Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
X Mary
Lousy T-Shirt Corp EVE Animal Control
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 12:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
A lot of people talk about battlecruiser balancing in pvp but in my opinion it's mostly a cost issue.
If you only look at hull costs there's a nice progression in cost from cruiser to battlecruiser to battleship. A battlecruiser costs about 3 times as much as a cruiser and a battleship 2-3 times as much as a battlecruiser after insurance.
Then you start factoring in rigs and that Battlecruiser is not even twice as expensive more like 1,5 as a cruiser and the battleship becomes 6-7 times as expensive as the battlecruiser.
So nobobody flies cruisers because for just a bit more you have a boat that will perform a lot better and only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.
My solution to this is to give battlecruiser and then mostly the tech 2 type of battlecruiser a mix of large and medium rig slots. Something like 2 large and 1 medium or 2 medium and one large. This way you would have the cost progression from cruiser-battlecruiser-battleship back and you see both more tech1 cruisers and tech1 battleships on the field.
|
Lady Spank
GET OUT NASTY FACE
197
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 12:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
No (a¦á_a¦â) ~ Get Out, Nasty Face ~ (a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â) |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 12:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
This. TBQFH.
If you're worried about cruisers being under utilized (which they are, along with most of the T1 frigates and some of the tier 1 BC's), then you need to lobby for CCP to remove the Tier System and not only boost lots of hulls both stats wise and by rejigging the bonuses to make sure each ship has a role to play.
Besides, ISK value isn't a balancing factor in Eve. |
X Mary
Lousy T-Shirt Corp EVE Animal Control
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 12:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Buzzmong wrote:Besides, ISK value isn't a balancing factor in Eve. Say what? Everything in Eve is about isk, and if you take in account total cost of a loss, then especially Tier 2 battlecruisers are massively underpriced compared to the performance they give.
|
Lady Spank
GET OUT NASTY FACE
199
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 13:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Everything in eve is about fun. ISK is a necessity.
Why do you want to raise the cost of PVP arbitrarily? I don't see how you can justify it. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ Get Out, Nasty Face ~ (a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â)(a¦á_a¦â) |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 13:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yea BCs should totally use rigs that cost almost as much as the hull each.. Wait, no. |
Nex apparatu5
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
79
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 13:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
X Mary wrote:Buzzmong wrote:Besides, ISK value isn't a balancing factor in Eve. Say what? Everything in Eve is about isk, and if you take in account total cost of a loss, then especially Tier 2 battlecruisers are massively underpriced compared to the performance they give. If you've played for a year or two, isk is no longer a limiting factor. |
X Mary
Lousy T-Shirt Corp EVE Animal Control
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 13:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lady Spank wrote:Everything in eve is about fun. ISK is a necessity.
Why do you want to raise the cost of PVP arbitrarily? I don't see how you can justify it. Because there's always a movement to bang for your buck and in that aspect battlecruisers get way more then other ships causing them to be overrepresented. Cruisers and battleships would have more uses if this disparity of cost was fixed.
Alternatively give cruisers small rigs and battleships medium rigs if you're concerned about making fun more expensive. This will lead to more diversity and I think that's a good thing.
Nalha Saldana wrote:Yea BCs should totally use rigs that cost almost as much as the hull each.. Wait, no. Why not? If I fit my armageddon the rigs ARE just as expensive as the hull. Why for that ship it's ok and for a BC is not? |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 13:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
X Mary wrote:Lady Spank wrote:Everything in eve is about fun. ISK is a necessity.
Why do you want to raise the cost of PVP arbitrarily? I don't see how you can justify it. Because there's always a movement to bang for your buck and in that aspect battlecruisers get way more then other ships causing them to be overrepresented. Cruisers and battleships would have more uses if this disparity of cost was fixed. Alternatively give cruisers small rigs and battleships medium rigs if you're concerned about making fun more expensive. This will lead to more diversity and I think that's a good thing.
Cheap rigged BSs for everyone \o/
(terrible idea) |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 16:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
X Mary wrote: Why not? If I fit my armageddon the rigs ARE just as expensive as the hull.
Than you are doing it wrong. |
|
Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
234
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 16:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Fix salvage rate so that a select few popular rigs are not vastly overpriced. |
Cerlin
Imperium Technologies F0RCEFUL ENTRY
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 17:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
IF you think they are overpriced, make your own rigs and take advantage of the market. This game is all about supply and demand, its not the manufacturers fault if everyone wants to buy the same rigs.
Edit: I think the OP's Idea is terrible too. Battlecruisers are popular not just because of the price, but because they can hit all the subcap chassis' very well. That is what they should do. |
Aesiron
Squadron 1
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 18:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
X Mary wrote:A lot of people talk about battlecruiser balancing in pvp but in my opinion it's mostly a cost issue.
If you only look at hull costs there's a nice progression in cost from cruiser to battlecruiser to battleship. A battlecruiser costs about 3 times as much as a cruiser and a battleship 2-3 times as much as a battlecruiser after insurance.
Then you start factoring in rigs and that Battlecruiser is not even twice as expensive more like 1,5 as a cruiser and the battleship becomes 6-7 times as expensive as the battlecruiser.
So nobobody flies cruisers because for just a bit more you have a boat that will perform a lot better and only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.
My solution to this is to give battlecruiser and then mostly the tech 2 type of battlecruiser a mix of large and medium rig slots. Something like 2 large and 1 medium or 2 medium and one large. This way you would have the cost progression from cruiser-battlecruiser-battleship back and you see both more tech1 cruisers and tech1 battleships on the field.
No no no no no no. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 23:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
A rigged cruiser costs 20M isk more or less, a rigged BC costs 60-70M isk. I'm ignoring insurance here, this is just the upfront cost. Seems pretty balanced to me. The problem is players are just too rich, BC's are the new t1 frig. |
Majuan Shuo
Sons Of 0din
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 23:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
What is this I don't even "I believe the Winter expansion needs to be a huge success, and so they are giving us ice cream, and cake, and ice cream cake, and pizza, and hookers, and blow, and pizza. Any and everything they think players want and they can do by winter, they will stuff into this expansion." |
Tamiya Sarossa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
102
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 23:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
Rig prices are not uniform, thus this is not a valid balancing discussion. My BS's are often fit witih weapon rigs which are cheaper than the BC level buffer rigs I typically use - this makes my BS's cost about on par with my BC's, ergo BC's should clear be cheaper, rite? |
Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
238
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 00:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
Cerlin wrote:IF you think they are overpriced, make your own rigs and take advantage of the market. This game is all about supply and demand, its not the manufacturers fault if everyone wants to buy the same rigs.
Edit: I think the OP's Idea is terrible too. Battlecruisers are popular not just because of the price, but because they can hit all the subcap chassis' very well. That is what they should do.
Genius, it's the salvage price.
Margins for armor rigs are even lower than less used rigs. It has to do with salvage drop table. Armor plates, for example, drops less than electronic, but trimarks are in far greater demand than cpu/ewar rigs, thus the price imbalance. The drop table is arbitrarily determined by CCP, thus, players cannot change supply. |
X Mary
Lousy T-Shirt Corp EVE Animal Control
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 00:13:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tamiya Sarossa wrote:Rig prices are not uniform, thus this is not a valid balancing discussion. My BS's are often fit witih weapon rigs which are cheaper than the BC level buffer rigs I typically use - this makes my BS's cost about on par with my BC's, ergo BC's should clear be cheaper, rite? If rigs are so cheap it doesn't matter then this change wouldn't hurt anyone. If however rigprices are a big factor in deciding what ship to field then this change is also valid. Going by your argument, there's no reason not to implement this. |
Alara IonStorm
RvB - BLUE Republic
490
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 00:56:00 -
[19] - Quote
You have to look at the difference.
Batllecruisers vs Cruisers
Slightly Slower A Bit less Scan Res Larger Sig Rad
Vs
More DPS More Slots Double the Capacitor without much extra Cap use Better fitting per Module Much more Tank Always a full Drone bay Cheap Rigs and insurance
Now the extra slots mean they can fit Sebo's and Nano's while still maintaining more tank so there goes the pretty much the Speed and Scan Res disadvantage. Especially the Nano Cane which can move faster then most non Minmatar Cruisers.
Then look at how different the Tier System effects them. The Logi Cruisers are all terrible at being Logi Cruisers. Two of the EWAR Cruisers are good, one of them is a combat Cruiser. The last two don't have much going for them. The lower Tier Combat Cruiser are Terrible like the Omen and Stabber or passable like the AML Caracal and Vexor. Then Tier 3 you have the Moa and Maller w/o Dmg Bonuses which shows, Thorax is going to be better this winter but not by much and the Rupture is Ok. Cruisers bonuses, slot layout and stats are often poorly thought for there tasks so they don't get much use even in there Niche.
The problem is not cost it is roles. Battlecruisers right now are essentially Way, Way, Better Cruisers. If Cruisers are to return they need to be able to do things Battlecruisers can not. They don't have to be better at Combat but they should be able to do it differently.
Cruisers need a Rebalance of Roles. |
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 02:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
Small rigs: Frigates, Destroyers Medium rigs: Cruisers, Battlecruisers Large rigs: Battleships, Capital Ships
Op needs to think before posting. |
|
X Mary
Lousy T-Shirt Corp EVE Animal Control
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 03:17:00 -
[21] - Quote
Arthur Frayn wrote:Small rigs: Frigates, Destroyers Medium rigs: Cruisers, Battlecruisers Large rigs: Battleships, Capital Ships
Op needs to think before posting. OP thought and came to the conclusion this list is bad. |
Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 04:22:00 -
[22] - Quote
X Mary wrote:OP thought and came to the conclusion this list is bad.
Op is an idiot. |
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 09:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
Don't let me burst your bubble, but plenty of people were fitting rigs to BCs back in the day when there were no rig sizes. |
Khors
El Barco Pirata
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 10:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
I prefer the cheap prices on battlecruisers. It encourages people to suicide them into battleship fleets, which is massive fun for the battleships. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 10:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:Don't let me burst your bubble, but plenty of people were fitting rigs to BCs back in the day when there were no rig sizes.
This is true, people are hilarious if they think all BS sized rigs are as expensive as the trimark and extender rigs and probably have no idea how rigging on BCs was done back in the days. Weapon and speed rigs where quite common and not more expensive as medium extender or trimarks now.
The idea of the OP however isn't this bad actually since it somewhat fixes the very big performance/price difference between tier 2 BCs and HACs or BS. In the long run it might help cruisers since not every BC will be trimarked/extender rig fitted, to make the EHP difference not this big and gives people that use the more expensive rigs on her BC the actual advantage back, that they had before they became so cheap that everybody fitted them all the time.
|
CanonMP180
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 12:42:00 -
[26] - Quote
If isk is an issue then fly cheap and cheerful ships like the blackbird, rupture, thorax, or a surprise augoror. I especially recommend the Blackbird, it punches well above it's weight and costs peanuts and is fun to fly. I see the point you're trying to make about isk progression, but people mainly fly BC's because they hit a sweet spot between all the attributes and are so versatile rather than their cost.
Show your support!-á Dislike button for the EvE forums proposal |
Comptroller Oumis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 19:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
Patient 2428190 wrote:Don't let me burst your bubble, but plenty of people were fitting rigs to BCs back in the day when there were no rig sizes.
I recently purchased an Omen Navy Issue from a contract and it was fitted with 2 Large Capacitor Control Circuits which I thought was odd but I guess it was fitted before the restrictions were in place?
|
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 20:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
Might be a am-musing way to NERF battledresses I suppose. |
Lord Drokoth
DARKNESS RISING. IMPERIAL LEGI0N
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 05:11:00 -
[29] - Quote
X Mary wrote:A lot of people talk about battlecruiser balancing in pvp but in my opinion it's mostly a cost issue.
If you only look at hull costs there's a nice progression in cost from cruiser to battlecruiser to battleship. A battlecruiser costs about 3 times as much as a cruiser and a battleship 2-3 times as much as a battlecruiser after insurance.
Then you start factoring in rigs and that Battlecruiser is not even twice as expensive more like 1,5 as a cruiser and the battleship becomes 6-7 times as expensive as the battlecruiser.
So nobobody flies cruisers because for just a bit more you have a boat that will perform a lot better and only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.
My solution to this is to give battlecruiser and then mostly the tech 2 type of battlecruiser a mix of large and medium rig slots. Something like 2 large and 1 medium or 2 medium and one large. This way you would have the cost progression from cruiser-battlecruiser-battleship back and you see both more tech1 cruisers and tech1 battleships on the field.
NO
The end Fail idea |
Captain Kezef Baal
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 23:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
ok, I am a relatively new player but I played extensively a few years ago. but to my point
Drakes are amazing, no discussion need for that
it costs about 30mil-32milion a pop for the hull plus another 10mil-15million for equipment and Riggs all together it has a price tag of 40mil-47million without insurance with the later being the most likely with current market conditions
while on the other hand the Caracal is a simple cruiser, or as every one thought
they go for about 4million a pop equipment and rigs is really gunna go for about 8mil-12million mostly from the rigs giving you a total cost of about 12mil-16million a pop before insurance
when you look at this cost difference you realize that, in terms of cost, a BC is actually worse than than it's equivalent cost of cruisers because those three cruisers if equipped they way I would equip them would be about 15 million each and that includes 5 heavy missile launchers per cruiser. so at 15 million a pop you can have 3 cruisers for the cost of 1 battle cruiser. and be honest with yourself what is going to win? the three cruisers with 15 total heavy missiles launchers? or the Drake with it's 7?
the point of the battle cruiser is to allow a player to invest power fire power with themselves without pay a small fortune for a battle ship. also
with a large enough corporation cost does not really mean much, but for players like myself, that extra 30million is harder to come by.
so it would be pointless to nerf battle cruisers because they are already balanced |
|
Fedimart
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 00:47:00 -
[31] - Quote
Thinking about it... Thinking about it.... No |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 04:06:00 -
[32] - Quote
This.
Just another Drake hate topic. Drakes are perfectly balanced for the battlecruiser role. And the SP needed to use them for max tank and DPS is EXTREME not moderate, EXTREME.
Drakes need not be touched at this time.
If you got killed by a drake it was because the pilot spent a great amount of time training to use it properly. Nerfing it would harm a great deal of players for no benefit. |
Deus lmperator
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 04:38:00 -
[33] - Quote
OP needs larger brain. |
Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
391
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 05:08:00 -
[34] - Quote
Make cruisers use small rigs and cap use cap rigs. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 06:56:00 -
[35] - Quote
Deus lmperator wrote:OP needs larger brain.
Alot of these "NERF TA DRAKE!" Posts come within hours of someone losing their ship from one. Many of them just are mad that they could not break it's tank when in fact that is the primary purpose of the drake.
And they also do not stop to think how much SP it takes to achieve that tank. This isn't something a newer player can seriously fly.
The reward for that training is a versatile craft that you can PVP and PVE in. Yet you aren't going to be extreme with the DPS.
That is called balance. Notice how the tier 3s skew the other way towards DPS. They also take extreme DPS to use correctly. Nerfing them with such a change would mean far less PVP. |
whaynethepain
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 11:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
Whatever.
Rigging is rigging, Probly takes more rigging to rig up a BS than a cruser.
But as we are doing rigging as a module that fits in a slot, where is the extra-large rigging for capitol ships?
I think rigging should be sold by the foot, maybe a Dramiel could use a few feet of rigging and an Orca could use a hundred foot of rigging.
Maybe I missed the concept of rigging completely. Getting you on your feet.
So you've further to fall. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
727
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 11:36:00 -
[37] - Quote
The proposal is not going to solve the Cane/Drake issue and will make Tier1 BCs even more worthless than they already are.
Cane, Drake and Harb all need to lose a slot to bring them in line with the myrm and help balance them against Tier1. morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Brotha Umad
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 12:54:00 -
[38] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This. Just another Drake hate topic. Drakes are perfectly balanced for the battlecruiser role. And the SP needed to use them for max tank and DPS is EXTREME not moderate, EXTREME. Drakes need not be touched at this time. If you got killed by a drake it was because the pilot spent a great amount of time training to use it properly. Nerfing it would harm a great deal of players for no benefit.
Yeah, can't wait to be able to jump in a drake, this is so eliiiiite. And I'm so bored of the tengu. I know what you mean but come on, it is also a newb-friendly ship. That's why it's everywhere...
I disagree with OP on everything but one : T1 cruisers need love. News at 11.
Quote:Cane, Drake and Harb all need to lose a slot to bring them in line with the myrm and help balance them against Tier1. How about no ? The Harbinger is already weaker / less used than the Myrm. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
728
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 15:02:00 -
[39] - Quote
Brotha Umad wrote:Quote:Cane, Drake and Harb all need to lose a slot to bring them in line with the myrm and help balance them against Tier1. How about no ? The Harbinger is already weaker / less used than the Myrm.
I agree on the Harb underperforming cpmpared to the other tier2 BCs (at least if it's not shieldanked) - just threw it inthere to appease the scorch-whiners. Losing a high wouldn't hurt the harb nearly as much as losing a med on the drake or losing any non-high slot would hurt the cane, since it can't be properly armortanked whilst fittin the highest tier med pulses already. morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
542
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 15:47:00 -
[40] - Quote
X Mary wrote:A lot of people talk about battlecruiser balancing in pvp but in my opinion it's mostly a cost issue.
If you only look at hull costs there's a nice progression in cost from cruiser to battlecruiser to battleship. A battlecruiser costs about 3 times as much as a cruiser and a battleship 2-3 times as much as a battlecruiser after insurance.
Then you start factoring in rigs and that Battlecruiser is not even twice as expensive more like 1,5 as a cruiser and the battleship becomes 6-7 times as expensive as the battlecruiser.
So nobobody flies cruisers because for just a bit more you have a boat that will perform a lot better and only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.
My solution to this is to give battlecruiser and then mostly the tech 2 type of battlecruiser a mix of large and medium rig slots. Something like 2 large and 1 medium or 2 medium and one large. This way you would have the cost progression from cruiser-battlecruiser-battleship back and you see both more tech1 cruisers and tech1 battleships on the field.
Well actually I have to say no because it's the opposite problem. Large rigs and Bs size ships cost far too much and have crap insurance reimboursement, those are the ones that need improvements like more bonus and/or less materials to make those cheaper.
New BC's are too costly atm just because it's some new business opportunity and if you see that much of them being killed it's most probably because of some reimboursement program+insurance. C'mon far too many alliances don't know what to do with their isk and it's a good thing they don't care to pay those the same price they pay for BS but imho it's not worthy the price tag (I'm not saying they're not worthy)
|
|
Dors Venabily
United Starbase Systems
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 16:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
Tier system has to go
I want to have a same number of slots Ships of different flavor.
Take Caldari for example.
Ferox buffed up to the level of Drake just guns instead of missiles for cruiser size with the Naga as cherry on top.
Same number of slots slightly different other stats. but similar.
Repeat everywhere in cruisers and frigates as well with different weapons and roles to match.
Oh and add X large rigs for the capital ships.
Should be enough to shuffle stuff a lot.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:35:00 -
[42] - Quote
I agree that the tier system has to go. I wouldn't go as far as locking in slot layout but I would say heavy experimentation on SIsi to find the right balance would be great.
I would not give the Ferox QUITE as much tank as the Drake. Maybe 8/10ths. Similar DPS output, lower but great passive tank (Or active with a bonus) and a third role. Maybe a bit of shield RRing?
But keep the medium rigs.
Large Collidable Object wrote:The proposal is not going to solve the Cane/Drake issue and will make Tier1 BCs even more worthless than they already are.
Cane, Drake and Harb all need to lose a slot to bring them in line with the myrm and help balance them against Tier1.
Um no. You got killed by a perfectly balanced ship. DEAL with it. I have already explained how balanced it is but people keep thinking it is some kind of epic noob ship that can destroy you in a blink of an eye and survive a carrier attack. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:37:00 -
[43] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I agree that the tier system has to go. I wouldn't go as far as locking in slot layout but I would say heavy experimentation on SIsi to find the right balance would be great.
I would not give the Ferox QUITE as much tank as the Drake. Maybe 8/10ths. Similar DPS output, lower but great passive tank (Or active with a bonus) and a third role. Maybe a bit of shield RRing?
But keep the medium rigs.
So... you want the tier system to go but you want to keep the Ferox outright inferior to the Drake.
-_-
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:41:00 -
[44] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I agree that the tier system has to go. I wouldn't go as far as locking in slot layout but I would say heavy experimentation on SIsi to find the right balance would be great.
I would not give the Ferox QUITE as much tank as the Drake. Maybe 8/10ths. Similar DPS output, lower but great passive tank (Or active with a bonus) and a third role. Maybe a bit of shield RRing?
But keep the medium rigs. So... you want the tier system to go but you want to keep the Ferox outright inferior to the Drake. -_- -Liang
I want it to have a different role. I want to lose a small amount of tank to gain another role for it.
Because if you just make it similar to the drake with railguns it will still not get used because for PVE missiles rule. Give it another role bonus! |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I agree that the tier system has to go. I wouldn't go as far as locking in slot layout but I would say heavy experimentation on SIsi to find the right balance would be great.
I would not give the Ferox QUITE as much tank as the Drake. Maybe 8/10ths. Similar DPS output, lower but great passive tank (Or active with a bonus) and a third role. Maybe a bit of shield RRing?
But keep the medium rigs. So... you want the tier system to go but you want to keep the Ferox outright inferior to the Drake. -_- -Liang I want it to have a different role. I want to lose a small amount of tank to gain another role for it. Because if you just make it similar to the drake with railguns it will still not get used because for PVE missiles rule. Give it another role bonus!
It has a role - a hybrid battlecruiser - and there's literally no reason to unnaturally gimp it. Also: who cares about PVE?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:48:00 -
[46] - Quote
Again there is a reason. To give it another role which increases its versatility and thus its use.
Make it a drake with railguns and it will just continue to gather dust. Anyone who wants to use Hybrids for serious combat is likely going to bring a Naga anyway. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:54:00 -
[47] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Again there is a reason. To give it another role which increases its versatility and thus its use.
Make it a drake with railguns and it will just continue to gather dust. Anyone who wants to use Hybrids for serious combat is likely going to bring a Naga anyway.
You can feel free to think that but I'm pretty confident that you're wrong. A blaster BC with a range bonus and 600 DPS and 80k EHP sounds pretty nice to me. But hey, you're not even wiling to consider what an extra 2 slots (and potentially weapon slots) would do to the Ferox.
/shrug
-Liang
Ed: Let me just be clear: Just because you don't think anyone would use a hybrid ship aside from the Naga doesn't make it true. :) Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:02:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ok now not only do you want all the tank of a drake but you want to out DPS it. With a role the drake dosent even have.
Quote:Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles per level
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.
Ferox has
Quote:Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.
600DPS with all the Drake tank? Unbalanced much? Yes the drake has an extremely long reach but that requires you to sacrifice DPS and tank to reach out into the extremely long ranges.
Tiericide was supposed to mean changes to lower tier craft to make them useable again. Not turn them into solopwnmobiles at close range. |
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
Nerf, nerf, nerf. I'm tired of all the nerf talk. I've seen way too much nerfing in my 4+ years in this game. Pick a ship, learn how to fight it in it, and train all the skills you need to do it right.
Everything else is bull ****. Never accept a 1v1 challenge. -áIf you do, don't be surprised when the other guy's friends show up and blow you up. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:08:00 -
[50] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Ok now not only do you want all the tank of a drake but you want to out DPS it. With a role the drake dosent even have. Quote:Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles per level
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules. Ferox has Quote:Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules. 600DPS with all the Drake tank? Unbalanced much? Yes the drake has an extremely long reach but that requires you to sacrifice DPS and tank to reach out into the extremely long ranges. Tiericide was supposed to mean changes to lower tier craft to make them useable again. Not turn them into solopwnmobiles at close range.
Haha. A few questions for you: - What's the DPS @ 15km of a 3 BCU Rage HAM Drake? - What's the DPS @ 70km of a 3 BCU Fury HML Drake? How many slots did it burn on getting that range? - What's the DPS @ 3km of a 3 MFS Void Neutron Ferox? How about at 15km? - What's the DPS @ 70km of a 3 MFS 250mm Rail Ferox? How many slots did it burn on getting that range? - Why do you think that the Ferox with reasonable damage at 5km would overpowere a Drake with reasonable damage out to 80km? - Supposing that a Rail Ferox could hit 600 DPS with Javelin - would that really affect the Drake's usage?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
The issue is if it can tank like the drake and out DPS it. The drake becomes nothing more than a PVE boat again.
If you want to out DPS instead of matching there should be a similar percentage cut to tank. Especially as a Drake cant snipe with slow ass Heavy missiles taking too long to reach the target.
Also with the Naga nobody in their right mind is going to cut a ton of the Drakes tank to get the moderate gain in DPS. While you can make a ton of changes to increase DPS it makes the tank stupidly low and if you are going to be a paper shotgun you mise well be a naga with much higher potential DPS.
I say match DPS 80 percent of Drakes tanking and a decent third role. |
Jack Miton
Lapse Of Sanity Narwhals Ate My Duck
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:28:00 -
[52] - Quote
Quote:only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.
^i loled, hard.
BSs are CHEAP. dirt cheap in fact :)
This idea is dumb, move on. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:28:00 -
[53] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The issue is if it can tank like the drake and out DPS it. The drake becomes nothing more than a PVE boat again.
If you want to out DPS instead of matching there should be a similar percentage cut to tank. Especially as a Drake cant snipe with slow ass Heavy missiles taking too long to reach the target.
Also with the Naga nobody in their right mind is going to cut a ton of the Drakes tank to get the moderate gain in DPS. While you can make a ton of changes to increase DPS it makes the tank stupidly low and if you are going to be a paper shotgun you mise well be a naga with much higher potential DPS.
I say match DPS 80 percent of Drakes tanking and a decent third role.
A few comments: - Tier 1 BCs already have a distinct role from the tier 2 and tier 3 BCs... they don't need another one. Simple removal of the tier system would help all of them except perhaps the Prophecy (for reasons all of its own) shine in their specific role. - The Naga is nice but it WILL lose to the first properly flown frigate or BC it encounters. People in my corp are making it a contest to see who can solo the tier 3 BCs in the smallest ship. - The Naga is a terrible brawling ship. The Drake (and proposed Ferox) would actually be good at this. - I notice that you didn't bother looking up the answer to the questions I asked. I know this because you wouldn't be making such stupid posts if you had. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:36:00 -
[54] - Quote
The Ferox has no distinct role other than a rail ship. You already have had a massive rail and blaster boost give it 80 percent of the drake's tank and then give it a REAL distinct new role.
In my opinion that role could be remote shield transfer. No range bonus but amount bonus per battlecruiser level. That would make it a great ship to use when a logi is too risky or expensive to fly. A logi will outrep and outrange it but it would make the ship an extremely versatile craft.
It is WORTH giving up some tank for! |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:41:00 -
[55] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The Ferox has no distinct role other than a rail ship. You already have had a massive rail and blaster boost give it 80 percent of the drake's tank and then give it a REAL distinct new role.
In my opinion that role could be remote shield transfer. No range bonus but amount bonus per battlecruiser level. That would make it a great ship to use when a logi is too risky or expensive to fly. A logi will outrep and outrange it but it would make the ship an extremely versatile craft.
It is WORTH giving up some tank for!
IT ALREADY HAS A REAL AND DISTINCT ROLE FROM THE NAGA. The funny thing about it is that taking away the tank would make what you're saying actually true. It really wouldn't have a role. But as long as it has 3x as much EHP and much better reception of RR it really really does.
Do you think that the Tornado would obsolete a Tier 2-esque Cyclone? No, it wouldn't... and neither would a Naga obsolete a Tier 2-esque Ferox.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
730
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:00:00 -
[56] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Um no. You got killed by a perfectly balanced ship. DEAL with it. I have already explained how balanced it is but people keep thinking it is some kind of epic noob ship that can destroy you in a blink of an eye and survive a carrier attack.
Who says I got killed? (Although I certainly have been killed by a BC or more during recent years). I can fly all races BCs maxed out, so please spare me with your implications .
All my arguing, be it about projectiles, BCs or anything else I've commented on in S&M is driven by a rather simple motivation:
Variety.
Nobody can deny Tier 2 BCs - foremost the Drake and Cane - are the most widespread ships in todays eve pvp.
Lots of people argue that because these ships are used a lot, they're fine and that if they're nerfed CCP is taking away the small mans opportunity to pvp effectively.
They are cost effective, well performing, versatile, cheap ships - the problem is that they're too good and largely cover niches that would otherwise be filled with e.g. HACs, but fill these niches just fine for a fraction of the price and training effort.
It's not about wanting to take away every noobs (and some vets) favourite toy, it's about going on a roam and encountering anything else but Tier 2 BCs 80% of the time, simply because their overabundance is boring. It's about considering to take my dusty old Sac out and not finding myself thinking that a nanoed HAM drake would do the job just as well whilst being less of a gank-magnet and costing a fraction if lost.
They are badly balanced against each other, their Tier 1 counterparts and pretty much any T1/2 subcap in the game - hence everyone and his dog is flying one. morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:09:00 -
[57] - Quote
A RR Ferox would mean that it gets used. And you can always do a bonus to resist and less buffer HP if you want to give it a group PVE role. Tho for PVP I think you want the 80 percent buffer ability instead.
Shield RRing would give it a great role outside of high DPS. As in ROLE as in Damage, Tank, Repair not the differences between guns and missiles. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
244
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:27:00 -
[58] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:A RR Ferox would mean that it gets used. And you can always do a bonus to resist and less buffer HP if you want to give it a group PVE role. Tho for PVP I think you want the 80 percent buffer ability instead.
Shield RRing would give it a great role outside of high DPS. As in ROLE as in Damage, Tank, Repair not the differences between guns and missiles.
Just because you keep asserting this doesn't mean that the Tier 1 BCs don't already have quite different roles than Tier 2 and Tier 3 BCs. There's no reason to remove those roles just because you refuse to actually look past your own biases and prejudices.
Remember, you're looking to do this to: - The Brutix (Good ******* luck getting that **** to fly with the Gallente community, BTW) - The Cyclone (Good ******* luck getting that **** to fly with the Minmatar community, BTW) - The Ferox (You're being a ****** about this BTW. You don't dare actually look at the numbers because you KNOW you're wrong) - The Prophecy (Ok, pretty much anything is an improvement over this... but that doesn't make this particular idea a good one)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
Cruisers are **** (like the tier 1 battlecruisers, and the whole tier system in general) , and CCP should rebalance them.
OP is a noob and a ****. |
Realityfirst
Hemorrhagic Visions
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 01:11:00 -
[60] - Quote
X Mary wrote:Say what? Everything in Eve is about isk, and if you take in account total cost of a loss, then especially Tier 2 battlecruisers are massively underpriced compared to the performance they give.
This person is clearly a builder and is more concerned about how much isk they are bringing in then how much isk it costs others to purchase and fit a Tier 2 battlecruiser |
|
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 01:12:00 -
[61] - Quote
Nobody flies cruisers because they have terrible bonuses aimed at LOL mining and other silly stuff. |
Kn1v3s 999
Aliastra Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 03:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
to the OP: NO |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 04:04:00 -
[63] - Quote
Liang if you are just going to be rude I wont even bother loading pyfa to check that BS. And it matters not anyway because missiles take a GREAT deal of time to reach the target at range and have a large amount of overkill (How many times I have wasted a salvo on a kill I could not say)
With an attitude like that I am starting to wane on my support of removing tiers. Instead of giving them roles that are actually useful for more than solo PVP and PVE some are wanting to turn them into Tier 3 lights with tanks.
As for that BS someone said about Tier 2 balance. The reason many people use them is that they work very well in wolfpacks. The balance of good tank with good missile damage and the drawbacks of missile flight time and overkill. If a Drake is pounding you for high DPS that means the pilot has removed a significant factor of his tank so if you pound him back you can defeat him. Especially in groups.
To add variety give ships like the ferox an 80 percent drake tank match DPS and give them a new useful role. I would love to see the Ferox be used as a short range remote shield thrower but there are other roles it could be given. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
246
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 04:40:00 -
[64] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Liang if you are just going to be rude I wont even bother loading pyfa to check that BS. And it matters not anyway because missiles take a GREAT deal of time to reach the target at range and have a large amount of overkill (How many times I have wasted a salvo on a kill I could not say)
With an attitude like that I am starting to wane on my support of removing tiers. Instead of giving them roles that are actually useful for more than solo PVP and PVE some are wanting to turn them into Tier 3 lights with tanks.
As for that BS someone said about Tier 2 balance. The reason many people use them is that they work very well in wolfpacks. The balance of good tank with good missile damage and the drawbacks of missile flight time and overkill. If a Drake is pounding you for high DPS that means the pilot has removed a significant factor of his tank so if you pound him back you can defeat him. Especially in groups.
To add variety give ships like the ferox an 80 percent drake tank match DPS and give them a new useful role. I would love to see the Ferox be used as a short range remote shield thrower but there are other roles it could be given.
Comments: - Which is more rude: someone that is totally ignorant spouting total nonsense or the person gently correcting them? - It takes ~5 seconds for a Drake's missiles to hit at 15km. At 70km it takes ~12 seconds. That's a while but in small gang warfare it doesn't matter that much. The most valid complaints about flight time all revolve around massive blobs where the total life expectancy of the enemy is under the flight time of your missiles. If you'd like an object lesson I suggest you look up a fellow by the name of Naxias. If that isn't good enough, look up Burn Eden Ravens (I'm going to neglect the number that on grid scan mechanics did on this - because the current discussion is about flight time). I'd say most of the times I engaged him he spent the entire thing well over 50km from me. - I'm fascinated by this insistence you have that somehow Tier 1 BCs are not used in small gang PVP. I'm also confused as to how you can consider ships with much better damage application and an actual tank a "Tier 3 light". Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that a Tier 3 is a true glass cannon and leave it wholly separate? - Did you just say that Tier 2 BCs work well in ~wulfpacks~? /facepalm - You should go back to EFT-school with all the whining about the Drake. You can get 600 DPS @ 70km with tackle and 100k EHP, or you can get 677 DPS @ 15km with full tackle and 90k EHP. I've personally used both fits and they work great. - You know how you can add variety? A semi high DPS blaster ship with 90k EHP like you can get with the Drake.
Since you refuse to enlighten yourself with regards to the questions I asked, let me do it for you.
What's the DPS @ 15km of a 3 BCU Rage HAM Drake? 677 DPS @ 15km / 80k EHP
What's the DPS @ 70km of a 3 BCU Fury HML Drake? How many slots did it burn on getting that range? 462 DPS @ 70km / 80k EHP. 0 slots spent on range.
What's the DPS @ 3km of a 3 MFS Void Neutron Ferox? How about at 15km? 663 @ 5.1+3.1km / 62k EHP. 313 DPS @ 15km
What's the DPS @ 70km of a 3 MFS 250mm Rail Ferox? How many slots did it burn on getting that range? 200 DPS @ 70km. 2 slots spent on range (Sebo, TC to get Iridium @ 75km optimal. With spike you want to load a tracking script up and shoot ~100km)
Why do you think that the Ferox with reasonable damage at 5km would overpowere a Drake with reasonable damage out to 80km? What an easy question. It wouldn't.
Supposing that a Rail Ferox could hit 600 DPS with Javelin - would that really affect the Drake's usage? Hmmm, so an 8 turret Rail Ferox would put out ~560 DPS with Jav. Thus, I'd expect 266 DPS @ 70km with FN Iridium. That seems pretty innocuous compared to what the Drake can do.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 06:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
Even if that was right (Again ain't bothering to check with little benefit) Why must you HAVE such a ship? What is wrong with Naga for rails. Drake for tanked missile DPS and Ferox for new role?
If all we are doing is making a drake with rails just remove the damn ferox and let the drake fit Hybrids with the same bonuses.
I prefer removing SOME tank to gain an awesome ability to make it useful besides something for those who refuse to dual train missiles and hybrids. Or even removing DPS if it comes down to it.
Have any idea how useful a Ferox would be with short range remote shield transfer bonus?
Right now you have T1 Cruisers with only bonus to range and are thus useless. Domis fit for cap and tank but have to focus RR for max effect. And highly expensive logistics with long range and large bonuses.
There is a LARGE gap there where a T1 BC hull would fit perfectly with the proper bonuses. Of course with fit for tank you likely wont be able to perma rep. But a good blast at the right time would be crucial in many ops. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
246
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 06:36:00 -
[66] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Even if that was right (Again ain't bothering to check with little benefit) Why must you HAVE such a ship? What is wrong with Naga for rails. Drake for tanked missile DPS and Ferox for new role?
If all we are doing is making a drake with rails just remove the damn ferox and let the drake fit Hybrids with the same bonuses.
I prefer removing SOME tank to gain an awesome ability to make it useful besides something for those who refuse to dual train missiles and hybrids. Or even removing DPS if it comes down to it.
Have any idea how useful a Ferox would be with short range remote shield transfer bonus?
Right now you have T1 Cruisers with only bonus to range and are thus useless. Domis fit for cap and tank but have to focus RR for max effect. And highly expensive logistics with long range and large bonuses.
There is a LARGE gap there where a T1 BC hull would fit perfectly with the proper bonuses. Of course with fit for tank you likely wont be able to perma rep. But a good blast at the right time would be crucial in many ops.
I'm really confused. Let me make sure I understand you perfectly: - You don't actually care about and nor are you conversant with the current performance of Tier 2 BCs - especially those which you appear to nominally fly. You similarly are not conversant with the performance of Tier 1 BCs. Furthermore, you are too lazy and entrenched in ignorance to sort this out when its pointed out to you in relatively stark terms. - You don't care that Tier 1 BCs already have a role, but that they don't fulfill that role quite as well as they should (at least when compared to Tier 2 BCs). - You don't care that Tier 1 BCs (especially the Brutix and Cyclone) have a role THAT PEOPLE LIKE. Furthermore, you are comfortable removing the medium hybrid role COMPLETELY from the BC class. - You don't care that there are two training paths for Caldari. - You just care that you demand a complete and radical role shift for Tier 1 BCs because you feel that 80-100k EHP and 700 DPS is outclassed by the Naga. - You also think that 100M is "highly expensive".
Feel free to correct any misperceptions.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
62
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 06:57:00 -
[67] - Quote
If it is just to be a drake with hybrids. Frak it! Just no need for the model to waste Vram. Roll it into the drake and be done with it.
I have proposed a new role for it (And my idea for its new role is not the only answer there are others such as combat looting bonuses)
As for that removing medium hybrid bs. A 20 percent cut in tank compared only to drake to give it a valid new role does nothing to your lovely DPS. And have you not stopped to think about with the RR bonus I mentioned. Fitting a single shield transfer and flying for spider in a group of em will more than make up for that 20 percent loss? Encouraging group PVP THE HORROR
Edit: Our debate is way off topic and is only helping to keep this bad idea topic on top. I will post my idea with a tad more detail in another topic maybe tomorrow. Lets continue this there. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
246
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 07:12:00 -
[68] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:If it is just to be a drake with hybrids. Frak it! Just no need for the model to waste Vram. Roll it into the drake and be done with it. I have proposed a new role for it (And my idea for its new role is not the only answer there are others such as combat looting bonuses) As for that removing medium hybrid bs. A 20 percent cut in tank compared only to drake to give it a valid new role does nothing to your lovely DPS. And have you not stopped to think about with the RR bonus I mentioned. Fitting a single shield transfer and flying for spider in a group of em will more than make up for that 20 percent loss? Encouraging group PVP THE HORROR Edit: Our debate is way off topic and is only helping to keep this bad idea topic on top. I will post my idea with a tad more detail in another topic maybe tomorrow. Lets continue this there.
Sure, but you're being bullheaded and ignorant. If you expect your thread to get any traction at all I'd suggest you actually have some understanding of what the ships you're talking about are actually capable of.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 12:54:00 -
[69] - Quote
But I like tier one Battle cruisers there the only cheep gang link platform + there "ignore me I'm tier one" tank works wonders. I mean this, try it fly a tier 1 with some tier 2's and hang back with links. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
201
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 13:25:00 -
[70] - Quote
Rigs in general needs to be revised. Too many useless filler entries and too many "must haves".
ISK is indeed the governing factor when it comes to Tier2 BC's being FoTY .. stupidly good value, doubly so when considering insurance.
What I'd like to see is a reduction in materials needed for large rigs to cut their price by 40-50% and then making BC's require them. BS are expensive enough as is due to needing large mods and the hulls themselves, so they could do with a lower rigged price to help them back on the path of general viability .. |
|
Valea Silpha
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 13:46:00 -
[71] - Quote
Honestly, I don't think large rigs would really solve a whole lot, and particularly if you are going to cut the material needs for large rigs AND make BCs use them. That way you push the cost of BC rigs up by like... 10%. Not really a change anyone would notice.
Its certainly arugable that battle cruisers should use large rigs, thats fine, but it would in no way effect their balance.
Making something more expensive has never made it less popular, and when prices go up (and up and up and up) then it just draws a line between haves and have nots, the former winning all the fights and the latter saying 'screw this' and leaving. See the nano-age for details on why this is bad for the game.
Tier 1 BCs should get some love though. No massive changes, just tweaks to get them workable EHP and dps. They don't have to beat the Tier 2, they don't have to be uber awesome just need a little something to get them rocking. Maybe more slots but not more fitting. Make them utility ships with lots of tackle and tolerable ehp. I'd like that. |
illirdor
The Grey Eagle Society
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 13:54:00 -
[72] - Quote
hmm i have not thought about so dont flamer but why not remove the % that extender and trimarks give and just give them a flat amount ?? |
Murtific
Snuff Box
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 16:10:00 -
[73] - Quote
X Mary wrote:A lot of people talk about battlecruiser balancing in pvp but in my opinion it's mostly a cost issue.
If you only look at hull costs there's a nice progression in cost from cruiser to battlecruiser to battleship. A battlecruiser costs about 3 times as much as a cruiser and a battleship 2-3 times as much as a battlecruiser after insurance.
Then you start factoring in rigs and that Battlecruiser is not even twice as expensive more like 1,5 as a cruiser and the battleship becomes 6-7 times as expensive as the battlecruiser.
So nobobody flies cruisers because for just a bit more you have a boat that will perform a lot better and only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.
My solution to this is to give battlecruiser and then mostly the tech 2 type of battlecruiser a mix of large and medium rig slots. Something like 2 large and 1 medium or 2 medium and one large. This way you would have the cost progression from cruiser-battlecruiser-battleship back and you see both more tech1 cruisers and tech1 battleships on the field.
Do us a favor and dont get a job at CCP. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |