Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 09:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Having flown quite a few Battlecruisers, it seems like they're all somewhat anemic when it comes to DPS. These are technically "light" battleships, but they often do little more damage than a comparable Cruiser (not including Strategic Cruisers). The Attack Battlecruisers are basically like "pocket battleships", with the power of a battleship - but trading hull and armor for speed and maneuverability.
So my suggestion for Battlecruisers is relatively simple: increase the CPU and powergrid such that they can mount a few large unbonused weapon systems (between 2-4 turrets or launchers). This would extend them the ability to deal with smaller cruiser-sized threats while still able to hold their own against battleships.
I'd also like to personally see the Naga converted to a missile platform, but that's just me. Pirate Battlecruisers would be cool, too. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
592
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 09:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Having flown quite a few Battlecruisers, it seems like they're all somewhat anemic when it comes to DPS. These are technically "light" battleships, but they often do little more damage than a comparable Cruiser (not including Strategic Cruisers). The Attack Battlecruisers are basically like "pocket battleships", with the power of a battleship - but trading hull and armor for speed and maneuverability.
So my suggestion for Battlecruisers is relatively simple: increase the CPU and powergrid such that they can mount a few large unbonused weapon systems (between 2-4 turrets or launchers). This would extend them the ability to deal with smaller cruiser-sized threats while still able to hold their own against battleships.
I'd also like to personally see the Naga converted to a missile platform, but that's just me.
THe last balance changes were EXACT opposite of whatyou suggest. You got here late...
BC shoudl not be aable to hod themselves against battleships. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 09:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:The last balance changes were EXACT opposite of what you suggest. You got here late... BC should not be aable to hold themselves against battleships. I didn't say defeat, I said hold their own. Quite obviously with their larger tank and more extensive array of weapons, Battleships would still come out on top in any engagement. However, allowing Battlecruisers to run say 2 large turrets or launchers doesn't overly tip the balance, either. Don't forget that the Attack Battlecruisers sport eight (8) large weapon systems, and I'm only suggesting 2-4. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
131
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 09:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
... it seems like they're all somewhat anemic when it comes to DPS..
.
Aaah I see what you mean. Well this happens to the best of us. The only thing you have to do is to fit a weapon on the battlecruiser you are flying and there you go, nice damage all at your disposal.
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
90
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 09:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Having flown quite a few Battlecruisers, it seems like they're all somewhat anemic when it comes to DPS. I have the feeling you've never dealt with Brutixes. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 09:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:I have the feeling you've never dealt with Brutixes. There are always exceptions. But the new SoE cruisers even seem more powerful... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
576
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 10:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Drake vs caracal 700dps to 500dps ish Harbinger vs maller 750 -850 dps to 500 dps ish etc...etc.... that doesn't even include ABC's doing 1200dps potentially... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 10:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Drake vs caracal 700dps to 500dps ish Harbinger vs maller 750 -850 dps to 500 dps ish etc...etc.... that doesn't even include ABC's doing 1200dps potentially... I'm not sure where you're getting some of your numbers from, but the Drake will do around 664 DPS with T2 HAMs and 4x T2 ballistic controllers, and that's at a dismal range of 16.9km (full skills). By comparison, the Tengu will do well over 800 DPS at twice that range and a Raven will do over 1200 DPS with T2 torpedoes at 25.3km. Adding the ability to have 2 (unbonused) torpedo launchers will only add about 125-140 DPS with the same 16.9km range. That's hardly earth-shattering. Again, the comparison is with existing Battleships and Attack Battlecruisers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
249
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 10:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
If you give the BCs the extra grid, cpu, and (in some cases) cap to be able to mount a couple of BS-size weapons, what makes you think people are going to actually use it for them?
It'll be used for extra tank, dual prop, or even a large neut. BCs will be overpowered by miles.
"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
380
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 10:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:If you give the BCs the extra grid, cpu, and (in some cases) cap to be able to mount a couple of BS-size weapons, what makes you think people are going to actually use it for them?
It'll be used for extra tank, dual prop, or even a large neut. BCs will be overpowered by miles. No additional capacitor, that's part of the tradeoff. But you bring up some valid points, so here's an even simpler solution: give them a 50% CPU and powergrid reduction for large weapons. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
448
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 11:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
It seems you want all BC's to be able to do what the assault BCs can. I don't see the reason for that, really. Assault BCs are "unique" in that they use oversized weapons and have bonuses for it, but you would most likely not have a Hurricane do the same as a Tornado, unless you also give the Cane full oversized bonuses. Why should you take the uniqueness away fron ABCs?
And if you don't give the Cane oversized bonuses (And only the bonus to fitting - so it can fit unbonused oversized weapons) why should anyone do that? Your bonused weapons will be better, and splitting weapons is somewhat the opposite of smart. This is of course without even going full into any balance aspects.
Although I would like the navy-feel with having a number of different sized guns. 8x1400mm, and 10x425mm, and 25x250mm, and 15x75mm would be more like the range of weaponsizes battleships use in an industrial or postindustrial world. If they are comparable to what a space-fleet would use is a question still. :P Now I get why CCP hasn't done that for simplicitys sake, so meh. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
381
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 11:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:It seems you want all BC's to be able to do what the assault BCs can. I don't see the reason for that, really. Assault BCs are "unique" in that they use oversized weapons and have bonuses for it, but you would most likely not have a Hurricane do the same as a Tornado, unless you also give the Cane full oversized bonuses. Why should you take the uniqueness away fron ABCs?
And if you don't give the Cane oversized bonuses (And only the bonus to fitting - so it can fit unbonused oversized weapons) why should anyone do that? Your bonused weapons will be better, and splitting weapons is somewhat the opposite of smart. This is of course without even going full into any balance aspects.
Although I would like the navy-feel with having a number of different sized guns. 8x1400mm, and 10x425mm, and 25x250mm, and 15x75mm would be more like the range of weaponsizes battleships use in an industrial or postindustrial world. If they are comparable to what a space-fleet would use is a question still. :P Now I get why CCP hasn't done that for simplicitys sake, so meh. Not at all. In EVE, Battlecruisers are fit with medium (cruiser-sized) weapons. Historically, they sported a mix of both cruise and battleship-size weapons. This doesn't take away any of the uniqueness of ABCs, because you would only be able to mount a few large weapons (all of which would be completely unbonused). ABCs are still very much like "pocket battleships", in that they're essentially cruisers with battleship guns.
The point is to give players the choice, and extend them some flexibility in their loadouts. I suspect there could be some advantages for PvP or mission aspects, but again the whole point is to open up options. And yes, for simplicity CCP has probably had to group these into "light", "medium" and "heavy" categories. The problem is that destroyers and battlecruisers came after this designation, and don't really fit into either. Battlecruisers aren't medium, but they're not heavy, either. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
448
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 11:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
Well, the historical example of battlecruisers is true, they sported much larger weapons than their hullsize would traditionally suggest. That's not what EVE BCs do though, here Battlecruiser is a size-category and not by necessity also the "style". But what you suggest is not used in EVE, and for good reasons.
You will often see people made fun of if they try to fit both ACs and Arty on their Minmatar hulls. If you fit 4 blasters and 4 rails on your rokh, you're probably dumb. There aren't any viable fit that sports both beams and pulses. If your Megathron is fitted with 2 meta 1, 2 meta 2 and 3 meta 4 blasters you need help.
I can't see how your idea is any different. You might see projectiles on otherwise unbonused hulls (Like a few projectiles on a Dominix), since they don't use cap and can add a little extra dps or versatility, but if you'd base a doctrine on unbonused weapons on a hull ..... |
culo duro
EveryoneVersusEveryone.com EveryoneVersusEveryone.com.
318
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 11:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
Combat Battlecruiser are: Bigger Cruiser - Not small Battleships, (BattleCruiser)
The difference: They're slower than regular cruisers, in exchange for a bigger tank. They do more damage, in exchange for being a large hull so they can be hit easier.
Besides i get what you're saying, and the answer is simple: If you gotta go do a small-scale engagement or missions, it's easier to skill into a Battlecruiser from a Cruiser, than to go for a Battleship, and large guns.
Battlecruiser are simply just the 3rd wheel. That doesn't mean that they don't have a purpose though, it just means that they're better than Cruisers in scenarios where you'd need a battleship but can't fly it good enough.
Besides that i personally think that Battlecruisers currently are in a good shape overall.
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
381
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 11:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Well, the historical example of battlecruisers is true, they sported much larger weapons than their hullsize would traditionally suggest. That's not what EVE BCs do though, here Battlecruiser is a size-category and not by necessity also the "style". But what you suggest is not used in EVE, and for good reasons.
You will often see people made fun of if they try to fit both ACs and Arty on their Minmatar hulls. If you fit 4 blasters and 4 rails on your rokh, you're probably dumb. There aren't any viable fit that sports both beams and pulses. If your Megathron is fitted with 2 meta 1, 2 meta 2 and 3 meta 4 blasters you need help.
I can't see how your idea is any different. You might see projectiles on otherwise unbonused hulls (Like a few projectiles on a Dominix), since they don't use cap and can add a little extra dps or versatility, but if you'd base a doctrine on unbonused weapons on a hull ..... The "good reason" you refer to is that battles tend to favor specialization and numbers. So even a small gang of roving frigates can defeat a battlecruiser, which is entirely unrealistic. It's a trend that's been moving more and more towards favoring smaller ships, and Rubicon isn't going to be any different. But I digress...
I would much rather see "generic" bonuses for hulls as opposed to specific light, medium, large or even weapon-specific bonuses so that we'd see a much wider variety in layouts and configurations. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Periapsis Retrograde Burn
Hedion University Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 13:32:00 -
[16] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers would still have the ability to deal with cruiser-sized threats while still able to hold their own against battleships (not a contest they'd win, but maybe one they could survive long enough to extract themselves from).
Like the HMS Hood? |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
79
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 13:37:00 -
[17] - Quote
To be honest, the med turret BCs are actually Heavy Cruisers. Only the Lg turret BCs are true BCs, in the classical sense.
|
Icarus Able
Traverse Holdings Setting The Universe on Fire
130
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 14:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tikitina wrote:To be honest, the med turret BCs are actually Heavy Cruisers. Only the Lg turret BCs are true BCs, in the classical sense.
This is spaceships not classical at all really.
BCs are fine where they are they get more tank and gank than cruisers while being slower. They do their job fine and i see no reason to change them. Your idea is awful. |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
195
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 14:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Tikitina wrote:To be honest, the med turret BCs are actually Heavy Cruisers. Only the Lg turret BCs are true BCs, in the classical sense.
This is spaceships not classical at all really. BCs are fine where they are they get more tank and gank than cruisers while being slower. They do their job fine and i see no reason to change them. Your idea is awful.
In classical sense of a fictional space ship game set 30,000 years from now. Of course. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
381
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 16:23:00 -
[20] - Quote
Periapsis Retrograde Burn wrote:Like the HMS Hood? That's funny. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
Black Canary Jnr
Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch. Sev3rance
31
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 17:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Drake vs caracal 700dps to 500dps ish Harbinger vs maller 750 -850 dps to 500 dps ish etc...etc.... that doesn't even include ABC's doing 1200dps potentially...
What the heck are you fitting on your maller?
I get 250ish with t2 pulses and faction multi freq. How people can come up with a DPS number double what i can achieve baffles me completely, especially when i'm only missing rf 5 and 2 levels of pulse specialisation and 2 levels of surgical strike which makes ... 12%?
|
Periapsis Retrograde Burn
Hedion University Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 17:30:00 -
[22] - Quote
Black Canary Jnr wrote: What the heck are you fitting on your maller?
I get 250ish with t2 pulses and faction multi freq. How people can come up with a DPS number double what i can achieve baffles me completely, especially when i'm only missing rf 5 and 2 levels of pulse specialisation and 2 levels of surgical strike which makes ... 12%?
All V Maller w/ 5x Heavy Pulse Laser II (overheated) w/ Imperial Navy Multifrequency, 1 T2 Heat Sink and 2 Warrior IIs = 415 DPS |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2744
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 17:46:00 -
[23] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Harvey James wrote:Drake vs caracal 700dps to 500dps ish Harbinger vs maller 750 -850 dps to 500 dps ish etc...etc.... that doesn't even include ABC's doing 1200dps potentially... I'm not sure where you're getting some of your numbers from, but the Drake will do around 664 DPS with T2 HAMs and 4x T2 ballistic controllers, and that's at a dismal range of 16.9km (full skills). By comparison, the Tengu will do well over 800 DPS at twice that range and a Raven will do over 1200 DPS with T2 torpedoes at 25.3km. Adding the ability to have 2 (unbonused) torpedo launchers will only add about 125-140 DPS with the same 16.9km range. That's hardly earth-shattering. Again, the comparison is with existing Battleships and Attack Battlecruisers.
Using buffer tanked PvP-fits Caracal: 400+ dps, 20k+ tank. Drake: 550+ dps, 70k+ tank.
Rupture: 450+ dps, 25k+ tank. Hurricane: 600+ dps, 45k+ tank.
Maller: 350+ dps, 40k+ tank. Harbringer: 700+ dps, 70k+ tank.
In most cases, BC's have about 50-100% more EHP and 25-50% more dps.
Now, you started talking about t3's... which haven't been rebalanced and the dev's have openly stated they plan to nerf them. You could bring up HACs, which are moderately in line with BC's on power level.
BC's are much tougher than cruisers in general... they do more dps... and fit well on the power spectrum. Before the cruiser/BC rebalances, there was almost no reason to fly a cruiser, as BC's were not terribly more expensive and brought overwhelming advantages above cruisers. Now, BC's still have significant advantages over cruisers, but also solid drawbacks (mainly speed). This creates a fairly nice in game balance, and your suggestion screws it up for no good reasons. |
Tikitina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 18:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
Icarus Able wrote:Tikitina wrote:To be honest, the med turret BCs are actually Heavy Cruisers. Only the Lg turret BCs are true BCs, in the classical sense.
This is spaceships not classical at all really. BCs are fine where they are they get more tank and gank than cruisers while being slower. They do their job fine and i see no reason to change them. Your idea is awful.
Ha! No change was suggested.
But, in a fictional classical retro-progressive renaissance sense 30,000 years from now, change is good.
Adapt or die! |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
381
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 18:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:BC's are much tougher than cruisers in general... they do more dps... and fit well on the power spectrum. Before the cruiser/BC rebalances, there was almost no reason to fly a cruiser, as BC's were not terribly more expensive and brought overwhelming advantages above cruisers. Now, BC's still have significant advantages over cruisers, but also solid drawbacks (mainly speed). This creates a fairly nice in game balance, and your suggestion screws it up for no good reasons. It's a 20% increase in DPS (max), offset against a trade-off of less tank if one goes this route. I don't see how simply offering a choice screws things up. It's still not going to be a ABC or a battleship. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Phaade
The Lonetrek Militia Rapidus Incitus Pactum
112
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 19:20:00 -
[26] - Quote
culo duro wrote:Combat Battlecruiser are: Bigger Cruiser - Not small Battleships, (BattleCruiser)
The difference: They're slower than regular cruisers, in exchange for a bigger tank. They do more damage, in exchange for being a large hull so they can be hit easier.
Besides i get what you're saying, and the answer is simple: If you gotta go do a small-scale engagement or missions, it's easier to skill into a Battlecruiser from a Cruiser, than to go for a Battleship, and large guns.
Battlecruiser are simply just the 3rd wheel. That doesn't mean that they don't have a purpose though, it just means that they're better than Cruisers in scenarios where you'd need a battleship but can't fly it good enough.
Besides that i personally think that Battlecruisers currently are in a good shape overall.
Battleship
Battlecruiser
Sorry, I had to. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2745
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 19:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:BC's are much tougher than cruisers in general... they do more dps... and fit well on the power spectrum. Before the cruiser/BC rebalances, there was almost no reason to fly a cruiser, as BC's were not terribly more expensive and brought overwhelming advantages above cruisers. Now, BC's still have significant advantages over cruisers, but also solid drawbacks (mainly speed). This creates a fairly nice in game balance, and your suggestion screws it up for no good reasons. It's a 20% increase in DPS (max), offset against a trade-off of less tank if one goes this route. I don't see how simply offering a choice screws things up. It's still not going to be a ABC or a battleship.
First off, every viable PvP setup I posted had well over a 20% increase in dps from frigate to BC.. Second, the values I posted were reasonable and conservative.
I bet you'd put a gun in drake's utility high if they let you. I have a suspicion your setups are.... special. As in, short-but special. It really sounds like your suggesting BC damage bonuses get applied to large weapons and gain a fitting bonus to fit large weapons. But only enough of a reduction so they can fit two of them... And for some asinine reason, you think players will only fit two of them. Most battlecruisers are not balanced with large weapons in mind... you see 10% damage bonuses (which no t1 battleship gets).
Also, BC's don't have much extra PG/CPU to work with to "upgrade" to your large weapons.
Your proposal just doesn't make sense....
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
384
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 19:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I bet you'd put a gun in drake's utility high if they let you. I have a suspicion your setups are.... special. As in, short-but special. It really sounds like your suggesting BC damage bonuses get applied to large weapons and gain a fitting bonus to fit large weapons. But only enough of a reduction so they can fit two of them... And for some asinine reason, you think players will only fit two of them. Most battlecruisers are not balanced with large weapons in mind... you see 10% damage bonuses (which no t1 battleship gets).
Also, BC's don't have much extra PG/CPU to work with to "upgrade" to your large weapons.
Your proposal just doesn't make sense.... The Drake has a utility slot? I'm not suggesting BC damage bonuses get applied to large weapons, and I was fairly specific on that (no). I'm just suggesting a fitting bonus so they could fit a few larger weapon turrets or launchers. And yes, I think that if you found a way to fit 3-4 of these on a standard BC you'd redefine "glass cannon". But without any bonuses it would be more glass and less cannon. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2745
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 20:08:00 -
[29] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I bet you'd put a gun in drake's utility high if they let you. I have a suspicion your setups are.... special. As in, short-but special. It really sounds like your suggesting BC damage bonuses get applied to large weapons and gain a fitting bonus to fit large weapons. But only enough of a reduction so they can fit two of them... And for some asinine reason, you think players will only fit two of them. Most battlecruisers are not balanced with large weapons in mind... you see 10% damage bonuses (which no t1 battleship gets).
Also, BC's don't have much extra PG/CPU to work with to "upgrade" to your large weapons.
Your proposal just doesn't make sense.... The Drake has a utility slot? I'm not suggesting BC damage bonuses get applied to large weapons, and I was fairly specific on that (no). I'm just suggesting a fitting bonus so they could fit a few larger weapon turrets or launchers. And yes, I think that if you found a way to fit 3-4 of these on a standard BC you'd redefine "glass cannon". But without any bonuses it would be more glass and less cannon.
Fit a bunch of reactor controls and ACR rigs and you can put 3 Dual Heavy pulse laser II's on your harby.... no need for a change. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
287
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 20:15:00 -
[30] - Quote
My talos is running at 960dps using null, who are you calling anemic?! With fun button and within 10k of a ratting carrier, that's going up to 1600
I admit though that te talos is slightly special.
Besides that, two battlecruisers in scramrange murder about anything there is, the gank/tank ratio is just to awesome considering their pricetag.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=288823&find=unread - Looking for a handful of well-versed EU pilots. Especially interested in hyperactive dscanners. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |