with Gallente. So the idea that I'm now a "drone race" too seems preposterous. My reading comprehension is just fine. It's like being told you have cancer. Give me a break. I'm still in shock. I am also, most definately, not over it.
I've trained drone skills like everyone else - to defend a mining barge from rats or a BS from frigates - but not as a real tactical necessity of my ships. The thought that this is the beginning of a trend is almost too much to bear. Amarr ships have always been focused on energy weapons and armor (and I consider neuts/vamps energy weapons - they just do it in reverse.)
CCP knew this change was going to be controversial and they were correct. For me, this is game-changing. After despising drones for so long, I can barely stomach the idea of the Amarr being a drone race. So if I react poorly to comments like "get over it" and "l2r" well, I apologize for that. I'm well aware that the release of 1.1 is so close that nothing I write or do here will have any impact on that timeline whatsoever.
I just feel so strongly about the issue that I want to make sure my objections have been heard loud and clear. Opinions vary and others are welcome to disagree.
Thanks for reading.
Yonis Kador "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 11:26:00 -
[2159] - Quote
This game is full of fanatics. |
Jaoming Tzu
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 12:28:00 -
[2160] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Jaoming Tzu wrote:Apart from the same tank issue, the armor rep bonus on the Brutix and Myrmidon might come in handy with the announced ancillary armor repairers! Especially with the extra low slot on the Brutix and if i recall that right the proposed changes to decrease plate mass and a skill in that direction. Maybe a 800mm Plate + AAR or something could be interesting for fleet setups.... I like the sound of the idea, but how would that work out well? Suggestions to the following welcome. Buffering and active repping work differently, and do not interact with each other. Adding a module to increase one reduces the effectiveness of the other. A plate added is not getting you more reps. A repper added isn't making remote rep more efficient like another EAMN would. And they use different rigs to be efficient. Made worse by the more of these you fit, the less magstabs/TE you have in your lows. And since the AAR eats cap even with charges, you put a cap booster prolly in your 4th mid, so with a full tackle you don't have room left for a TC, thus a TE in the lows is the only way to improve range.
Would depend on the actual fitting requirements, but looking at the Brutix, loosing 1 Turret will help the PG requirement as well as cap. If you run a buffer tanked Brutix and the AAR fits in the extra lowslot u do not lose any buffer , but might increase your tanking ability for a short while till logi reps come in; if primaried the additional rep amount might actually help too even if logi support is working. If fitting is tight, downgrading to a 800mm plate would improve your agility and speed, while maintaining enough buffer to survive some alpha damage. You can have more overall buffer or DPS if you do not use an AAR. but the Armor Rep bonus might become more usefull depending on the exact details. |
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
297
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 13:14:00 -
[2161] - 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 |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 13:28:00 -
[2162] - Quote
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 always thought the main advantage of lasers is full damage at optimal range with the best range but missiles seem better at both now doesn't seem balanced to me afterall falloff means nothing on laser ships |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 13:35:00 -
[2163] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:I just feel so strongly about the issue that I want to make sure my objections have been heard loud and clear. Opinions vary and others are welcome to disagree.
Thanks for reading.
Yonis Kador 'tis ok. I may disagree with what you say, but I understand/know how you feel.
And answering a post above, technically, the explicitly drone ships amarr had for a looong time were the 3 Arbitrators and a particular and not-really-fun Legion setup. 4+1 spare finger on a hand is accepted as the norm where I live. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 13:37:00 -
[2164] - Quote
The fact that I replied quickly to the certificate question doesn't mean it's necessarily any more important than other questions, just that it is easy and quick to answer.
In regards to the armor rep bonuses on the Gallente BCs, I posted earlier in the thread that I recognize that there are strong arguments to be made on both sides and that we are weighing the options. That statement is still valid. The desire for more varied tanking methods among the Gallente Combat BCs is a perfectly reasonable one, although the Brutix and Myrm do both stand up as very fun ships with distinct flying experiences in their current forms as well. Although we are getting close to release I don't want to lock these ships in place for 1.1 until I've had another discussion with some of the other developers internally
In relation to the myrmidon with its current bonus it surely limits its optimal fighting style to the same as the brutix blasters and active reps whereas if you look at the vexor it can quite happily use either armour buffer/active or shield buffer/ASB with either blasters or rails. |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 13:59:00 -
[2165] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote: In relation to the myrmidon with its current bonus it surely limits its optimal fighting style to the same as the brutix blasters and active reps whereas if you look at the vexor it can quite happily use either armour buffer/active or shield buffer/ASB with either blasters or rails. You can pick between ACs and Blasters.
Ofc, that doesn't change the fact that both are mainly geared towards point range engagement with active repping and drone support, making the difference between the two miniscule unless you start ignoring hull bonuses, unlike at cruiser level where both Thorax and Vexor can do both armor and shield tanking both buffered and active. Wow, that's quite a lot of boths I used in the second part. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Alek Row
Silent Step
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 14:12:00 -
[2166] - Quote
Vayn Baxtor wrote: I fly Slasher regularly (even before tiericide). It is just so that the Slasher now is quite damn useful. It is swift, it aligns fast, has high scan res, 4 medslots <-- that alone is nice. Even more fun as a pesky scout, and you're not scaring people away because you were flying a Claw or Stiletto. So somewhere, Slasher is indeed a nifty T1 inty. Not the best, but it surely has its merits.
Different context, slasher is a very good ship. At the time we were discussing the advantages/disavantages of ACs. Like you said "Slasher is a tackler, so ACs are there to shoot down drones in many cases" I don't think that the damage performed by a kiting slasher is a good example to describe how good ACs are. In my opinion, after the tiericide I don't see how ACs can represent a balance problem at all. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 14:52:00 -
[2167] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote: In relation to the myrmidon with its current bonus it surely limits its optimal fighting style to the same as the brutix blasters and active reps whereas if you look at the vexor it can quite happily use either armour buffer/active or shield buffer/ASB with either blasters or rails.
What stops you from shield tanking the brutix or myrmidon? People already do that. There's nothing stopping you from putting rails and sentry drones on a myrmidon or rails on a brutix, either. They're useful in missions or other PvE. For PvP, the talos would be a better choice over a rail brutix or myrmidon in most cases to snipe with. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Mund Richard
304
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 14:56:00 -
[2168] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote: In relation to the myrmidon with its current bonus it surely limits its optimal fighting style to the same as the brutix blasters and active reps whereas if you look at the vexor it can quite happily use either armour buffer/active or shield buffer/ASB with either blasters or rails.
What stops you from shield tanking the brutix or myrmidon? People already do that. There's nothing stopping you from putting rails and sentry drones on a myrmidon or rails on a brutix, either. They're useful in missions or other PvE. For PvP, the talos would be a better choice over a rail brutix or myrmidon in most cases to snipe with. The Vexor and Thorax don't lose anything by going either buffer armor or active/buffer shields.
The BC variants "lose" the +5% hybrid damage or 7.5% tracking they don't have, in the form of not using the active rep bonus which is a lot more restrictive than a 5% resist bonus (applying to both buffer, remote and local tank).
Someone earlier commented that Gallente should keep their mouth, or else they will get a -% cap usage for their guns. As hilarious that sounds at first, for buffer plating or shield tanking variants, that would be a buff... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:07:00 -
[2169] - Quote
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L (+1), 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1100 PWG (+25), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.05) / 13510000 (-500,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
An optimal range to hybrid guns practically forces you to use railguns since blasters have terrible optimals anyways, why not follow the Moa route and give this a damage bonus instead? Even a tracking or falloff bonus would beat this. What's the point of using a Rail Ferox, when you have the Rail Naga?
The Ferox should be given a rate of fire bonus or tracking bonus over an optimal range bonus coupled with enough CPU and PWG to run a mwd cap stable to make it a fast boat for maneuver warfare. I think you would see much more use of it as a blaster boat then and not be overshadowed by the NAGA. Either that or make it a fast, all HAM missile boat with 7 launchers since they seem dead set on nerfing the Drake. |
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:16:00 -
[2170] - Quote
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.... |
|
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:21:00 -
[2171] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Why all the hate for the Hurricane? Because people actually flew them? On a side note why is the Minmatar Sensor strength only 16 when other ships are more? Caldari is 19?
The hurricane is my ship of choice, I fly it 99% of the time. Now it sucks. I can't fit anything, I can only imagine what it will be like if these changes go through. You have taken a good thing in EVE and killed it. And from what it seems you are intent on doing that to all the BC. Doesn't CCP realize that the BC is the primary ship for low skill pilots? Why are you killing them all?
On a different note, it seems like CCP is intent on creating a ship for every roll in a fleet fight...and that is all they can do. What you seem to ignore is that MOST pilots fly around in small gangs or solo and need a ship that can multitask. If you limit EVERY ship to a single role you effectively ostracize every pilot that doesn't fly in a large fleet. Which is your broad player base. While I like to fly in large fleets, MOST of my time is spent flying around solo, or in a small gang. I need a multipurpose battlecruiser, and you are killing that for me and the rest of EVE. You are making it more difficult to get into this game.
AMEN TO THAT! |
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:31:00 -
[2172] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:4LeafClover wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:First, let me say: Don't touch my Cyclone. Now I'll read your post.
-Liang I have been playing EVE for almost 5 years and can count the number of cyclones I have seen on one hand. The ship sucks. And now they are making it worse, but trying to morph it into a missile boat? Now I can't even use the Cyclone as a sniping platform....it is completely useless. WTF? Where the hell do you live that you don't see Cyclones everywhere? -Liang
Amarr and Caldari and sometimes in Gallente space and occasionally in Minmatar space. The only Cyclones I've seen flown where the ones I flew that got blown out of space making me realize they are a waste of money and time to fly as they currently are. The guys I flew with were nice enough not to laugh when I showed up in one and just let me learn my lesson on that ship on my own quick time. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1282
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:33:00 -
[2173] - Quote
Smilingmonk wrote:4LeafClover wrote:Why all the hate for the Hurricane? Because people actually flew them? On a side note why is the Minmatar Sensor strength only 16 when other ships are more? Caldari is 19?
The hurricane is my ship of choice, I fly it 99% of the time. Now it sucks. I can't fit anything, I can only imagine what it will be like if these changes go through. You have taken a good thing in EVE and killed it. And from what it seems you are intent on doing that to all the BC. Doesn't CCP realize that the BC is the primary ship for low skill pilots? Why are you killing them all?
On a different note, it seems like CCP is intent on creating a ship for every roll in a fleet fight...and that is all they can do. What you seem to ignore is that MOST pilots fly around in small gangs or solo and need a ship that can multitask. If you limit EVERY ship to a single role you effectively ostracize every pilot that doesn't fly in a large fleet. Which is your broad player base. While I like to fly in large fleets, MOST of my time is spent flying around solo, or in a small gang. I need a multipurpose battlecruiser, and you are killing that for me and the rest of EVE. You are making it more difficult to get into this game. AMEN TO THAT!
Only thats not whats actually happening. It turns out in EVE when players fly one thing to the exclusion of the others its because that one thing is out of balance compared to everything else.
If you were to try to bring the power levels of everything else up to their power levels you risk power creep.
The drake and cane were the most flown BCs, to the absolute exclusion of most of the others (the same is happening with the Talos) and so it became obvious that they were out of balance compared to every other BC, hence needing an adjustment.
|
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:36:00 -
[2174] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
WTF? Where the hell do you live that you don't see Cyclones everywhere?
-Liang
EVE Online
lol, too true, I said the same thing in my reply pretty much. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1023
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:42:00 -
[2175] - Quote
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. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1023
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:52:00 -
[2176] - Quote
Most of the alternative bonuses being suggested for the Brutix won't work.
1) - Armor HP per level The Brutix would need to be able to fit plates in order to get any use out of this. Currently if you fit a 1600mm plate you're forced to use Electrons. Big, slow and snub-nose range is a fail equation.
2) - Tracking per level We would go from comparing the Brutix to the Myrmidon to comparing it to the Talos. The Talos, by the way, would win that equation hands down.
3) - Falloff per level This is probably the best choice of the bunch. You'd still probably have Talos vs. Brutix comparisons. (Range envelope vs. Range envelope) The Deimos would also need to be radically redesigned so as not to have it's toes stepped on. All in all you would have two Gallente BC with a lot of firepower and little tank. One would be declared the 'winner' and the other would not be used.
Tweak the amount of armour MAR repair per cycle and look to the Myrmidon for more variety. |
Mund Richard
306
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:57:00 -
[2177] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:The tradeoff is that it has mediocre DPS compared to the other Battlecruisers. Over 500 dps burst tank and over 400dps in the target's resist hole at close range without any hope of mitigating it sitting in a BC doesn't sound all too bad. Though, a Caracal can do the same dps, but without the tank.
Sure, outside scram+web range it starts to suffer, but if you want to brawl it out, who can get away from it? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
298
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 16:59:00 -
[2178] - 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 |
Mund Richard
306
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 17:03:00 -
[2179] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Yep, exactly like how the Cane has the option to fit extra launchers. I don't see anyone pissing and moaning about that... Well, one reason to moan about is how the Cane at least has 6 double-bonused guns, while the Cyclone has only 5 singe 5% bonused. Only the drone boats have 5 hardpoints, but with a drone damage bonus and the bay to go with it. Those ships that have 6 have either a double bonus, or a double-strengthed one. And the Brutix also has a tank bonus to pair it with. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Vayn Baxtor
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 17:23:00 -
[2180] - Quote
Alek Row wrote:
Different context, slasher is a very good ship. At the time we were discussing the advantages/disavantages of ACs. Like you said "Slasher is a tackler, so ACs are there to shoot down drones in many cases" I don't think that the damage performed by a kiting slasher is a good example to describe how good ACs are. In my opinion, after the tiericide I don't see how ACs can represent a balance problem at all.
Okay. Was just trying to keep it true. Because even today, there are a lot of misunderstandings on ships that are not FOTM - though in this example, the Slasher did become such as it has a lot of Inty aspects now where as other frigs of its faction now are in its shadow (to a point). That is a different topic though.
Quote:Why all the hate for the Hurricane?
Quote:Only thats not whats actually happening. It turns out in EVE when players fly one thing to the exclusion of the others its because that one thing is out of balance compared to everything else.
If you were to try to bring the power levels of everything else up to their power levels you risk power creep.
The drake and cane were the most flown BCs, to the absolute exclusion of most of the others (the same is happening with the Talos) and so it became obvious that they were out of balance compared to every other BC, hence needing an adjustment.
I just wanted to add what I said before. The reason why these specific ships are so popular and people's main is mostly because of the dmg bonus - or damage next to tank stats.
I understand that it may seem as hate - but it is more about the hate on the fact that only one ships is really useful while others remain in shadow. Yes, the other ones are used in EVE too, but for playing this damn long, you have no idea how tiresome it can get when one's fleet says "this ship only" just because the stats are superior. That is a personal example but it is quite common.
While Tiericide does define ships by applying roles, it should be foremost there to get those unpopular ships finally in the spotlight - at least so that they can be used properly. This however requires the good ol' stuff you've been using to get balanced (read: changed/nerfed).
Let's not forget how extreme the Dramielle was. People were also defending it's unbalanced state like crazy. Personally, I wish that all ships could have a chunk of what the old Dramiel had to offer - it would have given even the weakest/crappiest of ships some fangs.
Tiericide is unfortunately not just about you or me, but about the whole gaming community. So it is very common that people or CCP will be stepping on your feet when molesting one's precious ship. Been through that too many times. Nobody is stopping you from being vibrant about any subject so feel free to share what you think (as you did just now).
I just find that the game is applying too much flexibility to certain classes. Tier3 BCs may be of paper, but I still don't quite get why most have a range bonus applied to their already whoopin' dmg capabilities, as large turrets of whatever kind already naturally have more range than mediums - and if you put in t2 ammo, boom. But as usual, many just want to have a ship that they can oneshot things with and grab killmails with them on top3. I'd be fine with that, but I'd want the other ships to have a better chance too.
|
|
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 18:57:00 -
[2181] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: [snip] The root issue that needs to be addressed is that Amarr (and Caldari) drones need to be reworked to actually be useful. I think that would resolve any lingering RP issues you may have. Negative. Amarr drones will never outpower Gallente drones. I'd argue against it if it were proposed. The Gallente are the drone race. So my primary concern, that usage of my enemy's tech is being incentivized throughout the Amarr fleet will not change. Besides, I don't see all races being made to suffer equally with each race having a BC being repurposed as a drone boat. The Prophecy is the red-headed stepchild here. Let's take 2 missile launchers off the Drake, reduce it's powergrid, shields, hull, and align time - but increase the size of its drone bay - and see how the Caldari feel about that. YK Sorry Yonis, but I figured I'd just point it out. He's not asking for Amarr and Caldari drones to be more powerful than Gallente drones. He's asking that they be useful. At present Amarr drones aren't the fastest, don't deal with frigates the best, or anything, and on top of that have THE WORST DPS of any drones in game. They are the absolute worst drones in game. Caldari isn't as bad, but they don't have a use that isn't already filled by either Gallente or Minmatar. Minmatar drones are best for dealing with small, fast targets. Gallente is good for murdering slower, larger targets (or brawling). Amarr and Caldari do... what again?
He's not asking for Gallente to suddenly get worse, or for Amarr/Caldari to suddenly get much better than Gallente. Simply that there be some point to using them.
I'd like to see them make Amarr drones not a joke. I wouldn't mind using some of those sleek little buggers. Only issue is they suck. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 22:12:00 -
[2182] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:At present Amarr drones aren't the fastest, don't deal with frigates the best, or anything, and on top of that have THE WORST DPS of any drones in game. They are the absolute worst drones in game. Caldari isn't as bad, but they don't have a use that isn't already filled by either Gallente or Minmatar. Minmatar drones are best for dealing with small, fast targets. Gallente is good for murdering slower, larger targets (or brawling). Amarr and Caldari do... what again?
In fact, caldari drones are pretty good middle ground between gallente and minmatar ones : speed is often enough to catch their target, and dps is a *lot* more than minmatar drones. |
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 22:48:00 -
[2183] - Quote
[quote=NetheranE]Prophecy changes are excellent, as are the Harb and Myrm.
Drake and Cane, these changes effectively bring them in-line with the other BCs, which I think is an excellent choice. For too long the drake and cane have left all other BCs far behind in the dust, and pushing them back down to an even keel is an excellent balance choice.
F**K Balance! Every civilization in the course of history has always endeavored to put out a better mouse trap, or in this case a better battle cruiser, than it's enemies. This obsession with balance is BS! This obsession with nerfing the Drake and Hurricane is BS! Instead of nerfing two perfectly great battle cruisers further (putting them back to where they were is a thought that should be entertained more) CCP should worry ONLY about the other battle cruisers capabilities and bring them UP to the Drake/Hurricane standard instead of tearing down to the lowest level.
Logic is clear that one or two civilizations will always have top dog machinery while others strive to catch up and have to use different tactics to negate the better civilizations ships. The game worked beautifully UNBALANCED for 10 years so why worry about making everything BALANCED NOW???? Look who bitches most about the Drakes and Hurricanes being too good, it's the ones who had rather use their favorite inferior ship and ***** about someone else's better free choice than simply changing their choice to the Drake and Hurricane.
It's like the broken American education system where there can be no winners among the students because that makes the loser students ego and self esteem hurt so they tear down the winners and the institutions that made them winners and recognized them as such. |
Smilingmonk
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 22:52:00 -
[2184] - Quote
Beregond Romendacil wrote: Seems to me, these ships are just getting thrown together out of a pile of parts on the floor without any thought of what people would want to do with them. Seems like everyone is trying to figure out how to use each of these ships the way it was randomly designed rather than designing the ship for a use. As it is now, most boats do have advantages but are not good at any role. And it would be nice for newer players to choose a role and train the skills for it rather than train skills for a year and still have no useful roles other than 'just bring what you got'. The recent move to ECM frigs and Logis might help.
- Battlecruisers are supposed to be the first ships of scale capable of exchanging volleys and surviving for while. They should be able to put cruisers and frigs in their place. And Eve Battleships are embarrassing. Nobody fears them or needs to.
- BCs should be decent at solo/small fleets or decent in large fleets, not bad at both. And given 2 BCs for each race, their should be one of each. i.e. one bonused for reps, one for resists.
- The options for long range, short range, drone, or ECM should be spread out/mixed across the races. It may be a good drone boat but if its bad at both fleet and solo roles so it does not get used. Gallente might get the drone boat with resists designed for fleets and Minmatar might get the drone boat with self-reps for solo but that's better than both having a drone boat that no one wants. Designing for large fleet vs small fleet/solo seems better than designing for PvP vs PvE. Good PvP designs will still work well in PvE (especially considering continued AI improvements).
- And, since missiles are already near useless and unwanted, do you have to make it worse with a bonus for Kinetic damage ONLY? Missiles may be weaker DPS but their upside was supposed to be able to switch ammo types.
- all BCs and larger ships should have 2 utility slots so that turrets don't have to be dumped for common tasks: salvage & tractor, probe and cloak, warfare links, drone mods. and I would expect frigs and cruisers to have 1. maybe 2 for the strategic cruisers would make them more useful.
- drone bays should be larger. Still have the reasonably limited bandwidth but have a few more in reserve to kick out.
- And, for the love of God, whatever the ship's intended role, the CPU and PG should be capable of fitting it !!! A low skilled character should be able to fit T1 basic modules and make it work. And as character skills progress, they should be able to progressively step up through the modules until reaching the T2 modules. And shouldn't T2 modules be better than T1 ? sometimes but many times not.
Great way to sum up the situation!
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
171
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 23:33:00 -
[2185] - 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.
I just realized why I like the new Cyclone so much - it's an oversized missile spewing Stabby <3 |
SamuelK
The Concilium Enterprises Extinction Level Event.
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 00:23:00 -
[2186] - Quote
Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. |
Mund Richard
307
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 00:51:00 -
[2187] - Quote
SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. If you would also point out which particular part you are so greatly unsatisfied with, and what do you think should be done to undo the unjust disadvantages? Who knows, you might have spotted something the others haven't mentioned yet! Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 04:59:00 -
[2188] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. If you would also point out which particular part you are so greatly unsatisfied with, and what do you think should be done to undo the unjust disadvantages? Who knows, you might have spotted something the others haven't mentioned yet! Yeah, not seeing it either. I'm seeing the effective PWG and CPU going up (don't need to fit another turret, so you have more spare CPU and PWG), I'm seeing the damage go up. I'm seeing tank drop a bit (now to more moderate standards). I'm seeing the drone bay go up (hooray for flexibility!)
The only thing I'm seeing is the mass going up and the cap recharge getting reduced to compensate for the less guns. |
Seleucus Ontuas
Justified Chaos
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 06:51:00 -
[2189] - Quote
Well, I take it from the lateness of the hour that it means Gallente are still stuck with two BCs with Active Rep Bonuses. Though I prefer flying Gallente, looks I'm still stuck flying Caldari and Minmatar. You know, you guys are making it harder to cross train for the future generations of EvE players, it would be a good idea if Gallente actually had a decent fleet BC. |
Georgiy Giggle
REFORD Division REFORD
71
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 11:07:00 -
[2190] - Quote
Not seems like balancing. It's a pure NERF! Not mastering proprieties, won't become firmly established. - Confucius |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 11:49:00 -
[2191] - Quote
Georgiy Giggle wrote:Not seems like balancing. It's a pure NERF! Nerfing is a subset of balancing ; and tier2 BC needed it. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1966
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 12:08:00 -
[2192] - Quote
Seleucus Ontuas wrote:Well, I take it from the lateness of the hour that it means Gallente are still stuck with two BCs with Active Rep Bonuses. Though I prefer flying Gallente, looks I'm still stuck flying Caldari and Minmatar. You know, you guys are making it harder to cross train for the future generations of EvE players, it would be a good idea if Gallente actually had a decent fleet BC.
To be more precise, we are stuck with two rep bonused ships of which only one can realistically use it, new triple rep Myrm looks at least decent.
It's wasted on Brutix due to cap-intensive guns, lack of mids and the nature of the ship- it relies on heavy close-range turret damage, and fitting active tank kills this damage output. It needs to MWD to get to do anything, has insanely huge sig and next to non-existent cap life when trying to run active tank while performing it's primary tasks.
MAAR+MAR Brutix tanks no better than XLASB Brutix but has less dps, speed and tracking, and choosing either over standard shield buffer gives you no EHP advantage. MAAR+2xMAR Brutix tanks more, but ~Electrons~.
If you buffer fit it, you'll waste a hull bonus and end up with a sluggish close-range BC with a bloated sig and mediocre tank and not significantly more dps than T1 cruisers. Or Drake.
Armor HP bonus? MWD bloom reduction bonus? Tracking bonus? Brutix simply needs something to make it a good choice for armor gangs.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
542
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 12:39:00 -
[2193] - Quote
SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work.
You're an idiot
Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1040
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 17:10:00 -
[2194] - Quote
Roime wrote:
To be more precise, we are stuck with two rep bonused ships of which only one can realistically use it, new triple rep Myrm looks at least decent.
Both the Brutix and the Myrm will be usable, they just won't be (as) usable in larger gangs like every other combat BC. What'cha gonna do? We've all said our piece. Time to move on. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 18:04:00 -
[2195] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. You're an idiot Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. EDIT: Also the rep bonus isn't wasted on the brutix The brutix looks brilliant atm, at least on paper.
On paper is all well and good but this isn't a paper-based game
Seriously, it's on sisi, go and try it. I did. It's not a good ship as it stands. There is absolutely no reason to choose it over the myrm for the one narrow role it can perform. Fozzie claimed the myrm and brutix were different to fly - but I don't see that at all. They are identical in every tactical respect with the myrm being better in every conceivable way except when the target has a lot of smartbombs to wipeout the drones. That is the one and only occasion the brutix would be better.
Fozzie, please, so many have pointed out that this is a bad rebalance of the brutix; many have suggested alternative bonuses to the current rep bonus; all agree that the brutix is going to be next to useless as it stands (pg, cpu, bonuses, sig radius). Even an option to use autocannons has gone with this change - we lost a turret for a bigger weapon bonus; this may be good for fitting but it's rubbish for versatility. Why is there such an enormous reluctance to do something about this? If we're missing the reason why we're all wrong please could you explain it? Throw us a bone here, for the life of me this makes no sense in an other wise reasonable balancing effort. |
Cron Moonvexor
The Scope Gallente Federation
295
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 18:27:00 -
[2196] - Quote
Sorry if this were asked, but
why you giving Prophecy 75mbit bandwith instead 80? 75mbit = 2heavies + 2meds + 1lightdrone 80mbit = 2heavies + 3 meds
so i think, 80mbit\s won't be overpowered, but will be more practical. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
544
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 18:29:00 -
[2197] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. You're an idiot Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. EDIT: Also the rep bonus isn't wasted on the brutix The brutix looks brilliant atm, at least on paper. On paper is all well and good but this isn't a paper-based game Seriously, it's on sisi, go and try it. I did. It's not a good ship as it stands. There is absolutely no reason to choose it over the myrm for the one narrow role it can perform. Fozzie claimed the myrm and brutix were different to fly - but I don't see that at all. They are identical in every tactical respect with the myrm being better in every conceivable way except when the target has a lot of smartbombs to wipeout the drones. That is the one and only occasion the brutix would be better. Fozzie, please, so many have pointed out that this is a bad rebalance of the brutix; many have suggested alternative bonuses to the current rep bonus; all agree that the brutix is going to be next to useless as it stands (pg, cpu, bonuses, sig radius). Even an option to use autocannons has gone with this change - we lost a turret for a bigger weapon bonus; this may be good for fitting but it's rubbish for versatility. Why is there such an enormous reluctance to do something about this? If we're missing the reason why we're all wrong please could you explain it? Throw us a bone here, for the life of me this makes no sense in an other wise reasonable balancing effort.
The cap is fine, the tank is good, the speed is good, the dps is great
The only bad thing about it is that its not perfect for blob warfare and i count that as a plus.
|
Tragedy
The Creepshow
60
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 19:38:00 -
[2198] - Quote
Please, please don't keep that repper bonus on the brutix. Its completely wasted, other people have pointed out why in very articulate well thought out ways. Why not add a tracking bonus so its the thoraxes big brother, like it should be. Anything, just not the repper. |
Mund Richard
309
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 20:49:00 -
[2199] - Quote
Tragedy wrote:Please, please don't keep that repper bonus on the brutix. Its completely wasted, other people have pointed out why in very articulate well thought out ways. Why not add a tracking bonus so its the thoraxes big brother, like it should be. Anything, just not the repper. Personally, I'd rather have a falloff, and leave the Thorax with the tracking, we don't need BCs being good against frigs.
The way you put it, I'd expect someone coming around suggesting you stay put and be happy it's not a gun cap bonus. (which would still be a buff for any shield or buffer setup) Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1040
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 20:50:00 -
[2200] - Quote
Has anybody done the Myrm vs. Prophesy comparison yet? Do all of the advantages of the Prophesy (speed, resistance bonus, smaller sig radius, better distribution of HP for armor tanking, BETTER PG and CPU - WTF?) at the cost of 25m3 of drone bandwidth make sense?
Prophesy may be better active tanker than the Myrm too - AND it will perform well in fleets due to the resistance bonus.
meh. |
|
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 21:17:00 -
[2201] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Nikuno wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. You're an idiot Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. EDIT: Also the rep bonus isn't wasted on the brutix The brutix looks brilliant atm, at least on paper. On paper is all well and good but this isn't a paper-based game Seriously, it's on sisi, go and try it. I did. It's not a good ship as it stands. There is absolutely no reason to choose it over the myrm for the one narrow role it can perform. Fozzie claimed the myrm and brutix were different to fly - but I don't see that at all. They are identical in every tactical respect with the myrm being better in every conceivable way except when the target has a lot of smartbombs to wipeout the drones. That is the one and only occasion the brutix would be better. Fozzie, please, so many have pointed out that this is a bad rebalance of the brutix; many have suggested alternative bonuses to the current rep bonus; all agree that the brutix is going to be next to useless as it stands (pg, cpu, bonuses, sig radius). Even an option to use autocannons has gone with this change - we lost a turret for a bigger weapon bonus; this may be good for fitting but it's rubbish for versatility. Why is there such an enormous reluctance to do something about this? If we're missing the reason why we're all wrong please could you explain it? Throw us a bone here, for the life of me this makes no sense in an other wise reasonable balancing effort. The cap is fine, the tank is good, the speed is good, the dps is great The only bad thing about it is that its not perfect for blob warfare and i count that as a plus.
Is that the myrm or the brutix?
It could be read as either.
That's the problem; they're the same ship with one tiny difference - and the myrm is better in every situation except when facing smartbombs.
This is not what I expect from balancing. It's not what the majority of people posting seem to want either. And you also pointedly ignored the issues I raised about this myrm/brutix twinning. |
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
55
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 22:16:00 -
[2202] - Quote
Honestly... I wish they'd balance the ships based a bit on what the ships look like and give each of them specific roles. I still say that 'Combat' Ships need to be divided into two separate roles... Attack/Assault and Skirmish/Bombardment. One stands off and pounds the crud out of their opponents while the other charges forward and beats them to a pulp at close range.
I agree, the Myrmidon and Brutix really need to be looked at again, the Myrmidon outperforms the Brutix in most ways. I personally think they should go back and get them to work in two separate roles. This is just an example of how I'd handle the Battlecruiser classes...
Bombardment Myrmidon: 10% increase to Drone Control Range per Level, 10% increase to Drone Damage and Hitpoints per Level Role Bonus: 50% increase to Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal Range
Assault Brutix: 5% increase to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per Level, 7.5% increase to Armor Repairer amount per Level Role Bonus: 50% reduction to Armor Repairer capacitor use |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
544
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 23:46:00 -
[2203] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Nikuno wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. You're an idiot Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. EDIT: Also the rep bonus isn't wasted on the brutix The brutix looks brilliant atm, at least on paper. On paper is all well and good but this isn't a paper-based game Seriously, it's on sisi, go and try it. I did. It's not a good ship as it stands. There is absolutely no reason to choose it over the myrm for the one narrow role it can perform. Fozzie claimed the myrm and brutix were different to fly - but I don't see that at all. They are identical in every tactical respect with the myrm being better in every conceivable way except when the target has a lot of smartbombs to wipeout the drones. That is the one and only occasion the brutix would be better. Fozzie, please, so many have pointed out that this is a bad rebalance of the brutix; many have suggested alternative bonuses to the current rep bonus; all agree that the brutix is going to be next to useless as it stands (pg, cpu, bonuses, sig radius). Even an option to use autocannons has gone with this change - we lost a turret for a bigger weapon bonus; this may be good for fitting but it's rubbish for versatility. Why is there such an enormous reluctance to do something about this? If we're missing the reason why we're all wrong please could you explain it? Throw us a bone here, for the life of me this makes no sense in an other wise reasonable balancing effort. The cap is fine, the tank is good, the speed is good, the dps is great The only bad thing about it is that its not perfect for blob warfare and i count that as a plus. Is that the myrm or the brutix? It could be read as either. That's the problem; they're the same ship with one tiny difference - and the myrm is better in every situation except when facing smartbombs. This is not what I expect from balancing. It's not what the majority of people posting seem to want either. And you also pointedly ignored the issues I raised about this myrm/brutix twinning.
Myrm relies on ogres to do dps and ogres are ****.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
236
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 23:48:00 -
[2204] - Quote
Myrmidon will be far worse than the Brutix at 20km and beyond, and basically for any fleet duty (where your ennemies are more than three, when your drones actually have to move). No, the myrm is not always better because of the hilarious mobility of heavy drones and sentries, on top of their vulnerability ; he is also slower and heavier ; and the Brutix have an utility high !
And the Maelstrom never had any problem living with a shield boosting bonus and regularly going into blob warfare. Reducing ability to go in huge blob never was solely determined by bonuses, or ships like the Apocalypse (or even the Navy Apoc BTW) would never had saw a fleet fight.
The question is "is the Brutix a bad ship ?" And the only answers provided are "no, because the myrm is better at soloing", which is almost irrelevant. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 00:49:00 -
[2205] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Has anybody done the Myrm vs. Prophesy comparison yet? Do all of the advantages of the Prophesy (speed, resistance bonus, smaller sig radius, better distribution of HP for armor tanking, BETTER PG and CPU - WTF?) at the cost of 25m3 of drone bandwidth make sense?
Prophesy may be better active tanker than the Myrm too - AND it will perform well in fleets due to the resistance bonus.
meh.
ItGÇÖs the extra Mid on the Myrm that makes the difference to me. It allows for the dual cap boosters plus tackle and prop mod for multi rep fits, or e-war. If the prophecy wishes to get itGÇÖs DPS up to the myrms then it needs to use itGÇÖs extra low for an extra DDA than the Myrm, itGÇÖs close though and Prophecy certainly has potential for more tank.
Prophecy is going to be better in fleets.
I am generally solo or very small gang and I am quite liking the flexibility of the Myrm.
Brutix I have found to be ok. I have used a MAAR + 800mm plate fit quite well and got the better of a cane and also an XL-ASB Brutix. AAR may not have the tank on paper of the ASB but if you can have enough buffer to make it last then itGÇÖs longer run time can work out better than the ASB.
As people have pointed out it is hard to see either as fleet ships though.
I have quite enjoyed the test server (apart from the number of players flying with a carrier following their solo BS/BC round like some sort of giant repping lost puppy), I rarely get BC fights and one of my main concerns is where to use BC, it would be nice if more Large FW plexes could be generated.
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
92
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 04:45:00 -
[2206] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Myrmidon will be far worse than the Brutix at 20km and beyond, and basically for any fleet duty (where your ennemies are more than three, when your drones actually have to move). No, the myrm is not always better because of the hilarious mobility of heavy drones and sentries, on top of their vulnerability ; he is also slower and heavier ; and the Brutix have an utility high !
And the Maelstrom never had any problem living with a shield boosting bonus and regularly going into blob warfare. Reducing ability to go in huge blob never was solely determined by bonuses, or ships like the Apocalypse (or even the Navy Apoc BTW) would never had saw a fleet fight.
The question is "is the Brutix a bad ship ?" And the only answers provided are "no, because the myrm is better at soloing", which is almost irrelevant. The issue isn't that a ship is used because of its bonuses. It's that passive (read: resist) bonuses work just as well as an active bonus AND it's useful in gang/fleets as well.
Effectively, you're saying that if you fly an active bonused ship in a fleet, you're wasting one of the ship's bonuses. Other ships, such as the Mael are used for specific reasons--in the Maels case it's obviously for its extraordinary alpha.
Other ships that don't have tank bonuses at all are compensated with two dps-related bonuses. They're not simply asked to waste a bonus when doing fleet work.
Gallente BCs really need to have their bonuses reevaluated. Either the Myrm needs to become the game's first true drone boat (with 2 drone bonuses (+drone speed so Ogres are as fast as Hammerheads when out of MWD and in orbit range)), or the Brutix needs to become a bigger blaster hellion.
Personally, I'm more in favor of the Myrm retiring its legendary triple-rep setup and becoming a dual bonused drone boat. This would give it a nice versatile range of options, allowing it to still shield tank, armor tank, range tank, bombard or brawl. And what's more is that the Thorax is an excellent blaster hellion already, and putting the Brutix in this position would cause too much overlap.
Then, when command ships get their overhaul, you can have the Astarte drop its rep bonus for +armor hp and make it the "super Brutix (of legend), if you must--although the Diemos would probably fill the "pro-dps" role better, and the +armor hp of the Astarte fits its role better as a resilient command platform.
Edit: typos (thanks iPad) |
Notorious Sick
The laughing Privateers
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 08:24:00 -
[2207] - Quote
The Drake loses a Launcher? \o/ wwhhyyyyyyyyyyyyy... \o/
Seriously, that's terrible. So you mangled the battlecruiser! In my honest opinion... |
To mare
Advanced Technology
167
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 08:40:00 -
[2208] - Quote
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
|
Mund Richard
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 09:04:00 -
[2209] - Quote
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. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Notorious Sick
The laughing Privateers
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 09:35:00 -
[2210] - Quote
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. |
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
49
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 10:11:00 -
[2211] - Quote
Does anyone have any accurate dps figures for the new drake stats for a player with battlecruisers skill at 4. I've run the numbers and cant get it to show more dps for kinetic damage at all. I accept that I may be doing it wrong. I think that bc skill at 4 should be enough to have decent competence with this thing as level 4 is supposed to represent an expert level of competence which is close to the complete mastery you get at level 5. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
477
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 10:14:00 -
[2212] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Does anyone have any accurate dps figures for the new drake stats for a player with battlecruisers skill at 4. I, ve run the numbers and cant get it to show more dps for kinetic damage at all. I accept that I may be doing it wrong. I think that bc skill at 4 should be enough to have decent competence with this thing as level 4 is supposed to represent an expert level of competence which is closeto the complete mastery you get at level 5.
Don't know the exact number but I believe it is less.
You should train BC to V anyways for the summer expansion. Its a must. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
237
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 10:27:00 -
[2213] - Quote
Notorious Sick wrote:That's exactly the point. And if kinetic is not exactly appropriate, then you stand there with pants down. Like lasers, or hybrids. So cruel...
As for a fleet Brutix, you are missing the point : the Maelstrom indeed make a good fleet ship because of its insane alpha, but what does that mean ? That mean that a bonus don't make a ship a bad choice for fleet but the opposite : a bonus can make a ship good for fleet. This is the case with almost any resistance bonused ships for example. That is the selling point, or the core concept.
After this, nothing really matter appart from the general performances of the ship, and here the Brutix have its flavor : rack of hybrid guns, but unlike the Ferox, they are damage bonused, and he have an armor slot layout with enough midslots ; he is also rather fast (only minmatar BC are faster). All in all, the Brutix is not worse for fleet than the Harbinger. Armor rep bonus is not more wasted than capacitor bonus for lasers, or range bonus on the Ferox.
Myrm and Brutix share the same relation than Incursus and Tristan, or than Vexor and Thorax, or than Rifter and Slasher, or than Drake and Ferox, or than Bellicose and Rupture or Stabber, or than Punisher and Tormentor, or than Cormorant and Corax, ... |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 10:38:00 -
[2214] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: 1.Myrmidon will be far worse than the Brutix at 20km and beyond
2.The question is "is the Brutix a bad ship ?" And the only answers provided are "no, because the myrm is better at soloing", which is almost irrelevant.
1. In what way will the brutix be better than a myrmidon at 20km? Both will be quite useless at any range from 20km outwards.
2. No, the question is why would you have 2 battlecruisers that are essentially the same thing. Given the lack of bonus differentiation the gallente are being short changed and boxed into a very limited role that, quite frankly, we've all grown very fed up with. |
Mund Richard
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 10:56:00 -
[2215] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Notorious Sick wrote:That's exactly the point. And if kinetic is not exactly appropriate, then you stand there with pants down. Like lasers, or hybrids. So cruel... Lasers and hybrids do two damage types out of the four, have always done so. Missiles are supposed to do four, it's the MAIN advantage of theirs.
If you don't see any problem at all with taking away the main advantage of a weapon platform, I suppose you also wouldn't see any problem with the Arbitrator getting it's drone damage bonus apply only to amarr drones without those being reworked to be useful.
Sure, I can see the point of not giving all damage type bonus for a T1 frig where resistance modules are scarce and plugging a resist hole is nasty, but this is a BC. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Dana Gilmour
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 11:04:00 -
[2216] - 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.
1. Drake had the kinetic bonus since forever and that didn't stop it for being one of the best (tied with Cane or even a little better) battlecruiser in game. You both (Mund and Notoriuos Sick) speak like the kinetic bonus is a new thing.
2. It would have the same damage with BC IV and will be better with BC V. Where exactly is the nerf, you plan to fly the ship with skill II and want it balanced at that skill? Beyond laughable.
3. You two read your posts again and go sit in a corner for not making any sense and being totally clueless about the subject at hand. |
Mund Richard
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 11:36:00 -
[2217] - Quote
Dana Gilmour wrote:2. It would have the same damage with BC IV and will be better with BC V. Where exactly is the nerf, you plan to fly the ship with skill II and want it balanced at that skill? Beyond laughable.
3. You two read your posts again and go sit in a corner for not making any sense and being totally clueless about the subject at hand. Ofc you realise that even at max skill, if your opponent is someone with a naturally high kinetic resistance (T2 gallente hulls for instance), this change will be limiting your choices. Before, you could carry around a few unbonused missiles, and shoot with that at a Deimos for instance, accepting a 25% loss of paper dps, but regaining it by not shooting the strongest resist. Now? Your paper dps gets cut by 50% for swapping ammo, or an added 15% worse than the current TQ version. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
145
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 11:57:00 -
[2218] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Dana Gilmour wrote:2. It would have the same damage with BC IV and will be better with BC V. Where exactly is the nerf, you plan to fly the ship with skill II and want it balanced at that skill? Beyond laughable.
3. You two read your posts again and go sit in a corner for not making any sense and being totally clueless about the subject at hand. Ofc you realise that even at max skill, if your opponent is someone with a naturally high kinetic resistance (T2 gallente hulls for instance), this change will be limiting your choices. Before, you could carry around a few unbonused missiles, and shoot with that at a Deimos for instance, accepting a 25% loss of paper dps, but regaining it by not shooting the strongest resist. Now? Your paper dps gets cut by 50% for swapping ammo, or an added 15% worse than the current TQ version.
Lrn 2 Maths. Though you are correct that there is a DPS drop for non Kinetic. However it is not 50% of your DPS.
Your non Kinetic DPS is 100%. Lets just say 300 for a nice easy number. Under the old (current drake) you would have had 350 DPS instead. 300/350 = 85.7%. That bit you are close on. So ok, you have taken a 14/15% DPS nerf here. The Drake always was going to get Nerfed.
However, now let us calculate the Kinetic damage. 300*150% = 450. Vs old Kinetic Damage 350*125%= 437.5. 103%.
Non Kinetic damage vs Kinetic. = 67% damage, not 50%. here is where you went wrong. 50% of 150% = 75%, not 100%. percentages don't add & subtrace the same to reach the same end number.
So yes, overall it is a slightly high Nerf. In general you are going to pretty much use kinetic since you need them to have a really big resist hole before you bother changing ammo. But, now consider you also have 1/7th less the ammo cost. Pay less to fit your drake since you need one less launcher. And you have a nice utility high sitting there for a link to slot into once boosts have to be on grid so as not to be obvious booster even. On the whole, the Drake is still in a very good place. |
Dana Gilmour
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 12:08:00 -
[2219] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Dana Gilmour wrote:2. It would have the same damage with BC IV and will be better with BC V. Where exactly is the nerf, you plan to fly the ship with skill II and want it balanced at that skill? Beyond laughable.
3. You two read your posts again and go sit in a corner for not making any sense and being totally clueless about the subject at hand. Ofc you realise that even at max skill, if your opponent is someone with a naturally high kinetic resistance (T2 gallente hulls for instance), this change will be limiting your choices. Before, you could carry around a few unbonused missiles, and shoot with that at a Deimos for instance, accepting a 25% loss of paper dps, but regaining it by not shooting the strongest resist. Now? Your paper dps gets cut by 50% for swapping ammo, or an added 15% worse than the current TQ version.
You learned math where? Now seriously, you have no clue of what you're talking about and you fail at 3rd grade math. You really wanna keep this up? |
Dana Gilmour
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 12:10:00 -
[2220] - Quote
Nevermind, double post |
|
Mund Richard
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 12:20:00 -
[2221] - Quote
Yupp, that was fail, burn me. Oh wait, already had that. Moving on.
Suppose my true problem is that I expected the drake to lose both kinetic-only bonus and the shield resists, making it more interesting and less "blobby". The 6 mids make it's tank quite superior to the other shield BCs, even getting rid of the resist it wouldn't be in a bad place.
Ah well, more power to the RAH! Now if only they introduced a T2 version... Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Adele Godel
The Spawning Pool Team Liquid
61
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 12:37:00 -
[2222] - Quote
Dana Gilmour wrote:Also, what Nevin said, the resist hole would need to be VERY large and obvious to even think swapping ammo. And no one really goes for really high kinetic resist except some very particular and rare cases. .
You know, those rare ships like hawks and every caldari/gallente t2 hull |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
307
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 14:26:00 -
[2223] - 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 |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
1696
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 16:21:00 -
[2224] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Does anyone have any accurate dps figures for the new drake stats for a player with battlecruisers skill at 4. I, ve run the numbers and cant get it to show more dps for kinetic damage at all. I accept that I may be doing it wrong. I think that bc skill at 4 should be enough to have decent competence with this thing as level 4 is supposed to represent an expert level of competence which is closeto the complete mastery you get at level 5. Don't know the exact number but I believe it is less. You should train BC to V anyways for the summer expansion. Its a must. At Lvl 4, the new and old drake break even... The new Drake gets just under a 3% boost over the old one, at lvl V... Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
serras bang
Active Fusion Cold Fusion.
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 17:18:00 -
[2225] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Dana Gilmour wrote:2. It would have the same damage with BC IV and will be better with BC V. Where exactly is the nerf, you plan to fly the ship with skill II and want it balanced at that skill? Beyond laughable.
3. You two read your posts again and go sit in a corner for not making any sense and being totally clueless about the subject at hand. Ofc you realise that even at max skill, if your opponent is someone with a naturally high kinetic resistance (T2 gallente hulls for instance), this change will be limiting your choices. Before, you could carry around a few unbonused missiles, and shoot with that at a Deimos for instance, accepting a 25% loss of paper dps, but regaining it by not shooting the strongest resist. Now? Your paper dps gets cut by 50% for swapping ammo, or an added 15% worse than the current TQ version. Lrn 2 Maths. Though you are correct that there is a DPS drop for non Kinetic. However it is not 50% of your DPS. Your non Kinetic DPS is 100%. Lets just say 300 for a nice easy number. Under the old (current drake) you would have had 350 DPS instead. 300/350 = 85.7%. That bit you are close on. So ok, you have taken a 14/15% DPS nerf here. The Drake always was going to get Nerfed. However, now let us calculate the Kinetic damage. 300*150% = 450. Vs old Kinetic Damage 350*125%= 437.5. 103%. Non Kinetic damage vs Kinetic. = 67% damage, not 50%. here is where you went wrong. 50% of 150% = 75%, not 100%. percentages don't add & subtrace the same to reach the same end number. So yes, overall it is a slightly high Nerf. In general you are going to pretty much use kinetic since you need them to have a really big resist hole before you bother changing ammo. But, now consider you also have 1/7th less the ammo cost. Pay less to fit your drake since you need one less launcher. And you have a nice utility high sitting there for a link to slot into once boosts have to be on grid so as not to be obvious booster even. On the whole, the Drake is still in a very good place.
althoug drake could always fit a gang link n the first place this is nothing new |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
367
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 17:48:00 -
[2226] - 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. Oh no! you dont get *all the things* anymore?
welcome to the Gallente/Amarr club; proud member since 2007 |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1043
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 18:24:00 -
[2227] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Ofc you realise that even at max skill, if your opponent is someone with a naturally high kinetic resistance (T2 gallente hulls for instance), this change will be limiting your choices. Welcome to my, the hybrid turret user's, world. The ships I fly have always been screwed by this feature. I pretty much have to disengage whenever coming up against a T2 Caldari/Gallente hull. Sucks, doesn't it?
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
391
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 18:50:00 -
[2228] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Ofc you realise that even at max skill, if your opponent is someone with a naturally high kinetic resistance (T2 gallente hulls for instance), this change will be limiting your choices. Welcome to my, the hybrid turret user's, world. The ships I fly have always been screwed by this feature. I pretty much have to disengage whenever coming up against a T2 Caldari/Gallente hull. Sucks, doesn't it?
That is limitation of all turrets, not just hybrids.
Shooting Barrage (or any high expl/kin ammo) at Amarr T2 ship = a really bad idea Shooting with lasers at Minmatar T2 ship = a really bad idea |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
182
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 20:07:00 -
[2229] - Quote
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
"Oh it does more damage with kinetic missiles now so everything's fine"
Ok seriously, **** these kinetic only damage bonuses on Caldari missile ships. Why can't the Drake be more in line with the Caracal and Raven? Why does it suddenly depart into a region where you can only use one type of missile on it with any seriousness? I mean, you have 6 unbonused launchers if you're not using kinetic damage. It's laughable. The Prophecy outdamages a Drake that isn't using kinetic missiles.
With my skills right now, and Scourge Rage HAMs (2x BCS II in lows) I get 535 missile DPS. What happens when I switch to Mjolnir Rage? 356 DPS. On a medium-close range weapon system. This is horrible. I'm pretty certain that at this point, if you're packing a kinetic hardener you will just completely shut down the Drake so hard that the Drake pilot might as well just eject and warp off to save themselves the trouble of having to wait for a hilariously one sided fight to end.
Also, person who proposed the "You don't get ALL the things anymore club" thing: you've got a competent Harbinger now, the Brutix with that new armor rep module looks utterly terrifying, and then... The Myrmidon. Just the Myrmidon. What has happened to these ships is excellent, but the fact that the Drake just keeps getting nerfed into being so niche that it's almost useless is not; that is the opposite of what the ship rebalancing effort should be about. Not to mention that it's fairly difficult to really overdo the tank on the Drake anymore unless you really want to cut into DPS. With HAMs, at least. If this turned into a generic missile damage bonus, maybe even just 7.5% per level, that'd be far better than this 10% kinetic only decision.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1043
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 21:26:00 -
[2230] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: That is limitation of all turrets, not just hybrids. Shooting Barrage (or any high expl/kin ammo) at Amarr T2 ship = a really bad idea Shooting with lasers at Minmatar T2 ship = a really bad idea
OK, let's go through this.
Hybrids: Kinetic/Therm - Sucks to shoot at T2 Gallente and Caldari Hulls. T2 Minmatar and T2 Amarr hulls tank half (Minmatar tank Thermal, Amarr tank Kinetic) Lasers: EM - Sucks to shoot T2 Minmatar Ships (They tank EM, Therm). Otherwise it's all good. Projectiles: EM, Explosive, Thermal (you choose) - Can hit resistance hole of T2 Amarr, T2 Caldari, T2 Gallente, and armor tanked T2 Minmatar hulls.
NOT the same limitation of all turrets. Hybrids are severely limited against two races and are half limited against the other two.
|
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
516
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 21:40:00 -
[2231] - Quote
Aglais wrote:If this turned into a generic missile damage bonus, maybe even just 7.5% per level, that'd be far better than this 10% kinetic only decision.
It would also be overpowered, which is why they're not doing it. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
172
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 22:07:00 -
[2232] - Quote
Aglais wrote:With my skills right now, and Scourge Rage HAMs (2x BCS II in lows) I get 535 missile DPS. What happens when I switch to Mjolnir Rage? 356 DPS. On a medium-close range weapon system. This is horrible.
Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved. |
mental maverick
Percussive Diplomacy Samurai Pizza Cats
39
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 23:11:00 -
[2233] - Quote
Not sure why people are hating on the Brutix so much, it's literally the most versatile solo armor tanking brawler i've seen only comparable to the awesomness that was the Legion boosted dual rep Hurricane ( which is now completely impossible to fit, thanks a lot Fozzie ). And that is without Legion boosts on the Brutix I might add, putting links on it makes it retardedly good.
I do get the point about Gallente having 2 BCs with the active armor bonus making them both too similar but don't touch the rep bonus on the Brutix rather screw around with the Myrmidon cause I don't fly that shitheap anyways, the reason being drones as your main dps is not good at all if you are soloing.
1 or 2 years ago when people were way more inclined to happily let your drones rip them a new one drone boats were good. Today is a different matter though, in any fight where you are up against 2 or more targets the applied damage from your drones will be nowhere near those awesome EFT numbers since your drones will spend half of the time going in and out of your dronebay as not to be destroyed in the first 30-60 secs of a fight. There are simply way less utter bads out there then in the olden days, sadly...
I would love to see the Myrmidon, and other drone boats aswell now that we are getting more of them, get a bigger boost to drone hitpoints and/or speed in order to reduce the amount of time they spend going in and out of your dronebay. This would make killing the drones of a drone boat more of a decision making than it is today. As it is now, unless the drone boat in question has a possibility to deagress and get away there is little reason not to shoot the drones since without them it's pretty much dead in the water. Why not give the different types of drone boats different kinds of hitpoint bonuses to the drones. Maybe a armor resist bonus or armor/shield hitpoint bonus thus making it viable to have a remote armor/shield repairer in a utility high to repair your drones with during a fight. I mean who in their right mind wouldn't want the possibility of bait tanking your drones |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
49
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 00:22:00 -
[2234] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Aglais wrote:With my skills right now, and Scourge Rage HAMs (2x BCS II in lows) I get 535 missile DPS. What happens when I switch to Mjolnir Rage? 356 DPS. On a medium-close range weapon system. This is horrible. Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved.
Tell you what, why don't we all just fly minmater, they never get nerfed every change represents a buff for them and they don't have to worry about cap much. So much for rebalancing this is becoming a power slide towards the already op minmatar. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
183
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 00:52:00 -
[2235] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved.
Oh hey look! It's a suggestion that totally ignores the reason that the ship rebalancing initiative was taken in the first place!
You're an idiot; the reason any of this is happening is so that all races have adequate and competitive ships; not so that we can have even more 'Winmatar' happening here.
@Gypsio III: Can you give me reasons WHY it'd be overpowered? Don't just say "well it'd be OP so they're not doing that", give me your reasoning and perhaps I could, I don't know, alter my argument so that I could suggest a reasonable change instead of just accepting a stupid bonus that is more of a crippling than anything else, leading you to come to the conclusion of the idiot whom I quoted at the beginning of this post. Further, It'd be doing equal amounts of damage with any missile type, but focusing on volley damage rather than rate of fire, like the Cyclone, which keeps them distinct. And it'd still do slightly less damage with any damage type than it does now with this kinetic only bonus.
Also, your argument should not include "well you can build the Drake to be a huge fat EHP brick". |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
145
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 01:24:00 -
[2236] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved.
Oh hey look! It's a suggestion that totally ignores the reason that the ship rebalancing initiative was taken in the first place!You're an idiot; the reason any of this is happening is so that all races have adequate and competitive ships; not so that we can have even more 'Winmatar' happening here. @Gypsio III: Can you give me reasons WHY it'd be overpowered? Don't just say "well it'd be OP so they're not doing that", give me your reasoning and perhaps I could, I don't know, alter my argument so that I could suggest a reasonable change instead of just accepting a stupid bonus that is more of a crippling than anything else, leading you to come to the conclusion of the idiot whom I quoted at the beginning of this post. Further, It'd be doing equal amounts of damage with any missile type, but focusing on volley damage rather than rate of fire, like the Cyclone, which keeps them distinct. And it'd still do slightly less damage with any damage type than it does now with this kinetic only bonus. Also, your argument should not include "well you can build the Drake to be a huge fat EHP brick".
So want to explain to us why the current drake is Underpowered? The argument goes both ways. All you have done so far is run around crying wolf. You haven't actually shown us any wolf. |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
172
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 07:32:00 -
[2237] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved.
Oh hey look! It's a suggestion that totally ignores the reason that the ship rebalancing initiative was taken in the first place!
On the contrary. Rebalancing initiative doesn't mean making every ship useful in every situation, it means making every ship useful in at least one situation. Any player can skill up to fly any ship in game, so it would be redundant to make every ship a carbon copy of eachother. EvE is about making decisions that have consequences and living with those consequences. You want a brick battlecruiser? Then live with its kinetic damage, but you risk hitting something that has a very high resist to it. Alternately, you can pick a Cyclone, but risk that it won't have enough tank for whatever it faces. You can't have everything in one package, because then you risk making that the only ship everyone is flying (example: Tengu, Machariel) - exactly the opposite of what the rebalancing initiative is trying to do.
Quote:the reason any of this is happening is so that all races have adequate and competitive ships; not so that we can have even more 'Winmatar' happening here.
Quote:Tell you what, why don't we all just fly minmater, they never get nerfed every change represents a buff for them and they don't have to worry about cap much. So much for rebalancing this is becoming a power slide towards the already op minmatar.
I didn't suggest minmatar. I suggested you may be looking at the wrong tool, because Drake isn't the only ship out there, nor should it be. All four races - including "winmatar" - should have viable ships and since every pilot can fly anything as per paragraph above, they shouldn't be carbon copies of eachother, they should be different tools for different jobs.
Personally, I prefered flying a PODLA Drake, nano based missile spewing lightly tanked ship. With added mass and a few other changes, that playstyle is hurt badly or even killed. That doesn't make the Drake a bad ship - it's still a monster brick and if I want one of those, it's definitely my first choice. However, if I'll pick it, I'll know that the price I'm paying is being limited to kinetic damage. I'll do this tradeoff willingly, because I'll want the tank, same as when I pick the Domination because of the tank, not the dps.
On the other hand, if I'll want a nano based missile spewing lightly tanked ship, I'll definitely grab a Cyclone - it's faster, more agile - but I'm sacrificing maximum kinetic damage potential and the ability to tank in order to move fast.
What does this mean? Provided I'm not shortsighted and don't limit myself to one race exclusively, I now have two viable ships to work with instead of one. And guess what - that's rebalancing working as intended. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
102
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 10:03:00 -
[2238] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Aglais wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved.
Oh hey look! It's a suggestion that totally ignores the reason that the ship rebalancing initiative was taken in the first place! On the contrary. Rebalancing initiative doesn't mean making every ship useful in every situation, it means making every ship useful in at least one situation. Any player can skill up to fly any ship in game, so it would be redundant to make every ship a carbon copy of eachother. EvE is about making decisions that have consequences and living with those consequences. You want a brick battlecruiser? Then live with its kinetic damage, but you risk hitting something that has a very high resist to it. Alternately, you can pick a Cyclone, but risk that it won't have enough tank for whatever it faces. You can't have everything in one package, because then you risk making that the only ship everyone is flying (example: Tengu, Machariel) - exactly the opposite of what the rebalancing initiative is trying to do. Quote:the reason any of this is happening is so that all races have adequate and competitive ships; not so that we can have even more 'Winmatar' happening here. Quote:Tell you what, why don't we all just fly minmater, they never get nerfed every change represents a buff for them and they don't have to worry about cap much. So much for rebalancing this is becoming a power slide towards the already op minmatar. I didn't suggest minmatar. I suggested you may be looking at the wrong tool, because Drake isn't the only ship out there, nor should it be. All four races - including "winmatar" - should have viable ships and since every pilot can fly anything as per paragraph above, they shouldn't be carbon copies of eachother, they should be different tools for different jobs. Personally, I prefered flying a PODLA Drake, nano based missile spewing lightly tanked ship. With added mass and a few other changes, that playstyle is hurt badly or even killed. That doesn't make the Drake a bad ship - it's still a monster brick and if I want one of those, it's definitely my first choice. However, if I'll pick it, I'll know that the price I'm paying is being limited to kinetic damage. I'll do this tradeoff willingly, because I'll want the tank, same as when I pick the Domination because of the tank, not the dps. On the other hand, if I'll want a nano based missile spewing lightly tanked ship, I'll definitely grab a Cyclone - it's faster, more agile - but I'm sacrificing maximum kinetic damage potential and the ability to tank in order to move fast. What does this mean? Provided I'm not shortsighted and don't limit myself to one race exclusively, I now have two viable ships to work with instead of one. And guess what - that's rebalancing working as intended.
No, it's not rebalancing it's maintaining an imbalance that already exists. You're mistaking homogeneity for balance in your fallacious argument.
Balance, in the context of eve, does mean that ships will be different but also implies that all races will have a ship that can be used in comparable situations to the other race's ships. We have this with T1 frigs. Some are better than others but all races are capable of filling all roles respectably well. The same also now applies to cruisers. The situation for battlecruisers has not reached this happy state of affairs. They remain shoehorned into their pre-existing little boxes for the majority of cases and many of us are railing against this as it will only create resentment as yet another lost opportunity to correct some glaring errors in the game we all love to play.
|
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
344
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 10:24:00 -
[2239] - Quote
Aglais wrote:With my skills right now, and Scourge Rage HAMs (2x BCS II in lows) I get 535 missile DPS. What happens when I switch to Mjolnir Rage? 356 DPS. On a medium-close range weapon system. This is horrible. I'm pretty certain that at this point, if you're packing a kinetic hardener you will just completely shut down the Drake so hard that the Drake pilot might as well just eject and warp off to save themselves the trouble of having to wait for a hilariously one sided fight to end. Confirming that 356 DPS is very low and the pure drone myrmidon has never been able to kill anything with its inferior DPS (or a prophecy, if it matters).
|
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts. Casoff
124
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 11:47:00 -
[2240] - Quote
Lots of 1 point comparisations here, but it should be the whole ship that people look at.
Drake does more DPS with Kinetic.
Has a launcher less of damage on every other damage type.
Will be out damaged out speed by Cyclone which has an extra highslot left.
Will be out damaged, out ranged and out speed by the Caracal.
The legendary tank isn-¦t as legendary any more. 250 shield difference with the Ferox and the Cyclone without the hulls resistance., which is the same or the Ferrox.
Against the Cyclone the Drake lacks futher more, PG, CPU, Cap, Dronebay cap, more mass, less agility.
The Drake has it-¦s resistance, Cyclone has shield booster bonus, I find it hard to judge one against the other.
Drake has and extra mid against a extra low for the cyclone. an other thing I find hard to judge, but I tend towards the low slot as more use full.
then there is this kinetic damage, it is the second highest base resistance for shield tankers wich leaves the armor tankers, but Gallente have higher resistance against kinetic so the damage on paper seems quite something, though in reality the damage is much less.
on a side note it-¦s also a bit conflicting when a weapon system that has as a advantage choice of damage type is puched in a hull that actualy removes that advantage.
I-¦ve mentioned before I-¦ll need to see how this works in game but it looks like a very small nice that will be left for the Drake.
|
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
517
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 11:51:00 -
[2241] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Then use a Cyclone instead of a Drake. There, reliable dps with every type of missile, problem solved.
Oh hey look! It's a suggestion that totally ignores the reason that the ship rebalancing initiative was taken in the first place!You're an idiot; the reason any of this is happening is so that all races have adequate and competitive ships; not so that we can have even more 'Winmatar' happening here. @Gypsio III: Can you give me reasons WHY it'd be overpowered? Don't just say "well it'd be OP so they're not doing that", give me your reasoning and perhaps I could, I don't know, alter my argument so that I could suggest a reasonable change instead of just accepting a stupid bonus that is more of a crippling than anything else, leading you to come to the conclusion of the idiot whom I quoted at the beginning of this post. Further, It'd be doing equal amounts of damage with any missile type, but focusing on volley damage rather than rate of fire, like the Cyclone, which keeps them distinct. And it'd still do slightly less damage with any damage type than it does now with this kinetic only bonus. Also, your argument should not include "well you can build the Drake to be a huge fat EHP brick".
Because 728 DPS with freely-selectable missile damage types is too much for an 86k EHP medium-weapon T1 brawler platform with full tackle. You need to ensure that the Cyclone and, more importantly, the T1 cruisers have gamespace in which to exist - this is after all the entire point of tiericide. Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed because they're effectively just top-tier cruisers. |
Mund Richard
317
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 12:00:00 -
[2242] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Because 728 DPS with freely-selectable missile damage types is too much for a medium-weapon T1 brawler platform with full tackle and its EHP. You need to ensure that the Cyclone and, more importantly, the T1 cruisers have gamespace in which to exist - this is after all the entire point of tiericide. Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed because they're effectively just top-tier cruisers. Because the number of hardpoints (compared to current TQ version) or the exact bonus (the proposed change) would not be altered to reflect the change in bonus. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Can we expect that anytime SOON(TM)?-áMaybe a bit sooner? Would be awesome. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
239
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 12:31:00 -
[2243] - Quote
So, to finish with this kinetic moaning, let's have a loot at a Deimos (worst case scenario for a Drake) : With DCU+2EANM+explosive hardener, resist are as follow : em75,05;ki91,89;ex74,73;th83,78 So, the Drake will apply 8,11% of its kinetic damage, which is (base 100 for damage) : 100*1,5*0,0811 = 12,165 Swap to explosive now : 100*0,2527 = 25,27
That looks like damage selection IMO, but see what a hybrid ship will do then. For this, I will look at blaster void ammo, because T2 hybrid ammo does the highest amount of thermal damage (50/50% ; null or javelin do a little more, but this will be easier to compute). Same resist patern, and obviously same base damage, 100 which 50 thermal and 50 kinetic : 50*0,0811 + 50*0,1622 = 4,055 + 8,11 = 12,165 Even with 50% bonus, that is not 20 compared to the 25 a Drake get with explosive ammo and no bonus.
That is called damage selection : when the difference between applyed damage on one resistance of a ship is superior to your bonus, you benefit from it. And that will happen to the Drake. Hence, the Drake DO HAVE damage selection.
So, instead of whining about your precious Drake damage selection, you should feel sorry for those poor Amarr player with their lasers hitting EM on all these armor tank or T2 minmatar ship. Welcome to real EVE. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
103
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 12:58:00 -
[2244] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:So, to finish with this kinetic moaning, let's have a loot at a Deimos (worst case scenario for a Drake) : With DCU+2EANM+explosive hardener, resist are as follow : em75,05;ki91,89;ex74,73;th83,78 So, the Drake will apply 8,11% of its kinetic damage, which is (base 100 for damage) : 100*1,5*0,0811 = 12,165 Swap to explosive now : 100*0,2527 = 25,27
That looks like damage selection IMO, but see what a hybrid ship will do then. For this, I will look at blaster void ammo, because T2 hybrid ammo does the highest amount of thermal damage (50/50% ; null or javelin do a little more, but this will be easier to compute). Same resist patern, and obviously same base damage, 100 which 50 thermal and 50 kinetic : 50*0,0811 + 50*0,1622 = 4,055 + 8,11 = 12,165 Even with 50% bonus, that is not 20 compared to the 25 a Drake get with explosive ammo and no bonus.
The base damage of the 2 types of ammo, plus the damage multipliers involved, render your argument laughable. You basically just made up a whole load of numbers. |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts. Casoff
124
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 13:08:00 -
[2245] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:So, to finish with this kinetic moaning,
Bunch of numbers.
on what hull is this hybride turret standing ?
Does it have as many turret points as the Drake has launchers?
Does this Hybride hull don't have any bonuses?
Doesn't it have a Drone bay of at least twice the size?
Oh wait a minute those hybrid Battle Cruiser hulls don't exsist.
In other words your calculation is that, a calculation that at first glance might looks like it explains something, but actualy dosn't show anything.
The Ferox has an Extra turret
The Brutix has also a 10% damage bonus and a twice drone bay and Banthwide
The Myrmydon has a turret less and 4 times the banthwide and 8 time the drone bay.
A hybride turret and launcher don't do the same base damage or have the same rate of fire or the same reload time for that matter.
|
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
11
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 13:35:00 -
[2246] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:So, to finish with this kinetic moaning,
Bunch of numbers.
on what hull is this hybride turret standing ? Does it have as many turret points as the Drake has launchers? Does this Hybride hull don't have any bonuses? Doesn't it have a Drone bay of at least twice the size? Oh wait a minute those hybrid Battle Cruiser hulls don't exsist. In other words your calculation is that, a calculation that at first glance might looks like it explains something, but actualy dosn't show anything. The Ferox has an Extra turret The Brutix has also a 10% damage bonus and a twice drone bay and Banthwide The Myrmydon has a turret less and 4 times the banthwide and 8 time the drone bay. A hybride turret and launcher don't do the same base damage or have the same rate of fire or the same reload time for that matter.
You completely missed the point of his post: drake still has damage selection benefit if used correctly that other hulls doesnt have even with their bonuses. Try to think of those "100 base damage" as percentage of your base (unbonused) dps, then it doesnt matter how many turrets hull have or their rof or bonuses when you compare them. |
sureis
The Gold Club Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 13:51:00 -
[2247] - Quote
Making Matari ships and faction quality crippled. "Versatility" does not mean having ships on the field that doing versatile things, or having the ability to do extra useful things after the same amount of training, it means cross-training ALL skills for the same amount of ships which are increasingly only half the ships to begin with.
You are now giving the drake the same dps as the cane with 60% more tank. Matari ships are popular but that doesnt make their stats better. Popularity around does not affect performance on field.
Cane: 6 turrets and 10% damage bonus Brutix: 10% damage bonus to 7 more damaging and tracking turrets+ uber tank boost TO ALREADY +TANK
Cane: 10% damage bonus 6 turrets Ferox: 10% damage bonus to 7 already more powerful turrets + 50% more tank
Harbinger: more damage more tank
Prophecy: uber tank
Drake: uber stupid tank and now same equal dps potential to a shield fitted cane fully modded for dps
Myrmidon: under damage uber tank
Cane: 15m/s bonus to help you escape other BC 50km range (only take you one hour to get out of range of a ship chasing you at that margin, what a +++!!!)
Cyclone gets a 35% donus to 35 seconds of reps + 1 low (which will not even match it to the dps of the drake) versus the drakes 30% tank + extra mids for more tank (and that crazy magic 15m/s which makes a noteable, if not noticeable difference?)
CROSS TRAIN FOREVER MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE TO GET SCREWED OVER IN THE END MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE TOO, YAY!! LESSER TANK, LESSER DPS, LESSER SENSORS, FORGET ABOUT CAPACITOR, YOU GOT .4 OF A SECOND BETTER 180 DEGREE FULL TURN AND 10% SPEED BONUS ON A PRACTICALLY STATIONARY SHIP, WHAT MORE YOU WANT? BALANCE THAT MEANS EQUALS? NO WAY MAN! Oh you wanted a cargo hold? We takin that too. Extra CPU? lollycopters. PG? forget it. Tracking? WHAT YOU WANT TRACKING FOR WHEN YOUR SHIP AINT WORTH FLYING!!? Oh wait... you can lock 10% faster than most, thats another like nearly half a second bonus you got on your longest lock time (drones) But you still have like 5mbit drone bandwidth bonus on the two worst drone carriers (those 60% extra tank mosters of course) Uber versatile if you are looking for nerfed quality but hey, whos counting.
Basically, on every stat the cane is not the worst its got like 1 or 2 ships worse except the 15m/s move speed, 10% lock time, and increasingly moderate dps. Even lock range the only ship worse is the other matari ship. Oh no wait, the sig radiius is also 10% i mean come on, the cane is so hard to land shots on.
Sometimes people say if you are already fit to cope with a particular kind of ship you encounter... yeah and lets pray to the ammar that is the kind of ship yuo encournter ad its not fit specially to encouter you as well.
Please, balance is something that weighs the same. When it does not, that is tipping the balance.
IF YOU WANT OTHER BOATS TO BE USED MAKE THEM MORE ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE MAKING MINE WORSE IN PRACTICALITY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Otherwise do away with faction variance, and you won't get anything wrong, and you'll get no complaint from me. |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts. Casoff
124
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 14:23:00 -
[2248] - Quote
[Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: used correctly that other hulls doesnt have even with their bonuses. Try to think of those "100 base damage" as percentage of your base (unbonused) dps, then it doesnt matter how many turrets hull have or their rof or bonuses when you compare them.
In that case it only shows the moment it gets more usefull to use an other damage type. Not if it's usefull.
To know that you should know to what level the damage is needed to break a tank. if the extra damage is still to little to hurt it's still useless.
or you need to compare to an other ship or weapon system in whcih I reffer to my earlier post, it is important to know on what hull it stands to see if it's usefull.
I see and already acknowlaged that with in blobs this is less important, but that wasn't the angle I was aming on, nor the kinetic damage on it self.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
239
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 14:36:00 -
[2249] - Quote
I was dealing with the "the Drake lose its damage selection" problem, and I think I prove it wrong. Feel free to investigate deeper on whatever problem you can find.
As for the meaning of the numbers, they are indices of the damage you will get, close from percentages or applyed damage based on a reference value (100). That mean that if you do 100 damage with your weapon with no bonused on a target with no resists, you can see what fraction of this you will do on the Deimos with the considered weapons. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
549
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 15:47:00 -
[2250] - Quote
Your can is still really good, stop being bad.
Not cap dependant, Selectable damage types good tracking great projection more free mids because it doesn't need a booster
The cane's strength has never been tank/gank. It will remain really good in the hands of people that know what the **** they are doing. |
|
sureis
The Gold Club Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 15:52:00 -
[2251] - Quote
How about keeping factions specialtes in jamming, neuting, webbing and scramming etc.. but making a slight variaint on each factions current ships, like you did to make t2, that have bonuses and nerfs on stuff like speed and agility, tank and regen, gank and drone bays. This way each faction would have their specialty ewar, but *balancing* and *popularity nerfing* would be irrelevant because Caldari would have a kiting battlecruiser and Ammar would have a regen boat, variations on the hulls already existing sort of like the way ships were varied to give us tech 2 ships but just varied into other types of tech 1 ships this time. This would not only even up somethings, but could also add an element of surprise to a battle. Is that a 100k ehp hurricane fleet, or do they pump out 1k dps each? Is that a paper thin drake fleet? Are those harbingers short of cap for their missiles?
Too complicated maybe but there's something in it toward that big balance in the sky. In fact, I gotta wonder, why do differing factions have ewar bonuses that are unavailable to each other? People train them up anyway, don't we? But that's all too complicated. You'd wind up having about 10 paint jobs for each ship if there was a variant for each ewar bonus and speed and tank and wooah to much. Marketing and manufacturing would be over complicated. So it would be impractical. I mean what would you do? *Subsytems* for every ship? That would be total chaos and you'd end up with one faction not training the skills to fly another factions ships, while still making the same training time for the same skills and bonuses, with the same end result, without all the balancing problems, which would just be rude to other factions for not flying their ships. If anyone was ever rude to me in New Eden I would stick the most random subs ever on my ship and head straight for the Eve Gate to try to find my way back to Old Earth where everyone was nice to each other. In fact, I'm gon straight to Eve Gate right nao. I don't even want true balance do I? Surely not. Minmatar can't understand sensors and when it comes to target painting, the Gallente are just dumb, of course. Ammarians don't put shields on their ships and the Caldari don't know how armour works, do they? If my Hurricane could uber tank I think people would shoot at it, and if you got long range webbed by a Falcon, you'd be *stuck* looking at the "you are webbed by the falcon" icons trying to figure out what was wrong. If the Gallente only tended to fly Gallente ships they'd end up down in Serpentis doing drugs and Ammarians whose second favorite ship wasn't Minmatar would be insulting to their emperor. Only Pirate factions stick to the one faction, everyone knows that and nobody wants to fly a pirate faction ship. Maybe if you forced the pirate faction ships to use the *subsystems* they would get confused and we could all get this mining done more peaceably. We don't want surprises in battle because battle is blob only that you see coming or else you are just trying to avoid them, the only true way to play of course. |
sureis
The Gold Club Gathering Of Nomadic Explorers
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 16:20:00 -
[2252] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Your can is still really good, stop being bad.
Not cap dependant, Selectable damage types good tracking great projection more free mids because it doesn't need a booster
The cane's strength has never been tank/gank. It will remain really good in the hands of people that know what the **** they are doing.
The canes strength has never been tank or gank? Its a mining boat then I assume. Selectable? Yeah go on select one and watch half your tank(?) half your half tank dissapear while you reload. Yeah it tracks great if you reload again and don't know how optimal+chance to hit works negating it to the worst, projecting like 20% damage at 2/3 range because of that. Great tracking at the closest range with the lowest dps. But hey its so popular it makes the scoreboards anyway I mean nerf the **** out of it for that. What does it matter if you are cap dependant when you don't have any cap? The bonuses are all negated. ALL NEGATED. That's a precarious balance at best. It's nerfed across the board. How can that even make sense? |
Krell Kroenen
Miner Intimidation
121
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 16:42:00 -
[2253] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Your can is still really good, stop being bad.
Not cap dependant, Selectable damage types good tracking great projection more free mids because it doesn't need a booster
The cane's strength has never been tank/gank. It will remain really good in the hands of people that know what the **** they are doing.
I believe the cane will still see use in niche roles but I also see it being more unforgiving compared to some of the other BC's when it comes to it's use. But the point of my post is to temper some of your points.
1. The cane's cap has been reduced sharply which will affect it's propulsion, point and defense, even if the weapons do not require cap just about everything else does. 2. T1 ammo does allow for some choices on which split damage type you wish to apply but this does not apply to T2 ammo and given the 10 second reload times it is not very practical to be switching ammo hoping you hit a resist hole large enough to be worth the lost time on target. 3. I will agree the tracking is a plus of the AC weapon system but it has nothing to do with the Cane Hull persay And what if you are trying to use an Arty cane then your statement becomes rather false. 4. Projection in to fall off means lower dps and requires that you keep at range, the cane is barely faster than some of it peers now and also is more sluggish than it used to be. 5. You booster point does not really jive as that is dependent on what fit one is looking at, especially in the realm of shield vs armor which the Cane being a jack of trades and master of none at could go either way.
But back to what I first said, I don't believe the cane changes will make them non existence, there will be those pilots that can use the cane to their advantage for what niche they wish to fill. But even as your statement implied it will be the good pilots that can make something happen while using it.
I think it will take more effort to use a cane than say a drake or a harby properly as to wither or not that is a good thing is another matter. *shrugs* |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 19:12:00 -
[2254] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:
Because 726 DPS with freely-selectable missile damage types is too much for a medium-weapon T1 brawler platform with full tackle and 80k EHP, overheating to 90k. You need to ensure that the Cyclone and, more importantly, the T1 cruisers have gamespace in which to exist - this is after all the entire point of tiericide. Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed because they're effectively just top-tier cruisers. Let the Drake have that DPS only for kinetic and you create more significant choices about fits and ammo selection.
What? Hold on. How are you fitting this Drake? Is this going to be one of those bizarre fits that people use to show that you CAN do something that has extremely little use outside of like... One situation, ever? Like all of the completely awful Moa fits that one guy was trying to use to justify not buffing the Moa? Like, this is a HAM drake. Webs are a good idea. There goes some of your tank. Nanofibres are going to be a good idea too, because as a Caldari ship literally everything else will outrun you, and you need the nanofibre to just MAYBE catch them before they manage to completely get away from you. So your ability to fit loads of BCS is limited.
I need to double check, but the fit with actual combat utility that I have been thinking about does not have 80k EHP overheating to 90k, and it sure as hell doesn't do 726 DPS. The EHP is closer to 55k, with about 535 missile DPS (~610 when you throw 5 hobgoblins into the mix). And that's with Scourge Rage HAMs. Are you forgetting to account for the fact that the Drake lost a launcher recently? |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
517
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 19:47:00 -
[2255] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Gypsio III wrote:
Because 726 DPS with freely-selectable missile damage types is too much for a medium-weapon T1 brawler platform with full tackle and 80k EHP, overheating to 90k. You need to ensure that the Cyclone and, more importantly, the T1 cruisers have gamespace in which to exist - this is after all the entire point of tiericide. Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed because they're effectively just top-tier cruisers. Let the Drake have that DPS only for kinetic and you create more significant choices about fits and ammo selection.
What? Hold on. How are you fitting this Drake? Is this going to be one of those bizarre fits that people use to show that you CAN do something that has extremely little use outside of like... One situation, ever? Like all of the completely awful Moa fits that one guy was trying to use to justify not buffing the Moa? Like, this is a HAM drake. Webs are a good idea. There goes some of your tank. Nanofibres are going to be a good idea too, because as a Caldari ship literally everything else will outrun you, and you need the nanofibre to just MAYBE catch them before they manage to completely get away from you. So your ability to fit loads of BCS is limited. I need to double check, but the fit with actual combat utility that I have been thinking about does not have 80k EHP overheating to 90k, and it sure as hell doesn't do 726 DPS. The EHP is closer to 55k, with about 535 missile DPS (~610 when you throw 5 hobgoblins into the mix). And that's with Scourge Rage HAMs. Are you forgetting to account for the fact that the Drake lost a launcher recently?
It's a basic HAM Drake. Sod the nanofibres, this isn't a kiting fit and the benefit is small.
[Drake, HAM] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5 |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
49
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 20:16:00 -
[2256] - Quote
I've run the numbers on the drake, and I can't say that I'm impressed as per my previous post the dps keeps on coming out as a little shorter than it used to when using kinetic missiles. A 10% kinetic only bonus doesn't cut it for me given that this ship is supposed to be versatile. I don't see any versatility in a kinetic only bonus.
It looks like I will have to train BC from 4 to 5 (another 25 days training) just to get something near the same performance as I used to have with the skill at 4. On top of the heavy missile nerf this is in fact another nerf of the drake.
I would have much preferred the other discussed option of a ROF bonus+Velocity boost and would happily have given up the resist bonus for this.
Also whilst I am thinking of it, why don't CCP just move the tank of the present drake to the ferox which could use it as it typically fights at closer range and give the tank of the ferox to the drake which is a longer ranged weapon platform. |
auraofblade
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 21:49:00 -
[2257] - Quote
How about a dumb idea for the Drake: +1 Launchers instead of -1, then yank the Kinetic bonus and replace it with something non-DPS like Missile Velocity or Passive Shield Recharge Time (feel free to laugh) or something. My only reason is that a Drake looks awesome with 8 Launchers and nothing more. Although admittedly it would make non-Kinetic damage types far more useful. Y'know, since that was supposed to be the gimmick for Missiles and whatnot.
Of course, you'd also sacrifice the Utility High for DPS, but then again you can technically already do that on Cyclone/Cane/Ferox. Depending on the Launcher, you're also nomming a considerable chunk of PWG, which also noms parts of your Tank or Utility depending on what you end up fitting. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 22:17:00 -
[2258] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Aglais wrote:Gypsio III wrote:
Because 726 DPS with freely-selectable missile damage types is too much for a medium-weapon T1 brawler platform with full tackle and 80k EHP, overheating to 90k. You need to ensure that the Cyclone and, more importantly, the T1 cruisers have gamespace in which to exist - this is after all the entire point of tiericide. Tier 2 BCs need to be nerfed because they're effectively just top-tier cruisers. Let the Drake have that DPS only for kinetic and you create more significant choices about fits and ammo selection.
What? Hold on. How are you fitting this Drake? Is this going to be one of those bizarre fits that people use to show that you CAN do something that has extremely little use outside of like... One situation, ever? Like all of the completely awful Moa fits that one guy was trying to use to justify not buffing the Moa? Like, this is a HAM drake. Webs are a good idea. There goes some of your tank. Nanofibres are going to be a good idea too, because as a Caldari ship literally everything else will outrun you, and you need the nanofibre to just MAYBE catch them before they manage to completely get away from you. So your ability to fit loads of BCS is limited. I need to double check, but the fit with actual combat utility that I have been thinking about does not have 80k EHP overheating to 90k, and it sure as hell doesn't do 726 DPS. The EHP is closer to 55k, with about 535 missile DPS (~610 when you throw 5 hobgoblins into the mix). And that's with Scourge Rage HAMs. Are you forgetting to account for the fact that the Drake lost a launcher recently? It's a basic HAM Drake. Sod the nanofibres, this isn't a kiting fit and the benefit is small. [Drake, HAM] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot] Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5
Overheated this still does 467dps with Rage Nova's + the flight of lights, it is a big loss but the ability to change damage type is still there and it has 90k EHP overloaded. |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada Fade 2 Black
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 22:48:00 -
[2259] - Quote
auraofblade wrote:How about a dumb idea for the Drake: +1 Launchers instead of -1, then yank the Kinetic bonus and replace it with something non-DPS like Missile Velocity or Passive Shield Recharge Time (feel free to laugh) or something. My only reason is that a Drake looks awesome with 8 Launchers and nothing more. Although admittedly it would make non-Kinetic damage types far more useful. Y'know, since that was supposed to be the gimmick for Missiles and whatnot.
Of course, you'd also sacrifice the Utility High for DPS, but then again you can technically already do that on Cyclone/Cane/Ferox. Depending on the Launcher, you're also nomming a considerable chunk of PWG, which also noms parts of your Tank or Utility depending on what you end up fitting.
Yeah 8 Slot Drake would be neat and go for these bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances per level 10% bonus to Shield Recharge Rate per level
Problem Solved, but i dont agree with you idea to swap the drake and ferox's tank Covert Ops T2 Carrier (Covert Ops Command Hub): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=178093 |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
639
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 22:50:00 -
[2260] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
I would have much preferred the other discussed option of a ROF bonus+Velocity boost and would happily have given up the resist bonus for this.
Also whilst I am thinking of it, why don't CCP just move the tank of the present drake to the ferox which could use it as it typically fights at closer range and give the tank of the ferox to the drake which is a longer ranged weapon platform.
i was pretty excited with the idea of a RoF/long range drake. i think its tank is excessive (higher passive recharge than a Rokh. wat?)
the extra turret on the ferox was good tho.
cane looks great. to the complaint about the lesser capacitor, it used to be able to run 2 neuts and a mwd for over 2 minutes. the new one will only have one neut to worry about, it will be fine. cap stable even, when the MWD is turned off. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
392
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 23:24:00 -
[2261] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Lasers: EM - Sucks to shoot T2 Minmatar Ships (They tank EM, Therm). Otherwise it's all good.
Armor tanked Caldari ships (y'know, Scorp/Blackbird), armor tanked Gallente T1 ships, armor tanked Minmatar T1 ships, armor tanked Amarr T1.
Thermal is bad against Caldari/Gallente T2 ships: you're limited to EM (Infrared/Radio/Scorch).
And there's a very good reason why almost nobody uses Infrared/Radio... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
52
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 23:28:00 -
[2262] - Quote
I like the idea of a drake with 8 highs, how about a rof penalty like the old destroyers used to have. The ship is clearly modelled to have 8 launchers at least a rof penalty would prevent it from being op and justify the extra slots. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
640
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 23:32:00 -
[2263] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:I like the idea of a drake with 8 highs, how about a rof penalty like the old destroyers used to have. The ship is clearly modelled to have 8 launchers at least a rof penalty would prevent it from being op and justify the extra slots.
takes away from the utility high designed for gang links. that was why it went down to 6 launchers to begin with. also, having 8 highs means a mid or low slot has to come off somewhere. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3946
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 00:12:00 -
[2264] - Quote
Hey everyone. First off, I want to make sure you all saw the news update from last week that announced Retribution 1.1 will be releasing on Feb 19th.
I want to let you guys know that we've been discussing the design for these ships, and it has been decided that we will go forward with the specs in the OP for Retri 1.1. Barring any significant defects found between now and then the current version of the stats will be released on the 19th. I understand that some of you will be unhappy with that choice, but know that we are not going to be ignoring these ships post-release.
The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed.
For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
56
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 00:48:00 -
[2265] - Quote
GAH! I better learn to fly something else really fast... hmm, maybe an 'attack' battlecruiser.
Not gonna lie, I think my Drake is going on sale after this... clearance priced, and I only used it for mission running. Hmm, what to fly... what to fly for that role...
Brutix... no, I preferred the face melting pvp setup thank you. Myrmidon... ugh, drones... and useless turrets. Hurricane... hmm, might be viable. Cyclone... sorry, I preferred it a face ripping autocannon ship. Ferox... I probably will fly some, still wish it had a damage bonus. Prophecy... a drone boat, meh... Harbinger... fun but not really for mission running...
Honestly, I'm sad... I used to love to fly Battlecruisers, but at the moment with these changes, I won't be flying them as often... except the Attack (aka former Tier 3) versions.
Back to PvPing with frigates in Red vs. Blue I guess... lol
EDIT: I still think the problem is that they aren't given real roles... Just choose some roles for these ships, they feel really rather mellow and boring compared to the other rebalanced ships. It's like they're just 30-60 million isk of ship. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 01:29:00 -
[2266] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats.
I will edit this post shortly to give notice on how completely the Drake fails against something that is prepared to fight it (which isn't so much something you can do with the Cyclone, given that if you think it's going to just pull out explosive missiles it'll pick something else to shoot at you). |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
343
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 02:14:00 -
[2267] - Quote
Who really complained about the Drake or Cane not being powerfull enough? Cane is still great even if losing the fearsome double neut ability and the Drake still get a massive EHP and cool dps.
The real problems is the missed oportunity to create something super exciting with the Drake and make sure the Harbinger doesn't get the stick like the ugly sister of the Amarr battlecruisers with horrible EHP, 1 less lowslot and basically only 1 effective bonus. Then ofcourse you are aware about the Gallente active repair bonus, and except for expecting autocannons it's hard to predict ships like those without a proper balance of active tanking in general.
Anyway good luck with patch - will be fun I hope (though I still feel tier 3 battlecruisers should have been adressed at the same time as these). I hope we get some battlecruiser feedback threads for the next patch so we have a place to keep discussions continued.
Pinky |
auraofblade
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 03:47:00 -
[2268] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:auraofblade wrote:How about a dumb idea for the Drake: +1 Launchers instead of -1, then yank the Kinetic bonus and replace it with something non-DPS like Missile Velocity or Passive Shield Recharge Time (feel free to laugh) or something. My only reason is that a Drake looks awesome with 8 Launchers and nothing more. Although admittedly it would make non-Kinetic damage types far more useful. Y'know, since that was supposed to be the gimmick for Missiles and whatnot.
Of course, you'd also sacrifice the Utility High for DPS, but then again you can technically already do that on Cyclone/Cane/Ferox. Depending on the Launcher, you're also nomming a considerable chunk of PWG, which also noms parts of your Tank or Utility depending on what you end up fitting. Yeah 8 Slot Drake would be neat and go for these bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances per level 10% bonus to Shield Recharge Rate per level Problem Solved, but i dont agree with you idea to swap the drake and ferox's tank Yikes, you misinterpreted my statement. What I meant was that the act of fitting an 8th launcher inherently consumes a lot more CPU and PWG. That in turn means, assuming no CPU/PWG changes, that you'd have to compensate by cutting back somewhere else in your fit, be it the Tank or Utility.
I figured that was a good idea since it promotes varied fits while simultaneously tackling the major complaint about Drakes: doing too much, too well, at the same time. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
368
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 04:22:00 -
[2269] - Quote
Aglais wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I will edit this post shortly to give notice on how completely the Drake fails against something that is prepared to fight it (which isn't so much something you can do with the Cyclone, given that if you think it's going to just pull out explosive missiles it'll pick something else to shoot at you). This is akin to putting the harbinger up against a 90% resist EM/Thermal tanked broadsword.
The point is that the drake still CAN switch damage types if it wants to even if 85% of the time it would be a bad idea; the brutix and harbinger cant switch damage types . . . EVER for any reason whatsoever!
Frankly if they said the drake could only shoot kinetic missiles from now on, it wouldnt make any difference on 90% of the drakes flown today because nobody flies with a > 25% hole in their resists so its never better to switch off of kinetic missiles anyway. |
Seleucus Ontuas
Justified Chaos
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 04:45:00 -
[2270] - Quote
Time to stock up on Prophecies and Feroxes, no reason to use the Brutix and Myrm. |
|
Natasha Rachmaninova
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 05:38:00 -
[2271] - Quote
Saul Elsyn wrote:GAH! I better learn to fly something else really fast... hmm, maybe an 'attack' battlecruiser.
Not gonna lie, I think my Drake is going on sale after this... clearance priced, and I only used it for mission running. Hmm, what to fly... what to fly for that role...
Brutix... no, I preferred the face melting pvp setup thank you. Myrmidon... ugh, drones... and useless turrets. Hurricane... hmm, might be viable. Cyclone... sorry, I preferred it a face ripping autocannon ship. Ferox... I probably will fly some, still wish it had a damage bonus. Prophecy... a drone boat, meh... Harbinger... fun but not really for mission running...
Honestly, I'm sad... I used to love to fly Battlecruisers, but at the moment with these changes, I won't be flying them as often... except the Attack (aka former Tier 3) versions.
Back to PvPing with frigates in Red vs. Blue I guess... lol
EDIT: I still think the problem is that they aren't given real roles... Just choose some roles for these ships, they feel really rather mellow and boring compared to the other rebalanced ships. It's like they're just 30-60 million isk of ship.
I just wonder that the goal for rebalance is not even defined... When exactly are the bcs ballanced? Are they ballanced if they all are equally usefull in missions, incursions, pvp( 1on1/fleet )? Especialy in pvp... are they ballanced if every fight between 2 of the 8 ships ends everytime in a tie? Blink
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 05:56:00 -
[2272] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version.
Please consider testing not only with [All V] GM characters and not only in 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).
CCP Fozzie wrote: The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed.
My main concern with those repair bonuses is that it's just boring. "Amarr have passive bonus, Gallente have active bonus - let's just throw weak boring active repair bonus on both Gallente BC." I understand that you had another things in mind when you made such controversial decision but we (players) don't like this conception and don't want to accept it. Give funny and interesting bonuses instead of plain copy-pasted "gallente use active tank". Active repair bonus is essentially absence of bonus at all when it comes to fleet warfare, even for small-medium size roaming fleets. Brutix and Myrmidon are not that good on their own to only have a single bonus. |
Mund Richard
318
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 06:46:00 -
[2273] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed. *sigh* A possible Christmas postponed for a year. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Mund Richard
318
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 07:02:00 -
[2274] - Quote
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). .
Sorry but... Wut?
Let's check how many rats don't have kinetic as largest or second largest resist hole: Amarr, Sansha, Blood Raider. The guys with lasers (and rogue drones). Everyone else? They do.
Compare it to a Harbinger. Everyone but Laser dudes (and rogue drones) have EM as third most solid resist at least, Angels and Guristas I think as strongest. Thermal? Less than half your damage (assuming Multifreq or Scorch), and apart from Mercs (and the ones mentioned above), only second weakest resist at best.
Declining laser missions (hurt your shields worse anyways) and drones, which aren't that common in Caldari space, you are golden, and don't have to think about ammo.
Smallprint: I'm assuming a BC skill of 4 to run L3s, at that point you are breaking even more or less after the change. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Zimmy Zeta
Red Federation
7938
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 07:07:00 -
[2275] - Quote
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.
Please don't feed me. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 07:15:00 -
[2276] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote: 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.
Try a Raven and see how good it is compared to Dominix/Maelstrom. |
Zimmy Zeta
Red Federation
7938
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 07:33:00 -
[2277] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote: 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.
Try a Raven and see how good it is compared to Dominix/Maelstrom.
I did. It's excellent, especially with low skills. With better skills, Dom/Mael/Apoc eventually become more efficient than Ravens, but weren't we talking about newb-friendly here? My only problem with missile ships is that I find them boring and unfun Please don't feed me. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
517
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 08:47:00 -
[2278] - Quote
Aglais wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats.
I will edit this post shortly to give notice on how completely the Drake fails against something that is prepared to fight it (which isn't so much something you can do with the Cyclone, given that if you think it's going to just pull out explosive missiles it'll pick something else to shoot at you).
You need to stop expecting to receive a ship that is good in all situations and against all enemies. Such a ship would be self-evidently OP.
In any case:
Cyclone with 5x HAMLs and 2x BCS: 413 missile DPS, fully selectable. Drake with 6x HAMLs and 3x BCS: 418 missile DPS using non-kinetic.
Yes, I know that the Cyclone has a BCS fewer, a larger drone bay and the two turret slots, but the damage selectabilty from drones is limited, those turrets will often have neuts or be using Barrage and the lowslots may be limited because of ramming multiple ASBs on. The point remains that you're overstating the Cyclone's applied damage advantage and if there is a problem, it's with the Cyclone rather than the Drake, because as everyone keeps trying to tell you, blaster and laser boats are even more locked into predictable, counterable damage types than the Drake. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
167
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 09:50:00 -
[2279] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Aglais wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats.
I will edit this post shortly to give notice on how completely the Drake fails against something that is prepared to fight it (which isn't so much something you can do with the Cyclone, given that if you think it's going to just pull out explosive missiles it'll pick something else to shoot at you). You need to stop expecting to receive a ship that is good in all situations and against all enemies. Such a ship would be self-evidently OP. In any case: Cyclone with 5x HAMLs and 2x BCS: 413 missile DPS, fully selectable. Drake with 6x HAMLs and 3x BCS: 418 missile DPS using non-kinetic. Yes, I know that the Cyclone has a BCS fewer, a larger drone bay and the two turret slots, but the damage selectabilty from drones is limited, those turrets will often have neuts or be using Barrage and the lowslots may be limited because of ramming multiple ASBs on. The point remains that you're overstating the Cyclone's applied damage advantage and if there is a problem, it's with the Cyclone rather than the Drake, because as everyone keeps trying to tell you, blaster and laser boats are even more locked into predictable, counterable damage types than the Drake. Exactly that Plus the cyclone is forced to active tank while the drake can do both equally well, plus if you want to fit a cyclone it really have weak cpu for a XL fit and god forbid a double XL. Not to mentiont it have 5 lows and it cant fit more than 2 dmg mods because it dont have the cpu |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
36
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 10:16:00 -
[2280] - Quote
I like to fly Autocannon-fitted Prophecies in PvP and at first I hated the idea of Prophecy becoming a drone boat, since turning it into a HAM boat would make much more sense. But after looking at the new slot layout, I see that's gonna make it a very good exploration vessel, vay better than Vexor or Abitrator. However, I still found it a silly idea to turn a Cyclone into a missile boat (I hope you don't plan to do the same with Vagabond or Sleipnir at later date, CCP Fozzie). Consequently, that leaves Minmatar as the only race without a drone boat.
About the other changes, I like that you decided not to remove an utility high on from a Drake, so it's still gonna be good for clearing C1/C2 sites. Also I welcome an idea to give 10% damage bonuses to Drake and Brutix in return for -1 launcher/turret (except that Drake is gonna blow if not doing kinetic damage). I still don't like the repair bonus on Brutix (mainly because I think of Brutix as a PvP boat and a Myrmidon as a PvE boat), would prefer a bonus to armour HP as seen on Augoror Navy Issue (the only faction version of a T1 logi that doesn't completely blow, but that's a story for another thread). |
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
167
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 11:04:00 -
[2281] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote: Consequently, that leaves Minmatar as the only race without a drone boat.. i missed the caldari drone boat? |
Mund Richard
318
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 12:31:00 -
[2282] - Quote
To mare wrote:Luscius Uta wrote: Consequently, that leaves Minmatar as the only race without a drone boat.. i missed the caldari drone boat? Suppose he meant the Guristas maybe? >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Alek Row
Silent Step
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 12:35:00 -
[2283] - Quote
Thanks Fozzie,
Despite the great work you have been made with the rebalancing where the good out-weights the bad, I have to say that looking at certain frigates like Rifter, Punisher and Jag, the fact that you have a re-re-balance time window in the team schedule is not being reflected in current patches/releases. I think the dust as more than settled in this cases.
It would be great to see something come out of that window before 2015 :-P
|
Natasha Rachmaninova
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 12:56:00 -
[2284] - Quote
Another thing i dont get is... why u dont just announce the whole reballance changes u planed till summer now... and test them till summer... so there will be much more time to test... and i guess the outcome will be more usefull... Just making the "between"-patches more juicy is not what the community wants... im sure REALLY ballanced setups are more important than the speed of making them... |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
36
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 13:14:00 -
[2285] - Quote
To mare wrote: i missed the caldari drone boat?
I would count Gila and Rattlesnake are Caldari drone boats because of missile bonus and sensor type (even though you can say they are Gurista boats if you want to be pedantic)
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 13:34:00 -
[2286] - 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 |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
144
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 14:55:00 -
[2287] - Quote
Frankly, one shouldn't be flying a ship in PvP or PvE if their skill in that ship is below level 4. It doesn't take long to get. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
408
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 15:35:00 -
[2288] - Quote
Natasha Rachmaninova wrote:Another thing i dont get is... why u dont just announce the whole reballance changes u planed till summer now... and test them till summer... so there will be much more time to test... and i guess the outcome will be more usefull... Just making the "between"-patches more juicy is not what the community wants... im sure REALLY ballanced setups are more important than the speed of making them...
BC balancing in the form of a point patch (much like the point patch the previous year) has always been intended. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
550
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 16:55:00 -
[2289] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Your can is still really good, stop being bad.
Not cap dependant, Selectable damage types good tracking great projection more free mids because it doesn't need a booster
The cane's strength has never been tank/gank. It will remain really good in the hands of people that know what the **** they are doing. I believe the cane will still see use in niche roles but I also see it being more unforgiving compared to some of the other BC's when it comes to it's use. But the point of my post is to temper some of your points. 1. The cane's cap has been reduced sharply which will affect it's propulsion, point and defense, even if the weapons do not require cap just about everything else does. 2. T1 ammo does allow for some choices on which split damage type you wish to apply but this does not apply to T2 ammo and given the 10 second reload times it is not very practical to be switching ammo hoping you hit a resist hole large enough to be worth the lost time on target. 3. I will agree the tracking is a plus of the AC weapon system but it has nothing to do with the Cane hull persay And what if you are trying to use an arty cane then your statement becomes rather false. 4. Projection in to fall off means lower dps and requires that you keep at range, the cane is barely faster than some of it peers now and also is more sluggish than it used to be. 5. Your booster point does not really jive as that is dependent on what fit one is looking at, especially in the realm of shield vs armor. Which the Cane being a jack of trades and master of none as it is, could go either way. But back to what I first said, I don't believe the cane changes will make them non existence, there will be those pilots that can use the cane to their advantage for what niche they wish to fill. But even as your statement implied it will be the good pilots that can make something happen while using it. Given that, I feel it will take more effort to use a cane than say a drake or a harby properly as to wither or not that is a good thing is another matter. *shrugs*
1. If your cane is shield fitted and thus has a cap reliant tank and you're in neut range.. Your cap really won't be your biggest problem. 2. Which is why you switch ammo before fights and only during if you really have too. 3. long range weapons have bad tracking? how odd... 4. No by good projection i mean you have a huge range where you do SOME damage. (assuming AC's, if arties your projection is magnificent) 5. a mid you don't need a capbooster in is great both for shield and armor ships.. For shield its more tank, for armor its more controll.
The cane will no longer be by far the best..
But if you think its going to be bad you're terrible.
|
Lili Lu
684
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 18:32:00 -
[2290] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. First off, I want to make sure you all saw the news update from last week that announced Retribution 1.1 will be releasing on Feb 19th. I want to let you guys know that we've been discussing the design for these ships, and it has been decided that we will go forward with the specs in the OP for Retri 1.1. Barring any significant defects found between now and then the current version of the stats will be released on the 19th. I understand that some of you will be unhappy with that choice, but know that we are not going to be ignoring these ships post-release. Nice of you to say, but if past action is predictive of future performance I don't think you will be getting to that reevaluation very soon.
CCP Fozzie wrote: The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed. Certainly it didn't hurt the Minmatar BCs to have two active tanking bon . . (scratch that) . . Having two resist bonuses hasn't hurt the Caldari BCs, but of course that's because resist bonuses help for both solo/small gang and for fleets. Conversely, a tepid new active armor tanking mod that in no way is as powerful as an asb, is limited to one per ship (unlike an asb), costs more isk to actually run, and is still cap dependent does not elevate the utility of active armor bonuses for anything beyond that which they were occasionally used for anyway. Neither Gallente BC will see much use in a fleet configuration. So effectively you are continuing to lock out Gallente BCs from fleet warfare, and continuing to promote the use of other racial BCs for fleets.
CCP Fozzie wrote: For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. If it is still too good, why are you not nipping it some more. Shave some more shield hp off or something. For so many years this ship has remained too popular because of its advantages. Have you changed things sufficently to break that streak? If not why not? Nothing should remain king of the hill forever. And at least increase the BC shield regen stat to 1450 or 1500 to further bite into the stupidity of a tech I BC being a level 5 and other pve aggro tank ship. One should need to put some shiney on the line in pve to tank whole rooms. Not some cheap ass seen everywhere for everything clone. |
|
Mund Richard
319
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 18:39:00 -
[2291] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed. Certainly it didn't hurt the Minmatar BCs to have two active tanking bon . . (scratch that) . . Having two resist bonuses hasn't hurt the Caldari BCs, but of course that's because resist bonuses help for both solo/small gang and for fleets. Conversely, a tepid new active armor tanking mod that in no way is as powerful as an asb, is limited to one per ship (unlike an asb), costs more isk to actually run, and is still cap dependent does not elevate the utility of active armor bonuses for anything beyond that which they were occasionally used for anyway. Neither Gallente BC will see much use in a fleet configuration. So effectively you are continuing to lock out Gallente BCs from fleet warfare. Oh, you were kind enough to leave out the part where AAR cannot be oversized while also limited to one per ship, thus to have a meaningful impact, it has to be ran with a normal one (along with a cap booster, up to 3-4 modules now and still none for resistance), but that reduces the ooomph it carries, and thus the whole reason to fit it. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Vos Flam
Wild Monkeys Are Ragging Hard
8
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 19:56:00 -
[2292] - Quote
Sooo what the hell? You guys borrow the Nerf bat for Blizzard for the Harbinger? Less shield, armor, power, turret slot, agility (this one blows me away as your removing armor and a turret and it has MORE mass? WTF ) and hull... your kidding right?
Now for the plus side... +Faster cap recharge rate (and lower avg cap per second?)... nice but we use a mid slot to fix that now. +More mass. I really fail to see how this is a bonus. +Drone bay by 25... yea cause nothing screams drone boat quite like the Harbinger? Worthless. +5 max target range - finely lady's and gents a real bonus. The first one today. +1 Sensor - Well sure, with all that added mass, some would go to the on board computer. +5 Signature - Theres that added mass rearing its ugly head again. +25 Cargo - Again we needed to account for the mass increase, so.... (more loot space?)
I guess in the bigger, grander scale of things these seemed like good ideas... but for those that don't see the "Sailboat" yet, (like myself) please explain this to me CCP.
Harbinger: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1425 PWG (-75), 375 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-516) / 5000(-469) / 4500(-188) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3125 / 822s(+72s) / 3.8 (-0.366) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.69 (-0.014) / 13800000 (+300,000) / 8.9s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km (+5) / 210 / 6 Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1) Signature radius: 270 (+5) Cargo capacity: 375 (+25) |
Connall Tara
Red Federation
70
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 21:47:00 -
[2293] - Quote
Don't forget that the harbinger is also gaining improved cap stability thanks to one less turret yet gaining firepower thanks to its laser damage bonus being swapped from 5% to 10%
Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
153
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:47:00 -
[2294] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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?
The issue in balance between frig/cruiser/bc never had anything to do with the drake being best because cruisers sucked. It had/has everything to do with no role for any ship other than to last and project dps, ewar, or repairs.
Drake happened to do that best for a long time with lo skill investment. Honestly, the drake still does that best up til BS level. The gap has been closed between low skill point players, but at an all lvl 5 comparrison, cruisers and BC's make almost 0 sense now.
The smarter thing to do would have been to focus on an actual role for classes besides something to fly until the next bigger thing becomes a reality. Those roles actually used to exist long ago in this game but have vanished pirmarily due to webbing, tracking mechanics in general, poor balance decisions such as drones on every ship, and poor weapons balance and/or decisions.
The dev's are hitting up ships b/c it's the easy way to say, look guys, we're doing something; which really means, look guys, we're dumbing down the game more and more rather than tackle the tough issues that would actually make the game better.
The lack of a role is why so many ships get neglected in this game. It's why the Ferox will still be **** after this patch, why the Myrm/prophecy are just utterly ******** repeats of at least 5 other ships currently in game, and why the repeat bonuses on most of the BC's is just pure lack of ingenuity.
This is an embarrassing patch to watch go through... one of many in the history of eve. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 11:24:00 -
[2295] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. First off, I want to make sure you all saw the news update from last week that announced Retribution 1.1 will be releasing on Feb 19th. I want to let you guys know that we've been discussing the design for these ships, and it has been decided that we will go forward with the specs in the OP for Retri 1.1. Barring any significant defects found between now and then the current version of the stats will be released on the 19th. I understand that some of you will be unhappy with that choice, but know that we are not going to be ignoring these ships post-release. The overlap of having two Gallente ships with the same armor rep bonus is the biggest issue we'll be watching, and if it becomes apparent that the whole or any part of the Gallente BC lineup is not working out as well as we had hoped I have time scheduled in our ship rebalance plan to make adjustments as needed. For those people expressing concern about the viability of the Drake and Hurricane I recommend giving them a try on our Singularity test server. I think you will find that they both hold up very well and remain quite competitive. The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version.
yes the DRAKE is still op because it has better tank than the ferox and more tank than it really needs just remove the shield resist bonus and switch the shield hp with the ferox. And good to hear you are at least slightly open to changing the gallente bc's bonus although only the myrm would really benefit from a different bonus as to allow shield gank fits like on the vexor to be more viable |
Velocifero
Unforeseen Consequences. The Unthinkables
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 11:37:00 -
[2296] - Quote
Quote: I still think the problem is that they aren't given real roles... Just choose some roles for these ships, they feel really rather mellow and boring compared to the other rebalanced ships. It's like they're just 30-60 million isk of ship.
I totally agree, these ships don't have a point anymore. there's nothing inspiring or exciting or interesting about any of these changes. Even though it looks like mixing it up is going to help, the space for creativity with BCs is going to be eliminated.
They all end up just looking sorry for themselves, not to mention half of them will have a ship model which shows more hardpoints than actually exist.
The drake always looked ridiculous with 8 missile hardpoint blocks with one launcher mysteriously missing. This promo video incorrectly showed 8 launchers, now it's only going to have 6.
I will be keeping hold of my BC hulls though, as I predict a reverse-nerf in summer when the almighty godess of the usage stats declares that no-one is flying enough BCs anymore. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
555
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 11:57:00 -
[2297] - Quote
Vos Flam wrote: +Faster cap recharge rate (and lower avg cap per second?)... nice but we use a mid slot to fix that now. +More mass. I really fail to see how this is a bonus. +Drone bay by 25... yea cause nothing screams drone boat quite like the Harbinger? Worthless.
It actually has more dps now and a fair bit better cap due to losing a gun and gaining a bonus.
The mass is silly i'll give oyu that
And yes thats terrible.. being able to have both mediums and lights obviously holds no value... none at all.. |
Mund Richard
321
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 12:03:00 -
[2298] - Quote
Vos Flam wrote:+Faster cap recharge rate +72 seconds to how long it's cap recharges is in fact a reduction of cap recharge rate, and thus bad. Ofc also lost a gun that takes cap. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
563
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 12:23:00 -
[2299] - Quote
Saul Elsyn wrote:GAH! I better learn to fly something else really fast... hmm, maybe an 'attack' battlecruiser.
Not gonna lie, I think my Drake is going on sale after this... clearance priced, and I only used it for mission running. Hmm, what to fly... what to fly for that role...
I'll buy it from you for 30M, tell me how many you can sell me I'll see how many I can get from you. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
145
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:12:00 -
[2300] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure.
Mission Accomplished. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3969
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:17:00 -
[2301] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure. Mission Accomplished.
I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf.
Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
352
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:25:00 -
[2302] - Quote
ITT, people who does not understand that nerfing every battlecruiser, is basically buffing every sub BC class ship, and also bringing balance to every battlecuiser.
If they are all worse than before, some more than others, are they all bad, or are they balanced? Hint: They are balanced.
Stop the "booo hoooing" over your ship becoming "useless". Power creep is BAD mkay? Some ships have to get the bat to keep up balance. I'd even like to see them nerfed even more to make cruisers even more viable. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
564
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:35:00 -
[2303] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:ITT, people who does not understand that nerfing every battlecruiser, is basically buffing every sub BC class ship, and also bringing balance to every battlecuiser.
If they are all worse than before, some more than others, are they all bad, or are they balanced? Hint: They are balanced.
Stop the "booo hoooing" over your ship becoming "useless". Power creep is BAD mkay? Some ships have to get the bat to keep up balance. I'd even like to see them nerfed even more to make cruisers even more viable.
This
However I really hope iteration on these ships after release will continue if for whatever reason, and I already see a couple ones, those ships/mods and roles are not balanced.
Thing is this should already have been done for RAH and ASB but didn't, probably because of deadlines to deliver content etc but facts are there, I'm not used to see things getting reworked or adjusted while so many others upcoming are already on the top list of the desk "to do" (battleships then T2 versions of ships)
-read not going fast enough to actually correct eventual mistakes before the initial effort becomes worthless or need to get another profound rework
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:59:00 -
[2304] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure. Mission Accomplished. I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf. Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want.
Too late for that IMO. I suppose that in the case of BCs vs. Cruisers this'll not really be a horrible thing, but in the BC vs. BC group I'm really unhappy about how the Caldari ones in general were handled. IMO the Ferox is underwhelming in every way but tank (making it Drake II), and the Drake is... Well it's pretty much the same as before but even worse with non-kinetic missiles.
Will people actually use the Ferox ever over a Brutix or Myrmidon? For any reason? |
Lili Lu
689
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:50:00 -
[2305] - Quote
Aglais wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure. Mission Accomplished. I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf. Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want. Too late for that IMO. I suppose that in the case of BCs vs. Cruisers this'll not really be a horrible thing, but in the BC vs. BC group I'm really unhappy about how the Caldari ones in general were handled. IMO the Ferox is underwhelming in every way but tank (making it Drake II), and the Drake is... Well it's pretty much the same as before but even worse with non-kinetic missiles. Will people actually use the Ferox ever over a Brutix or Myrmidon? For any reason? Aglais,what are you complaining about? The Ferox has a shield resist bonus. Will trade you the crappy armor rep bonus and new pre-nerfed armor repper for that any day. Ferox will find a place in many gangs, especially if it has some shield logi. Meanwhile the Myrm and Brutix will get to fly around with one bonus, because no ****** will be fitting a ****** new armor rep in any fight ivolving more than 3 or 4 ships. Yipee. Fear the hobbled Myrm and Brutix.
Fozzie, you should throw caution to the wind with the Drake. Nerf it into the stone age tbh. It had too long a run as the most used pvp and pve ship in the game. Ok well not the stone age. But ffs don't worry about the damn thing. It had a good run. And I'm still waiting to hear if anything will be done about the out of balance BC regen stat. Stop the madness of cheap regen drakes tanking top of the line pve content. It's so incredibly stupid that this has been going on in the game for so long. |
Snape Dieboldmotor
In Exile.
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:54:00 -
[2306] - Quote
Aglais wrote:IMO the Ferox is underwhelming in every way but tank (making it Drake II), and the Drake is...
Will people actually use the Ferox ever over a Brutix or Myrmidon? For any reason?
Aglais, the shield resistance bonuses of the Drake and Ferox are considered one of the best bonuses. To compensate for getting such a good bonus the other balance attributes won't be as good.
I can see a number of situations where the Ferox would be better than the Myrmidon and Brutix. Think about it for a little bit and you will see it too.
Snape |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
109
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:25:00 -
[2307] - Quote
Aglais wrote:
Will people actually use the Ferox ever over a Brutix or Myrmidon? For any reason?
Every time it needs a larger fleet. Or remote reps in small gang. Or using ASBs. Or pretty much most of the time except for the rare 1v1 situation that the gallente ships can actually hope to win. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
145
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:48:00 -
[2308] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Fozzie, you should throw caution to the wind with the Drake. There's no need to be so dramatic as all that. Drop the shield resist and the ******** kinetic damage buff, and give it the same ROF + Velocity treatment as the Caracal. Problem solved. People who could fly nothing but the Drake would whine, but the truth is that then it would become a ship that is very good at one thing, instead of being pretty good at everything. And that was the whole point of this years long epic balancing campaign (or so they said anyway).
Take a similar common sensical approach with all the BCs, giving them some actual distinct roles, and role bonuses that make sense for those roles, rather than just making them into the same piles of fail with different skins, and this whole thread would have been nothing but love.
It's a simple principle that when something works well, you do that thing again for good results. They got it right when they did all the little ship balancing. But they failed to learn from that success. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3549
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:57:00 -
[2309] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:I like the idea of a drake with 8 highs, how about a rof penalty like the old destroyers used to have. The ship is clearly modelled to have 8 launchers at least a rof penalty would prevent it from being op and justify the extra slots. I'd also settle for actual external models of systems such as Nos/Neuts. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
520
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 19:28:00 -
[2310] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Fozzie, you should throw caution to the wind with the Drake. There's no need to be so dramatic as all that. Drop the shield resist and the ******** kinetic damage buff, and give it the same ROF + Velocity treatment as the Caracal. Problem solved.
Same bonuses, same weapon systems, same tanking style. Honestly, what's the point? |
|
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 19:35:00 -
[2311] - Quote
Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:Aglais, the shield resistance bonuses of the Drake and Ferox are considered one of the best bonuses. To compensate for getting such a good bonus the other balance attributes won't be as good. I can see a number of situations where the Ferox would be better than the Myrmidon and Brutix. Think about it for a little bit and you will see it too. Snape
Ok. So will a rail ferox actually be viable in any kind of fleet, or are we going to be tacking blasters onto this most Caldari and slow of vessels? I should be more specific, this is my gripe with the ferox, not the tank.
Also, active hardeners are no longer contributing passive resistance when inactive (see this thread). That's going to impact things. |
Deacon Abox
Genstar Inc Villore Accords
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 20:18:00 -
[2312] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:Aglais, the shield resistance bonuses of the Drake and Ferox are considered one of the best bonuses. To compensate for getting such a good bonus the other balance attributes won't be as good. I can see a number of situations where the Ferox would be better than the Myrmidon and Brutix. Think about it for a little bit and you will see it too. Snape Ok. So will a rail ferox actually be viable in any kind of fleet, or are we going to be tacking blasters onto this most Caldari and slow of vessels? I should be more specific, this is my gripe with the ferox, not the tank. Also, active hardeners are no longer contributing passive resistance when inactive (see this thread). That's going to impact things. Wait. Are you still complaining about the Ferox's resist bonus as against both Gallente BCs' armor rep bonus? You can't make use of that ridiculously large optimal bonus? Sure, then fly the Brutix and Myrm over it. I'll probably try to fit some half assed buffer on them, and I'll probably get told to find another ship to fit in the fleet, or I'll just fly Minmatar.
I really don't see a reason to fly a Brutix or Myrm. Maybe something will be done with sentry drones at some point to make a Myrm desirable for a fleet action. But otherwies both the Gallente ships are relegated to chasers of the fabled unicorn of honorable 1v1 BC duals. |
Eccamouze
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 23:12:00 -
[2313] - Quote
Jumping into the thread as the randomnoob I am. =)
Will this make the Prophecy, most beautiful ship btw, viable for level 3's and 4's? Because so far I've only heard bad stuff about it(pre-patch), and this makes me a sad noobpilot. :( |
Mund Richard
324
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 23:29:00 -
[2314] - Quote
Eccamouze wrote:Jumping into the thread as the randomnoob I am. =)
Will this make the Prophecy, most beautiful ship btw, viable for level 3's and 4's? Because so far I've only heard bad stuff about it(pre-patch), and this makes me a sad noobpilot. :( Here is my possibly biased, lacking much research oppinion:
L3: Yes, and quite interesting too possibly, due to the leeway you have with high and lowslots. (Would go for multiple DDA and 4 of either HAML or RLML if the mission allows)
L4: Personally I wouldn't experiment with it... ...But now I might, just because of the challenge. Don't expect to reach a Drake level tank too easily (if at all before faction mods), and the gank will involve either an odd mix of drones that the AI will love to target, or sentries (possibly without omni-links), so again not the Drake level easy-mode. Better off in a battleship most likely. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 05:07:00 -
[2315] - Quote
Is there a reason why the Cane is the only Combat BC being left with 16 Ladar? ( or respective racial)
Everything including the Cyclone is set at 17 - I hope this a typo |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
255
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 05:50:00 -
[2316] - Quote
So I left this topic alone for a few days and came back in time to see that after 116 pages of feedback:
CCP Fozzie wrote: [CCP] will go forward with the specs in the OP...
Great?
Seleucus Ontuas wrote: Time to stock up on Prophecies and Feroxes, no reason to use the Brutix and Myrm.
Luscius Uta wrote: ...at first I hated the idea of Prophecy becoming a drone boat ... But after looking at the new slot layout, I see that's gonna make it a very good exploration vessel, vay better than Vexor...
Nothing warms. my. heart. more than reading how excited Gallente pilots are about their new Amarr drone Prophecies.
But since this is a done deal, the time for feedback has passed.
Eccamouze wrote: Will this make the Prophecy, most beautiful ship btw, viable for level 3's and 4's? Because so far I've only heard bad stuff about it(pre-patch), and this makes me a sad noobpilot. :(
Well Eccamouze, the Prophecy's usefulness in missions shouldn't change much. You can do lvl 3s in just about any BC. CCP is only altering dps delivery so as a new pilot, you'll adapt easily. It'll do what it did before, just differently. And whereas I, may never get over what they did here...
I do agree with you that the Prophecy hull is one of the most beautiful in the game.
Good luck in your adventures!
YK "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
559
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 08:59:00 -
[2317] - Quote
Aglais wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure. Mission Accomplished. I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf. Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want. Too late for that IMO. I suppose that in the case of BCs vs. Cruisers this'll not really be a horrible thing, but in the BC vs. BC group I'm really unhappy about how the Caldari ones in general were handled. IMO the Ferox is underwhelming in every way but tank (making it Drake II), and the Drake is... Well it's pretty much the same as before but even worse with non-kinetic missiles. Will people actually use the Ferox ever over a Brutix or Myrmidon? For any reason?
Well i'm just spitballing here but i do believe a ferox might be better for shield fleets... And fleets in general since it has better range and good tank..
All in all the ferox is good, its not spectacular, but good. Now if only medium rails were as awesome as small rails. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 09:46:00 -
[2318] - Quote
@Fozzie
So I guess now that you've laid down your epeen and said Gallente BCs are stuck being crap for anything other than 1v1 or 1v2s, the important question on everyone's mind is is:
How long do we have to wait before you'll admit you were being stubborn and the two Gallente hulls will be looked at again? And when you come out and publicly apologize for this failure (we forgive you now because you work for CCP, it's kinda their thing), inb4 everyone else, "I told you so"
|
Beauregard DuCorte
Unrepentant Gaming
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 10:00:00 -
[2319] - Quote
Eccamouze wrote:Jumping into the thread as the randomnoob I am. =)
Will this make the Prophecy, most beautiful ship btw, viable for level 3's and 4's? Because so far I've only heard bad stuff about it(pre-patch), and this makes me a sad noobpilot. :(
Yes, I currently use the Myrm for Lvl 3s and some Lvl 4s (where afterburn between acceleration gates is needed). Everything that the Myrm currently does well in PvE the Prophesy will do better after the "balance" I can see doing most 3s and 4s with this, and it has a better base speed and smaller signature on top of the better bonuses and more low slots. |
Mund Richard
325
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 10:45:00 -
[2320] - Quote
Beauregard DuCorte wrote:Eccamouze wrote:Jumping into the thread as the randomnoob I am. =)
Will this make the Prophecy, most beautiful ship btw, viable for level 3's and 4's? Because so far I've only heard bad stuff about it(pre-patch), and this makes me a sad noobpilot. :( Yes, I currently use the Myrm for Lvl 3s and some Lvl 4s (where afterburn between acceleration gates is needed). Everything that the Myrm currently does well in PvE the Prophesy will do better after the "balance" I can see doing most 3s and 4s with this, and it has a better base speed and smaller signature on top of the better bonuses and more low slots. Only thing the Myrm will do better, is sniping with sentries. 1 more out, 1 more midslot for omnilinks, in case a 3 slot tank is enough (due to rats starting far away and being few in number).
Yonis Kador wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:...at first I hated the idea of Prophecy becoming a drone boat ... But after looking at the new slot layout, I see that's gonna make it a very good exploration vessel, vay better than Vexor... Nothing warms. my. heart. more than reading how excited Gallente pilots are about their new Amarr drone Prophecies. For me that was the case with the new destroyers as well, an "odd" bandwidth of 35 doesn't make me as interested as a "proper" 25 + more bay, mixed hardpoints and the neut bonus. Although, there the gun was bonused for the Gallente, making it a tougher call. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
|
IrJosy
Club 1621 Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 12:21:00 -
[2321] - Quote
Do both gallente ships still have that ****** rep bonus?
Drop the myrm rep bonus for a turret bonus like ALL the other drone ships. TIA |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
410
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 12:32:00 -
[2322] - Quote
IrJosy wrote:Do both gallente ships still have that ****** rep bonus?
Drop the myrm rep bonus for a turret bonus like ALL the other drone ships. TIA
Drone tracking or MWD would be more original imo. While a turret damage bonus would coincide with other drone ships such as the domi and the vexor it's still not a real reason to make the myrmidon essentially the same...
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 13:14:00 -
[2323] - Quote
The repper bonus should be dropped on both gallente ships. If someone wants to use active armor repping and even the new weaksauce repper then have at it with any ship. The bonus in conjunction with the new repper hardly redeems this tanking style for anything other that it was already used (which is a very limited subset of eve fighting).
The Myrm should get another drone bonus. Maybe drone speed or tracking. If it were to get a hybrid damage bonus it might become too ganky (much like the former 125m3 bandwidth Myrm was seen by CCP). And unless/until sentry mechanics are changed to move them with the ship in some manner the only drones really worth using in pvp will be either heavys in very close range or mediums/lights for long range. Basically a tracking bonus would probably be better for sentry pve, while a drone speed bonus would be better for medium/light drone pvp to get on target faster (as long as it doesn't increase the transition to orbit delay on applying damage). Regardless I do not see fleet types and fcs favoring people bringing this ship and it will continue to see less use than other BCs.
The Brutix needs a fleet viable bonus. An armor hp bonus, either percentage based or whole number based, would be a much better bonus for this ship. It would make blaster fits better. It would also allow for rail fits. Either way it would synch well with logi support like the resist bonused ships do/will (Ferox, Drake, Prophecy). Nothing wrong with taking advantage of something that CCP wants anyway, group play, as opposed to being stuck in the suck of solo local repping with ****** medium armor reppers. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
81
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 13:17:00 -
[2324] - Quote
Eccamouze wrote:Jumping into the thread as the randomnoob I am. =)
Will this make the Prophecy, most beautiful ship btw, viable for level 3's and 4's? Because so far I've only heard bad stuff about it(pre-patch), and this makes me a sad noobpilot. :(
If you like that, feast your eyes upon the Damnation. That ship is pure sexy. Sometimes I put a cloak on it just because. I gimp it's damage with only 4 launchers placed so that they show up on the wings, mostly because I fly with a buddy and use all 3 armor links. I tank it with just a Damage Control and a Reactive Hardener, because it's base resists are already so good and after I get shot a few times I never see a resist below 80, and often they are 90+. That HP bonus means it has armor almost as thick as a battleship even without a plate. If you have a Logi buddy, plates are just trolling the enemy.
I can do level 3's in it just by showing up. Rats self destruct in despair at the sheer awesomeness of it's tank. I am fully competent in Level 4's, though I would not do them solo in this. Medium Armor repper just does not keep up, though I can hang out for a good long time as I'm usually at a net loss in armor of 1% per cycle. Even if I go with 5 launchers and a couple of guns, it's damage isn't high enough to kill all that needs killing fast enough to reduce DPS to manageable levels in some missions. It does look extremely sweet launching a full rack of missles and fireing off a pair of lasers though.
Bottom Line, for level 4's and for about the same price (and way less training), you are probably better off in a battleship if solo. However, nothing beats the Damnation for pure sexy, and if you have logi support there are battleships that wish they had it's tank. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1988
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 13:44:00 -
[2325] - Quote
10% per lever armor rep amount for Myrm, 10% per level MWD sig bloom reduction for Brutix. Or 5% per level armor HP. Or tracking, anything but rep bonus for Brutix.
Again, Myrm is the active tanker solo and PVE ship, Brutix is the Gallente candidate for fleets and needs a hull bonus that supports that aim.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:33:00 -
[2326] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie any plans on changing the drake or myrmidon?
I think it would be sad to release them as they are the drake just overshadows the ferox into being obsolete and the myrmidon will suffer a lack of versatility being stuck with the rep bonus it doesn't really need much as the drake doesn't need its resist bonus as it has such superior range to the other bc's since HAMS are effectively battleship range weapons literally same range as torpedoes.
I think the drake would benefit from being more mobile much as the caracal gained a useful role. although i don't think a velocity bonus would be a good idea on the drake infact i don't think it really needs a second bonus at all just improve its mobility in exchange and then switch its shield hp with the ferox. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
133
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:01:00 -
[2327] - Quote
Geeze, from all the complaining I'm hearing about the Brutix, you'd almost think that it only got one bonus. Yeah, so what's the Amarr fleet BC? Prophecy? f you don't mind a fleet full of 3 sentry ships *or* low DPS ships that have much delayed damage projection. Or perhaps the Harbinger? Yeah, it only has a damage bonus. Because that's a ship that only gets one bonus. One bonus and a modifier so we can actually fire our guns. And they still take more cap than your blasters. Wow, the Harbinger gets one bonus that is always useful! The Brutix at least gets a bonus that is always useful and a circumstantially useful bonus. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:26:00 -
[2328] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Geeze, from all the complaining I'm hearing about the Brutix, you'd almost think that it only got one bonus. Yeah, so what's the Amarr fleet BC? Prophecy? f you don't mind a fleet full of 3 sentry ships *or* low DPS ships that have much delayed damage projection. Or perhaps the Harbinger? Yeah, it only has a damage bonus. Because that's a ship that only gets one bonus. One bonus and a modifier so we can actually fire our guns. And they still take more cap than your blasters. Wow, the Harbinger gets one bonus that is always useful! The Brutix at least gets a bonus that is always useful and a circumstantially useful bonus.
mmm.. i think the brutix has the potential to excel in small gang warfare much like the cyclone will. it depends largely on the AAR/rigs and being able fit them and links after they get changed.
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:31:00 -
[2329] - Quote
Roime wrote:10% per lever armor rep amount for Myrm, 10% per level MWD sig bloom reduction for Brutix. Or 5% per level armor HP. Or tracking, anything but rep bonus for Brutix.
Again, Myrm is the active tanker solo and PVE ship, Brutix is the Gallente candidate for fleets and needs a hull bonus that supports that aim.
Brutix candidate for fleets? Where id you get that idea? Why are so many people against the rep bonus? This ship now imho has everything it needs. Even though I would not mind 10% repping bonus on all active armor tanking ships. Just to be better than 5% resist in that particular activity.
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:43:00 -
[2330] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:@ CCP Fozzie any plans on changing the drake or myrmidon?
I think it would be sad to release them as they are the drake just overshadows the ferox into being obsolete and the myrmidon will suffer a lack of versatility being stuck with the rep bonus it doesn't really need much as the drake doesn't need its resist bonus as it has such superior range to the other bc's since HAMS are effectively battleship range weapons literally same range as torpedoes.
I think the drake would benefit from being more mobile much as the caracal gained a useful role. although i don't think a velocity bonus would be a good idea on the drake infact i don't think it really needs a second bonus at all just improve its mobility in exchange and then switch its shield hp with the ferox.
Why so many people think rep bonus is useless? It is great bonus for small gangs.
Caracal is attack cruiser (less tank, more mobility, more dps). Drake and myrmidon are combat balltecruisers (more tank, less mobility, slightly less dps). Diving drake more mobility would move it to the position of attack battlecruiser. |
|
Vaximillian
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Ethereal Dawn
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:02:00 -
[2331] - Quote
Ah BALANCE. The word that always comes into play when people who want to be able to do everything with any toon. The concept that, once agreed to and followed by the developers, means the coming end of the MMO.
In EVE you can TRAIN into anything. You aren't stuck into a certain class that you started that you later got bored of. Why the hell seek balance? If you don't think your X race X class ship is the best then crosstrain! I'm minmatar but waaaaahhhh we don't have a ship that neuts as well as the curse! Waaaaahhhh. make one of our ships be able to neut that well so we can have BALANCE!! Know what I did? I took the time to crosstrain into the curse.
Each time someone whines about balance CCP just give them a 30 day ban and tell them to crosstrain or stfu. Each race has it's advantages. Please don't make this game generic and "balanced". |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
459
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:23:00 -
[2332] - Quote
Exelent changes with the the BC.
Good work CCP. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1045
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 22:44:00 -
[2333] - Quote
Shpenat wrote: Why so many people think rep bonus is useless? It is great bonus for small gangs.
The bonus is cool. It's just that we (Gallente ship users) want one of these two BCs to have bonuses aimed towards something larger than small gangs. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1988
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 08:12:00 -
[2334] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:Roime wrote:10% per lever armor rep amount for Myrm, 10% per level MWD sig bloom reduction for Brutix. Or 5% per level armor HP. Or tracking, anything but rep bonus for Brutix.
Again, Myrm is the active tanker solo and PVE ship, Brutix is the Gallente candidate for fleets and needs a hull bonus that supports that aim.
Brutix candidate for fleets? Where id you get that idea? Why are so many people against the rep bonus? This ship now imho has everything it needs. Even though I would not mind 10% repping bonus on all active armor tanking ships. Just to be better than 5% resist in that particular activity.
Brutix is our only hope, I'm not saying it is currently the best fleet BC. Myrmidon with it's drone bonus and bay size struggles in large fleets unless CCP fixes sentry scoop range. Brutix with a better tank bonus could use medium rails. Yeah, I said it :)
Why against a useless rep bonus? Because active armor tanking is simply weaker than ASB or even shield buffer until you go triple rep, which sucks on the Brutix.It needs cap and webs for the guns. Like you said, 5% resist bonus tanks just as well with local reps but is usable in fleets.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
412
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 11:20:00 -
[2335] - Quote
What's needed romie is a nerf to the extremely overpowered resistance bonus from 5% per level down to 4% per level in addition to modest improvements in the rep amount and cap efficiency of all armor reppers. The increase I'd like to see played with to the reppers is a rather small 5-7.5% increase in rep per cycle however also have a cap reduction of about 10%. This combined with an overhaul to the dead space armor reppers which would focus on buffing reppers to a point where the difference in progression between deadspace shield and armor is at least not insulting would imo fix the vast majority of issues discussed in this thread in regards to resistance vs active tanking bonus. |
Beauregard DuCorte
Unrepentant Gaming
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 12:15:00 -
[2336] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Beauregard DuCorte wrote:Eccamouze wrote:Jumping into the thread as the randomnoob I am. =)
Will this make the Prophecy, most beautiful ship btw, viable for level 3's and 4's? Because so far I've only heard bad stuff about it(pre-patch), and this makes me a sad noobpilot. :( Yes, I currently use the Myrm for Lvl 3s and some Lvl 4s (where afterburn between acceleration gates is needed). Everything that the Myrm currently does well in PvE the Prophesy will do better after the "balance" I can see doing most 3s and 4s with this, and it has a better base speed and smaller signature on top of the better bonuses and more low slots. Only thing the Myrm will do better, is sniping with sentries. 1 more out, 1 more midslot for omnilinks, in case a 3 slot tank is enough (due to rats starting far away and being few in number). Yonis Kador wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:...at first I hated the idea of Prophecy becoming a drone boat ... But after looking at the new slot layout, I see that's gonna make it a very good exploration vessel, vay better than Vexor... Nothing warms. my. heart. more than reading how excited Gallente pilots are about their new Amarr drone Prophecies. For me that was the case with the new destroyers as well, an "odd" bandwidth of 35 doesn't make me as interested as a "proper" 25 + more bay, mixed hardpoints and the neut bonus. Although, there the gun was bonused for the Gallente, making it a tougher call.
For sniping with sentries you're better off just training a little more and flying a Dominix (Battleship), where you can have a full flight out. Dual reps for PvE will be overwhelmed by the ability to fit mission/rat specific modules for a 95%+ resist. |
Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 12:28:00 -
[2337] - Quote
Beauregard DuCorte wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Beauregard DuCorte wrote:Yes, I currently use the Myrm for Lvl 3s and some Lvl 4s (where afterburn between acceleration gates is needed). Everything that the Myrm currently does well in PvE the Prophesy will do better after the "balance" I can see doing most 3s and 4s with this, and it has a better base speed and smaller signature on top of the better bonuses and more low slots. Only thing the Myrm will do better, is sniping with sentries. 1 more out, 1 more midslot for omnilinks, in case a 3 slot tank is enough (due to rats starting far away and being few in number). For sniping with sentries you're better off just training a little more and flying a Dominix (Battleship), where you can have a full flight out. Dual reps for PvE will be overwhelmed by the ability to fit mission/rat specific modules for a 95%+ resist. A valid argument for any L3 that lets battleships in, though slightly sideways from a BC discussion. You could have said Ishtar just as well (and that would fill the afterburn between gates niche Beauregard mentioned even better, being lighter).
Bit unsure on your 95%+ resist on a T1 hull, usually mines are 84.7% against serpentis with one rep and two DDA and 2+2 hardeners. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 14:47:00 -
[2338] - Quote
People are still stuck on the concept of what is best.
If the Brutix got a 5% to resistances per level, everybody would flock to it as it has "Buffer".
Since it does not, people are saying it is terrible in large fleet warfare.
The Gallente Ships (some would also say the Minmatar ships), are fairly self reliant. They are meant to try to keep themselves alive. SIde by side, would they survive an alpha attack, generally no. Will they fold like wet paper if attacked, generally no but other ships would survive longer than the 2 Gallente Battlecruisers. It is an odd dynamic, we will see how it plays out.
Regarding the Myrmidon. Have you ever thought that the issue is not the 100m3 or the 125m3 dronebay debate, but the fact that sentry drones are 25m3 themselves? They should have been 20m3. The sentry drone has virtually no propulsion system on them, there is really no need for them to be 25m3, when 20 would do. If sentries are 20 bandwidth per, the Myrmidon would be the only battlecruiser that can field 5 sentry drones, but still be restricted to fielding 4 Heavy Drones. The sentry change would affect very few other ships (off of my recollection, virtually no ship under a BS hold would be affected, except the Myrmidon.
The drone lineup should have looked like this.
1) Small Drones, 5m3 2) Medium Drones, 10m3 3) Sentry Drones, 20m3 4) Large Drones, 25m3
What that does is allow more ships to field sentry drones if they so choose, and also give the myrmidon access to an additional role, as a optional drone sniping platform.
Ship current/future hold's addressed regarding Sentry Drones
50m3 bandwidth holds, can hold 2 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 2 sentries. 75m3 bandwidth holds, they can hold 3 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 3 sentry drones.
100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role.
So Consider Reducing the Bandwidth of Sentry drones from 25 to 20. Is it a dps Increase for the Myrmidon.. yes. Does it turn it into one giant stationary target.. yep. Does it give the ship even more options, and make the 100m3 bandwidth seem more.. well interesting... |
Screenlag
The Caerus Gate
37
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:52:00 -
[2339] - Quote
The ferox is still useless. But I don't know how to change it without making it a brutix. The range bonus is redundant no matter how you look at it though. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 17:03:00 -
[2340] - Quote
Screenlag wrote:The ferox is still useless. But I don't know how to change it without making it a brutix. The range bonus is redundant no matter how you look at it though.
Although the optimal range bonus does limit its slot layout its not that bad actually considering the range of blasters in general the problem though is that the drake is basically a better version of the ferox with better range and tank |
|
deepos
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:01:00 -
[2341] - Quote
. |
Screenlag
The Caerus Gate
37
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:43:00 -
[2342] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Screenlag wrote:The ferox is still useless. But I don't know how to change it without making it a brutix. The range bonus is redundant no matter how you look at it though. Although the optimal range bonus does limit its slot layout its not that bad actually considering the range of blasters in general the problem though is that the drake is basically a better version of the ferox with better range and tank
They fixed the moa by changing its range bonus and now people fly it for once in forever. You can probably shield tank the brutix quite good, so what's the point with flying a ferox? |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1045
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:52:00 -
[2343] - Quote
Screenlag wrote:They fixed the moa by changing its range bonus and now people fly it for once in forever. You can probably shield tank the brutix quite good, so what's the point with flying a ferox? It's a better shield tanker than the Brutix, that's why. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:52:00 -
[2344] - Quote
Screenlag wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Screenlag wrote:The ferox is still useless. But I don't know how to change it without making it a brutix. The range bonus is redundant no matter how you look at it though. Although the optimal range bonus does limit its slot layout its not that bad actually considering the range of blasters in general the problem though is that the drake is basically a better version of the ferox with better range and tank They fixed the moa by changing its range bonus and now people fly it for once in forever. You can probably shield tank the brutix quite good, so what's the point with flying a ferox?
Well they have nerfed the shield HP on the brutix so there would be a gulf in shield HP difference when fitted |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:59:00 -
[2345] - Quote
Screenlag wrote:The ferox is still useless. But I don't know how to change it without making it a brutix. The range bonus is redundant no matter how you look at it though.
The Ferox looks like it's built around using railguns as a primary weapon.
There's the problem. Medium railguns suck too hard to be used as a weapon. All of the other Caldari hybrid boats have really good damage potential; the Ferox struggles to pass the Moa in terms of DPS and only really manages to offer improvements in terms of defense.
Of course you do realize that this means that there are now reasons to use cruisers over battlecruisers while not necessarily meaning that battlecruisers are useless. I've finally come to the conclusion that battlecruisers are not supposed to be the be-all-end-all of PvP or PvE. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
138
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 19:03:00 -
[2346] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Screenlag wrote:They fixed the moa by changing its range bonus and now people fly it for once in forever. You can probably shield tank the brutix quite good, so what's the point with flying a ferox? It's a better shield tanker than the Brutix, that's why. Quite a bit better. Resist bonus, more mids, higher base shields, and the optimal bonus which allows it to use closer range ammo to match damage over range. The Brutix would be pretty bad compared to the Ferox in a shield tanking role.
Though you obviously know this X Gal, I thought it might have needed pointing out to some. |
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
215
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 19:58:00 -
[2347] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:People are still stuck on the concept of what is best.
If the Brutix got a 5% to resistances per level, everybody would flock to it as it has "Buffer".
Since it does not, people are saying it is terrible in large fleet warfare.
The Gallente Ships (some would also say the Minmatar ships), are fairly self reliant. They are meant to try to keep themselves alive. SIde by side, would they survive an alpha attack, generally no. Will they fold like wet paper if attacked, generally no but other ships would survive longer than the 2 Gallente Battlecruisers. It is an odd dynamic, we will see how it plays out.
Regarding the Myrmidon. Have you ever thought that the issue is not the 100m3 or the 125m3 dronebay debate, but the fact that sentry drones are 25m3 themselves? They should have been 20m3. The sentry drone has virtually no propulsion system on them, there is really no need for them to be 25m3, when 20 would do. If sentries are 20 bandwidth per, the Myrmidon would be the only battlecruiser that can field 5 sentry drones, but still be restricted to fielding 4 Heavy Drones. The sentry change would affect very few other ships (off of my recollection, virtually no ship under a BS hold would be affected, except the Myrmidon.
The drone lineup should have looked like this.
1) Small Drones, 5m3 2) Medium Drones, 10m3 3) Sentry Drones, 20m3 4) Large Drones, 25m3
What that does is allow more ships to field sentry drones if they so choose, and also give the myrmidon access to an additional role, as a optional drone sniping platform.
Ship current/future hold's addressed regarding Sentry Drones
50m3 bandwidth holds, can hold 2 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 2 sentries. 75m3 bandwidth holds, they can hold 3 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 3 sentry drones.
100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role.
So Consider Reducing the Bandwidth of Sentry drones from 25 to 20. Is it a dps Increase for the Myrmidon.. yes. Does it turn it into one giant stationary target.. yep. Does it give the ship even more options, and make the 100m3 bandwidth seem more.. well interesting...
This is actually a very interesting idea. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
85
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:29:00 -
[2348] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:People are still stuck on the concept of what is best.
If the Brutix got a 5% to resistances per level, everybody would flock to it as it has "Buffer".
Since it does not, people are saying it is terrible in large fleet warfare.
The Gallente Ships (some would also say the Minmatar ships), are fairly self reliant. They are meant to try to keep themselves alive. SIde by side, would they survive an alpha attack, generally no. Will they fold like wet paper if attacked, generally no but other ships would survive longer than the 2 Gallente Battlecruisers. It is an odd dynamic, we will see how it plays out.
Regarding the Myrmidon. Have you ever thought that the issue is not the 100m3 or the 125m3 dronebay debate, but the fact that sentry drones are 25m3 themselves? They should have been 20m3. The sentry drone has virtually no propulsion system on them, there is really no need for them to be 25m3, when 20 would do. If sentries are 20 bandwidth per, the Myrmidon would be the only battlecruiser that can field 5 sentry drones, but still be restricted to fielding 4 Heavy Drones. The sentry change would affect very few other ships (off of my recollection, virtually no ship under a BS hold would be affected, except the Myrmidon.
The drone lineup should have looked like this.
1) Small Drones, 5m3 2) Medium Drones, 10m3 3) Sentry Drones, 20m3 4) Large Drones, 25m3
What that does is allow more ships to field sentry drones if they so choose, and also give the myrmidon access to an additional role, as a optional drone sniping platform.
Ship current/future hold's addressed regarding Sentry Drones
50m3 bandwidth holds, can hold 2 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 2 sentries. 75m3 bandwidth holds, they can hold 3 sentry drones presently, and with the change, will still only be able to hold/use 3 sentry drones.
100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role.
So Consider Reducing the Bandwidth of Sentry drones from 25 to 20. Is it a dps Increase for the Myrmidon.. yes. Does it turn it into one giant stationary target.. yep. Does it give the ship even more options, and make the 100m3 bandwidth seem more.. well interesting... This is actually a very interesting idea.
While not the thread for it, I have often thought that there should be some Gallente drones with different bandwidth from the norm to take advantage of our weird bandwidth Allocation. Might make for an interesting bonus on some hulls. While I do use split flights to take advantage of the bandwidth, I'm kind of OCD about it and prefer to use flights of all the same size. I actually crosstrained Amarr Cruiser just because I felt the Arbitrator was a better drone boat than the Vexxor, since I consider a turret bonus on a drone boat wasted. |
Wedgetail
Helix Pulse Solar Citizens
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 22:04:00 -
[2349] - Quote
The Ferox suffers from the hybrid's split engagement range, because of this a bonus doesn't particularly help them.
In their current incarnation a Ferox can be blaster fit to perform on par with the current hurricanes and harbingers, it does however lack speed to compensate for lack of range (hybrid split engagement range making 10% to optimal worthless, 10% of nothing is still nothing, and a ferox must be within 5 km to match a hurricane or harbinger for damage)
So what I would suggest as the caldari lack a brawler Hull, is to increase the speed of the Ferox (as should have been done in the Hybrid rebalance) and to replace optimal range bonus with Tracking or damage, This allows the caldari to compete at closer ranges with hybrid blaster turrets against the longer ranges of lasers and autocannons.
Additionally
I fear your suggested changes for the cyclone may force its fits to become dependent on the ASB modules, currently it is possible to use standard shield boosters and energy vampires to run a solid shield tank for PVE and small gang fighting,
loosing a high slot would severely impact its ability to do this, the ASB is a powerful module but it's not good for drawn out fighting which can often happen in smaller gangs due to lower concentrations of enemy fire, fitting two of these modules to compensate for this weakness makes the lack of firepower problem more evident as the resources required to do this often call for smaller less powerful weapons to be mounted. (it is easier to defend a ship than it is to get fire power to kill one)
The change to missiles is...workable...but not amusing...missiles (with the exception of perhaps heavy assaults) have not made a good weapon platform when compared to the performance of the turrets, the low response time and fire rate of heavy missiles (and now lower range) often tends to give the opponent the one advantage they should never be afforded. (time)
I'm not able to present an alternative for this ship at the moment as I did for the Ferox, Will require more thought on my part (largely because I'm happy with the way the cyclone fits into the role of a workhorse, and if the Ferox were to be altered for blasters the current cyclone would make a good nemesis for it, as a ferox can fit ASB's also a ship that has the def) |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 22:33:00 -
[2350] - Quote
well what might help the ferox and caldari sniper ships in general is if all ranged weapons are rebalanced maybe like this:
Range: Best beams missiles rails arties
ROF: Best rails beams missiles arties
Alpha: Best missiles arties beams rails
So each weapon type has a clear advantage and disadvantage but with more clarity as to which can do what the best. Also they all need some tracking and damage buffs and maybe the high damage turret ammo could have better range. |
|
Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 22:41:00 -
[2351] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role. Drone Proteus? (also 100) Then again, Drone Proteus is kinda funny. As in, mostly a joke as far as I was told.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Luc Chastot wrote:This is actually a very interesting idea. While not the thread for it, I have often thought that there should be some Gallente drones with different bandwidth from the norm to take advantage of our weird bandwidth Allocation. Might make for an interesting bonus on some hulls. While I do use split flights to take advantage of the bandwidth, I'm kind of OCD about it and prefer to use flights of all the same size. I actually crosstrained Amarr Cruiser just because I felt the Arbitrator was a better drone boat than the Vexxor, since I consider a turret bonus on a drone boat wasted. Confirming I went over to the Darkgold side simply due to how my OCD not being able to handle those drone bays, and anything changing that sounds good. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Wedgetail
Helix Pulse Solar Citizens
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 22:53:00 -
[2352] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:well what might help the ferox and caldari sniper ships in general is if all ranged weapons are rebalanced maybe like this:
Range: Best beams missiles rails arties
ROF: Best rails beams missiles arties
Alpha: Best missiles arties beams rails
So each weapon type has a clear advantage and disadvantage but with more clarity as to which can do what the best. Also they all need some tracking and damage buffs and maybe the high damage turret ammo could have better range.
this would be a good fix, I think that CCP's aim is however to make all the Hulls do the same thing in a different way (there are no clear advantages, no hull is 'more powerful' and therefore the 'obvious choice')
if this is the case then simply giving each weapon a defined role won't be sufficient, It may help when used in conjunction with redesigning the ships however. (as an outright change like this would cause racial superiority, greatly diminishing the fun in trying to shoot someone in the face)
people are already more than capable of my ship + their ship = win/loss avoiding a racial equivalent of this is a must.
by giving hulls a clear role in combat though rather than the weapons we maintain the diverse rock paper scissors, kites beat bricks, bricks beat glass cannons, glass cannons beat kites, etc etc (the weapon you use doesn't matter, what's important, and what makes the hulls fly differently - is what/how you accomplish with it.)
there are already a large number of ships capable of filling the mid-long range role, and battle cruisers stereotypically make poor snipers due to speed (something the newest group of hulls has remedied) armor hulls have plenty of close range face melting to compliment their kite ships, shield hulls do not.
ideally the battle cruisers will become sorted based on their role, not their weapon system, otherwise they become more predictable and fight outcomes already more pre determined than they are.
|
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
14
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 23:07:00 -
[2353] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Tennessee Jack wrote:100m3 and above could use 5 drones, the only ships I know of that are smaller than a battleship, can already use a max flight of sentry drones. Virtually, the only ship that changes in regards to utilizing sentries, would be the Myrmidon, giving it a viable entry into the role. Drone Proteus? (also 100) Then again, Drone Proteus is kinda funny. As in, mostly a joke as far as I was told. Mike Voidstar wrote:Luc Chastot wrote:This is actually a very interesting idea. While not the thread for it, I have often thought that there should be some Gallente drones with different bandwidth from the norm to take advantage of our weird bandwidth Allocation. Might make for an interesting bonus on some hulls. While I do use split flights to take advantage of the bandwidth, I'm kind of OCD about it and prefer to use flights of all the same size. I actually crosstrained Amarr Cruiser just because I felt the Arbitrator was a better drone boat than the Vexxor, since I consider a turret bonus on a drone boat wasted. Confirming I went over to the Darkgold side simply due to how my OCD not being able to handle those drone bays, and anything changing that sounds good.
I'm doing that now with the Prophecy Changes. Though as a drone user, I would love to be able to use a full complement of sentry drones on the Myrmidon, and have access to two type of drone boats which are used in two varying different ways.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1994
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 23:45:00 -
[2354] - Quote
You do realize how crazily OP dps a five sentry drone dps Myrm would deal?
100 mbit/s is perfect, want more drones, fly an Ishtar or BS. And hopefully an Eos in the future.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
215
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 23:59:00 -
[2355] - Quote
Roime wrote:You do realize how crazily OP dps a five sentry drone dps Myrm would deal?
100 mbit/s is perfect, want more drones, fly an Ishtar or BS. And hopefully an Eos in the future.
Yes, but I would love it.
On another, more serious note, such a thing could be considered for the innevitable drone rebalance. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Fjury
Vain Greedy Ruthless Men
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:04:00 -
[2356] - Quote
Fu*k 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 fu*king 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) |
pointlessalt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:35:00 -
[2357] - Quote
Fjury wrote:Fu*k 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 fu*king 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)
The intent was to slightly nerf them.
Why don't you go fu*k yourself, you're so dumb it hurts reading what you're saying. If that is so big of a nerf for you that you can't fly the ship I suggest you biomass yourself. Please don't ever post here again, idiot.
|
Fjury
Vain Greedy Ruthless Men
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:49:00 -
[2358] - Quote
Tell me pointlessalt, did u ever try PVP? I dont think so, like always u know nothing...
U cant remember time when dominix has got 10 drones, ships could flew up to 10k (bs) and many coll stuffs which made eve so good.
so pi*s off, go play chess or something or wow, u like that right? |
Artaire
The Separatist Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 11:41:00 -
[2359] - Quote
I don't see why all the battlecruisers need reworking when its only really the Prophecy that was deemed useless. I understand that the tier system is being reworked so that Ship A from Tier1 can have a fair chance against Ship B from Tier2 but I think reworking ALL of the BCs is a bit much, as some ships could do this adequately anyway Imo, but we will see how this works out and hopefully you guys know what your doing :).
At least the prophecy is not going to be useless anymore which is awesome.
I hope you guys get around to the Command Ships at some point also, The EOS is useless and it'd be nice to actually see one in space once in a while lol |
pointlessalt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 15:47:00 -
[2360] - Quote
Fjury wrote:Tell me pointlessalt, did u ever try PVP? I dont think so, like always u know nothing...
U cant remember time when dominix has got 10 drones, ships could flew up to 10k (bs) and many coll stuffs which made eve so good.
so pi*s off, go play chess or something or wow, u like that right?
I've played this game since early 2k4, try again.
You're still an idiot. l2 adapt.
|
|
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 18:05:00 -
[2361] - Quote
Artaire wrote:I don't see why all the battlecruisers need reworking when its only really the Prophecy that was deemed useless. I understand that the tier system is being reworked so that Ship A from Tier1 can have a fair chance against Ship B from Tier2 but I think reworking ALL of the BCs is a bit much, as some ships could do this adequately anyway Imo, but we will see how this works out and hopefully you guys know what your doing :).
At least the prophecy is not going to be useless anymore which is awesome.
I hope you guys get around to the Command Ships at some point also, The EOS is useless and it'd be nice to actually see one in space once in a while lol
Well all the BC's got reworked because T2's were OP and needed to be nerfed. And it wasn't just the Prophecy that was bad. It was the Prophecy, Ferox, and the Brutix. |
Tub Chil
Last Men Standing
28
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 03:20:00 -
[2362] - Quote
i think it's not fair that cyclone gets 5% fire rate bonus when drake gets 10% kinetic dmg bonus and + 1 slot |
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 05:38:00 -
[2363] - Quote
My impressions of the battlecruiser changes so far arent bad. But i will still say a few words to them.
Amarr
- I would like to see the removal of all laser cap boni on amarrian ships, instead reduce the damage boni abit and add a tracking boni plus increase their natural capacitor, where said boni existed.
- Prophecy
looks like it will be a nice droneboat so thumbs up.
- Harbinger
looks like a nice buff to me, but as i said before pls remove that cap boni its just worthless
Caldari
- I'm not a Caldari Pilot so i will only say how it looks to me.
- Ferox
Looks like a tough brawler where the range boni makes void alot more useful.
- Drake
She appears to be not affected much. Before she was overtanky and undergunned, now she is slightly less overtanky and undergunned.
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.
- Brutix
Nice close range blaster boat. If it would lose its Rep-Bonus and get a Tracking Bonus it would be a bigger Thorax.
- Myrmidon
Will become a nice drone boat (as it already is). Should this lose the Rep-Boni i would replace it either with a Drone Tracking Boni or Drone-MWD Boni.
Minmatar
- Also a Faction i didnt use that often. So also only some impressions
- Hurricane
I used it only after Retribution for standing grind and would say losing that one high doesnt change much.
- 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.
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
322
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 10:59:00 -
[2364] - 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 |
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
75
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 12:20:00 -
[2365] - Quote
Fjury wrote:Fu*k 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 fu*king 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 |
Firia O'Flame
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 15:25:00 -
[2366] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.
Thanks for posting replies to common questions. I have a question that needs addressing because it keeps coming up in conversation in game.
The Hurricane. We're all sad to see its glory diminish. It's been a staple of dominance on the field for as long as I can remember. The previous nerf has certainly reduced its ability. It's still the most versatile BC the minmatar have to offer.
But the upcoming proposed nerf doesn't put it on even ground with other BCs. In fact, other ships bury it. Myself and other capsuleers would like to hear more about why such an extreme nerf is necessary on top of an existing nerf. |
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 15:46:00 -
[2367] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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.
That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
384
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 16:43:00 -
[2368] - Quote
I think that the cyclone having only 5 main weapons and 2 utility slots will gimp it unless it's as swift compared to other battlecruisers as the stabber is to the cruisers. Even then it'll still be midway between a cruiser and battlecruiser, and will be loved more as a cruiser that can fit gang links than as an actual battlecruiser. Now I also don't think giving it 6 main weapons is the answer. I like its 3 utility slot setup that it has right now, and I think keeping that will ensure it always has a special niche.
I'd also like to see all of the combat battlecruisers have at least one utility high. The myrmidon I think could use a full complement of drones (125mb/s) and just take away some of the turret hardpoints. Then it'll both feel more like a drone ship and players won't feel bad about filling up the highs with utility items. It should have at least 3 high slots more than its turret hardpoints I think.
And lastly, I'd like to see a bit more flexibility in the attack battlecruisers. I think it wouldn't hurt to allow them to fit other types of turrets. They should all have a powergrid cost reduction to all large turrets, not just the type they have bonuses for. Tech 1 ships are supposed to be flexible. What if I want to fly an oracle with large autocannons? And their ship skill bonuses could extend to medium turrets as well as large, allowing them to fill the role of the medium assault battlecruiser OR the heavy assault battlecruiser. Toss in -25% powergrid cost for medium turrets (because they have low powergrid) and you're golden. The battlecruisers are way more flexible now without anything becoming overpowered at all.
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Double drone bonus on myrm would be pretty kick ass. The ship flys better as a shield tanker anyway That's because it has 11 total mid and low slots and there is no stacking penalty on shield recharge effects, not because of the slot layout. A battlecruiser with 8 low slots and 3 mid slots would be more effective as a shield tanker just because of this. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 17:40:00 -
[2369] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Double drone bonus on myrm would be pretty kick ass. The ship flys better as a shield tanker anyway That's because it has 11 total mid and low slots and there is no stacking penalty on shield recharge effects, not because of the slot layout. A battlecruiser with 8 low slots and 3 mid slots would be more effective as a shield tanker just because of this. I think I'll disagree with you there. The Prophecy's going to be a 4/7 layout and I think we'll still see mostly armour tank on those as opposed to this "much better" shield tank. Sure you could argue that it's just because of the bonus, but I'd say it's because it's probably a better fit for it regardless of the bonus. 3 DDA's, a DCU, and a 3 slot tank (and rigs) would just make for a better armour tank and leave you with a large amount of utility for mids that your shield fits wouldn't give.
Picked the Prophecy because it's the closest any battlecruiser comes to that 8/3 slot layout. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
384
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 18:07:00 -
[2370] - Quote
I think the myrmidon is better with an armor tank but that's just because I don't trust a ship that doesn't regenerate capacitor. The people saying that the myrmidon is better as a shield tanker are talking about the passive regen fit, which a drake actually does better for the simple fact that it can run hardeners without draining its capacitor. The myrmidon's passive shield tank still gets high numbers though, and a ship with a 3/8 or 4/7 layout will still get that. And because it can be done, people will do it and say it's better even when it's really not better. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
487
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 20:44:00 -
[2371] - Quote
So yeah the drake.... it needs another redesign..... wumbo |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
322
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 21:23:00 -
[2372] - 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 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
387
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 00:25:00 -
[2373] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:(Also, try putting something useful in your post rather than, "Change It". Normally an explanation is helpful. Thats the whole point about constructive critisism.) I'm generally all for that, but I have to admit sometimes pointing to a problem is plenty good enough, and it might be better to not post a solution when you don't have one. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
178
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 06:38:00 -
[2374] - Quote
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote: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. That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.
Personally, I prefer the "safe, stable" vs. "unstable, insanely powerful" choice you can make between Amarr ships. It's what makes lasers, otherwise limited to EM/TH, not suck.
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I think that the cyclone having only 5 main weapons and 2 utility slots will gimp it unless it's as swift compared to other battlecruisers as the stabber is to the cruisers. Even then it'll still be midway between a cruiser and battlecruiser, and will be loved more as a cruiser that can fit gang links than as an actual battlecruiser. Now I also don't think giving it 6 main weapons is the answer. I like its 3 utility slot setup that it has right now, and I think keeping that will ensure it always has a special niche.
Cyclone essentially flies like a pimped up original Podla Drake - between 1.4 and 1.5 km/s, 400-500 dps, while remaining (barely) cap stable. It is, as you put it, the Stabber of BCs. As far as I'm concerned, it'll easily be my go-to kiter missile BC now. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
394
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 07:01:00 -
[2375] - Quote
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.
So, reduce Harbinger's damage below other ships and capacitor need automatically drops to the level where lasers can be used.
What? I don't even...
Btw, why people still use "boni"? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
387
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 10:39:00 -
[2376] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Personally, I prefer the "safe, stable" vs. "unstable, insanely powerful" choice you can make between Amarr ships. It's what makes lasers, otherwise limited to EM/TH, not suck. Lasers have an excellent range to damage ratio, which is why they cost so much capacitor. Reducing their range and capacitor cost would essentially turn beam lasers into short range railguns and pulse lasers into autocannons that don't have a choice in damage type.
Lasers are a very popular weapon system, despite being absolutely the easiest to prepare for and tank against. They don't need an adjustment to make people use them because people like them just the way they are. But I think it would be nice to add some variation in damage types, maybe make some of the crystals have mostly thermal and others have mostly EM. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Mund Richard
330
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:56:00 -
[2377] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Lasers are a very popular weapon system, despite being absolutely the easiest to prepare for and tank against. Dunno, for T1 ships, I'd say generally hybrids are easier to tank, as both tank systems have it in the middle-way, lasers fall into the shield's weakest. T2, Minmatar tank lasers fully, Gall/Caldari the Thermal part. Hybrids? Minnie/Amarr tank half of it, Caldari/Gallente head-on.
But then again, if you know what your foe brings and can prepare accordingly... "If you have a fair fight in EVE, someone messed up"?
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Dav Varan
Caltech Shipyards
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 12:00:00 -
[2378] - Quote
For the love of god please fix the drakes damage bonus dont make it worse.
8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness )
No Kinetic damage bonus. 1 second per level ammo reload bonus. ( faster ammo switch )
133% EM , 133% Therm , 133% Kin , 133% Exp.
Against
6 launchers with 50% kin bonus.
100%EM , 100% Them , 150% Kin , 100%Exp.
Maximum firepower is less than that being proposed. Players have to use correct ammo to maximise there potential.
Drake is no longer easy mode fit kin and forget about it.
Players now have to make sure there firing into resist holes to max there damage.
Also removes the T2 Cal/Gal invulnerability being proposed to Cal FW fleets.
And if 133% at all resists is too much ( no likelly ) then lose a mid slot. Too much tank has always been the drakes problem for fleets not its firepower. |
Mund Richard
330
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 12:07:00 -
[2379] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness ). Ok. Since every (non-drone) BC (bar the Ferox) has the same number of slots (7 high, 10 low+mid) Do you want to lose a low slot? A mid slot? And you are also losing the utility high you have. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Dav Varan
Caltech Shipyards
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 13:52:00 -
[2380] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Dav Varan wrote:8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness ). Ok. Since every (non-drone) BC (bar the Ferox) has the same number of slots (7 high, 10 low+mid) Do you want to lose a low slot? A mid slot? And you are also losing the utility high you have.
Your question was already answered. Lose a mid if needed to reduce the tankability.
nm anyway , I see the horse has bolted.
|
|
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 14:05:00 -
[2381] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Your question was already answered. Lose a mid if needed to reduce the tankability. nm anyway , I see the horse has bolted. A new day, a new idiom I learn about.
I'm not disagreeing with your aesthetic btw, I do dislike the Drake having yet another launcher less than the model. Nor do I like how a weapon system that has "selectable" damage as one of it's fortes gets it taken away even on a BC hull (makes more sense on smaller hulls where plugging a resist hole is argh). A bit as if the Cane would have "+5% rate of fire and damage to medium artillery".
But I wouldn't like a 8-8 / 5 / 4 battlecruiser, even the Ferox is a sore spot for me. Would rather have 6 launchers with 5% RoF. And the same for the Cyclone. Heck, make the Drake have 6 launchers with 5% damage, so the Cyclone will be different (and more ganky/mobile but less brick) But that's just me. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Atrocitas
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 14:43:00 -
[2382] - Quote
TravelBuoy wrote:Fjury wrote:Fu*k 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 fu*king 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
|
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:18:00 -
[2383] - Quote
a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.
With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops.
I understand nerfing things, but all you are doing it fixing one totally useless BC (proph) and creating another (drake)
|
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:26:00 -
[2384] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range. With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops. Please look at it again. The drake is gaining a bit of kinetic dps with BC skill at V, and doesn't lose any with skill at IV. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:43:00 -
[2385] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.
With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops.
I understand nerfing things, but all you are doing it fixing one totally useless BC (proph) and creating another (drake)
considering the other bc's won't do that much damage at 16km........... |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:15:00 -
[2386] - Quote
i think that the myrmidon is nerfed too greatly by removing a turret since drones have the problem of being too vulnerable when increasing in size.
either drones should have slightly reduced sig radius, at least when warping or balance the mrtm by gining it 125BW, a lightly bigger cargohold or anything else
regarding Brutix its traditional problem was too little pwergrid and you shrink it even more? |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:33:00 -
[2387] - Quote
is there gonna be a change in the material costs? |
Electra Magnetic
Hard Knocks Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:33:00 -
[2388] - Quote
UGH, because CCP admits Shield tanking is still way better even after balance changes.
Its not that hard CCP - Reduce cap need for armor reps. Problem solved. |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:37:00 -
[2389] - Quote
one of the ferox main problems and the reason it is so usless is his 5 medium slots while being a shield tank. since railguns do so little damage comparing to others, short ranged blasters will require scram (ofcourse), web, prop... and what? 2 slots for tank?
i advice moving 1 low slot to medium |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:54:00 -
[2390] - Quote
generally i'm not sure if i feel comfort with new tweaking session every month even if its required, its too rapid |
|
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 17:43:00 -
[2391] - Quote
Laura Belle wrote:generally i'm not sure if i feel comfort with new tweaking session every month even if its required, its too rapid
Wow , wow , wow ... im speechless. Are you serious ? Some things are waiting to be balanced , changed for months if not years and you say things are going a bit too fast . I would say opposite. |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 20:19:00 -
[2392] - Quote
this is ur ferox
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1) Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
this is how i see it - taking the ferox and turning it into a pocket-rokh
Ferox: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 8 M(+3), 1 L(-3), 8 turrets (+2) Fittings: 1200 PWG (+125), 530 CPU (+55) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 350 (+5) |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:09:00 -
[2393] - Quote
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! >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Cap'n Thich
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:42:00 -
[2394] - Quote
I'm sorry but I'm kind of tired of my favorite ships being nerfed... most BC's are nearly pointless to fly and after the patch its just going to be the same or worse in my opinion. Much more efficient to just fly cruisers now. I saw someone else post this and I agree, BCs should be a bridge between cruisers and BS's, but at their current state they're not. And the patch isn't going to help. |
Mundi Kundoni
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:53:00 -
[2395] - Quote
As a blops user and battlecruiser fanatic I love love love the changes so far! In fact just bought a third account on one of your deals and training it to fly amarr drones with a view to helping out a newbie mate out with a drone prophecy! But my question is this, once he has advanced to level 4 missions will that character become useless or will the Armageddon be going the way of the prophecy and using that massive drone capability to its potential with a damage bonus?
Love n hugs! |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:57:00 -
[2396] - Quote
Cap'n Thich wrote:I'm sorry but I'm kind of tired of my favorite ships being nerfed... most BC's are nearly pointless to fly and after the patch its just going to be the same or worse in my opinion. Much more efficient to just fly cruisers now. I saw someone else post this and I agree, BCs should be a bridge between cruisers and BS's, but at their current state they're not. And the patch isn't going to help. Reading the post at the start I had the impression that it will be another "boohoo, CCP keeps nerfing my Cane/Drake" post, but ended up being a bit more.
And I kinda see your point, when I compare the Moa and the Ferox for instance. 5 bonused guns are not far off from 7 unbonused, what the Ferox gains in optimal the Moa can balance simply being able to dictate range better (about 50% faster with an MWD on and 36% without), low and midslot count is the same.
On the other hand, if you are in a group and some guys come and keep stuff sitting still (many web and scram), the Ferox has over twice the base shield HP, armor and hull, mobility of the Moa will mean less (you will either not be primary, or have many webs on you in a "fair" engagement as well), while the optimal will be better. DAAAAMN!!! I hate it when while writing a post I come to a conclusion opposite of what I wanted to get! >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:00:00 -
[2397] - Quote
Mundi Kundoni wrote:As a blops user and battlecruiser fanatic I love love love the changes so far! In fact just bought a third account on one of your deals and training it to fly amarr drones with a view to helping out a newbie mate out with a drone prophecy! But my question is this, once he has advanced to level 4 missions will that character become useless or will the Armageddon be going the way of the prophecy and using that massive drone capability to its potential with a damage bonus? The DevBlog with the BS plans had no mention of such, only the Phoon get's a total rework (and drones/cruise should). >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Atrocitas
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:15:00 -
[2398] - 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. |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:25:00 -
[2399] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Mund Richard wrote: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. Yupp, that's where I was going. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
153
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 00:03:00 -
[2400] - Quote
Probably the worst part of these new BC's is the necessity to train lvl 5 now due to the much higher gap in damage/tank bonuses from 4 to 5 than before. I thought one of the mandates CCP had was that there should never be a necessity to have to have a skill to be competitive? 10% damage per level on top of some ships gaining another 5% to resist makes such a huge gap compared to the old 5/5 that there's almost no way a player can compete unless that ship skill is to 5. There's certainly no chance with it 3 or below. Even worse, it supplants actually training multiple gun skills to 5 as the ship bonus is larger than 2-3 levels of most gun skills. |
|
Amber Solaire
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 00:34:00 -
[2401] - Quote
The Prophecy was the least used BC......with the new changes, you have guaranteed it will be the least used
The new changes are a total joke
Missile launchers, but a drone bonus, on an energy weapon-using ship?
Once, I wanted to fly one, but no longer definitely now |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 00:57:00 -
[2402] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:The Prophecy was the least used BC......with the new changes, you have guaranteed it will be the least used The new changes are a total joke Missile launchers, but a drone bonus, on an energy weapon-using ship? Once, I wanted to fly one, but no longer definitely now Well... The "mistake" you make, is that you assume it's an beam ship. With nor damage ROF or cap bonus, I don't really see much reason to put any lasers on it.
As a Gallente being used to flying the Myrm as a minmatar BC (AC+Shield) with drone bonus, the Prophecy has a few things appealing that the Myrm lacks: - Has a more universal tank bonus - Has a larger bay - Can be fit with HAMs - Is smaller, faster, lighter - Has an extra low
Not sure if it's a good ship overall or not, but it's at least something that makes me pause and ponder, instead of outright dismissing it as I have before. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Mundi Kundoni
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 01:29:00 -
[2403] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Mundi Kundoni wrote:As a blops user and battlecruiser fanatic I love love love the changes so far! In fact just bought a third account on one of your deals and training it to fly amarr drones with a view to helping out a newbie mate out with a drone prophecy! But my question is this, once he has advanced to level 4 missions will that character become useless or will the Armageddon be going the way of the prophecy and using that massive drone capability to its potential with a damage bonus? The DevBlog with the BS plans had no mention of such, only the Phoon get's a total (missiles) and the Mega a slight (Thorax 3.0) rework (plus the honorable mentions how drones/cruise/toprs should also be buffed/changed).
Ah damn, there is the death of an otherwise sweet career path :( I shall just continue to watch in hope! |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
271
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 01:32:00 -
[2404] - Quote
Cyclone goes Caldari,the new low emerged sad about this nothing ever should go caldari i guess not enough F1..meh don't like not saying it wont work. Leeloo Dallas Multipass - "Big bada boom"
http://i.imgur.com/1N37t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rbmgtGx.jpg Ninja over Black-ops. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
388
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 02:11:00 -
[2405] - Quote
Mina Sebiestar wrote:Cyclone goes Caldari,the new low emerged sad about this nothing ever should go caldari i guess not enough F1..meh don't like not saying it wont work. Missiles aren't Caldari-only weapons. I'm glad to see more ships from other races dedicated as missile ships. It'll also be nice to see some EM or explosive-only damage bonuses, and maybe just one Gallente missile ship with a thermal missile damage bonus, and I'm not talking about the Nemesis here! -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
388
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 06:08:00 -
[2406] - Quote
How come the hurricane and cyclone have 5% damage bonuses while everything else has 10% bonuses? (except the Ferox) They have 5 and 6 main weapons, just like the other battlecruisers. This means that the hurricane with its dual bonuses will land slightly higher in main weapon damage than other battlecruisers, but without a secondary bonus to rely on, and a below average drone bay to boot. The cyclone will have the lowest damage output of all battlecruisers but still only has 2 utility high slots.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if these ships were significantly faster and more agile than the others, but the changes show them being brought closer to the medium than before. Now the brutix is just as massive, agile, and almost as fast as the cyclone, but it'll hit much harder. They have equivalent defensive bonuses and drone bays. The cyclone has 2 utility highs and the brutix has 1. The brutix has 35% more weapon power at battlecruiser skill 5, while the cyclone has about 10% more EHP than the brutix (not counting structure). And finally, the cyclone and brutix have about the same powergrid, despite the brutix being not only armor based, but having more weapon slots of a type that costs more powergrid. I'm not saying it's unfair, just:
1.) doesn't it make more sense for the minmatar ship to have less HP but be more agile? 2.) of all things the brutix loses to the cyclone, why max velocity? It needs that to move into blaster range. Shouldn't its agility be cut instead? 3.) shouldn't a light-hitting ship like the cyclone be swift moreso than durable? 4.) I think the cyclone could stand to give up some of its powergrid to the brutix. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
244
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 09:26:00 -
[2407] - Quote
Best close range damage with fastest speed is OP : no ship would be able to escape, and no ship able to kill it would be able to catch it. |
Mund Richard
333
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 10:55:00 -
[2408] - Quote
Also, 5% Rate of Fire bonus gives more dps than 5% damage does (33% I believe instead of 25%), and only the minnies get RoF bonus on BC level. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
388
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 12:21:00 -
[2409] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Best close range damage with fastest speed is OP : no ship would be able to escape, and no ship able to kill it would be able to catch it. Maybe in a hypothetical universe in which all fights are one-on-one, combat battlecruisers are the only ships, stasis webifiers don't exist, everyone's skills are the same, and fights last long enough for a brutix to kite a cyclone with a 10m/s advantage.
Mund Richard wrote:Also, 5% Rate of Fire bonus gives more dps than 5% damage does (33% I believe instead of 25%), and only the minnies get RoF bonus on BC level. I factored that in actually. In most cases a rate of fire bonus is about equivalent to a damage bonus because it increases the firing cost. But since medium projectile ammo is fairly small and autocannons fit a lot, rate of fire is pretty much a winner over damage in this case. Thus I factored in the full 33% * 5 for the cyclone vs. only the 50% * 6 for the brutix.
5 * 1.33 = 6.66 (cyclone) 6 * 1.25 * 1.33 = 9.975 (hurricane) <--no secondary skill bonus 6 * 1.5 = 9 (harbinger, drake, brutix) -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Mund Richard
333
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 12:32:00 -
[2410] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I factored that in actually. In most cases a rate of fire bonus is about equivalent to a damage bonus because it increases the firing cost. um... If you are worried about ammo cost, maybe you shouldn't PvP.
You are right that the ships with 9 effective turrets are fairly close to the 10 of the double-bonused Cane, and the Drake even has a really potent and universal second bonus that does work, though the very same damage bonus that brings it close to the Cane limits it severely. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
|
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Fade 2 Black
364
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 16:10:00 -
[2411] - Quote
Hey CCP Fozzie! For the first time your team made me angry! Read again this!:
This only means one thing! That you are fixing YOUR PROBLEMS and messing up the Industrial code of the game! You guys keep creating exceptions in the Code to prevent What!? That players rush to build ships before they get into to game? Or that players that have a big sum of ships get an increased ISK vallue for the ships in the stock?! The point is that once the material cost rises the ship production cost will rise too, so industrials will increase the selling price of the ship, being them produced before or after the expansion! and who had produced before will get an increased proffit anyway. ( or will seel underpriced ships) So you get an unsolved problem, that doesn't really need a solution. and just create annother one by trying to "fix it". you just trow it in to a area that don't have a Dev Team working in it, you are pushing garbage under the rug, forgetting that it will stink anyway.
There should be a tream trying to fix the industry! It is one of the most important part of the game! Most players that I know only started to play this game becouse it have an complex and player run industry.
So, please, step back. Keep the game code simple, and uniform in all areas. don't mess globally whylle trying to fix a local problem! the Returned percentage of a reprocess should stay the same! Noone in good mental health would reprocess a ship if he can get bigger profit by selling it. Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
642
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 16:47:00 -
[2412] - Quote
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. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 17:36:00 -
[2413] - 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 |
DrJonF Rockit
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 21:19:00 -
[2414] - Quote
I"m sorry, but I'm just here to remind/tell/inform you that the Drake is popular NOT BECAUSE it is a superior ship to any other ship.... but because it is a cool looking (at one point affordable) reliable craft. Drake is far from superior to any of the other ships on your list... period. |
Mund Richard
333
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 22:32:00 -
[2415] - Quote
DrJonF Rockit wrote:I"m sorry, but I'm just here to remind/tell/inform you that the Drake is popular NOT BECAUSE it is a superior ship to any other ship.... but because it is a cool looking (at one point affordable) reliable craft. Drake is far from superior to any of the other ships on your list... period. Thought it's because it does adequate damage at fair ranges and tanks like a brick, allowing you to do both L4s and blob warfare. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
390
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 22:56:00 -
[2416] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I factored that in actually. In most cases a rate of fire bonus is about equivalent to a damage bonus because it increases the firing cost. um... If you are worried about ammo cost, maybe you shouldn't PvP. When I say firing cost, I'm talking about ammo space and capacitor drain, but I guess if you factor in the use of expensive ammo in long fights (which I don't do and so usually never think about) then you could add in actual price of the ammo with the firing cost.
Congratulations, in debunking my post, you supported an excuse to calculate the cyclone's power output even lower. I think I'll use 1.3 instead of 1.3333333 5 x 1.3 = 6.5 -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Mund Richard
334
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 00:01:00 -
[2417] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I factored that in actually. In most cases a rate of fire bonus is about equivalent to a damage bonus because it increases the firing cost. um... If you are worried about ammo cost, maybe you shouldn't PvP. When I say firing cost, I'm talking about ammo space and capacitor drain, but I guess if you factor in the use of expensive ammo in long fights (which I don't do and so usually never think about) then you could add in actual price of the ammo with the firing cost. Congratulations, in debunking my post, you supported an excuse to calculate the cyclone's power output even lower. I think I'll use 1.3 instead of 1.3333333 5 x 1.3 = 6.5 Cap cost is also usually something minmatars specifically don't worry about as much. Ammo size and storage space is a realistic concern. (Leaving out lasers, cap is unquestionably bad with them without the bonus, and ammo is irregular.) Picking the highest caliber T2 medium sized turrets/launchers (heck, the only in the launcher's case) Blasters and HAMs come in at a capacity of 1.0 and 0.99, HM at 1.2, 425 at 1.5 m3. Leads to an ammo count of (in the same order) 80, 66, 40, 120. With base rate of fire counted, reload is needed (in the same order) after 302.4 / 290.8 / 330.5 / 486 seconds. Now ACs tend to get RoF bonuses more often and reload takes longer, but they still are the gun that can fire the longest in this weight class by a large margin making the reload time ignorable (except while you are doing it). Ammo space... when 1-2 m3 is enough for 5 minutes or so per gun, unless you do a POS bash, I doubt it's the biggest concern. For cap booster charges it's a really big concern (double-boosted Myrm), but that's a different part.
I do not disagree with how the Cyclone is a tad bit weird, plus the RoF makes it eat the ammo even faster (and it was the shortest to fire already with HAMs and the longest reload), plus guns overheated do more damage while launchers fire faster making the charges last even shorter. I do agree that the Cyclone doesn't seem like it's the best of the group, but also don't forget the free 2 turret hardpoints it has after the 5 launchers. Even if it's unbonused, and your BCUs won't affect them. I hate it. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 00:04:00 -
[2418] - Quote
Quote: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.
And the exact same problem exists with all of them. What's your point? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4232
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 00:14:00 -
[2419] - Quote
The extra materials trick is required to prevent what would be a pretty nasty exploit every time we update items. It's not being used without reason and we're not intending for every item to have it, just the items for which it is needed. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Malius Sparklighter
Witching Escort Services
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 00:15:00 -
[2420] - Quote
I'll try to make this quick and specific and not sound like a complaint.
My main ship is a Harby and last night I spent about 10mil (which is a lot when you only have 200mil) refitting it for lvl 3 solo missions.
-Lost about 80+ DPS since the patch from my 250ish I had last night. -Can't fit 2 reppers and a medium Nos at the same time with 6 guns due to no power grid now, and that's with nothing else in the lows and only cap charge arrays and an AB in the mids (no T2 gear at all). -Lost at least 1k armor HP when the Harby was supposed to be the Amarr BC tank. -Can't fit active resists anymore when I had 3 running with 2 reps last night. -I haven't even checked my cap yet because I'm too upset that my "good ship" is now worth more as minerals.
Now there's no way I can solo the hard lvl 3's without a battleship and I'm on one now that I'll end up failing because I can't fly BS yet and they don't even allow BSs in the area (mission: "A Million Little Pieces").
I go to ask about it in Amarr local and the first response I get is, "The Harby is obsolete now, get a Proph." The price of the the Harby will plummet and it'll find a niche as a <100m/s bait ship or something. Why did I even train BC II when the tier I is better?
Well, those are my tears. Next time please give a noob some warning before she drops 10mil upgrading a mission ship and then can't even undock without being laughed at. |
|
Mund Richard
334
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 00:32:00 -
[2421] - Quote
Malius Sparklighter wrote:Why did I even train BC II when the tier I is better? Not sure, so I'll ask. Do you fly with a BC skill of II, or is your grief that the (formerly) tier 2 BC is now not as shiny as the (formerly) tier 1? PG concerns... did you have an active tank rig on it, without training the rig skill to higher levels by any chance? >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Malius Sparklighter
Witching Escort Services
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 02:07:00 -
[2422] - Quote
I didn't realize until after the post that it wasn't a I, II, or III BC thing anymore, it make a lot more sense now. I usually use 3 active resists and 2 armor reps, but now I can't fit hardly anything.
Doing rookie ship duels to blow off steam in Amarr if anyone wants to try the fun part of the patch in rookie ships |
SkyMeetFire
The Rising Stars Initiative Mercenaries
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 02:25:00 -
[2423] - Quote
Malius Sparklighter wrote:I'll try to make this quick and specific and not sound like a complaint.
My main ship is a Harby and last night I spent about 10mil (which is a lot when you only have 200mil) refitting it for lvl 3 solo missions.
-Lost about 80+ DPS since the patch from my 250ish I had last night. -Can't fit 2 reppers and a medium Nos at the same time with 6 guns due to no power grid now, and that's with nothing else in the lows and only cap charge arrays and an AB in the mids (no T2 gear at all). -Lost at least 1k armor HP when the Harby was supposed to be the Amarr BC tank. -Can't fit active resists anymore when I had 3 running with 2 reps last night. -I haven't even checked my cap yet because I'm too upset that my "good ship" is now worth more as minerals.
Now there's no way I can solo the hard lvl 3's without a battleship and I'm on one now that I'll end up failing because I can't fly BS yet and they don't even allow BSs in the area (mission: "A Million Little Pieces").
I go to ask about it in Amarr local and the first response I get is, "The Harby is obsolete now, get a Proph." The price of the the Harby will plummet and it'll find a niche as a <100m/s bait ship or something. Why did I even train BC II when the tier I is better?
Well, those are my tears. Next time please give a noob some warning before she drops 10mil upgrading a mission ship and then can't even undock without being laughed at.
I'm seriously confused about everything you just said, but I'm going to take a stab at explaining this:
1. If you lost DPS, then you probably should raise your BC skill. The Harbs effective DPS at lvl 4 is exactly the same as prepatch, and is greater at lvl 5. 2. If you are no longer able to fit 2 reppers and a nos, it means most likely you have 3 active armor rigs on your ship, as that is the only thing that reduced the effective grid of the Harbinger. Look at raising your armor rigging skill. In addition to that, the Advanced weapon upgrades skill comes in handy. 3. You will lose some armor buffer. They reduced its base armor amount. Can't do anything about it. Tastes like chicken. 4. It lost no lowslots and the CPU is the same (and is effectively larger without the 7th turret), so why you can't fit active resists is beyond me. 5. Take a look at the cap. It got a tiny buff, and it has less drain on it from 6 turrets rather than 7, so it has less issues than before. 6. If you are asking in Amarr local, be ready to be trolled. Same goes for jita. 7. The proph is still probably a better bait ship. 8. You were given at least a month warning this change would happen. Fozzie posted this thread on January 8th, and then a major update on the 10th.
Now hopefully you understand I very much restricted the amount of snark I put into this and actually intend to be helping you. And if you are a troll, well done sir, 9/10.
|
Paul Maken
The Rising Stars Initiative Mercenaries
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 03:01:00 -
[2424] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The extra materials trick is required to prevent what would be a pretty nasty exploit every time we update items. It's not being used without reason and we're not intending for every item to have it, just the items for which it is needed.
This is also something that CCP forgot to do when they turned defender missiles into light and heavy variants and making all the existing ones into the heavy defender missiles. Those reprocessed for much more than they had cost to make before the patch. Unfortunately, I wasn't on to notice this until about 16 hours after the patch and someone had already cleared all the trade hubs of them.
I still wonder how much ISK was made instantly by the first person who figured this out and cleaned up orders in Jita. |
gotyaa
Underdogs Downunder
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 03:16:00 -
[2425] - Quote
All the games one plays,if something is doing great ,just nerf it,if this was a real war and in space you think they would nerf a ship that is awsum ,Keep Nerfing |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
107
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 03:45:00 -
[2426] - Quote
Ok, so the patch is live and I've started playing around with the ships. I don't know if this is where further feedback will be monitored on BC's but here are some initial observations.
Drake: HAM fit is excellent. ~80-90k EHP depending on fit and ~700 dps at 17kms overheated w/ warriors! Plus med neut! That is superb. Plus with some logi, T1 or T2, simply a great fleet boat.
Ferox: Impressive fleet blaster boat, far better than Brutix. High resists run it around ~75-80k EHP w/ ~600 DPS with faction antimatter/ flight of warriors, able to use full rack of neutrons. The range projection (which is key) with null puts it 9.4+8.8 which is fantastic range projection for med blasters. Oh also a Med Neut! Even cooler run one Large ASB and a Large Extender and you get ~500-600 burst tank and still have 60K ehp to play with while reloading! So good for small gang or fleet w/ logi. And everything fits easily.
Prophecy: This will sadly have to replace my Mrym as my Drone BC of choice. This thing is a beast. You can fit it so many ways it is going to give anyone pause before messing with it in small gang work. Potentially a great drone fleet boat, rare as that beast might be. With armor logi even more scary. Easy to get ~ 130K buffer ehp out of it and still sport 2, yes 2, Drone Damage Amps. While it might not produce as much top end dps as the Mrym, it easily outperforms an armor Mrym (buffer or rep) for drone damage against frigs and cruisers, because the bonused light drones and medium drones benefit from the 2 DDA's. This means against many engagements it will far out dps the armor tanked Mrym. And its drone bay is so vast that you can have all kinds of options out there. Kill my drones, no problem, it has more! You must shield tank the Mrym to compete DPS wise against this ship engagements where 5 light and/or 5 med drones are called for. (But shield Mrym has meager tank.) Here is the best part, it triple reps 926 with a MAAR (unheated, no fleet bonus or drugs) while still sporting 4 Dual 180 autocannon II's AND a Medium Neut. Everything running to including MWD near stable (21minutes) while cap boosters last. That completely outclasses the triple rep Mrym. Amazing cap on this thing. Only draw back is that then the prophecy only does around 448dps compared to the Mrym's 547dps when both trip repped. (but with the larger drone bay, vastly better cap performance, and a constantly running med neut, that tips it heavily in Amarr's favor.)
Mrym: Well, the above pretty much covers everything that the Mrym is not. Triple reps only 852 with the MAAR, (unbonused, no drugs, no heat) with ~547 dps with 5 180mm Autocannons. Sadly, no medium neut. Capacitor significantly lower performance than Prophecy. Explosive hole still exists. An ASB Shield Mrym with an XLASB and a LASB nearly outperforms a triple rep armor tank though has vastly higher DPS (~835) despite the many fitting mods needed to make it work. Shield tanking or armor buffer will still be preferred fittings for this boat. There might be some fleet applications with 4 sentries but, meh. DPS application, when armor tanked, will be less against frig/cruisers since it doesn't have the lows for DDA's that the prophecy has, nor the drone bay. Is this really working as intended? The MAAR, marginal improvement, but overall, not very good. Still needing to have all the cap boosters really just makes it too unattractive vice ASB's.
Brutix: Ok, not sure what the ideal fit is here because other than shield tanking it (which is good, but might as well fly a Ferox then) this thing is really short on power grid. Shield fit it does have ~50K EHP and a nice ~800's DPS so all gank small tank. Wasting a hull bonus. - Armor buffer: With a 1600 plate its slow but can scram/double web and deliver a nice ~700's DPS with Hammerheads/67K EHP. But of course, that's assuming it ever catches a target and can get to ZERO since you have to use ELECTRONS because nothing else fits. Ok, put on a 800 plate (really?) lose 10,000 ehp and still only fit IONs, and only get about 50-60m/s faster with perfect honeycomb skills. Waste a hull bonus. Fly a Vexor then, same performance, smaller sig. -Armor Rep: So it's bonused for this right? Hard to tell. Double rep (one stupid MAAR) and its around ~673 tank. (I couldn't find a triple rep set up I liked as it needed a +3% power grid implant and left a highslot unfilled.) So with double rep it can only fit Electrons and needs two mids (cap boosters) to keep the boat running, especially since you will run up against neuts. This leaves it with no web. GOOD Luck getting this boat into range (to ZERO) to apply DPS. ELECTRONS? Really? This boat sucks.
Before I was ok with the thought of just giving one Gal boat the dreaded armor repair bonus, now I frankly despise it for both.
I haven't bothered with any other ships.
|
Malius Sparklighter
Witching Escort Services
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 04:42:00 -
[2427] - Quote
New issue with the duel system:
--> You fight one guy in a ship you think will be a fair fight. Then he warps off and docks somewhere and when he come's back he's in something way nastier with resists to you, alphas you, and pods you. The dueling system is shown to everyone in the system as something honorable, baiting isn't honorable or anything of the sort.
Please make it where if someone docks or changes ships the duel ends. Also, call me annoying, but I don't like the idea of being freely podded in HiSec when I just to duel for fun/test a fit and I'm not seeking vengeance. The duel should end at the ship popping when in HiSec IMO. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
107
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 04:45:00 -
[2428] - Quote
Malius Sparklighter wrote:New issue with the duel system:
--> You fight one guy in a ship you think will be a fair fight. Then he warps off and docks somewhere and when he come's back he's in something way nastier with resists to you, alphas you, and pods you. The dueling system is shown to everyone in the system as something honorable, baiting isn't honorable or anything of the sort.
Please make it where if someone docks or changes ships the duel ends. Also, call me annoying, but I don't like the idea of being freely podded in HiSec when I just to duel for fun/test a fit and I'm not seeking vengeance. The duel should end at the ship popping when in HiSec IMO.
Interesting, but you might want to put it in the feedback chain for dueling and not in the BC thread. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Black Legion.
910
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 05:22:00 -
[2429] - Quote
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. |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 05:31:00 -
[2430] - 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 |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
367
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 07:29:00 -
[2431] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:Ok, so the patch is live and I've started playing around with the ships. I don't know if this is where further feedback will be monitored on BC's but here are some initial observations. Drake: HAM fit is excellent. ~80-90k EHP depending on fit and ~700 dps at 17kms overheated w/ warriors! Plus med neut! That is superb. Plus with some logi, T1 or T2, simply a great fleet boat. Not as agile but sorry folks, it can't be everything. Ferox: Impressive fleet blaster boat, far better than Brutix. High resists run it around ~75-80k EHP w/ ~600 DPS with faction antimatter/ flight of warriors, able to use full rack of neutrons. The range projection (which is key) with null puts it 9.4+8.8 which is fantastic range projection for med blasters. Oh also a Med Neut! Even cooler run one Large ASB and a Large Extender and you get ~500-600 burst tank and still have 60K ehp to play with while reloading! So good for small gang or fleet w/ logi. And everything fits easily. Prophecy: This will sadly have to replace my Mrym as my Drone BC of choice. This thing is a beast. You can fit it so many ways it is going to give anyone pause before messing with it in small gang work. Potentially a great drone fleet boat, rare as that beast might be. With armor logi even more scary. Easy to get ~ 130K buffer ehp out of it and still sport 2, yes 2, Drone Damage Amps. While it might not produce as much top end dps as the Mrym, it easily outperforms an armor Mrym (buffer or rep) for drone damage against frigs and cruisers, because the bonused light drones and medium drones benefit from the 2 DDA's. This means against many engagements it will far out dps the armor tanked Mrym. And its drone bay is so vast that you can have all kinds of options out there. Kill my drones, no problem, it has more! You must shield tank the Mrym to compete DPS wise against this ship engagements where 5 light and/or 5 med drones are called for. (But shield Mrym has meager tank.) Here is the best part, it triple reps 926 with a MAAR (unheated, no fleet bonus or drugs) while still sporting 4 Dual 180 autocannon II's AND a Medium Neut. Everything running to including MWD near stable (21minutes) while cap boosters last. That completely outclasses the triple rep Mrym. Amazing cap on this thing. Only draw back is that then the prophecy only does around 448dps compared to the Mrym's 547dps when both trip repped. (but with the larger drone bay, vastly better cap performance, and a constantly running med neut, that tips it heavily in Amarr's favor.) Mrym: Well, the above pretty much covers everything that the Mrym is not. Triple reps only 852 with the MAAR, (unbonused, no drugs, no heat) with ~547 dps with 5 180mm Autocannons. Sadly, no medium neut. Capacitor significantly lower performance than Prophecy. Explosive hole still exists. An ASB Shield Mrym with an XLASB and a LASB nearly outperforms a triple rep armor tank though has vastly higher DPS (~835) despite the many fitting mods needed to make it work. Shield tanking or armor buffer will still be preferred fittings for this boat. There might be some fleet applications with 4 sentries but, meh. DPS application, when armor tanked, will be less against frig/cruisers since it doesn't have the lows for DDA's that the prophecy has, nor the drone bay. Is this really working as intended? - For example a double 1600 plated Mrym (just for the sake of comparison ok?) comes in at ~108 EHP and a full flight of Warriors, to kill that pesky frig, at ~120 drone dps. A very viable 1600 double plated Prophecy (130 EHP) puts out ~172 dps from those same warriors (2 DDA's.) The one extra high slot gun does not make up the difference, sorry frig's out of gun range! And the Proph can run a med neut no problem to boot. Thus the Gallente model of greater drone dps vice Amarr starts to fall apart no? Same story for Med drones, which hit better against cruisers and arguably many BC's due to travel time of heavies. - The MAAR,? marginal improvement, but overall, not very good. Still needing to have all the cap boosters really just makes it too unattractive vice ASB's. If I want to active rep, can't see many reasons to choose armor still over shield. And certainly not in the two Gal boats, sadly as that is nearly all I fly. Brutix: Ok, not sure what the ideal fit is here because other than shield tanking it (which is good, but might as well fly a Ferox then) this thing is really short on power grid. Shield fit it does have ~50K EHP and a nice ~800's DPS so all gank small tank. Wasting a hull bonus. - Armor buffer: With a 1600 plate its slow but can scram/double web and deliver a nice ~700's DPS with Hammerheads/67K EHP. But of course, that's assuming it ever catches a target and can get to ZERO since you have to use ELECTRONS because nothing else fits. Ok, put on a 800 plate (really?) lose 10,000 ehp and still only fit IONs, and only get about 50-60m/s faster with perfect honeycomb skills. Waste a hull bonus. Fly a Vexor then, same performance, smaller sig. -Armor Rep: So it's bonused for this right? Hard to tell. Double rep (one stupid MAAR) and its around ~673 tank. (I couldn't find a triple rep set up I liked as it needed a +3% power grid implant and left a highslot unfilled.) So with double rep it can only fit Electrons and needs two mids (cap boosters) to keep the boat running, especially since you will run up against neuts. This leaves it with no web. GOOD Luck getting this boat into range (to ZERO) to apply DPS. ELECTRONS? Really? This boat sucks. Before I was ok with the thought of just giving one Gal boat the dreaded armor repair bonus, now I frankly despise it for both. I haven't bothered with any other ships. It's not really hard to get the Brutix up to 1500 m/s with 1200 dps |
Trellion Yvetti
Forced Penetration Hopeless Addiction
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 08:48:00 -
[2432] - Quote
why does my harbinger do less damage after the patch then it did before?
50% bonus on 6 guns = 9 effective guns.
while 25% bonus on 7 guns is 8.75 effective guns...
What am I missing? |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 08:53:00 -
[2433] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The extra materials trick is required to prevent what would be a pretty nasty exploit every time we update items. It's not being used without reason and we're not intending for every item to have it, just the items for which it is needed.
I get the point that you want to level up the bpo's - but I really dislike that the ME of the BPO does not to apply to the extra materials. This is a disadvantage to production of these ships compared to their former higher tier compatriots where there are no extra materials so ME does apply to the entire mineral requirements.
This issue is compounded because when you view the bpo's information you are not presented with the split between the minerals requirements affected by ME and those that are not - you just get that "Extra Materials [0]" line.
|
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 09:36:00 -
[2434] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:Brutix: Ok, not sure what the ideal fit is here because other than shield tanking it (which is good, but might as well fly a Ferox then) this thing is really short on power grid. Shield fit it does have ~50K EHP and a nice ~800's DPS so all gank small tank. Wasting a hull bonus. - Armor buffer: With a 1600 plate its slow but can scram/double web and deliver a nice ~700's DPS with Hammerheads/67K EHP. But of course, that's assuming it ever catches a target and can get to ZERO since you have to use ELECTRONS because nothing else fits. Ok, put on a 800 plate (really?) lose 10,000 ehp and still only fit IONs, and only get about 50-60m/s faster with perfect honeycomb skills. Waste a hull bonus. Fly a Vexor then, same performance, smaller sig. -Armor Rep: So it's bonused for this right? Hard to tell. Double rep (one stupid MAAR) and its around ~673 tank. (I couldn't find a triple rep set up I liked as it needed a +3% power grid implant and left a highslot unfilled.) So with double rep it can only fit Electrons and needs two mids (cap boosters) to keep the boat running, especially since you will run up against neuts. This leaves it with no web. GOOD Luck getting this boat into range (to ZERO) to apply DPS. ELECTRONS? Really? This boat sucks. Before I was ok with the thought of just giving one Gal boat the dreaded armor repair bonus, now I frankly despise it for both. I haven't bothered with any other ships.
Have you even looked at the Harbinger? - Armour buffer: 1600 plate and you can scram, single web (need a cap booster), and get less DPS than the Brutix, and it's still possible to get under your guns. Just as slow, and the only benefit is better projection. The ONLY benefit.
- Armour rep: So... no. Not even going into this. I won't even bother, you don't have the cap for it unless you put 2 cap boosters in the mids. At least. And without a web your odds of tracking anything at all are slim to you simply cannot.
- Shield fit: I got to remove a gun and upgrade my FS-9's to Tech II LSE's. Otherwise no change over previous except getting slower, less mobile, and losing EHP. Though I will concede that the Harb is better for this due to damage projection. It can out-project the Brutix while kiting. But again, don't let anything get close, because anything your size can mitigate most of your DPS/get under your guns without a web.
And on all fits: wasted hull bonus. It's not a bonus, it just lets me shoot my guns. How would you feel if your Brutix (and half the ships in the Gallente lineup) got a hull bonus of 10% higher weapon capacity per level? You would be asking for them to remove it as a bonus and just put it in standard.
Although I have to admit that after the patch with battlecruiser V the cap isn't that bad. I get 2 minutes of cap life on my Harbinger without running the cap booster, and I can keep myself operating (assuming nobody neuts me) for as long as I have cap booster charges. I'm quite liking it, and can't wait to get a few more of them. The Brutix isn't as bad as you make it out to be, and the Harbinger isn't as bad as I make it out to be. I've got a few corp mates flying Brutixes. They love the thing, downsides and all. Because, y'know, tradeoffs. You just can't have it all. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
273
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 11:41:00 -
[2435] - Quote
Malius Sparklighter wrote:New issue with the duel system:
--> You fight one guy in a ship you think will be a fair fight. Then he warps off and docks somewhere and when he come's back he's in something way nastier with resists to you, alphas you, and pods you. The dueling system is shown to everyone in the system as something honorable, baiting isn't honorable or anything of the sort.
Please make it where if someone docks or changes ships the duel ends. Also, call me annoying, but I don't like the idea of being freely podded in HiSec when I just to duel for fun/test a fit and I'm not seeking vengeance. The duel should end at the ship popping when in HiSec IMO.
Welcome to EVE. It was never meant to be easy. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061
http://www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com |
Cap'n Thich
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 12:23:00 -
[2436] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Cap'n Thich wrote:I'm sorry but I'm kind of tired of my favorite ships being nerfed... most BC's are nearly pointless to fly and after the patch its just going to be the same or worse in my opinion. Much more efficient to just fly cruisers now. I saw someone else post this and I agree, BCs should be a bridge between cruisers and BS's, but at their current state they're not. And the patch isn't going to help. Reading the post at the start I had the impression that it will be another "boohoo, CCP keeps nerfing my Cane/Drake" post, but ended up being a bit more. And I kinda see your point, when I compare the Moa and the Ferox for instance. 5 bonused guns are not far off from 7 unbonused, what the Ferox gains in optimal the Moa can balance simply being able to dictate range better (about 50% faster with an MWD on and 36% without), low and midslot count is the same. On the other hand, if you are in a group and some guys come and keep stuff sitting still (many web and scram), the Ferox has over twice the base shield HP, armor and hull, mobility of the Moa will mean less (you will either not be primary, or have many webs on you in a "fair" engagement as well), while the optimal will be better. DAAAAMN!!! I hate it when while writing a post I come to a conclusion opposite of what I wanted to get!
Haha. So you see my point. It just doesnt seem worth it to fly BCs anymore. And I'm glad you used the Moa and Ferox as an example. But here's something you didn't mention, 12.5 mil for a Moa, 50 mil for a Ferox. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
108
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 12:48:00 -
[2437] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Have you even looked at the Harbinger? - Armour buffer: 1600 plate and you can scram, single web (need a cap booster), and get less DPS than the Brutix, and it's still possible to get under your guns. Just as slow, and the only benefit is better projection. The ONLY benefit. - Armour rep: So... no. Not even going into this. I won't even bother, you don't have the cap for it unless you put 2 cap boosters in the mids. At least. And without a web your odds of tracking anything at all are slim to you simply cannot. - Shield fit: I got to remove a gun and upgrade my FS-9's to Tech II LSE's. Otherwise no change over previous except getting slower, less mobile, and losing EHP. Though I will concede that the Harb is better for this due to damage projection. It can out-project the Brutix while kiting. But again, don't let anything get close, because anything your size can mitigate most of your DPS/get under your guns without a web. And on all fits: wasted hull bonus. It's not a bonus, it just lets me shoot my guns. How would you feel if your Brutix (and half the ships in the Gallente lineup) got a hull bonus of 10% higher weapon capacity per level? You would be asking for them to remove it as a bonus and just put it in standard. Although I have to admit that after the patch with battlecruiser V the cap isn't that bad. I get 2 minutes of cap life on my Harbinger without running the cap booster, and I can keep myself operating (assuming nobody neuts me) for as long as I have cap booster charges. I'm quite liking it, and can't wait to get a few more of them. The Brutix isn't as bad as you make it out to be, and the Harbinger isn't as bad as I make it out to be. I've got a few corp mates flying Brutixes. They love the thing, downsides and all. Because, y'know, tradeoffs. You just can't have it all.
- I didn't comment on the Harbi or the Hurricane because I don't normally fly them and haven't had the time to mess with them, which I mentioned at the end of my post. So what I mentioned were my INITIAL observations thus far of the REBALANCE on the ships that I am well skilled for. And yes, I fly mostly Gallente boats. So I am sure that your statements are accurate but not really sure what your hostility is all about but I wouldn't comment on two ships I don't mess with much. So chill out.
As far as getting it all, I really don't think that the goal of balance has been achieved when the Amarr drone boat out triple reps and Myrm that is also triple repping? I also really can't seem to find a useful Brutix armor rep fit, which is WHAT THE BOAT is supposed to do. Fozzie did a great job on the frig/cruiser line, and the incursus has actually become a good little boat. However, the Brutix fails to perform sufficiently like a big incursus if that is the idea. I am more than willing to see if someone can suggest a good fit and I'll happily try it, though I seriously doubt there are many situations I can think of where I would use it. Faction warfare and places like RvB have found a good home for the Incursus. Not sure if a similar environment exists for a BC this weak. Particularly with the strength of T1 logi now.
The Mrym? It needs to loose that armor rep bonus and gain a second drone bonus: 5% per level to drone MWD speed and Drone tracking.
|
Beauregard DuCorte
Unrepentant Gaming
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 14:28:00 -
[2438] - Quote
Amber Solaire wrote:The Prophecy was the least used BC......with the new changes, you have guaranteed it will be the least used The new changes are a total joke Missile launchers, but a drone bonus, on an energy weapon-using ship? Once, I wanted to fly one, but no longer definitely now
LOLs, that's a joke right? This thing has just replaced the Myrmidon as the go to Drone BC. |
Beauregard DuCorte
Unrepentant Gaming
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 14:49:00 -
[2439] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Beauregard DuCorte wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Beauregard DuCorte wrote:Yes, I currently use the Myrm for Lvl 3s and some Lvl 4s (where afterburn between acceleration gates is needed). Everything that the Myrm currently does well in PvE the Prophesy will do better after the "balance" I can see doing most 3s and 4s with this, and it has a better base speed and smaller signature on top of the better bonuses and more low slots. Only thing the Myrm will do better, is sniping with sentries. 1 more out, 1 more midslot for omnilinks, in case a 3 slot tank is enough (due to rats starting far away and being few in number). For sniping with sentries you're better off just training a little more and flying a Dominix (Battleship), where you can have a full flight out. Dual reps for PvE will be overwhelmed by the ability to fit mission/rat specific modules for a 95%+ resist. A valid argument for any L3 that lets battleships in, though slightly sideways from a BC discussion. You could have said Ishtar just as well (and that would fill the afterburn between gates niche Beauregard mentioned even better, being lighter). Bit unsure on your 95%+ resist on a T1 hull, usually mines are 84.7% against serpentis with one rep and two DDA and 2+2 hardeners. Ok, I went a bit overboard with the 95%+ resist (call me distraught over the lack of Gallente love). Still, the 5% per level resist on the Proph is better than the 7.5% per level repair bonus on the Myrm in most cases. I tried out the Prophesy today, and the flexibility is simply superior to what I ever got in the Myrmidon. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 15:07:00 -
[2440] - Quote
seems to me the problem with resist bonus when compared to rep bonus is that they both do the same thing in a different way and one is limiting where the other is not....
The solution is to replace resist bonus with hit-points bonus this would also have the knock on effect of making T2 ships more resist based which would give more reason to fly them |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1065
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 15:33:00 -
[2441] - Quote
If the Prophesy can out-rep the Myrm and Brutix, then what is the Myrm/Brutix niche, and why do I need to type Myrm/Brutix when they both should fill their own unique niche?
|
Mund Richard
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:02:00 -
[2442] - Quote
There's a humongous difference between active tanking and fighting inside scram range with guns and drones, as opposed to active tanking and fighting inside scram range with drones and guns!
...I just can't find it yet.
Maybe the Brutix is meant to be an active tank railgun kiter with all the speed it has now? One of the voices said so! >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:06:00 -
[2443] - Quote
this update is just terribad.
drake now have big DPS, and is able to apply it almost all the time, while the other BC are not.
the hi on the cane is not that much, but still unpleasant.
now the big slice of s***t:
cyclone is now useless again: no matar use missile, those who can, dps is ridiculous myrm: why go myrm, prophecy does bettter all over the board brutix: the ferox now perform better
now you have battlecruisers unable to out dps cruisers.....nice job CCP, very nice job..... |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:28:00 -
[2444] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:If the Prophesy can out-rep the Myrm and Brutix, then what is the Myrm/Brutix niche, and why do I need to type Myrm/Brutix when they both should fill their own unique niche? This doesn't even consider that resist bonuses have advantages outside local tanking, and the bonus is never wasted, whether buffer tanking, in a gang, local, etc.
With local rep bonuses, you only receive the bonus when you locally tank, and you completely throw it away when you don't. One of the Gallente BCs should have received a Hurricane-stype treatment of 2x dps bonuses and the other should have had its bonus include remote as well as local reps.
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:29:00 -
[2445] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:X Gallentius wrote:If the Prophesy can out-rep the Myrm and Brutix, then what is the Myrm/Brutix niche, and why do I need to type Myrm/Brutix when they both should fill their own unique niche? This doesn't even consider that resist bonuses have advantages outside local tanking, and the bonus is never wasted, whether buffer tanking, in a gang, local, etc. With local rep bonuses, you only receive the bonus when you locally tank, and you completely throw it away when you don't. One of the Gallente BCs should have received a Hurricane-stype treatment of 2x dps bonuses and the other should have had its bonus include remote as well as local reps. or a % resist / % hp |
Mund Richard
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:36:00 -
[2446] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:X Gallentius wrote:If the Prophesy can out-rep the Myrm and Brutix, then what is the Myrm/Brutix niche, and why do I need to type Myrm/Brutix when they both should fill their own unique niche? This doesn't even consider that resist bonuses have advantages outside local tanking, and the bonus is never wasted, whether buffer tanking, in a gang, local, etc. With local rep bonuses, you only receive the bonus when you locally tank, and you completely throw it away when you don't. One of the Gallente BCs should have received a Hurricane-stype treatment of 2x dps bonuses and the other should have had its bonus include remote as well as local reps. Changing repair bonus to affect remote reps? Would be sheer ...working as intended(?) CCP Fozzie thinks it would be OP. I'd like to understand his reason for that. Amarr ships with their tank bonus have stronger base buffer (more armor HP), and stronger overall buffer (more lowslots to put tank modules in, and the resist), so they would be still more resistant to being alphaed, and would suffer only 3% or so on the incoming repair's EHP, as opposed to the current 33% more than the local tank bonus. While having only 3% less local tank, and the OP resist.
Don't think the Brutix needs a Cane-style double-damage though, it has the highest dps system already. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1189
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:51:00 -
[2447] - Quote
I was excited to have a chance to see a Cyclone that can do something unique.
It's complete trash now. I can do more with a Rupture.
There is absolutely no reason to fly a Cyclone over a Drake. No, it doesn't give you better damage options, cuz the damage is trash to start. The numbers may look "alright", but when applying it, it's complete trash again.
You need to fix this ship because it completely fails to accomplish any of the goals you intended. Where I am. |
Cap'n Thich
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:55:00 -
[2448] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:this update is just terribad.
drake now have big DPS, and is able to apply it almost all the time, while the other BC are not.
the hi on the cane is not that much, but still unpleasant.
now the big slice of s***t:
cyclone is now useless again: no matar use missile, those who can, dps is ridiculous myrm: why go myrm, prophecy does bettter all over the board brutix: the ferox now perform better
now you have battlecruisers unable to out dps cruisers.....nice job CCP, very nice job.....
ehhhh.... Combat BCs def out DPS/EHP combat cruisers, but in most cases not by much. CCP did an excellent job balancing the cruisers with Retribution. But I just feel like CCP hasnt given BCs their proper niche yet. |
Oghedron
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:02:00 -
[2449] - Quote
Hi Fozzie,
Is it possible for the brutix to get 9 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! |
Cap'n Thich
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:13:00 -
[2450] - Quote
Oghedron wrote:Hi Fozzie,
Is it possible for the brutix to get 9 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!
Full rack of their largest guns? Negative. For 1600 plated cane and harby you'l need to go their medium sized close range weapons. (Unless you put ACR rigs, but that'd just be silly.) Now I've never flew a Brutix, but I'm sure its the same. |
|
Oghedron
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:45:00 -
[2451] - Quote
Why is it silly to fit 1 ACR rig when it allows you to fit a full rack of the largest short range gun, which give more range and damage?
I am not even asking to fit the largest guns on a brutix, only a meta medium cap booster. It is the only turret bc that has to drop to its smallest guns to fit a similar tank, mwd and booster. The other ones can even fit a t2 booster with no issues.
Is there something wrong with what I am asking? |
Cap'n Thich
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 18:54:00 -
[2452] - Quote
Oghedron wrote:Why is it silly to fit 1 ACR rig when it allows you to fit a full rack of the largest short range gun, which give more range and damage?
I am not even asking to fit the largest guns on a brutix, only a meta medium cap booster. It is the only turret bc that has to drop to its smallest guns to fit a similar tank, mwd and booster. The other ones can even fit a t2 booster with no issues.
Is there something wrong with what I am asking?
No not silly to fit just one. I was talking about the multiples you would need to fit the larger guns. But like i said you can't fit the medium guns on a brutix with a 1600 plate. Seems odd. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 19:17:00 -
[2453] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote: - I didn't comment on the Harbi or the Hurricane because I don't normally fly them and haven't had the time to mess with them, which I mentioned at the end of my post. So what I mentioned were my INITIAL observations thus far of the REBALANCE on the ships that I am well skilled for. And yes, I fly mostly Gallente boats. So I am sure that your statements are accurate but not really sure what your hostility is all about but I wouldn't comment on two ships I don't mess with much. So chill out.
As far as getting it all, I really don't think that the goal of balance has been achieved when the Amarr drone boat out triple reps and Myrm that is also triple repping? I also really can't seem to find a useful Brutix armor rep fit, which is WHAT THE BOAT is supposed to do. Fozzie did a great job on the frig/cruiser line, and the incursus has actually become a good little boat. However, the Brutix fails to perform sufficiently like a big incursus if that is the idea. I am more than willing to see if someone can suggest a good fit and I'll happily try it, though I seriously doubt there are many situations I can think of where I would use it. Faction warfare and places like RvB have found a good home for the Incursus. Not sure if a similar environment exists for a BC this weak. Particularly with the strength of T1 logi now.
The Mrym? It needs to loose that armor rep bonus and gain a second drone bonus: 5% per level to drone MWD speed and Drone tracking.
Yeah, sorry about that. You've done nothing to offend me really, so why am I angry at you? I'm just getting upset with the endless bit I'm hearing about how terrible the Gallente ships will be after every patch. I heard it for all the Gallente frigates, the Destroyers, and the Cruisers, and now the BC's. And they really haven't turned out badly so far. If you ask me, so far they've all been pretty decent. I'm just getting fed up with hearing how "teribul" the new Gallente ships will be in comparison to the others. "Algos is crap, and Corax will be OP!" and so on and so on. I mean, at least the Minmatar had something to whine about. The Rifter is obsoleted at any one role, and the Ruppie is meh, and the Stabber is... fast, and that's about it. The 'Cane completely deserved what it is getting, but the point stands. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
530
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 19:32:00 -
[2454] - Quote
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. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Mund Richard
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 19:41:00 -
[2455] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Yeah, sorry about that. You've done nothing to offend me really, so why am I angry at you? I'm just getting upset with the endless bit I'm hearing about how terrible the Gallente ships will be after every patch. I heard it for all the Gallente frigates, the Destroyers, and the Cruisers, and now the BC's. And they really haven't turned out badly so far. If you ask me, so far they've all been pretty decent. I'm just getting fed up with hearing how "teribul" the new Gallente ships will be in comparison to the others. "Algos is crap, and Corax will be OP!" and so on and so on. I mean, at least the Minmatar had something to whine about. The Rifter is obsoleted at any one role, and the Ruppie is meh, and the Stabber is... fast, and that's about it. The 'Cane completely deserved what it is getting, but the point stands. Dunno, didn't quite like the destroyer due to it's odd bandwidth true, but the combat cruisers getting a 4th mid, Vexor becoming the "tanky" and Thorax the "ganky" really made me happy. Somehow CCP went out of awesome afterwards for us at that time. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
112
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 20:23:00 -
[2456] - Quote
Well the brutix is a very nice ship, if you shield tank it. The armour tanking bonus continues to be a red herring. Anyone else tried it out? |
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
58
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 20:27:00 -
[2457] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The extra materials trick is required to prevent what would be a pretty nasty exploit every time we update items. It's not being used without reason and we're not intending for every item to have it, just the items for which it is needed. It's too bad you don't record the materials used in production with the end product. I realize that it saves probably significant database space recording the formula only with the bpo/c's but if it was recorded with the actual item it then wouldn't refine to an exploit.
I mean I realize why (market, I'm looking at you). Still.
Oh and it would be nice if you at least indicated on the BPOs when you've got part of the trit in the "other items" category so we know ahead of time how much won't get refined. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 21:44:00 -
[2458] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Well the brutix is a very nice ship, if you shield tank it. The armour tanking bonus continues to be a red herring. Anyone else tried it out?
The problem is the Talos is better at shield dps than the brutix and you can keep range with it too to stay alive longer |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1072
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 23:25:00 -
[2459] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:It's not really hard to get the Brutix up to 1500 m/s with 1200 dps But its bonus is wasted. I guess you gotta do what you gotta do... |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
391
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 00:57:00 -
[2460] - Quote
Here's what I think needs to happen:
Ferox: * increase powergrid a bit. It fits more guns than the others, but doesn't have more powergrid to match.
Brutix: * increase powergrid a bit. It was way too low before and it's still too low. It has almost nothing left over when you fit a full rack of its big guns, while the other brawler battlecruisers have a nice chunk to work with.
Cyclone: * increase rate of fire bonus to 7.5% to be more in line with the 10% damage bonus other battlecruisers have. 7.5% rate of fire at max level gives a bit more dps, but when you factor in reloading more often and using up cargo space for ammo faster, it's reasonable. Also it only has 5 launchers anyway, it'll still hit weak but at least not like a wet paper napkin like right now. Even with the 7.5% RoF bonus and 1 extra autocannon, it still has slightly less DPS than a drake and that leaves an empty high slot on both. * decrease powergrid a bit. The cyclone easily fits a microwarp, large shield extender, and x-large shield booster with a full rack of assault launchers. It's as if it was designed to fit the battleship-sized shield booster, for it has both the powergrid and the CPU to make fitting that as easy as fitting only cruiser modules to any other battlecruiser. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 05:18:00 -
[2461] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Here's what I think needs to happen:
Ferox: * increase powergrid a bit. It fits more guns than the others, but doesn't have more powergrid to match.
Brutix: * increase powergrid a bit. It was way too low before and it's still too low. It has almost nothing left over when you fit a full rack of its big guns, while the other brawler battlecruisers have a nice chunk to work with.
Cyclone: * increase rate of fire bonus to 7.5% to be more in line with the 10% damage bonus other battlecruisers have. 7.5% rate of fire at max level gives a bit more dps, but when you factor in reloading more often and using up cargo space for ammo faster, it's reasonable. Also it only has 5 launchers anyway, it'll still hit weak but at least not like a wet paper napkin like right now. Even with the 7.5% RoF bonus and 1 extra autocannon, it still has slightly less DPS than a drake and that leaves an empty high slot on both. * decrease powergrid a bit. The cyclone easily fits a microwarp, large shield extender, and x-large shield booster with a full rack of assault launchers. It's as if it was designed to fit the battleship-sized shield booster, for it has both the powergrid and the CPU to make fitting that as easy as fitting only cruiser modules to any other battlecruiser. Ferox: it seems to have a decent time fitting, so long as you don't try and jam on all the best stuff. Not sure on that one, but I haven't seen that it needs it too badly.
Brutix: I can agree with that. After that it should be about where it needs to be.
Cyclone: I think the 7.5% RoF seems just a tiny bit too high. It gives it 8 effective launchers for every damage type while also having 2 utility highs (to the Drakes 9[kinetic only] and 1 utility). Sadly, there is no real middle ground here (say, a 6.25% or so) to give it over 7 effective, but with more utility, versatility and speed than the Drake. I'd actually quite like 6.66% giving it an effective 7.5 launchers. But I doubt we'll ever see CCP use a number like that *shrugs*. |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 12:22:00 -
[2462] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Here's what I think needs to happen:
Ferox: * increase powergrid a bit. It fits more guns than the others, but doesn't have more powergrid to match.
Brutix: * increase powergrid a bit. It was way too low before and it's still too low. It has almost nothing left over when you fit a full rack of its big guns, while the other brawler battlecruisers have a nice chunk to work with.
Cyclone: * increase rate of fire bonus to 7.5% to be more in line with the 10% damage bonus other battlecruisers have. 7.5% rate of fire at max level gives a bit more dps, but when you factor in reloading more often and using up cargo space for ammo faster, it's reasonable. Also it only has 5 launchers anyway, it'll still hit weak but at least not like a wet paper napkin like right now. Even with the 7.5% RoF bonus and 1 extra autocannon, it still has slightly less DPS than a drake and that leaves an empty high slot on both. * decrease powergrid a bit. The cyclone easily fits a microwarp, large shield extender, and x-large shield booster with a full rack of assault launchers. It's as if it was designed to fit the battleship-sized shield booster, for it has both the powergrid and the CPU to make fitting that as easy as fitting only cruiser modules to any other battlecruiser. Ferox: it seems to have a decent time fitting, so long as you don't try and jam on all the best stuff. Not sure on that one, but I haven't seen that it needs it too badly. Brutix: I can agree with that. After that it should be about where it needs to be. Cyclone: I think the 7.5% RoF seems just a tiny bit too high. It gives it 8 effective launchers for every damage type while also having 2 utility highs (to the Drakes 9[kinetic only] and 1 utility). Sadly, there is no real middle ground here (say, a 6.25% or so) to give it over 7 effective, but with more utility, versatility and speed than the Drake. I'd actually quite like 6.66% giving it an effective 7.5 launchers. But I doubt we'll ever see CCP use a number like that *shrugs*.
I think that the Cyclone needs a little boost to its DPS power - i like this ship, i like how it looks and i like the feel of an underdog. - The increased mineral need is already affecing this ship usefulness since it's not really on par with other BC. - Once your drones are down a Caracal has the same DPS as the Cyclone - It has a goos speed among BC but is it a good enough trade off for such low firepower?
I did some EFT warrioring to compare them, applied DPS given below is at 7.5Km range for the purpose of this comparison With a flight of light drones - Myrmidon and Prophecy being the exception here No boost / implants / drugs no T2 Missiles used since they suck against cruiser sized vessels. Full Tackle Scram/Web/ MWD combo on all ships
Cyclone - 5x HAMS II : 495 dps (navy KIN) - 81 K ehp XLASB 1 clip
Drake - 6x HAMS II : 630 dps (Navy KIN ) - LSE + 2 INV Fields 75K ehp + 100 average dps tank = 80-85 k EHP
Ferox - 7x H Ions II : 490 dps (Null for effective dps in that range) - 86k EHP ASB 1 clip. Has more buffer to get a reload.
Hurricane - 6x 220AC II : 555 DPS ( RF EMP) - 67 K EHP average - Armor Buffer
Harbinger - 6x H pulse II : 710 DPS (conflag) - 71 K Ehp armor buffer
Brutix - 6x H Electrons II : 480 DPS (Null same as Ferox rule) - 76 K Ehp MAR II + New MAAR 1 clip.
Myrmidon - 5x180 AC (RF EMP) + 5 Hammer : 398 DPS 2x MAR II + New MAAR Dual Cap inj - 100 K Ehp + 4 Ogre : 495 Prophecy - HAMS + 2x Drone DMG amp with Hammerheads : 495 DPS and 102K Ehp Resist + New MAAR
Anything that comes closer will make more DPS than the Cyclone or has more tank.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
324
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 12:57:00 -
[2463] - Quote
Except that the cyclone can choose it's damage type. G££ <= Me |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:02:00 -
[2464] - Quote
im very underwhelmed by the brutix ability to rep compared to the cyclone 450-1240 especially as the cyclone can kite all the bc's |
Mund Richard
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:04:00 -
[2465] - Quote
Denson022 wrote:Anything that comes closer will make more DPS than the Cyclone or has more tank... wich is bad for the cyclone the Minmatar tanking BC. So your problem is, that if the fastest BC goes too close (7.5km, why would a Cyclone be going so close), and shoots targets smaller than itself (no T2 missile), it is worse off than the ships that are worse at dictating range (no chance to catch up to those smaller targets in the first place), and have a slowly increasing problem applying (usually non-selectable kind of) dps? (with which you cheated a bit, as you allowed the others to use T2 ammo) >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Denson022
Defiance LLC
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 14:33:00 -
[2466] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Denson022 wrote:Anything that comes closer will make more DPS than the Cyclone or has more tank... wich is bad for the cyclone the Minmatar tanking BC. So your problem is, that if the fastest BC goes too close (7.5km, why would a Cyclone be going so close), and shoots targets smaller than itself (no T2 missile), it is worse off than the ships that are worse at dictating range (no chance to catch up to those smaller targets in the first place), and have an increasing problem applying (usually non-selectable kind of) dps if range goes further (with which you cheated a bit, as you allowed the others to use T2 ammo), and without using the two turret hardpoints you have empty it falls short on dps?
The reason behing my 7.5km range is that if you want to apply HAMS DPS on a Cruiser you need a web. That means you also get in web range and a cruiser will close down ( thorax / Rupture) to you with its speed.
i didnt used the 2 hi slots beacause they are to me Utility slots for CAP warfare vs frigs and Cruisers you can slap two 180AC and get some more DPS. IMO you fit a Med Neut/ Nos + smal Neut/Nos, that way even neuted i can keep my tackle and maybe my Inv field.
The speed the Cyclone has is good if you get vs another BC and need to Disengage. It helps mitigate applied DPS, vs AC and Blasters it works pretty well. My point is that a Cane / Drake/ Harbinger will need less time to kill a 35K ehp cruiser, the Cyclone will kill it but it will require more time wich mean more DPS to tank over the time.
hope that clarifies my idea
|
Mund Richard
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 14:47:00 -
[2467] - Quote
Denson022 wrote:My point is that a Cane / Drake/ Harbinger will need less time to kill a 35K ehp cruiser, the Cyclone will kill it but it will require more time wich mean more DPS to tank over the time.
hope that clarifies my idea You are still faster than the others, thus have a better chance of denying the cruiser of disengaging you. You also CHOSE to fit neuts in your highs, unlike the others (who usually don't have extra hardpoints), nerfing your dps. Guess what, then you have more neuts than any other BC! Turning off the tank of the cruiser? Sure! Faster gank for you! Turning off their guns faster, leading to no damage being taken that you need to tank? As long as they are not minmatar or use missles, check.
That the Cyclone cannot do everything at the same time, I think that's working as intended.
And you are still comparing ships to each other in a 1v1 gank situation (because as you say, it will kill the prey). >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts. Casoff
134
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 15:03:00 -
[2468] - Quote
Denson022 wrote:[
I think that the Cyclone needs a little boost to its DPS power - i like this ship, i like how it looks and i like the feel of an underdog. - The increased mineral need is already affecing this ship usefulness since it's not really on par with other BC. - Once your drones are down a Caracal has the same DPS as the Cyclone - It has a goos speed among BC but is it a good enough trade off for such low firepower?
I did some EFT warrioring to compare them, applied DPS given below is at 7.5Km range for the purpose of this comparison With a flight of light drones - Myrmidon and Prophecy being the exception here No boost / implants / drugs no T2 Missiles used since they suck against cruiser sized vessels. Full Tackle Scram/Web/ MWD combo on all ships
Cyclone - 5x HAMS II : 495 dps (navy KIN) - 81 K ehp XLASB 1 clip
Drake - 6x HAMS II : 630 dps (Navy KIN ) - LSE + 2 INV Fields 75K ehp + 100 average dps tank = 80-85 k EHP
Ferox - 7x H Ions II : 490 dps (Null for effective dps in that range) - 86k EHP ASB 1 clip. Has more buffer to get a reload.
Hurricane - 6x 220AC II : 555 DPS ( RF EMP) - 67 K EHP average - Armor Buffer
Harbinger - 6x H pulse II : 710 DPS (conflag) - 71 K Ehp armor buffer
Brutix - 6x H Electrons II : 480 DPS (Null same as Ferox rule) - 76 K Ehp MAR II + New MAAR 1 clip.
Myrmidon - 5x180 AC (RF EMP) + 5 Hammer : 398 DPS 2x MAR II + New MAAR Dual Cap inj - 100 K Ehp + 4 Ogre : 495 Prophecy - HAMS + 2x Drone DMG amp with Hammerheads : 495 DPS and 102K Ehp Resist + New MAAR
Anything that comes closer will make more DPS than the Cyclone or has more tank... wich is bad for the cyclone the Minmatar tanking BC. The ferox Tanks as well as the Cyclone with ASB mods, has better buffer in hope to get a reload and does same damage with only 4 Low slots and doesn't require a Co-Processor to fit a XL ASB.
And if we speak missile boats the 140 DPS advantage of the drake is huge while keeping the same tank as the Cyclone.
1) Rather collored story - most o those ships don't have the range of the Cyclone, so it's faster and outranges half of them. - there somehow the Prophesy gets 5 hammerheads, which the Cyclone can have as well it also used drone DMG amp's, Cyclone can use both BCU's and Drone damage amp. - no where in this story do you do anything with the Extra high slot
2) Missiles and EFTdon't match there will always be a % of that 495 that will be aplied to those targets. so set it off against the Drake and the Prophecy.
The Cyclone is that fastest of those three, and has the lowest base Signature, so it will reduce aplied damage.
It has more low slots than the drake, Which can do damage or increase speed (give both fit a DCU) The Drake will always do Kineticor it's damage is 420dps. Kinetic is the second strongest base resist of the Cyclone, while you can fire at the Drakes EM -Hole, or Therm.
then there is the 2 utillity slots the Cyclone has, Smart bombs, neuts, drones range with HM missiles, cloak.
I am a Missile pilot and I've placed my drakes in the hanger and bought myself a couple of those nice Cyclones, who will replace the Nano Drake which is about the only small gang, solo PvP drake that isn't used or bait.
|
Denson022
Defiance LLC
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 15:14:00 -
[2469] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Denson022 wrote:My point is that a Cane / Drake/ Harbinger will need less time to kill a 35K ehp cruiser, the Cyclone will kill it but it will require more time wich mean more DPS to tank over the time.
hope that clarifies my idea You are still faster than the others, thus have a better chance of denying the cruiser of disengaging you. You also CHOSE to fit neuts in your highs, unlike the others (who usually don't have extra hardpoints), nerfing your dps. Guess what, then you have more neuts than any other BC! Turning off the tank of the cruiser? Sure! Faster gank for you! Turning off their guns faster, leading to no damage being taken that you need to tank? As long as they are not minmatar or use missles, check. That the Cyclone cannot do everything at the same time, I think that's working as intended. And you are still comparing ships to each other in a 1v1 gank situation (because as you say, it will kill the prey).
I admit you have a point here But still having to put a co-processor in the low slot the cyclone just gained is odd to me since the Ferox don't need one. |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts. Casoff
134
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 15:17:00 -
[2470] - Quote
Denson022 wrote:The reason behing my 7.5km range is that if you want to apply HAMS DPS on a Cruiser you need a web. That means you also get in web range and a cruiser will close down ( thorax / Rupture) to you with its speed.
i didnt used the 2 hi slots beacause they are to me Utility slots for CAP warfare vs frigs and Cruisers you can slap two 180 or even 220 AC and get some more DPS .. 590 rounded with 5 Hobgoblins. But then you have no options to keep you Invulnerability field ON, since the passive bonus is gone it's a lifesaver. IMO you fit a Med Neut/ Nos + smal Neut/Nos inthe remaining 2 hi slots.
The speed the Cyclone has is good if you get vs another BC and need to Disengage. It helps mitigate applied DPS, vs AC and Blasters it works pretty well. My point is that a Cane / Drake/ Harbinger will need less time to kill a 35K ehp cruiser, the Cyclone will kill it but it will require more time wich mean more DPS to tank over the time.
hope that clarifies my idea
Try a Target Painter works as well, and with good skills you're doing more than enough damage against a cruiser.
If you need to get close try a smart bomb,
Drake will have major problems against cruisers the Drake can't dictate speed and it's a brick, a good Caracal fit with a Good pilot will eat the drake and it's nifty tank, it out ranges the drake with the same weapons, and it is way faster, kytes it to oblivion.
Cyclone can use Hammerheads on the cruiser. or double neut out of it's MWD. |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 18:59:00 -
[2471] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:X Gallentius wrote:If the Prophesy can out-rep the Myrm and Brutix, then what is the Myrm/Brutix niche, and why do I need to type Myrm/Brutix when they both should fill their own unique niche? This doesn't even consider that resist bonuses have advantages outside local tanking, and the bonus is never wasted, whether buffer tanking, in a gang, local, etc. With local rep bonuses, you only receive the bonus when you locally tank, and you completely throw it away when you don't. One of the Gallente BCs should have received a Hurricane-stype treatment of 2x dps bonuses and the other should have had its bonus include remote as well as local reps. Not sure if the Brutix needs a Cane-style double-damage though, it has the highest dps system already. This is why I didn't say Brutix specifically. Although I believe either would be fine, I think the Myrm would be quite successful as the game's first true drone boat, with having both bonuses support drone-based damage and damage application.
Creative bonuses like "Increased drone orbiting and tracking speed" would make Ogres as fast as Hammerheads, and the hull itself is a perfect candidate to receive double drone-based bonuses: It's got a great slot layout that lends to shield or armor tanking, as well as neutral weapon-based damage (with no bonuses to any), so any pilot is free to use whatever weapon system they have trained.
The Brutix, OTOH, would be great with dual weapon bonuses, but I fear it'd intrude on Deimos and Proteus/Astarte for damage, and I think the overlap with the Deimos is what would ultimately hold this hull back from being the double dps bonused Gallente hull.
So let's get that Mrym a second drone bonus and make the game's first true drone-damage boat with 2x drone bonuses!
|
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
54
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 23:55:00 -
[2472] - Quote
Bring back my cyclone, kthx |
To mare
Advanced Technology
169
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 09:04:00 -
[2473] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:seems to me the problem with resist bonus when compared to rep bonus is that they both do the same thing in a different way and one is limiting where the other is not....
The solution is to replace resist bonus with hit-points bonus this would also have the knock on effect of making T2 ships more resist based which would give more reason to fly them
yeah it just take time for people to realize that, especially if the ppl are from CCP staff its something like 5 years its like that and they still have no idea how to fix it |
To mare
Advanced Technology
169
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 09:10:00 -
[2474] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Except that the cyclone can choose it's damage type. the difference between the drake and the cyclone with not-kinetic missile is smaller than you think especially because the drake can make a use of its lows while the cyclone have so **** fittings that it cant fit more than 2 BCS if you wanna use the active tanking bonus |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
34
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 11:23:00 -
[2475] - Quote
To mare wrote:Altrue wrote:Except that the cyclone can choose it's damage type. the difference between the drake and the cyclone with not-kinetic missile is smaller than you think especially because the drake can make a use of its lows while the cyclone have so **** fittings that it cant fit more than 2 BCS if you wanna use the active tanking bonus
It fits perfectly using the right (medium) shield booster. Not the ships fault if you have to fit oversized modules. Oh wait... |
SoOza N'GasZ
Geese Jugglers
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 11:49:00 -
[2476] - Quote
Hurricane nerfing is a Sin.
first off whats the point in buying different ships if they are all pretty much equal within a tier..... just because of the race we chose at the beginning of the game?
And why cant we in balancing terms simply respect eve for what it is (to an extent that still works of course) without god constantly changing epic things that where for years, into completely medicore soso bits of metal?
The epicness of now nerfed ships where what defined that part of eve ... ccp is constantly working to make eve flat in my opinion.
I find it really disturbing that eve is subject to constant buffing. I dont like ccp 'constantly' intervening with 'working' things because they kind of made eve what it was..... in a way if they want to be sincere in an artistic way then they have to respect an environments flaws as well as its strengths. This would need to be done in order to give eve credibility as a fictional but artisticly and immersively seen real world or universe. (in order to enjoy lord of the rings or alien, u have to believe its real for the duration of the film.
real world places also are not always perfectly balanced.
i agree this intervention makes sense yet it kinda makes eve a little less eve and a little more space simulation.
and i am sort of paying to play eve.... i mean.... it began as a place with hardly any rules... *small tear*
I honestly have to say that this is really turning me off eve. Legba |
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
31
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 12:17:00 -
[2477] - Quote
I think this is a bit ironic to have changed Cyclone into a missile boat in order to "ensure continuity of missile ships of inferior sizes", where the result is the breaking of continuity of Minmatar PVE (ie guns + shield) ships.
I have half ships, half guns skills over 45M SP (and nearly the rest in shield tanking and drones), I don't like missiles and I don't like armor tanking. OK, I could do L4 with BS, but sometime I like also doing L3. Either Cyclone or Claymore. Now both are dead ( or the second will be ) and there is no appropriate ship for PVE in the BC line.
I'm eager to know what the result will be, in terms of fitting and ships usages for people focusing in L3 because I'm pretty sure as for now that the only way is giving up what people have trained for. |
Daniel Whateley
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 12:32:00 -
[2478] - Quote
to be honest it doesn't seem like they're making the changes for PVE purposes, almost all the new changes have been PVP related, it was already hard to find a decent PVE ship now its just even worse, take the thorax for example, its reduction in microwarp cap penalty removal and an added mid slot instead made its cap quite terrible, it actually has on average 30% less gj\s... making it unable to use an armor repairer anymore and pushing it toward an armor buffer tank.... |
Mund Richard
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 14:58:00 -
[2479] - Quote
May O'Neez wrote:Either Cyclone or Claymore. Now both are dead ( or the second will be ). Nothing bad happening to the Claymore as far as I know.
That is, winmatar - like the rest - will have two command ships, one with missiles, the other with guns, both being able to shoot, both being able to boost. Much better than the current way of the boosting being limited to one weapon, and the ganky being limited to the other (or in the Gallente case not even that).
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
PROMETEUS PRIME
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 17:28:00 -
[2480] - Quote
Well, Filed a petition on how they **** up some very usfull ships the other day and as i suspected the replie was from a **** politiotian.
Here is a message for you CCP, you are ship balancing ppls out of the game here and you are doing it in a fast pace too... Grats on that, if that was the intention i say you have succeded fairly well.
I have been in this game now for years and i have enjoyed every minutte of it too...that have now changed massivly and if this **** you guys are pulling right now is to continue, i know for sure 5 accounts going out of this game and probably another 50- 60 of them with mine. These are for your information all payed with real cash and not plexed. Just so you guys get this, you have pissed of alot of ppls lately and quite a few of them goes years back in the game.
And stop answering petitions like politicians, that **** only pisses more ppls of then you need these days.
So a final word, i am going to run my accounts til til they expire this spring and in that time i will see if i find it remotly interesting to continue, this allso counts for alot oif the ppls i play the game with everyday in here.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up CCP
|
|
Recoil IV
NIGHTMARE FACTORY INC Unclaimed.
89
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:55:00 -
[2481] - Quote
switching cyclone slots for missiles was the worse mistake anyone could ever do it.yet ccp done it.no justice! |
Lili Lu
700
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:00:00 -
[2482] - Quote
PROMETEUS PRIME wrote: Here is a message for you CCP, you are ship balancing ppls out of the game here and you are doing it in a fast pace too... Grats on that, if that was the intention i say you have succeded fairly well.
I have been in this game now for years and i have enjoyed every minutte of it too...that have now changed massivly and if this **** you guys are pulling right now is to continue, i know for sure 5 accounts going out of this game and probably another 50- 60 of them with mine. These are for your information all payed with real cash and not plexed. Just so you guys get this, you have pissed of alot of ppls lately and quite a few of them goes years back in the game.
So a final word, i am going to run my accounts til til they expire this spring and in that time i will see if i find it remotly interesting to continue, this allso counts for alot oif the ppls i play the game with everyday in here.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up CCP Maybe you can graduate someday from the school of applied knowledge. Either that or post with your main.
I'm not happy with the BC rebalance. Frigates and Cruisers were fairly well done. Although still problems in those ship classes. But the BC rebalance is leaving a Drake domination in place. And the second place competitor will now be the Prophecy instead of the Hurricane. But at least I'm not posting with an npc corp alt and qq-ing about it. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
66
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:57:00 -
[2483] - Quote
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!
If you cannon fit a 1600mm plate to a repped bonus ship that repairs about 1100 armor hp back every 7.7 seconds, then why dont ya use 2x 800mm plates instead? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
397
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:31:00 -
[2484] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:switching cyclone slots for missiles was the worse mistake anyone could ever do it.yet ccp done it.no justice! I disagree. It's nice to have more missile boats. And you can hate on the current Cyclone all you want, and I can agree with half of what you guys say about it, but at the end of the day you have to admit that the current cyclone is still more useful and more powerful than the pre-1.1 Cyclone.
elitatwo wrote:If you cannon fit a 1600mm plate to a repped bonus ship that repairs about 1100 armor hp back every 7.7 seconds, then why dont ya use 2x 800mm plates instead? Because it doesn't have enough low slots. That 1100 armor HP you speak of has low resists, so the EHP return isn't all that high. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Mundi Kundoni
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 02:20:00 -
[2485] - Quote
Quick question for you Mr Fozzy!
With the skill changes you have made it abundantly clear that your intention is to not force people to train a useless skill in order to fly a ship (ie bs5 for a carrier) which is awesome! This obvious time sink has always troubled me - but my question is this will the same thinking end up being applied to gunnery? For example I'm thinking of training a vargur pilot for plexing - great! But in order to get my nice shiny t2 repeating artilleries ill have to first train small and medium auto cannons to v plus their specialisations to iv - both of which are skills I would never use on said pilot. Will changes be made to this to put gunnery support skills in place of this wasted SP and training time?
Love n hugs |
Mund Richard
339
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 02:30:00 -
[2486] - Quote
You're not the first to ask about why one must take the smaller caliber guns to V and then spec for battleship-sized weaponry. I believe the answer was a mild "we'll think about that", but may I be proven wrong. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
397
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 07:26:00 -
[2487] - Quote
If the medium and small V requirements were removed from the large tech 2, then in their place could be added a second side gunnery skill required at 5, for instance large autocannon spec might require both motion prediction 5 and trajectory analysis 5 instead of only motion prediction 5. Medium spec skills might require two of these at 4, and smalls might require two of them at 3. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
To mare
Advanced Technology
172
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 09:08:00 -
[2488] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:To mare wrote:Altrue wrote:Except that the cyclone can choose it's damage type. the difference between the drake and the cyclone with not-kinetic missile is smaller than you think especially because the drake can make a use of its lows while the cyclone have so **** fittings that it cant fit more than 2 BCS if you wanna use the active tanking bonus It fits perfectly using the right (medium) shield booster. Not the ships fault if you have to fit oversized modules. Oh wait... oh thank you very much for the suggestion still i can fit a medium shield booster on a merlin with everything else i need and no fitting mods, and you tell me on a battlecruiser i cant fit anything bigger than that?
so i guess the drake should be rebalanced to be able to fit only medium shield extender...
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
54
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 09:32:00 -
[2489] - Quote
How bad are your fittings skills? :s Or are you trying to do something really odd?
You can fit 3x BCU, Large ASB, 5x HAM, 2x medium neuts and most other mods you could want onto a Cyclone easily! You don't even need to start using meta4 items instead of T2 for some mods. For example:
[Cyclone, Hamtastic] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
10MN Microwarpdrive II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 150 Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Scrambler II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
I'm really liking the new improved Battlecruisers. Some nice variation in what you can fly now :) |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
55
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 11:21:00 -
[2490] - Quote
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. |
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
54
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 11:33:00 -
[2491] - Quote
Fit a full rack of T2 Heavy Neutron Blasters, 3x magstabs and a set of Hammerheads. 1000dps without overheat :) |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 14:48:00 -
[2492] - Quote
Mundi Kundoni wrote:Quick question for you Mr Fozzy!
With the skill changes you have made it abundantly clear that your intention is to not force people to train a useless skill in order to fly a ship (ie bs5 for a carrier) which is awesome! This obvious time sink has always troubled me - but my question is this will the same thinking end up being applied to gunnery? For example I'm thinking of training a vargur pilot for plexing - great! But in order to get my nice shiny t2 repeating artilleries ill have to first train small and medium auto cannons to v plus their specialisations to iv - both of which are skills I would never use on said pilot. Will changes be made to this to put gunnery support skills in place of this wasted SP and training time?
Love n hugs
Well the same applies across the board with items only needing lv4 instead of lv5 to use T2 items like T2 mwd's even though it is a specialization being T2, although it's no better than meta 4 as is common
|
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Atrocitas
111
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 11:58:00 -
[2493] - 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. |
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 13:13:00 -
[2494] - Quote
Typical CCP lol...
New Brutix is out with it's revamped slots and new armour mods to compliment, yet this thread is still full of shield fits for it.
So many ships with a bonus nobody cares about! I guess when the Typhoon is fixed the redundant projectile bonus will be switched for energy turret cap use or something |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
112
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:24:00 -
[2495] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:Typical CCP lol...
New Brutix is out with it's revamped slots and new armour mods to compliment, yet this thread is still full of shield fits for it.
So many ships with a bonus nobody cares about! I guess when the Typhoon is fixed the redundant projectile bonus will be switched for energy turret cap use or something
I 1v1'd with an alliance mate who expected the new AAR to be all whizzy when used on the new Brutix. He set up a dual AAR/T2 rep combo, ions in the highs and all the usual resist and damage control fittings to go with. He then took a standard exile. He rigged with 2 rigs for rep amount and one for rep speed.
I fitted a neutron Brutix with 2 mag stabs, 2 TEs, and a tank consisting of 2 LSE and rigs for anti-em, enti-therm, and extender and a damage control.
We started at about 5km range.
I used a flight of warrior IIs, he used a flight of hammerhead IIs.
I won at 90% structure remaining.
Armour repair is still a joke.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
409
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:15:00 -
[2496] - Quote
I'm saying the new ancillary armor repairer would work fine if it could run a lot of cycles before reloading, and then reload quickly. That way, combined with the small size of nanite repair paste, the armor repper could be made to work its much smaller bonus for long periods of time. Then it would have its own niche without competing with the ancillary shield booster. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
101
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 01:19:00 -
[2497] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I'm saying the new ancillary armor repairer would work fine if it could run a lot of cycles before reloading, and then reload quickly. That way, combined with the small size of nanite repair paste, the armor repper could be made to work its much smaller bonus for long periods of time. Then it would have its own niche without competing with the ancillary shield booster. Get out of here with your innovation!
|
Galatea Galilei
Profoundly Inquisitive Exploration
22
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 04:04:00 -
[2498] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:New Brutix is out with it's revamped slots and new armour mods to compliment, yet this thread is still full of shield fits for it. Yeah I was more concerned about the Myrmidon in the "Armor Tanking 1.5" thread but the same principle applies. Active armor tanking is so much less effective than shield tanking that even with the hull bonus a Myrm can't tank as much sustained DPS with an armor tank as it can with a passive shield tank. The fact that it can then fit three drone damage amps as well is just adding insult to injury. The hull bonus isn't so much useless as actively harmful, as it encourages people to fit the ship poorly when they mistakenly think they'll get a better tank by following what the hull bonus suggests. It was bad enough when I started the game a bit over a year ago -- back then there was no drone damage amp, so being fooled by the ship description just left you with an inferior tank, but didn't affect your dps at all. But now you nerf both your tanking and your dps by trying to utilize the hull bonus. New players not using EFT just don't have a clue how badly they're hurting themselves... |
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 10:00:00 -
[2499] - Quote
The problem is i'm honestly not sure is an AAR/REP combo is better than having just 2 reps. The AAR isn't actually that much better, all this talk of 3 times better, then 2.25x better, it's not at all.
I would rather have 2 standard t2 reps, with sustained repping for aslong as i have cap, over having a very slightly better tank for a very short amount of time that completely goes to **** when it needs to reload.
I've said it before and ill say it again. ACTIVE TANKS ARE FOR STAYING POWER! Not for burst tanks!! Thats what plates are for! |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
156
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 11:49:00 -
[2500] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:The problem is i'm honestly not sure is an AAR/REP combo is better than having just 2 reps. The AAR isn't actually that much better, all this talk of 3 times better, then 2.25x better, it's not at all., becuase who is using standard t1 reps?!
I would rather have 2 standard t2 reps, with sustained repping for aslong as i have cap, over having a very slightly better tank for a very short amount of time that completely goes to **** when it needs to reload.
I've said it before and ill say it again. ACTIVE TANKS ARE FOR STAYING POWER! Not for burst tanks!! Thats what plates are for!
Heres to make it even worse. Large Reppers Overheated T2. 880 Repped over 12.75 Seconds. 69.01/sec. AAR. 1250 Repped over 15 seconds. 83.33/sec. The AAR is a bare 20% better than an overheated T2 for burst tanking
Now.... yes, you 'can' overheat the AAR also, but I did this comparison for the following reason. If I overheat pulse my T2 rep, I then shut it off every once in a while to repair it with nanite paste, during which time I get no reps. If I run my AAR normally, I shut it off every once in a while to reload it with nanite paste.
So for burst tank, an Overheated T2 vs an AAR is a more appropriate comparision than a T2 running normally, as both consume nanite paste at that point, and require shutting off periodically.
So.... what does this mean, it means that unless it takes 60 seconds to repair the T2 with nanite paste from overheat damage of 90 seconds of cycles, The T2 pulsed in overheat cycles will rep MORE than the AAR. And probably use LESS nanite paste to do so in this manner, as well as maybe being sustainable for more than 90 seconds of overheating. (Depending on skills). Of course, since I can also use as many T2's like this as I want, I can alternate my T2 dual fit like this, while I can only single fit an AAR.... Major win, T2. |
|
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 11:54:00 -
[2501] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma.....
Apparently very little
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
619
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 15:40:00 -
[2502] - 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.
Not an uber one but still
[Brutix, Gankalol] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Tracking Enhancer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M [empty high slot]
Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
1064DPS 1232 m/s - guns+mwd OH = 1200DPS and 1751 m/s - I didn't called it gankalol for nothing ;)
Edit: forgot about the EHP: 41K this should be enough with such dps to take over a lot of targets. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
PROMETEUS PRIME
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:11:00 -
[2503] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:PROMETEUS PRIME wrote: Here is a message for you CCP, you are ship balancing ppls out of the game here and you are doing it in a fast pace too... Grats on that, if that was the intention i say you have succeded fairly well.
I have been in this game now for years and i have enjoyed every minutte of it too...that have now changed massivly and if this **** you guys are pulling right now is to continue, i know for sure 5 accounts going out of this game and probably another 50- 60 of them with mine. These are for your information all payed with real cash and not plexed. Just so you guys get this, you have pissed of alot of ppls lately and quite a few of them goes years back in the game.
So a final word, i am going to run my accounts til til they expire this spring and in that time i will see if i find it remotly interesting to continue, this allso counts for alot oif the ppls i play the game with everyday in here.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up CCP Maybe you can graduate someday from the school of applied knowledge. Either that or post with your main. I'm not happy with the BC rebalance. Frigates and Cruisers were fairly well done. Although still problems in those ship classes. But the BC rebalance is leaving a Drake domination in place. And the second place competitor will now be the Prophecy instead of the Hurricane. But at least I'm not posting with an npc corp alt and qq-ing about it.
Reason why i am posting witt A alt is that the previous 2 times i have been in here bitching about anything in regards of the game, we got WDed. WE are a all out industry corp and started to build a plan to enter into some PVP close to a year ago. All plans was comming nicely togeather up til just before x-mas. All what we now have done and planned for is out the window, and really no point of continuing on. So CCP have trown out a year of gaming for pretty much the entire corp and gotten them to the point that EVE isn't the sameanymore. Ppls are considering to leave the game forever. That **** ain't funny after all these years. Trying to build a corp with the same guys for years and do longterm planning like we have is a pain and it is timeconsuming in masses. When the game developers then comes in and stomp all of your work in a single sweep kind of pisses ppls of. I would gladly enter with my main in here but since we are now without any ships that makes any sence anymore we can't even ******* defend ourselfs either. hence the ALT. Sorry for anoying you with my alt but alt or not my opinion of the game is still the same and won't change.
And CCP, have fun on fanfest. You have lost 6 guys for this years event.
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
279
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:13:00 -
[2504] - Quote
PROMETEUS PRIME wrote: I would gladly enter with my main in here but since we are now without any ships that makes any sence anymore we can't even ******* defend ourselfs either. hence the ALT.
The people who are attacking you have EXACTLY the same tool set as you. Your logic that you can't defend yourself against people who can only use the same stuff as you has no logic. There is a lot of Darwinism in EvE. The term "Adapt or Die" works very well.
Also, Can I haz all your stuff and the stuff the 6 other accounts had? |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2095
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 16:43:00 -
[2505] - Quote
PROMETEUS PRIME wrote:Lili Lu wrote:PROMETEUS PRIME wrote: Here is a message for you CCP, you are ship balancing ppls out of the game here and you are doing it in a fast pace too... Grats on that, if that was the intention i say you have succeded fairly well.
I have been in this game now for years and i have enjoyed every minutte of it too...that have now changed massivly and if this **** you guys are pulling right now is to continue, i know for sure 5 accounts going out of this game and probably another 50- 60 of them with mine. These are for your information all payed with real cash and not plexed. Just so you guys get this, you have pissed of alot of ppls lately and quite a few of them goes years back in the game.
So a final word, i am going to run my accounts til til they expire this spring and in that time i will see if i find it remotly interesting to continue, this allso counts for alot oif the ppls i play the game with everyday in here.
Pull your head out of your ass and wake up CCP Maybe you can graduate someday from the school of applied knowledge. Either that or post with your main. I'm not happy with the BC rebalance. Frigates and Cruisers were fairly well done. Although still problems in those ship classes. But the BC rebalance is leaving a Drake domination in place. And the second place competitor will now be the Prophecy instead of the Hurricane. But at least I'm not posting with an npc corp alt and qq-ing about it. Reason why i am posting witt A alt is that the previous 2 times i have been in here bitching about anything in regards of the game, we got WDed. WE are a all out industry corp and started to build a plan to enter into some PVP close to a year ago. All plans was comming nicely togeather up til just before x-mas. All what we now have done and planned for is out the window, and really no point of continuing on. So CCP have trown out a year of gaming for pretty much the entire corp and gotten them to the point that EVE isn't the sameanymore. Ppls are considering to leave the game forever. That **** ain't funny after all these years. Trying to build a corp with the same guys for years and do longterm planning like we have is a pain and it is timeconsuming in masses. When the game developers then comes in and stomp all of your work in a single sweep kind of pisses ppls of. I would gladly enter with my main in here but since we are now without any ships that makes any sence anymore we can't even ******* defend ourselfs either. hence the ALT. Sorry for anoying you with my alt but alt or not my opinion of the game is still the same and won't change. And CCP, have fun on fanfest. You have lost 6 guys for this years event.
What exactly has happened that ruined your plans to PVP? Ships are better balanced now, EVE has more perfectly viable ships than ever during my time. I have more fantastic ships than I have time to fly.
Oh and I have a similar story, btw. Almost exaclty one year ago we had this idea of forming our own corp, move into wormholes and do some pvp. Setting up shop in a C3 and getting things rolling took two weeks, then we scored our first kill, and we've been having awesome time every day since that.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Fabio Khanid-El
Madz Legion Madz Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 16:58:00 -
[2506] - Quote
I don't see how the Harbinger rebalancing was a buff... I deal less dps now and have less armor with my harb.
I might just throw it in the trash bin now. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1085
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 19:14:00 -
[2507] - Quote
The Brutix actually compares favorably to the Ferox in terms of a dps platform. Forget webbing and pointing and all that other nonsense. dps > tank > other stuff (you can't kill anything if you're dead).
1090 dps, 1,230 overheated, 65.9k EHP, 69k EHP overheated.
This is a "gang" fit. Your friends can point stuff. Your job is dps. [Brutix, dps machine] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
Ferox: 756 dps, 89k EHP. (same style)
Brutix dps*EHP > Feros dps*EHP, and who do you want to grind through all these active tankers more, the Brutix or Ferox?Yeah, that's what I thought.
Repping bonus? Bah, still only for solo gimmick setups. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:44:00 -
[2508] - Quote
Fabio Khanid-El wrote:I don't see how the Harbinger rebalancing was a buff... I deal less dps now and have less armor with my harb.
I might just throw it in the trash bin now. When you have less DPS than bevore the patch, then you must have a BC-Skill of 3 or below. With BC 4 you have exactly the same DPS as prepatch (8,4 Turrets) and with BC 5 your effective Turretnumber rises from 8,75 to 9,0, so you should make more Damage |
Fabio Khanid-El
Madz Legion Madz Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:05:00 -
[2509] - Quote
Gosti Kahanid wrote:Fabio Khanid-El wrote:I don't see how the Harbinger rebalancing was a buff... I deal less dps now and have less armor with my harb.
I might just throw it in the trash bin now. When you have less DPS than bevore the patch, then you must have a BC-Skill of 3 or below. With BC 4 you have exactly the same DPS as prepatch (8,4 Turrets) and with BC 5 your effective Turretnumber rises from 8,75 to 9,0, so you should make more Damage
Thanks for the tip Gosti, I was focused on gunnery skills so I missed that one.
But the strange thing is that the Battlecruisers skill does not say anything about improved damage or anything in its description and attributes. Isn't it only to be able to fly higher level BCs? |
Fabio Khanid-El
Madz Legion Madz Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 23:50:00 -
[2510] - Quote
Fabio Khanid-El wrote:Gosti Kahanid wrote:Fabio Khanid-El wrote:I don't see how the Harbinger rebalancing was a buff... I deal less dps now and have less armor with my harb.
I might just throw it in the trash bin now. When you have less DPS than bevore the patch, then you must have a BC-Skill of 3 or below. With BC 4 you have exactly the same DPS as prepatch (8,4 Turrets) and with BC 5 your effective Turretnumber rises from 8,75 to 9,0, so you should make more Damage Thanks for the tip Gosti, I was focused on gunnery skills so I missed that one. But the strange thing is that the Battlecruisers skill does not say anything about improved damage or anything in its description and attributes. Isn't it only to be able to fly higher level BCs?
Nervemind, just read the harb description again :)
Thanks! |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 16:31:00 -
[2511] - Quote
Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
115
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:10:00 -
[2512] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also.
Regarding the brutix, you're talking like someone who never flies them. There are plenty of examples since the patch of just how poor they remain for armour tanking. As for the drake, it's still going to be top banana, so no, it doesn't need more dps. Cyclone and harby are still finding their feet but overall they fit the job description. Remember this wasn't a buff, it was a rebalancing. In my opinion it fell short in a number of ways, but you seem to want overall buffs, and that's not what was needed for the good of the game.
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 22:22:00 -
[2513] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also. Regarding the brutix, you're talking like someone who never flies them. There are plenty of examples since the patch of just how poor they remain for armour tanking. As for the drake, it's still going to be top banana, so no, it doesn't need more dps. Cyclone and harby are still finding their feet but overall they fit the job description. Remember this wasn't a buff, it was a rebalancing. In my opinion it fell short in a number of ways, but you seem to want overall buffs, and that's not what was needed for the good of the game.
Assumptions are the mother of all ****ups.... i do have a shield brutix from before patch buts its shield tank now would be **** poor better to use a ferox or talos now.... so AAR's are its only chance of being useful and its still a bit fail at that atm. But on the drake the dps would ofc be in exchange for its OP tank this would then make the ferox useful and not just its poor cousin. It just doesn't seem right that the tier3's get the attack category as it leaves too many combat bc's all tanking the same way. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
115
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 08:12:00 -
[2514] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Nikuno wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Its a shame CCP don't make the Tier 3 bc's(attack bc's) into a different category and then make some the combat bc's into attack bc's some them of them would really benefit from this like the brutix being active tank now the extra speed would be useful the drake would also benefit with a more dps much less tank orientation.... cyclone and harbinger also. Regarding the brutix, you're talking like someone who never flies them. There are plenty of examples since the patch of just how poor they remain for armour tanking. As for the drake, it's still going to be top banana, so no, it doesn't need more dps. Cyclone and harby are still finding their feet but overall they fit the job description. Remember this wasn't a buff, it was a rebalancing. In my opinion it fell short in a number of ways, but you seem to want overall buffs, and that's not what was needed for the good of the game. Assumptions are the mother of all ****ups.... i do have a shield brutix from before patch buts its shield tank now would be **** poor better to use a ferox or talos now.... so AAR's are its only chance of being useful and its still a bit fail at that atm. But on the drake the dps would ofc be in exchange for its OP tank this would then make the ferox useful and not just its poor cousin. It just doesn't seem right that the tier3's get the attack category as it leaves too many combat bc's all tanking the same way.
To quote my post on the previous page;
Nikuno wrote: I 1v1'd with an alliance mate who expected the new AAR to be all whizzy when used on the new Brutix. He set up a dual AAR/T2 rep combo, ions in the highs and all the usual resist and damage control fittings to go with. He then took a standard exile. He rigged with 2 rigs for rep amount and one for rep speed.
I fitted a neutron Brutix with 2 mag stabs, 2 TEs, and a tank consisting of 2 LSE and rigs for anti-em, enti-therm, and extender and a damage control.
We started at about 5km range.
I used a flight of warrior IIs, he used a flight of hammerhead IIs.
I won at 90% structure remaining.
Armour repair is still a joke.
This should be where the brutix should dominate with armour tanking if it's effective. It isn't. It loses to a shield tanked version of itself.
Armour repair is still a joke. The brutix with an armour repair bonus is the biggest joke of them all. Limited engagement opportunities for Gallente through ship bonuses, limited engagement opportunities for Gallente through poor long range weaponry. Gallente continue to be the whipping boy of Eve despite all the comments pointing out that this would be the only outcome of the changes in 1.1 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
529
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 08:52:00 -
[2515] - Quote
So by fitting one version with broken (more than adequately proven several times) modules you were able to defeat a ship fitted with modules just off the balancing table and thus on par with current hull power ratios?
Shield buffers are stupidly effective; easy to fit, great value for money/slot and negligible drawbacks. TE's are stupidly effective (and synergizes perfectly with above) to the extent where a lot of ships are better off replacing tank/damage/speed/whatever mods with then and still come out ahead.
Just sayin' |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2111
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:57:00 -
[2516] - Quote
Well I don't really consider Brutix in any way representative of the current Gallente line-up, small ships are in very good shape and Talos rocks the tier 3s. It's basic idea is great, fast armor, but in practice it just falls flat on it's wide face due to combination of several factors. Hufe sig, MWD, blasters and active tank all suck cap, only 4 mids, medium reppers are too small for BCs and/or hull rep bonus too weak, and fitting armor compromises it's main specialty- brutal amount of hurt. On TQ it's just better to kill stuff faster, than chip away at them while tanking much less than enough.
Introducing a BC-size repper would fix this, and Myrm.
Pure classic active armor is, if not a complete joke, certainly niche. However I've come to the conclusion that AAR is pretty muc perfect companion to a 800mm plate on solo ships, especially onT2 cruisers. This combo is easier to fit than 1600mm, gives as much or even tad more EHP just from the boosted cycles, and doesn't brick you. On these ships (with new armor rigs) heated MAAR can also work as "real" tank due to their low sig, mobility and natural resists.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2111
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:00:00 -
[2517] - Quote
Bit off-topic there but whatever, armor tanking issues are most relevant on the Gal combat BCs.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3654
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 19:20:00 -
[2518] - Quote
I hate to say it, but my opinion is sliding more and more towards upping the active rep bonus up to 10%, and either allowing multiple AAR's or increasing the rep amounts (or both).
Either that or allow something totally off the wall like some sort of synergy boost when using an AAR and the new adaptive hardener together (improving the capabilites of both when used together on the same ship)... which would be fairly unique and have the trade off of two low slots being spoken for if you choose to go this route.
Something... To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
570
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 20:26:00 -
[2519] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I hate to say it, but my opinion is sliding more and more towards upping the active rep bonus up to 10%, and either allowing multiple AAR's or increasing the rep amounts (or both).
Either that or allow something totally off the wall like some sort of synergy boost when using an AAR and the new adaptive hardener together (improving the capabilites of both when used together on the same ship)... which would be fairly unique and have the trade off of two low slots being spoken for if you choose to go this route.
Something... Not too long ago I tried using a single AAR, Damae Control, RAH, plus 2 more resistance mods, and was warping out of the mission in 1/2 structure. The mods are not good enough to be useful ATM. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1094
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 03:25:00 -
[2520] - Quote
CCP should make the Brutix a better armor ship than a shield ship. For conventional fits, the Brutix lacks powergrid but has excess CPU. This is contrary to shield (CPU intensive) vs armor (PG intensive) ships. It's also contrary to the Capacitor Booster that is needed to run the active armor repairers. It is a bit fail that the Brutix can fit the largest size blasters in the shield setup, but it can't do so in the active armor repping setup (one 800mm plate, MAAR, small Capacitor Booster) - because of powergrid issues.
Shouldn't it have a difficult time fitting shield extenders and invulnerability fields and shouldn't it be able to fit a modest active armor tank (800mm plate + one MAAR) with the largest blasters?
Otherwise, the Brutix is working as CCP intended. It's a shield tanker for gangs that can potentially use a gimmick active repping setup for 1v1 situations.
|
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
55
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 20:42:00 -
[2521] - Quote
I'm disappointed about this rebalance. The only ships that have done well out of it are the ferox (which is now useful) and the prophecy. I was hoping that all of the ships would be given the same thorough re-evaluation that the prophecy enjoyed.
As someone who likes to read the eve fiction and was also told numerous times when I first started in the game that Gallente like to armour tank and use hybrids/drones, caldari shield tank and use missiles/rails/, amarr like heavy armour and drones and that winmater do just about everything and excel at speed tanking. Well I'm sick to death of seeing amarr ships fitting projectiles and gallente shield tanking.
The only ships that work well within their racial identities are of course the winmatar (although the cyclone performs badly in terms of dps these days) and the caldari as their ships don't have the slots or the stats to support armour tanking and other weapon choices. So we have two races pigeon holed into working as the eve canon suggests and the other completely off it. This points to a bigger problem with the super awesomeness and effectiveness of projectiles and cap free weaponry in general whilst armour tanking is still crap despite the new additions recently added.
The overall impression I'm given is that the latest rebalancing has been done in a rush and that there's more to come. I look forward to the drake having another nerf in the summer expansion. I also think that this obsession with balance is dangerous and robs the game of difference. I like the idea of all ships in a class such as battle-cruisers being useful but I don't like the idea of them performing more or less the same as any other because it makes the decision to pick a racial style and train for it unimportant.
In real life not all machine guns are the same, but they all can kill, that's what we need to be aiming for, combat usefulness not combat uniformity. |
Lili Lu
705
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 20:13:00 -
[2522] - Quote
This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.
Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked gank boat use. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 20:16:00 -
[2523] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.
Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked gank boat use.
Would you not think an HP bonus as a replacement to resist bonus would be a better option as it then makes gal bc's better at repping than a resist based active tank? and to a lesser extent same for cal vs minnie shield boost bonus. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3675
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 20:44:00 -
[2524] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I hate to say it, but my opinion is sliding more and more towards upping the active rep bonus up to 10%, and either allowing multiple AAR's or increasing the rep amounts (or both).
Either that or allow something totally off the wall like some sort of synergy boost when using an AAR and the new adaptive hardener together (improving the capabilites of both when used together on the same ship)... which would be fairly unique and have the trade off of two low slots being spoken for if you choose to go this route.
Something... Not too long ago I tried using a single AAR, Damae Control, RAH, plus 2 more resistance mods, and was warping out of the mission in 1/2 structure. The mods are not good enough to be useful ATM. I missed this earlier. In case nobody has pointed this out since you posted, burst tanking in any form is not intended to be used for PVE. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Lili Lu
705
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 21:31:00 -
[2525] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Lili Lu wrote:This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.
Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked gank boat use. Would you not think an HP bonus as a replacement to resist bonus would be a better option as it then makes gal bc's better at repping than a resist based active tank? and to a lesser extent same for cal vs minnie shield boost bonus. Not sure exactly what you're asking. Resist bonuses are more efficient for just about every kind of tanking. HP bonuses can approximate resist bonuses. But a logi pilot would rather rep a resist tanked ship than an hp loaded ship. Each cycle of remote repping will be more efficient with a resist tank. People who stack 3 plates or extenders on their ships and short change resists are only demanding more repping cycles from their logis.
For active local repping the resists win also. Again for the cycle efficiency reason. Although with ASBs not being cap dependent somewhat a less resist base is managable.
I only mention the hp per level bonus because CCP is simply not going to give a resist bonus to Gallente or Minmatar. Those bonuses are an Amarr and Caldari "thing", have been, and always will be. But an hp per level bonus has some backstory support for gallente in that they already have one with drone hp. To say that somehow the gallente scientist overcame the radiation issues and were able to transfer the technology to the ship hulls themselves would be no stretch or radical alteration of the traditional backstory. Having an hp bonus on a Gallente BC would be akin to a free plate (without mass penalties which helps blaster use) just as the resist bonuses act like free eanms or invulns for the other races. Minmatar shield rep bonuses work because shield repping is simply better/good enough, especially combined with ASB advantages, to derive a practicle benefit in more than just solo combat. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 21:36:00 -
[2526] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Lili Lu wrote:This whole level of rebalancing has made me think that part of the answer may be to reduce the tech I resist bonuses to 4% per level. Presently a level 5 ship skill returns a 25% resist bonus. At 4 per level it would be 20. This will accomplish some balancing. Resist bonuses are the most useful tanking bonuses in the game. So a reduction of 5% overall I doubt would break the Caldari and Amarr resist bonused ships.
Also, please give the Brutix an hp per level bonus instead of a repper bonus. Or both it and the Myrm. So you put the AARs into the game. Fine. If people see some gimmicky use for them in rare circumstances ok. But you should not be forcing Gallente BCs into only gimmick use, or glass cannon weak shield tanked gank boat use. Would you not think an HP bonus as a replacement to resist bonus would be a better option as it then makes gal bc's better at repping than a resist based active tank? and to a lesser extent same for cal vs minnie shield boost bonus. Not sure exactly what you're asking. Resist bonuses are more efficient for just about every kind of tanking. HP bonuses can approximate resist bonuses. But a logi pilot would rather rep a resist tanked ship than an hp loaded ship. Each cycle of remote repping will be more efficient with a resist tank. People who stack 3 plates or extenders on their ships and short change resists are only demanding more repping cycles from their logis. For active local repping the resists win also. Again for the cycle efficiency reason. Although with ASBs not being cap dependent somewhat a less resist base is managable. I only mention the hp per level bonus because CCP is simply not going to give a resist bonus to Gallente or Minmatar. Those bonuses are an Amarr and Caldari "thing", have been, and always will be. But an hp per level bonus has some backstory support for gallente in that they already have one with drone hp. To say that somehow the gallente scientist overcame the radiation issues and were able to transfer the technology to the ship hulls themselves would be no stretch or radical alteration of the traditional backstory. Having an hp bonus on a Gallente BC would be akin to a free plate (without mass penalties which helps blaster use) just as the resist bonuses act like free eanms or invulns for the other races. Minmatar shield rep bonuses work because shield repping is simply better/good enough, especially combined with ASB advantages, to derive a practicle benefit in more than just solo combat.
The point im making is that resist bonus is too strong at doing everything and as a result ships like the prophecy is a better active tanker than the gal bc's which kind of defeats the point of the gal bc's having a rep bonus. Therefore replace the resist bonus with a hp bonus thus making the prophecy better at buffer tanking and allowing the gal bc's to be better active tankers.
|
Lili Lu
705
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 22:21:00 -
[2527] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote: The point im making is that resist bonus is too strong at doing everything and as a result ships like the prophecy is a better active tanker than the gal bc's which kind of defeats the point of the gal bc's having a rep bonus. Therefore replace the resist bonus with a hp bonus thus making the prophecy better at buffer tanking and allowing the gal bc's to be better active tankers.
Unfortunately this would not fix the active armor tanking bonus. It would still suck. And it would only cause further problems with BC shield regen setups in pve. Also, as I said there is some consistency to CCP design choices. The resist bonuses are an Amarr and Caldari thing. But nothing says they have to stay at the same percentages. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1102
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 23:27:00 -
[2528] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Unfortunately this would not fix the active armor tanking bonus. It would still suck. And it would only cause further problems with BC shield regen setups in pve. Also, as I said there is some consistency to CCP design choices. The resist bonuses are an Amarr and Caldari thing. But nothing says they have to stay at the same percentages. The active repping bonus is ok - it's just that the Amarr ships fill the same active repping niche. Myrm - one trick repping pony. Prophecy - one trick repping pony and a whole lot more. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
248
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 00:32:00 -
[2529] - Quote
The goal is to balance ships, not bonuses. The myrmidon still have far more firepower than the prophecy and 5 mid slots, and and the brutix still have 6 overbonused hybrid turrets on the second fastest BC hull. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 05:56:00 -
[2530] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:The goal is to balance ships, not bonuses. The myrmidon still have far more firepower than the prophecy and 5 mid slots, and and the brutix still have 6 overbonused hybrid turrets on the second fastest BC hull.
Yes but ignoring the fact that as soon as you take on 2 people those active tanks fail horribly, regardless of how much awesome dps you're putting out. Which to be quite honest, if you're filling all of your lows with tank to keep yourself alive in that "lol active armor tank" setup, you're not really hitting that much harder than a buffed BC. However, that buffed BC has a whole lot much more ehp for those 2 guys to chew through with no chance of their combined dps breaking through your reps. So in a 1 v 2, I still find myself wanting a healthy buffer tank.
Also, everyone who keeps rejoicing saying the AAR is the saving grace for the brutix and myrm....pull your head out of the sand. We're limited to 1 module that is still underpowered. And don't fool yourself, one extra low slot on the Brutix is still bad and no changes have been made to the standard reppers. We've been spoon fed a bunch of lies to trick ourselves into thinking the Brutix would by viable again in this grand "new" role that never got buffed or changed |
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
248
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 12:46:00 -
[2531] - Quote
I've heard about myrmidon tanking small fleet fine *before* these changes...
And the AAR is not *the* savior of myrm or brutix, it's the cherry on the cake considering all the changes they got. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 15:01:00 -
[2532] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Would you not think an HP bonus as a replacement to resist bonus would be a better option as it then makes gal bc's better at repping than a resist based active tank? and to a lesser extent same for cal vs minnie shield boost bonus.
Just nerf the resistance bonus from 5% to 4% per level and lets move on folks.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1104
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 16:52:00 -
[2533] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:The goal is to balance ships, not bonuses. The myrmidon still have far more firepower than the prophecy and 5 mid slots, and and the brutix still have 6 overbonused hybrid turrets on the second fastest BC hull. The funny thing is that for a given active repping level, the Prophesy can put out about as much dps as the Myrm (it can replace a resistance mod for a damage mod), rep about as much, and have 20% more buffer EHP.
Dual Rep Prophecy: (baseline fit to compare, put drone damage amp in extra low slot): 635 dps, 623 rep dps, 50k EHP Dual Rep Myrm: (baseline fit to compare): 650 dps, 642 rep dps, 41.2k EHP
Prophecy: 15 dps less, 19 dps rep less, 8.8k EHP more, one less midslot.
So, wouldn't you say that the Prophecy invades the Myrm's "active repping niche" a little too much? |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 21:30:00 -
[2534] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:The goal is to balance ships, not bonuses. The myrmidon still have far more firepower than the prophecy and 5 mid slots, and and the brutix still have 6 overbonused hybrid turrets on the second fastest BC hull. The funny thing is that for a given active repping level, the Prophesy can put out about as much dps as the Myrm (it can replace a resistance mod for a damage mod), rep about as much, and have 20% more buffer EHP. Dual Rep Prophecy: (baseline fit to compare, put drone damage amp in extra low slot): 635 dps, 623 rep dps, 50k EHP Dual Rep Myrm: (baseline fit to compare): 650 dps, 642 rep dps, 41.2k EHP Prophecy: 15 dps less, 19 dps rep less, 8.8k EHP more, one less midslot. So, wouldn't you say that the Prophecy invades the Myrm's "active repping niche" a little too much?
Prophecy is good, it should be as both are armour Drone battle cruisers they always would be similar and I really feel the rep bonus could have been 10% or arguably the resistance bonus could be considered overpowered and be dropped to 4%.
In its defence Myrm is still pretty solid and is more than a one trick pony in fact the only battlecruiser I would not like to fight in it is the Prophecy mainly down to the complete slugging match it would be and the fact that when you start trying to pick of each otherGÇÖs droneGÇÖs it gets real fiddly fast.
Triple Rep fit - I have seen the prophecy fits, they either lose full tackle or cannot fit dual cap boosters and the Myrm still had more DPS.
Dual Rep + RAH fit is solid and Myrms extra mid which is often overlooked can be used for more cap or E-war/Drone upgrades
Plate and Rep fit - this is actually my fave as it has 57k EHP and a rep to top up plus midslot E-war
50k EHP 1105dps Shield fit.
1000+dps tank dual XL-ASB fit (stat with both running)
And yes most of those fits can go on the prophecy perhaps losing a little DPS, Utility, gaining EHP and it is arguably a better fleet and on grid warfare link platform.
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
249
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 22:43:00 -
[2535] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:The funny thing is that for a given active repping level, the Prophesy can put out about as much dps as the Myrm (it can replace a resistance mod for a damage mod), rep about as much, and have 20% more buffer EHP.
Dual Rep Prophecy: (baseline fit to compare, put drone damage amp in extra low slot): 635 dps, 623 rep dps, 50k EHP Dual Rep Myrm: (baseline fit to compare): 650 dps, 642 rep dps, 41.2k EHP
Prophecy: 15 dps less, 19 dps rep less, 8.8k EHP more, one less midslot.
So, wouldn't you say that the Prophecy invades the Myrm's "active repping niche" a little too much? Interesting numbers in fact, though I wouldn't say that. I think you found there the breaking point between the two hulls : they are here about the same, but then, if you start to maximize tank, the prophecy should be better, but if you maximize dps, the myrm should take the lead (I guessing that, I didn't run the numbers).
This on top of the fifth mid slot (not to overlook IMO) differenciate the hulls. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
108
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 00:42:00 -
[2536] - Quote
So a triple rep Mrym example fit: So as we all know it reps roughly in the mid 800's (depending on skills) until cap runs out or drops significantly while reloading the paste. EHP is 38K. With everything running about 8m 42 sec of cap. Yes, stable once MWD is off, but that will not always be the case. DPS with Ogres/guns: 547 if they ever get to your targets. Still have an explosive weakness, so you always shoot explosive at triple rep Mryms.(55% explosive resist)
[Myrmidon, triple rep] Damage Control II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Hammerhead II x5 Ogre II x4 Warrior II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
Now the Prophecy triple repped: 45KEHP (so higher than Mrym), ~ 790's repping (so a bit less than Mrym but more on this), DPS 521 with 2 Ogre, 2 Hammer, 1 Hob. (so just a bit less but I'll get back to this), BUT it also has a Medium Neut which is AWESOME. AND it can run EVERYTHING (including the Neut) for 21 minutes. That's serious cap power and is much stronger against keeping its reppers going against enemy neuts. And to me this is a huge advantage in an armor repping boat. So while it lacks the web, that neut will crush a close in tackler hard. It also has 70% Explosive resist, so it actually has higher repping power if the enemy is shooting explosive at you vice in a Mrym.
ALSO: Its DPS is higher in reality than the Mrym when using a full flight of light or mediums which you might certainly opt for against frigs and cruisers respectively because unlike the Mrym it still has space for a DDA in the lows. Not to mention the Prophecy has a much better selection of drone combinations to choose from due to its ample drone bay size.
Flat out this is the best triple rep boat because more than likely against anyone who can select damage you will out tank the Mrym, its cap is much stronger, and in many situations (though not all) you will actually out DPS it, (against frigs/cruisers.) Oh and you have a Med Neut. So great boat, flexible, tanks well buffer or rep. VERY COOL. ( PLEASE DON't NERF IT!)
[Prophecy, active] Damage Control II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Hobgoblin II x1 Hammerhead II x2 Ogre II x2 Warrior II x5 Hammerhead II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
SOOOOO........Get rid of the armor rep bonus on the MRYM and give it a bonus to drone speed and drone tracking as the second bonus,. FIXED, AWESOME. DO IT FOZZIE!..... you know you want to. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1107
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 04:00:00 -
[2537] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:So, wouldn't you say that the Prophecy invades the Myrm's "active repping niche" a little too much? Interesting numbers in fact, though I wouldn't say that. I think you found there the breaking point between the two hulls : they are here about the same, but then, if you start to maximize tank, the prophecy should be better, but if you maximize dps, the myrm should take the lead (I guessing that, I didn't run the numbers).
This on top of the fifth mid slot (not to overlook IMO) differenciate the hulls.[/quote] I still maintain the difference between the two hulls, in the Myrm's intended active repping role, is too small. The Myrm's niche is miniscule. The Prophecy in its intended niche (large buffer tank drone boat) clearly outperforms the Myrm.
That said, the Myrm is still a great boat. The only point is that it does not have a unique niche to fill.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
552
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 09:18:00 -
[2538] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:
That said, the Myrm is still a great boat. The only point is that it does not have a clearly defined niche.
I'm really not keen on a Myrm with a drone tracking/speed bonus. BCs shouldn't be too good at whacking frigates, in the same way that neither Drake nor Cyclone get bonuses to RLMLs.
I think the Myrm should have a clearer mobility advantage over the Prophecy - if the Myrm is intended for small-scale combat where the rep bonus is a useful option - yeah yeah ASBs - then it needs to have an appropriate mobility advantage over the Prophecy. As it is, a shield Prophecy is faster and more agile than an active armour Myrm, which seems a bit silly. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
108
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 12:35:00 -
[2539] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:X Gallentius wrote:
That said, the Myrm is still a great boat. The only point is that it does not have a clearly defined niche.
I'm really not keen on a Myrm with a drone tracking/speed bonus. BCs shouldn't be too good at whacking frigates, in the same way that neither Drake nor Cyclone get bonuses to RLMLs. I think the Myrm should have a clearer mobility advantage over the Prophecy - if the Myrm is intended for small-scale combat where the rep bonus is a useful option - yeah yeah ASBs - then it needs to have an appropriate mobility advantage over the Prophecy. As it is, a shield Prophecy is faster and more agile than an active armour Myrm, which seems a bit silly.
I hear you, but again its strange to me that what is supposed to be one of the major differences between an Amarr Drone Boat and a Gal one is that the Gal boats have much higher DPS, but in the case of the Mrym when tanked the way its designed to, it under-performs the Prophecy when utilizing a flight of lights or mediums. You combine this with its massive drone bay and superior tank (both active or buffer) and its not working right in my opinion. Saying that, I'm not for nerfing the Proph, its a great boat but the Mrym needs something to make it worth flying over the proph, right now, its absolutely not if you want to active rep.
As far as being too good against frigs, well drone boats have always been a tough nut for frigs but not impossible because drones can still die. But the problem with the Mrym and 4 heavies is that in many engagements those 4 heavies simply never reach the target. You could use 4 sentries but they are a huge pain in the ass and then really don't match BC combat well, and the dps is rather anemic particularly when unbonused. The drone speed and tracking would make it a bit better, still be in line with drone stuff, and make it match better.
I love the shield Mrym, but it took a hit in shield ehp and is so squishy and the drones don't match well with the faster shield set up so why not just fly a drake or something? As you said its just not filling any role right now and the fact that its an inferior drone BC to the Amarr one makes no sense to me what so ever.
Now I'm just waiting for CCP to come out with the drone Amarr BS which will have the armor resist bonus also, and you know it will have 5 heavies. It will quickly fade the Dominix out like the proph is going to do to the Mrym. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 12:55:00 -
[2540] - Quote
i don't think many people are happy with the bc rebalance...... it seems kind of rushed and deliberately left untouched for the most part and the bits they have touched seem poorly thought out , i would love an explanation as to the sig radius nerf as if they weren't big enough for battleships to hit.
Only ships that came out of this with anything beneficial is the prophecy and cyclone. The ferox got a little but is still overshadowed by the superior drake :(( |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 18:23:00 -
[2541] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Only ships that came out of this with anything beneficial is the prophecy and cyclone. The ferox got a little but is still overshadowed by the superior drake :((
Brutix is significantly better than it was pre 1.1. It can fit ions and dual reps w/o the use of an acr now, it's faster, and has another lowslot for a mag stab. Overall the dps and mobility has been increased, as well as overall cap efficiency (1 less turret and room for a nos).
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 22:45:00 -
[2542] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Only ships that came out of this with anything beneficial is the prophecy and cyclone. The ferox got a little but is still overshadowed by the superior drake :((
Brutix is significantly better than it was pre 1.1. It can fit ions and dual reps w/o the use of an acr now, it's faster, and has another lowslot for a mag stab. Overall the dps and mobility has been increased, as well as overall cap efficiency (1 less turret and room for a nos).
It still can't tank to save its life even with the AAR and shield tanking it has become even less viable than before especially with the talos or even a cheap thorax |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 17:22:00 -
[2543] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
It still can't tank to save its life even with the AAR and shield tanking it has become even less viable than before especially with the talos or even a cheap thorax
Please explain to me how a ship that has received an increase in dps, speed, and another low slot less viable than before?
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 17:41:00 -
[2544] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:
It still can't tank to save its life even with the AAR and shield tanking it has become even less viable than before especially with the talos or even a cheap thorax
Please explain to me how a ship that has received an increase in dps, speed, and another low slot less viable than before?
Alright how's this?: it got a massive shield HP nerf which makes it pretty poor for shield tanking now and thats before you take into account the talos and the much quicker and cheaper thorax, granted the thorax is worse in some respects.
Then armour tanking it is a waste of time you can get a myrmidon to do the same job but better. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 20:51:00 -
[2545] - Quote
i've just noticed that a prophecy has a chronic inability to fit Heavy Pulse Lasers but can fit HAM launchers easily whilst having better range and dps.........
Any ideas CCP? |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 21:27:00 -
[2546] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
Anybody else think HAMS are massively OP now?
Yes, they most certainly are.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
67
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 23:34:00 -
[2547] - Quote
What gets me going now is the ugly fact that a standard cookie cutter drake with heavies can't break the tank of another drake with the same fit. Lol I tried it and before you ask I have elite missile skills. With hams it is admittedly different but its a long fight. Ferox isn't too bad though, its a useful and versatile ship. Cyclone is next to useless and underforms in terms of dps. Not much missile love these days. |
Bizheep
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 05:45:00 -
[2548] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:What gets me going now is the ugly fact that a standard cookie cutter drake with heavies can't break the tank of another drake with the same fit. Lol I tried it and before you ask I have elite missile skills
probably because you are just using a terribad fit try replacing some shield power relay with BCS
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
72
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 22:47:00 -
[2549] - Quote
Bizheep wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:What gets me going now is the ugly fact that a standard cookie cutter drake with heavies can't break the tank of another drake with the same fit. Lol I tried it and before you ask I have elite missile skills probably because you are just using a terribad fit try replacing some shield power relay with BCS
I was referring to the standard cookie cutter fit, that you see in big alliances out in null. My fit is ******* awesome and doesn't include shield power relays and was not the fit being discussed. I do not fly around in crap fits. I leave that to the goons |
Dato Koppla
Rage of Inferno Malefic Motives
130
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 00:40:00 -
[2550] - Quote
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. |
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
401
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 08:49:00 -
[2551] - 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 |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
565
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 09:56:00 -
[2552] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Bizheep wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:What gets me going now is the ugly fact that a standard cookie cutter drake with heavies can't break the tank of another drake with the same fit. Lol I tried it and before you ask I have elite missile skills probably because you are just using a terribad fit try replacing some shield power relay with BCS I was referring to the standard cookie cutter fit, that you see in big alliances out in null. My fit is ******* awesome and doesn't include shield power relays and was not the fit being discussed. I do not fly around in crap fits. I leave that to the goons
PVP buffer Drakes do not tank 400 DPS kinetic. Your fit is crap. |
Dato Koppla
Rage of Inferno Malefic Motives
130
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 23:13:00 -
[2553] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote: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.
Yeah Cyclones dps is sad and the buffer fits are massively outclassed by Drakes, but 2 utility highs is quite a big advantage because of the power of neuts, although I would like to see an increase in the damage bonus, the whole 5% -> 10% boost to Harb/Brutix/Drake to keep a utility high really kind of put the Cyclone/Cane in the backseat as they just don't get enough hull bonus IMO. Especially the Cane which doesn't have it's double utility highs anymore and only slightly more effective turrets. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
565
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 09:04:00 -
[2554] - Quote
There's nothing the matter with the Cyclone's DPS, it can do more than the Drake. You just have to forgo those dual medium neuts... |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
38
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 12:20:00 -
[2555] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:There's nothing the matter with the Cyclone's DPS, it can do more than the Drake. You just have to forgo those dual medium neuts...
I'd call it....
Quote:[Cyclone, welpcane] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
In analogy to the great (cheap) welpcane. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
38
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 12:28:00 -
[2556] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote: Yeah Cyclones dps is sad and the buffer fits are massively outclassed by Drakes, but 2 utility highs is quite a big advantage because of the power of neuts, although I would like to see an increase in the damage bonus, the whole 5% -> 10% boost to Harb/Brutix/Drake to keep a utility high really kind of put the Cyclone/Cane in the backseat as they just don't get enough hull bonus IMO. Especially the Cane which doesn't have it's double utility highs anymore and only slightly more effective turrets.
Just imagine people having a skirmish links and now something drastic like 10% turret dmg, 5% falloff for the cane. I'd like to have that, but I don't like everyone to shoot me with it, what they probably would. New Cane really is fine, it's still great. And I at least can now live with a drake being a nearly indestructible brick that doesn't out-dps other battlecruisers within 15-80km range anymore :D |
Bjron
501st Amarr
103
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 13:30:00 -
[2557] - Quote
Torri Bernard wrote:What you are doing to the prophecy is an abomination. Didnt you get the hint when no one flew the myrmadon? Drone boat battlecruisers are horrible ideas. Add in the nerf to the harbinger and its likely no one will fly amarr ever again. The prophecy (I flew one last night, first time ever) turned out to be simply amazing considering I can't fit T2 drone upgrades nor T2 drones.
Its extremely tanky, requires no swapping of hardeners with my skills and a T2 med rep, T2 explosive/kin hardeners with a T2 EANM all resists are over 70% besides thermal at high 60.
I had no issues with drones getting damaged.
My fit was something along these lines. 4 HML 2's, 1 DLA. AB T2, T2 cap rechargers X2 and one drone nav. 3 DDA, 3 resist mods and 1 rep. 2X Nano pumps 1 X Nanobot
Had no issues in Angel extravaganza or the other level 3's I ran. Runs everything but the AB stable, 15 minutes with everything on. I suspect with better drone skills, the prophecy is going to be one hell of a drone BC, it looks (to me) like it should apply strong dps for a BC, while fielding a tank with no major resist holes. Its nimble enough with a T2 AB, had good range on the HLM too. My drone range was 5K longer (55km) than my missile range.
I look forward to fitting a Harby soon as well. In fact over the next couple of months I want to run all level of missions in all types of ships, from frigates to battle cruisers, just to check out all the new changes.
I might finally get around to flying some of the hulls I always wanted to fly, namely the Rax and some minie boats. |
fenistil
Defensive Parameter The Mandalorians
82
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 12:42:00 -
[2558] - Quote
The performance of a hull is not really measurable in PVE. For PVE pretty much no matter what you fly, you can get it working. It might not be as "fast" to do missions in as other hulls but they are all viable if you have the brains to fit it.
The question is: how does prophecy compare to other hulls in solo/small gang and larger fleet fights?
I would say that simply because of the resist bonuses + drones + unbonused weapon systems it is a versatile and usable hull, more so than the harb or myrm.
In fact in almost all the circumstances I would go with prophecy over myrm which is a shame and I am quite butthurt about it. Are you looking for a corp that can help you? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=189337 |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
423
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 13:09:00 -
[2559] - Quote
fenistil wrote:The performance of a hull is not really measurable in PVE. For PVE pretty much no matter what you fly, you can get it working. It might not be as "fast" to do missions in as other hulls but they are all viable if you have the brains to fit it.
The question is: how does prophecy compare to other hulls in solo/small gang and larger fleet fights?
I would say that simply because of the resist bonuses + drones + unbonused weapon systems it is a versatile and usable hull, more so than the harb or myrm.
In fact in almost all the circumstances I would go with prophecy over myrm which is a shame and I am quite butthurt about it.
I'd generally agree that the proph is better than the myrmidon for most situations however the myrmidon still holds it's niche as an amazing small scale brawler due to the ability to fit tripple reps dual cap boosters and full tackle. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1165
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 21:17:00 -
[2560] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:I'd generally agree that the proph is better than the myrmidon for most situations however the myrmidon still holds it's niche as an amazing small scale brawler due to the ability to fit tripple reps dual cap boosters and full tackle. This advantage is very small - which is the point.
Myrm is a better "sniper" platform though - not that there's a well defined Sniper Myrm doctrine floating about.
|
|
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 16:59:00 -
[2561] - Quote
I have to say i think the BC's are currently at their best balance in a long time, whilst maintaining a relative niche for each.
The Prophecy obviously has an incredible tank but is well of the mark in dps so makes for a great gang boat rather than a solo one. The myrm has immense dps and full tackle/tank ability, great solo ship, but pick your fights. Ferox is excellent, i love its dps and with the resist bonus it works perfectly for a hit an run ship.
Not sure about the Cylone, but It's always good to have ships that people are more willing to fight, before people would avoid canes as they were so overpowered, whereas i think thats resolved now. Infact the cane has definitely been battered the most, it's lost pretty much all of it's positives but still makes for a good, quick dps platform...
Overall really impressed with all the retribution changes, the Cruisers and BC's are much better as a shiptype than they used to be, and im looking forward to hearing about the BS plans now.... a much harder challenge i think.
|
Luc Chastot
Gentleman's Corp
264
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 17:19:00 -
[2562] - Quote
It's been a whole after the patch. How are gallente pilots liking their BCs? I still think the Brutix is lacking PG and a different bonus. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Vega Umbranox
Eternal Darkness. Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 06:45:00 -
[2563] - Quote
So after all was said and done... it was ok to put 2 active bonuses on the gallente BC because we can get an overpriced navy variant without active bonus for like 200mil isk? ...awesome....
i like my active brutix dont get me wrong but **** u are crippling my options here guys... why is there no buffer options for gallente bc that dont cost a tonne and dont make me have 1 effective bonus
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: [one page] |