Moron, If the last data dump was not public you would not have know about the changes.

Moron

jesus they said that it was a first draft too.

Stop being teste!

They flat out TOLD you the specs listed were for testing. I know we're not used to beleiving CCP but the ONE thing you can ALWAYS believe them about is when they say something isn't finished.

Original stats from sisi dump were beyond broken... Glad to see that the new "dump" has toned these ships down a bit.

As far as the Gallente ship not having drones... Wait till the hybrid re-balance is done before you start crying bloody murder folks.

So no one has any issue with the revision?

People seem to be telling me that the Chaos development server stats where the first iteration... Some things changed in a questionible direction on the second revision, now we should keep quite because the previous version was the first iteration...

Right.

yeah, listen up you pack of amateur professors

testing numbers requires actually loading them on the server

that is unless you folks think its better for CCP to run the numbers on a pad of paper and not an actual game environment

I'm not even commenting on the stats. I'm only commenting on your surprise that they changed. CCP said it wasn't finished. My god, after all these years, can we agree that is the one thing we can believe them about? They specialize in unfinished, they delivered unfinished, and we're supposed to be surprised? I am not surprised!

I am talking about the SECOND ITERATION. They have tested internally, made modifications, which I have seen, and are now addressing in this thread.


Also, the stuff about this being "Low SP anti capital" stuff is bollocks. These will have the survivability of t1 cruisers, which I hear isn't very long during the typical hellcat fleets these days.

and I bet they make some more later.

now STFU and stop being a backseat programmer, its people like you all across the gaming world who cause most game DEVS to never say anything of value.

I don't recall reading a post from CCP saying that the tier 3 BC were supposed to be anti-cap ships. While I don't argue that they could certainly be used in that role, I also agree that we should state what we think of the current stats, while being patient and understanding that they are not even close to finalized. Perhaps CCP is simply trying out extreme stats at the outset, and then will slowly focus in on what is best. Gotta start somewhere.

Kind of like that game on The Price is Right, Hi & Lo, where the player guesses a price and the host says higher or lower until the player gets it right or time runs out.

You know CCP is doing something right when half the posts in the single thread are defending them.

so what is the new bonus if not webber? more damage?

First of all, the stats are on the public testing server. So, it's pathetic to suggest that we shouldn't offer comment until we see some final sort of state? (How the **** is it suppose to get there in any satisfactory state without feedback?)

yeah, isn't there an official thread in another forum where you can make those comments?
or have they already thrown you out of it?

hmm so its like a mini mega with 8 nuetrons.... i dont mind that at all tbh...

/adds to the forum drama list.

A mega with 1/5 the hp, no drones and 5 low slots?

or more a mega and a Hyperion had a baby and this came... whats that with new javelin 600+ dps? with a tacking boost

tbh i was not a fan of the webber bonus so i am biased...

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado.

if your signature is to be believed (and I have no reason not to), could it be the case that you're taking this all a bit too personally? would you really be getting this worked up if it weren't "your" design?

I didn't design the Talos.

your original post mentioned all the T3 BC's before focusing in on the Talos, and many of your posts have been about the general role of the ship and not the Talos specifically, but ok. Was just curious as you seem disproportionately bent out of shape about this.

leave my domi drone boat alone.. even with the speed boost it will still be slower than my grandma with out her walker.

Thorax: 5 medium turrets, 5 medium drones.
Talos: 8 large turrets.

Is that a fair tradeoff? Sure, I'd like to see the "mini vindicator" comment come to fruition. Perhaps CCP figured that a webifier bonus wasn't going to play into the role that they wanted to fill with this ship?

Tbh web bonus AND bs sized guns sounds a little overpowered to me. We dont want a bc that makes all the other obsolete now do we?

Are the fitting slot layouts also known?

If we get at least 1 utility high slot it will be hard to dissapoint me..

People go "OMG" it has BS sized guns!!

Which means fuckall without context. The main advantage of BS guns is range. Commandships or T3's can achieve "battleship" dps (or tank) with medium guns with the right bonuses. The problem with the Talos is that 1, rails suck and will continue to suck even with the current iteration of changes - blasters don't really provide the type of range needed to distinguish it's self from medium turrets in any context. Which was why the web and drones kinda helped.

I also question the cruiser stats... CCP, have you even begun to look into how and why t1 cruisers are (not) flown?

So according to the latest SISI data dump, all the tier 3 BATTLE CRUISERS lost some speed, HP and had some of their bonuses turned down...

Most notable of all was the Talos... Losing it's web bonus AND drones...

Either CCP Tallest is preparing one hell of a hybrids boost iteration or gallente specced pilots are in for a long cold hard winter...

That that tank it would get whompped one on one against a Mrym.

We dont know yet, but i kinda hope you're right.

Look at that hull stats, its like a diemost with worse resists......and Ironically with this pass LESS tank than the Tornado that can hit from out past 50km with ease (less shield /same armor)

Sans dones
Sans web bonus.


Pretty sure I could beat myself in a Talos (assuming no neut) with a Comet and I KNOW I could do with with an assault frigate.

Because now you have to go into scram range, with no tank, and no way to definitively in anything down without using two webs or just shield tanking and trying to melt the thing you scram.

Even cutting a gun and tossing on a neut is kinda meh, because you still be easy picking for fleet ceptors and anything with a scram.

Or use rails...with the added aggravation of **** poor tacking, not enough slots to give it good tracking and being WORSE at that roll than a Tornado.

Basically the ship went from pretty cool to meh...

Brutix will do the job better cheaper.

People go "OMG" it has BS sized guns!!

Which means fuckall without context. The main advantage of BS guns is range. Commandships or T3's can achieve "battleship" dps (or tank) with medium guns with the right bonuses. The problem with the Talos is that 1, rails suck and will continue to suck even with the current iteration of changes - blasters don't really provide the type of range needed to distinguish it's self from medium turrets in any context. Which was why the web and drones kinda helped.

I also question the cruiser stats... CCP, have you even begun to look into how and why t1 cruisers are (not) flown?

Stop trying to theory craft the talos as a solopwnmobile and you will start to get better results.

CCP Ytterbium is in the process of writing a blog which will be published when the ships are final. Obviously, you are free to speculate on what may happen but realize that any changes are fluid. These ships may go through several more rounds of changes so please try and be patient for now

This is why we would encourage people totake information from data dumps with a pinch of salt. The four battlecruisers are not even ready to pilot on singularity just yet and may go through several more revisions while they are still in development.

CCP Ytterbium is in the process of writing a blog which will be published when the ships are final. Obviously, you are free to speculate on what may happen but realize that any changes are fluid. These ships may go through several more rounds of changes so please try and be patient for now

Okay how about this idea. Lets turn it around.

After many years of stuggle and factions seeing their own weapons turned against them they all invent a ship that counters just that.

Minmatar builds the bc that has a bonus against webbing.
Amarr invents a bc that has a bonus against neuts and nos.
Caldari builds a bc that has a bonus against ecm.
Gallente builds a bc that has a bonus against sensor damps.

Would that work?

Damps? Really?

I don't recall the last time I was sensor damped.

Webbed, nueted, NOS'd and jammed sure.

Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.


Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.

On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests ).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.

Because indeed, we would like you to realize the initial data that was spread around was just that, initial data, and that it is supposed and expected to change at any time during the development process.


Tl;dr: if it's not on TQ, please don't take it as final. Even when it's on TQ, remember it's susceptible to change with time.


Hope that helps a bit.

so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?

so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests ).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.

R U sure u know how to read?

@hans

Not too worried about the Tornado or the Oracle as the weapons systems are compatible with what I think is the concept of the ship class. Talos and to an increasing extent, Naga are in bad shape.

So what is the Talos supposed to do against any BS that can field heavy drones and neuts?

It simply doesn't have the tank to hang out under the guns, and is neut vulnerable, so are we to understand its meant to be a rail ship, or just sub-par?

Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.


Hope that helps a bit.

So according to the latest SISI data dump, all the tier 3 BATTLE CRUISERS lost some speed, HP and had some of their bonuses turned down...

Most notable of all was the Talos... Losing it's web bonus AND drones...

Either CCP Tallest is preparing one hell of a hybrids boost iteration or gallente specced pilots are in for a long cold hard winter...

So no one has any issue with the revision?

But they will be used as the cheap ship replacements for the blobs which puts them below the status of drakes and cains because at least those ships can do other roles.

I am just disappointed as I am sure others here are as well that these new ships and their wonderful models will be nothing more than disposable platforms with no real use outside of the large alliances that can field them in lemming like numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

So these new ships are to be niche ships to be used in whelp fleets in null against the evil the super caps floating out there. I guess I won't be having one in my hanger then.

I am not saying these ships won't be used (well the Naga and Talos might be rather rare critters). But they will be used as the cheap ship replacements for the blobs which puts them below the status of drakes and cains because at least those ships can do other roles.

I am just disappointed as I am sure others here are as well that these new ships and their wonderful models will be nothing more than disposable platforms with no real use outside of the large alliances that can field them in lemming like numbers.

Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.


Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.

On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests ).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.

Because indeed, we would like you to realize the initial data that was spread around was just that, initial data, and that it is supposed and expected to change at any time during the development process.


Tl;dr: if it's not on TQ, please don't take it as final. Even when it's on TQ, remember it's susceptible to change with time.


Hope that helps a bit.

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

So you expected them to be on pair with Drakes and thus overpowered by definition? Okey....

I never stated I expected them be like drakes, To me CCP has made a specialty tool that can only do one thing and it not looking like it can do the job any better than the tools we already have. If you want talk about nerfing the other tools to make this one more appealing in it's intended role well, that is a whole another topic.

I just don't see the point of buying a tool that can do only one thing when I can have a tool that can do it's job plus other tasks just as well if not better for the same cost.

Even if that specialty tool looks better and fancier.

So I can't say I knew what to expect of the new ships, I won't lie though but I had hope they would do at least one role that I was interested in. Being a cheap lemming for an alliance isn't one of them though.

That is what you can take from my prior statement.

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to.

So according to the latest SISI data dump, all the tier 3 BATTLE CRUISERS lost some speed, HP and had some of their bonuses turned down...

Most notable of all was the Talos... Losing it's web bonus AND drones...

Either CCP Tallest is preparing one hell of a hybrids boost iteration or gallente specced pilots are in for a long cold hard winter...

I never stated I expected them be like drakes.

If you don't nerf LSE's fitting requirements in a major way, then there is now reason to flying any Tier3 BC other than the Tornado. Because the Tornado will have easily 40% more EHP, while having a better offense than the Talos or Naga (more dps doesn't count if you're not in range to apply it)

I think these ships need a role bonus for them to really work. Something to help with killing capitals... 'can deploy 3 fighters and fighters have +200% increased dmg against other fighters and bombers' or 'can jam ships immune to EW'.

Tiny design flaw, 'for small gangs' and 'against capitals'. Those 2 don't fit together.

Also in a cap fight a fleet is better flying Caps+support BS than Caps+BC/BS wannabees. This cause BS beats these new ships.

These kinda remind Muninn and Zealot.... fast, agile, weak tank, range with large guns but worse tracking than HACs.

Look, a new Eagle in the making. We all know how AWESOM0 the Eagle is.

..right?

I just don't see the point of buying a tool that can do only one thing when I can have a tool that can do it's job plus other tasks just as well if not better for the same cost.

That might be a fair point - but what deals BS levels of DPS and BS ranges that costs the same as a Tech 1 BC? More to the point if you don't like them, just don't buy them: its that simple.

C.

Talos compared to the Thorax with Sisi stats...
+1k EHP (+<10%... welp)
+60% Signature Radius
+85m/s /w MWD
+0.3 seconds align time
+1 slot
-50m3 Drones

This may not end well.

I've been laughing my head off as I've watched everyone with a hard on over these ships for the last couple of weeks.

What CCP are doing is normal game balance practice.

You introduce a ship to a test environment in a heavily overpowered state, then bring its statistics down, into line with everything else in slow and small adjustments to make sure that it fits into a specific role within the game.

People are whining about the state of these ships now, but the fact is that once again the crystal ball has come into effect and people have been wildly speculating about setups and how awesome these ships will be, based on completely unrealistic and impractical statistics.

I never did, I rarely fly blasters solo above the frigate class, mainly for all of the reasons I listed above.

425s Rails are going to be pretty crappy because the optimal on 425s is something like what 48km? Bases tracking is 0.009! x2.5 damage modifier. So plus 45% tracking for the "boost" and hull bonus and you have a whopping 0.013 tracking before pilot skills, I'll tell you from experience that you won't be able to hit a nano-drake at 35km that has ANY transversal going


To get ANY real damage out of it you have to basically forget any tank (remember Tornado has more tank) fit a SeBo and two TC's if you can get away with it plus MWD, three magstabs and suitecase in the lows.

....so great, you have accomplished a Vexor with a hell of a long range. Talk about drake bait.

Fit blasters and you have largely the same issue, you have to tank and you have to armor tank, because now you need MWD scram a TC because changing scripts is a HELL of a lot faster than changing ammo and a cap booster unless I miss my guess.

Oh yeah, and 1600mm plate, EANM and suite case are mandatory, so a pair of mag-stabs and you are done....all for less DPS than nano-cane as well as less tank.

I guess swarming caps is one thing, but you can use a BS for that without being a one trick pony.

Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.

On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

So these new ships are to be niche ships to be used in whelp fleets in null against the evil the super caps floating out there. I guess I won't be having one in my hanger then.

Either CCP Tallest is preparing one hell of a hybrids boost iteration or gallente specced pilots are in for a long cold hard winter...

So.. there we go....
supercaps can not kill subcaps...
Bs/bc can not kill frigs ??

The problem with your duab webbing monster besides making it a gatecamp bc, is in imo an even bigger problem. Your dual webbing talos would still be able to kill a tackler sure, but with a 90% web bonus it would wtf insta bbq any small tackler not leaving any time for a gang to having use of that tackle. Put simple, it would become a bs gun wielding anti taclker.

Because small, fast tacklers always fly right into web range right?

So according to the latest SISI data dump, all the tier 3 BATTLE CRUISERS lost some speed, HP and had some of their bonuses turned down...

Most notable of all was the Talos... Losing it's web bonus AND drones...

Either CCP Tallest is preparing one hell of a hybrids boost iteration or gallente specced pilots are in for a long cold hard winter...

No but then the bc pilot could make use of his mwd and perhaps even try and kite it. Does make sence to go close on a bc with bs tracking guns does it not?

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests ).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.

With these stats, why should I even bother to use the Talos or the Naga, when the Tornado and the Oracle are simply the only ones that really work. The Tornado and Oracle work in that they use Range and speed to compensate for their low tank along with great mid to long range weapons. The Talos and Naga are stuck with Rails, which are still crap to use even with the 10% buff, Beams and Artillery is still simply better. What do rails offer me that make them worth using over Beams and Artillery? The answer is simply none.

The Talos with the loss of its drones and web bonus along with hitpoint and speed nerf effectively gives it little use in comparison to the tornado and Oracle? Your 1300 blaster dps will not help when your hitpoints are barely greater than a thorax, especially with the close range engagements that you will be fighting in. If you are fighting Battleships, you are dead, battlecruisers, still dead, cruisers, good luck hitting them, frigates, don't bother. Using rails are a joke, their range advantage have little meaning when you have Pulse lasers with scorch and Autocannons with barrage that reach pretty damn far and do far more damage.

The Naga will just be another inferior Raven/Rokh. Ever see many people use those in pvp? Yeah Right. Cruise missiles are pretty much crap. Rails are crap for the reasons stated. Torpedoes are too short ranged and require a web and painter to be of any use to Battleship and battlecruisers. The Naga don't really have any use from what I can see, unless you like pos bashing.

With little surprise it is all about Amarr Victor and Winmatar. Gallente and caldari are a joke.

For some reason, this thread appears to be full of people pissed off that I haven't waited till december before providing feedback. Yep. How silly of me, I should have waited till point in time were the developers had already poored hundreds of man hours testing and number crunching these ship concepts, the point many weeks before initial ideas had been locked in, design paradigms fixed and the production plan committed, I should have waited till the point were these guys were in knee deep in the final sprint AKA "UberCrunch" with perhaps a dozen other really important none ship balancing things to do. Yep, I shouldn't have made a comment at the point were the biggest course corrections could be made, or at the point alternative idea's could be entertained with enough time for Q&A before launch.

Silly me.




@CCP Ytterbium
I like the underlying concept, however.
Eve, as you well aware suffers from underlying "existential" problems - some of which are tolerated by most of us without even realising. Others, like the "Gallente" problem are not.

1) You have designed ships with the survivability of T1 cruisers - Which is OK in the context of "Tornado picking off frigs and kiting most things at +50km away" with autocannons that have 2-3x more the effective tracking of Blasters at optimal+falloff BEFORE tracking enhancers are even considered.

But it's not ok in the context of a ship that, if fitted with blasters, will be doing the vast majority of it's dirty work within 30km. Why? T1 cruisers are just too slow, for the EHP they have. Survivability is the major driver of ship purchases, with Speed and EHP being the primary factors in player perception. Signature is important, but the ability to enter and leave a targets area of influence as well as damage mitigation trumps it in every real world scenario.

Compile raw data into charts and plot the global usage of interceptors since the nano nerf, ask the question "why are nano canes faster than some nano destroyers?".

The problem? The only cruisers readily flown are the ones which achieve near frig speed, or able of +BC EHP. I don't fear for the Oracle or Tornado in this regard because there weapons systems have enough in their tank to overcome this issue through shear force of will. Talos and Naga? Not so much and that leads on to...

2) Gallente... They never fitted in with the traditional class roles - to work they had to dominate all ship classes - by extension providing them with an equivalent survival factor to ships that could run away. This has been continuously eroded by direct nerfs, and what was most striking about the Talos change was that this concept was not apparent. It seems we're still back to pre 2009 thinking, the one in which ships could be a few 2% away from each other either behaving nearly exactly the same way (but not close enough to mean that players didn't cry imbalanced over the last few percent). You've demonstrated first with the Moros change (staggeringly after all that was debated about the naglfar) and now your doing it with the Talos.


Enough!

Races can only work if they feel and behave differently. The more quirks you can provide, the more differences not just in stats, but in tactics, the better. And with the Talos, and Gallente in general, it doesn't seem like your anywhere near close to breaking free from the war of percentages that drives every major balance cycle - fact, your probably fuelling it.


But yeah, thanks for engaging - like I said, the concept of T3 BC's is good, however I strongly suggest you take the above in to suggestion.



I'm going to ride this expansion like a roller-coaster, so expect vigorous debate at every stage.

I really don't understand this thought process. Eve is a sandbox game and i feel that it isn't CCPs place to tell us the roles of the ships they give us

I will say that I think they are angling for the Talos "primary" role to be a rail boat for roaming and secondarily a blaster boat when camping, etc.... but that's just my uninformed take on the matter right now. We'll have to see how the hybrid update pans out during the testing of these ships to really know for sure.

If you are fighting Battleships, you are dead, battlecruisers, still dead, cruisers, good luck hitting them, frigates, don't bother. Using rails are a joke, their range advantage have little meaning when you have Pulse lasers with scorch and Autocannons with barrage that reach pretty damn far and do far more damage.

For some reason, this thread appears to be full of people pissed off that I haven't waited till december before providing feedback. Yep. How silly of me, I should have waited till point in time were the developers had already poored hundreds of man hours testing and number crunching these ship concepts, the point many weeks after initial ideas had been locked in, design paradigms fixed and the production plan committed, I should have waited till the point were these guys were in knee deep in the final sprint AKA "UberCrunch" with perhaps a dozen other really important none ship balancing things to do. Yep, I shouldn't have made a comment at the point were the biggest course corrections could be made, or at the point alternative idea's could be entertained with enough time for Q&A before launch.

Silly me.




@CCP Ytterbium
I like the underlying concept, however.
Eve, as you well aware suffers from underlying "existential" problems - some of which are tolerated by most of us without even realising. Others, like the "Gallente" problem are not.

1) You have designed ships with the survivability of T1 cruisers - Which is OK in the context of "Tornado picking off frigs and kiting most things at +50km away" with autocannons that have 2-3x more the effective tracking of Blasters at optimal+falloff BEFORE tracking enhancers are even considered.

But it's not ok in the context of a ship that, if fitted with blasters, will be doing the vast majority of it's dirty work within 30km. Why? T1 cruisers are just too slow, for the EHP they have. Survivability is the major driver of ship purchases, with Speed and EHP being the primary factors in player perception. Signature is important, but the ability to enter and leave a targets area of influence as well as damage mitigation trumps it in every real world scenario.

Compile raw data into charts and plot the global usage of interceptors since the nano nerf, ask the question "why are nano canes faster than some nano destroyers?".

The problem? The only cruisers readily flown are the ones which achieve near frig speed, or able of +BC EHP. I don't fear for the Oracle or Tornado in this regard because there weapons systems have enough in their tank to overcome this issue through shear force of will. Talos and Naga? Not so much and that leads on to...

2) Gallente... They never fitted in with the traditional class roles - to work they had to dominate all ship classes - by extension providing them with an equivalent survival factor to ships that could run away. This has been continuously eroded by direct nerfs, and what was most striking about the Talos change was that this concept was not apparent. It seems we're still back to pre 2009 thinking, the one in which ships could be a few 2% away from each other either behaving nearly exactly the same way (but not close enough to mean that players didn't cry imbalanced over the last few percent). You've demonstrated first with the Moros change (staggeringly after all that was debated about the naglfar) and now your doing it with the Talos.


Enough!

Races can only work if they feel and behave differently. The more quirks you can provide, the more differences not just in stats, but in tactics, the better. And with the Talos, and Gallente in general, it doesn't seem like your anywhere near close to breaking free from the war of percentages that drives every major balance cycle - fact, your probably fuelling it.


But yeah, thanks for engaging - like I said, the concept of T3 BC's is good, however I strongly suggest you take the above in to suggestion.



I'm going to ride this expansion like a roller-coaster, so expect vigorous debate at every stage.

Basically this:

Additionally, do you know that even with a tracking bonus, Tachyons still out track 425mms?

Not only is this percentages exacerbated by unfavourable slot layouts as well as a bunch of other racial traits that just make gallente an non starter for anything but extreme range. (Which is now practically extinct) - Woe betide the dev who pigeon holes a gallente ship to rails.

I am aware of this, and do not discount the point, but two things to consider.

I seriously doubt you will be putting 425mm rails on this ship in the first place (definately could be wrong). I'm expecting them to be aimed more towards the lesser used smaller BS sized weaponry.

I tend to think of these BC's as beefed up cruisers able to mount BS weapons (similar in concept to a stealth bomber) instead of thinking about their tactical use in terms of how a BC is traditionally used in combat. You would deal with this variety of threats exactly as you would if you were flying a long range cruiser or HAC.

You will not devote much to a tank, instead you will devote most of your fit to tracking and dictating range while staying aligned for a quick warp out. That is your defense, just as it is with a cruiser. Your chief worry will be getting tackled by something small, anything large pounding on you and you will warp out and then reposition.

None of these ships are designed for a slug fest, this is intentional. They are designed to keep up with a small gang and be most effective against larger, slower targets. Again, similar in concept to a steal bomber (no cloak yes, but fast enough to keep up with a fast moving gang, fragile as hell, but delivering a big punch to big targets).

So I"m not saying you are wrong in your thinking "if" you try to use them like a standard BC... I'm saying you won't want to use them that way to be effective.

There is no where within 100km, or without the current boost, that the Oracle or Tornado won't out perform the Talos with rails. Period. You might find certain situations where the Talos may be competitive, but on the whole the rest will just be more suitible more often. Naga seems set to repeat every caldari ship design mistake since the introduction of the Rokh.


Oh well, they will always have the drake... And I the Proteus.

even with a pinch of salt, it still sucks to see a ship that looks awesom on paper, to suddenly look bad on that same paper.
these bc's need to be good at soemthing and they looked like they were going to be. now they look like they will be another thing that gathers dust in peoples hangers after the initial oh look i got a new bc effect has worn off. unless your a high sec ganker looking for faster locking speed over your bs

You were whining about not being able to take on a frigate. You are still whining about a ship none of us have been able to test yet. I am waiting to test this new toy to see what I can get out of it before I make my comments.

As it stands now, these BC's still have a role in w-space. Perhaps that's what the developers are going for. IDK. Their low mass + big guns will be awesome at POS bashs in w-space.

I am aware of this, and do not discount the point, but two things to consider.

I seriously doubt you will be putting 425mm rails on this ship in the first place (definately could be wrong). I'm expecting them to be aimed more towards the lesser used smaller BS sized weaponry.

I tend to think of these BC's as beefed up cruisers able to mount BS weapons (similar in concept to a stealth bomber) instead of thinking about their tactical use in terms of how a BC is traditionally used in combat. You would deal with this variety of threats exactly as you would if you were flying a medium to long range cruiser or HAC.

You will not devote much to a tank, instead you will devote most of your fit to tracking and dictating range while staying aligned for a quick warp out. That is your defense, just as it is with a cruiser. Your chief worry will be getting tackled by something small, anything large pounding on you and you will warp out and then reposition.

None of these ships are designed for a slug fest, this is intentional. They are designed to keep up with a small gang and be most effective against larger, slower targets. Again, similar in concept to a steal bomber (no cloak yes, but fast enough to keep up with a fast moving gang, fragile as hell, but delivering a big punch to big targets).

So I"m not saying you are wrong in your thinking "if" you try to use them like a standard BC... I'm saying you won't want to use them that way to be effective.

What do rails offer me that make them worth using over Beams and Artillery? The answer is simply none.

In this respect giving bonus to what the ship would actually be good at (range) makes sense. (as opposed to web bonus, which I already said doesnt fit in)

So what is the Talos supposed to do against any BS that can field heavy drones and neuts?

It simply doesn't have the tank to hang out under the guns, and is neut vulnerable, so are we to understand its meant to be a rail ship, or just sub-par?

A 10% to the damage modifier along with the huge buffs to tracking, capacitance and so forth is going to make rail boats extremely competitive.

If they are so tightly focused they should become tech 2. Tech 1 hasnt been, can't be and shouldn't be so niche

Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.

On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:

• Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
• Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
• Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
• Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
• Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

I think you'll find t2 ships and teirs also contributed to the opinion that specialised t1 ships suck.

That huge buff to tracking had best bring it down to current 250mm rail levels on 425s, or my statement will hold, they simply won't work inside long point range, specially on a ship that only has room for a lunch box and two TEs.

In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests ).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.

This is why we would encourage people totake information from data dumps with a pinch of salt. The four battlecruisers are not even ready to pilot on singularity just yet and may go through several more revisions while they are still in development.

CCP Ytterbium is in the process of writing a blog which will be published when the ships are final. Obviously, you are free to speculate on what may happen but realize that any changes are fluid. These ships may go through several more rounds of changes so please try and be patient for now

[

TL;DR - We made a gallente ship that was good, realized our error, and corrected it immediately.

TL;DR - We made a gallente ship that was good, realized our error, and corrected it immediately.

CCP, by dropping the web bonus and drones you have brought the talos in line with what the rest of gallente has been for 8 years.

Leave them on there and if the ship is OP then tweak PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't pre-nurf the Gallente boat. a lot of people were looking forward to this buff to a Gallente ship

Thanks!
Derp

These will have the survivability of t1 cruisers, which I hear isn't very long during the typical hellcat fleets these days.

so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?

Game developers change things on a TEST server environment, and people scream like a kid whose candy was stolen. Get a freaking grip people.

All expansions have a cut off point for continuing changes... this allows for it to be tested ;) As Soundwave said.. balancing WILL continue but the changes mentioned are the ones that will make it into this release