EVE Search - Sticky:[April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Kally Kendrick Fiaskko Enterprises LOADED-DICE 4	Posted - 2015.04.12 00:19:41 - [241] - Quote I use warp speed rigs on figates I use to get around low sec/FW systems and to quickly nip to markets for ammo and so on. If this sig radius penalty is too steep and I can now get caught in gate camps then I feel like that is counter-productive to the use of these rigs.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15589	Posted - 2015.04.12 09:01:38 - [242] - Quote Kally Kendrick wrote: I use warp speed rigs on figates I use to get around low sec/FW systems and to quickly nip to markets for ammo and so on. If this sig radius penalty is too steep and I can now get caught in gate camps then I feel like that is counter-productive to the use of these rigs. Interceptors will still be neigh uncatchable and you also have access to cov ops frigs and the blockade runner. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 355	Posted - 2015.04.13 04:56:58 - [243] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: And if you fit the same plate on a hypothetical cruiser with the same base hull HP and T1 or even T2 resists you don't get near the same EHP, in absolute terms. You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower. That's why CCP nerfed T3 defensive subsystems instead of nerfing 1600 plates. The proposal is NOT a nerf.. is a MAJOR BUFF to 1600 plates.. at least when fitted where they were supposed to be used Your proposal is a change, I never said it was a nerf or a buff, especially not in that sentence. I said that CCP nerfed the EHP of T3 cruisers by adjusting their subsystems' traits instead of the modules they use. Kagura Nikon wrote: Youa re the ONLY one that cannot see how it fixes, you are the only one sttuborn enough that want to keep things as they are and create myths about how the game was made or not. But hat does not matter. Rise and Fozzie are far more intelligent than that and eventually they will see the truth in this need. A hint, if you cannot bring any REAl argumentation in this forum, you are just practicing weak forum fu, it will change in nothing how the devs see the issues. They do pay attention, but only when you bring meaningful propositions, such as this one, that is so clear that the majority immediately could see its effect. I see exactly what you're trying to 'fix' I just don't think it's a problem. You say that fitting these plates to Cruisers and BCs and the amount of EHP that they give is the source of the current disparity, I think that's incorrect and that what you're proposing will do more harm than good by completely invalidating the entirety of the current meta anywhere these modules are used. Also your sample size here for "only one" is like... two other people who have said they like your idea? I already gave you numbers here. Cruisers may get a huge amount of EHP from these over-sized modules but they trade a huge amount of fitting space for it which helps balance things out with other fits. This has been the case since they were introduced and the ships are balanced around this trade-off. In the end you're actually allowing them to get almost the same EHP by just fitting a size down for more fitting space, because the HP per PG on an 800 Plate is 10.4 while the HP per PG on a 1600 plate is just 8.3. As it is a T1 Cruiser needs substantial fitting mods to fit an over-sized tank and large guns, while T2 Cruisers are designed to fit these over-sized tank mods, which shows up in the old HAC rebalance threads. The state of these mods, and the ability of small hulls to get a lot out of them at the cost of a significant amount of fitting space, is very definitely intentional and has been maintained by the current dev staff. You also haven't provided much of an argument for removing it beyond "OMG they get so much out of this! Battleships only get a 56% boost!!!". Okay? So what's the problem with that? They pay a ton in fittings, Battleships don't, and Battleships have a much much higher base EHP. The same way that over-sized prop mods aren't something CCP are looking to stamp out these over-sized tank mods have been around since the start of Eve and are going to continue to be around.
Alexis Nightwish 147	Posted - 2015.04.13 16:26:15 - [244] - Quote Love the warp speed changes to BCs/CSs, thanks! Hate the warp speed rig changes. As someone who only uses them on ships I don't want caught, increasing the sig is a pretty significant nerf and it's collateral damage from an attempted fix to a separate aspect of the game. Consider this instead: 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)? CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 220	Posted - 2015.04.13 18:13:38 - [245] - Quote Maybe you shouldnt be both almost uncatchable and extremely fast while in warp unless you are in an inty? Frigs dont need any help at warping
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 655	Posted - 2015.04.14 06:34:10 - [246] - 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
Benito Arias Angry Mustellid The Periphery 64	Posted - 2015.04.14 06:38:36 - [247] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: Consider this instead: 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 very attractive idea, indeed.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1058	Posted - 2015.04.14 06:54:23 - [248] - Quote Hakaari Inkuran wrote: Maybe you shouldnt be both almost uncatchable and extremely fast while in warp unless you are in an inty? Frigs dont need any help at warping A properly fit interceptor could have the sig of an avatar, but you'd still need your resident Londoner to have a shot at catching it.
Acel Tokalov Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 24	Posted - 2015.04.14 13:50:31 - [249] - Quote 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.
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 657	Posted - 2015.04.14 15:08:16 - [250] - 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
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 508	Posted - 2015.04.14 18:13:10 - [251] - 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. And the award for missing the point goes to.... Acel Tokalov. The new meta is supposed to make it really painful to keep up with cruisers in a battleship (other than the machariel or nestor), especially if you aren't willing to shell out the isk for an ascendancy set. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Acel Tokalov Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 24	Posted - 2015.04.14 19:54:45 - [252] - Quote James Baboli wrote: 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. And the award for missing the point goes to.... Acel Tokalov. The new meta is supposed to make it really painful to keep up with cruisers in a battleship (other than the machariel or nestor), especially if you aren't willing to shell out the isk for an ascendancy set. Says the guy who probably has never spent significant time in null. That is half the reason that no one in null uses them, the other half being bombers, and anyone who injects an Ascendancy set in null sec to fly a T1 battleship either has way too much money, or is not right in the head. 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.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 508	Posted - 2015.04.14 19:59:59 - [253] - Quote You would be wrong. I spend quite a bit of time in null, just not on this character. I do have quite a pile of isk, and who the hell said anything about t1 battleships? Pirate hulls are cheap enough to lose in medium droves right now if you aren't a poor, and if you are a poor, fly a cruiser. Simple. I'm in favor of getting them to be worth it to bring on grid, whether it be sufficiently buffed performance to be worth waiting for them if slower than cruisers, sufficiently better performance to still be good with the sacrifices to keep up with cruisers, a savage nerf to bombs, etc. A straight increase in BS warp speed is my least preferred option. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Lienzo Amanuensis 88	Posted - 2015.04.14 22:55:12 - [254] - Quote An interesting option for warp rigs could be to lower the speed threshold for getting into warp. For example, from 75% max speed down to 70% or so. Currently, this is all controlled by modifying agility, but that has the unfortunate effect of affecting other balance concerns while on grid. Such a modification would be much more specific to warping, and warrant fewer penalties. Another thing we don't have enough diversity in is the analogue to astrometric pinpointing that affects the accuracy with which ships land in proximity to their intended destination during general warping.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers 134	Posted - 2015.04.15 06:57:29 - [255] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs. What? I don't fly T1 ships, but warp speed nerf was the impulse for me to change my Absolution for Proteus (that and the new ugly red dil*o model). +1 from me for this change.
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 659	Posted - 2015.04.15 07:14:44 - [256] - 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.
abrasive soap State Protectorate Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.04.16 15:47:19 - [257] - Quote This would be great if the problem with BC's was as simple as warp speed. BC's are just not usable now. When a Vexor can outdps just about any BC maybe there is something wrong. Perhaps the BC nerf went too far? I rarely see a BC in PvP anymore, and if I do it is usually a neutral command ship that is giving fleet bonuses. T1 BC's are exceedingly rare, and it isn't tough to figure out why.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 966	Posted - 2015.04.16 15:56:49 - [258] - Quote abrasive soap wrote: T1 BC's are exceedingly rare, and it isn't tough to figure out why. Still use a CBC for gas huffing.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 524	Posted - 2015.04.16 16:13:11 - [259] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: abrasive soap wrote: T1 BC's are exceedingly rare, and it isn't tough to figure out why. Still use a CBC for gas huffing. Where they are more than adequate, and have much better tank than the prospect and venture, as well as the possibility of being trap. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Ocih Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums 863	Posted - 2015.04.16 17:31:45 - [260] - Quote abrasive soap wrote: This would be great if the problem with BC's was as simple as warp speed. BC's are just not usable now. When a Vexor can outdps just about any BC maybe there is something wrong. Perhaps the BC nerf went too far? I rarely see a BC in PvP anymore, and if I do it is usually a neutral command ship that is giving fleet bonuses. T1 BC's are exceedingly rare, and it isn't tough to figure out why. Very much. If you compare the Vexor to the Prophecy, the trait/ slot layout are very similar. Both have 4 turret slots, both have 75 bandwidth, both have 10% to drone damage and hitpoint. The Prophecy gives up a turret damage bonus for more tank. If that's what the BC was supposed to be, A tanky cruiser, it fills the role very well. Of course when you have one doctrine of 'Alpha down everything' a little bit of tank or even double as in the case of Prophecy/ Vexor comparison, it is meaningless. Either one will pop under heavy alpha fire. Something I see people say a lot. "Cost shouldn't dictate the effectiveness of the ship in a linear fashion. That's all fine, I won't bother debating it but BattleCruiser is an example of cost over run with disproportionate benefit. 100% bonus for 600% the cost. They can't very well give a Prophecy 6 times the tank of a Vexor but don't act surprised when people just build 6 Vexors instead of one Prophecy. tl;dr - In Min/Max EVE the BC is a waste of minerals.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 526	Posted - 2015.04.16 17:44:57 - [261] - Quote Ocih wrote: Something I see people say a lot. "Cost shouldn't dictate the effectiveness of the ship in a linear fashion. That's all fine, I won't bother debating it but BattleCruiser is an example of cost over run with disproportionate benefit. 100% bonus for 600% the cost. They can't very well give a Prophecy 6 times the tank of a Vexor but don't act surprised when people just build 6 Vexors instead of one Prophecy. tl;dr - In Min/Max EVE the BC is a waste of minerals. So much of this. Especially as it used to be less steep of a scale up in minerals, and the teiracide on BCs moved most of them to the former tier 1 spot for performance (or even below, RIP draek and welpcane) while pushing the minerals towards (or above) the former tier 2 across the class, and then they dropped the warp speed changes on top of that. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1125	Posted - 2015.04.16 17:47:18 - [262] - Quote command ships warping as fast as cruisers seems a little odd... maybe 2.9 instead?? 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 assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
abrasive soap State Protectorate Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:16:42 - [263] - Quote Is command ship warp speed even relevant when they are just used as neutral fleet boosters and don't get involved in the fighting?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 527	Posted - 2015.04.16 19:08:07 - [264] - Quote abrasive soap wrote: Is command ship warp speed even relevant when they are just used as neutral fleet boosters and don't get involved in the fighting? Several people I know are celebrating the return of sliepnir fleet already. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1692	Posted - 2015.04.16 19:18:29 - [265] - Quote I'm bad at math... How many rigs you need to reach cruiser speed from a T1 BC with those numbers?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 527	Posted - 2015.04.16 19:29:18 - [266] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: I'm bad at math... How many rigs you need to reach cruiser speed from a T1 BC with those numbers? 1 of the spendy lowslots, or a t1 rig. Currently you get 3.0 au/s with a single t1 rig anyways. A WS-610 hardwiring gets you to 2.97au/s ( equivalent to a 3% hardwire), which is off by just a tiny fraction. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 125	Posted - 2015.04.17 06:48:14 - [267] - Quote People should stop talking about modifications to the warp speed rigs as a solution to BSs and BCs. All they need to do is tweak them so that they don't benefit interceptors/frigates ridiculously more than Battleships as to essentially shift the meta even more in their favour. Warp speed rigs are not a solution. If you make warp speed rigs so good that they "solve" the issue with BCs and BSs, then they essentially become a compulsory slot(s). In which case why not just apply the changes directly battleships and battlecruisers and nerf other stats? Balancing battleships requires a revision of their role. Currently they're extremely niche and only effective in circumstances that are so favourable to the side that would field them most other ships could probably do just as nicely.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 390	Posted - 2015.04.18 00:56:06 - [268] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: People should stop talking about modifications to the warp speed rigs as a solution to BSs and BCs. All they need to do is tweak them so that they don't benefit interceptors/frigates ridiculously more than Battleships as to essentially shift the meta even more in their favour. Warp speed rigs are not a solution. If you make warp speed rigs so good that they "solve" the issue with BCs and BSs, then they essentially become a compulsory slot(s). In which case why not just apply the changes directly battleships and battlecruisers and nerf other stats? Balancing battleships requires a revision of their role. Currently they're extremely niche and only effective in circumstances that are so favourable to the side that would field them most other ships could probably do just as nicely. I think the tweaks to warp rigs or even BC warp speed aren't meant to buff BCs and BSes back up to prominence. Really, from the stats we're seeing and the stuff the devs have said, I don't think BSes or BCs have really been brought down so much as everything else has been brought up. For a long time BSes were the thing to bring because they brought an amazing combination of tank, damage, damage projection, and fitting versatility. Now T1 Cruisers are a tenth of the price of Battleships and are able to effectively engage them with numbers. Honestly I think the game is healthier with Battleships and BCs not stomping all over everything. Players are more willing to PvP when the loss doesn't hurt so much and they know they won't get stomped on for bringing a cheaper ship. Given that I think it's more important to not have Battleships stomping all over everything (or any class stomping all over everything, really) than it is to bring back the reign of the Battleship in Eve PvP.
Delarian Rox New Home Inc. 22	Posted - 2015.04.18 06:42:57 - [269] - Quote Ocih wrote: tl;dr - In Min/Max EVE the BC is a waste of minerals. Not realy. Personaly i use them like havy tacking ships and more resilient ships for a FC in cruiser gangs. Of course they need some improvement, but i'm pretty sure that targeting range improvement (to a point where you can reach 100km lock range with only one rig) along with this warp speed change is enough to bring them to a very good position. And you always can buff their role of a cheap booster by just reducing time needed to learn t2 links.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 634	Posted - 2015.04.18 06:58:31 - [270] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: ...Honestly I think the game is healthier with Battleships and BCs not stomping all over everything. Players are more willing to PvP when the loss doesn't hurt so much and they know they won't get stomped on for bringing a cheaper ship. Given that I think it's more important to not have Battleships stomping all over everything (or any class stomping all over everything, really) than it is to bring back the reign of the Battleship in Eve PvP. I believe you mean well but when you do go to the tradehubs and your mood feels like flying a battleship and you go and see the pricetag on a bare hull and insurace and fitting and lookt at you wallet again when you are about to undock, you may have a certain expectation of what you got. Only to discover a few minutes later that your 300-400m in meta and tech 2 fittings just got you yolo-rofl-stomped over by an ishtar and some Navy Omens which you didn't even get a target lock on to begin with. I also don't believe that warping around in my Brutix a few seconds less than before doesn't help that 5 firgates yolo-kite that Brutix into an explosion in 2 minutes or one svipul in 1 under gate-gun fire. Look at it this way, that Brutix did cost 45m without fitting and a Thorax costs 10m without fitting but for 30m more isk I get 20% of the performance of that Thorax. Is it too much to ask that I can fight 5 ishtars under gategun fire and may last long enough to bring down 3 of them? Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.