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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12423
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:42:31 -
[1] - Quote
Hey everyone. We're planning on making a few small tweaks to warp speed mechanics in our April release and we'd love to hear your feedback.
Firstly, we're planning to adjust the warp speed of Battlecruiser sized ships to bring the Battlecruiser-Cruiser relationship in line with the Destroyer-Frigate relationship. We've been discussing this with CSM 9 member Gorski for a little while and we think bringing the BCs in line is a reasonable idea.
This will mean an 8% increase in Battlecruiser warp speed, to 2.7au/s for T1 BCs and 3au/s for Command Ships.
We are also making some tweaks to warp rig penalties. At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have.
We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy.
Let us know what you think!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2187
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:43:47 -
[2] - Quote
Does T1 include faction BC? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2187
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:45:05 -
[3] - Quote
double post |
Challus Mercer
Sacred Temple The Gorgon Empire
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:46:05 -
[4] - Quote
Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :( |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
20925
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:48:42 -
[5] - Quote
Aint believing anything until tomorrow.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Sir Livingston
Club Deadspace
337
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:54:59 -
[6] - Quote
battlecruiser usage must be low
EVE Online videos to inform and inspire
http://www.youtube.com/JonnyPew
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
323
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 22:55:39 -
[7] - Quote
Good changes.
Out of curiosity how commonly are Warp Speed rigs being used? Especially on larger ships. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12439
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:03:45 -
[8] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Does T1 include faction BC?
Yup.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
425
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:09:55 -
[9] - Quote
Anything that helps BCs gets a +1 from me. I miss seeing them around. :\ |
Anthar Thebess
991
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:41:09 -
[10] - Quote
Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet?
Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets.
Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon?
Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
103
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 23:49:28 -
[11] - Quote
Better than nothing, I guess? vOv
Do battleships still exist?
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2064
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:00:51 -
[12] - Quote
nice... good to know about the increase...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
290
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:01:26 -
[13] - Quote
Increase combat battlecruiser weapon range and lock range too?
Best anti-bomber tweak is to reduce bomb radius to 5km, keep the ecm and basic neut bomb to 15km. |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
497
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:05:22 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rowells wrote:Does T1 include faction BC? Yup. I think it would be a good move to improve faction ship warp speeds, perhaps between t2 and t1. It would help further offset their insurance deficit quite a bit, ESPECIALLY if you brought t2 and faction battlecruisers up to cruiser warp speeds all the way. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12388
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:47:55 -
[15] - Quote
LONG overdue. Consider a signature radius reduction across the entire class as well.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4276
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:00:43 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy. Well, this effectively makes Ascendancy implants much more valuable than rigs since they don't impose a signature penalty. My preference is still the CPU penalty.
Since we're on the subject of warp speed tweaks, can we also get a small bump to battleships as well? 2.2 AU/s for T1/Faction Battleships and 2.4 AU/s for T2 Marauders and Black Ops (the Nestor and Machariel would remain at 2.5 AU/s and 3.0 AU/s, respectively).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
603
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:10:36 -
[17] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:LONG overdue. Consider a signature radius reduction across the entire class as well.
That sounds like a very good idea!
signature
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 03:07:54 -
[18] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet? Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets. Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon? Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run.
Overheat mode for MJD on BCs :D allows you to jump away quickly i.e. if someone drops bombs but does random upto say 75% of your base EHP in damage (which if it doesn't kill you is spread randomly over all 3 tanks) to discourage use in fights as you'd randomly explode.
(Not sure if I'm serious or not). |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 04:10:45 -
[19] - Quote
Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4278
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 05:00:27 -
[20] - Quote
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.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Felter Echerie
SL33P3R C3LL
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 05:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
Challus Mercer wrote:Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :(
nope; they should be slow.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 05:30:18 -
[22] - Quote
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. |
Felter Echerie
SL33P3R C3LL
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 05:32:20 -
[23] - Quote
defense against bombs= low sig+speed also bombers are alergic to drones and frigates/dessys |
Felter Echerie
SL33P3R C3LL
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 05:34:06 -
[24] - Quote
mix yer fleet of huge ships with some smaller ones; that way the new guy can be useful and u have more tools to counter every ship size... gee guys... yall cray |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
646
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 06:20:25 -
[25] - 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 |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
103
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 06:25:32 -
[26] - 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.
This lady is korrekt.
Correct ship usage/damage by "type" is this - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
It is what it is, don't hide it people. vOv
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
301
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 07:05:46 -
[27] - Quote
It isnt my beloved battleships but its a step in the right direction!
END TO CRUISERS ONLINE... |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
104
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 07:56:06 -
[28] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:It isnt my beloved battleships but its a step in the right direction!
END TO CRUISERS ONLINE...
Introducing a Lesser version of the Bastion Modules, which is employed by Marauder battleships, for Tech 1 battleships could greatly influence the coming new meta with regards to Entosis Link mechanics.
Trollceptor you say? I raise you a mobile gang platform that has great locally-powered tanks with the capacitor to sustain it.
Please,
Please,
CCPlease.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 09:19:11 -
[29] - 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.
It was rather more the T1 cruiser buff that nailed the coffin shut. They really got far too carried away there.
They can fill an extremely narrow niche role still, but I don't have any solid ideas to help them that are not going to result in crushing cruiser nerfs or extreme power creep(*).
(*) But perhaps in a wider scale that would be marginally ok, if taken in the context of altering the battleship and dread landscape as well as dreads are looking less and less useful.
@Fozzie - is this also applying to ABCs? |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
34089
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 10:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
how common are fleets where ships are rigged with warp rigs instead of actually useful rigs?
Critically Preposterous is recruiting! Join the fight!
I am a cat.
|
|
Inggroth
Aurora Ominae. The Gorgon Empire
40
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:02:27 -
[31] - Quote
Changes per se are p. cool
However they dont do a whole lot to give BCs a niche. In my opinion boosting base lock range would be a start here, so it'd be possible to prelock and MJD onto people without making ridiculous fitting tradeoffs |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15547
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:21:38 -
[32] - Quote
My mega get a buff
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
854
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:41:57 -
[33] - Quote
Here's a suggestion, especially in conjunction with the posted Entosis Link stats from your other thread:
Give Combat Battlecruisers a role bonus to Medium MJD activation times. Something on the lines of 50-70% or so, like Marauders. Do not include this bonus for Command Ships.
This would give the CBCs some very, very unique abilities and open up a whole lot of new gameplay options for them. While their on-grid speed would be a lot slower than existing doctrines, and their ability to avoid instalock gatecamps would similarly be poor, they'd have some AMAZING ability to reposition on grid and counter sniping / kiting doctrines. They'd retain some vulnerability to bombing runs, but would retain the ability to GTFO to another spot on grid. Combined with their large existing powergrid, they'd become ideal platforms for using the larger T2 Entosis Links with their 250km lock range, while the heavy cap use of the T2EL and the MMJD would require careful management.
Add this to the warp speed tweaks, and CBCs become rather interesting again I'd think. Someone might even let you bring your Drake.
Thoughts?
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
PinkKnife
Raising the Bar Of Sound Mind
517
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:48:49 -
[34] - Quote
so, here's how to solve this issue for battle cruisers and battleships.
Change the warp acceleration and warp speed for each ship. Have battleships have really slow warp accelerations (they have huge mass,this makes sense) but give them high warp speeds so they can still get around quickly. They have huge engines they shouldn't be that slow both to get into warp, and then through warp.
Likewise, have smaller ships like cruiisers have smaller warp speeds, but better accelerations.
Y'no, sort of like how small light cars accelerate fast but have a lower top speed, while a big engine sedan might accelerate slower but have a higher top speed.
It solves the issue of bigger ships being so god damn lethargic, while not making them overpowered. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 11:51:33 -
[35] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Here's a suggestion, especially in conjunction with the posted Entosis Link stats from your other thread:
Give Combat Battlecruisers a role bonus to Medium MJD activation times. Something on the lines of 50-70% or so, like Marauders. Do not include this bonus for Command Ships.
This would give the CBCs some very, very unique abilities and open up a whole lot of new gameplay options for them. While their on-grid speed would be a lot slower than existing doctrines, and their ability to avoid instalock gatecamps would similarly be poor, they'd have some AMAZING ability to reposition on grid and counter sniping / kiting doctrines. They'd retain some vulnerability to bombing runs, but would retain the ability to GTFO to another spot on grid. Combined with their large existing powergrid, they'd become ideal platforms for using the larger T2 Entosis Links with their 250km lock range, while the heavy cap use of the T2EL and the MMJD would require careful management.
Add this to the warp speed tweaks, and CBCs become rather interesting again I'd think. Someone might even let you bring your Drake.
Thoughts?
I quite like this, as long as a lock range increase was had.
Although I think I misread it as REactiviation timer and made me think of marauders. Did you mean cycle time, or cooldown reduction? The latter I like, the former would be too good. |
Mizhir
Matari Exodus
74191
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 12:07:51 -
[36] - Quote
GORSKI4CSMXI
One Man Crew - Collective Solo PVP - Video is out!
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1493
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:28:55 -
[37] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs.
Don't think you have flown a BC in ages. Part of the reason that roaming in frigs and cruisers is so much more preferable to BCs is the speed of getting around. While the warp speed change isn't huge, it does help close the gap and make BCs slightly more viable.
However, the penalty change from CPU to sig radius is incredibly disappointing. My ship fits with warp speed rigs (like my raptor) work fine around the cpu penalty, but are now punished worse by the sig radius change. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1007
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:29:18 -
[38] - Quote
By the way.....the lack of responses to this thread from players tells you more about BC popularity (or lack thereof) and use than your stats ever will..... |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
326
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 13:39:30 -
[39] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:However, the penalty change from CPU to sig radius is incredibly disappointing. My ship fits with warp speed rigs (like my raptor) work fine around the cpu penalty, but are now punished worse by the sig radius change.
This helps balance out the bonuses though, since the warp-speed rigs are already far more beneficial on smaller ships than they are on larger ones. |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
384
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 14:21:10 -
[40] - Quote
afkalt wrote:By the way.....the lack of responses to this thread from players tells you more about BC popularity (or lack thereof) and use than your stats ever will.....
Actually this is one of the problems with F&I - when an idea is generally well received, few people comment on it, so it looks like no one cares. Looking at the 1300 views the thread has garnered, however, leads me to believe that more people care than are posting.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1010
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 14:40:51 -
[41] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:afkalt wrote:By the way.....the lack of responses to this thread from players tells you more about BC popularity (or lack thereof) and use than your stats ever will..... Actually this is one of the problems with F&I - when an idea is generally well received, few people comment on it, so it looks like no one cares. Looking at the 1300 views the thread has garnered, however, leads me to believe that more people care than are posting.
To a point, but it's still less than even the garage door cynos. Something mostly the prevail of cap pilots only. Well them and the "HAH! SUCK IT!" mobs...
I just don't think many people care because we're all rolling about in cruisers (and caps, apparently :) ) |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
392
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 14:56:41 -
[42] - Quote
Voicing my approval of these as well. Good work CCP. I love to pretend I'm a Thukker, so warp speed and agility are on pretty much all my vessels. Those CPU penalties were painful. So glad to see them go. I'll take the hit to sig radius any day. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:00:14 -
[43] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:GORSKI4CSMXI
Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
584
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:09:32 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Firstly, we're planning to adjust the warp speed of Battlecruiser sized ships to bring the Battlecruiser-Cruiser relationship in line with the Destroyer-Frigate relationship. This will mean an 8% increase in Battlecruiser warp speed, to 2.7au/s for T1 BCs and 3au/s for Command Ships.
Love this, personally ive been utilising a warp speed rig on my instanado because of how slow it lands on grid, it makes it very susceptable to being probed and warped on top of. i may still keep the warp speed rig on actually as time to land is a big factor in modern space combat since the introduction of warp speed to hull size.
CCP Fozzie wrote: We are also making some tweaks to warp rig penalties. At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have.
We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs).
one of the main areas of concern with regards to usage of bc hulls in nullsec is the fact their tank is sub bs level yet for the most part they take considerably more damage to bombs then cruisers. having the penalty of the warp speed rigs affect sig radius is like giving with one hand whilst taking away with the other. if it affected something related to what its changing then not only would it be somewhat logical but would also not further widen the usage gap of shield vs armor in nullsec.
Consider the fact bc hulls dont have the fitting resources to utilise large smartbombs and the range increase they give to neutralising bombing runs and you will see that bc's (especially shield bc's) are in a really bad place in terms of practical utilisation.
so please change the warp speed rig penalty to ship agility or ship speed rather than sig radius. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
9290
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:23:12 -
[45] - Quote
Mmmm, yummy changes, an both counts.
Love it.
Lords.Of.Midnight now recruiting
Steamy hot small gang action is waiting for you.
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1227
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:24:43 -
[46] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Mizhir wrote:GORSKI4CSMXI Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him.
kil2 = CCP Rise iirc.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
9290
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:26:47 -
[47] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Mizhir wrote:GORSKI4CSMXI Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him. kil2 = CCP Rise iirc. I think that was a joke, I'm not sure though.
Lords.Of.Midnight now recruiting
Steamy hot small gang action is waiting for you.
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
338
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 15:46:21 -
[48] - Quote
Great changes, proof that gorski car was a great CSM representative for fun and balanced solo/small gang PVP. Wish he would have gotten re-elected but he does have a great blog now at least so hopefully you devs will continue to consider his feedback from there.
However, I would still like to see BS warp speed slightly improved. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
857
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 16:29:18 -
[49] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Here's a suggestion, especially in conjunction with the posted Entosis Link stats from your other thread:
Give Combat Battlecruisers a role bonus to Medium MJD activation times. Something on the lines of 50-70% or so, like Marauders. Do not include this bonus for Command Ships.
This would give the CBCs some very, very unique abilities and open up a whole lot of new gameplay options for them. While their on-grid speed would be a lot slower than existing doctrines, and their ability to avoid instalock gatecamps would similarly be poor, they'd have some AMAZING ability to reposition on grid and counter sniping / kiting doctrines. They'd retain some vulnerability to bombing runs, but would retain the ability to GTFO to another spot on grid. Combined with their large existing powergrid, they'd become ideal platforms for using the larger T2 Entosis Links with their 250km lock range, while the heavy cap use of the T2EL and the MMJD would require careful management.
Add this to the warp speed tweaks, and CBCs become rather interesting again I'd think. Someone might even let you bring your Drake.
Thoughts? I quite like this, as long as a lock range increase was had. Although I think I misread it as REactiviation timer and made me think of marauders. Did you mean cycle time, or cooldown reduction? The latter I like, the former would be too good. Reactivation timer, in line with the Marauder bonus. The intent would be to allow CBCs specifically to use MMJDs more often.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4282
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:00:29 -
[50] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Reactivation timer, in line with the Marauder bonus. The intent would be to allow CBCs specifically to use MMJDs more often. I like the idea of a special role bonus just for Combat Battlecruisers.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:57:02 -
[51] - Quote
Now to fix the other half of why people don't use cbcs. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4282
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 18:05:30 -
[52] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:Now to fix the other half of why people don't use cbcs. Because they still suck?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 18:08:42 -
[53] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:FT Cold wrote:Now to fix the other half of why people don't use cbcs. Because they still suck?
That would be it. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
281
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 18:27:18 -
[54] - Quote
Maybe this would be too much to ask the hamsters, but wouldn't it be nice if fleet warp was actually an average of all the combined participants warp speed? You could mix in a small number of big ships with a bunch of small ships and still not get hugely bogged down. It would also provide a bit more freedom on what bigger ships you wanted to select.
Edit: Nope. Probably a bad idea, since people will just use two-man fleets with leopards or some other fast ship along with their supers. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
116
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 18:39:24 -
[55] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Soldarius wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Mizhir wrote:GORSKI4CSMXI Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him. kil2 = CCP Rise iirc. I think that was a joke, I'm not sure though.
Smiley implies a joke, but the reality deeply saddens me beyond words, as once a Free and Roaming Soul is now bound by reasonable, but still very strict, corporate guidelines and goals.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
LtauSTinpoWErs
Lazerhawks
45
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 22:31:48 -
[56] - Quote
I would rather see the cpu penalty remain than an increase in signature radius. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
944
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 00:02:50 -
[57] - Quote
4.2AU/sec Hurricane. MMJDs. AARs.
GÖÑ |
Wanda Fayne
Gurlz with Gunz
74
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 01:16:22 -
[58] - Quote
+1 to any buff for BCs |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
91
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 01:22:01 -
[59] - Quote
Sir Livingston wrote:battlecruiser usage must be low
Any Reason? |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4288
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 02:49:17 -
[60] - Quote
Tiddle Jr wrote:Any Reason? I can think of a few, but basically it comes down to not being cost effective. You're effectively paying a premium for a heavy cruiser that in actuality performs worse than most cruisers.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
329
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 03:17:40 -
[61] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiddle Jr wrote:Any Reason? I can think of a few, but basically it comes down to not being cost effective. You're effectively paying a premium for a heavy cruiser that in actuality performs worse than most cruisers.
That's... just not correct. BCs compared to the closest bonuses Cruiser trade speed for being more effective in DPS, tank, fitting, and basically everything except speed and maneuverability.
For example comparing the Rupture and the Hurricane, the Cane has two more turrets, the same number of Utility highs, an extra low, 50 more base CPU, 265 more base Powergrid, and almost three times the base hit-points of the Rupture.
The Drake has an extra launcher, a utility high, an extra mid, 170 more base powergrid, 70 more base CPU, almost three times the base HP, and the Resistance bonus.
In both cases the BCs are around 5 times more expensive than their Cruiser counterparts, but still easily affordable as hulls, especially compared to the other available Cruiser upgrades, namely Battleships, and anything Tech 2. They only lose out on speed and, in the case of the Caracal/Drake trade off some damage application ability and a Light Missile bonus.
So, in short, BCs perform different from Cruisers, but it's very hard to make a case for them being out-right worse than Cruisers. For example you can do some Level 4 missions in a well-fitted BC hull but trying to do the same thing in a T1 Cruiser hull is generally a recipe to lose the ship. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4290
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 03:48:43 -
[62] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:That's... just not correct. BCs compared to the closest bonuses Cruiser trade speed for being more effective in DPS, tank, fitting, and basically everything except speed and maneuverability. Not for five times the sticker price.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
91
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 03:57:27 -
[63] - Quote
Unfortunatelly there are no more Drakes online we have ishtars and railgus online now. Same related to lovely cane fleet.
After the huge hate of Drake fleegs it was nerfed to the almost complete useless even the HAM version of it didn't come up same popular. So we have turned that page. What CCP did is presented tier 3 BC and we did love hem for sometime but not too long.
Nados turned to gatecamping tool Taloses are only good for Freighter kills and some Jita ganking events. Naga? Where is Naga? Oracle did replace most of the BS in area of POS bashing. Cause it's way cheaper and same effective.
So current combat bc's are mainly used for lvl3 and low sec roams. Those are no more part of any large scale engagements. Faction variants are still doubtfull sometimes they are almost three times higher in prices but don't provide same increase in advantages vs t1 versions. But i still love my combat Brutix. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
330
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:44:35 -
[64] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:That's... just not correct. BCs compared to the closest bonuses Cruiser trade speed for being more effective in DPS, tank, fitting, and basically everything except speed and maneuverability. Not for five times the sticker price.
Okay? Then that's your determination and that's fine.
Tiddle Jr wrote:Unfortunatelly there are no more Drakes online we have ishtars and railgus online now. Same related to lovely cane fleet.
After the huge hate of Drake fleegs it was nerfed to the almost complete useless even the HAM version of it didn't come up same popular. So we have turned that page. What CCP did is presented tier 3 BC and we did love hem for sometime but not too long.
Nados turned to gatecamping tool Taloses are only good for Freighter kills and some Jita ganking events. Naga? Where is Naga? Oracle did replace most of the BS in area of POS bashing. Cause it's way cheaper and same effective.
So current combat bc's are mainly used for lvl3 and low sec roams. Those are no more part of any large scale engagements. Faction variants are still doubtfull sometimes they are almost three times higher in prices but don't provide same increase in advantages vs t1 versions. But i still love my combat Brutix.
Looking at the monthly metrics on zKillboard for last month (links withheld because of forum rules) the entire Cruiser Class as a whole seems to be losing about five times as many ships as the Combat Battlecruiser Class as a whole, which is, in turn, losing about 5-7 times as many ships as the Attack Battlecruiser category.
At the very least this shows that the ships are, in-fact, being used even if the stats available aren't perfect. Not every ship needs to be hugely popular, equally popular, or whatever else. As long as the ships have a role and a use and are being used then that's fine, and the data does show that BCs are being used. |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1136
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 04:58:37 -
[65] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiddle Jr wrote:Any Reason? I can think of a few, but basically it comes down to not being cost effective. You're effectively paying a premium for a heavy cruiser that in actuality performs worse than most cruisers. That's... just not correct. BCs compared to the closest bonuses Cruiser trade speed for being more effective in DPS, tank, fitting, and basically everything except speed and maneuverability. For example comparing the Rupture and the Hurricane, the Cane has two more turrets, the same number of Utility highs, an extra low, 50 more base CPU, 265 more base Powergrid, and almost three times the base hit-points of the Rupture. The Drake has an extra launcher, a utility high, an extra mid, 170 more base powergrid, 70 more base CPU, almost three times the base HP, and the Resistance bonus. In both cases the BCs are around 5 times more expensive than their Cruiser counterparts, but still easily affordable as hulls, especially compared to the other available Cruiser upgrades, namely Battleships, and anything Tech 2. They only lose out on speed and, in the case of the Caracal/Drake trade off some damage application ability and a Light Missile bonus. So, in short, BCs perform different from Cruisers, but it's very hard to make a case for them being out-right worse than Cruisers. For example you can do some Level 4 missions in a well-fitted BC hull but trying to do the same thing in a T1 Cruiser hull is generally a recipe to lose the ship.
And you ignore probably the most important aspect of the Cruiser, BC relationship.
Drake is going to lose almost 60% of its DPS against any cruiser. Cane is going to lose almost 40% of its DPS against any cruiser. Brutix (rail) is going to lose almost 35% of its DPS against any cruiser. Ferox (rail) ~35% Harby ~35% Cyclone 60%
Prophecy and Myrm will retain most of their potential DPS, because Drones.
Any Cruiser is going to retain nearly 100% of its DPS against a BC.
So double the tank, but take double the damage. Lets not even bother looking at the relationship against BS, where the damage application of extra high slots comes into play, because BC's are taking almost 100% more damage from BS than Cruisers will. Which makes them entirely irrelevant to bring in an escalated engagement where BS are fielded.
Since BCs are entirely ineffective going up the scale, and their weapons are LARGELY ineffective going down the scale (Dessies, Frigs) their target prey of choice is Cruisers.
Thus BC's are not cost efficient because their targets of choice are better equipped at engaging each other at the price point, better equipped to engage up the scale, and better equipped speed and maneuvering wise down the scale. There is almost no reason to fly a BC, ever at all in a PVP sense. With the exception of a few niche performers which are largely limited to the Tier 3 variants.
For almost every single situation a cruiser is just as good as a BC and its price point makes it pound for pound the more isk efficient ship to choose.
BC's are ****, and have been ever since CCP kicked them all in the nuts a couple years back. They can barely compare with cruisers as it stands, and even at that point a Cruiser Fleet dictates the engagement 100% of the time. BC's can not keep up with them and thus the Cruisers are free to engage and disengage at will, in some cases with more effective range than their BC counterparts to begin with.
The reason BCs are under used by comparison to Cruiser Hulls is because they are ****, and have very small engagement opportunity, and since opportunity cost is everything in EVE, they do not get used, because you don't get the bang for your buck.
About the only reason to use a BC (outside of the niche uses someone posted above) is for a PVE placeholder while you grind level 4s before you can comfortably fly a Battleship.
And no, these changes are not going to change the ineffectiveness of BCs because their damage application vs damage received is the issue, not their ability to warp from point A to point B. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15547
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:04:34 -
[66] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:
Drake is going to lose almost 60% of its DPS against any cruiser. Cane is going to lose almost 40% of its DPS against any cruiser.
Any Cruiser is going to retain nearly 100% of its DPS against a BC.
And any cruiser will lose the same amount of DPS vs another cruiser. They use the same weapons and the BC gets more fitting room and often more damage.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1136
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:09:04 -
[67] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Drake is going to lose almost 60% of its DPS against any cruiser. Cane is going to lose almost 40% of its DPS against any cruiser.
Any Cruiser is going to retain nearly 100% of its DPS against a BC.
And any cruiser will lose the same amount of DPS vs another cruiser. They use the same weapons and the BC gets more fitting room and often more damage.
Correct they will, but they will also take less damage against other cruisers. Thus negating the benefit of BCs increased tank, who are taking nearly 100% of paper DPS before resists.
BCs are to big "size" wise in the damage mechanics to be cost effective...except against other BC's i suppose.
If CCP was ferserious about tweaking BC's they would drop their sig radius down so they don't eat nearly 100% damage from mediums AND larges.
I mean just a standard shield fit on any of the BC's balloons them to almost Carrier size.... |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15547
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:21:37 -
[68] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Drake is going to lose almost 60% of its DPS against any cruiser. Cane is going to lose almost 40% of its DPS against any cruiser.
Any Cruiser is going to retain nearly 100% of its DPS against a BC.
And any cruiser will lose the same amount of DPS vs another cruiser. They use the same weapons and the BC gets more fitting room and often more damage. Correct they will, but they will also take less damage against other cruisers. Thus negating the benefit of BCs increased tank, who are taking nearly 100% of paper DPS before resists. BCs are to big "size" wise in the damage mechanics to be cost effective...except against other BC's i suppose. If CCP was ferserious about tweaking BC's they would drop their sig radius down so they don't eat nearly 100% damage from mediums AND larges. I mean just a standard shield fit on any of the BC's balloons them to almost Carrier size (tracking Titans vs Buffer Drakes anyone)....
So why exactly should I be getting 800 DPS out of a 220 vulcan cane with only 2 t2 damage mods?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1136
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:33:01 -
[69] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Drake is going to lose almost 60% of its DPS against any cruiser. Cane is going to lose almost 40% of its DPS against any cruiser.
Any Cruiser is going to retain nearly 100% of its DPS against a BC.
And any cruiser will lose the same amount of DPS vs another cruiser. They use the same weapons and the BC gets more fitting room and often more damage. Correct they will, but they will also take less damage against other cruisers. Thus negating the benefit of BCs increased tank, who are taking nearly 100% of paper DPS before resists. BCs are to big "size" wise in the damage mechanics to be cost effective...except against other BC's i suppose. If CCP was ferserious about tweaking BC's they would drop their sig radius down so they don't eat nearly 100% damage from mediums AND larges. I mean just a standard shield fit on any of the BC's balloons them to almost Carrier size (tracking Titans vs Buffer Drakes anyone).... So why exactly should I be getting 800 DPS out of a 220 vulcan cane with only 2 t2 damage mods?
Because your ass is going to get kitted and killed by a 200 DPS HML Caracal? Balance =D
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15547
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:37:00 -
[70] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:
Because your ass is going to get kitted and killed by a 200 DPS HML Caracal? Balance =D
It needs to get in my weapon range to hold me and it will pop long before I do.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1136
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:41:36 -
[71] - Quote
24K > 17K friend. and worst case....caracal just warps away and you left holding your **** in your hand. Fun stuff. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15547
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:46:55 -
[72] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:24K > 17K friend. and worst case....caracal just warps away and you left holding your **** in your hand. Fun stuff.
22km range and only 300m/s slower than the caracal.
BC are not nearly as helpless as you are trying to make out.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1136
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 05:49:54 -
[73] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:24K > 17K friend. and worst case....caracal just warps away and you left holding your **** in your hand. Fun stuff. 22km range and only 300m/s slower than the caracal. BC are not nearly as helpless as you are trying to make out.
MMMM that fall off Accuracy. So you will be doing what...50 DPS at 22K? Well maybe 150 DPS with your Drones I guess.
BC aren't helpless....they just aren't worth the ISK when you can get nearly the exact same functionality from a ship 1/5th the cost. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15547
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 06:01:29 -
[74] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:24K > 17K friend. and worst case....caracal just warps away and you left holding your **** in your hand. Fun stuff. 22km range and only 300m/s slower than the caracal. BC are not nearly as helpless as you are trying to make out. MMMM that fall off Accuracy. So you will be doing what...50 DPS at 22K? Well maybe 150 DPS with your Drones I guess. BC aren't helpless....they just aren't worth the ISK when you can get nearly the exact same functionality from a ship 1/5th the cost.
Cost means nothing.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1136
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 06:10:45 -
[75] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:24K > 17K friend. and worst case....caracal just warps away and you left holding your **** in your hand. Fun stuff. 22km range and only 300m/s slower than the caracal. BC are not nearly as helpless as you are trying to make out. MMMM that fall off Accuracy. So you will be doing what...50 DPS at 22K? Well maybe 150 DPS with your Drones I guess. BC aren't helpless....they just aren't worth the ISK when you can get nearly the exact same functionality from a ship 1/5th the cost. Cost means nothing.
Oh it most certainly does to the vast vast vast majority of the player base....
If BCs were at all "useful" or "good" in this game, then they would be the most common ships flown just like they used to be when they were the best bang for the buck...because that is how this game works. Cruisers are the best bang for the buck currently, and it is why they are far and away the most used hull size.
Numbers don't lie, you can come up with any niche fits you want, none of them will break the mold because the mechanics don't allow it (see cane vs caracal, whose DPS will be hardpressed to break the passive shield recharge in falloff). Your Mega certainly didn't. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
503
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 06:39:23 -
[76] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Drake is going to lose almost 60% of its DPS against any cruiser. Cane is going to lose almost 40% of its DPS against any cruiser.
Any Cruiser is going to retain nearly 100% of its DPS against a BC.
And any cruiser will lose the same amount of DPS vs another cruiser. They use the same weapons and the BC gets more fitting room and often more damage.
No. Cruisers have application bonuses, which make them superior in most situations. |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
91
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 06:59:33 -
[77] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:
No. Cruisers have application bonuses, which make them superior in most situations.
Harbinger Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
vs.
Omen Amarr Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Not sure where is the trick. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1017
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 07:06:01 -
[78] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Drake is going to lose almost 60% of its DPS against any cruiser. Cane is going to lose almost 40% of its DPS against any cruiser.
Any Cruiser is going to retain nearly 100% of its DPS against a BC.
And any cruiser will lose the same amount of DPS vs another cruiser. They use the same weapons and the BC gets more fitting room and often more damage. No. Cruisers have application bonuses, which make them superior in most situations.
That and the point which was being made/aimed for is for all the hurricane [it was the first one mentioned] has more guns and more fitting due to the sig and speed it's going to take a shedload more damage from ALL sources compared to say, a cruiser. This becomes immediately relevant the second there's an ABC or a battleship on grid, granted the former being far more likely than the latter.
Also extra fittings aren't really generous or anything, mainly so they can make use of all their slots. Again to use the hurricane, it was 170 more grid....but even a dual 180mm ACII is 79 grid (at AWU V) sooo...yeah...not a lot "spare". And that's the smallest guns.
They are really, really good in a narrow niche as I've said - that niche being parking up at point blank and brawling like a hero. The most effective fits I've found are very high tracking guns, scrams & webs and an MMJD and hunt over confident frigate gangs, you did need people to come to you, it's not catching anything.
In open field fighting and roaming...poor overall due to a lack of ability to ...I was going to say dictate range but really it's more not even able to contest it well. We'd often bring one as a cheap booster but the body of the fleet was frigate/crusier/ABC.
The question is - what role are they supposed to have, are they failing to deliver in it and if so, why? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15547
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 09:37:54 -
[79] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:
Oh it most certainly does to the vast vast vast majority of the player base....
If BCs were at all "useful" or "good" in this game, then they would be the most common ships flown just like they used to be when they were the best bang for the buck...because that is how this game works. Cruisers are the best bang for the buck currently, and it is why they are far and away the most used hull size.
Numbers don't lie, you can come up with any niche fits you want, none of them will break the mold because the mechanics don't allow it (see your cane vs caracal). Your Mega certainly didn't.
Cost means nothing because we no matter how expensive it is we can afford it. You are never going to get 5 times the performance for five times the cost.
Right now the single most dangerous ship in my book is the golem, yet you don't see lots of them flying around. The single most destructive anti-frig ship is the rattlesnake yet you never see it being used for such a role. BC are in good shape the problem is pilots such as yourself look at EFT and want to find excuses to not fly them. You refuse to take the time to learn to fly these ships and base your entire argument on EFT numbers rather than in game experience. The real problem here is that nobody tries anything anymore, you just give up and demand that CCP make everything the same.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1497
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 10:12:25 -
[80] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, the penalty change from CPU to sig radius is incredibly disappointing. My ship fits with warp speed rigs (like my raptor) work fine around the cpu penalty, but are now punished worse by the sig radius change. This helps balance out the bonuses though, since the warp-speed rigs are already far more beneficial on smaller ships than they are on larger ones.
Indeed it does, though it doesn't make the rigs any more desirable on anything bigger than a frigate imo. The only large ships I would use them on is a carrier for pve, and even then, the CPU is nowhere close to mattering. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15548
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 12:46:29 -
[81] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Arronicus wrote:However, the penalty change from CPU to sig radius is incredibly disappointing. My ship fits with warp speed rigs (like my raptor) work fine around the cpu penalty, but are now punished worse by the sig radius change. This helps balance out the bonuses though, since the warp-speed rigs are already far more beneficial on smaller ships than they are on larger ones. Indeed it does, though it doesn't make the rigs any more desirable on anything bigger than a frigate imo. The only large ships I would use them on is a carrier for pve, and even then, the CPU is nowhere close to mattering.
Makes a big difference for my 425 megathrons.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1138
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 12:52:17 -
[82] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Oh it most certainly does to the vast vast vast majority of the player base....
If BCs were at all "useful" or "good" in this game, then they would be the most common ships flown just like they used to be when they were the best bang for the buck...because that is how this game works. Cruisers are the best bang for the buck currently, and it is why they are far and away the most used hull size.
Numbers don't lie, you can come up with any niche fits you want, none of them will break the mold because the mechanics don't allow it (see your cane vs caracal). Your Mega certainly didn't.
Cost means nothing because we no matter how expensive it is we can afford it. You are never going to get 5 times the performance for five times the cost. Right now the single most dangerous ship in my book is the golem, yet you don't see lots of them flying around. The single most destructive anti-frig ship is the rattlesnake yet you never see it being used for such a role. BC are in good shape the problem is pilots such as yourself look at EFT and want to find excuses to not fly them. You refuse to take the time to learn to fly these ships and base your entire argument on EFT numbers rather than in game experience. The real problem here is that nobody tries anything anymore, you just give up and demand that CCP make everything the same.
Well opinions are like assholes, and everyone has one.
The only thing that matters is numbers...fact is Cruiser hulls are far and away the most popular ships in the game right now, because of the bang you get for your buck. Period. Just as it was when BC's were the most popular ships in the game. Unfortunately this impact is most heavily felt on the BS end of things because their natural prey BC's are heavily underused, for several reason, most importantly cost inefficiency.
As I said outside of a few niche scenarios BCs just do not stack up against the price point of cruisers in ACTUAL usage. For someone who claims to not be "blinded" by EFT, your opinion is based outside of actual reality of usage, looking to paper instead of the mechanical interactions with the ships. (Case in point your 800 Paper DPS Cane whose real DPS against the 200DPS Caracal is going to be under 100DPS without Drones, and barely enough to bleed through the passive shield tank of the Caracal)
At the end of the day, there is almost no reason whatsoever to undock in a BC, because there are Cruisers that can accomplish the same functional goal, for a fraction of the price, and the only reason you would fly one is because you WANT to. This is a top down game, you should know this, and because of the nature of that BC's go unused because they simply are not effective at their price point by comparison.
3-4 years ago we had a nice game of rock>paper>scissors. With Cruisers>BCs>BS. For the past couple years one of those links has steadily been in decline, resulting in such great situations as Ishtars Online to which the communities response was "Please nerf CCP", instead of, let me get in the ship that is supposedly designed in being anti-cruiser hell some folks skipped BC's entirely and jumped to BS to deal with Cruisers.... Obviously CCP sees there is an issue with BC's or they wouldn't have made a tweak on them, if everything is fine and dandy as you say, then the guys with all the hard numbers wouldn't be tweaking them no?
Now whether this change actually impacts usage is another thing, I don't think it will but hey...i also have an *******.
(unrelated, I agree the Golem is bad ass, but you don't see them in numbers A) Its skill intensive, B) Its expensive for most folks, not everyone has mounds of passive moongoo backing them, or buys PLEX to whenever they want more ISK. That is the reality of the game) |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15548
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:04:39 -
[83] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:
As I said outside of a few niche scenarios BCs just do not stack up against the price point of cruisers in ACTUAL usage.
That just your personal choice. Again price is no barrier to most people, I myself fly a 2 billion isk ship in harpy fleet. Why? Because why not?
Mario Putzo wrote:At the end of the day, there is almost no reason whatsoever to undock in a BC. There is no reason to not undock them either. Again, this is your choice. Mario Putzo wrote: 3-4 years ago we had a nice game of rock>paper>scissors.
Oh god no. Before teircide the vast bulk of ships were useless. We have never had as many options as we do today. [quote=Mario Putzo] (unrelated, I agree the Golem is bad ass, but you don't see them in numbers A) Its skill intensive, B) Its expensive for most folks, not everyone has mounds of passive moongoo backing them, or buys PLEX to whenever they want more ISK. That is the reality of the game)
Skills are no barrier. This game is over a decade old, plenty of people can fly them.
Cost is no barrier. 2-3 bil is nothing these days and you do not need moon goo or plex to get it.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
124
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:06:49 -
[84] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Skills are no barrier. This game is over a decade old, plenty of people can fly them.
But it is. Unless one enjoys a game where the same 7500 people shuffle around with no new blood coming in. vOv
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1139
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:13:33 -
[85] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Skills are no barrier. This game is over a decade old, plenty of people can fly them.
Cost is no barrier. 2-3 bil is nothing these days and you do not need moon goo or plex to get it.
"Hey Guys i should be the measuring stick for balance, I generate a lot of ISK and have over a decades worth of SP, Nothing matters to me, so it shouldn't matter to you either!"
Get real guy.
The majority of EVE don't share these traits...if you believe otherwise take your pants off your head they may be cutting off blood flow.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1245
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 13:41:36 -
[86] - Quote
I might finally be able to make my talos keep up with the t3 fleet.
Slepnir, Yaaaaaay.
This helps address one of the battle cruisers biggest issues, keeping up with cruisers.
Battleships I get, but the bc really got smacked with the warp speed changes.
Can bring Em back for some more wormhole work
Yaay!!!!
|
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates Forged of Fire
81
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:53:15 -
[87] - Quote
Good stuff, both of those needed some love.
I kind of don't like the signature penalty. But I can get over it. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
161
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 14:53:56 -
[88] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:baltec1 wrote: Skills are no barrier. This game is over a decade old, plenty of people can fly them.
Cost is no barrier. 2-3 bil is nothing these days and you do not need moon goo or plex to get it.
"Hey Guys i should be the measuring stick for balance, I generate a lot of ISK and have over a decades worth of SP, Nothing matters to me, so it shouldn't matter to you either!" Get real guy. The majority of EVE don't share these traits...if you believe otherwise take your pants off your head they may be cutting off blood flow. Fact is, BCs are not worth the money in the vast majority of circumstances. You can spin it however you want but using your own personal situation as a measuring stick is a pretty weak argument.
Have you never interacted with Baltec before? He dismisses every argument in this fashion. Hes a nullsec scrublord who claims lots of things, but very rarely actually flies what he posts. He seems to think unbonused acs project out to 30km and apply perfectly to anything. Just be prepared for a comeback of how he made the baltec mega and forced thousands of f1 warriors to use it.
However, one thing to point out is that BCs are on par (cost wise) with most t1 cruiser fits if you factor in insurance. My drake fits are about 30m after insurance. Most t1 cruisers fit up around 20-30m.
Ive been flying bcs a lot lately. The biggest reason is MMJD. That module alone, is the only thing keeping bcs viable in a solo/small gang role. It is the holy grail in countering the kite meta and offsetting bcs slow speed.
Id like to see CCP expand on the MMJD on bcs alil more. Cooldown reduction maybe. It would also be nice to see a minor HP buff across the board, but thats wishful thinking. Regardless, ill still fly bcs and get easy fights with cheap fits.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
605
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:26:37 -
[89] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I might finally be able to make my talos keep up with the t3 fleet.
Slepnir, Yaaaaaay.
This helps address one of the battle cruisers biggest issues, keeping up with cruisers.
Battleships I get, but the bc really got smacked with the warp speed changes.
Can bring Em back for some more wormhole work
Phoenix dear, there are more battlecruiser hulls than your 2000dps ubar-gank-boat with 5 x-large asbs.
I believe it would be best if CCP would increase the baseprice of battlecruisers and battleships by 100% and decrease the ehp a bit, let's say 200% to really make them worthwhile.
That way we can almost be sure that we never fly them ever again.
signature
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15554
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:41:08 -
[90] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:
"Hey Guys i should be the measuring stick for balance, I generate a lot of ISK and have over a decades worth of SP, Nothing matters to me, so it shouldn't matter to you either!"
So most eve players are less than a year old?
As for the isk, you can make 80mil/hr on level 3 missions in highsec at just 4 months old.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1139
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 15:56:24 -
[91] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: Id like to see CCP expand on the MMJD on bcs alil more. Cooldown reduction maybe. It would also be nice to see a minor HP buff across the board, but thats wishful thinking. Regardless, ill still fly bcs and get easy fights with cheap fits.
I like the idea of a MMJD role bonus on BC's. They definitely make the ships more enjoyable to use. I don't think HP bonus would be good, Id rather see a slight reduction in Sig Radius so they don't eat nearly full damage from Larges and Mediums. Something on the lines of 10-15% would be nice.
Heck Id say instead of a warp change they do the sig radius change...then if people want to warp faster they can use these new rigs and take a sig radius penalty essentially putting their sigs back where they are now.
Barring that maybe tweaking the tracking mod value for BC's...kind of ridiculous they eat damage like they do from 2 weapon tiers. If CCP wants to make the relationship like Frigs/Destroyers then BC's need to take less damage from ship sizes above them like Destroyer do from Mediums.
|
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1139
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:00:33 -
[92] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
"Hey Guys i should be the measuring stick for balance, I generate a lot of ISK and have over a decades worth of SP, Nothing matters to me, so it shouldn't matter to you either!"
So most eve players are less than a year old? As for the isk, you can make 80mil/hr on level 3 missions in highsec at just 4 months old.
Goooooooo Hyperbole!
I made almost 8B yesterday and I didn't even have to log in. #winning. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1019
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 16:29:47 -
[93] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
"Hey Guys i should be the measuring stick for balance, I generate a lot of ISK and have over a decades worth of SP, Nothing matters to me, so it shouldn't matter to you either!"
So most eve players are less than a year old? As for the isk, you can make 80mil/hr on level 3 missions in highsec at just 4 months old.
No, you can't. They won't have the skills nor the faction standing required for this. Sitting in the Ishtar isn't the same as actually being able to use it to an acceptable standard. T2 sentries are almost a month alone.
Plus it's been nerfed twice since those numbers.
He has a point - there are loads of people now who missed the dessie/BC split(!!!!) and a serious PvP golem pilot is a very intensive train down a pretty isolated path as far as PvP goes. 'Most' people aren't going to chase marauders V unless they're carebears. It's the kind of thing you do when there's not much more day to day stuff left. |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
243
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 20:32:24 -
[94] - Quote
I don't see the warp speed changes to BC's increasing their use all that much if at all, but it will ease some of the discomfort of using them in the niches that they fill now for those that do use them.
If CCP intends to increase the use of BC and or BB's to a more common level then they are going to have to do more than these changes. But if they are happy with Cruisers online then they are on the right track I suppose.*shrugs*
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4306
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 21:11:36 -
[95] - Quote
Battlecruisers still suck.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1113
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 21:54:36 -
[96] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote: Id like to see CCP expand on the MMJD on bcs alil more. Cooldown reduction maybe. It would also be nice to see a minor HP buff across the board, but thats wishful thinking. Regardless, ill still fly bcs and get easy fights with cheap fits.
I like the idea of a MMJD role bonus on BC's. They definitely make the ships more enjoyable to use. I don't think HP bonus would be good, Id rather see a slight reduction in Sig Radius so they don't eat nearly full damage from Larges and Mediums. Something on the lines of 10-15% would be nice. Heck Id say instead of a warp change they do the sig radius change...then if people want to warp faster they can use these new rigs and take a sig radius penalty essentially putting their sigs back where they are now. Barring that maybe tweaking the tracking mod value for BC's...kind of ridiculous they eat damage like they do from 2 weapon tiers. If CCP wants to make the relationship like Frigs/Destroyers then BC's need to take less damage from ship sizes above them like Destroyer do from Mediums.
all bc's do need a sig reduction, if they want the frig- dessie cruiser-bc relationship than a closer sig too cruisers is mandatory.
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 mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
128
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 21:57:05 -
[97] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers still suck.
More News at 11.
The benefits BC give over cruiser equivalents, or BS over BC/cruisers is linear and negligible, while the price is isn't.
Battleships at 200m is a joke. Awhile back, tier 1 and 2 at 60-110 mil was bearable by the market.
Nowadays? Cruisers Online.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
91
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:07:03 -
[98] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers still suck. More News at 11. The benefits BC give over cruiser equivalents, or BS over BC/cruisers is linear and negligible, while the price is isn't. Battleships at 200m is a joke. Awhile back, tier 1 and 2 at 60-110 mil was bearable by the market. Nowadays? Cruisers Online.
I think we need at least double price tag for all t1 cruisers. |
Mario Putzo
Iron Dog Industries
1149
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:08:43 -
[99] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers still suck. More News at 11. The benefits BC give over cruiser equivalents, or BS over BC/cruisers is linear and negligible, while the price is isn't. Battleships at 200m is a joke. Awhile back, tier 1 and 2 at 60-110 mil was bearable by the market. Nowadays? Cruisers Online. Harvey James wrote: all bc's do need a sig reduction
That alone won't help. To become really BATTLEcruisers, effective turrets have to be raised to 12 at the very least, after bonuses. That's 30% damage increase from today's levels. Then the new BC-BS gap would put a final nail in the BATTLEship coffin. vOv Since nothing will be done to either BC or BS, the solution is posted below. TL;DR: Cruisers Online.
Doesn't help BS are shite against cruisers either, Need the BCs to eat cruiser, so the BS can eat BCs and Cruiser can eat the BS...a healthy food chain. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
128
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:11:29 -
[100] - Quote
Tiddle Jr wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers still suck. More News at 11. The benefits BC give over cruiser equivalents, or BS over BC/cruisers is linear and negligible, while the price is isn't. Battleships at 200m is a joke. Awhile back, tier 1 and 2 at 60-110 mil was bearable by the market. Nowadays? Cruisers Online. I think we need at least double price tag for all t1 cruisers.
Price-fixing is not the most optimal solution, and there's a danger of breaking the market/people not doing PVP at all, or scaling down to frigs.
Ship use by (arch)type: http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
128
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:14:17 -
[101] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: Doesn't help BS are shite against cruisers either, Need the BCs to eat cruiser, so the BS can eat BCs and Cruiser can eat the BS...a healthy food chain.
Used to be that way.
Then many factors pushed battleships, primarily, to the rubbish bin. Carriers, Dreads, Bombers, Cost, T3, prevalence of T2-trained pilots by the time capitals went live, Ishtars specifically.
Etc.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1113
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:15:28 -
[102] - Quote
so a sig radius analysis of cruisers to their relative class of bc,
rupture - hurricane/cyclone 125m - 250m, a full 100% increase
rifter - talwar 35m - 60m, about 85% increase
so we can see from here a 15% reduction in bc's sig radius is needed alongside the warp speed changes to get the achieved goal here.
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 mechanic, nerf sentries.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1022
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:19:58 -
[103] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers still suck. More News at 11. The benefits BC give over cruiser equivalents, or BS over BC/cruisers is linear and negligible, while the price is isn't. Battleships at 200m is a joke. Awhile back, tier 1 and 2 at 60-110 mil was bearable by the market. Nowadays? Cruisers Online.
Well since the insurance changed it's more manageable. Domis are spitting out ~203m on plat insurance now.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1385
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:23:34 -
[104] - Quote
afkalt wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
"Hey Guys i should be the measuring stick for balance, I generate a lot of ISK and have over a decades worth of SP, Nothing matters to me, so it shouldn't matter to you either!"
So most eve players are less than a year old? As for the isk, you can make 80mil/hr on level 3 missions in highsec at just 4 months old. No, you can't. They won't have the skills nor the faction standing required for this. Sitting in the Ishtar isn't the same as actually being able to use it to an acceptable standard. T2 sentries are almost a month alone. Plus it's been nerfed twice since those numbers. He has a point - there are loads of people now who missed the dessie/BC split(!!!!) and a serious PvP golem pilot is a very intensive train down a pretty isolated path as far as PvP goes. 'Most' people aren't going to chase marauders V unless they're carebears. It's the kind of thing you do when there's not much more day to day stuff left. Off topic but IIRC this goes back to the lvl 3 stomping Mach which really didn't need lvl 5 skills to shine. Really at 4 moths the isk to get the ship bought and fitted is the only barrier assuming no time was wasted on things other than getting there. Standing wouldn't be an issue either if you missioned for 4 months. You only need it at the corp level. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
608
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:27:25 -
[105] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Well since the insurance changed it's more manageable. Domis are spitting out ~203m on plat insurance now.
So that would be 250m for the naked hull and the insurance, you do know you may want to fit something there first?
Thing is you do not get 350m worth of isk, you get 65m isk worth if that. But you will get kited in a 70m isk hull instead, which you cannot hit.
signature
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1022
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:29:04 -
[106] - Quote
I thought it was the ishtar, however it's still a no from me: it's faction as it involves a decline of everything non-blitzable, I didnt mean just the agent access. You also will lack the social skills for isk and LP payout, most likely.
However, mach or ishtar aside - Stoicfaux who did it will have had excellent skills, far in excess of some 4 month old newbie |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1022
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:30:33 -
[107] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:afkalt wrote:Well since the insurance changed it's more manageable. Domis are spitting out ~203m on plat insurance now.
So that would be 250m for the naked hull and the insurance, you do know you may want to fit something there first? Thing is you do not get 350m worth of isk, you get 65m isk worth if that. But you will get kited in a 70m isk hull instead, which you cannot hit.
Doesn't have anything to do with the cost though; the insurance used to be utterly worthless - now it's not, especially if you know you're going to die most likely. It was an excellent change that make T1 BS far more welpable. But I digress. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
129
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:34:17 -
[108] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:afkalt wrote:Well since the insurance changed it's more manageable. Domis are spitting out ~203m on plat insurance now.
So that would be 250m for the naked hull and the insurance, you do know you may want to fit something there first? Thing is you do not get 350m worth of isk, you get 65m isk worth if that. But you will get kited in a 70m isk hull instead, which you cannot hit.
His point is that hull insurance payout is good on BS. It matches other tech 1 equivalents, but a 250m hull+insurance is a high entry barrier for most people.
Why fly a battleship if you can buy it, anyway? Attack BC are there - 1/3 cost with better mobility and survivability.
Same weapons systems, same/equivalent hull bonuses? Bingo-presto.
I thought Attack BC were a joke concept at first, but cancer spread and good job fixing battleships now. vOv
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1385
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:35:16 -
[109] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I thought it was the ishtar, however it's still a no from me: it's faction as it involves a decline of everything non-blitzable, I didnt mean just the agent access. You also will lack the social skills for isk and LP payout, most likely.
However, mach or ishtar aside - Stoicfaux who did it will have had excellent skills, far in excess of some 4 month old newbie i thought he didn't blitz, but I can't seem to find the thread for it. |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
91
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:35:56 -
[110] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Tiddle Jr wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers still suck. More News at 11. The benefits BC give over cruiser equivalents, or BS over BC/cruisers is linear and negligible, while the price is isn't. Battleships at 200m is a joke. Awhile back, tier 1 and 2 at 60-110 mil was bearable by the market. Nowadays? Cruisers Online. I think we need at least double price tag for all t1 cruisers. Price-fixing is not the most optimal solution, and there's a danger of breaking the market/people not doing PVP at all, or scaling down to frigs. Ship use by (arch)type: http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
But you complaining about BS prices |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
129
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:37:45 -
[111] - Quote
Tiddle Jr wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Tiddle Jr wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Battlecruisers still suck. More News at 11. The benefits BC give over cruiser equivalents, or BS over BC/cruisers is linear and negligible, while the price is isn't. Battleships at 200m is a joke. Awhile back, tier 1 and 2 at 60-110 mil was bearable by the market. Nowadays? Cruisers Online. I think we need at least double price tag for all t1 cruisers. Price-fixing is not the most optimal solution, and there's a danger of breaking the market/people not doing PVP at all, or scaling down to frigs. Ship use by (arch)type: http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png But you complaining about BS prices
I'm not, I don't fly them. Neither does all of Eve due to them being... ****. So instead of price-fixing, how about BC and BS get fixed to justify paying for them?
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1022
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 22:43:48 -
[112] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:afkalt wrote:I thought it was the ishtar, however it's still a no from me: it's faction as it involves a decline of everything non-blitzable, I didnt mean just the agent access. You also will lack the social skills for isk and LP payout, most likely.
However, mach or ishtar aside - Stoicfaux who did it will have had excellent skills, far in excess of some 4 month old newbie i thought he didn't blitz, but I can't seem to find the thread for it.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345580
Also it was assets to set aside the hassle of hauling, selling and taxes/trade skills
It was a full T2 fit and 5% implants (so cybernetics IV). Additionally social LP skill at V, otherwise IV. Gunnery at 5/4. Support skills at V. MWD skills at IV.
The spreadsheet link shows a series of declines only possible with high faction standing, even going so far as to knock back missions more than 2J away. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1385
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 23:16:59 -
[113] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:afkalt wrote:I thought it was the ishtar, however it's still a no from me: it's faction as it involves a decline of everything non-blitzable, I didnt mean just the agent access. You also will lack the social skills for isk and LP payout, most likely.
However, mach or ishtar aside - Stoicfaux who did it will have had excellent skills, far in excess of some 4 month old newbie i thought he didn't blitz, but I can't seem to find the thread for it. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345580 Also it was assets to set aside the hassle of hauling, selling and taxes/trade skills It was a full T2 fit and 5% implants (so cybernetics IV). Additionally social LP skill at V, otherwise IV. Gunnery at 5/4. Support skills at V. MWD skills at IV. The spreadsheet link shows a series of declines only possible with high faction standing, even going so far as to knock back missions more than 2J away. Good find, yeah, I apparently misremembered some details. That still leaves some room for good income with 40-60 doable. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1023
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 23:27:53 -
[114] - Quote
Indeed, but it's a long way from keeping you in blinged golems and HG crystal sets |
Liam Inkuras
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
1503
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 23:34:36 -
[115] - Quote
Triple hyperspatial mach is a go
I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
|
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
166
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 01:48:53 -
[116] - Quote
Only real problem with BC's is that cruisers are way too fast and have basically the same damage projection. So cruisers can just run rings around them and then leave when all BC's are dead. All the BC's get is more ehp and damage. Which doesn't really help. At least with BS the projection is better and damage a lot higher as is the EHP/Rep. Also they get Heavy Neuts. There is no reason to use a BC atm, except perhaps for ABC (Oracle decent damage boat for nano armor gang) or you enjoy EVE on "hardmode" ofc.
You buffed cruisers too much. Also the T3D's don't help much (Svipul mostly). Our Corp KB for top 10 ships used last month:-
Svipul 215 Typhoon Fleet Issue 35 Vagabond 32 Absoluiton 29 Lachesis 25 Confessor 23 Orthrus 21 Rattlesnake 20 Legion 11 Nighthawk 11
Previous Month:-
Confessor 179 Svipul 60 Raven 50 Keres 18 Oracle 17 Cyclone 16 Omen Navy Issue 16 Deimos 15 Stiletto 14 Muninn 14
More nerfs please to Cruisers and T3D's. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
332
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 03:04:15 -
[117] - Quote
So, throwing together a couple of skeleton fits for testing purposes...
Drake with a single Explosion Velocity rig vs a Caracal with a 10MN Afterburner. Both use the EFT all-5s profile, and both have 3 BC IIs and a full loadout of HMLs.
The Drake applies 142 DPS to the Caracal and the Caracal applies 284 DPS to the Drake. Exactly double the applied DPS, but the Drake has almost four times the raw EHP of the Caracal and, when you look at some of the other available fittings can be passively fit to tank the Caracal all day, while the Caracal can not perma-tank the Drake, though it can probably escape easily. In a straight up fight of raw EHP between gangs of 10 the Caracals are going to lose at least two ships for every Drake that dies.
It's also worth noting that the Caracal gains no benefit from a Target Painter in this situation, but the Drake sees an increase to 176 applies DPS from just a single Tech 2 TP.
Running a similar setup between the Hurricane and the Rupture with ACs but with a single Tracking Enhancer on each ship we see a similar relationship, except the Hurricane is only losing on DPS by about a 1/3rd (389DPS to 283DPS at 5km, optimal DPS range for the Rupture) and still maintains a convincing tank advantage over the Rupture.
In short, a Battlecruiser with a similar basic fit has distinct advantages over a Cruiser. Of course the details of these fits are going to make or break them, but the BC has more fitting space, more slots, and more EHP to play with and uses the same weapons, so while it may not be able to catch every Cruiser out there it is very likely able to deal damage to it and in significant enough amounts to make up for the application difference between the two ships. Go figure the guy from Goons with a fleet concept named after him knows something about ship strengths and weaknesses... |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
526
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 05:19:20 -
[118] - Quote
Sir Livingston wrote:battlecruiser usage must be low
Considering they do balance based on usage stats yes I'd say a buff does likely require that the subject was under utilised.
I do find it credulous that the sole reason battlecruisers aren't used is because of warp speed. It might have more to do with their being a bloated cruiser without much more to offer (and sometimes a lot less).
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
526
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 05:22:04 -
[119] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:So, throwing together a couple of skeleton fits for testing purposes... Drake with a single Explosion Velocity rig vs a Caracal with a 10MN Afterburner. Both use the EFT all-5s profile, and both have 3 BC IIs and a full loadout of HMLs. The Drake applies 142 DPS to the Caracal and the Caracal applies 284 DPS to the Drake. Exactly double the applied DPS, but the Drake has almost four times the raw EHP of the Caracal and, when you look at some of the other available fittings can be passively fit to tank the Caracal all day, while the Caracal can not perma-tank the Drake, though it can probably escape easily. In a straight up fight of raw EHP between gangs of 10 the Caracals are going to lose at least two ships for every Drake that dies. It's also worth noting that the Caracal gains no benefit from a Target Painter in this situation, but the Drake sees an increase to 176 applies DPS from just a single Tech 2 TP. Running a similar setup between the Hurricane and the Rupture with ACs but with a single Tracking Enhancer on each ship we see a similar relationship, except the Hurricane is only losing on DPS by about a 1/3rd (389DPS to 283DPS at 5km, optimal DPS range for the Rupture) and still maintains a convincing tank advantage over the Rupture. In short, a Battlecruiser with a similar basic fit has distinct advantages over a Cruiser. Of course the details of these fits are going to make or break them, but the BC has more fitting space, more slots, and more EHP to play with and uses the same weapons, so while it may not be able to catch every Cruiser out there it is very likely able to deal damage to it and in significant enough amounts to make up for the application difference between the two ships. Go figure the guy from Goons with a fleet concept named after him knows something about ship strengths and weaknesses...
I see you talking about hml.
Im sick of this topic. Ccp can just nerf them again and refund my sp at this point. I have better things to spend 2million sp on - such as carriers.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
332
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 05:55:46 -
[120] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Sir Livingston wrote:battlecruiser usage must be low Considering they do balance based on usage stats yes I'd say a buff does likely require that the subject was under utilised. I do find it credulous that the sole reason battlecruisers aren't used is because of warp speed. It might have more to do with their being a bloated cruiser without much more to offer (and sometimes a lot less).
They don't just balance based on usage stats. Rise said flat out at the Fanfest Balance panel that they feel BCs and Battleship usage is fine according to their metrics. This changes was precipitated by a well reasoned argument from a player (also said during a Fanfest talk).
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I see you talking about hml.
Im sick of this topic. Ccp can just nerf them again and refund my sp at this point. I have better things to spend 2million sp on - such as carriers.
I grabbed a couple of relatively straight-forward examples. If I had the ability to run every possible configuration of fits for both ships I'd be finding a way to sell either it or me to CCP.
AFAIK no one is forcing you to post here either. |
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
503
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 07:09:09 -
[121] - Quote
Tiddle Jr wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:
No. Cruisers have application bonuses, which make them superior in most situations.
Harbinger Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage vs. Omen Amarr Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire Not sure where is the trick.
There's also a CBC with application bonus, but in general CBCs have damage and tanking bonuses, and are therefore weaker fighting smaller ships. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15561
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 07:27:53 -
[122] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Why fly a battleship if you can buy it, anyway? Attack BC are there - 1/3 cost with better mobility and survivability.
Well we all now know you don't fly either class of ship.
afkalt wrote:Indeed, but it's a long way from keeping you in blinged golems and HG crystal sets
My RHML raven managed it with just basic skills.
I had to train my alt into the mach and had it running within a month. 6 months on it makes enough to buy and fit a quafe mega and a comedy dread. But you can always fund yourself via manufacturing and trade which is where the big money is to be made.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1023
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 08:42:29 -
[123] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:So, throwing together a couple of skeleton fits for testing purposes... Drake with a single Explosion Velocity rig vs a Caracal with a 10MN Afterburner. Both use the EFT all-5s profile, and both have 3 BC IIs and a full loadout of HMLs. The Drake applies 142 DPS to the Caracal and the Caracal applies 284 DPS to the Drake. Exactly double the applied DPS, but the Drake has almost four times the raw EHP of the Caracal and, when you look at some of the other available fittings can be passively fit to tank the Caracal all day, while the Caracal can not perma-tank the Drake, though it can probably escape easily. In a straight up fight of raw EHP between gangs of 10 the Caracals are going to lose at least two ships for every Drake that dies. It's also worth noting that the Caracal gains no benefit from a Target Painter in this situation, but the Drake sees an increase to 176 applies DPS from just a single Tech 2 TP. Running a similar setup between the Hurricane and the Rupture with ACs but with a single Tracking Enhancer on each ship we see a similar relationship, except the Hurricane is only losing on DPS by about a 1/3rd (389DPS to 283DPS at 5km, optimal DPS range for the Rupture) and still maintains a convincing tank advantage over the Rupture. In short, a Battlecruiser with a similar basic fit has distinct advantages over a Cruiser. Of course the details of these fits are going to make or break them, but the BC has more fitting space, more slots, and more EHP to play with and uses the same weapons, so while it may not be able to catch every Cruiser out there it is very likely able to deal damage to it and in significant enough amounts to make up for the application difference between the two ships. Go figure the guy from Goons with a fleet concept named after him knows something about ship strengths and weaknesses...
That caracal can use fury though.... |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
332
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 08:56:33 -
[124] - Quote
afkalt wrote:That caracal can use fury though....
And the Drake can use Precision, which evens things out. Besides if you run the numbers of Furies versus just CN Scourge it's still not enough for the Caracal to beat the Drake in a straight up fight based on DPS versus tank alone.
At this point though we're getting into the realm of Eve Fitting Calvin Ball, where we can each come up with some change or scenario that invalidates the point of the other one. Personally, I think that's a waste of time and refuse to participate.
There was a claim made about the relative merits of the two ship classes, and I pulled out a couple very generic, and hopefully generically applicable, examples to prove that the claims being made were, if not flatly incorrect, then at least failing to take into account the relative merits of the ships in question. If you can refute my point with numbers then please do so, and show the math to prove your point, otherwise I think I've made mine. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1023
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 09:16:22 -
[125] - Quote
Indeed, my point was it's still a bit too close for my money (isk) in terms of performance. I say this taking the BC trade offs into account.
It may be my own personal uses though which could be placed into three "buckets" extending to roams, stratops and camps. stratops are an obvious nono, roaming they are eschewed because you don't know what you're going to wind up fighting and with the existing super-popular cruiser meta, odds are you'll not be able to evade which means you're forced to fight and the performance gap for the trade of speed, cost and increases damage in isn't offset by the gains. Indeed, if I'm taking a BC on a roam...it's an ABC, faster, more agile, better DPS by a country mile and enough tank. Camps...well...kitchen sink ftw there, eh?
So camps and known reinforcement situations where you know what you're flying into - but these are a little too narrow in focus for my personal tastes.
Obviously this is just my personal view and have mentioned before I've had great success with small bore guns and scram/webs/mmjd however I'd prefer them to have a little something....different. That use is awesome but it's so narrow, for me, cruisers are just functionally superior bang for buck.
I'm familiar with calvin ball, long live spaceman spiff |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
134
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 14:55:05 -
[126] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Tiddle Jr wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:
No. Cruisers have application bonuses, which make them superior in most situations.
Harbinger Amarr Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage vs. Omen Amarr Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost 5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire Not sure where is the trick. There's also a CBC with application bonus, but in general CBCs have damage and tanking bonuses, and are therefore weaker fighting smaller ships.
When this is the case - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
Cruisers do have a defacto application bonus against BCs.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
526
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 15:16:21 -
[127] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:I see you talking about hml.
Im sick of this topic. Ccp can just nerf them again and refund my sp at this point. I have better things to spend 2million sp on - such as carriers.
[quote]I grabbed a couple of relatively straight-forward examples. If I had the ability to run every possible configuration of fits for both ships I'd be finding a way to sell either it or me to CCP. AFAIK no one is forcing you to post here either.
You think you're the first person to bring this up? I've been talking about it for 2 years.
AFAIK no one is forcing you to post here either.
GFY. GO **** yourself. That's the weakest and most degenerative copout for a discussion I've ever seen. Don't even respond to me if that's what you're going to post. Get ******.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
333
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 17:40:13 -
[128] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Indeed, my point was it's still a bit too close for my money (isk) in terms of performance. I say this taking the BC trade offs into account. It may be my own personal uses though which could be placed into three "buckets" extending to roams, stratops and camps. Stratops are an obvious nono, roaming they are eschewed because you don't know what you're going to wind up fighting and with the existing super-popular cruiser meta, odds are you'll not be able to evade which means you're forced to fight and the performance gap for the trade of speed, cost and increases damage in isn't offset by the gains. Indeed, if I'm taking a BC on a roam...it's an ABC, faster, more agile, better DPS by a country mile and enough tank. Camps...well...kitchen sink ftw there, eh? So camps and known reinforcement situations where you know what you're flying into - but these are a little too narrow in focus for my personal tastes. Obviously this is just my personal view and have mentioned before I've had great success with small bore guns and scram/webs/mmjd however I'd prefer them to have a little something....different. That use is awesome but it's so narrow, for me, cruisers are just functionally superior bang for buck. I'm familiar with calvin ball, long live spaceman spiff
As CCP have stated repeatedly, increased cost is not supposed to translate linearly to increased effectiveness. The only reason this used to be the case for some BCs was because they were hilariously OP for their hull cost. They still have their uses though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Cruisers being the sweet spot between price and performance.
If two equally sized gangs meet, one comprised mainly of Cruisers and the other comprised mainly of Battlecruisers the BC gang has a significant advantage in terms of hitpoints, DPS, and utility slots. If they make use of their advantages and support ships effectively then they're going to completely stomp the cruiser gang, because the only advantage the Cruisers have is their speed and agility. If that gets nullified and they can be prevented from running away then they pretty much flat loose the fight. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4277
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 17:45:36 -
[129] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
The Rules: 27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Baron Wikkheiser
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 18:27:35 -
[130] - Quote
They will still be terrible. Cruisers are all too fast, any joe blow in a pirate faction or T1 can get over 3k/s overheated. What was once a specialized attribute is now very common and the large amount of high speed hulls now heavily favors tracking bonused platforms or cancerously cheesy RLML and drone platforms
The emphasis on small and fast will erode interest in this game for people who were brought in by the stories of the large battles with large ships. I didn't stay subbed so I could spend the entirety of my playtime on EVE sitting in a breacher in FW sites or flying a t1 cruiser. I stayed subbed and trained because I wanted to fly battleships and destroy other big ships. |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
135
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 18:31:20 -
[131] - Quote
Baron Wikkheiser wrote:They will still be terrible. Cruisers are all too fast, any joe blow in a pirate faction or T1 can get over 3k/s overheated. What was once a specialized attribute is now very common and the large amount of high speed hulls now heavily favors tracking bonused platforms or cancerously cheesy RLML and drone platforms
The emphasis on small and fast will erode interest in this game for people who came for the big ships. I didn't stay subbed so I could spend the entirety of my playtime on EVE sitting in a breacher in FW sites or flying a t1 cruiser. I stayed subbed and trained because I wanted to fly battleships and destroy other big ships.
This man has it korrekt.
http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
This reminds me the Need for Speed era, which wasn't as disastrous as the current situation.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1025
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:02:52 -
[132] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: As CCP have stated repeatedly, increased cost is not supposed to translate linearly to increased effectiveness. The only reason this used to be the case for some BCs was because they were hilariously OP for their hull cost. They still have their uses though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Cruisers being the sweet spot between price and performance.
I wouldn't ever expect linear performance increase related to cost, for me it's not enough of a performance hike AND attached to too many severe [in the current meta] drawbacks to ever [outside of edge cases] be the smart play.
The cost/power difference between frigates to cruisers is in a far more healthy place. Assfrig to HAC (ishtars aside) also. Attack battle cruisers are also in a far healthier place, they're worth their trade offs. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
334
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:11:22 -
[133] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I wouldn't ever expect linear performance increase related to cost, for me it's not enough of a performance hike AND attached to too many severe [in the current meta] drawbacks to ever [outside of edge cases] be the smart play.
The cost/power difference between frigates to cruisers is in a far more healthy place. Assfrig to HAC (ishtars aside) also. Attack battle cruisers are also in a far healthier place, they're worth their trade offs.
That's your call, and CCP have indicated they're keeping an eye on the larger classes and how they look relative to the other ones. Personally though I don't think they're in a terrible place, and the data I have access to backs me up.
That lovely distorted graph of "all cruiser hulls" vs everything else doesn't come close to telling the whole story, and there's nothing historical to compare it to, which further skews things. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
137
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:20:16 -
[134] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: That lovely distorted graph of "all cruiser hulls" vs everything else doesn't come close to telling the whole story,
How is it distorted?
Quote:...and there's nothing historical to compare it to
Exactly. At historical crossroads, we are.
The cornerstone concept that had been the Battleship has been forced into irrelevance with the coffin getting heavier with each nail that is being struck into it.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
334
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:41:16 -
[135] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png How is it distorted?
It fails to list where those numbers are coming from. It's just throwing together all cruiser hulls (except, apparently, for Recons) into one big blog for shock value. It doesn't actually tell us anything about why those hulls are popular, who is using them, or how that compares to usage historically for the various classes.
See the Fanfest Presentation on Data Science for why you can't look at a single statistic and jump to conclusions...
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Yes, Marauders and BlOps had been left out of the "Battleships" metric, as well as Attack BC being separate from Combat BC. Adding up the above doesn't change the structural problem is that Cruisers Online, however. Quote:...and there's nothing historical to compare it to Exactly. At historical crossroads, we are. The cornerstone concept that had been the Battleship has been forced into irrelevance with the coffin getting heavier with each nail that is being struck into it.
Setting aside the irony of this mirroring, to an extent, real-life navies and the fact that this came about because of a very popular series of changes that the players pushed for...
One, there's not necessarily anything wrong with Cruisers dealing more damage than everything else. They're at a nice spot with respect to cost and utility, and something like that gets more players out PvPing. If you run into a Battleship roam and just get whelped every time then you don't feel like there's a point in taking your Cruiser out even though you feel it's what you can afford to lose.
As for what I mean about not having anything to compare it to historically, I mean we don't have a version of that graph for every year going back 5 years. HAC gangs for example have been popular in Null since PL and others came up with the original Armor HAC sig-tanking concept way way back in... what, 2009/10?
Plus a large percentage of that huge line comes from T3 Cruisers, which have been massively popular (and problematic) ever since the price started to come down into Null fleet-doctrine-viable ranges, never mind their use in small-gang and solo PvP before that.
If we look back over the last five years and see a similar trend, or similar absolute numbers in the other classes besides T1 Cruisers (prior to their big rebalance anyway), then there isn't necessarily a huge problem with the relative usage of the various ship types, it just feels like there is to some players.
Either way this thread isn't the place for a comprehensive dive into the relative balance between Cruisers and BCs, and it's unlikely that the answer is to nerf cruisers back into irrelevance either. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
138
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 20:45:23 -
[136] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png How is it distorted? It fails to list where those numbers are coming from.
The graph is sourced from this dev blog: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla/
Quote:Have a look at this awesome graph of PVP damage by class
Original: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png
The PVP damage also includes structure grind.
I'll leave you to your own thoughts.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Baron Wikkheiser
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 21:20:49 -
[137] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: Setting aside the irony of this mirroring, to an extent, real-life navies and the fact that this came about because of a very popular series of changes that the players pushed for...
A number of popular changes when put together resulted in a undesirable side effect. Unless you think its desirable, in which case why haven't you backed Star Citizen yet by buying a $300 patrol ship. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
334
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 21:53:03 -
[138] - Quote
I know, I meant it's distorted because it doesn't give any indication of the contributions of individual classes to the overall line. The comparison of all classes is a somewhat better graph but still doesn't really tell the whole story because it's still one graph with very little context or background.
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Original: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png The PVP damage also includes structure grind. Super-fixed graph: http://i.imgur.com/MKKgoCA.png By my analysis colour coding goes as follows: Blue = Drones -> because HACs=Ishtar and Tech 1 cruisers with blue being prevalent in BC metric = Myrm/Prophecy; Also BS = Domi/Geddon = See how long this line can get even on a forum? Orange seems to be Energy weapon systems -> because Tactical Destroyer = Confessor at that time; Dark blue = Hybrids -> because Proteus/Tengu/Pre-Medium Rails fix; Also Moros. Light blue = Could be Light Missiles = See Tech 1 cruiser use = RLML Dark Yellow = Carriers = Fighters = Assigned fighters at that time. Yellow = Projectiles? vOv See Dreads and most tech 1 Archtype ship use.
By my count you're missing two colors, which suggests these probably aren't damage sources.
I'm showing:
- Medium Blue (or just blue)
- Orange
- Yellow-Orange? (either way it's a second sliver on several bars and distinct from the yellow at the ends)
- Dark Blue
- Dark Brown
- Brown
- Dark Green?
- Light Blue (only shows up on Cruisers, HACs, T3 Cruisers, Combat Recons, Combat BCs, and HICs)
- Yellow
- Grey (only shows up on the Stealth Bomber, Battleship, Marauder, and Black Ops bars)
- Slightly darker grey (no, I'm not kidding, I've got the graph open in GIMP and I'm using select by color, this one is only on the Super Carrier bar)
- Brick Red (only shows up on the Battleship, Marauder, and possibly EAF bars)
- Light Green (only on the bomber graph)
Overall a lot more than the six categories you listed, and one more than every faction of ship in the game (four empires plus seven pirate factions) though that explanation seems unlikely given the skewing on some of those bars. If nothing else the Super Carrier one is massively implausible, and there are eight colors on the bar for Strategic Cruisers but only four of those ships. This suggests that the damage is broken up in some way by target type or possibly a very granular weapon breakdown.
Actually the more I get into this the more likely it is that this is some kind of extremely granular weapon or target type breakdown. The green on the Bomber bar could easily be Bomb Damage, which makes a lot of sense, and that would make the Grey torpedoes, with the little sliver of orange being some kind of small missile weapon.
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:All in all, CCP Rise wrote:...we believe ship and module balance in EVE is in one of the best positions weGÇÖve seen in a long time. I'll leave you to your own thoughts.
Personally, having played for six years and seen what a mess we used to be in, I agree with him, but that's my opinion. If you want to keep going over that graph and the relevant statistics PM me. I think further discussion in this thread would be off topic assuming we aren't there already. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
146
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 02:41:10 -
[139] - Quote
It is segmented by weapon type - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532803#post5532803
Welcome to Drone Cruisers Online.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
583
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 03:13:39 -
[140] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy. From my own experience, the CPU penalty is preferred over yet-another-sig-radius penalty, partiicularly since the sig radius penalty persists, even when NOT actively warping.
CCP Fozzie wrote:At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have. In truth, I can't recall any case where a CPU penalty on a rig has been a problem for my own ship fits.
Logically, though, I think it would make more sense to penalize ship velocity, as a trade off to increased warp speed. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4315
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 03:30:49 -
[141] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:From my own experience, the CPU penalty is preferred over yet-another-sig-radius penalty, partiicularly since the sig radius penalty persists, even when NOT actively warping. I agree. Let's also not forget that this will also make it easier to lock ships when trying to get through gate camps.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4315
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 03:32:26 -
[142] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:From my own experience, the CPU penalty is preferred over yet-another-sig-radius penalty, partiicularly since the sig radius penalty persists, even when NOT actively warping. I agree. Let's also not forget that this will also make it easier to lock ships when trying to get through gate camps.
Quote:Logically, though, I think it would make more sense to penalize ship velocity, as a trade off to increased warp speed. This I don't have a problem with.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4315
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 04:48:22 -
[143] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy. CCP Fozzie, can you please reconsider this change?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
96
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 04:56:09 -
[144] - Quote
I might then ask very simple but fundamental question - what is a well balanced ship ? |
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
456
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 04:56:19 -
[145] - Quote
I have removed a double post.
ISD Decoy
Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
335
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 04:58:15 -
[146] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy. From my own experience, the CPU penalty is preferred over yet-another-sig-radius penalty, partiicularly since the sig radius penalty persists, even when NOT actively warping. CCP Fozzie wrote:At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have. In truth, I can't recall any case where a CPU penalty on a rig has been a problem for my own ship fits. Logically, though, I think it would make more sense to penalize ship velocity, as a trade off to increased warp speed.
If you don't run into CPU issues you must be flying Caldari, who generally have very generous CPU fittings. As a rule CPU is harder to increase than Powergrid and more expensive on smaller ships by a large margin than Powergrid.
Also the argument about the penalty persisting when not actively warping doesn't make much sense since all rig penalties persist even when the thing they're related to is not actively in use, and a sig radius penalty while warping would do absolutely nothing. Even if you're talking about a sig bloom when you hit the warp button you can get around that by simply aligning and then hitting warp.
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:From my own experience, the CPU penalty is preferred over yet-another-sig-radius penalty, partiicularly since the sig radius penalty persists, even when NOT actively warping. I agree. Let's also not forget that this will also make it easier to lock ships when trying to get through gate camps and you're going to take more NPC damage in PvE with a larger signature radius.
In theory, yes. In practice you'll rarely find it pushing you over the threshold to a new server tick with most fits against most opponents. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2031
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 23:17:06 -
[147] - Quote
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.
Getting there less slowly does not solve the problem. If you cannto keep up with cruisers you are out of the game for any mobile fleet. If the fleet doe snto require Cruiser speed, that means it will be flying at battleship, or even more likley CARRIER speed.
BC and Battleships need to still take time to arrive at battle, but when they arrive they need to brign more oomph.
Give battlecruisers some inTERESTING bonus, somethign like 33% bonus to AB speed. That will give them some capability that other ships do not have.
And battleships simply need more raw DPS and EHP (their effective DPS after trackig is usually worse agaisnt cruisers than the dps of cruisers against them, resulting in a scenario where battleships are very weak (except the ones based on drones and alpha strike)
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2031
|
Posted - 2015.04.05 23:19:09 -
[148] - Quote
Baron Wikkheiser wrote:They will still be terrible. Cruisers are all too fast, any joe blow in a pirate faction or T1 can get over 3k/s overheated. What was once a specialized attribute is now very common and the large amount of high speed hulls now heavily favors tracking bonused platforms or cancerously cheesy RLML and drone platforms
The emphasis on small and fast will erode interest in this game for people who were brought in by the stories of the large battles with large ships. I didn't stay subbed so I could spend the entirety of my playtime on EVE sitting in a breacher in FW sites or flying a t1 cruiser. I stayed subbed and trained because I wanted to fly battleships and destroy other big ships.
In past speed was a minmatar thing. But ccp NERFED the speed advantage of minmatar.. .made gallente almsot as fast, made some amarr ships even faster.. and made caldari so LIGHT and agile that they are the best ships with oversized sped mods.
Right now the WORSE RACE for speeding is minmatar.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
337
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 01:19:33 -
[149] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:In past speed was a minmatar thing. But ccp NERFED the speed advantage of minmatar.. .made gallente almsot as fast, made some amarr ships even faster.. and made caldari so LIGHT and agile that they are the best ships with oversized sped mods.
Right now the WORSE RACE for speeding is minmatar.
Here are the base Agility, Mass, and Speed values for T1 and T2 frigates and destroyers, and T1 Cruisers (which is all I could bother with doing). If you'll note, Minmatter have the top ship in raw speed in every category, and their slowest ship is still faster than one (or more) of the slowest ships in every other race.
Also base mass has very little to do with how effective a ship is with an over-sized propulsion module. Because the module adds a large amount of base mass when active the key factor is the inertia modifier for the ship, and Caldari are generally toward or at the bottom. The closest competition Minmattar have for a combination of speed and agility is the Gallente, and they still win out in raw speed.
Kagura Nikon wrote: BC and Battleships need to still take time to arrive at battle, but when they arrive they need to brign more oomph.
Give battlecruisers some inTERESTING bonus, somethign like 33% bonus to AB speed. That will give them some capability that other ships do not have.
And battleships simply need more raw DPS and EHP (their effective DPS after trackig is usually worse agaisnt cruisers than the dps of cruisers against them, resulting in a scenario where battleships are very weak (except the ones based on drones and alpha strike)
Tweaking the BC bonus is an interesting idea, and certainly they're rarely used as cheap fleet-bonus platforms as they are currently, though we'll have to see if that holds up when OGBs are eventually removed.
Giving Battleships more EHP could also be interesting, as could changing up their smaller guns to be more effective against smaller ships (by that I mean the smaller calibers within Large sized guns, like Ion and Electron Blasters, 650mm and Dual 425mm ACs, and maybe add something below 1200mm Arty. Giving them more raw DPS though would completely change way too many dynamics in the game, especially the rate of reward for most PvE content that uses a Battleship. Buffing the EHP or improving the tracking or signature resolution on the smaller calibers of Large guns doesn't have nearly that sort of wide-reaching effect. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
488
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 02:34:28 -
[150] - Quote
I think the sig penalty will kill some kinds of fits using the warp speed rigs. As in, make them splode quite a bit.
I also think that the biggest issue with battlecruisers is a slightly higher than warranted sticker combined with a oversized mass and sig, with a generous agility modifier. All of these are fcould be fixed with fairly minor changes that break few fits, but make CBCs more competative
I would love to see something about the following: 5% or so mineral reduction cut the sig to around the 200 mark for CBCs, with about the same split from a base sig of 250. drop maybe 5-10 sig on the ABCs as well, for a much smaller change to these ships which currently perform much better. Drop the mass about 7% and tweak agility to compensate, which makes nanos and other agility equipment more effective, as well as 10mn props. nudge base lock range and scan resolution up a touch.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1029
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 08:35:12 -
[151] - Quote
You know, it wouldn't kill just to ditch the drawback completely. There are other rigs like this and reducing tank/gank for a non combat benefit is arguably enough of a trade. |
Delarian Rox
New Home Inc.
22
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 11:19:19 -
[152] - Quote
What i need to be happy BC
1) Lower MJD cooldown it's pretty balnced but you know... 150 sec cooldown for MMJD and i'm a happy guy. (effectively it's a 100ms/sec increase in overal speed over the current version)
2) More lock range. to be able to jump to a pre-locked target as many BSs do. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2033
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 13:30:44 -
[153] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:In past speed was a minmatar thing. But ccp NERFED the speed advantage of minmatar.. .made gallente almsot as fast, made some amarr ships even faster.. and made caldari so LIGHT and agile that they are the best ships with oversized sped mods.
Right now the WORSE RACE for speeding is minmatar. Here are the base Agility, Mass, and Speed values for T1 and T2 frigates and destroyers, and T1 Cruisers (which is all I could bother with doing). If you'll note, Minmatter have the top ship in raw speed in every category, and their slowest ship is still faster than one (or more) of the slowest ships in every other race. Also base mass has very little to do with how effective a ship is with an over-sized propulsion module. Because the module adds a large amount of base mass when active the key factor is the inertia modifier for the ship, and Caldari are generally toward or at the bottom. The closest competition Minmattar have for a combination of speed and agility is the Gallente, and they still win out in raw speed. .
Real eve is not like that. The MASSIVE acceleration advantage of gallente means they outpace minmatar EASILY at the start of the combat, and they can get tackle (and in tackle range they win, purely and simple).
Also the Bonus do overheating MWD DENIES any racial speed advantage. No other overheat bonus is SEVERAL TIMES larger than the bonus a module modifier gives ( nanos for example). That means that It does not matter that you have 10% higher max speed. The other ship that is more agile just need to Overheat at some point and you wil NOT have time to react, because the speed boost is too massive.
Someone that cannot catch a minmatar ship , while using a gallente ship of same class is just a horrible player, or stuck in a very very singular scenario ( for example, battleships react slowly enough that the acceleration means less).
The end result is that minmatar is NOT good on what they were supposed to be good (with very rare exceptions).
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1532
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 15:05:39 -
[154] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Wise words I have a lot of experience flying Gallente ships, 'Ceptors, and other fast movers. Pretty much everything you said is accurate. Minmatar will go the fastest in a straight line given enough time to get to speed, but the more you maneuver the more agility comes into play. Gallente will get up to speed faster and recover speed more quickly after a course change. So in terms of actual combat maneuvering, especially short bursts, Gallente will usually come out on top.
Overheated MWDs in particular really kill Minmatar speed superiority. A Minmatar ship can be pulling away from a Gallente assailant, but if that Gallente ship overheats their MWD it's over. The higher acceleration, plus the reaction time and server delays, mean that the Minmatar pilot won't be able to react in time to maintain range.
Having said that, I feel that Gallente ships should be the most maneuverable over short bursts (at least their blaster boats). Given their typically limited weapons range (blasters), they need to close range quickly to apply damage. It's just that, as things currently stand, Minmatar ships aren't maneuverable enough overall to be the kings of speed anymore.
Kagura Nikon wrote:The end result is that minmatar is NOT good on what they were supposed to be good (with very rare exceptions).
They are good at what they're supposed to be good at. Their relative performance compared to other ships doesn't change that. The problem is that they're not the best at what they're supposed to be the best at. There lies the issue.
Back on topic, I feel that this tweak to BC warp speed and warp speed rigs is a really good thing. It makes sense from a consistency standpoint (same fractional relationship as Frigate -> Destroyer and Cruiser -> Battlecruiser), and it also makes it far easier to boost the speed of slower ships to help them keep up with roaming fleets. You no longer need two rig slots (warp speed rig and CPU rig) to get a battlecruiser up to cruiser warp speed; instead, you could use a warp speed rig and an agility rig and get a much closer approximation of cruiser warp performance if you wanted.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4322
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 15:11:13 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:This will mean an 8% increase in Battlecruiser warp speed, to 2.7au/s for T1 BCs and 3au/s for Command Ships. It occurred to me that this whole proposal is a stealth null-sec buff, and has very little to actually do with improving Battlecruisers. It's basically an improvement for Command Ships.
GÇó We give Command Ships a 3.0 AU/s warp speed which allows them to keep pace with null cruiser fleets. The fact that Battlecruisers also receive a slight warp speed bump doesn't really change their role or application (anything a Battlecruiser can do most T2 or T3 cruisers can do better). GÇó We take away the CPU penalty for hyperspatial rigs to make it easier for null fleets to fit. The fact that there is a signature radius hit doesn't matter since null fleets can offset this. This also makes it easier for locking faster ships trying to get through null-sec.
Combat Battlecruisers still suck, and Battleships continue to get neglected.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
stoicfaux
5556
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 18:21:30 -
[156] - Quote
Warp Speed Rig Penalty: Disruptors/Scrams work at a longer range against ships fitted with Warp Speed Rigs.
Rationale: Rigs aren't super-engineered, so the boost in warp speed comes at the result of having a more "fragile" warp field.
Or not. My vote is for "not."
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
167
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:27:18 -
[157] - Quote
So if we continue the trend of dessie/bc comparison. Dessies have the combat role bonus of 50% more optimal. Bcs have a role bonus for links, which lets face it, its rare a t1 BC is doing link duties.
So, would it be possible to add a similar range (or tracking) bonus to BCs?
Examples:
Hurricane gets a falloff bonus brutix gets an optimal bonus harb gets an optimal bonus ferox gets a tracking bonus (dont think this needs more optimal as it would step on the vulture)
That would let some of these ships find a better fleet role, and add some new elements for solo/small gang.
Though if anything, they should embrace the MMJD and at least give it a cooldown reduction on BCs. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2034
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:21:59 -
[158] - Quote
Well, It has been several years sicne last time I saw a BC field a command link.
So why not drop that bonus, and put something else onits place? A small prop mod bonus for example... or an extra 10% resitance on the racia l resitance profile..
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1532
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:33:20 -
[159] - Quote
I'm liking the whole "switch from links to another bonus" idea. Maybe have the "tankier" T1 CBCs (Drake, Myrmidon, Prophecy, and Cyclone) keep their role bonus to warfare links and give the "gankier" T1 CBCs (Ferox, Brutix, Harbinger, and Hurricane) something along the lines of T1 Destroyers or MMJD enhancements?
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
176
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 22:35:12 -
[160] - Quote
Gud idea, but then give Battleships a role bonus as well.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
167
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:01:58 -
[161] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Gud idea, but then give Battleships a role bonus as well.
Why?
Like destroyers, battlecruisers are slightly larger than what they are intended to fight. Their added size allows them to fit the necessary weapons/tank (at the cost of speed) to help assist battleships for cruiser (maybe frig) defense. The same thing as a dessie. Theyre meant to kill their frigate counterparts, or supplement cruiser+ for support roles (in theory anyway).
Battleships requires said support, otherwise some can be solod by a good frig pilot.
Now, i wouldnt be opposed to a role bonus on a BS, but at least BS get use in fleets from time to time (tempest fleet, napoc etc). When was the last time we had hundreds of drakes, canes, harbys, brutix on field? I have heard of the MMJD drake doctrine, but havent heard much about it in a long time. So if something needs some life injected into it, its bc's.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
340
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:11:19 -
[162] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Real eve is not like that. The MASSIVE acceleration advantage of gallente means they outpace minmatar EASILY at the start of the combat, and they can get tackle (and in tackle range they win, purely and simple).
Also the Bonus do overheating MWD DENIES any racial speed advantage. No other overheat bonus is SEVERAL TIMES larger than the bonus a module modifier gives ( nanos for example). That means that It does not matter that you have 10% higher max speed. The other ship that is more agile just need to Overheat at some point and you wil NOT have time to react, because the speed boost is too massive.
Someone that cannot catch a minmatar ship , while using a gallente ship of same class is just a horrible player, or stuck in a very very singular scenario ( for example, battleships react slowly enough that the acceleration means less).
The end result is that minmatar is NOT good on what they were supposed to be good (with very rare exceptions).
Check the agility numbers again (align time) the difference between Minmatar and Gallente ships is *tiny* and the faster speed of the Minmatar ships easily compensates in most cases, putting them at a higher speed faster than the equivalent Gallente ship. In the few cases where this isn't the case the difference is so tiny as to not matter.
For example, this is a graph of the velocity of the Claw and Ares over time as they accelerate from zero. Note that at every point in the graph the Claw is moving faster than the Ares. Also because the Minmatar ships are generally more agile than the Gallente ones they respond better to a propulsion module as well since propulsion modules add a mass penalty as part of their activation to mitigate the speed increase and reduce agility. This means that an Ares and a Claw fitted with a T2 MWD align in almost exactly the same amount of time.
I'll see about editing in the source data for the graph to my original spreadsheet so other people can make their own tests and comparisons. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
340
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:15:34 -
[163] - Quote
afkalt wrote:You know, it wouldn't kill just to ditch the drawback completely. There are other rigs like this and reducing tank/gank for a non combat benefit is arguably enough of a trade.
Interesting idea, but out of curiosity which other rigs don't have any sort of drawback? I can't recall any right off the top of my head despite also recalling that they exist. Would be useful for comparison in power level.
It's clear from this thread and the amount of debate over Battleship warp speed that warp speed is very much a powerful thing to have so many it is appropriate for these rigs to have a drawback?
stoicfaux wrote:Warp Speed Rig Penalty: Disruptors/Scrams work at a longer range against ships fitted with Warp Speed Rigs.
Rationale: Rigs aren't super-engineered, so the boost in warp speed comes at the result of having a more "fragile" warp field.
Or not. My vote is for "not."
I don't think this would be possible since the range is dictated entirely by factors on your ship and this would require the range bonus to effectively recalculated every time you target someone (I just got finished watching the Dogma presentation from Fanfest yesterday). |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
177
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:23:16 -
[164] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Gud idea, but then give Battleships a role bonus as well. Why?
Agreed.
The sooner the cornerstone concept of the Battleship dies, the better. BC role damage bonus is go.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
169
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:34:32 -
[165] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Interesting idea, but out of curiosity which other rigs don't have any sort of drawback? I can't recall any right off the top of my head despite also recalling that they exist. Would be useful for comparison in power level.
It's clear from this thread and the amount of debate over Battleship warp speed that warp speed is very much a powerful thing to have so many it is appropriate for these rigs to have a drawback?
PG/CPU rigs don't have any drawbacks.
I wouldn't call it "powerful". Its more about being able to move with your group that you're supporting, and not slowing them down, or being too fast. Which is kind of the point of a "battlecruiser", it should be able to keep up with its cruiser fleet. Or not outrun its battleship brethren.
Sig increase isn't much of an issue, so i think that will be more favorable. Especially when BC/BS already have the sig of a moon. Not to mention, this is a "tiny" interceptor nerf. All these travel fit ceptors with i-stabs might actually be caught by the sensor boosted loki's that keep crying on the forums. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
495
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 00:48:53 -
[166] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: Sig increase isn't much of an issue, so i think that will be more favorable. Especially when BC/BS already have the sig of a moon. Not to mention, this is a "tiny" interceptor nerf. All these travel fit ceptors with i-stabs might actually be caught by the sensor boosted loki's that keep crying on the forums.
Done right, travel-ceptors should not be catchable due to the <2 tick aligns, as it takes a tick to start the lock, and a tick to confirm the lock, and scram/point lands the next tick
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
169
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 02:02:10 -
[167] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote: Sig increase isn't much of an issue, so i think that will be more favorable. Especially when BC/BS already have the sig of a moon. Not to mention, this is a "tiny" interceptor nerf. All these travel fit ceptors with i-stabs might actually be caught by the sensor boosted loki's that keep crying on the forums.
Done right, travel-ceptors should not be catchable due to the <2 tick aligns, as it takes a tick to start the lock, and a tick to confirm the lock, and scram/point lands the next tick
Oh, well then, i guess let the sensor boosted tears continue. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
648
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 08:07:19 -
[168] - 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). |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1035
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 08:17:19 -
[169] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:afkalt wrote:You know, it wouldn't kill just to ditch the drawback completely. There are other rigs like this and reducing tank/gank for a non combat benefit is arguably enough of a trade. Interesting idea, but out of curiosity which other rigs don't have any sort of drawback? I can't recall any right off the top of my head despite also recalling that they exist. Would be useful for comparison in power level. It's clear from this thread and the amount of debate over Battleship warp speed that warp speed is very much a powerful thing to have so many it is appropriate for these rigs to have a drawback?
The fitting ones, in fact I'm 99% sure all the "core" ones do not, including the egress ones which are very powerful for spider tanks.
I'm wholly convinced it's a powerful thing so much as a horrible handicap/straight up not fun to spend most of the evening in a warp tunnel/have the entire fleet waiting on you. Were battleships the final word in subcap power, demolishing everything smaller (I do not think the should be, for clarity) the yes the warp speed would absolutely factor in keeping them in check. As it is though...not so much. They take ages to arrive and are fairly lacklustre in the current meta (ironically, if BC had a strong presence, there would be a greater call for BS )
@Spugg Galdon: People would just use command ships, no point in doing it half arsed and an OGB can sit in a command ship out the gate. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2034
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 09:37:52 -
[170] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: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).
uh? Completely unrelated to each other.
The problem with CBC is simply that they are not powerful enough to justify a drop in speed of a group moving, and if the groups decide they can spare to go slower, they skip BC and go directly to Battleship level.
At the individual scale the main problem with BC is their LACK of mobility, specially because non oversized prop mods are quite worse on them than on cruisers.
You could fix that with a bonus to prop mod amount and or tweaks on mass and agility. Let BC e less agile than cruisers but make them able to reach same speeds. Otherwise they are simply unable to fight against cruisers on small scale warfare.
When the scale grows up and logistic and damage projection means everything, that is when BC collapse completely. T2 and t3 ships of cruiser sized hulls are UTTERLY superior. That is a scale of warfare where I do not see BC being relevant again with only small changes.
Eve is simple, contrary to the beliefs of many. Combat efficiency depends if you are a force multiplier/tackle or fighting material. if you are fighting material the important aspects are mobility, projection, damage and staying power. BC are BAD.. at mobility, projection and staying power and on same level as hacs for damage. No reason to use them.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2034
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 09:41:48 -
[171] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Real eve is not like that. The MASSIVE acceleration advantage of gallente means they outpace minmatar EASILY at the start of the combat, and they can get tackle (and in tackle range they win, purely and simple).
Also the Bonus do overheating MWD DENIES any racial speed advantage. No other overheat bonus is SEVERAL TIMES larger than the bonus a module modifier gives ( nanos for example). That means that It does not matter that you have 10% higher max speed. The other ship that is more agile just need to Overheat at some point and you wil NOT have time to react, because the speed boost is too massive.
Someone that cannot catch a minmatar ship , while using a gallente ship of same class is just a horrible player, or stuck in a very very singular scenario ( for example, battleships react slowly enough that the acceleration means less).
The end result is that minmatar is NOT good on what they were supposed to be good (with very rare exceptions). Check the agility numbers again (align time) the difference between Minmatar and Gallente ships is *tiny* and the faster speed of the Minmatar ships easily compensates in most cases, putting them at a higher speed faster than the equivalent Gallente ship. In the few cases where this isn't the case the difference is so tiny as to not matter. For example, this is a graph of the velocity of the Claw and Ares over time as they accelerate from zero. Note that at every point in the graph the Claw is moving faster than the Ares. Also because the Minmatar ships are generally more agile than the Gallente ones they respond better to a propulsion module as well since propulsion modules add a mass penalty as part of their activation to mitigate the speed increase and reduce agility. This means that an Ares and a Claw fitted with a T2 MWD align in almost exactly the same amount of time. I'll see about editing in the source data for the graph to my original spreadsheet so other people can make their own tests and comparisons.
Sorry but GRAPHS and eve when a pilot is present are VERY different scenarions.
And minamtar ships are NOT more agile. They are less agile. The minamtar speed advatage means nothing (with a very few exceptions), because to be combat efficient you need to stay not much outside close range tackle from your enemy (bad dps requires that).. so if you keep your prop mod overheated... you will burn and die. Ifyou wait to react with overheat, you WILLGET CAUGHT, because gallente ships gain speed MUCH MUCH faster when you overheat and by the time you react ( at LEAST 2 seconds later... it is too late.
Real combat in eve (at least on small scale warfare where mobility of this type is relevant) is not like graphs. You need to take into account reaction time by players, server ticks, overheating, the need to kill thigns before they get to gate ... etc...
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
648
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 10:14:39 -
[172] - 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. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
498
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 10:47:32 -
[173] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
The problem with CBC is simply that they are not powerful enough to justify a drop in speed of a group moving, and if the groups decide they can spare to go slower, they skip BC and go directly to Battleship level.
At the individual scale the main problem with BC is their LACK of mobility, specially because non oversized prop mods are quite worse on them than on cruisers.
You could fix that with a bonus to prop mod amount and or tweaks on mass and agility. Let BC e less agile than cruisers but make them able to reach same speeds. Otherwise they are simply unable to fight against cruisers on small scale warfare.
Which means they either need more fitting space, to make the oversized props slightly more viable as a standard, or a mass reduction and agility modifier tweak. As the mass reduction (with a corresponding agility modifier tweak to keep align similar) also makes nanos and i-stabs much more effective but the MWD bonus mass hurt more, I am also in favor of this. It means that without a base speed increase, a BC could outdo a CA in a straight line sprint, but that the cruiser can use agility and piloting wiles to shake the faster but clumsy BC until it can disengage the MWD and re-approach. Although this could lead to bad things, like BCs with lower mass than cruisers (another place I would like to see a similar change, so prop mods hurt agility more but move things faster)
Kagura Nikon wrote:
When the scale grows up and logistic and damage projection means everything, that is when BC collapse completely. T2 and t3 ships of cruiser sized hulls are UTTERLY superior. That is a scale of warfare where I do not see BC being relevant again with only small changes.
Eve is simple, contrary to the beliefs of many. Combat efficiency depends if you are a force multiplier/tackle or fighting material. if you are fighting material the important aspects are mobility, projection, damage and staying power. BC are BAD.. at mobility, projection and staying power and on same level as hacs for damage. No reason to use them.
BCs currently have 2 major advantages over HACs. They are T1, with BPOs in easy reach of a dedicated newbie, and they get good insurance payouts compared to t2/faction hulls. so,
While they have more native tank than a cruiser, the lower agility and high sig mean that they take way more damage before resists. While BCs can get higher resists due to more slots.....
Buuuut while they have more slots, but need more support slots as they can be outrun if not nano-fit, damped hard if without sebo, TD'd to death if it doesn't have a TC, etc. Most cruisers are more able to fly in a way which reduces the ability of their opponent to negate their damage, because
They have lowish agility and speed, so you better be pointed in the right direction when you hit the prop. You better not run into a scram with a micro as your main prop, or boom, you hit zero speed in no time flat, which sucks because:
You have ~20% more DPS, but have trouble applying it to many common cruiser hulls, so if they aren't running a weapon with a near identical profile, good luck. Kiting cruiser beats brawling BC by kiting it to death. Brawling cruiser is almost as fast and much more agile than most kiting BCs, with more DPS. Generalist cruiser gets it's choice due to the huge role positioning plays in solo, or the better mitigation from sig/speed tank than any BC.
Now, how do we make them distinct and competative, without erasing all of these differences.....
For this, we should probably take a look at what fueled the age of battlecruisers online. This was a time when drakes were the major fleet ship, canes were the biggest solo boat, and it wasn't uncommon to see brutix or harbies flying around in groups. These lovely ships weren't the quick and fragile frigates, nor the medium lumbering battleships. They were able to grind cruisers to dust by doing almost everything a cruiser could, and more, with some small tradeoffs that could be fit around. In short, like the pike or musket in their time, or the modern assault rifle, they were versatile medium weight weapons that could be gotten into action as a reaction or used offensively even with only mediocre training.
The first thing that kicked them hard was the loss of much of the performance in the BC tieracide/nerf combo, which meant the gap between them and cruisers was much reduced, and the versatility that they were most prized for mostly went away.
Then warp speed changes hit, and they became too slow to be used effectively as a heavier defensive tool if not pre-positioned or when fighting on the ends of one's space. While this wasn't too much more of a nerf, these lovely ships were already falling out of favor for BSes as the blobs got bigger, solo got less common and the platforms themselves were hit in almost every vulnerability, falling especially prey to the loss of fitting room which had let them be very easily adapted to almost any purpose on the fly, without double and triple checking that everyone could fly the ship properly.
The real kicker was the cruiser tieracide, which brought up almost every cruiser's performance and closed the gap between almost every cruiser and battle cruiser, some particularly nasty t1 cruisers ending up with performance like the former battlecruisers.
So, this helps with giving them back some of the ability to be used in a versatile manner. Now if we could just get the room to make versatile fits with them.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1038
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 10:56:35 -
[174] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: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.
They're an SP sink for newbies but an OGB toon will, at worst, be there after BC V. All the LD skills are what kills it the access for most these days. Plus mindlinks are pricey - you're going to want to park that in something super tanky or accept degraded performance.
I get what you're saying, we've used T1 BC with a single link to bolster roams before but in a land of no OGB, people will sink into command ships, it is the logical step and those things tank like monsters whilst retaining decent firepower. At least for anything more than half serious. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2036
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 11:08:22 -
[175] - Quote
James Baboli wrote: things I agree on general terms....
Another thing that may help a LOT BC and battleships is a reevaluation of buffer modules sizes. What that means?
Right now the only plates used are 1600 on everything larger than a cruiser and on MOST t2 and t3 cruisers... extenders the same (large ones). That means 3/4 of the content in game on that area is wasted.
Myy view. Increase the fittings AND HP bonus of ALL plates and extenders. Enough that 1600 plates are unfittable with realistic fits on cruiser sized hulls... but giving more HP for the ships that canfit them ( that is a HELP for battleships and BC).
Most cruisers would drop to 800 plates and some to 400 plates (but these as well would add MORE EHP and use more PG). At the end cruiser sized hulls would drop to a place where most use 400 plates ( giving much more EHP than now, closer to what 800 do now) some would use 800 plates ( t2 and t3 ones) giving something between current 800 and 1600 plates. And 1600 plates would be territory of battleships and BC that decide to go heavy on tank. The penalties of mass and signature radius need to be bumped a bit as well.
Same logic applies to shield exnteders, with the addendum that extenders need a modifier to recharge rate.
The end result is that Battleships get a real advantage on EHP when they focus on it, and BC as well. Cruisers sized hulls will lose a BIT of EHP, but not that much since they will move a bit faster than now. That solves a LOT of the Battlecruiser combat capability, because they will be able to go 1600/large and heave good ehp, or go 800/medium and have a lot of spare fittings and more mobility. Battleships on other hand can go dual Large/dual 1600 and get a LOT of EHP.
And MORE CONTENT IN THE GAME BECOMES ONCE AGAIN RELEVANT!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1972
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 11:17:23 -
[176] - Quote
My fast warping colaky scout tengu just got doubly ******... Thanks Fozzie!
I hope T3 get some serious love and the design attention they need instead of this disappointing piecemeal development approach
+1
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
648
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 11:25:16 -
[177] - 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". |
Xain deSleena
Insomnia Inc Triumvirate.
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 11:31:29 -
[178] - Quote
I was pleased to hear how Gorski Car had put this change to CCP and that you have embraced his idea. With these changes do you mind doing some tests on the differences in align time and warp out with the Drake compared to other T1 battlecruisers. It seems to me that my poor old Drake could never align and warp out quick enough no matter how much I trained my skills up to level 5 for navigation or changed fits to get inertia levels lower. Over the years it just seemed to react the same. Anything that can help my Drake get away quicker will surely make me dust off the cobwebs and roll them out again. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
169
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:12:08 -
[179] - Quote
Xain deSleena wrote:I was pleased to hear how Gorski Car had put this change to CCP and that you have embraced his idea. With these changes do you mind doing some tests on the differences in align time and warp out with the Drake compared to other T1 battlecruisers. It seems to me that my poor old Drake could never align and warp out quick enough no matter how much I trained my skills up to level 5 for navigation or changed fits to get inertia levels lower. Over the years it just seemed to react the same. Anything that can help my Drake get away quicker will surely make me dust off the cobwebs and roll them out again.
If you suspect bad things coming your way, pre-align. If you absolutely must align quicker, fit a nano/polycarb/aux thruster. Ive found the best way to navigate in a BC is mmjd. Longpointed while aligning to next gate? No problem, just jump out of it.
For me, my drake is setup to kill dedicated scram tackle. Once they die, i moonwalk away from all their longpoints. So even though BCs are not the fastest aligning ships, they can still surprise most small gangs if you fit correctly. At this point, they almost require a MMJD to survive. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1039
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:14:39 -
[180] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:At this point, they almost require a MMJD to survive.
It's a good point. I wonder what slashing (and I do mean slashing...or role bonus slashing) the fitting requirements for the MMJD would do.
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2012
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:25:57 -
[181] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:At this point, they almost require a MMJD to survive. It's a good point. I wonder what slashing (and I do mean slashing...or role bonus slashing) the fitting requirements for the MMJD would do. The problem is they still require a slot even if you slash the fitting requirements. And most BC struggle to give up 2 slots for prop mods. If the MJD/MMJD had some normal prop mod function AND a Jump function, they would be much better mods, even if the AB/MWD were better mods for pure normal drive function. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1039
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 12:44:42 -
[182] - Quote
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. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
649
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:38:24 -
[183] - 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. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1039
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:50:06 -
[184] - Quote
I've mentioned before I like them in this role (though not all can manage it). The trouble is getting that fight in the first place and that this doesn't scale up into gang war that well at all. A couple of BCs wont turn a fight* because in the current meta they're either ignored and the compatriots killed or the fight just doesn't ever happen, unless you're reinforcing/bridging in/fighting in the home systems or 1J out.
*situations where they would, almost anything else would too.
I'm going back to my earlier point (well...questions) from this thread:
The question is - what role are they supposed to have, are they failing to deliver in it and if so, why?
Just what the hell is a battlecruisers role to be? Booster? Heavy cruiser? Cruiser hunter? Big fat pinyata? Other? |
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:51:21 -
[185] - Quote
This might... might increase the use of gheto links (cyclones etc with Fleet boosts) for small roaming cruiser gangs don't think much else but i think step in good direction |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2012
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 13:56:10 -
[186] - Quote
MMJD could also benefit from not being a 100k jump for the above mentioned lock range issue. Since if you jump past the target you are going the wrong way at top speed. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
170
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 15:10:47 -
[187] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:MMJD could also benefit from not being a 100k jump for the above mentioned lock range issue. Since if you jump past the target you are going the wrong way at top speed.
Nope. Mmjd needs to stay at 100km jump range, or make a selectable jump range. Its all too easy with all this garmur/orthrus cancer to still hold point on you if you jump 50-75km. I actually jumped 100km in my phoon to end up 50km from the garm i was trying to get away from, and his point never dropped. I did escape on next mjd cycle, but still.. you nerf the jump range, and itll pretty useless.
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
498
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 15:16:54 -
[188] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:MMJD could also benefit from not being a 100k jump for the above mentioned lock range issue. Since if you jump past the target you are going the wrong way at top speed. Nope. Mmjd needs to stay at 100km jump range, or make a selectable jump range. Its all too easy with all this garmur/orthrus cancer to still hold point on you if you jump 50-75km. I actually jumped 100km in my phoon to end up 50km from the garm i was trying to get away from, and his point never dropped. I did escape on next mjd cycle, but still.. you nerf the jump range, and itll pretty useless. Unless they also drop the cooldown, spool up, and cap usage to match, but then it becomes an all purpose tool o doom. Incoming torps? MJD. Bombs? MJD. MJD usage becomes the single biggest aspect of PVPing in BCs and BS by absolute default, and nothing else comes close to the ability to reposition.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution The Initiative.
425
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 17:00:50 -
[189] - Quote
Nice, but not going to help much until bombers are nerfed.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
183
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 22:42:58 -
[190] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Nice, but not going to help much until bombers are nerfed.
*Bombs, not bombers per se.
Increasing the explosion radius to 700-750 m fixes many issues.
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2237
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 00:28:38 -
[191] - Quote
I heartily endorse the increase in warp speed of BC's. Getting an armour BC across an average sized system, let alone two or 20, is a PITA. Like, why would anyone use a Ferox or Cyclone when they are so much slower than a Gila, do 20-30% less DPS, have 10-20% less tank, and are 30% slower? I mean, hello.
Oh, wait, am I saying the Gila is OP? Yes, yes I am i think.
As for the sig radius penalty on the warp rigs...I don't think that it's an issue. I may not be completely au fait on nullsec meta but I'm unaware of fleets going out expressly fit with warp speed rigs. So realistically, dropping the CPU penalty ought to see them used more widely, which is good.
Shield ships will be able to use them, which may see some interesting Crow meta develop, and warp sped Sabres etc, for ganking carebears. in these cases, sig radius is a bigger penalty than CPU, because if all you are doing is quick-warp and tackle, you just drop your weapons to make the fit work, and can then point all the victims forever.
With increased sig radius, the penalty will address the benefit gained. You're on grid faster but more vulnerable to drones to drive you off. This is balanced.
Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014.
Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel!
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1973
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 07:21:14 -
[192] - Quote
What are those terrible low slot mods that increase warp speed? They should be revised to give a bigger warp speed bonus but require too much pg for a frigate to fit.
+1
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
500
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 08:05:14 -
[193] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:What are those terrible low slot mods that increase warp speed? They should be revised to give a bigger warp speed bonus but require too much pg for a frigate to fit. I would rather see more versions of them that do this, while leaving alone the existing ones, to, ya know, give more options and create real choices.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
1973
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 08:24:38 -
[194] - Quote
Agreed
+1
|
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
285
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:07:19 -
[195] - Quote
I like both changes, Battlecruisers warping faster (with accelerate) and warp rigs getting shield signature penalties.
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2043
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:34:42 -
[196] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:Nice, but not going to help much until bombers are nerfed. *Bombs, not bombers per se. Increasing the explosion radius to 700-750 m fixes many issues.
but not for the battleships....
What need change are all the Buffer modules, make them HARDER to fit and give more EHP. So cruiser sized hull wil NOT use 1600 and large extenders anymore. And at same time battleships and BC get more EHP ( things that help against bombs)
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2043
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 09:41:48 -
[197] - Quote
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.
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.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
650
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 11:08:31 -
[198] - 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. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2045
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 14:37:34 -
[199] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: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.
Might be minor , but is enough by itself to ensure that a single BC of those types will always lose a fight against a hac that has some clue on what is is doing.
If you take longer to arrive at combat and you are surely going to bring less to the table.. why use that ship? No cost is NOT a factor, if you want to go poor mode you will use a t1 cruiser already.
BC need to be better at SOMETHING when compared to cruisers. They effectively have LESS staying power because they are easier to hit, and move slower. They do not apply more damage because its easy to control range against a BC.
Even a weirdo bonus like extended range of medium smartbombs would be SOMETHING.... something that it would do well
Without adding a completely new mechanics or bonus, the change needed is to MAX VELOCITY and fittings.
On a larger plan, changing tanking modules scales.. so that things shift towards a "larger" role (more PG and more EHP) would bennefit a LOT BC and Battleships and would NERF the super buffer T3 ships that do need nerfs.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1118
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 16:07:02 -
[200] - Quote
besides reducing the sig on all bc's by about 60-90 each ( brutix is 305 nearly same as most attack battleships) making it much easier too skill up and actually fit T1 warfare links would help them out a little ( resist and sig reduction through warfare links would make them useful in cruiser gangs aswell as make bc's gangs worth using over HAC's.
ofc when boosts are on grid that would help too.
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
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2046
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 16:24:11 -
[201] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:besides reducing the sig on all bc's by about 60-90 each ( brutix is 305 nearly same as most attack battleships) making it much easier too skill up and actually fit T1 warfare links would help them out a little ( resist and sig reduction through warfare links would make them useful in cruiser gangs aswell as make bc's gangs worth using over HAC's.
ofc when boosts are on grid that would help too.
Personally I think they should remain with battleship SIZE. That makes them very weak agaisnt battleships and makes not much difference against cruisers (and that was supposed to be their place,m cruiser raper, but raped by Battleships).
On other hand their limited max speed makes them unable to fight cruisers when they have the same (or smaller) weapon range as the cruisers
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 17:00:27 -
[202] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Harvey James wrote:besides reducing the sig on all bc's by about 60-90 each ( brutix is 305 nearly same as most attack battleships) making it much easier too skill up and actually fit T1 warfare links would help them out a little ( resist and sig reduction through warfare links would make them useful in cruiser gangs aswell as make bc's gangs worth using over HAC's.
ofc when boosts are on grid that would help too. Personally I think they should remain with battleship SIZE. That makes them very weak agaisnt battleships and makes not much difference against cruisers (and that was supposed to be their place,m cruiser raper, but raped by Battleships). On other hand their limited max speed makes them unable to fight cruisers when they have the same (or smaller) weapon range as the cruisers
Thats why it would be best to give them projection and application over speed. I dont really want to see 3k/ms hurricanes or drakes (although fun, kinda makes it silly).
Again drawing comparisons to dessies, dessies are quite slower than their t1 counterparts, but have no trouble killing frigs if setup right. The reason? Projection and application.
They all have tracking and optimal bonuses (for the vanilla t1s anyway). So a arty thrasher might be longpointed by a condor, has no chance in catching him. But switching to titanium sabot allows you to track and kill or run off that frigate at range. I dont see why BCs should be any different against cruisers.
The current issue i see, is bcs have no cosistency between the races like dessies do. Which is good for variety, but hard to balance somewhat. for example, the brutix already has a tracking bonus, and the ferox optimal. To add on to that, BCs need alil more firepower to make this realistic.
Going back to the arty thrasher, its fragile, but still shoots frigate level dps out to point range. Most bcs shoot slightly above frigate dps at point range but are meant to kill cruisers. Now if they had a range bonus, this might synergize better with their role. Even fitting LR weapons they will have difficulty in fitting and application.
Then we have missile boats like the drake which are alil trickier. Since you need missile velocity and explosion velocity bonuses to make it work. Although, i could go for range over application with the drake. To help it reach out to the kiting cruisers with HAMS using faction, instead of javlin and its terrible application.
With the MMJD, this means that a BC cannot be held indefinitely by a condor/garm etc. Instead the aggressor needs to dedicate scram tackle to effectively hold a BC. Which means facing the full power of the ship. And not trying to use speed to just kite a bc indefinitely. Speed becomes less an issue in this scenario, and more about a proper gang setup to actually kill a BC.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
349
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 17:32:12 -
[203] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Sorry but GRAPHS and eve when a pilot is present are VERY different scenarions.
And minamtar ships are NOT more agile. They are less agile. The minamtar speed advatage means nothing (with a very few exceptions), because to be combat efficient you need to stay not much outside close range tackle from your enemy (bad dps requires that).. so if you keep your prop mod overheated... you will burn and die. Ifyou wait to react with overheat, you WILLGET CAUGHT, because gallente ships gain speed MUCH MUCH faster when you overheat and by the time you react ( at LEAST 2 seconds later... it is too late.
Real combat in eve (at least on small scale warfare where mobility of this type is relevant) is not like graphs. You need to take into account reaction time by players, server ticks, overheating, the need to kill thigns before they get to gate ... etc...
Sure, if you could play Eve with spreadsheets people would literally be doing that, but on raw stats the minmattar ships are still better at speed than Caldari or Amarr (your original contention being that they were worse on base stats, which I've roundly debunked) and they perform very very close to Gallente ships at worst, and better in general.
The scenario you're talking about doesn't get any better if you're flying a Gallente ship and so is your opponent, or you're flying Gallente and being chased by a Minmattar ship. In none of those cases are you likely to have enough lead time in a tackle-range situation to react to an overheat in time to avoid getting caught, if nothing else because of the cycle time of a prop mod. Maybe that's a problem, maybe it isn't. Either way that's not the point of this thread.
Kagura Nikon wrote:...Stuff about plates and shields and capital letters...
It would be easier and cause fewer potential problems if the EHP of the relevant ship classes was just directly increased.
If you mess with the fittings and effect of Plates and Shields then you mess with every single ship that fits one, and that's a lot of ships. For example a lot of frigates fit a Medium Shield Extender, so if you mess with the fittings on that you mess with every frigate that uses them.
Far simpler and easier to just increase the base HP of any ship that is determined to need it and leave the tank mods where they are. This also opens up more fitting options because you're not tying the success of the hulls to those mods. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
190
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 19:12:22 -
[204] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: What need change are all the Buffer modules, make them HARDER to fit and give more EHP. So cruiser sized hull wil NOT use 1600 and large extenders anymore.
Goode pointe.
However, I'd rather let cruisers have the 1600mm and LSEs, and introduce even larger versions for battleships (and BC) - 3200mm plates and XLarge Shield Extenders.
Would fix T3-BS EHP imbalance. Long overdue, tbh.
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Valkin Mordirc
853
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 04:06:19 -
[205] - Quote
Just a random thought,
What if they gave CBC's a built in Micro jump drive that a player can activate similar to the T3D mode change, just a little button next to the Cap UI, and remove the ability for CBC's to fit the MMJD? reduce the PG/CPU by a bit, maybe half the cost of the MMJD, That would allow duel props to still work for all CBC asides from the gnosis (which probably should not receive this bonus), and but not really **** with slot layouts allowing an extra mid to really throw off the balance.
I like the idea of increasing the CBC's max speed to. I've always thoughts of them as more of a heavy Calvary unit then anything else. Let them reach cruiser like speeds going in a strightline but have most of it bleed off if it needs to turn.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2047
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 10:14:53 -
[206] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: What need change are all the Buffer modules, make them HARDER to fit and give more EHP. So cruiser sized hull wil NOT use 1600 and large extenders anymore.
Goode pointe. However, I'd rather let cruisers have the 1600mm and LSEs, and introduce even larger versions for battleships (and BC) - 3200mm plates and XLarge Shield Extenders. Would fix T3-BS EHP imbalance. Long overdue, tbh.
That is the same thing, just adding a new name. But shifting the stats as I said at least the smaller ones become somethign more than empty database entries.
I would for example push ALL plates PG requirement 50% UP and increase their EHP 50% as well. With Extenders I would DOUBLE their PG requirement, and push their EHP up by some 75% and impose a recharge rate penalty of 33%.
The result would be, ALL Cruiser sized hulls that fit 2x 1600 plates would be forced to drop to 1. Most of that fit 1600 plates would drop to the new enhanced 800 plates. Most battlecruisers will beable to keep 1600 plates (now enhanced and more powerful) when tuning their guns and rigs. All battleships would freely keep their 1600 plates and get a nicely deserved boost to EHP.
At end that fixates the cruiser more into the mobility role and battleships in the soaking damage role, and leavign the BC with the capability of transit between the 2 (specially if you buff their base max speed by some 15% and reduce their agility on same ground to keep same effective acceleration)
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2047
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 10:19:24 -
[207] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Sorry but GRAPHS and eve when a pilot is present are VERY different scenarions.
And minamtar ships are NOT more agile. They are less agile. The minamtar speed advatage means nothing (with a very few exceptions), because to be combat efficient you need to stay not much outside close range tackle from your enemy (bad dps requires that).. so if you keep your prop mod overheated... you will burn and die. Ifyou wait to react with overheat, you WILLGET CAUGHT, because gallente ships gain speed MUCH MUCH faster when you overheat and by the time you react ( at LEAST 2 seconds later... it is too late.
Real combat in eve (at least on small scale warfare where mobility of this type is relevant) is not like graphs. You need to take into account reaction time by players, server ticks, overheating, the need to kill thigns before they get to gate ... etc... Sure, if you could play Eve with spreadsheets people would literally be doing that, but on raw stats the minmattar ships are still better at speed than Caldari or Amarr (your original contention being that they were worse on base stats, which I've roundly debunked) and they perform very very close to Gallente ships at worst, and better in general. The scenario you're talking about doesn't get any better if you're flying a Gallente ship and so is your opponent, or you're flying Gallente and being chased by a Minmattar ship. In none of those cases are you likely to have enough lead time in a tackle-range situation to react to an overheat in time to avoid getting caught, if nothing else because of the cycle time of a prop mod. Maybe that's a problem, maybe it isn't. Either way that's not the point of this thread. Kagura Nikon wrote:...Stuff about plates and shields and capital letters... It would be easier and cause fewer potential problems if the EHP of the relevant ship classes was just directly increased. If you mess with the fittings and effect of Plates and Shields then you mess with every single ship that fits one, and that's a lot of ships. For example a lot of frigates fit a Medium Shield Extender, so if you mess with the fittings on that you mess with every frigate that uses them. Far simpler and easier to just increase the base HP of any ship that is determined to need it and leave the tank mods where they are. This also opens up more fitting options because you're not tying the success of the hulls to those mods.
Nope.. the result is completely different.
A 1600 plate gives more HP to a cruiser than its base hull, whiel it increases a moderate fraction of a battleship base hull. If you just increase base EHP of battleships you are not solvign anything. The battleships will simply not bennefit from using plates, and cruisers will continue overpowered when using a single module to DOUBLE their base HP that is helped by a very small signature and higher resists (t2 and t3).
You can push up or down cruiser EHP by 15% for example and the final difference in their EHP will be MINIMAL, and if you push it down enough to be relevant, you are just ENFORCIGN that the cruiser NEEDS the plate. THat is horrible game design.
Touching the base hull values would not help the problem, would make it worse.
Touch the modules and you define more clearly up to where you can push the cruiser tank, and you open up a niche space for the BC as a hybrid between cruisers and battleships.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
650
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 10:39:00 -
[208] - 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. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2021
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 11:39:10 -
[209] - Quote
Skill points needed for gang links are very low, you can be fitting them in under a weeks training, how fast exactly do you really want people to be able to train them? Yes it takes a long time to be a top notch FLEET booster, but to boost a single squad is fast. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2048
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 14:55:45 -
[210] - Quote
BUT I LIKE CAPS LOCK!!! THis whoel situation is agaisn proof that thigns cannot be balanced in the void. The other classes and how the modules are used in REALITY by the players are as much if not even more important.
Same thing is happening with the sivpul issue.. all same thing.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
176
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 15:09:39 -
[211] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: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.
What would the problem be if a projection role bonus were added? You mentioned there being a problem, but didnt specify what it was.
Even with larger guns, 425 cane for example, Non-range bonused acs have pretty terrible projection. Even with barrage. Then, combining largest calibre gun with a tracking nerf from barrage means my BC cant track that condor orbiting 3k/s. Where as a falloff bonus would help using sabot or short range ammo to apply decently at point range.
The only problem i see is that the ferox has a projection bonus already. And we cant give it a second as it would sort of gimp the vulture. Unless the optimal bonus on ferox dropped to 5% per level + role bonus.
HACs would still be faster and more mobile than a bc, but at least the bc can fight back now at range.
Role bonus would only affect CBC and not tier3.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 05:58:36 -
[212] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Nope.. the result is completely different.
A 1600 plate gives more HP to a cruiser than its base hull, whiel it increases a moderate fraction of a battleship base hull. If you just increase base EHP of battleships you are not solvign anything. The battleships will simply not bennefit from using plates, and cruisers will continue overpowered when using a single module to DOUBLE their base HP that is helped by a very small signature and higher resists (t2 and t3).
You can push up or down cruiser EHP by 15% for example and the final difference in their EHP will be MINIMAL, and if you push it down enough to be relevant, you are just ENFORCIGN that the cruiser NEEDS the plate. THat is horrible game design.
Touching the base hull values would not help the problem, would make it worse.
Touch the modules and you define more clearly up to where you can push the cruiser tank, and you open up a niche space for the BC as a hybrid between cruisers and battleships.
I know the result is completely different, that's part of the point. What you're talking about is an absolutely massive change to the game's balance with massively wide reaching consequences. You may say "good" or something like that but that's not a good thing from a balance perspective and it's unrealistic to expect CCP to go with that sort of shake up when the general state of things is pretty good, with the exception of the perception of Battleships and Battlecruisers as PvP assets.
Some problems with this approach:
- It doesn't take into account any situation besides those that use a buffer tanked fit, which is mainly fleet engagements with Logi present on the field.
- It ties the effectiveness of these ships to these modules, at least if you honestly expect this to be a reasonable fix.
- It doesn't take into account any sort of active tanked setup or meta.
- It completely ignores that the game is intentionally balanced this way and Cruisers are supposed to have the ability to fit those modules with all of the benefits and penalties they incur because of them. Fun fact, a Thorax with an AB and a 1600 plate fitted takes between 20 and 33% more damage, depending on orbit distance. A Caracal with a Large Shield Extender and an AB takes between 40 and 85% more applied DPS. (both tests done with a Maelstrom with 800mm ACs and 3 Gyros fitted and no other modules)
If BCs and BSes are the problem then we should address the stats on those ships or, in the case of Battleships, the weapons fitted for them. It's unlikely CCP are going to take an approach that would basically bulldoze the current state of the game by making sweeping modifications to core modules. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2025
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 06:25:00 -
[213] - Quote
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. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 06:36:28 -
[214] - Quote
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. |
Ivarr Kerensky
Kerensky Tactical Group
13
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 08:47:09 -
[215] - Quote
The usual suspects are trying to push their agenda and play style again, coming up with hilarious solutions for problems that don't really exist.
On topic:
No one is really going to notice an 8% increase in warp speed but as a "here's something you asked for, if only a little bit. Now stop whining about it" it makes good sense. It doesn't help T1 CBC in any way (nor should it) but increasing CS to cruiser lvl is a welcome change for obvious, future, reasons.
The rig change is actually quite massive and will allow for more funky setups, I like it.
Excellence is an attitude.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 09:43:31 -
[216] - Quote
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.
But then you are NOT solving some issues. For example the super over buffered T3. Other problem is that a 1600 plate of now has more base EHP than cruiser hulls by themselves on that layer. That means that the plate basically is an all or nothing scenario, the ship differences are meaningless when compared to the module.
Increasing the hull ammount WILL NOT FIX AT ALL THE issue, unless you increase MASSIVELY the ammount of base EHP and that would skew completely the balance of repair and buffer tanks. If you increase the hull base EHP by 15%, the 1600 plates are still more relevant than the cruiser itself.. and they are EVEN MORE irrelevant on battleships.
The result is that you might make the problem even worse
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 09:47:16 -
[217] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
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.
Havign a tradeoff does not mean it is meaningful
A 1600 plate more than DOUBLE the EHP on cruisers that fit it, and reduce their speed by what? some 15% That is not a tradeoff. that is a massively skewed scenario that leads to min maxing... all or nothing. Compare a 800 plate to a 1600. The speed difference is not that big, but the EHP difference is humongous. And since most t2 and t3 cruisers can fit a 1600, then it becomes a no brainer.
If you make 1600 VERY VERY hard to fit on these cruisers then suddenly BC and specially battleships gain a foothold on their main theoretical advantages.
As of today, a proteus still have more EHP than most battleships... while staying FAR more mobile, and smalller that is BEYOND dispute as being BROKEN. IF at most those ships could use was a 800mm things would be WAYYY more balanced.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:00:15 -
[218] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:[quote=Kagura Nikon] I know the result is completely different, that's part of the point. What you're talking about is an absolutely massive change to the game's balance with massively wide reaching consequences. You may say "good" or something like that but that's not a good thing from a balance perspective and it's unrealistic to expect CCP to go with that sort of shake up when the general state of things is pretty good, with the exception of the perception of Battleships and Battlecruisers as PvP assets. Some problems with this approach:
- It doesn't take into account any situation besides those that use a buffer tanked fit, which is mainly fleet engagements with Logi present on the field.
- It ties the effectiveness of these ships to these modules, at least if you honestly expect this to be a reasonable fix.
- It doesn't take into account any sort of active tanked setup or meta.
- It completely ignores that the game is intentionally balanced this way and Cruisers are supposed to have the ability to fit those modules with all of the benefits and penalties they incur because of them. Fun fact, a Thorax with an AB and a 1600 plate fitted takes between 20 and 33% more damage, depending on orbit distance. A Caracal with a Large Shield Extender and an AB takes between 40 and 85% more applied DPS. (both tests done with a Maelstrom with 800mm ACs and 3 Gyros fitted and no other modules)
If BCs and BSes are the problem then we should address the stats on those ships or, in the case of Battleships, the weapons fitted for them. It's unlikely CCP are going to take an approach that would basically bulldoze the current state of the game by making sweeping modifications to core modules.
No it does not tie the ship to the module. On the opposite and that is where you are havign short vision. Right now the buffer plate on a cruiser is more important than the cruiser itself. You could fix that changing the hulls, but you would need to change almsot ALL hulls in game and woudl be far far more complicated to balance.
It does take other situatiosn into account. BEcause ships do not fly in a spreadsheet. When you fit and undock you need to do it relative to the capabilities of the opposition you will face. So when you change buffer ships you change the meta and change other scenarios as well. SImple example.. that change would increase substantially the EHP of several battleships .. enough that HACS fiting ASB might not resist long enough in a fight against them.
No, the game was NOT intentionaly balanced in a way that Cruisers, that were made to be MOBILE focused, can Squeeze out ALL their modules to fit an oversized tank that chalanges or even SURPASSES battleships, while battleships that were supposed to be the damage sponges can at most fit SMALL buffer modules ( because 1600 plates are at most that relative to their base hulls) and effectively are WORSE at tanking than T3s and most t2 cruisers.
I do not know form what hole you got those numbers of yours, but is not from eve. A caracal increases its signature by 20% when it fits a large shield extender. So at MOST it will increase its received damage by 20% on the apex of the curve, and on scenarios where it could already be tracked more or less easily even less change. A thorax with 1600 plate and AB of with NO plate when you add the "depending on the distance" of your sentence.. both take ZERO DAMAGE from a maelstrom in REAL EVE, not EFT!!! Hint for the uninformed, the EFT formula doe snot work EXACTLY as the in game for the extreme scenarios! It is an extrapolation of the game, and is not an 100% math at the apex of the derivative change on the correlation of tracking and signature , that happens for instance on very close combat. That is why AB cruisers at 1 km are immune to most battleships.
Please, go PLAY THE GAME, and do some real combat to know how things REALLY work out. People use always large extenders and 1600 paltes for a reason.. THEY ARE MASSIVELY advantageous. you take TINY bit ammount more damage than with the MEDIUm extender adn 800 plate for TWICE more EHP.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:01:37 -
[219] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote: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. What would the problem be if a projection role bonus were added? You mentioned there being a problem, but didnt specify what it was. Even with larger guns, 425 cane for example, Non-range bonused acs have pretty terrible projection. Even with barrage. Then, combining largest calibre gun with a tracking nerf from barrage means my BC cant track that condor orbiting 3k/s. Where as a falloff bonus would help using sabot or short range ammo to apply decently at point range. The only problem i see is that the ferox has a projection bonus already. And we cant give it a second as it would sort of gimp the vulture. Unless the optimal bonus on ferox dropped to 5% per level + role bonus. HACs would still be faster and more mobile than a bc, but at least the bc can fight back now at range. Role bonus would only affect CBC and not tier3.
think the problem might arise in the long range guns only. Think more on ferox terms for example.... Not saying is not somethign that coudl nto be added. But more scenarios must be analysed.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
651
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:06:40 -
[220] - 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
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:16:41 -
[221] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: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
Right on the spot...a t least some people seems to be able to use rational thinking and understand the implications of aproposal beyond "MY OWN SHIP AND ITS CURRENT FITTING"
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 10:26:04 -
[222] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: 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
Hafta agree on plates/extenders here. Long overdue - and T3 EHP levels have shown that.
A tiercide-type review would give clearer vision to BS and BC roles, but is ~effort~.
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 11:04:38 -
[223] - Quote
T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
207
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 11:05:56 -
[224] - Quote
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2051
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 11:06:25 -
[225] - Quote
afkalt wrote:T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'.
CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
House of Freedom The Pursuit of Happiness
195
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 11:22:28 -
[226] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote: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 Right on the spot...a t least some people seems to be able to use rational thinking and understand the implications of aproposal beyond "MY OWN SHIP AND ITS CURRENT FITTING" And to add to these numbers. With my proposed shift of 50% to PG and HP (that woudl he a HALF shift to left not a full 1 plate size shift) Cruisers would use 800 plates that would add 3200 HP. so 111% of their base armor pool. The prohpecy with 800 would go to 46% (same as current battleship level).. and if it sacrifices a bit on its weaponry and fitting, it would go to use a 1600 plate doing now 7200 HP. That is 104% The abaddon would go to 67% That is CLEARLY MUCH MUCH more well balanced!!!
just something that came to my mind while I was reading your discussion;
what if plates (and extenders) would work more like layered plating (something one uses rarely anyway. adaptive plating is much more useful...), making the added amount of tank dependent on the ship they are fitted to? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1050
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 11:59:47 -
[227] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:afkalt wrote:T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'. CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool.
Hah, no.
Not in C6. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
503
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 12:50:42 -
[228] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:afkalt wrote:T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'. CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool. There are two conflated problems here.
WH content requires extremely powerful ships to be run. There are 3 real patterns to the WH t3s I have seen.
C1-3 T3s are typically built fairly lightly, with a local active tank, or a single slot spider tank. With tons of DPS and as much application as they can, they're reasonable as a surprise for someone dropping in on them, or to hunt a frigate gang, but they aren't the sort of mainline combatant that people keep getting mad about.
C5-6 sites will eat a recon alive, and you effectively require a mostly tank fit in one or more racks, with at least some level of shiny tank modules required to do it effectively. This is because you have content that is meant to throw threatening DPS out at capitals, but which requires subcap support to run effectively. PVP takes those same fits, and with the same sort of logistics, makes them almost unkillable, as they have stellar damage mitigation and healthy buffer pools, or healthy mitigation and insane buffer pools.
The third pattern is the PVP t3s which are designed to maintain hole control, but they vary massively by which type of WH they are supposed to maintain hole control in.
But these aren't the t3 fleets and fits that predominate in PVP. The t3s that predominate aren't the super-tanked reconish with some DPS ships that are needed for the WH sites. They're either the HAC+ confgurations, usually taking advantage of the slot layout mechanics to create beastly armor tanks with room for 2-3 damage mods , or interdiction nullified and otherwise taking advantage of the unique combinations found on t3s, like slipery petes. These ships are designed from the hull out to do one or 2 things very well. Much of the problem comes in because they can set up bonuses that are unique or nearly so, like being interdiction nullified and extremely hard to probe, while being fairly tanky due to the excellent mitigation.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2052
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 15:11:20 -
[229] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:afkalt wrote:T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'. CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool. There are two conflated problems here. WH content requires extremely powerful ships to be run. There are 3 real patterns to the WH t3s I have seen. C1-3 T3s are typically built fairly lightly, with a local active tank, or a single slot spider tank. With tons of DPS and as much application as they can, they're reasonable as a surprise for someone dropping in on them, or to hunt a frigate gang, but they aren't the sort of mainline combatant that people keep getting mad about. C5-6 sites will eat a recon alive, and you effectively require a mostly tank fit in one or more racks, with at least some level of shiny tank modules required to do it effectively. This is because you have content that is meant to throw threatening DPS out at capitals, but which requires subcap support to run effectively. PVP takes those same fits, and with the same sort of logistics, makes them almost unkillable, as they have stellar damage mitigation and healthy buffer pools, or healthy mitigation and insane buffer pools. The third pattern is the PVP t3s which are designed to maintain hole control, but they vary massively by which type of WH they are supposed to maintain hole control in. But these aren't the t3 fleets and fits that predominate in PVP. The t3s that predominate aren't the super-tanked reconish with some DPS ships that are needed for the WH sites. They're either the HAC+ confgurations, usually taking advantage of the slot layout mechanics to create beastly armor tanks with room for 2-3 damage mods , or interdiction nullified and otherwise taking advantage of the unique combinations found on t3s, like slipery petes. These ships are designed from the hull out to do one or 2 things very well. Much of the problem comes in because they can set up bonuses that are unique or nearly so, like being interdiction nullified and extremely hard to probe, while being fairly tanky due to the excellent mitigation.
Since the T3 that are use there do not need guns, they will still probably be able to fit the new plates. For example, isntead of 3 1600 plates, you fit 2 of the new ones. Same fitting.. and SAME EXACT EHP. That is not an option for PVP ships since a 3 plates no weapons ship is not exactly main stream PVP material.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:01:54 -
[230] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Havign a tradeoff does not mean it is meaningful
A 1600 plate more than DOUBLE the EHP on cruisers that fit it, and reduce their speed by what? some 15% That is not a tradeoff. that is a massively skewed scenario that leads to min maxing... all or nothing. Compare a 800 plate to a 1600. The speed difference is not that big, but the EHP difference is humongous. And since most t2 and t3 cruisers can fit a 1600, then it becomes a no brainer.
If you make 1600 VERY VERY hard to fit on these cruisers then suddenly BC and specially battleships gain a foothold on their main theoretical advantages.
As of today, a proteus still have more EHP than most battleships... while staying FAR more mobile, and smalller that is BEYOND dispute as being BROKEN. IF at most those ships could use was a 800mm things would be WAYYY more balanced.
The trade off here is definitely meaningful, you seem to want the trade off to be crippling. There's no problem with cruisers, especially T2 and T3 Cruisers, being able to fit 1600 plates and LSEs. You are literally the only person I've ever heard complain about this. The difference between an 800 and 1600 plate may
Kagura Nikon wrote:No it does not tie the ship to the module. On the opposite and that is where you are havign short vision. Right now the buffer plate on a cruiser is more important than the cruiser itself. You could fix that changing the hulls, but you would need to change almsot ALL hulls in game and woudl be far far more complicated to balance.
No, this is only true if you feel that the current state of those modules is a problem. It's not, the game is balanced around those modules being how they are. The problem that this thread is at least tangentially related to is the balance of Battlecrusiers (and to a very small extent battleships). If those are the ships that are having trouble then balance those ships instead of tweaking one module for one style of tanking to try and tangentially make those ships more relevant. That's way more complicated than just buffing the relevant ships for the same reason that if something is over-powered it gets nerfed instead of everything else getting a buff.
Kagura Nikon wrote:...snip for word count...
No, the game was NOT intentionaly balanced in a way that Cruisers, that were made to be MOBILE focused, can Squeeze out ALL their modules to fit an oversized tank that chalanges or even SURPASSES battleships, while battleships that were supposed to be the damage sponges can at most fit SMALL buffer modules ( because 1600 plates are at most that relative to their base hulls) and effectively are WORSE at tanking than T3s and most t2 cruisers.
The game was designed intentionally by CCP, these modules have been in more or less this state since the game launched, and they've been tweaked and adjusted since then. Their state is very definitely intentional, as is the state of the ships that can fit them.
Also a 1600 plate increases the HP (after skills, no less) of a Megathron by 50%. That's still a significant increase, and the Megathron suffers significantly from the drawbacks of fitting the module. It only takes slighly less than 3% of the Megathron's powergrid, and 4.4% of its CPU. The align time increases from 10.5s to 10.8s. In comparison a Thorax gives up 56% of its base PG (all values here after skills) and 8% of its CPU, and its align time shoots up from 5.2s to 6.5s.
Kagura Nikon wrote:I do not know form what hole you got those numbers of yours, but is not from eve. A caracal increases its signature by 20% when it fits a large shield extender. So at MOST it will increase its received damage by 20% on the apex of the curve, and on scenarios where it could already be tracked more or less easily even less change. A thorax with 1600 plate and AB of with NO plate when you add the "depending on the distance" of your sentence.. both take ZERO DAMAGE from a maelstrom in REAL EVE, not EFT!!! Hint for the uninformed, the EFT formula doe snot work EXACTLY as the in game for the extreme scenarios! It is an extrapolation of the game, and is not an 100% math at the apex of the derivative change on the correlation of tracking and signature , that happens for instance on very close combat. That is why AB cruisers at 1 km are immune to most battleships.
Please, go PLAY THE GAME, and do some real combat to know how things REALLY work out. People use always large extenders and 1600 paltes for a reason.. THEY ARE MASSIVELY advantageous. you take TINY bit ammount more damage than with the MEDIUm extender adn 800 plate for TWICE more EHP.
Actually the places where it's tracked less easily are the places where the sig increase results in a greater damage increase, and that's now how sig increases affect damage output. Check the formula if you don't believe me and check your mechanics before you make incorrect claims about my math, and yes EFT's formula is exactly the formula in the game, I just posted it. It's the average damage at that range and those conditions. You may take more or less damage as a result of the random nature of damage application in Eve but on average that's the DPS you'll take over a sustained period of time.
Yes, Plates and Extenders are more advantageous on smaller ships, that's intentional and is very very very unlikely to change so either get used to it or stop playing. Either way this isn't the thread for this. |
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:08:39 -
[231] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote: 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
Hafta agree on plates/extenders here. Long overdue - and T3 EHP levels have shown that. A tiercide-type review would give clearer vision to BS and BC roles, but is ~effort~.
T3 EHP is due to T3 level resists and subsystem abilities more than their ability to fit 1600 plates. That's why Command Ships don't get near T3 levels of EHP. Also changing fittings 1600 plates wouldn't actually fix T3s:
Kagura Nikon wrote: Since the T3 that are use there do not need guns, they will still probably be able to fit the new plates. For example, isntead of 3 1600 plates, you fit 2 of the new ones. Same fitting.. and SAME EXACT EHP. That is not an option for PVP ships since a 3 plates no weapons ship is not exactly main stream PVP material.
At which point we have now established that your change won't even fix the thing you're complaining about. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
224
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:37:25 -
[232] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote: 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
Hafta agree on plates/extenders here. Long overdue - and T3 EHP levels have shown that. A tiercide-type review would give clearer vision to BS and BC roles, but is ~effort~. T3 EHP is due to T3 level resists and subsystem abilities more than their ability to fit 1600 plates.
Does-not-compute. It is especially horrendous when viewed like this.
A single 1600mm plate shoots Legion's EHP from 70k to 141k - doubles it, and Armour HP from 11.4k -> 25.9k, which is a 127% increase.
A 800mm plate ups EHP 70k -> 106k, Armour HP 11.4k -> 18.5k = 62% increase.
Now, the 800mm scenario is a lot more reasonable, since a 1600mm plate on a Bhaalgorn, as an example, gives only a 44% increase.
However, we like things gud so we fit 2x 1600mms and Electrons on our Protei.
TL;DR: Cruisers Online.
http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:43:46 -
[233] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:T3 EHP is due to T3 level resists and subsystem abilities more than their ability to fit 1600 plates.
Does-not-compute. It is especially horrendous when viewed like this.
A single 1600mm plate shoots Legion's EHP from 70k to 141k - doubles it, and Armour HP from 11.4k -> 25.9k, which is a 127% increase.
A 800mm plate ups EHP 70k -> 106k, Armour HP 11.4k -> 18.5k = 62% increase.
Now, the 800mm scenario is a lot more reasonable, since a 1600mm plate on a Bhaalgorn, as an example, gives only a 44% increase.
However, we like things gud so we fit 2x 1600mms and Electrons on our Protei. [/quote]
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. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
224
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:53:15 -
[234] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower.
Does not compute.
No.
Thorax with a 1600mm RT 13.5k EHP -> 29.6k = Doubles, yes, Armour HP 2.6k -> 9.5k 265% increase.
Battleships and BC need either a new 2400/3200mm/w/e plate, or 1600mm PG hafta be raised.
Cruisers Online
Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept //
Make BS & BC Worth the Warp!
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
353
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:56:23 -
[235] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower.
Does not compute. No. Thorax with a 1600mm RT 13.5k EHP -> 29.6k = Doubles, yes, Armour HP 2.6k -> 9.5k 265% increase. Battleships and BC need either a new 2400/3200mm/w/e plate, or 1600mm PG hafta be raised. Cruisers Online
I don't think you read my entire post, I said a hypothetical cruiser with the same base Armor HP, not a Thorax, and either way 9.5k is a long way from 140k. The difference there comes from the high base resists of the T3 Cruisers. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
224
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:59:19 -
[236] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:The difference there comes from the high base resists of the T3 Cruisers.
Are you trying to be Cpt. Obvious?
We're telling you of the ratios here, but do continue speaking a lot about nothing. At this rate, T3/Ishtar/Sentry/T3D rebalance should be done by the year 2017.
Enjoy your Heroic cruiser warfare.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
15589
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 22:52:51 -
[237] - Quote
So just to say, the change to rigs has allowed me to do magical things with dreads and makes my armour mega MUCH easier to work with.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2053
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 23:33:51 -
[238] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
At which point we have now established that your change won't even fix the thing you're complaining about.
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.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2053
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 23:35:16 -
[239] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So just to say, the change to rigs has allowed me to do magical things with dreads and makes my armour mega MUCH easier to work with.
and? that was exaclty the idea of the changes...
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2053
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 23:50:05 -
[240] - Quote
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
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
|
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!
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
392
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 07:09:20 -
[271] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: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?
Yes, for one each of those Ishtars costs as much as your BS hull and they outnumber you, and numbers trump pretty much everything in Eve.
elitatwo wrote: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.
Eve has always been a game of specialization and linear increases in power for exponential increases in cost more or less since its inception. The exception is where specialization comes in and trumps this in some way. In the past when this hasn't been the case CCP have (eventually) stepped in and corrected things.
Battleships have never been flat better than a well fitted HAC because the HAC had more flexibility, and this has been the case for about 8 years now.
The exception to this rule used to be Null fleet fights, but that's been shifting steadily over the last six or so years, ever since the original Sig-tanked A-HAC gangs. Nothing matches a Battleship for raw DPS but it's unrealistic and not in keeping with Eve's base principals that a single Battleship should be able to even remotely take on 5 Ishtars. Realistically it shouldn't be able to take on two without massive difficulty on the part of the pilot and more than a few big mistakes on the part of the Ishtars.
I certainly agree there's room for improvement in the Battleship class at present to allow them to better deal with Cruiser sized targets, but that shouldn't mean a Battleship hull can kill its hull cost in T1 Cruiser hulls. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
634
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 10:54:49 -
[272] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Eve has always been a game of specialization and linear increases in power for exponential increases in cost more or less since its inception. The exception is where specialization comes in and trumps this in some way. In the past when this hasn't been the case CCP have (eventually) stepped in and corrected things.
Stop repeating what others have said already, it is insulting and doesn't answer my question. I only need to read things once to have it inscripted in my mind.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Battleships have never been flat better than a well fitted HAC because the HAC had more flexibility, and this has been the case for about 8 years now.
That is what you have been saying 10 times in two days, care you learn a new sentence? I didn't.
Since it is public record now, you can go ahead and read it again, sometimes our primitive human minds play tricks on us and we only read what we want to read instead of what is written.
Cade Windstalker wrote:The exception to this rule used to be Null fleet fights, but that's been shifting steadily over the last six or so years, ever since the original Sig-tanked A-HAC gangs. Nothing matches a Battleship for raw DPS but it's unrealistic and not in keeping with Eve's base principals that a single Battleship should be able to even remotely take on 5 Ishtars. Realistically it shouldn't be able to take on two without massive difficulty on the part of the pilot and more than a few big mistakes on the part of the Ishtars..
I almost care what some lawyers do in drama-sec or better, well actually I don't. And I D I S A G R E E.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
865
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 13:45:38 -
[273] - Quote
Delarian Rox wrote: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.
Not really but pretty much the same thing I said?
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.
You use it in situations where cruisers outnumber BC 6:1 or more.
And don't get me wrong, I really don't care what they do. I've been nerf bat proof for years. Most of us are, it's why the the nerf bat fails to get results. We have trained out all the racial hulls and weapons platforms. Nerf this, buff that. It's all a dog ******* a football. |
Atreides 47
Union of independent miners and industrials Cybran Nation Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 11:11:42 -
[274] - Quote
Sir Livingston wrote:battlecruiser usage must be low Because they are really damn slow and battleships moving like slowpokes its almost unbearable, all except Machariel, it have good bonus.
Long Live the Fighters !
CCP and nerfs - http://i.imgur.com/MejTGfL.jpg
|
Alia Ravenswing
DARK HAT
35
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 17:54:30 -
[275] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet? Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets. Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon? Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run.
There already are. Medium Autocannons. There is a reason that bombers don't attack BC's
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
541
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 17:56:10 -
[276] - Quote
Alia Ravenswing wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet? Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets. Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon? Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run. There already are. Medium Autocannons. There is a reason that bombers don't attack BC's
And because finding enough BCs to be worth blopsing is hard.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:05:14 -
[277] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Stop repeating what others have said already, it is insulting and doesn't answer my question. I only need to read things once to have it inscripted in my mind.
Well, it certainly didn't seem like you understood this from what you were saying.
elitatwo wrote:I almost care what some lawyers do in drama-sec or better, well actually I don't. And I D I S A G R E E.
You can disagree all you want. If your idea of Battleship balance is Battleship > 5 HACs you're going to be nothing but disappointed with anything CCP do. |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:05:19 -
[278] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Alia Ravenswing wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet? Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets. Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon? Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run. There already are. Medium Autocannons. There is a reason that bombers don't attack BC's And because finding enough BCs to be worth blopsing is hard.
Yeah I think this has to do more with a lack of BC's rather than BC's being scary... I am certain that torps have better range than medium ac's and that sb's can run circles around BC's including the hurricane
BC's and BS's: when nerfing goes too far
If they nerfed the damage output like they did and kept them as being fairly fast, maybe that would've been okay
If they merged the speed like they did and kept them doing respectable damage, maybe that would've been okay
Instead they did both things and we now have crappy 6 launcher drakes, 6 turret harbingers, 6 turret brutixes, etc. Not only is their damage weak compared to not just hac's but even t1 cruisers, they are unusably slow |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:24:20 -
[279] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Yeah I think this has to do more with a lack of BC's rather than BC's being scary... I am certain that torps have better range than medium ac's and that sb's can run circles around BC's including the hurricane
BC's and BS's: when nerfing goes too far
If they nerfed the damage output like they did and kept them as being fairly fast, maybe that would've been okay
If they merged the speed like they did and kept them doing respectable damage, maybe that would've been okay
Instead they did both things and we now have crappy 6 launcher drakes, 6 turret harbingers, 6 turret brutixes, etc. Not only is their damage weak compared to not just hac's but even t1 cruisers, they are unusably slow
A SB can only run circles around it if the SB drops its bomb and runs off. If you're fighting anything other than a completely homogeneous BC fleet you can't get under the tracking of long-range guns and stay outside the range of ACs. The point where ACs pretty much stop blowing your ship out from under you is pretty much the point where Railguns start, and if you're making a bombing run it's a moot point because you're dropping at ~30km anyways, which is in range of both.
Really, the BC nerf was entirely justified. They were stupidly good for the cost and they were still used and useful after the nerf, just not nearly to the extent that they used to be (because that was broken). Also the BC nerf included precisely zero changes to their speed and only tiny changes to align time and mass.
BCs still easily out-damage T1 Cruisers too, it's just that the T1 Cruiser is way faster. If the BC could catch the Cruiser then they'd simply trump cruisers flat out.
At the end of the day it hasn't really been nerfs that have done in BS and BC class ships in PvP, it's been successive and small buffs to other ship classes. |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:57:56 -
[280] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Yeah I think this has to do more with a lack of BC's rather than BC's being scary... I am certain that torps have better range than medium ac's and that sb's can run circles around BC's including the hurricane
BC's and BS's: when nerfing goes too far
If they nerfed the damage output like they did and kept them as being fairly fast, maybe that would've been okay
If they merged the speed like they did and kept them doing respectable damage, maybe that would've been okay
Instead they did both things and we now have crappy 6 launcher drakes, 6 turret harbingers, 6 turret brutixes, etc. Not only is their damage weak compared to not just hac's but even t1 cruisers, they are unusably slow A SB can only run circles around it if the SB drops its bomb and runs off. If you're fighting anything other than a completely homogeneous BC fleet you can't get under the tracking of long-range guns and stay outside the range of ACs. The point where ACs pretty much stop blowing your ship out from under you is pretty much the point where Railguns start, and if you're making a bombing run it's a moot point because you're dropping at ~30km anyways, which is in range of both. Really, the BC nerf was entirely justified. They were stupidly good for the cost and they were still used and useful after the nerf, just not nearly to the extent that they used to be (because that was broken). Also the BC nerf included precisely zero changes to their speed and only tiny changes to align time and mass.BCs still easily out-damage T1 Cruisers too, it's just that the T1 Cruiser is way faster. If the BC could catch the Cruiser then they'd simply trump cruisers flat out. At the end of the day it hasn't really been nerfs that have done in BS and BC class ships in PvP, it's been successive and small buffs to other ship classes.
Your hypothetical mixed range BC fleet doesn't make sense because a. No one flies bc's and b. What kind of fleet would have people using railguns and autocannons on their backbone ships
There are numerous bc's that are straight outdamaged by the Vexor for example
And adding mass is basically a speed nerf
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
638
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 19:26:20 -
[281] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:You can disagree all you want. If your idea of Battleship balance is Battleship > 5 HACs you're going to be nothing but disappointed with anything CCP do.
And yet, I didn't say that.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 19:37:15 -
[282] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Your hypothetical mixed range BC fleet doesn't make sense because a. No one flies bc's and b. What kind of fleet would have people using railguns and autocannons on their backbone ships
There are numerous bc's that are straight outdamaged by the Vexor for example
And adding mass is basically a speed nerf
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility
We're discussing the balance between BCs and Cruisers, saying "well no one uses BCs" isn't a counter argument.
As to B, how about some hypothetical BC roam. Small gang and what-not, since null doctrines tend to run whatever scales best with number of players, cost, and various other factors which are rarely constant.
The Vexor also, in theory, out-damages every other T1 Cruiser, but can have its drones popped as well as needing to fit basically no tank for all that gank.
Adding mass is not a speed nerf, this is not how the speed mechanics work, it adjusts align time and acceleration but not overall speed. The changes in this case were *tiny* and generally offset by changes to agility, meaning in many cases the align time remained the same, the only thing that changed was performance with prop mods, which generally increased since with a prop mod agility matters more than base mass value.
I'm pointing out the advantages BCs have over T1 Cruisers, not HACs, and I'm not arguing that they have some major niche that isn't currently better filled by another ship for one reason or another, I'm just saying that in a straight fight they do have some advantages over a T1 Cruiser. HACs are generally 3-4 times more expensive for the base hull, are T2 combat focused ships, and require way better skills to fit and fly effectively than a T1 BC.
It's not even like these hulls aren't being used at all anywhere in Eve. Just check the stats on ZKillboard versus the various HACs. There are actually more people going out and getting popped in BCs than HACs, but T1 Cruisers beat both of them soundly. (I'd link you, but that's against forum rules) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 19:38:42 -
[283] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:You can disagree all you want. If your idea of Battleship balance is Battleship > 5 HACs you're going to be nothing but disappointed with anything CCP do. And yet, I didn't say that.
Then I have no idea what you meant by "And I D I S A G R E E."
Soooo not my fault if you don't want to actually try and get your point across or communicate effectively. |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:05:46 -
[284] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Your hypothetical mixed range BC fleet doesn't make sense because a. No one flies bc's and b. What kind of fleet would have people using railguns and autocannons on their backbone ships
There are numerous bc's that are straight outdamaged by the Vexor for example
And adding mass is basically a speed nerf
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility We're discussing the balance between BCs and Cruisers, saying "well no one uses BCs" isn't a counter argument. As to B, how about some hypothetical BC roam. Small gang and what-not, since null doctrines tend to run whatever scales best with number of players, cost, and various other factors which are rarely constant. The Vexor also, in theory, out-damages every other T1 Cruiser, but can have its drones popped as well as needing to fit basically no tank for all that gank. Adding mass is not a speed nerf, this is not how the speed mechanics work, it adjusts align time and acceleration but not overall speed. The changes in this case were *tiny* and generally offset by changes to agility, meaning in many cases the align time remained the same, the only thing that changed was performance with prop mods, which generally increased since with a prop mod agility matters more than base mass value. I'm pointing out the advantages BCs have over T1 Cruisers, not HACs, and I'm not arguing that they have some major niche that isn't currently better filled by another ship for one reason or another, I'm just saying that in a straight fight they do have some advantages over a T1 Cruiser. HACs are generally 3-4 times more expensive for the base hull, are T2 combat focused ships, and require way better skills to fit and fly effectively than a T1 BC. It's not even like these hulls aren't being used at all anywhere in Eve. Just check the stats on ZKillboard versus the various HACs. There are actually more people going out and getting popped in BCs than HACs, but T1 Cruisers beat both of them soundly. (I'd link you, but that's against forum rules)
This does 713 DPS, does it look like tank is sacrificed?
[Vexor, Vexor1] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 150
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Ogre II x2Hammerhead II x2Hobgoblin II x1
This does maybe 10 more DPS, probably not even that since it is with rage HAM's which never do full damage and plus basically no one would fit that HAM launcher over a small neut [Hurricane, Hurricane 220] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Warp Scrambler II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Inferno Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hobgoblin II x5
This is doing 689 DPS but you do gain the medium neut (questionable usability because the harb is extremely cap hungry)[Harbinger, Harbinger focused] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Adaptive Nano Plating II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5Acolyte II x5
656 DPS but again this is using rage HAM's which do not do full damage basically ever (the turret t2 DPS ammo seems to be better in general and almost usable outside of benchmark comparisons) [Drake, Drake] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
10MN Microwarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Warp Disruptor II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5 |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:09:08 -
[285] - Quote
You can have infinite max velocity but it means nothing if your acceleration is so slow that you never reach it
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
369
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:16:20 -
[286] - Quote
soap, nevermind them - they just love Cruisers Online.
http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
A reasonable balancing thing to do would be to raise 1600mm / LSE fitting reqs, while compensating with more CPU/PG on all BCs, so that the cruiser peasants stick to the 800mm plates.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:35:03 -
[287] - Quote
We all know what happens now. The Vexor gets nerfed while the BC's stay terrible |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:05:20 -
[288] - Quote
Nah, not even that.
BCs will just stay terrible in this cruiser meta.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:17:35 -
[289] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:You can have infinite max velocity but it means nothing if your acceleration is so slow that you never reach it
Again, they didn't significantly nerf the align time of BCs. As in only two ships significantly changed align time. The +.7 seconds on the Drake and the -.4 on the Prophecy. Everything else was either +.05 or nothing, and lower inertia means that with a prop mod the ships accelerate and perform better.
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:A reasonable balancing thing to do would be to raise 1600mm / LSE fitting reqs, while compensating with more CPU/PG on all BCs, so that the cruiser peasants stick to the 800mm plates.
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
abrasive soap wrote:We all know what happens now. The Vexor gets nerfed while the BC's stay terrible
Only if the Vexor is over-performing relative to other T1 Cruisers, but that would be a problem within the T1 Cruiser class and wouldn't have any bearing on the standing of BCs or BS class ships. So far that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not nearly to the extent that the Ishtar was the dominating HAC.
Overall it kind of feels like BCs aren't as bad off as people are making them out to be, they're just no longer the sweet spot between cost and effectiveness for T1, and at least some of the people complaining just want that back. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:22:55 -
[290] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring.
Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods; Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact;
Ever heard of ratios?
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:50:19 -
[291] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring. Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods; Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact; Ever heard of ratios?
T2 and T3 Cruisers are balanced around being able to fit those modules and the trade-offs that entails, plus that has zero effect on active-tanked fits which still make up a significant portion of Cruiser gameplay.
Those modules are also a significant portion of the fitting cost on a BC, as well as BS sized fits, so BCs would still need a rebalance to be able to fit them (currently a 1600 plate takes about 1/3rd of the PG on a Hurricane), and BSes would see at least some effect.
There's also no evidence here that those modules are a problem, you've simply decided seemingly arbitrarily that they're a problem based on the magnitude of the bonus provided without taking anything else into account. For example that LSEs are equivalent to 800 plates and the buffer tanks just have sizes they're intentionally not tied to ship size. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:55:57 -
[292] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring. Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods; Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact; Ever heard of ratios? T2 and T3 Cruisers are balanced around being able to fit those modules
Oh, now they're balanced around them? HACs were always balanced around local tanking ever since their introduction in 2005.
But thanks for the laugh. Useless to continue this discussion, which no one takes note of anyway.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
542
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 01:50:33 -
[293] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility
BCs can manage slightly more versatile fits, and all BCs have at least 1 utility high, making them a better middleweight middle cost combat exploration ship than most HACs. They are still dunked on by ishtars in that category though. As PVP ships, don't even.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 03:15:05 -
[294] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Oh, now they're balanced around them? HACs were always balanced around local active tanking ever since their introduction around 2005, but thanks for the laugh! Compared to these setups, local cruiser active tanks are a joke, hence you have dead brick cancer as the epitome of combat in Eve, without either Battlecruisers or Battleships being present in that equation, courtesy of over-sized plates and especially extenders, which coupled with sig and speed tanking, make cruisers reach BC EHP levels in effect, and in the case of T3 - they simply match Battleship EHP levels de facto.
HACs haven't been used as fleet active tanked ships since at least 2008/9, and given that the entire class has been rebalanced that claim is flatly false. Rise flew (and I would presume still flies) a lot of HACs has a PvP pilot and is perfectly aware of their capabilities. They're fantastic fleet ships because of their resists. The buffer is simply a nice bonus that lets the Logi get reps on them.
Also no, Cruisers do not hit BC levels of tank, unless you mean a completely unfitted BC vs a Cruiser with tank fitted. Fully fitted BCs can consistently end up with 3-4 times the EHP of a Cruiser fit due to more slots, more fitting room, and much higher base HP.
The only places Cruisers really beat out BCs is in speed, agility, and cost, which are clearly more important in most current meta's.
How you're getting "the problem is Cruisers fitting larger tank mods" out of that I haven't a clue, especially since Cruisers have been able to fit LSEs and 1600 plates since more or less the inception of Eve as a game. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
377
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 12:13:15 -
[295] - Quote
Battlecruisers are finally fixed, tovarischi!
We can warp 8% faster - the only single detriment that had been in place to successfully employing battlecruisers in spaceships space PvP. Yes.
Rejoice, fellow pilotes. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2303
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 12:24:30 -
[296] - Quote
Felter Echerie wrote:Challus Mercer wrote:Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :( nope; they should be slow. Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.
Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
399
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:02:21 -
[297] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.
Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.
Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower.
Taking a game and saying "look! Real life does it this way so we should to!" is utter nonsense. We play games like because they're different from real life and let us do things we never could in real life. That's why the people who make games are called Game Developers and not Urban Planners.
Games can take inspiration from real life and even mimic it when appropriate, but that should always be because doing so favors gameplay in some way and in this case Eve Battleships are slow. It's one of the fundamentals of the class for the last 8-9 years, ever since the Nano-Nerf, and the game is better for it. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4406
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:05:07 -
[298] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
639
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:03:11 -
[299] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower...
And here is the problem that battlecruisers and battleships face. Warping fast or not is only a tiny part that makes them bad.
The warping thing is bad because you want to get from a to b at some point. As long as you are in the warp tunnel nothing happens anyway, everything is out of your control.
The being useless on grid is the other thing that makes those classes bad. Fine you have 1000-2000dps that you can neither project nor apply to anything.
Both classes are too slow to keep up with the cruiser speeds and long range guns need so much help that it is always better to keep them in a station. So there goes the projection out of the window.
Battleships have that other problem that they need to get a target lock on something before they get volleyd of the field.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2318
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:08:46 -
[300] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Felter Echerie wrote:Challus Mercer wrote:Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :( nope; they should be slow. Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships. Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical. Historically you could send a few carriers out and decimate half of the American Pacific fleet with but a few losses. But that wouldn't be fun for gameplay though. |
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
385
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:22:37 -
[301] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Felter Echerie wrote:Challus Mercer wrote:Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :( nope; they should be slow. Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships. Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical. Historically you could send a few carriers out and decimate half of the American Pacific fleet with but a few losses. But that wouldn't be fun for gameplay though.
Those ships were AFK at a POS with its shields down.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2303
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 11:19:11 -
[302] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.
Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical. Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower. Taking a game and saying "look! Real life does it this way so we should to!" is utter nonsense. We play games like because they're different from real life and let us do things we never could in real life. That's why the people who make games are called Game Developers and not Urban Planners. Games can take inspiration from real life and even mimic it when appropriate, but that should always be because doing so favors gameplay in some way and in this case Eve Battleships are slow. It's one of the fundamentals of the class for the last 8-9 years, ever since the Nano-Nerf, and the game is better for it. Not true at all.
EvE modelled ships based on historical naval forces. Frigates were fast and small and lightly armed and armor. check. You can go through the entire original lineup of EvE ships and the approximate very accurately the speed, armor, defense and offense of traditional naval forces on earth.
Carriers were the first ships that broke with that thinking, having ridiculous amounts of armor when compared to battleships however they were added a long time after the original line.
No borrowed in name, copied in functionality and purpose from naval forces.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
404
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 02:58:39 -
[303] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Not true at all.
EvE modelled ships based on historical naval forces. Frigates were fast and small and lightly armed and armor. check. You can go through the entire original lineup of EvE ships and the approximate very accurately the speed, armor, defense and offense of traditional naval forces on earth.
Carriers were the first ships that broke with that thinking, having ridiculous amounts of armor when compared to battleships however they were added a long time after the original line.
No borrowed in name, copied in functionality and purpose from naval forces.
[Citation Needed]
No, the comparison is loose at best, which is my point. There's no equivalent to Torpedoes for Destroyers for a start. Look back at Eve's history, the classes borrow the names as size designations and nothing more, the stats build off of the size, trading weight for speed which often didn't apply to historical naval ships since displacement often meant bigger engines and more speed, not less.
They *certainly* don't balance the ships based on naval ships, it just doesn't translate. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
542
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 03:25:04 -
[304] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Not true at all.
EvE modelled ships based on historical naval forces. Frigates were fast and small and lightly armed and armor. check. You can go through the entire original lineup of EvE ships and the approximate very accurately the speed, armor, defense and offense of traditional naval forces on earth.
Carriers were the first ships that broke with that thinking, having ridiculous amounts of armor when compared to battleships however they were added a long time after the original line.
No borrowed in name, copied in functionality and purpose from naval forces. [Citation Needed] No, the comparison is loose at best, which is my point. There's no equivalent to Torpedoes for Destroyers for a start. Look back at Eve's history, the classes borrow the names as size designations and nothing more, the stats build off of the size, trading weight for speed which often didn't apply to historical naval ships since displacement often meant bigger engines and more speed, not less. They *certainly* don't balance the ships based on naval ships, it just doesn't translate.
Though you can draw comparisons between ABCs being true battle cruisers, with cruiser weight armor and such on cruiser hulls upsized just enough to fit battleship caliber weapons on, without violating the rules on the number of capital vessels nations could have, and CBCs as "grand/heavy/armored cruisers" which thickened the decks, belt and hull but left them with between 6" and 9" guns, and sacrificed some speed relative to both cruisers and battleships IRL.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
404
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 03:28:49 -
[305] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Though you can draw comparisons between ABCs being true battle cruisers, with cruiser weight armor and such on cruiser hulls upsized just enough to fit battleship caliber weapons on, without violating the rules on the number of capital vessels nations could have, and CBCs as "grand/heavy/armored cruisers" which thickened the decks, belt and hull but left them with between 6" and 9" guns, and sacrificed some speed relative to both cruisers and battleships IRL.
Sure, but just because we can draw the comparison back the other way doesn't mean the comparison works both ways or that Eve ships are currently or should try to in the future emulate the roles of real-life naval vessels. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
543
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 19:15:49 -
[306] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:James Baboli wrote:Though you can draw comparisons between ABCs being true battle cruisers, with cruiser weight armor and such on cruiser hulls upsized just enough to fit battleship caliber weapons on, without violating the rules on the number of capital vessels nations could have, and CBCs as "grand/heavy/armored cruisers" which thickened the decks, belt and hull but left them with between 6" and 9" guns, and sacrificed some speed relative to both cruisers and battleships IRL. Sure, but just because we can draw the comparison back the other way doesn't mean the comparison works both ways or that Eve ships are currently or should try to in the future emulate the roles of real-life naval vessels. It also means that much more studied and dedicated groups saw at least some reason to have both sides, and recognized that the two, while superficially similar, are two very different animals and can barely share a name.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Sissy Fuzz
Sissy Fuzz Communications
28
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 20:53:24 -
[307] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We are also making some tweaks to warp rig penalties. At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have.
We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy.
Campers will love this, that's for sure. Have they been whining? Exactly what "power level" is it you are referring to when it comes to small ships? The power to throw 150 dps round real quick? Or the power to just warp the hell out of everyone and go scan the next system for relic signatures? What a nice word, "power level", btw... fluffy, vague... perfect.
I remember RSBs being nerfed because instalocking was a bit out of hand to a point where you could set a gate camp that nothing would be able to pass. Well, the sig penalty proposed here is one step back, right?
Yes, you can fit your interceptor for fast warping, in accordance with its intended use, but this will now only be an advantage as long as you stay in one system. Because you will be instalocked by any RSB-gang in all your bubble-imuneness glory if you try to go elsewhere.
Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp?
CCP Fozzie wrote: We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy.
Of course you do.
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
405
|
Posted - 2015.04.22 22:06:43 -
[308] - Quote
Sissy Fuzz wrote:Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp?
No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
665
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 06:37:18 -
[309] - 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. |
Kendarr
Zebra Corp The Bastion
43
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 07:53:31 -
[310] - Quote
The BC warp change sounds great. Hopefully it will bring them back a little.
I'm not sure about the Sig Radius penalty on the warp rig, I only really use them on my tackle Steilltio which in theory will be hit harder and easier not but I guess that's why we have rig skills to reduce the drawback. In terms of freeing CPU up I like it on paper and it gives me alot more fitting options.
I will be back to provide more feed back after the patch.
Zebra-Corp
|
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1384
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 11:35:50 -
[311] - Quote
I am glad this change is come thing through.
There is a similar complaint with battleships but I would prefer they get a stronger tank, maybe a boost to the hull HP or a little to resists.
It is crazy that Tech 3 cruisers manage as much RAW tank as battleships then have sig + speed over them. They also seem to be a bit better than battlecruisers but no where near bridging the gap between battle cruisers and capitals.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
423
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 09:50:33 -
[312] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Warp speed was the least of BC issues and improving it has absolutely no effect on the sad state of BCs. Don't think you have flown a BC in ages. Part of the reason that roaming in frigs and cruisers is so much more preferable to BCs is the speed of getting around. While the warp speed change isn't huge, it does help close the gap and make BCs slightly more viable. However, the penalty change from CPU to sig radius is incredibly disappointing. My ship fits with warp speed rigs (like my raptor) work fine around the cpu penalty, but are now punished worse by the sig radius change. Yeah, BC's will only be 5 or 6 seconds behind support ships instead of the current 8 or 9 seconds. That should certainly make them more appealing for roaming. Or not..
With the slower align times of BC's, giving them the same warp speed as a cruiser would make a difference. Simply increasing warp speed marginally is not going to change anything. Yes align times can be increased - at the cost of DPS or tank.
CPU to SIG, WHY? Penalize shield doctrines, just a little more. Anything Caldari just got yet another kick in the nuts, big time. Remove all penalties from warp speed rigs - Simply fitting them is penalty enough. Less tank and or less DPS, is a penalty.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1098
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 10:14:31 -
[313] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Yeah, BC's will only be 5 or 6 seconds behind support ships instead of the current 8 or 9 seconds. That should certainly make them more appealing for roaming. Or not..
You're thinking too narrowly - over a roam of say 20 jumps covering a few hundred AU, that time really starts to adds up. Time the rest of the fleet is kicking its heels waiting on the fatboys.
It's not just about how long it takes to land in combat, it's the basic travel time as well. No-one likes to wait on the fat guy getting up the hill |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
423
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 10:32:38 -
[314] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Yeah, BC's will only be 5 or 6 seconds behind support ships instead of the current 8 or 9 seconds. That should certainly make them more appealing for roaming. Or not.. You're thinking too narrowly - over a roam of say 20 jumps covering a few hundred AU, that time really starts to adds up. Time the rest of the fleet is kicking its heels waiting on the fatboys. It's not just about how long it takes to land in combat, it's the basic travel time as well. No-one likes to wait on the fat guy getting up the hill I get that, which is why i suggested giving them the same warp speed as cruisers. The slower align time can be dealt with via fitting trade offs (and a mobile depot). Overall the existing slower align time with cruiser warp speed would put them in a more favourable place for roaming. 8% increase to warp speed just isn't enough to change their current position.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1098
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 10:42:01 -
[315] - Quote
Hrm, maybe. I already have a quick hurricane I use for cheap links. 6s align, already warps quicker than a cruiser.
Actually as I type this, a blanket reigning in of the cruisers combined with this existing change would make them more desirable to me. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
557
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 11:49:05 -
[316] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Hrm, maybe. I already have a quick hurricane I use for cheap links. 6s align, already warps quicker than a cruiser.
Actually as I type this, a blanket reigning in of the cruisers combined with this existing change would make them more desirable to me. Took about 5 minutes to whip up a 4 link active, pick 5 to fit hurricane. for about 100m It only gets better when the rig changes go live, and ends up almost fast enough to keep up with destroyers or frigates.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
415
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 19:35:08 -
[317] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I get that, which is why i suggested giving them the same warp speed as cruisers. The slower align time can be dealt with via fitting trade offs (and a mobile depot). Overall the existing slower align time with cruiser warp speed would put them in a more favourable place for roaming. 8% increase to warp speed just isn't enough to change their current position.
The original reason for the overall change in warp speed as well as the changes in how warp speed affects warp time were meant to create a meaningful change in Eve, and they've obviously succeeded in doing that.
IMO if BCs aren't worth a very slight decrease in Cruiser warp speed then that's a problem with the class, not something that should be rectified by further homogenization. These changes make sense, because there really wasn't enough granular distinction between Cruisers, BCs, and Battleships. Just giving BCs the same warp speed as Cruisers though, is too much. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
225
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 22:32:34 -
[318] - Quote
Sissy Fuzz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: We are also making some tweaks to warp rig penalties. At the moment the two sets of warp rigs have -CPU penalties, which are among the most harsh penalties that rigs in EVE can have.
We are planning to change the penalty on Warp rigs into a Signature Radius increase (like the penalty on shield rigs). This penalty matters quite a bit for large nullsec fleets and small ships (two areas where we want to be cautious about the power level of warp speed rigs) but is much less important for smaller gang activities in large ships, as well as for mission runners. We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy.
Campers will love this, that's for sure. Have they been whining? Exactly what "power level" is it you are referring to when it comes to small ships? The power to throw 150 dps round real quick? Or the power to just warp the hell out of everyone and go scan the next system for relic signatures? What a nice word, "power level", btw... fluffy, vague... perfect. I remember RSBs being nerfed because instalocking was a bit out of hand to a point where you could set a gate camp that nothing would be able to pass. Well, the sig penalty proposed here is one step back, right? Yes, you can fit your interceptor for fast warping, in accordance with its intended use, but this will now only be an advantage as long as you stay in one system. Because you will be instalocked by any RSB-gang in all your bubble-imuneness glory if you try to go elsewhere. Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp? CCP Fozzie wrote: We hope that this change will open up some new interesting fitting options that people will enjoy.
Of course you do. Interceptors intended central use is tackle. Not taxiing. Try to calm down. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
225
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 22:37:06 -
[319] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Sissy Fuzz wrote:Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp? No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock. As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
417
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 08:22:44 -
[320] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Sissy Fuzz wrote:Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp? No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock. As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth.
Nope, it's not, as someone else pointed out, the server operates in ticks and the lock mechanics are where this shows up. So one tick to lock, a second tick to confirm a lock, and at the start of the third tick the point goes active. So if you align and warp in less than 2 seconds you're uncatchable unless something bumps you or otherwise slows down your warp. |
|
Wolfdun
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 10:08:59 -
[321] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Mizhir wrote:GORSKI4CSMXI Is kil2 running too? I'd vote for him. Lol kil2? Iirc he was employed by CCP as CCP Rise |
Danyrd
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 11:49:59 -
[322] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:I get that, which is why i suggested giving them the same warp speed as cruisers. The slower align time can be dealt with via fitting trade offs (and a mobile depot). Overall the existing slower align time with cruiser warp speed would put them in a more favourable place for roaming. 8% increase to warp speed just isn't enough to change their current position. The original reason for the overall change in warp speed as well as the changes in how warp speed affects warp time were meant to create a meaningful change in Eve, and they've obviously succeeded in doing that. IMO if BCs aren't worth a very slight decrease in Cruiser warp speed then that's a problem with the class, not something that should be rectified by further homogenization. These changes make sense, because there really wasn't enough granular distinction between Cruisers, BCs, and Battleships. Just giving BCs the same warp speed as Cruisers though, is too much. They "Exceeded" "meaningful change", it removed so many ships from being suitable for roaming.
This pseudo buff to BC's is not going to make them any more suitable than they are now. It does not do anything to remedy the lack of "that something" that makes players want to fly a ship. BC's need to have a WOW (as in"that's great i want one") factor, they used to with T3 BC's but it has been lost with the cruiser buffs. CCP did a great job buffing T1 cruisers - So good in fact they left BC's as the 2nd least viable option for gate to gate roaming, ahead only of Dreadnoughts.
Go roaming in a T1 cruiser gang, you can have all you need travelling together. Go roaming with a BC gang and logi, ewar etc all need to wait for the DPS to catch up. It is not only warp speed that creates the "wait" you need to add in align and warp acceleration as well, by the time those 2 kick in, support ships are holding on each gate for 15 to 20 seconds waiting for the main part of the fleet to catch up. Fit the BC's so they can align and warp faster, you may as well just fly cruisers because any benefit you had with the BC is lost to fitting trade offs. This change may reduce the "wait" to 10 12 to seconds, which when said quickly sounds ok but multiply that by 20 or 30 jumps and cruisers are still the way to go.
The duel drawback being introduced on warp rigs (sig radius + reduced tank) is especially harsh on shield doctrines, which are often preferred for roaming over longer distances. So they still won't get used. |
Daerrol
Furtherance.
127
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 16:09:44 -
[323] - Quote
You guys do understand, the whole point of freuquent releases is to slowly change the game and not do it drastically. So you up BC Warp speed, wait 3 months (skip the next patch) and see how it went, then if it was not enough of a buff you up it again, or up something else entirely. So yeah, this patch SHOULD NOT totally fix BC, it should be one step of a gradual process that fixes them. I think it's a great start. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
446
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 21:26:12 -
[324] - Quote
So which month is Ishtar fix month?
Probably offtopic.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Danyrd
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 23:24:31 -
[325] - Quote
Daerrol wrote:You guys do understand, the whole point of freuquent releases is to slowly change the game and not do it drastically. So you up BC Warp speed, wait 3 months (skip the next patch) and see how it went, then if it was not enough of a buff you up it again, or up something else entirely. So yeah, this patch SHOULD NOT totally fix BC, it should be one step of a gradual process that fixes them. I think it's a great start. Your right, this patch alone should not fix BC's, problem is, this patch has no meaning without knowing what comes next. It alone does not make BC's any better or worse to use than they are now. I preferred the old way of updates and patching. At least with it, Devs posted information about what was coming and it was understandable because it tied into game change. Major changes to game play need to be put into the game together or at least communicated as a whole so players can make valid decisions This method of rolling individual "patches" and the way CCP is now (not) communicating what is going on, leaves a lot to be desired.
For many years I tried to train characters and adjust game play in preparation for coming changes.. Yes they were major changes and often riddled with problems but at least you had plenty of warning about what was coming and could prepare. Now, there is no point to planning skills and training based on what is happening in the next patch. There is a big chance, what you decide to train for when XXX update is released will become irrelevant in YYY patch.
Players old and new have made a commitment to the game, often a long term one and need to know what is happening in the game to be able to decide what to train, where to live, who to make enemies of and who you want for friends. I'm not keeping subs active when I don't know from one month to the next whether it is worth it or not. I've invested a lot of time money and energy into my game and after 7 years, have no idea what to do next.
Right now it is hard to decide whether Eve is still worth playing as I have no idea what direction the game is taking. People say, "wait and see" but how long do I keep "waiting", playing and paying for a game that has no direction, nothing I can base goals on?
- - - - - - - - - NB: I have never seen so many good quality well skilled pilots for sale on the character bazaar. Players are dumping characters they have spent years training up, especially capital pilots. Many of them won't sell, unless literally dumped cheap because no-one knows if those pilots will have any use 6 weeks from now, let alone a year or two from now. This character has made me a lot of isk over the years but is being sold as I just don't know if it will be useful to me anymore and I would rather just pass it on than sit on it and wait to see what happens, six weeks from now.
|
Tyr Dolorem
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
45
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 00:59:07 -
[326] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Sissy Fuzz wrote:Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp? No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock. As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth. Nope, it's not, as someone else pointed out, the server operates in ticks and the lock mechanics are where this shows up. So one tick to lock, a second tick to confirm a lock, and at the start of the third tick the point goes active. So if you align and warp in less than 2 seconds you're uncatchable unless something bumps you or otherwise slows down your warp.
Tell that to my malediction https://zkillboard.com/kill/42850481/
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
419
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 02:24:52 -
[327] - Quote
Danyrd wrote:They "Exceeded" "meaningful change", it removed so many ships from being suitable for roaming.
This pseudo buff to BC's is not going to make them any more suitable than they are now. It does not do anything to remedy the lack of "that something" that makes players want to fly a ship. BC's need to have a WOW (as in"that's great i want one") factor, they used to with T3 BC's but it has been lost with the cruiser buffs. CCP did a great job buffing T1 cruisers - So good in fact they left BC's as the 2nd least viable option for gate to gate roaming, ahead only of Dreadnoughts.
Go roaming in a T1 cruiser gang, you can have all you need travelling together. Go roaming with a BC gang and logi, ewar etc all need to wait for the DPS to catch up. It is not only warp speed that creates the "wait" you need to add in align and warp acceleration as well, by the time those 2 kick in, support ships are holding on each gate for 15 to 20 seconds waiting for the main part of the fleet to catch up. Fit the BC's so they can align and warp faster, you may as well just fly cruisers because any benefit you had with the BC is lost to fitting trade offs. This change may reduce the "wait" to 10 12 to seconds, which when said quickly sounds ok but multiply that by 20 or 30 jumps and cruisers are still the way to go.
The duel drawback being introduced on warp rigs (sig radius + reduced tank) is especially harsh on shield doctrines, which are often preferred for roaming over longer distances. So they still won't get used.
There's no reduced tank on these rigs. High sig radius only translates to increased damage if you're trying to speed tank, which was already barely noticeable with a Shield Tanked BC.
Second you don't need to wait for anyone to catch up as long as you fleet warp everyone together, they just move at the speed of the slowest ship.
You also only need one rig or module to get a BC up to the warp speed of a Cruiser. That's a small sacrifice at best when you look at the DPS and tank of a BC compared to a Cruiser. That indicates that the problem with BCs is hardly in the warp speed of the ships.
Danyrd wrote:Your right, this patch alone should not fix BC's, problem is, this patch has no meaning without knowing what comes next. It alone does not make BC's any better or worse to use than they are now. I preferred the old way of updates and patching. At least with it, Devs posted information about what was coming and it was understandable because it tied into game change. Major changes to game play need to be put into the game together or at least communicated as a whole so players can make valid decisions This method of rolling individual "patches" and the way CCP is now (not) communicating what is going on, leaves a lot to be desired.
For many years I tried to train characters and adjust game play in preparation for coming changes.. Yes they were major changes and often riddled with problems but at least you had plenty of warning about what was coming and could prepare. Now, there is no point to planning skills and training based on what is happening in the next patch. There is a big chance, what you decide to train for when XXX update is released will become irrelevant in YYY patch.
Players old and new have made a commitment to the game, often a long term one and need to know what is happening in the game to be able to decide what to train, where to live, who to make enemies of and who you want for friends. I'm not keeping subs active when I don't know from one month to the next whether it is worth it or not. I've invested a lot of time money and energy into my game and after 7 years, have no idea what to do next.
Right now it is hard to decide whether Eve is still worth playing as I have no idea what direction the game is taking. People say, "wait and see" but how long do I keep "waiting", playing and paying for a game that has no direction, nothing I can base goals on?
It's never been a safe long-term bet that something OP would remain OP forever, or that something not worth using would stay that way. This faster release cadence means those things get fixed faster.
CCP can't tell us what comes after a fix if they don't know it. They may have something in mind but they need to look at the change and what it did and then figure out what to do next. At best they could give us their current thoughts, and those may not even stay accurate. Historically the player-base hasn't reacted well to being given too much speculative information.
The overall direction though should be pretty clear with the upcoming Sov and Structure changes. Have you looked at the keynote from Fanfest? That's generally a good outline of the next year. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
226
|
Posted - 2015.04.26 02:33:12 -
[328] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Sissy Fuzz wrote:Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp? No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock. As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth. Nope, it's not, as someone else pointed out, the server operates in ticks and the lock mechanics are where this shows up. So one tick to lock, a second tick to confirm a lock, and at the start of the third tick the point goes active. So if you align and warp in less than 2 seconds you're uncatchable unless something bumps you or otherwise slows down your warp. Buddy youve been misled. The 2 second rule is a soft rule not a hard one. If round trip latency plus reflexes plus lock time is less than 2 seconds ie euro players on an instalock gatecamp. They get the lock |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
144
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 01:25:34 -
[329] - Quote
Tyr Dolorem wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Sissy Fuzz wrote:Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp? No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock. As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth. Nope, it's not, as someone else pointed out, the server operates in ticks and the lock mechanics are where this shows up. So one tick to lock, a second tick to confirm a lock, and at the start of the third tick the point goes active. So if you align and warp in less than 2 seconds you're uncatchable unless something bumps you or otherwise slows down your warp. Tell that to my malediction https://zkillboard.com/kill/42850481/
It happens when the server lags, it's VERY rare.
Also if someone has a insta locker and you are sub 2 second to get to warp, but your warp destination is 180 degree's from where your ship face (ie you want to warp behind you), i have seen ships get lock.
Still... i have done it, under heavy gates, and still made it out perfectly fine... lol |
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
23
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 14:49:31 -
[330] - Quote
Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.
Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps. |
|
Mario Putzo
1265
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 16:10:49 -
[331] - Quote
Styphon the Black wrote:Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.
Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps.
You don't have to?
The BCs are getting a warp speed increase upfront. The rig changes are secondary. Im not sure why CCP chose to announce them in the same thread but they really are not linked in any fashion. 2 completely different changes.
|
abrasive soap
Chest Bumpers Oh My Bad
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 20:25:32 -
[332] - Quote
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:12:38 -
[333] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Styphon the Black wrote:Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.
Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps. You don't have to? The BCs are getting a warp speed increase upfront. The rig changes are secondary. Im not sure why CCP chose to announce them in the same thread but they really are not linked in any fashion. 2 completely different changes. Really? You can't see why CCP nerf would announce them together?
He knows the pseudo buff to BC's is pointless, so used the (also pointless) change to warp rigs in an attempt to make both look like they may be valid change.
Fozzie Logic - Put warp rigs on your BC's and they are good to roam with.. Thuth is; There not really, the new drawback to warp rigs is likely to see them used on nothing more than ceptors who don't have a tank to worry about but then the extra sig on a ceptor makes it easier to hit so they may not be all that useful there either..
Fozzie has done his usual with warp rigs, added a nerf and attempted to make it look like a buff.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Mario Putzo
1292
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:07:32 -
[334] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?
Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1125
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 12:49:07 -
[335] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.
Cruiser DPS is just flat out too damned high across the board. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
135
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 03:51:00 -
[336] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:
Also if someone has a insta locker and you are sub 2 second to get to warp, but your warp destination is 180 degree's from where your ship face (ie you want to warp behind you), i have seen ships get lock.
Still... i have done it, under heavy gates, and still made it out perfectly fine... lol
From a stationary position (i.e. coming out of a gate jump), the direction of your warp destination doesn't have any bearing on the time it takes for you to enter warp. In EVE, ships are modelled as vectors, and the actual orientation of the engines has no relevance to the direction in which thrust is applied. Therefore the time to warp from a stationary position pointing in one direction is the same as if the ship were pointing in the opposite direction and stationary. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 21:23:25 -
[337] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? You get cruiser warp speed by dropping one rig on the warp speed. Do you actually believe that 'dropping' one rig makes the BC flat out worse than a cruiser, to the point where you have to keep whining about it? I don't even know what you want, exactly. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 21:25:06 -
[338] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that. When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
594
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 21:28:57 -
[339] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that. When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah? Finite amount of minerals. Importing stuff is harder and harder for doctrines. More efficient use of isk or m3 is becoming more important.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Mario Putzo
1385
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 04:30:12 -
[340] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that. When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah?
Its a common theme regardless of Tech level. Cruisers are just off more bang for the buck. Period. They have no real predators, other than other cruisers. The fact BC are so **** in comparison is one of the primary reasons we rarely see BS (in addition to other things like Bombers) since BS are just not practical to use against Cruisers (outside a couple of drone boats but drones are a whole different gripe for a different thread).
Cruisers have no real hard counter, so why would you really ever use anything but them. All you have to do is plan to counter other cruisers, since you can dunk on Dessies, and Frigs. If you see BC, you can just run away, they can't keep up, they can't hit out to range effectively, if you see BS, dunk on them too. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |