| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
646
   |
Posted - 2015.04.02 06:20:25 -
[1] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs. It's a start. As much a start as increasing Imicus cargo bay would be. People stopped flying BCs long before warp speed changes, mostly because they are space garbage with no role or purpose or advantages over any other ship class, only weaknesses.
However with individual ship balancing more or less complete the new balancing plan is far more strategic.
What I mean by this is that all the ships are fairly well balanced within their class if you ignore all other ship classes (there are one or two which aren't though).
Now the balancing is looking at the balance relationship between ship classes and seeing where things fall short.
So that means the relationship between cruisers and battlecruisers then battlecruisers and battleships.
I think we will probably see some very "strategic level" balance passes in the future |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
648
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 08:07:19 -
[2] - Quote
lots and lots of talk in this thread about how useless CBCs are.
The simple solution is to remove OGB's.
Once OGB's are gone, have a look at how popular CBC's become.
Yes, CBC's have other failings but these would only be stats tweaks (lock range is one of them). |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
648
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 10:14:39 -
[3] - Quote
The last time I flew a CBC in anger was a little while ago (when I was still able to play a lot more than now..... RL is far more important). In that situation I flew (the only BC in the fleet) a Prophecy with HAMs and an armour link. It was very beneficial to the fleet and because I had a 15% warp speed implant fitted I kept up with the T1 gang easily.
Eve is heading in a direction where getting assets on grid and doing their job very quickly will be key. Trying to setup an offgrid booster on the fly will be time consuming and will probably lose you the capture point. Also, if OGB's got deleted then people wouldn't simply just switch to command ships. They're an absolute SP sink and very expensive. They would use CBC's most of the time and switch to command ships when the need was required.
I see the future of EvE combat being very bloody with Entosis Sov so people won't be that willing to throw very expensive ships into the furnace constantly but, hey, a CBC, sure why not.
I just feel that making gang links simply have a 250-500km bubble of effectiveness would solve a hell of a lot of issues in the game and give CBC's an actual purpose. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
648
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 11:25:16 -
[4] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stuff about tanking modules and an overuse of capital letters
I agree with you here. Module balance is incredibly skewed, especially when it comes to tanking modules. Your suggestion is the most logical ,one caveat, XL-Shield Extenders Please and these can be created by shifting everything to the right and removing micro shield extenders (why do they even exist?).
I also have an issue with the naming of shield extenders and shield boosters/armour reps (in general, I have an inssue with any module in game that has a small/medium/large prefix).
I'd far prefer that they were called something more like:
Small Shield Extender -> 250 GJ Shield Extender
Medium Shield Extender -> 1000 GJ Shield Extender
Similar to armour plates being sized by their thickness not by an arbitrary "Small/Medium/Large". |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
649
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:38:24 -
[5] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I'm not sure, can get some seriously beefy things if one drops gun size.
Harby can sport 70-odd k ehp, 650ish DPS before heat, neut, scram,web, AB and MJD.
Lightening the MJD fitting costs would allow bigger guns (eep!)/MWD possibility/more tank.
Tbh, even getting a MWD on that ship would make it borderline - once it catches a hold of something it WILL kill it and the MMJD forces them to come fight in that range.
One can do similar things with hurricanes.
.....and this is my problem with BC's... they do look like very good ships on paper. I will link some of my fits for ridicule but the stats are very good and when you consider that people need to get a scram on you to hold you down they're very scary in that extreme close range.
Quote:
[Prophecy, Brawler HAM]
Damage Control II
Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
10MN Microwarpdrive II
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Medium Micro Jump Drive
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile
[empty high slot]
Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Ogre II x2
Hammerhead II x2
Hobgoblin II x1
Garde II x3
Vespa EC-600 x5
Warrior II x5
69k eHP + AAR
600 dps
[Harbinger, Pulse Brawler]
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Adaptive Nano Plating II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Tracking Enhancer II
Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium Micro Jump Drive
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I
Medium Energy Burst Aerator II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5
65k eHP
620 DPS
The main issues I find are trying to use that MJD offensively. To do that you need to be able to lock a target at 100km to have them pre-locked to instantly surprise sex them on landing. To do that requires a large sacrifice of a slot and the minmatar ships simply can't do it.
Shield ships also find it obscenely difficult to fit two prop mods, tackle and tank. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
650
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 11:08:31 -
[6] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:they do look like very good ships on paper. I will link some of my fits for ridicule but the stats are very good and when you consider that people need to get a scram on you to hold you down they're very scary in that extreme close range.
. Problem is that you can scram a BC and still stay outside the effective good dps of several of them while using a Hac for example that usually have better damage projection.
this is a minor weakness in my eyes which can easily be reduced by, as you also say, buffing CBC's fitting stats.
Quote:
BC just need a tweak to their mobility. Keep them sluggish but give them better top speed. That will allow them to bring their dps to bear. Also quite some of them need a tiny bit of help on fittings specially since the introduction of MJD.
As I said above, I think it goes without saying that CBC's need a buff to be able to fit the modules they need far better, however. Shield focused ships really struggle to dual prop fit and get the required utility out of them. Do we need to look at slot layouts also? I mean, that Cyclone is a real PITA and could use another jiggle about. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
650
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 10:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lets do an overall recap (no Kagura Nikon, that doesn't mean "lets capitalise all the things") then:
[Problem]
Combat Battlecruiser warp speed is too slow
This has been fixed with these changes in this thread.
[Problem]
OGB's allow players to fly ships with extremely enhanced capability in a primary ship with very little risk to the secondary or "boosting ship". This allows pilots to use OGB alts in the most powerful and expensive boosting ships as there is little to no risk in losing them. If gang links were required to be on grid this would encourage the use of CBC's as cheap command ships and actually enforce the role they are designed for.
[Solution]
Off Grid Boosting needs to be removed.
[Additional]
Skill requirements for gang link boosting and the need for command processors to get multiple boosts running make the use of CBC's as useful command platforms extremely limited.
[Solution]
Lower skill point requirements for gang links. Allow CBC's to fit 3 unbonused gang links and give them more high slots to do so. To prevent the high slots from being abused, create a role bonus to reduce fitting requirements of gang links or just reduce gang link fitting requirements and rebalance ship fitting stats accordingly.
[Problem]
BC's pretty much require a MJD fitted. This is for defensive use to prevent being kited to death and offensively to get on top of a target. Currently, only the armour BC's can fit a MJD and a MWD and retain effectiveness. BC targeting range is also too low to allow offensive use of the MJD (you need to have your target pre locked before the jump).
[Solution]
Buff all BC targeting range.
Re-evaluate shield BC slot layout to allow the use of MJD+MWD (dual prop) fits without completely gimping the ship. The other option of having all CBC's have a MJD fitted as standard removes too much choice from the game. It's not a good solution.
[Problem]
Modules used by Battlecruisers are also used by cruisers. eg tanking modules and weapons. This means that there is no distinction between the classes when it comes to damage projection and the fact that BC's have roughly twice the signature radius and slower speeds, completely removes their base HP advantage.
[Solution] - Tanking modules
Kagura's suggestion to re balance the plates and shield extenders is the best solution for the tanking modules.
[Solution] - Damage Projection
The issue of damage projection could be solved with a projection role bonus, however this would be problematic. A better solution would be to increase base fittings to allow larger caliber weapons to fit in order to improve projection. This solution is also very problematic as it opens many doors for other fitting opportunities that may break stuff. Weapons will also get a balance pass eventually which is supposed to remove the "tier system" of the weapons.
In the end, damage projection may be best off left until all other problems are solved and to re-evaluate whether its required or not.
[Problem]
On grid mobility. BC's are quite slow and sluggish preventing any real kiting setups making the cruiser a better option.
[Solution]
I really don't think a speed buff is required for these ships. Certainly not until all other issues have been addressed. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
651
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:06:40 -
[8] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Actually changing plates can be done in a very neutral way. Change 800mm plates to 1600mm stats, etc all the way down. Then create a new 1600mm plate. This lets Cruisers still have exactly the same stats as currently, removes the plate that no-one at all uses, and gives Battleships a larger plate. Alternatively.... You could give Battleships and BC's more EHP, especially Battleships, which would get them into the range of being able to effectively use the +15% armour modules instead. Not sure if there is a matching shield module which gives straight percentage bonus? Never looked at Shields in the cap range so not sure. Something would have to be done to ensure shield BS's & BC's didn't get left in the dirt.
Damage application doesn't scale the way you claim Cade, because you used a very very particular weapon system & fit there, which fell right on the edge of damage application. And I doubt you did the test 100 times for RNG variation also.
Other fits would have utterly different responses to damage application. This assumes that there's literally no use-case for the smallest size of plate, which may not be the case, or that throwing a 3200mm plate into the game would have a good result to overall balance. (Also they'd have to introduce a new item or everyone would have to re-fit all of their ships and re-buy a lot of modules and would be rather pissed about that) As for Shield ships they get active omni-hardeners and passive regen, Armor gets the option for % increases and a larger plate. Overall it works out fairly balanced most of the time, but the two types of tank have different benefits and therefore different applications. I still don't agree that tweaking these modules actually fixes the issue with at best tangentially related ships either. If there's an issue with these hulls then it's an issue with something unique to those hulls, not the modules or weapons, and it's easiest to fix the issue by addressing it at the root instead of doing something that has a massive impact on the game as a whole. Also I didn't test it in-game, that wouldn't be reliable, I threw together a damage graph in EFT and ran the numbers that way. It's massively impractical to run various fits, I simply threw together a match up that I felt was a fairly good representation of the effect of a Plate or Extender on a Cruiser's incoming DPS to demonstrate that there is, in-fact, a trade off to fitting that kind of buffer onto a Cruiser hull.
I think the idea is to try to address the issue of both Battlecruisers and Battleships having relatively weak tanks by introducing an "XL" module to be used on both BC's and BS's (BS's would double up).
Currently the relative tanking difference between cruisers and BC's is quite small (even though on paper it looks larger). This is because BC's have roughly twice the signature radius of cruisers and are slower to boot. This is by design so that BS's can curb stomp them. There for reducing BC sig rad is problematic as it would make them tankier vs BS's which isn't desirable.
Increasing native HP pools is an option but it doesn't take away the fact that cruisers are fitting BS sized modules that are increasing their HP by more than their native HP pool. Applying the same tanking module to a BC which only increasing it's HP pool then fractionally is out of wack.
I''l give you the numbers to make it even clearer how bonkers this all is:
a T2 1600mm plate gives you an additional 4800 armour HP
a Maller has a base armour HP pool of 2875 (1600mm plate gives + 167% to it's armour pool)
A Prophecy has a base armour HP pool of 6875 (1600mm plate gives +69% to it's armour pool)
An Abaddon has a base armour HP pool of 10625 (1600mm plate gives +45% to it's armour pool)
That is way too much of a bonus to the cruiser relatively speaking. Especially when it is really easly to get a 1600mm plate on a cruiser.
This is why plates and extenders need to change. Shift all plates one place to the left and delete the 50mm plates. They really don't get used anyways
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
655
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 06:34:10 -
[9] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Give warp speed rigs a penalty to capacitor usage to initiate warp. Make it enough to give people pause, but not enough to be crippling. Maybe a base of +100% cap usage (which can be reduced to +50% via the appropriate rigging skill)?
This is a good suggestion. It is also intuitive and as a penalty, makes sense.
You want to warp faster?It'll cost you more energy |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
657
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:08:16 -
[10] - Quote
Acel Tokalov wrote:At the same time can we get a .3 au speed increase to battleships so it doesn't take 3 T1 or 2 T2 warp speed rigs to keep up with a cruiser.
I'd rather that large rigs just gave a bigger bonus. More bang for the buck on a rig slot for a BS then |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
659
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 07:14:44 -
[11] - Quote
Acel Tokalov wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:I'd rather that large rigs just gave a bigger bonus. More bang for the buck on a rig slot for a BS then Yeah I could agree with a higher percent increase for large rigs to make up for the horrible base speed.
......and if the warp speed rig was to have a penalty to capacitor need to warp then it could easily be balanced by making the large rigs have heavier penalties for greater gains per rig. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
665
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:37:18 -
[12] - Quote
Well, this goes live on Tuesday and we've had almost zero feedback on our feedback so I guess we're sticking with the signature radius penalty instead of considering the capacitor need to warp penalty (which was a very good idea by Alexis Nightwish).
Maybe in time it will change again. |
| |
|