Also, hands off of the 8-turret Apocalypse.

While I respect your point of view, I have a somewhat different opinion on this than you, and possibly many others.

I was always bothered by strategy games where the player wasn't rewarded for 'teching up.' I would always calculate out the killing efficiency of units, and to my dismay, sometimes game balancers made it so that I was punished for teching up instead of rewarded.

As applied to Eve specifically, I think the balancers may have tilted things too much towards protecting the likes of frigates and cruisers from battleships. I think a battleship *should* be able to swat a frigate or cruiser pretty much as you could swat a fly.

Now, that's not to say that there might not be a penalty or cost for a battleship to attack and destroy a frigate. But I'm not sure the cost should be direct nerfs such as all these targeting and tracking penalties etc. For instance, consider this. What would be the 'overkill cost' for a battleship to blow a frigate out of the sky? I'd say rather high, especially if there are other targets out there where dps could be more efficiently applied (enemy battleships). Another thing is that frigates are almost 'free' when compared to battleships. This amounts to another penalty that battleships incur when attacking frigates - they are essentially wasting time and dps shooting at something that is almost 'free' in cost. There is also a 'swarm' disadvantage. Take any standard battleship, and put it up against it's cost in small frigates. Every time the battleship destroys a frigate, the total dps of the swarm only goes down by a small amount, and it has to kill each and every one. I haven't performed the experiment, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a battleship's cost in frigates easily takes down the battleship.

The bottom line here is, I consider a BS being able to easily neut out a frigate to be just fine, and this should be 'working as intended.' I also encourage CCP to focus less on artificial nerfs such as tracking and target size, and just let battleships be battleships in all their splendor and glory, and let frigates be frigates.

Neuts are not weapons unless you consider ECM modules, TDs, Sensor Dampeners, Scrams and Webs to be weapons as well.

If you do consider those to be weapons, then I'm just not sure what to say. Weapons are defined as something that directly damages the target. That means reducing HP. Neuts don't do that, they simply disable the tank which then allows your weapons to more effectively reduce HP.

Nobody in EVE was ever killed by just a neut, just a TD, just an ECM module. There was always a turret or launcher or drone involved.

I do agree with this, the new 'Geddon is not an Attack ship, it is, like the Arbitrator, a T1 variant of a Recon ship.

Personally, I think the strength of the [Armageddon] neut bonus is being overestimated somewhat.

Dear CCP Rise,

The problem/peculiarity with adding a Neut range bonus to a T1 BS hull is that it crosses the line between what you could call Tier 1 and Tier 2 E-War. By which I mean, it will grant a T1 ship a bonus that has been the preserve of T2 Recons (well, I could probably say all ships since until EAS are balanced, the Dragoon isn't really directly competing something in the field).

Tier 1 E-War (strength bonuses on T1 and T2 ships to make a ship better in a role):
Amarr: TDs
Caldari: ECM
Gallente: SDs
Minmatar: TPs

Tier 2 E-War (range bonuses on T2/pirate faction ships granting a different role):
Amarr: Neut range
Caldari: (the odd one out although some hulls have ECM range bonuses)
Gallente: Point/Scram range
Minmatar: Web range

The addition of a "Tier 2" E-War to a BS, granting it the Recon-like effect of 38km Neuts, diminishes the value of the related Recon. It also begs the question why other races could not have T1 hulls with their racial Tier 2 E-War (which I think would be a bad idea but crossing a line today makes similar things less unlikely tomorrow).

38 km range is, in particular, rather useful since it should be ample to hamper Logistics (a Guardian with 1 bonused SD on it has a lock range of 37 km)). And in larger fights where a Curse at 38 km may be quite vulnerable, a 38km Neuting BS may be more desirable.

In summary, my personal view is that this is a type of tiercide that shouldn't be started. Now that all T1 ships are becoming useful, T2 need things like special abilities to help them and the value of specialisation stand out. I appreciate that this very good series of rebalancing hasn't reached Recons yet (perhaps the Curse is slated for a greater range bonus)

Suggestions:
1) Dropping the idea of T1 BSs with range-bonused Neuts.
2) Perhaps changing the bonus to a Khanid-style missile ROF or Drone MWD speed bonus.
3) If a Neut range bonus remains popular in CCP, perhaps a softer range bonus and cap use bonus.

Regards,
Sparks

QFT.

I am just a bit interested in the last sentence, why must it has 8 turret?

Only if you accept that the Domi is going to be 4-bonused.

Which there is a very good reason for based on drones etc and that CCP seems perfectly happy with. So really that isn't an issue

I am not saying this is the best or only solution but at least it is SOME attempt to consolidate the issues of slot repetition for all 3 ships, cap usage, Tach fitting while achieving their tracking/optimal bonused platform intent.

design does not mean anything
we have 4 turrets on a paladin and 4 on a Vargur(6 for tempest)
we used to have 7 on a harbinger and it is not even mirror image allocated.

what's the point for a ship that has range bonus and sniping potencial has 8 turret, when it can never actually fit 8 of the largest long range weapon of the race?

abaddon has worse cap issues than apocalypse.

OP updated for some slight tweaks to the Apocalypse and Armageddon. Cap stability increase for Apoc and a powergrid tweak for the armageddon.

Design does mean everything. /shoo (Also, you can fit 8... just not Tachyons. Still want Tachyons? Get some RCU onboard. It IS possible, and it DO works well. When the time call for it.)

Dear CCP.

Can you explain something to me.

Amarr are very nice long range weapon (tachyon) .

But it's impossible to fit them on the ship.

You can put tachyon only on the oracle or Abaddon .

Can you explain why ?

All three of these BS share 4 mids, 7 lows. You may have diversified away from lasers on all of them but you sure didn't shake up much else - especially in light of a Gallente 8 low BS. How about a Hyperion treatment with double damage bonus on 6 turrets for the Apoc. That further assists the cap issues and allows a slot to be reallocated to the lows.

Neither Rokh, nor Maelstrom have that many lows.
Mael have 6 I recall, and rokh have smae or even less.

^^^^ This. You've already given the Dominix as a T1 hull a Role bonus (the only one I've yet seen in the game, btw), you could very well do the same with the Apoc.

/facepalm
Double one.
Killed an othervise good ship, that were in need of just a few tweaks... I have no words.

but they have their desired mid.
Amarr is struggling between dps and tank and now you say you will use that low slot for reactors?

OP updated for some slight tweaks to the Apocalypse and Armageddon. Cap stability increase for Apoc and a powergrid tweak for the armageddon.

How the hell I missed this post? Care to provide a link? That person deserve a "like".

I hit "Post" too early, please check back the the edited post. Sorry for inconvenience.
Also, relating to DPS and tank, if capacitor issues are resolved, Apocalypse could use a resistance bonus... if that would not make it a copy of the Rokh...

All three of these BS share 4 mids, 7 lows. You may have diversified away from lasers on all of them but you sure didn't shake up much else - especially in light of a Gallente 8 low BS. How about a Hyperion treatment with double damage bonus on 6 turrets for the Apoc. That further assists the cap issues and allows a slot to be reallocated to the lows.

You might consider that apparently this person has never flown an Apoc in anger, nor as part of a fleet. A tracking bonus is a huge boost to these ships in a kiting role.

Laser tracking has always been it's weak point.

Inability to track incoming tacklers and kill them fast enough to leverage their range advantage has always been the Apoc's weak point.

If a workable cap level can be arrived at, then tracking is probably the PERFECT bonus for this ship in it's attack role.

I would respectfully suggest some folks spend less time using EFT and it's bretheren, and more time actually flying the ships they are offering comment on.

You might consider that apparently this person has never flown an Apoc in anger, nor as part of a fleet. A tracking bonus is a huge boost to these ships in a kiting role.

Laser tracking has always been it's weak point.

Inability to track incoming tacklers and kill them fast enough to leverage their range advantage has always been the Apoc's weak point.

If a workable cap level can be arrived at, then tracking is probably the PERFECT bonus for this ship in it's attack role.

I would respectfully suggest some folks spend less time using EFT and it's bretheren, and more time actually flying the ships they are offering comment on.

Regardless of what else is said in this thread about the other changes... anyone who disagrees with the Apoc's new tracking bonus is whack. It is awesome.