|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
133
   |
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:57:10 -
[1] - Quote
I'd like to see more agility or warp speed increases across the board as that I believe is what is lacking at the moment in terms of actual practical combat use.
Also I'd find a tracking bonus far more useful on a lot of those ships rather than the optimal/falloff bonus. This optimal/falloff bonus doesn't seem right, it is a blanket buff across the whole class which benefits some ships a lot more than others.
Also the Ferox seems like it will be too powerful with these changes in a sniping setup. One of the key drawbacks of battlecruisers over battleships is that the battlecruiser cannot MJD away from a target and maintain its lock and weapon range except for the myrmidon and prophechy which are both drone boats so their drones continue to attack whether they have lock or not.
I'd suggest having another look at the Ferox, perhaps change one of the bonuses to a tracking bonus so it doesn't become a better sniping ship than a tier 3 BC or Battleship.
Also the Ferox is more agile than the Hurricane? Surely that is a mistake. Someone must love Ferox's at CCP as you have definitely overdone its buffs there. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
134
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 23:49:51 -
[2] - Quote
Is Caldari being the second most agile race a new thing? It seem to be so from these changes. I always thought it was supposed to be Gallente > Minmatar > Caldari > Amarr. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
134
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 00:42:03 -
[3] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:Can we take a look at giving the Cyclone a bit more CPU? It's pretty tight, even on a double-nano brawling setup, but if you want to fit Heavy Missiles and try for long range, you need a Co-Processor or rig, and Meta/Faction a lot of modules. You could probably take a little PG away from the Cyclone to balance it, as it always seems to have some left, although being able to use both utility high slots would be nice. Some example builds: http://i.imgur.com/q3gYFxd.png Or you could like fit the right size shield booster on the cyclone. I believe those x-large are for battleships.
Exactly, it's an oversized shield booster, so compromises on the fitting are going to be inevitable.
I've always thought the Cyclone is a powerful ship in terms of its shield bonus, but the hull concept is all over the place. The main drawback is that fact that the weapon system and shield bonus don't go well with the slot layout. The damage application isn't great due to the fact it needs it's mid slots for shield mods instead of webs, target painters, or the new missile trackers.
In essence it is a shield tanked ship with 5 low slots when it only really needs 3 or a maximum of 4, and it is in bad need of more mid slots in order to apply damage as well as fit a decent shield tank. It doesn't help that it gets no bonus to Rapid Lights meaning it really has no way of reliably applying its damage to anything below a battlecruiser.
I'd say the solution is either remove a low for a mid. Allow bonused Rapid Lights. Or improve those low slot missile guidance modules so they are actually worth fitting.
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
137
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 15:05:19 -
[4] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Baali Tekitsu wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Both of these fits are fairly rare, but nevertheless quite powerfull. Hence the ship beeing rare as hell, **** 90% of the time due to misues but a all around good ship in the right hands.
All of the Battlecruisers are "good in the right hands" (except the Drake maybe), not changing it "just because" is simply idiotic. Not really, the ones that are arent getting changed much (cylcone, myrm). The rest was pretty bad all around.
Yes there are one or two semi effective uses for it but it still needs another mid slot to be relevant in the overall meta. That could either be from dropping a high slot or a low slot. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
137
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 01:06:15 -
[5] - Quote
I don't think there is anything wrong with damage locks as long as that specific ship is extremely good at dealing that specific damage type.
In the case of Amarr ships for instance this works because they generally have good raw DPS which makes up for their lack of damage selection. Also stealth bombers again are similar as they can punch through targets which may resisted against their specific damage type due to the fact that they deliver very good damage for their size and price.
I think the problem with the Drakes kinetic lock is that it is only just up to par with the other battlecruisers when dealing its preferred kinetic damage type, and is far behind when dealing any other type of damage.
I'm pretty confident the main reason your not seeing the Drake in PvP is entirely due to the kinetic lock as that really limits your target options without giving any tangible benefit. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
138
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 01:32:45 -
[6] - Quote
I wouldn't mind battleships having a bit more EHP to make up for their slow warp and poor tracking/application; but other than that they are pretty decent at the moment. Especially if more people start using BCs as mentioned above. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
139
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 11:55:05 -
[7] - Quote
X4me1eoH wrote:Need more lockrange for all bc, for use mjd
If they get more lock range they'll be in battleship territory. They don't need more lock range and they can already use the MJD offensively. Being able to maintain lock at above 100km range alongside having the ability to fit a MJD is incredibly powerful with even many of the battleships needing a fitting mod to do this. If you want that kind of power then sacrifice a mid and fit a sensor booster. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
142
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 13:51:04 -
[8] - Quote
I'm still left wondering why Caldari seem have suddenly improved their agility. Why does the Navy Drake seem to have gained obscene levels of agility in comparison to the other BC hulls. And why is the Ferox in the top three most agile T1 BCs.
Consider that these are going to be fit with shields and so will suffer no agility penalties means Caldari are basically becoming the most agile race in terms of this rebalance.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
145
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 17:39:04 -
[9] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Moac Tor wrote:I'm still left wondering why Caldari seem have suddenly improved their agility. Why does the Navy Drake seem to have gained obscene levels of agility in comparison to the other BC hulls. And why is the Ferox in the top three most agile T1 BCs.
Consider that these are going to be fit with shields and so will suffer no agility penalties means Caldari are basically becoming the most agile race in terms of this rebalance.
Caldari ships have always been quite agile, but dont have enough speed to really make it matter in kiting setups(except the nosprey). Take for example the jackdaw, it gets a bigger bonus to inertia than velocity in prop mode. I would imagine with the navy drake they want it to fly around acting like heavy missile spam. Keeping it mobile in a fleet setup is ideal.
Caldari ships have always been the third least agile of the races. Minmatar used to be top, and then CCP decided to allow Gallente to have the agility crown. Caldari have never been known for producing agile ships and certainly not the most agile of all four of the races.
I agree the Ferox is quite easily going to be the most powerful of the T1 battlecruisers, and possibly even more powerful than some of the navy variants. It really doesn't need that agility buff on top.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
145
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 20:13:45 -
[10] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:In speed, caldari ships are generally slower, but either aligns faster or matches the other races in agility. I would agree that gallente are bordering on the most agile race, but caldari aren't far behind.
Ok, so you managed to find a few outliers without looking at the overall trend. Like I said Minmatar used to be the most agile race and then this was surpassed by Gallente in tiericide.
Here is a more comprehensive roundup:
Tier 3 BCs
Talos
Tornado
Oracle
Naga < Caldari
Battleships (Barring Tier 3s)
Typhoon
Megathron
Tempest
Apocalypse
Raven < Caldari
Scorpion < Caldari
Dominix
Armageddon
T1 Cruisers
Thorax
Omen
Caracal < Caldari
Stabber
Rupture
Vexor
Moa < Caldari
Maller
HACs
Deimos
Vagabond
Cerberus < Caldari
Ishtar
Sacrilege
Muninn
Eagle < Caldari
Zealot
I've taken the whole ship class, and barring the few outliers you found above as a general trend Caldari are behind Minmatar in terms of agility and way behind Gallente.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
|
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
145
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 20:27:47 -
[11] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Moac Tor wrote:I'm still left wondering why Caldari seem have suddenly improved their agility. Why does the Navy Drake seem to have gained obscene levels of agility in comparison to the other BC hulls. And why is the Ferox in the top three most agile T1 BCs.
Consider that these are going to be fit with shields and so will suffer no agility penalties means Caldari are basically becoming the most agile race in terms of this rebalance.
It will be based on what role they expect ships to be used for, and the Navy Drake was already agile - second overall. It seems to have passed the Navy Brutix, but i'm not sure because it looks like the Brutix has had a mass reduction while the Navy Drake has had a mass increase: so does that offset the base agility/velocity buffs after you put a prop mod on, exaggerate them, or make no difference?
The Navy Brutix has a lower mass which means its agility will be more easily impacted by putting on armour plates or prop mods. The Navy Drake has better base agility and is less affected by prop mods. So yes, the Navy Drake is the most agile BC now by quite a long way.
And you could be correct that CCP seems to be going away from the old trend of making agility a racial strength/weakness and simply using it as a balancing variable irrespective of race.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
145
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 21:25:52 -
[12] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:Moac Tor wrote:The Navy Brutix has a lower mass which means its agility will be more easily impacted by putting on armour plates or prop mods. The Navy Drake has better base agility and is less affected by prop mods. So yes, the Navy Drake is the most agile BC now by quite a long way. Who plates a Navy Brutix?
They all fit a 50mn MWD, and that will increase the mass of the ship from 11,800,000 to 16,800,000. So yes, it will make a big difference to the Brutix, wheras the effect is less for the Drake.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries
Stain Confederation
148
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 09:36:39 -
[13] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Trinkets friend wrote:The Cyclone is very, very underwhelming. I mean, the missile velocity bonus is better than nothing, but it's not enough to really make it worthwhile. It's hardly a buff..................................
.......................................................I'd like to see the Cyclone lose a high, gain a mid, and gain a missile bay. it needs more DPS, given how HML's are pathetic for it, and HAMs don't apply DPS to anything and have such a short range. Losing a high slot for a mid slot is another option instead of losing a low for a mid. However, adding a launcher removes all utility high slots. So buffing the RoF bonus would be better than giving it an extra launcher (in this situation).
I'd actually just swap the low slot for a mid. That 5th low slot is only really used for a co-processor anyway so if the base CPU were to be increased it would actually have negligible effect other than gaining a badly needed mid slot.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
|
|
| |
|