Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Wynta
Caldari Privateers Group Templis CALSF
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:47:29 -
[1] - Quote
Bored sitting in a FW plex, talking on comms, and we get into a discussion about the somewhat lack, or deficiencies, in the battlecruiser hull class. Command Ships offer a great niche specialty in links, but can also be great damage ships. The problem arises in the T1 hulls and the lack of other T2 variants.
The T1 hull problem arises with the fact that they are overshadowed by T3's, some HACs, bombers (also a problem for battleships hulls), and their lack of mobility. These problems can be address by buffing certain aspects of the T1 hulls, increasing warpspeed and alignment speed, reducing sig radius, or increasing overall tank. But these type of changes do not address the fact that their is still a hole in the T2 variants.
The T2 hole could be filled with one or two new T2 classes. My suggestion being a Logistic T2 BC designed to be used with a Battleship sized fleet, and a T2 variant of the Attack BC (Oracle, Naga, Talos, Tornado) designed to be a more mobile BC. Since I am familiar with Caldari ships I am going to show potential hulls based on those BCs.
T2 Logistic BC
Base Hull: Ferox
7/5/5 Slot Layout
Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 200% bonus to Remote Shield Booster and Remote Capacitor Transmitter range
Heavy Logistics bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Remote Capacitor Transmitter activation cost 10% reduction in Remote Shield Booster activation cost
Role Bonus: X% reduction in Remote Shield Booster CPU requirement X% reduction in Remote Capacitor Transmitter powergrid requirement
Based heavily on the Basilisk bonus but they can tinkered with more to be more unique.
T2 Fast Attack BC
This T2 would be a more kite oriented Attack BC, getting bonuses to MWDs.
Base Hull: Naga
Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage 10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range
Fast Attack bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Large Hybrid Turret activation cost 15% reduction in Microwarpdrive signature radius penalty
Role Bonus: 95% reduction in Large Hybrid Turret powergrid requirement 50% reduction in Large Hybrid Turret CPU requirement -Fitted Microwarpdrives are immune to Warp Scrambler effects. (Or increased MWD speed)
T2 Fast Attack BC
This T2 would compliment the Naga variant and would focus more on brawling.
Base Hull: Drake
Caldari Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 4% bonus to all shield resistances 5% bonus to Rapid Heavy Missile, Cruise Missile and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire
Fast Attack bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Heavy Missile, Cruise Missile and Torpedo Launcher max velocity 5% bonus to Heavy Missile, Cruise Missile and Torpedo Launcher explosion radius
Role Bonus: 95% reduction in Launcher powergrid requirement 50% reduction in Launcher CPU requirement 50% bonus to Heavy Missile damage
This one might be a bit OP but couldn't really think of a unqiue 4th bonus. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1066
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 21:55:59 -
[2] - Quote
The only thing keeping logistics cruisers from being horrifically overpowered is their relatively small tank. It's hard to push them past 65K ish EHP even with boosts, so they are often the very weakest critial link in any PvP fleet.
As usual, -1 to anything that permits massively tanky logistics vessels with relatively high mobility. It goes from flimsy logi cruiser to effectively immobile triage carrier for a reason.
Letting there be 100k+ EHP logistic subcaps would make fleets horribly difficult to kill as most fleets focus on killing off enough logi to break reps on the main DPS. Often you don't have a chance in hell of breaking the tanks of the 150k+ ehp main combatants while significant logi is still alive.
So any change that increases the survivability of the logi several times over makes fleets turn into groups uselessly expending ammo on each other that the other side can easily tank. |
Wynta
Caldari Privateers Group Templis CALSF
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:04:15 -
[3] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:The only thing keeping logistics cruisers from being horrifically overpowered is their relatively small tank. It's hard to push them past 65K ish EHP even with links, t2 rigs, and faction fittings, so they are often the very weakest critical link in any PvP fleet.
As usual, -1 to anything that permits massively tanky logistics vessels with relatively high mobility. It goes from flimsy logi cruiser to effectively immobile triage carrier for a reason.
Letting there be 100k+ EHP logistic subcaps would make fleets horribly difficult to kill as most fleets focus on killing off enough logi to break reps on the main DPS. Often you don't have a chance in hell of breaking the tanks of the 150k+ ehp main combatants while significant logi is still alive.
So any change that increases the survivability of the logi several times over makes fleets turn into groups uselessly expending ammo on each other that the other side can easily tank.
What about balancing them by giving them a smaller rep range, and tank wise they wouldn't be at 150k ehp but more like 100k with full links. |
Wynta
Caldari Privateers Group Templis CALSF
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:22:34 -
[4] - Quote
Anhenka wrote: As to the rest of your ideas, mixing super heavy firepower with high agility, high speed, and high resists is what resulted in the Ishtar. Both of your damage dealing t2 BC proposals have a super potent combination of tank/gank/agility, combining t2 resists, a BC natural buffer, BS class weapons, and then either strong damage application bonuses or immunity to losing MWD to warp scrams.
They would bulldoze nearly anything else in the game.
Sorry, -1 on all three for being horribly OP.
The Naga T2 would not be tanky, it would be a mobile kiting BC.
The Drake T2 would be tanky but lack mobility and would primarily be bonuses for Rapid Heavies making their sustained damage low. Now I will agree that their damage bonuses were a bit over the top but the idea behind it I think was relatively balanced. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
88
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:25:31 -
[5] - Quote
Maybe the problem is not that there's a lack of T2 BCs, but there's too many T1 BCs and they occupy unneeded roles. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1066
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:25:55 -
[6] - Quote
Wynta wrote: What about balancing them by giving them a smaller rep range, and tank wise they wouldbe 100k with full links. They would be a lot less mobile both on grid and in warp, you could balance it by not allowing it to use MJD, the purpose of the hull would be to provide logistics to BS sized fleets that would not get instantly shredded. Cruiser logistics in a cruiser sized fleet is usually the weaker target, but cruiser logi in a BS fleet is extremely weak. A Logi BC would seek to fill a gap where you needed a tankier logistics and were willing to trade alot of your mobility for it but were not willing to drop capitals.
Long rep range is only a necessity for cruisers that need to stay as far away as possible from the enemy in order to survive
As to the buffer issue: Let's say an enemy fleet can kill a Logi in 4 seconds of continuous fire when it's called primary. And even if the logi starts locking as soon as they fire, by the time they lock, the enemy has been shooting for two seconds already. They only have two more seconds to apply reps before it explodes.
That's on a logi with 50K of it's EHP in its primary buffer. Double that to 100K, and suddenly while the EHP has only doubled, the margin of error to get reps on target goes from two seconds to six seconds, tripling the amount of effective time for other logi to lock and begin applying reps.
So often while even current logi wings can tank an enemy in a head to head DPS race, the limiting issue is the logistics getting alphaed off the field before reps can land. Increase the ability to get reps down due to more buffer though, and the survivability increases at a far greater proportion than simply the %increase of EHP. |
Wynta
Caldari Privateers Group Templis CALSF
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:28:56 -
[7] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Wynta wrote: What about balancing them by giving them a smaller rep range, and tank wise they wouldbe 100k with full links. They would be a lot less mobile both on grid and in warp, you could balance it by not allowing it to use MJD, the purpose of the hull would be to provide logistics to BS sized fleets that would not get instantly shredded. Cruiser logistics in a cruiser sized fleet is usually the weaker target, but cruiser logi in a BS fleet is extremely weak. A Logi BC would seek to fill a gap where you needed a tankier logistics and were willing to trade alot of your mobility for it but were not willing to drop capitals.
Long rep range is only a necessity for cruisers that need to stay as far away as possible from the enemy in order to survive As to the buffer issue: Let's say an enemy fleet can kill a Logi in 4 seconds of continuous fire when it's called primary. And even if the logi starts locking as soon as they fire, by the time they lock, the enemy has been shooting for two seconds already. They only have two more seconds to apply reps before it explodes. That's on a logi with 50K of it's EHP in its primary buffer. Double that to 100K, and suddenly while the EHP has only doubled, the margin of error to get reps on target goes from two seconds to six seconds, tripling the amount of effective time for other logi to lock and begin applying reps.So often while even current logi wings can tank an enemy in a head to head DPS race, the limiting issue is the logistics getting alphaed off the field before reps can land. Increase the ability to get reps down due to more buffer though, and the survivability increases at a far greater proportion than simply the %increase of EHP.
So is there a way for a BC logi to be able to survive BS fleet battles but not overpower cruiser fleet battles |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1067
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:39:51 -
[8] - Quote
Wynta wrote: So is there a way for a BC logi to be able to survive BS fleet battles but not overpower cruiser fleet battles
No, it's really not without entirely artificial restrictions that reduce applied reps on targets smaller than BS's. And that would be horrible game design. (Or a triage like mode, but triage on something without a carriers buffer and self rep is rapid one way ticket to a pod express, plus the whole stationary issue.)
BS fleets are bad for other reasons, mainly bombers. But that's a topic for another threadnaught.
Even Harpy and Talwar fleets often bring Scythes as logistics instead of bursts because of their greater utility, resistance to getting alphaed, repping amount, and range. The only trade off is that the Harpy FC needs to compensate slightly for the slightly slower Scythes, but it's still an excellent trade to prevent your logi from being easily blapped.
Same thing would happen with cruiser fleets, they would just compensate somewhat by sticking closer to their logi. For the tradeoff of not having to quit because all your logi died it's a miniscule downside.
http://evf-eve.com/services/brcat/?s=4665&b=6377355&e=126&t=uu&r=1 (Click over to the involved tab to easily see ship losses)
If you look at this recent fight between two fleets of highly tanky Tengu fleets, there were very few actual casualties among the primary DPS ships.
Each side just hammered on the other sides logi until there were not enough left to keep the DPS ships alive under fire, then the side that lost critical levels of logi's first just left. Because until you kill the logi's, you are not going to be able to kill the t2 rigged, linked Tengu's with 170K EHP, nearly all in their primary buffer.
Make BC logi's super tanky, and cruiser fleets would swap to them in a heartbeat to avoid the situation I just laid out from happening. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
395
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:46:01 -
[9] - Quote
how something called Battle Cruiser could fit in a logistic role. plus a bigger and tankier logistic than what we have already would be terrible for the game, neutral RR in high sec are already bad enough the way they are now. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:47:52 -
[10] - Quote
Wynta wrote:Anhenka wrote: As to the rest of your ideas, mixing super heavy firepower with high agility, high speed, and high resists is what resulted in the Ishtar. Both of your damage dealing t2 BC proposals have a super potent combination of tank/gank/agility, combining t2 resists, a BC natural buffer, BS class weapons, and then either strong damage application bonuses or immunity to losing MWD to warp scrams.
They would bulldoze nearly anything else in the game.
Sorry, -1 on all three for being horribly OP.
The Naga T2 would not be tanky, it would be a mobile kiting BC. So like the Talos?
Quote: The Drake T2 would be tanky but lack mobility and would primarily be bonuses for Rapid Heavies making their sustained damage low. Now I will agree that their damage bonuses were a bit over the top but the idea behind it I think was relatively balanced. Maybe even taking away the cruise/torp bonuses and just make it a rapid heavy boat.
Immobile and tanky with rapid heavies... so like the Raven?
Whenever new ships are suggested the same questions need to be asked:
What role do they fill that does not currently exist? What issues do they address that can't be fixed by amending existing hulls? |
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
56
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 22:48:49 -
[11] - Quote
That's very true cause bc class logi would be the primary choice from now and so on due to it's tanking ability. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4647
|
Posted - 2015.02.16 23:03:40 -
[12] - Quote
BC logi could be interesting if, and only if, some rebalancing of cruiser logi and logi mechanics is done first.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Brawlers Inc.
1440
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 00:15:41 -
[13] - Quote
The Nestor is already in a very similar role. I don't see a reason for another medium sized logi ship though. I'd much rather see t2 frigate logis, and changes/ease of use buffs to small reps than a release of a BC hull with logistics bonuses. Honestly, Command Ships are in a pretty good place as combat vessels right now, and while the t1 and navy BC's might need some love, they aren't too bad. Tier 3 BC's are excellent.
New player resources:
Uni Wiki - General Info
Eve Altruist - PvP
Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
|
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 06:14:22 -
[14] - Quote
The problem with a T2 BC logi is that despite dropping sig tanking and speed tanking for just solid tank is that it actually adds to the N+1 problem. So long as it can hold the field long enough it will always receive reps. Unless it somehow had larger sig and slow enough speed to occasionally be blapped by dreads I don't see how it could be viable for anything other then escalation of fleets in null.
The T2 fast attack BC's are just their base form with the added bonus of not being able to be slowed down. Quite honestly the entire BC ship class needs to be re-evaluated before we can discuss adding a T2 line to it. The BS line is in the same pickle after the warp speed nerfs as well. They're just too damn slow for what they offer in combat strength and tank. The solution to that is a second wave of rebalance, not a set of T2 variants. |
Liam Inkuras
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
1445
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 07:08:53 -
[15] - Quote
How about we just un-**** warp speed for BCs, ABCs at least.
I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
|
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
125
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 14:07:43 -
[16] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Wynta wrote: So is there a way for a BC logi to be able to survive BS fleet battles but not overpower cruiser fleet battles
No, it's really not without entirely artificial restrictions that reduce applied reps on targets smaller than BS's. And that would be horrible game design. (Or a triage like mode, but triage on something without a carriers buffer and self rep is rapid one way ticket to a pod express, plus the whole stationary issue.) BS fleets are bad for other reasons, mainly bombers. But that's a topic for another threadnaught. Even Harpy and Talwar fleets often bring Scythes as logistics instead of bursts because of their greater utility, resistance to getting alphaed, repping amount, and range. The only trade off is that the Harpy FC needs to compensate slightly for the slightly slower Scythes, but it's still an excellent trade to prevent your logi from being easily blapped. Same thing would happen with cruiser fleets, they would just compensate somewhat by sticking closer to their logi. For the tradeoff of not having to quit because all your logi died it's a miniscule downside. http://evf-eve.com/services/brcat/?s=4665&b=6377355&e=126&t=uu&r=1 (Click over to the involved tab to easily see ship losses) If you look at this recent fight between two fleets of highly tanky Tengu fleets, there were very few actual casualties among the primary DPS ships. Each side just hammered on the other sides logi until there were not enough left to keep the DPS ships alive under fire, then the side that lost critical levels of logi's first just left. Because until you kill the logi's, you are not going to be able to kill the t2 rigged, linked Tengu's with 170K EHP, nearly all in their primary buffer. Make BC logi's super tanky, and cruiser fleets would swap to them in a heartbeat to avoid the situation I just laid out from happening.
How about we scrap logi entirely? This is really stupid mechanic. Im tired of fights where its shooting their logi vs. our logi. Without logi fight would be more dynamic and bloody with weaker side being able to inflict comparable damage based and good target calling etc. Now its a matter of "if u have enough dps to kill their first logi" if no - you run, if yes - they run. Boring as fu*k. |
Wynta
Caldari Privateers Group Templis CALSF
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Lyra Gerie wrote:The problem with a T2 BC logi is that despite dropping sig tanking and speed tanking for just solid tank is that it actually adds to the N+1 problem. So long as it can hold the field long enough it will always receive reps. Unless it somehow had larger sig and slow enough speed to occasionally be blapped by dreads I don't see how it could be viable for anything other then escalation of fleets in null.
The T2 fast attack BC's are just their base form with the added bonus of not being able to be slowed down. Quite honestly the entire BC ship class needs to be re-evaluated before we can discuss adding a T2 line to it. The BS line is in the same pickle after the warp speed nerfs as well. They're just too damn slow for what they offer in combat strength and tank. The solution to that is a second wave of rebalance, not a set of T2 variants.
My thought was a module that like triage/bastion that would stop the ship and increase rep range, amount, or cycle time, maybe increase sig, or lower sensor strength. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1067
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 18:49:12 -
[18] - Quote
Wynta wrote: My thought was a module that like triage/bastion that would stop the ship and increase rep range, amount, or cycle time, maybe increase sig, or lower sensor strength.
And now it's totally useless for anything except PvE and POS repping in highsec.
In large fights, staying still means death. Being unable to receive remote reps means death.
Even triage carriers get chewed through in a hurry in large fights. Something with only a high BC buffer and cannot move or receive remote reps?
Even less survivable than current t2 cruiser hulls.
And in small fights mobility is king over all. |
Davey Talvanen
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
22
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 21:10:04 -
[19] - Quote
The drake is sort of OP (not too OP) but if you made the naga (and all others) A. remove scram immunity and B. bad resists and tank, like 15-20 k EHP and under 50 resists on a full tank fit. Also they should have a 50% MWD sig penalty and crap tracking (pretty obvious with large guns) so their hard counter are figs with good speed but they can kite out of current doctrine range and be useful in solo or small gang pvp. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1071
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 21:38:48 -
[20] - Quote
Davey Talvanen wrote:The drake is sort of OP (not too OP) but if you made the naga (and all others) A. remove scram immunity and B. bad resists and tank, like 15-20 k EHP and under 50 resists on a full tank fit. Also they should have a 50% MWD sig penalty and crap tracking (pretty obvious with large guns) so their hard counter are figs with good speed but they can kite out of current doctrine range and be useful in solo or small gang pvp.
I really want some of what your smoking. The drake is OP? Dafuq?
As to the rest of your ideas: Ooh look at my shiny t2 BC that has no special features, less EHP than a t1 cruiser, worse resists than a t1 cruiser. I can sig tank with a bloom of only 50% of normal, which means my sig is only slightly larger than a battleship, and a speed that is still slower than any cruiser hull out there
I love flying it!. Nope.
If it retained the ability to fit large weapons like the OP proposed, your version would be like a currently fairly decent ABC .... except worse in basically every conceivable way. |
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
582
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 23:21:02 -
[21] - Quote
Wynta wrote: What about balancing them by giving them a smaller rep range, and tank wise they wouldbe 100k with full links. They would be a lot less mobile both on grid and in warp, you could balance it by not allowing it to use MJD, the purpose of the hull would be to provide logistics to BS sized fleets that would not get instantly shredded. Cruiser logistics in a cruiser sized fleet is usually the weaker target, but cruiser logi in a BS fleet is extremely weak. A Logi BC would seek to fill a gap where you needed a tankier logistics and were willing to trade alot of your mobility for it but were not willing to drop capitals.
CCP tried this with t3 logi....and it was not a setup that got many fans on either side.
For the logi types the short range is not liked.
For the kill the logi types often times they settle for bumping (repped or repper) vice killing the t3 or hoping old boy/girl makes a mistake on charging up chargeable mods (tank or cap injects). This the often better course of action for faster removing reps off the field. As its less time than trying to kill the logi.
Current cruiser logi not being tank is imo a planned balance feature. Or else you'd have somewhat immortal logi on the field. At least for small scale stuff. We can argue carrier logi backup sucks but....if a few dropped and you don't have a few to counter the writing on the wall there really. Writing says tactical retreat would be wise lol.
This would be boring and in many scenarios a new era of N+1 crap. N+! to kill the logi (now tankier) countered by N+1 logi countered by N+1 logi killers...extend the cycle as much as you want. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers
127
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 10:54:08 -
[22] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Wynta wrote: What about balancing them by giving them a smaller rep range, and tank wise they wouldbe 100k with full links. They would be a lot less mobile both on grid and in warp, you could balance it by not allowing it to use MJD, the purpose of the hull would be to provide logistics to BS sized fleets that would not get instantly shredded. Cruiser logistics in a cruiser sized fleet is usually the weaker target, but cruiser logi in a BS fleet is extremely weak. A Logi BC would seek to fill a gap where you needed a tankier logistics and were willing to trade alot of your mobility for it but were not willing to drop capitals.
CCP tried this with t3 logi....and it was not a setup that got many fans on either side. For the logi types the short range is not liked. For the kill the logi types often times they settle for bumping (repped or repper) vice killing the t3 or hoping old boy/girl makes a mistake on charging up chargeable mods (tank or cap injects). This the often better course of action for faster removing reps off the field. As its less time than trying to kill the logi. Current cruiser logi not being tank is imo a planned balance feature. Or else you'd have somewhat immortal logi on the field. At least for small scale stuff. We can argue carrier logi backup sucks but....if a few dropped and you don't have a few to counter the writing on the wall there really. Writing says tactical retreat would be wise lol. This would be boring and in many scenarios a new era of N+1 crap. N+! to kill the logi (now tankier) countered by N+1 logi countered by N+1 logi killers...extend the cycle as much as you want.
Well scrap the logi then, relay on self-reps or strong buffer (or mixed) and it becomes fun again. Or not? I'm not an expert on huge null battles, but IGÇÖm under the impression that dps can alpha anything except titan so logi is not needed there? Can anyone elaborate on this?
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1101
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 15:32:38 -
[23] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Well scrap the logi then, relay on self-reps or strong buffer (or mixed) and it becomes fun again. Or not? I'm not an expert on huge null battles, but IGÇÖm under the impression that dps can alpha anything except titan so logi is not needed there? Can anyone elaborate on this?
In very large fleet battles, at the start, dps can often volley through anything subcap.
But as the fight continues, the damage for both sides continues to drop. Sooner or later both sides hit the point where they are not alphaing ships anymore. And when that happens logi once again becomes incredibly important.
This happens at a much lower level than you may expect because huge fights are grouped up into multiple smaller fleets on both sides, which have different targets they are shooting at.
So as soon as any of the smaller subfleets hits a point where they are unable to alpha through targets, their enemy logi comes back into play, massively slowing down the rate at which you are able to chew through the enemy.
TLDR: Logi are just as important in large scale combat as in small, although triage can be a workable option for low mobility fleets. |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
312
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 18:01:54 -
[24] - Quote
Yes let's fix T1 BCs by adding more, hilariously overpowered, T2 BCs. I see no way this could go wrong. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1098
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 19:28:29 -
[25] - Quote
if you want more T2 bc's .. than they should make the current ABC's (talos/nado/oracle/naga) into T2.
pros - partial T2 resists - lower sig - makes them less common and harder too come by - allows 4 of the CBC's too be moved into attack bc's instead
cons - more expensive - more skill intensive (no bad thing personally) - new skillbook needed
so it would a new branch of t2 bc's, granted they already exist but hey they are specialised already anyway, its the right thing too do. and would allow greater variety in the current bc's, brutix/drake/harbinger/hurricane. and nerf the myrm's dps potential so brutix can actually do more would be nice.
pros - lower sig - higher speed/mobility - bonuses could be changed for application bonuses (especially drake)
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.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4077
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 07:53:40 -
[26] - Quote
Maybe we could fix the underlying issues with Combat Battlecruisers first...?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
792
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 08:14:55 -
[27] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Maybe we could fix the underlying issues with Combat Battlecruisers first...?
BUT I WANT MORE SHIPS!!! it's cooler that way
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
18
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 12:28:26 -
[28] - Quote
here is what we have currently: It is true some ships fill the roles better, especially the Command Ships Damage Roles with less tank, but more speed and the same DPS
Amarr: 1x Drone/Missile BC - Prophecy 1x Laser BC - Harbinger 1x Structure grind BC/Sniping BC - Oracle
1x Missile CS - Buffertank - Damnation - Big Sacrilege 1x Laser CS - Buffertank - Absolution - Big Zealot
Minmatar: 1x Missile BC - Cyclone 1x Projectile BC - Hurricane 1x Instblap/Sniper BC - Tornado
1x Missile CS - Active Reps - Claymore 1x Projectile CS - Active Reps - Sleipnir - Big Vagabond
Gallente: 1x Hybrid BC - Brutix 1x Drone BC - Myrmidon 1x Brawl/Sniper BC - Tracking - Talos
1x Drone CS - Active Reps - Eos - Big Ishtar 1x Hybrid CS - Active Reps - Astarte - Big Deimos
Caldari: 1x Missile BC - Drake 1x Hybrid BC - Ferox 1x Brawl/Sniper BC - Range - Naga
1x Missile CS - Buffertank - Nighthawk - Big Cerberus 1x Hybrid CS - Buffertank - Vulture - Big Eagle
As you see, the claymore is the only CS without a real HAC counterpart which couldnt do the job better because of more speed. Surely the CS do about 30-50% more dps than the HACs and usually also tank about 30% more, but their inertia and general speed make them hard to use in cruiser gangs and against cruiser gangs. Also the high skill requirements make them hard to use as fleetships. They clearly fill a niche role.
I dont see anything missing, all other roles can be supported better by other Cruisers or BS. Just imagine you expand the T2 Cruiser Hulls to T2 BCs Super Heavy Interdictors Attack Battlecruisers Heavy Recons (Also Cloaky?) Heavy Logistics
please dont |
Rayzilla Zaraki
Tandokuno
281
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 14:57:44 -
[29] - Quote
I agree that there needs to be some more variety in the battlecruiser class and the destroyer class as well. But the hard part is figuring out the proper was to get that variety.
As has been mentioned, the three base classes, frigate, cruiser and battleship, are all nicely fleshed out with adequate variety. The T2 versions of the frigate and cruiser rival or even surpass the T1 "middle children." This place in the progression of Eve ships turns them into "multi-roles" and increasing their power can lead to dangerous power creep.
The first idea that comes to mind would not be T2, but pirate faction variants. But, that can lead to the aforementioned power creep because battlecruisers and destroyers somewhat enjoy that "best of both worlds" position.
The other idea runs opposite the names of the classes. "Destroyer" and "Battlecruiser" both indicate warships. But, what about having T2 variants that are specialized at exploration or as hunter-killers for cloaked ships? That might work. Tailor all the fitting and slots towards that given specialized role but make their weaknesses quite huge. For instance, the exploration version would have a few highs, a lot of mids and some lows. It would have the CPU needed to fit an expanded probe launcher (or, the the CPU cost of the launcher would be a fraction of what it normally is) plus upgrades and analyzers. It could fit CovOps cloak, be super quick for its size and have exploration bonuses (increased range for analyzers, increased virus strength, probe bonuses). However, it would be fragile as hell, no weapon bonus and possibly a slow warp speed. This would work for both the middle classes. They could follow the T3 Destroyer model and have three modes: speed (faster, lower EHP and resistances), scanning (zero speed, a little more armor and decent scanning bonuses) and analyzing (higher HP and resistances, analyzer bonuses (coherence, strength and/or range, but nearly immobile with no offensive capabilities whatsoever (ie if the ship can use drones, any drones out while in this mode are disconnected)). The exploration version could also be used to mount exploration-related gang links.
The last idea could be a silly one, but what the heck. Scaled down carriers. These would sacrifice turret/launcher slots in favor of increased bandwidth and the ability to mount scaled down drone control units. They would not be able to use fighters or fighter bombers. For instance, the Algos micro-carrier would have the bandwidth to launch five medium drones (now only two) or the ability to mount control units to field up to ten light drones (now only five). Do the same with the battlecruiser class (mini-carrier). Bandwidth to field five heavy drones or sentries or mount enough control units to launch ten medium drones. Increase the control range to let them stand off, but make them clunky and lightly armored. Play with drone bonuses to make them viable but remain balanced.
Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
33
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 06:11:17 -
[30] - Quote
It seems like the higher you go up in hull class, the less specialized ships become, despite having more slots. As a way of countering T3s and HACs, instead of having heavy ships that simply do more damage, or tank more damage, let's have a group with improved damage application.
For the Drake line, it will be a ship with bonuses that parallel the Corax. Essentially a hull that maximizes damage against the small sigs of AB HACs and T3s, and enough projection to engage at typical fleet ranges. For the turret ships, add tracking bonuses, or better yet, target sig bonuses, and the drone BCs would essentially be a heavier version of the Algos.
The "classic" heavy hulls will then mainly be preferred for slugging it out with other heavy hulls.
The solution would not be as elegant as differentiating the capabilities of, say, electrons and neutrons to fill certain roles, and seeing certain ships on the field will get more predictable, but at least it would be something.
Another role for command ships (and marauders IMO) could be a module that is a hard counter to logistics. Essentially, it would reduce the incoming repairs to a target subcap ship by a large percent for a duration of time. Rather than function like EWAR on the logi themselves, it would focus on the target of the logi. It would need a cooldown and some drawbacks for the user, like something along the lines of a bastion module's negative effects coupled with reduced incoming repairs and a pronounced visual effect. If it really is like a sacrificial queen though, then it's probably a module that ought to be available to T1 BCs. Such a module would really complement the self-rep line of hulls, improving their fleet role capability. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |