EVE Search - Sticky:[Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13122	Posted - 2015.09.11 16:57:11 - [1] - Quote Hello everyone! By now most of you know that we've been working on a Combat Battlecruiser balance pass, and we're now ready to start getting your feedback on the planned specifics! These changes are currently scheduled for our Vanguard release on September 29th. We're giving the class in general a significant buff, with every individual ship benefiting. The centerpiece of this pass is a new role bonus that adds damage projection to each ship. The bonus helps provide a unifying element across the entire class and helps Battlecruisers deal with opponents at a variety of ranges. The turret version of the bonus applies to both optimal and falloff, which makes it applicable for a larger variety of weapons. The class is also getting a noticeable boost to speed and agility across the board. Some ships benefit more than others, but on average the Combat and Navy BCs will move ~8.4% faster with a propulsion module running and require ~8.2% less time to align. The ships that are weaker and/or less popular are generally receiving bigger buffs, and the more popular ships get smaller buffs (although every ship in the class gets a net buff of some kind). When evaluating the existing states of these ships we are using a variety of factors, including subjective feedback from experienced players, our own personal experiences flying these ships on TQ, and usage metrics. To give you a quick snapshot of the current popularity of each ship, here's some metric snapshots from the past month: Percentage of all T1 Combat BC jumps (gate+wormhole) by ship over the past 30 days Drake37.4% Myrmidon17.4% Hurricane11.7% Prophecy7.4% Harbinger7.3% Ferox7.3% Brutix7.2% Cyclone4.3% Percentage of all T1 Combat BC PVP damage (from ship killmails, so does not count structure damage or ships that didn't die) by ship over the past 30 days Drake19.5% Brutix19.4% Hurricane14.7% Myrmidon13.1% Prophecy11.9% Ferox7.8% Cyclone7.2% Harbinger6.5% Percentage of all Navy Faction Combat BC jumps (gate+wormhole) by ship over the past 30 days Drake Navy Issue35.9% Hurricane Fleet Issue23.8% Harbinger Navy Issue21.6% Brutix Navy Issue18.7% Percentage of all Navy Faction Combat BC PVP damage (from ship killmails, so does not count structure damage or ships that didn't die) by ship over the past 30 days Brutix Navy Issue41.4% Hurricane Fleet Issue33.0% Harbinger Navy Issue22.8% Drake Navy Issue2.8% The details of our proposed changes for your feedback can be found in the next posts. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13122	Posted - 2015.09.11 16:57:23 - [2] - Quote Prophecy: The Prophecy is a solid middle of the road in overall popularity, and is a flexible ship that's fairly well-regarded in the community feedback. Accodingly, it's buffs are a bit milder than those given to some of the other ships. Its version of the projection bonus is as 12.5% increase in drone microwarpdrive speed which is half of the bonus that the Algos, Dragoon and (max skilled) Vexor Navy Issue get. The significant increase in base mass alongside the big velocity and agility improvements are part of an overall trend in Amarr ships that allow them to mitigate the negative effects of fitting large armor plates (among other smaller effects). Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints Role Bonus: 12.5% bonus to Drone max velocity Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 5H, 4M, 7L, 4 turrets, 4 Launchers Fittings: 1100 PWG, 415 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000 / 5500 / 4000 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000 (+150) / 750s / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 170 (+20) / 0.57 (-0.134) / 15,300,000 (+2,400,000) / 12.09s (-0.5s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 225 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 210 / 7 (+1) Sensor strength: 17 Radar Signature radius: 270 Cargo capacity: 400 Harbinger: The Harb is struggling a bit more in power level and popularity, and is therefore getting stronger than average buffs to speed and agility along with a bit more armor and some valuable capacitor. The falloff portion of the role bonus doesn't do much for lasers, but we are leaving it in because we don't see a good reason to break the consistency of the bonus across the class. The Harb is especially well placed to take advantage of the optimal portion of the role bonus with either pulses or beams. Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range and falloff Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7H, 4M, 6L, 6 turrets Fittings: 1425 PWG, 375 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000 / 5250 (+250) / 4500 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3500 (+375) / 875s (+53) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175 (+25) / 0.57 (-0.12) / 15,500,000 (+1,700,000) / 12.25s (-0.95s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+10) / 210 / 7 (+1) Sensor strength: 17 Radar Signature radius: 270 Cargo capacity: 375 Ferox: The Ferox is getting a very significant change in the form of a new skill bonus and slot changes. The shield resistance bonus is being swapped for hybrid damage, and a highslot (and turret) is being traded for a mid. This leaves the Ferox with 7.5 effective turrets (compared to 7 before) and the ability to use the new midslot to either compensate for the resistance bonus or to go in a completely different direction through tracking computers, webs, or whatever else you wish. The extra range provided by the role bonus is obviously valuable for fleet fighting with rails, and the addition of falloff helps the Ferox take advantage of its range advantage with blasters as well. Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and falloff Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7H (-1), 6M (+1), 4L, 6 (-1) turrets Fittings: 1250 PWG, 530 (+20) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250 (+250) / 3500 / 4000 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2900 (+150) / 725s (+1.5) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 (+10) / 0.63 (-0.03) / 13,250,000 / 11.75s (-0.55s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+10) / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 Cargo capacity: 475 Drake: The Drake is not particularly favoured among elite pvpers these days, but remains extremely popular overall. It has benefited significantly from the Aegis missile changes, especially the Heavy Missile damage buff. The extra powergrid and mobility will prove valuable to this ship and we expect it to remain of the most commonly flown Battlecruisers in New Eden. The range bonus in this case is especially useful for fleet fits with heavy missiles. I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Role Bonus: 25% bonus to missile velocity Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 4L, 6 Launchers Fittings: 830 (+30) PWG, 500 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500 (+250) / 3250 / 3750 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500 / 625s (-32.9) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 (+10) / 0.65 (+0.01) / 13,500,000 (-1,310,000) / 12.16s (-0.98s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5) / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 Cargo capacity: 450 Brutix: The Brutix is receiving significant mobility buffs, taking the title of most agile T1 BC as well as gaining extra hull HP and spare drone capacity. The combined optimal and falloff bonus fits especially well with blasters, helping the Brutix apply its excellent DPS more consistently across more combat situations. Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and falloff Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7H, 4M, 6L, 6 turrets Fittings: 1125 PWG, 435 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500 / 4500 / 5000 (+250) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average ... Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13122	Posted - 2015.09.11 16:57:28 - [3] - Quote And now on to the Navy BCs. These ships have always been specialized towards improved damage application to small and fast targets. We are emphasizing this existing specalization through more tracking bonuses and spare drone flights, while also passing along the damage projection bonuses from their T1 counterparts. Harbinger Navy Issue: The Navy Harb is one of the strongest Navy BCs, taking advantage of plentiful midslots and excellent laser tracking. We're adding the projection bonus and mass benefits from the T1 Harb while also pushing its speed advantage even further. Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage 7.5% bonus Medium Energy Turret tracking speed Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range and falloff Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7H, 5M, 6L, 6 turrets Fittings: 1495 PWG, 410 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4500 / 7875 (+375) / 6750 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3500 (+375) / 875s (+53) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175 (+25) / 0.52 (-0.17) / 15,500,000 (+1,700,000) / 11.17s (-2.03s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+15) / 210 / 7 (+1) Sensor strength: 21 Radar Signature radius: 270 Cargo capacity: 375 Drake Navy Issue: The Navy Drake is getting a changed skill bonus, with the previous missile velocity bonus leaving to make room for the shield resistance bonus enjoyed by the T1 Drake. Extra powergrid and drones open up a lot of new options for this ship, and it's gaining some of the biggest mobility bonuses (making it the most agile of the Navy BCs). Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances (Was missile velocity) 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion radius Role Bonus: 25% bonus to missile velocity Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 4L, 8 Launchers Fittings: 950 (+50) PWG, 550 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 8250 (+375) / 4875 / 5625 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500 / 625s (-32.9) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180 (+30) / 0.53 (-0.11) / 13,500,000 (+171,000) / 9.92s (-1.91s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 75 (+50) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+10) / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 23 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 Cargo capacity: 450 Brutix Navy Issue: The already-strong Navy Brutix doesn't need as much help as many other ships in the class, but it will benefit greatly from the projection role bonus, increased hull HP and improved mobility. Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and falloff Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7H, 4M, 7L, 6 turrets Fittings: 1235 PWG, 455 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250 / 6750 / 7500 (+375) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3100 (+100) / 775s (-14) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 (+10) / 0.63 (-0.074) / 11,800,000 (-75,000) / 10.31s (-1.28s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+10) / 200 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric Signature radius: 305 Cargo capacity: 475 Hurricane Fleet Issue: The Fleet Cane is getting a new set of skill bonuses, the previous double damage bonus replaced with 10% damage and 10% tracking per level. With the addition of extra PG, extra drones, and extra mobility, this ship is receiving some of the most significant buffs of the whole balance pass. Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage (Was 5%) 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed (Was projectile rate of fire) Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range and falloff Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 8H, 4M, 6L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers Fittings: 1380 (+30) PWG, 420 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6750 (+375) / 6750 / 5250 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2300 (+50) / 575s (-17) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185 (+20) / 0.61 (-0.094) / 12,800,000 (+300,000) / 10.82s (-1.38s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+20) / 50 (+20) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+15) / 220 / 6 Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Signature radius: 250 Cargo capacity: 425 Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13122	Posted - 2015.09.11 16:57:32 - [4] - Quote Reserved for FAQ Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2477	Posted - 2015.09.11 16:59:33 - [5] - Quote First! (Obviously, I can't see the changes yet, but based on the general overview...I'm optimistic.) Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2993	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:08:59 - [6] - Quote I can has a Drake? m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Khador Vess Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 251	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:10:49 - [7] - Quote return of the drakefleet... awesome
Destoya Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 439	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:11:52 - [8] - Quote I'll admit I laughed when I saw the Drake Navy damage statistics. Was the worst ship in the game in my opinion. Adding that resist bonus and extra shields will help a lot.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2477	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:12:52 - [9] - Quote Khador Vess wrote: return of the drakefleet... awesome Forget Drakefleet. Welcome FeroxFleet. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
Capqu Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1166	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:13:00 - [10] - Quote would you consider giving the cyclone +1 launcher? it already has an arguably worse damage bonus than the drake, and an arguably worse tank bonus than the drake (even for local tanking) and has one less mid to boot it really doesn't need the added disadvantage of -1 launcher, when its only bonus is being faster in a class not designed for speed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE

Altirius Saldiaro Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 339	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:13:00 - [11] - Quote Very good changes. I look forward to these.
Annie Gardet V0LTA Triumvirate. 5	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:15:44 - [12] - Quote BC's rebalance looks in the good direction from what i've read in your post. Have you considered increasing their warp speed a little bit more ? In my opinion,slow warp speed is the reason why everything bigger than a cruiser is so unpopular right now. Are you gonna rebalance Attack Battlecruisers aswell ?

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13129	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:16:03 - [13] - Quote Destoya wrote: I'll admit I laughed when I saw the Drake Navy damage statistics. Was the worst ship in the game in my opinion. Adding that resist bonus and extra shields will help a lot. Not a particularly impressive PVP ship for sure. However enough players enjoy using it for PVE to make it quite popular relative to other ships in its cost range (those guys will probably be quite happy about the resists). Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Ravcharas Infinite Point DARKNESS. 427	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:17:05 - [14] - Quote No warp-speed tweaks?
Anslo Scope Works Dead Terrorists 32164	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:17:08 - [15] - Quote THANK YOU BASED GOD FOZZIE [center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
aria Yatolila SnaiLs aNd FroGs Drama Sutra 41	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:17:30 - [16] - Quote seems nice, especially range bonus on turretboat
Ayallah SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 417	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:20:01 - [17] - Quote LOOOOOOVE THE CHANGES BATTLECRUISERS ARE BACK BBY

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13132	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:20:10 - [18] - Quote Ravcharas wrote: No warp-speed tweaks? Warp speed was increased earlier this year. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Destoya Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 439	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:21:18 - [19] - Quote This flat 12.5% drone velocity bonus on the Proph and Myrm is a little strange in my opinion. Was there any consideration made to it being something like 10% speed, 10% tracking? I have concerns that increasing the drone speed without increasing tracking as well will cause the drones to miss more often against small targets, and against heavier targets the drone speed bonus is hardly worth considering. I know sentry drone tracking is something that you are pretty wary about giving out after the Domi and Ishtar but I hardly think a small flat bonus would break these two ships in the sentry role.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 865	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:23:01 - [20] - Quote All these buffs should also apply to command ships as they struggle with the same issues Combat battlecruisers do, just on a lesser scale as theyre flown less and are also a tiny bit better. If they do apply to command ships aswell, then sorry for posting this. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 495	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:23:18 - [21] - Quote Thank Bob. The fleet cane is different than the t1 cane in a significant way. Range bonuses should be good enough for the longer range weapons and ok for shorter range weapons. I guess scram kiting blaster brutix is no longer a thing. My arty cane will be a force to be reckoned with now. Arthrillery 3 incoming. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 13132	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:23:36 - [22] - Quote Destoya wrote: This flat 12.5% drone velocity bonus on the Proph and Myrm is a little strange in my opinion. Was there any consideration made to it being something like 10% speed, 10% tracking? I have concerns that increasing the drone speed without increasing tracking as well will cause the drones to miss more often against small targets, and against heavier targets the drone speed bonus is hardly worth considering. I know sentry drone tracking is something that you are pretty wary about giving out after the Domi and Ishtar but I hardly think a small flat bonus would break these two ships in the sentry role. This bonus is the same one that the Algos, Dragoon and VNI get. It only applies to the drone's chase speed, not its orbit speed. This means the impact on tracking is minimal (unless we increase the speed too much, at which point the drones have trouble slowing down to enter their orbits). Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Mane Frehm The Executioners Shadow Cartel 40	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:25:22 - [23] - Quote Don't forget to look at the Gnosis.
Arkon Olacar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 533	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:26:10 - [24] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. Warping to zero
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2477	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:28:29 - [25] - Quote Mane Frehm wrote: Don't forget to look at the Gnosis. A Gnosis with +25% optimal, falloff, and missile velocity and +12.5% drone MWD velocity? OMG yes. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
Chessur Mining Industry Exile Foundation Warlords of the Deep 600	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:28:50 - [26] - Quote I really like where these changes are going. However I do have one questions regarding the turret projection bonuses. For turret boats such as lasers, the falloff bonus of 25% if essentially useless. While on the other hand, the optimal bonus for AC using ships is also- complete useless. The only weapon system that somewhat benefits from a split range bonus would be hybrids. Would there be any consideration to just changing the bonuses on each ship? IE. 50% optimal on laser boats, 50% falloff bonus on AC ships? Also, for the missile based ships, again HAM's and HMLs struggle so hard to apply damage. Cyclone and Drake are going to be feeling a little left out in their ability to apply their DPS to targets with out some type of application bonus. Any considerations on giving them one?
Yadaryon Vondawn Alius Itineris Virtus 26	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:29:22 - [27] - Quote Good changes! Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. Could you explain why this is bad? A little reasoning might help understand your bold point
Elise Randolph Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 1326	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:32:57 - [28] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. nah fam it's actually not ~
Free Stunt Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:32:58 - [29] - Quote Will edit l8er
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 495	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:33:38 - [30] - Quote I do have a slight reservation on the navy drake. It still has no High's for links or nos/neut. It is bonused for links but cant fit them without sacrificing dps, something all the other BCs dont have to consider. I dont mind the navy drake not having a tank bonus, as to be honest having good application and range can kill things quickly before harming you. Plus MMJD. So kiters are a non issue. Would changing it to something like this be a possibility? Navy Drake 5% RoF per level 5% explosion radius per lvl 25% bonus to missile velocity Drop a launcher, frees up fitting and now you can add neut/nos or links as needed without sacrificing dps. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Esnaelc Sin'led AdAstra. Beach Club 22	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:34:03 - [31] - Quote With the current meta being Cruisers, this buff to BCs is more than wellcome. Good Idea.
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3384	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:34:20 - [32] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: ercentage of all Navy Faction Combat BC jumps (gate+wormhole) by ship over the past 30 days Drake Navy Issue35.9% where is this place i can find those navy drakes? how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Capqu Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1166	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:35:33 - [33] - Quote Capqu wrote: would you consider giving the cyclone +1 launcher? it already has an arguably worse damage bonus than the drake, and an arguably worse tank bonus than the drake (even for local tanking) and has one less mid to boot it really doesn't need the added disadvantage of -1 launcher, when its only bonus is being faster in a class not designed for speed please respond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1972	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:36:14 - [34] - Quote Home run. +10000
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 342	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:36:44 - [35] - Quote I like the kinetic only bonus and i think all caldari ships should have it (and minnie explo)! However, the drake is a piece of garbage atm, and it will stay that way at the current rate. It got buffed, but a pile of ** with seasoning is still a pile of **. Also, the navy cane basicely lost dps.
Dukes Nukem SnaiLs aNd FroGs Drama Sutra 0	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:36:55 - [36] - Quote nothing about warp speed ?
Kelsey Auditore Shadow State The Bastion 142	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:37:21 - [37] - Quote Pls shorten the train of t2 battlecruisers. 90 days is kinda crazy just to fly a sleipnir which isn't really even used as a booster.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 495	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:37:27 - [38] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. As someone who has flown drakes solo extensively, this is a non issue. Stop being narrow minded. I have killed numerous prenerf confessors with a drake using thermal missiles. Anything without a heavy kinetic resist will die quickly to the amount of dps able to be pumped out by that bonus. No, maybe you cant solo a deimos in a t1 drake. But the navy drake might be better. Cant expect 1 ship to handle every ship in the game. Unless you are an orthrus or gila. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Seraph IX Basarab Angry Dragons Black Legion. 707	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:37:47 - [39] - Quote Could also consider an AB bonus across all BCs maybe. House of Black and White An ingame channel dedicated to more interesting ways to play
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 565	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:39:02 - [40] - Quote Am curious to what is coming for the command ships as well. The extra role bonus the T1 have essentially close the gap on the much more SP intense command ships. Though I am willing to accept no change if it is due to a plan to wait until it is advantageous to boost on grid with a rebalance to reflect that... To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 495	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:39:52 - [41] - Quote Dukes Nukem wrote: nothing about warp speed ? Why do they need to look at warp speed? They are .3 slower than a cruiser... stop being petty. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Skyler Hawk Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co. 46	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:39:58 - [42] - Quote The increased volley damage and projection on the fleet cane are nice, but the loss of raw dps (due to going from 5% damage and rof bonuses to a single 10% damage bonus) doesn't really seem justified on a middle-of-the-road member of an underused ship class. e: whoops, missed the fact that it's getting a larger drone bay/bandwidth as well, which would probably go some way to making up for the loss of turret dps.
Kismeteer GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 830	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:40:51 - [43] - Quote Thank you thank you thank you for using usage to dictate who gets buffs. I know there are tons of ships out there that are just completely unused (Sentinel) or underused (Rorqual). Using their actual usage to figure out what to buff is a great way to improve the game and show off more variety in ship types. Love this direction.
Mizhir Matari Exodus The Camel Empire 74588	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:43:45 - [44] - Quote Any changes on their lockrange / MMJD so they can actually use their MMJD offensively without having to use slots for targeting range modules? Still awesome changes. One Man Crew - Collective Solo PVP - Video is out!
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1972	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:44:08 - [45] - Quote I would echo the sentiments to trade the missile hull bonuses to an expl radius buff rather than range. Range works on guns as application, but not missiles.
Dreiden Kisada GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 22	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:46:02 - [46] - Quote "The Cyclone is probably the most underestimated of the T1 BCs." lol wat.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 495	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:46:19 - [47] - Quote Skyler Hawk wrote: The increased volley damage and projection on the fleet cane are nice, but the loss of raw dps (due to going from 5% damage and rof bonuses to a single 10% damage bonus) doesn't really seem justified on a middle-of-the-road member of an underused ship class. e: whoops, missed the fact that it's getting a larger drone bay/bandwidth as well, which would probably go some way to making up for the loss of turret dps. Also, it will be a beast with artillery. It will track better than the muninn and have more alpha. This is a ship that will ruin an orthrus' day, and im happy about that. Maybe less dps than before, but it will mulch anything in scram range, especially with 2 neuts, tracking bonus and extra drones. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Luscius Uta 169	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:52:38 - [48] - Quote Finally, we'll have ships with falloff bonus to energy turrets that I trollishly suggested long time ago! On a more serious note, why not give a slight increase in targeting range and scan resolution to Navy ships when compared to T1? Also not sure if I like the new Ferox, shield resist bonus is what makes Moa/Ferox/Rokh different from Gallente Hybrid lineup. Drifters have arrived - The End is nigh!
Samira Kernher Praetorian Auxiliary Force Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 2380	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:52:59 - [49] - Quote Looks awesome. Glad I'll be having BC V finish before the patch! Stitch Kaneland wrote: Thank Bob. The fleet cane is different than the t1 cane in a significant way. Range bonuses should be good enough for the longer range weapons and ok for shorter range weapons. I guess scram kiting blaster brutix is no longer a thing. My fleet arty cane will be a force to be reckoned with now. Arthrillery 3 incoming. I'm scared about fighting you once these hit. Yonis Ardishapur for Emperor "Reclaim our Empire"
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1545	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:54:12 - [50] - Quote .... Good tweaks. I'm guessing the projection buffs are going into the battleships also. But ... Good buffs. These almost wind up dropping a brick onto cruisers (it was needed to be honest). Now reclassify all t3's into battlecruisers and we'll be in business. Yaay!!!!

Quesa Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 81	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:54:19 - [51] - Quote For the love of everything that is holy and right in this world, can we please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pigeonholing Caldari to Kinetic damage?
Quesa Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 81	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:55:54 - [52] - Quote Skyler Hawk wrote: The increased volley damage and projection on the fleet cane are nice, but the loss of raw dps (due to going from 5% damage and rof bonuses to a single 10% damage bonus) doesn't really seem justified on a middle-of-the-road member of an underused ship class. e: whoops, missed the fact that it's getting a larger drone bay/bandwidth as well, which would probably go some way to making up for the loss of turret dps. It's a very viable platform in many cases and I suppose you will likely see added applied damage from the boost to optimal/falloff.
Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 118	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:55:59 - [53] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Khador Vess wrote: return of the drakefleet... awesome Forget Drakefleet. Welcome FeroxFleet. EDIT: Not only FeroxFleet...but symetrically-placed turret FeroxFleet! WAHOO! This man is the smartest eve-player I've ever seen. What he says! Cedric
solon101 Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition. 23	Posted - 2015.09.11 17:56:42 - [54] - Quote Quesa wrote: For the love of everything that is holy and right in this world, can we please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pigeonholing Caldari to Kinetic damage? yes totally agreed
sytaqe violacea Circus of midnight 33	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:00:03 - [55] - Quote Hurricane has more effective turret than Navy Hurricane? Interesting
Arkon Olacar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 533	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:00:06 - [56] - Quote Yadaryon Vondawn wrote: Good changes! Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. Could you explain why this is bad? A little reasoning might help understand your bold point For the three non-kinetic damage types, the drake does ~5% less dps than a caracal. The raw dps increase when using kinetic is (partially) countered by the resist profiles of most of the common fits you'll see in nullsec, so the drake usually only does ~5-10% more effective dps using kinetic than a caracal selecting the correct ammo type. It would be less of an issue if the bonus was universal across all missile based caldari ships, but right now it sticks out like a sore thumb. Edit: Need food, but if you really care I can dig out the numbers later. Warping to zero
Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 119	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:01:08 - [57] - Quote Luscius Uta wrote: Finally, we'll have ships with falloff bonus to energy turrets that I trollishly suggested long time ago! On a more serious note, why not give a slight increase in targeting range and scan resolution to Navy ships when compared to T1? Also not sure if I like the new Ferox, shield resist bonus is what makes Moa/Ferox/Rokh different from Gallente Hybrid lineup. Put a T2 Invuln in the new extra mid slot and you've got the very same thing with more damage and better application. I like getting the extra mid slot to add a web or more tracking depending on what I'm doing. Cedric
Karti Aivo KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 32	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:01:44 - [58] - Quote except of the drake / clone i dont think they get the needed projection the turret based ones should probably get 30 or 35% to match up, or get 5-10% tracking on top to justify using the biggest tier guns otherwise those look pretty good
Gimme Sake State War Academy Caldari State 232	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:03:21 - [59] - Quote Awesome changes! "Never not blob!" ~ Plato
Cara Forelli Green Skull LLC 1230	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:04:34 - [60] - Quote Some good changes here! I still think MJDs could use another looking at to help improve ship mobility. Specifically to prevent them from going on cooldown when the ship is scrambled during spool up. We discuss it in detail here. Adventures New player with questions? Join my public channel in game: *House Forelli* Titan's Lament

Sho Menao Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 15	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:05:16 - [61] - Quote I like how battlecruisers are still killable with logistics compared to Tech 3s and HACs to a slightly lesser extent due to their base resists, making it engaging gameplay where people take losses. These changes don't make BCs much more viable in the fleet combat context for this reason. If they had the dps to crack high resist ships so that they function as higher dps mobile platforms they'd be a more viable alternative. The projection is cool since it can make up for the lower speeds, but increased damage would help open up the meta. As it stands, for wealthier organizations there still is no particular reason to use these. And they still get utterly owned by most things due to their sig radius.
GeeBee Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 88	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:06:21 - [62] - Quote Looking forward to this, hopefully we get back to some good battlecruiser action. When Dominion first started battlecruisers were the mainstay for my alliance, eventually everyone outgrew them, hopefully these changes help them come back a bit. I am worried that the bombing meta is still going to take a heavy toll on battlecruiser (and battleship) usage and would like to see the numbers tweaked on bombs to reduce the number of bombs that can be detonate at once(before they destroy each other) currently the math works out to 6-8 depending on skills or racial bonuses, this is enough damage that the sig radius / ehp of a standard fit battlecruiser is about dead. I would like to see the number of bombs cut in half to allow fleets more ability to mitigate the bombers. This will allow a fleet to be less anti-bomber specific for killing bombers before the bombs go off to remove the blast and more ability to survive a bomb run and repair.
Ayiana Valerii Aliastra Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:08:30 - [63] - Quote Good changes but, IMO, at least one of the BCs needs neut bonus(es).
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance 488	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:08:56 - [64] - Quote Mizhir wrote: Any changes on their lockrange / MMJD so they can actually use their MMJD offensively without having to use slots for targeting range modules? Still awesome changes. Several did get lock range increases, though it's not universal. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Mr Spaxi meatshield bastards The Bastards. 47	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:09:24 - [65] - Quote Chessur wrote: I really like where these changes are going. However I do have one questions regarding the turret projection bonuses. For turret boats such as lasers, the falloff bonus of 25% if essentially useless. While on the other hand, the optimal bonus for AC using ships is also- complete useless. The only weapon system that somewhat benefits from a split range bonus would be hybrids. Would there be any consideration to just changing the bonuses on each ship? IE. 50% optimal on laser boats, 50% falloff bonus on AC ships? Also, for the missile based ships, again HAM's and HMLs struggle so hard to apply damage. Cyclone and Drake are going to be feeling a little left out in their ability to apply their DPS to targets with out some type of application bonus. Any considerations on giving them one? There is no such thing as an AC ship. They can be fit with both Arties (which benefit from optimal more) or Ac (which benefit from falloff more). Blog The Bastards are recruiting! Check us out @ www.the-bastards.net or join our channel @ DBastards. Fly hard!
Mr Black Uchonela Mayhem Devolved Pirate Coalition 11	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:10:14 - [66] - Quote I dont understand Fozzie i thought BC rebalance was cancelled due to Gorskis heinous crimes against you? (when he was jamming you on your typhoon roam with (larkin?)) please explain
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1189	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:10:37 - [67] - Quote some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it basically an attack bc now, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least 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, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Trii Seo Executive Outcomes 873	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:11:41 - [68] - Quote I now feel bad for welping all my hurricanes before that buff... The king is dead, long live the king! Glory to Maximilian Singularity the Sixth, First of his Name! Proud pilot of the Imperium
Esnaelc Sin'led AdAstra. Beach Club 22	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:11:52 - [69] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: Could you explain why this is bad? A little reasoning might help understand your bold point For the three non-kinetic damage types, the drake does ~5% less dps than a caracal. The raw dps increase when using kinetic is (partially) countered by the resist profiles of most of the common fits you'll see in nullsec, so the drake usually only does ~5-10% more effective dps using kinetic than a caracal selecting the correct ammo type. It would be less of an issue if the bonus was universal across all missile based caldari ships, but right now it sticks out like a sore thumb. Edit: Need food, but if you really care I can dig out the numbers later.[/quote] Why would missile boats be the only boats capable of projecting any damage type with no penalty at all ? Lazors = EM/TH Hybrids = KN/TH Projo = Well ok, they have EMP / Fusion and Plasma. But it's not pure damage type and you have 50% reduced range. And if ever you want to shoot Kin you would end up with Sabot. Kinetic has always been Caldari's damage type.
Alundil Isogen 5 1018	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:12:25 - [70] - Quote Altirius Saldiaro wrote: Very good changes. I look forward to these. Not with that hood you don't. I'm right behind you

Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2480	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:15:02 - [71] - Quote Dr Cedric wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Khador Vess wrote: return of the drakefleet... awesome Forget Drakefleet. Welcome FeroxFleet. EDIT: Not only FeroxFleet...but symetrically-placed turret FeroxFleet! WAHOO! This man is the smartest eve-player I've ever seen. What he says! Think about it. The Ferox will be able to project over 100km without breaking a sweat (probably using mid-range ammo), do so with superior application over BS-class rails (better tracking and sig res), it will finally have enough midslots to be versatile, and it technically got a fitting boost as it now only has to support 6 turrets but didn't lose any grid (not to mentioned it gained CPU). And it'll do all of this while finally sporting a symmetric turret layout. (Can you tell that was an issue for me?) I for one welcome our new FeroxFleet overlords. FeroxFleet will be the poor man's Eagle/Vulture fleet. Heck, slap on a warp speed rig and it'll warp (but not align, obviously) pretty much like an Eagle. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
Sporx Utensil Colossus Enterprises 21	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:15:41 - [72] - Quote I like the general direction, well done. I would still like to see greater lock range on the missile boats, but such is life we'll continue to fit sebos i guess. -1 mid slot. I also think we'd see a lot more of these in skirmish gangs if they had more mobility. You have added significant mobility and I applaud that but I don't think it is enough to get the T2's on the battle grid more often. All good though, well played, I like the direction.
Buzz Kill Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:15:52 - [73] - Quote Dont forget about the command ships
FT Cold The Scope Gallente Federation 32	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:17:11 - [74] - Quote A step in the right direction, I'm very happy about these changes. Consider applying these changes to command ships as well, anything that isn't a sleip is kind of a one trick pony. Also, It'd be nice to see the cyclone get an application bonus instead of a range bonus. I know the current meta disfavors brawlers, but it would be an extremely good way to keep it differentiated from the drake hull and offset it's low DPS.
SFM Hobb3s Wrecking Shots Black Legion. 373	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:17:37 - [75] - Quote This ought to breathe some new life into the whole line of battlecruisers. Now if only I had an alliance to fly them in...
twit brent Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance 42	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:19:19 - [76] - Quote I think the cyclone needs a little more. At least another midslot and maybe another launcher too.
Nou Mene Out of Focus Odin's Call 8	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:21:26 - [77] - Quote solon101 wrote: Quesa wrote: For the love of everything that is holy and right in this world, can we please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pigeonholing Caldari to Kinetic damage? yes totally agreed and make laser shoot kin+explo, oh and hybrids do em + explo..... missiles are the only weapon that can shoot one and only one dmg type... you think thats (plain) bad? t2 ammo for every dmg type, also.
Alundil Isogen 5 1018	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:21:57 - [78] - Quote Karti Aivo wrote: except of the drake / clone i dont think they get the needed projection the turret based ones should probably get 30 or 35% to match up, or get 5-10% tracking on top to justify using the biggest tier guns otherwise those look pretty good Except none of these changed ships are the ones that can use Large weapons. Combat/Navy Battlecruisers addressed in this patch = medium weapons Attack Battlecruisers (Talos/Naga/Oracle/Tornado) = large weapons I'm right behind you
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 506	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:23:25 - [79] - Quote Samira Kernher wrote: Looks awesome. Glad I'll be having Amarr BC V finish before the patch! Stitch Kaneland wrote: Thank Bob. The fleet cane is different than the t1 cane in a significant way. Range bonuses should be good enough for the longer range weapons and ok for shorter range weapons. I guess scram kiting blaster brutix is no longer a thing. My fleet arty cane will be a force to be reckoned with now. Arthrillery 3 incoming. I'm scared about fighting you once these hit. evil laugh Its ok, im sure someone (we know who) will just bring more rooks or curses Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2482	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:24:33 - [80] - Quote Alundil wrote: Karti Aivo wrote: except of the drake / clone i dont think they get the needed projection the turret based ones should probably get 30 or 35% to match up, or get 5-10% tracking on top to justify using the biggest tier guns otherwise those look pretty good Except none of these changed ships are the ones that can use Large weapons. Combat/Navy Battlecruisers addressed in this patch = medium weapons Attack Battlecruisers (Talos/Naga/Oracle/Tornado) = large weapons I think they meant the biggest size medium guns (i.e. 250mm rails, 720mm arties, etc.), not the biggest size guns (i.e. battleship guns). Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1972	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:24:48 - [81] - Quote Last thing I can think of just now, ferox could stand even more lock range with the scale of those range bonuses on the guns. Another 15-25 would be good.
Kalam Harkair Fractured Glory 2	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:25:00 - [82] - Quote I've a curious about max targeting ranges, specifically with the Hurricane vs. Cyclone. Why does the Hurricane (bonus for medium projectiles) have a max targeting range further than the Cyclone (bonus for heavy missiles)? If the Cyclone uses HMLs it can't, without assistance, target out to it's max missile range.
bigbillthaboss3 Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 96	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:30:14 - [83] - Quote All-in-all I like the changes, good job Fozzie! I do have a question though: Why do the drake and cyclone (and their faction/t2 versions) lack bonuses to Rapid Light Missile Launchers?
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1695	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:31:09 - [84] - Quote These changes look great, Fozzie. What's even better is that they closely track what some knowledgeable and articulate players have been advocating for months. Always good to see usage metrics and reasonable player feedback taken into consideration. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Ripley Kaga ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 2	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:31:48 - [85] - Quote Why not also buff the cargo bays as well? A Hecate can hold more cap boosters then a myrm atm and this very much affects ships that are active tanked. Even adding something like a charge hold and making players manually move them into the cargo hold would sufficient.
Evai Tsuki Lom Corporation SpaceMonkey's Alliance 12	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:34:49 - [86] - Quote I'm a little baffled that the prophecy still has only 75 bandwidth, but other than that these changes look great.
Mizhir Matari Exodus The Camel Empire 74589	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:38:45 - [87] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Mizhir wrote: Any changes on their lockrange / MMJD so they can actually use their MMJD offensively without having to use slots for targeting range modules? Still awesome changes. Several did get lock range increases, though it's not universal. But even the Ferox, which is the one with the longest lockrange, wouldn't be able to lock far enough. One Man Crew - Collective Solo PVP - Video is out!
GeeBee Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 88	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:38:59 - [88] - Quote On the Topic of the Drake Kinetic Pigeon hole - Could we get a 5% bonus to other damage types(per level)? this would help restore some of the versatility from when a launcher was removed and the bonus changed from 5% kinetic to 10%.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 539	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:40:11 - [89] - Quote Application buff was exactly what was needed, props on that. Drone MWD speed is also a very good solution. Like others already mentioned, bigger locking range improvements would have increased their variety in MMJD tactics (from evasive to offensive), and few of the BCs have ridiculously big signatures. Anyway, fairly optimistic about how these changes were made!
Moraguth Ranger Corp Vae. Victis. 134	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:40:37 - [90] - Quote I don't understand how a huge increase to the mass of a ship (Prophecy, I'm looking at you), is considered a buff/benefit? I got a Feature Added! Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Lucius Exitius Trademarque Alternate Allegiance 44	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:41:05 - [91] - Quote I don't get why you want to keep the damage types for missiles. I could understand if you did it to both missiles and projectiles as those are the two that have selectable damage types. It sucks that the kinetic is the most tanked against resistance and then you give most Caldari ships a kinetic bonus. Edit: To clarify outside of that I love all the changes. Cant wait to get a navy drake!
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2723	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:43:45 - [92] - Quote changes will hit sisi when?
Challus Mercer Sacred Temple The Gorgon Empire 18	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:46:10 - [93] - Quote Destoya wrote: This flat 12.5% drone velocity bonus on the Proph and Myrm is a little strange in my opinion. Was there any consideration made to it being something like 10% speed, 10% tracking? I have concerns that increasing the drone speed without increasing tracking as well will cause the drones to miss more often against small targets, and against heavier targets the drone speed bonus is hardly worth considering. +1 I have the same concern about this new role bonus on the myrm. It's much weaker then +25% optimal/falloff on other BC's. Just compare them with Tracking Comp II and Drone Navigation Comp II. The turret bonus is much better then the tracking computer module while the drone velocity bonus(12,5%) is even not the half(15%)of the Navigation Comp II(30%)! Just combine it at least with tracking bonus. Btw, myrm i agree that the myrm is a good ship but did you consider to increase the drone bay a little bit, because now it has 200m^3 which means 2 flights heavy drones(8x) or 5 heavies 5 mids and 5 light. It's enough for one fight but definitely not enough for roaming in zero space, because myrm has no room for additional drones and depo in cargo bay because of cap booster charges on which myrm relies very hardly. I propose a small increase of the drone bay to at least 250m^3. It would not make the myrm OP, it will just improve it's capability for long roamings a little bit.
Kenneth Skybound The Scope Gallente Federation 121	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:47:03 - [94] - Quote CCP Fozzie, these changes look pretty awesome all around. I must ask though, why is the standardised cap recharge rate being kept? Does the Drake really need to have the same recharge as the (not cap bonused!) Navy Harbinger?
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2995	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:47:10 - [95] - Quote Buzz Kill wrote: Dont forget about the command ships I, for one, haven't m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Ao Kishuba Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 36	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:47:53 - [96] - Quote [quote=CCP Fozzie] I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.[/i] Then why aren't Gallente drones damage locked? Or Amarr drones? Or Minmatar missiles or projectiles? Why is Caldari the only race with an artificial damage lock on a weapon system which should otherwise be free to use any damage type?
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2995	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:48:21 - [97] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: These changes look great, Fozzie. What's even better is that they closely track what some knowledgeable and articulate players have been advocating for months. Always good to see usage metrics and reasonable player feedback taken into consideration. Now now, let's not start talking crazy talk m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Cobat Marland GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:49:42 - [98] - Quote drakefleet best fleet
Voodoo Anneto Reckless-Endangerment 7	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:52:11 - [99] - Quote Perhaps its a bit too much to ask for, however.. Could we possibly see a balance pass on the Gnosis as well?
Alexis Nightwish 324	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:53:05 - [100] - Quote Dat Navy Drake doe! As much drone BW/bay as the Amarr and Gallente, most agile BC, second fastest, arguably strongest tank... Don't get me wrong as I have been waiting for BC buffs for over a year, but damn! Remember the days of Drake fleets everywhere? You don't have to be Nostradamus to see that we're going to have a repeat but with Navy Issue Drakes. Please consider cutting the drones to 40BW/60bay, and reducing the agility and/or speed. If you do that and the Navy Drake falls into disuse, you can buff them up later using the fast release cadence. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 352	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:55:02 - [101] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. On first look, great changes to Ferox , love you Fozzman. "(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
Alexis Nightwish 324	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:59:15 - [102] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Destoya wrote: This flat 12.5% drone velocity bonus on the Proph and Myrm is a little strange in my opinion. Was there any consideration made to it being something like 10% speed, 10% tracking? I have concerns that increasing the drone speed without increasing tracking as well will cause the drones to miss more often against small targets, and against heavier targets the drone speed bonus is hardly worth considering. I know sentry drone tracking is something that you are pretty wary about giving out after the Domi and Ishtar but I hardly think a small flat bonus would break these two ships in the sentry role. This bonus is the same one that the Algos, Dragoon and VNI get. It only applies to the drone's chase speed, not its orbit speed. This means the impact on tracking is minimal (unless we increase the speed too much, at which point the drones have trouble slowing down to enter their orbits). In practice, this bonus is more useful for reducing travel time of your drones when sending them after far away targets, and less useful for helping them catch really fast moving targets. Could you please differentiate between "velocity" and "MWD speed" then? The role bonus states a bonus to "velocity" but "velocity" in every other context is the base speed of the ship. Perhaps the role bonus should read "+12.5% bonus to drone MWD speed" CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1189	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:59:16 - [103] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: Dat Navy Drake doe! As much drone BW/bay as the Amarr and Gallente, most agile BC, second fastest, arguably strongest tank... Don't get me wrong as I have been waiting for BC buffs for over a year, but damn! Remember the days of Drake fleets everywhere? You don't have to be Nostradamus to see that we're going to have a repeat but with Navy Issue Drakes. Please consider cutting the drones to 40BW/60bay, and reducing the agility and/or speed. If you do that and the Navy Drake falls into disuse, you can buff them up later using the fast release cadence. surely that drone bandwidth/bay is a typo fozzie?? alongside the excessive crazy hp and mobility buff.. 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
unidenify Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium 130	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:59:18 - [104] - Quote make me wonder how ferox/Drake/Drake Navy will fare against Tengu in PVE world
Arkon Olacar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 536	Posted - 2015.09.11 18:59:33 - [105] - Quote Esnaelc Sin'led wrote: Kinetic has always been Caldari's damage type. Except this isn't actually the case, it is only a minority of caldari missile hulls that have a kinetic lock. Throw a kinetic lock onto the caracal instead of a dps bonsu (or remove it from the drake) and you have a more noticeable step up in effective dps against the fits you actually encounter. The current mix and mash approach just doesn't make sense. Warping to zero
Ezmerald Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:00:50 - [106] - Quote Why do BC's still have such a bad lock range? They need to have atleast over 100km. You can in no way efficiently use MJD's currently unless you plan on giving more mid slots for target range.
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3384	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:01:06 - [107] - Quote can't you just give all BCs 100k lock range at max skill? so you don't have to fit a sebo for the lone purpose of pre locking before mjd? or just ad an attack MJD variant which boosts your lock range while its spooling up how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1879	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:03:39 - [108] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Ayuren Aakiwa Sudden Death. Exodus. 110	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:05:35 - [109] - Quote Exciting stuff! Really looking forward to actually being able to use the navy drake/cane Street Rules Bitch idgaf
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 511	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:06:12 - [110] - Quote Kalam Harkair wrote: I've a curious about max targeting ranges, specifically with the Hurricane vs. Cyclone. Why does the Hurricane (bonus for medium projectiles) have a max targeting range further than the Cyclone (bonus for heavy missiles)? If the Cyclone uses HMLs it can't, without assistance, target out to it's max missile range. Arty cane can project past 60km no problem before this buff. After this buff 80km will be pretty easy. Cyclone is more brawler orientated, so hams/scram/web/neuts. HML could be a thing, but shield resist bonus on drake fits the role better. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Jarsoom Blade Blade's Legion 3	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:06:15 - [111] - Quote Faster Hurricane?! I'm excited to see what happens on my nanocane. Tired of playing alone? Wanna make some friends? Join 'Blade's Legion Recruitment' channel
Thanatos Marathon Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 500	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:06:42 - [112] - Quote Color me a little worried about projection issues and power creep. The one thing I would have love to see that they need is higher sensor strength across the board. - Than
dreynar swyglou TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 8	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:06:50 - [113] - Quote Very nicely done
ApolloF117 HUN Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels 19	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:13:22 - [114] - Quote why is the cyclone has still crap dps with hams?
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 214	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:13:36 - [115] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: All these buffs should also apply to command ships as they struggle with the same issues Combat battlecruisers do, just on a lesser scale as theyre flown less and are also a tiny bit better. If they do apply to command ships aswell, then sorry for posting this. EDIT: the role bonus I mean and the agility buffs. Also the Absolution needs its optimal bonus finally. Yes! Make my Command Ship worth risking again :D
Yngvar ayShorn Einheit X-6 395	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:14:44 - [116] - Quote Maybe +1 Launcher to the Cyclone, pls? 30 Tage EVE testen! -->> Klick mich <<--
Funless Saisima Strange Energy The Bastion 70	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:15:12 - [117] - Quote When does this hit SISI?
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 214	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:18:26 - [118] - Quote Free Stunt wrote: Will edit l8er Not sure how I feel about seeing a CSM Tag on a new Character based upon Bringing back a Banned player. CSM Tags should stay on the players that we Voted in. Not alts to represent statements of their personal opinion. Not saying I don't support the cause. Just saying I fully believe that CSM tag should ONLY be on the Representative we Voted in. Not being used for Game politically made Alts.
Alexis Nightwish 324	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:19:16 - [119] - Quote Please bump the Cyclone up to 60km targeting range. This will put it in the same targeting class as all the other non-drone BCs (which will allow them to target lock to 106km when bonused by a CS link for MJD shenanigans) CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Eli Porter Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 17	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:22:49 - [120] - Quote Why go with Range over a Tracking role bonus? Doesn't it just make them more similar to Attack Battlecruisers?

Lucius Exitius Trademarque Alternate Allegiance 45	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:23:17 - [121] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. You can say the same thing about projectiles or other hulls that don't get the lock. Except they aren't limited. Why do it for certain missile boats but not projectiles or other boats outside of Caldari...
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 1653	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:24:19 - [122] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. cerb has a 5% bonus to kinetic damage plus a 5% rof bonus, where the drake has a 10% kinetic damage bonus. The drake loses a lot more damage by switching damage types. so cerb loses ~100 damage, drake loses ~150 damage. this was based on the first setups I had in eft both 3x bcus and heavy missiles with furry ammo. with faction ammo looks like the cerb loses ~80 damage where the drake loses ~130 dps, I'm tempted to say bring back the 7x launcher drake with a 5% kinetic damage bonus for 8.75 launchers with kinetic but 7 otherwise. where the current drake has 9 effective launchers with kinetic but 6 otherwise. Or maybe give the drake a 5% bonus to other damage types, Some other missile ships have the 10% primary 5% other damage types. @ChainsawPlankto
Leonardo Adami Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 13	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:24:22 - [123] - Quote Yay lets increase speed but add mass...woot
Bap1811 Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 7	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:24:56 - [124] - Quote Have you guys looked at giving the cyclone/drake an application bonus rather than a range one?
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2482	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:26:56 - [125] - Quote Evai Tsuki wrote: I'm a little baffled that the prophecy still has only 75 bandwidth, but other than that these changes look great. If you ignore the Ishtar and battleships for a moment, Amarr drone boats tend to have larger bays and lower bandwidth compared to their Gallente counterparts. They do better in a long, sustained fight, where endurance matters and Gallente do better in a short fight where burst DPS matters. The VNI is a perfect example of this, albeit one without an Amarr counterpart: max bandwidth, barely enough drone bay to handle any spares. The 'Geddon and Domi both get max bandwidth and big bays I guess because they're battleships, and the Ishtar...well it's the Ishtar. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17001	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:27:31 - [126] - Quote "I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out." Yeah no, I'm sorry but this is just bullshit. Damage specific bonuses aren't a "useful tool". No they're not. They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2482	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:29:50 - [127] - Quote Leonardo Adami wrote: Yay lets increase speed but add mass...woot Adding mass and improving agility, assuming its done right, means you are just as agile as you were before and adding extra mass (i.e. plates) has less of an impact on you. It looks like they buffed the agility along with the mass increases, so let's see if this holds out. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
Jamir Von Lietuva LDK Sorry We're In Your Space Eh 30	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:32:41 - [128] - Quote Give Cyclone and Drake Light missile damage bonus - let hilarity ensue
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 443	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:33:14 - [129] - Quote My Ferox already has a dps of 750 before... That extra 0.5 turret is going to be interesting... Plus the extra range for my blasters.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 342	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:34:15 - [130] - Quote Malcanis wrote: "I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out." Yeah no, I'm sorry but this is just bullshit. Damage specific bonuses aren't a "useful tool". No they're not. They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Of course they suck, thats the point of them. You get pseudo damage selection - this creates a meta game (extra kin hardners and the like) and it keeps missiles in check. Non single damage type bonused missile ships are a mistake.

Ao Kishuba Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 36	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:35:56 - [131] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: Malcanis wrote: "I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out." Yeah no, I'm sorry but this is just bullshit. Damage specific bonuses aren't a "useful tool". No they're not. They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Of course they suck, thats the point of them. You get pseudo damage selection - this creates a meta game (extra kin hardners and the like) and it keeps missiles in check. Non single damage type bonused missile ships are a mistake. So, the Sacrelige, the amarr intecreptor, the Damnation, and every Minmatar missile ship except the Talwar?
Kasia en Tilavine School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 42	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:38:06 - [132] - Quote Holy ***** **. Backflip slam dunk Fozzie. Pull something like this on the assault frigs and you will be back to being my favorite Dev. (Karkur stole it with the ghost fitting tease at the AT) One small concern... 25% doesn't seem like a whole lot.... its nice. But the dessies get a 50% bonus. I understand that cruiser size guns get better base projection, but the BC engagement window compared to the cruiser engagement window will now be bigger, but the cruiser window will be 4/5 the size. It will definitely be noticeable, but not in nearly the same margin as dessies to frigs. 33% maybe? pls?
Kynric Sky Fighters 349	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:40:01 - [133] - Quote Please look at the Cyclones powergrid/CPU. They are tight to the point that I often have 1-2 empty highslots (or filled with offline modules such as a probe launcher) and 1-2 nanohulls which are there not because I teally want them but because the fittings wont support much else. The tightness of the fit on the cyclone is mych more like a t2 ship than the flexibility found on t1 hulls. It would be a much more attractive option if it had more generous fittings.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1973	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:41:03 - [134] - Quote Malcanis wrote: "I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out." Yeah no, I'm sorry but this is just bullshit. Damage specific bonuses aren't a "useful tool". No they're not. They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. He meant a useful tool for the devs to differentiate ships, not for the players.
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1879	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:44:34 - [135] - Quote Lucius Exitius wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. You can say the same thing about projectiles or other hulls that don't get the lock. Except they aren't limited. Why do it for certain missile boats but not projectiles or other boats outside of Caldari... Every Amarr laser ship (Amarr, not Khanid) is locked to EM/Therm. They do not even have the ability to use different damage classes. Every Gallente Hybrid ship is limited to THERM/KIN, with no way to have another primary damage source. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Lucius Exitius Trademarque Alternate Allegiance 47	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:47:00 - [136] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Lucius Exitius wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. You can say the same thing about projectiles or other hulls that don't get the lock. Except they aren't limited. Why do it for certain missile boats but not projectiles or other boats outside of Caldari... Every Amarr laser ship (Amarr, not Khanid) is locked to EM/Therm. They do not even have the ability to use different damage classes. Every Gallente Hybrid ship is limited to THERM/KIN, with no way to have another primary damage source. Okay your point? Projectiles have selectable damage, amarr missile boats arent locked in, minmatar missile boats arent locked in, why are Caldaris?
Ao Kishuba Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 39	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:47:28 - [137] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Lucius Exitius wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. You can say the same thing about projectiles or other hulls that don't get the lock. Except they aren't limited. Why do it for certain missile boats but not projectiles or other boats outside of Caldari... Every Amarr laser ship (Amarr, not Khanid) is locked to EM/Therm. They do not even have the ability to use different damage classes. Every Gallente Hybrid ship is limited to THERM/KIN, with no way to have another primary damage source. Yeah, and every Amarr droneboat and missile boat can select damage type, and every Gallente droneboat can select damage type, and every minmatar ship except the Hound and the Talwar can select damage type. Caldari have a couple missile ships that can select damage type... the rest are locked, and mostly through botched racial bonuses, and this is why we're all so frustrated by this.
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1879	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:52:37 - [138] - Quote I find it questionable to compare the Caldari ships to Khanid ships. Khanid ships can use all 4 damage types, but are limited to short range missile launchers, ie. HAM and Rockets, they cannot project damage further than 30 km in case of the Sacrilege. Caldari missile hulls can all use long-range missiles and project their damage a lot further than them, which makes a comparison hard. I am in particular not talking about drone boats, but turret boats. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Ao Kishuba Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 39	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:54:51 - [139] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: I find it questionable to compare the Caldari ships to Khanid ships. Khanid ships can use all 4 damage types, but are limited to short range missile launchers, ie. HAM and Rockets, they cannot project damage further than 30 km in case of the Sacrilege. Caldari missile hulls can all use long-range missiles and project their damage a lot further than them, which makes a comparison hard. I am in particular not talking about drone boats, but turret boats. So three of the ship are disputed... Amarr still have plenty of droneboats, which can select damage types.
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 215	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:54:52 - [140] - Quote Ao Kishuba wrote: [quote=CCP Fozzie] I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.[/i] Then why aren't Gallente drones damage locked? Or Amarr drones? Or Minmatar missiles or projectiles? Why is Caldari the only race with an artificial damage lock on a weapon system which should otherwise be free to use any damage type? What?! .................... Damage types of Existing weapon systems and what damage type they are locked to. Gallente Drones - Thermal Amarr Drones - EM Caldari Drones - Kinetic Minmitar Drones - Explosive Gecko - Universal Hybrid weapons: Kinetic/Thermal Lazors: EM/thermal Projectiles - Damage type varies, DPS changes based on range with nerfs with penalties hitting certain areas, certain damage applying differently to Shields or Armor. Nuclear, Lead, Proton - Range Bonus 60% , tracking Speed Mult 1.05x Titanium, Uranium - Tracking Speed Mult 1.2x Fusion, Plasma, Emp - Range bonus -50% Tracking speed Mult 1x Missiles: Scourge: Kinetic Inferno: Thermal Nova: Explosive Mjolnir: EM Ship types Locked into Damage Types: Any Hybrid Turret Boat is Locked into firing thermal/Kinetic Any Laser Boat is locked into firing EM/Thermal SOME Caldari missile boats are locked into Kinetic Projectile boats can change Damage types while having to remember each penalty for each ammo type as well as which two damage types that ammo type did, range it worked at and if it worked better against shields or Armor for each combat situation they are getting into. Some of Caldari ships are Kinetic locked? While except for Projectiles and Drones(almost every ship today has them.. no longer a gallente thing..) every other weapon type has locked damage.

Ao Kishuba Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 39	Posted - 2015.09.11 19:59:45 - [141] - Quote Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Ao Kishuba wrote: [quote=CCP Fozzie] I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.[/i] Then why aren't Gallente drones damage locked? Or Amarr drones? Or Minmatar missiles or projectiles? Why is Caldari the only race with an artificial damage lock on a weapon system which should otherwise be free to use any damage type? What?! .................... Damage types of Existing weapon systems and what damage type they are locked to. Gallente Drones - Thermal Amarr Drones - EM Caldari Drones - Kinetic Minmitar Drones - Explosive Gecko - Universal Some of Caldari ships are Kinetic locked? While except for Projectiles and Drones(almost every ship today has them.. no longer a gallente thing..) every other weapon type has locked damage. Not sure why you listed different racial drones... every bonused drone ship gets a bonus to all drones (some are restricted to a size of drone, but never to a damage type or race), so listing separate racial drones is like listing different missile types and saying "See? It's damage locked". There is a difference between "My battleship has 50mbit/s of bandwidth and is bonused for missiles" and "My cruiser can field a flight of sentries and gets several bonuses use them". I'm talking about main weapon systems, not utility drones. edit: and again, you've missed that every non-Caldari missile ship in the game (with the exception of the Talwar) is not damage locked. Caldari are the only race without a selectable-damage main weapon system in every ship class.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk Alekhine's Gun Decayed Orbit 279	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:02:39 - [142] - Quote Here's an idea: give the medium micro jump drive a bonus to targeting range while active. Right now MMJD is only usable as a defensive module except for the buffer tanked Myrmidon, Gnosis and N. Harbinger which can afford to sacrifice their 5th midslot for a sensor booster. This would allow battlecruisers to start locking as they spool up their MMJD which would make them a real threat to kiting ships which is very useful and much needed.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17005	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:03:37 - [143] - Quote Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Ao Kishuba wrote: [quote=CCP Fozzie] I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.[/i] Then why aren't Gallente drones damage locked? Or Amarr drones? Or Minmatar missiles or projectiles? Why is Caldari the only race with an artificial damage lock on a weapon system which should otherwise be free to use any damage type? What?! .................... Damage types of Existing weapon systems and what damage type they are locked to. Gallente Drones - Thermal Amarr Drones - EM Caldari Drones - Kinetic Minmitar Drones - Explosive Gecko - Universal Hybrid weapons: Kinetic/Thermal Lazors: EM/thermal Projectiles - Damage type varies, DPS changes based on range with nerfs with penalties hitting certain areas, certain damage applying differently to Shields or Armor. Nuclear, Lead, Proton - Range Bonus 60% , tracking Speed Mult 1.05x Titanium, Uranium - Tracking Speed Mult 1.2x Fusion, Plasma, Emp - Range bonus -50% Tracking speed Mult 1x Missiles: Scourge: Kinetic Inferno: Thermal Nova: Explosive Mjolnir: EM Ship types Locked into Damage Types: Any Hybrid Turret Boat is Locked into firing thermal/Kinetic Any Laser Boat is locked into firing EM/Thermal SOME Caldari missile boats are locked into Kinetic Projectile boats can change Damage types while having to remember each penalty for each ammo type as well as which two damage types that ammo type did, range it worked at and if it worked better against shields or Armor for each combat situation they are getting into. Some of Caldari ships are Kinetic locked? While except for Projectiles and Drones(almost every ship today has them.. no longer a gallente thing..) every other weapon type has locked damage. Great OK, let's only give the Myrmidon bonuses to Gallente drones. That'll make it more interesting! And let's only give the Hurricane turret bonuses while using Fusion Ammo! "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Arec Bardwin 1850	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:10:50 - [144] - Quote Ravcharas wrote: No warp-speed tweaks? A tiny peek a warp speeds for BCs and BSs would be appreciated.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17006	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:14:17 - [145] - Quote In fairness I should say that I like the general thrust of the BC changes, improving range application as a counterbalance to the far faster cruisers we have nowadays is exactly the right approach IMO. Doubtless the stats we're seeing today will need a little tweaking when things shake out, but that's the nature of class-wide balance passes. But jesus christ, let the poor stupid damb kinetic lock go let it walk towards the light let it rest now let it have peace "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 512	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:16:35 - [146] - Quote Ao Kishuba wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Lucius Exitius wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. You can say the same thing about projectiles or other hulls that don't get the lock. Except they aren't limited. Why do it for certain missile boats but not projectiles or other boats outside of Caldari... Every Amarr laser ship (Amarr, not Khanid) is locked to EM/Therm. They do not even have the ability to use different damage classes. Every Gallente Hybrid ship is limited to THERM/KIN, with no way to have another primary damage source. Yeah, and every Amarr droneboat and missile boat can select damage type, and every Gallente droneboat can select damage type, and every minmatar ship except the Hound and the Talwar can select damage type. Caldari have a couple missile ships that can select damage type... the rest are locked, and mostly through botched racial bonuses, and this is why we're all so frustrated by this. Projectiles are not fully damage selectable. Only EM/PP/EXPLOSIVE. Kinetic is partial with sabot, but it comes at a huge damage reduction. The whole kinetic being the less desirable damage type is bullsh**. Its less desirable now because gallente is master race and has arguably recieved way too many buffs. So everyone and their mother flies them. If you take a step back and look at other ships, then kinetic is still quite useful. In my arty ships i still prefer sabot over depleted uranium. Kinetic is lowest resist for any t2 minmatar ship, most t1 ships have kinetic holes, the svipul and loki have kinetic holes. Yes you cant engage a deimos or ishtar in a t1 drake. But guess what, the navy drake certainly has the potential to. Its no different if you compare amarr vs t2 minmatar, or gal vs t2 caldari (which have shield resist bonus on top of t2 resists). A deimos would struggle vs a nighthawk for example. Kinetic certainly has its uses, but is not the swiss army knife everyone wants it to be. A drake is not going to counter everyship in the game, accept it. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1959	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:19:43 - [147] - Quote The Ferox rebalance is very clever, good job! The Drake rebalance still kinetic locked... Hmm... Not so much. The Cyclone rebalance.. Please, its barely touched even though the statistics CLEARLY shows how desperate it was for a buff, and what excuse is given "it is underestimated". Hmm.. Not convinced. EVE Players aren't Min/Maxers one second, and then blind fools the next. If the ship is under-used, its for a reason. Besides, its speed buff spinned as "above average" is exactly the same as the hurricane for instance. Nothing above average here, that's blatant lies xD Thanks for not buffing the drone boats even more. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 512	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:22:32 - [148] - Quote Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote: Here's an idea: give the medium micro jump drive a bonus to targeting range while active. Right now MMJD is only usable as a defensive module except for the buffer tanked Myrmidon, Gnosis and N. Harbinger which can afford to sacrifice their 5th midslot for a sensor booster. This would allow battlecruisers to start locking as they spool up their MMJD which would make them a real threat to kiting ships which is very useful and much needed. I think with these range bonuses, a single target range rig is sufficient. No need to waste a mid. Maybe, ill have to check the numbers. I think its fair though. Homogenizing all BCs to the same lock range isnt good though. Dilutes the class IMO. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Jaime Gomes SniggWaffe WAFFLES. 12	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:23:00 - [149] - Quote I still think the cyclone needs to revert to a projectile based weapon system instead of the crappy missile one since there is something like the drake that exists.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1118	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:25:29 - [150] - Quote this whole thing sucks, but I really do like seeing generic (optimal + falloff) range bonuses. it's pretty horrible getting an optimal bonus on a projectile ship, or pretty much any range bonus on a gallente ship (T2 ammo blasters being about as much optimal as falloff, and antimatter being all falloff).

Dersen Lowery Scanners Live in Vain 1749	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:27:04 - [151] - Quote Malcanis wrote: They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17009	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:28:06 - [152] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: this whole thing sucks, but I really do like seeing generic (optimal + falloff) range bonuses. it's pretty horrible getting an optimal bonus on a projectile ship, or pretty much any range bonus on a gallente ship (T2 ammo blasters being about as much optimal as falloff, and antimatter being all falloff). Uh, the Myrm and Brutix are getting an optimal and falloff bonus "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17009	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:29:02 - [153] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Malcanis wrote: They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism#Modern_usage "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Arch-Magus Mephisto Black Scorpions Inc Fidelas Constans 9	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:29:31 - [154] - Quote The Hubbub about the Drake is still sorta misplaced. Yeah sure you can make it about as tanky as a Battlship but it's still slow and heavy missile damage isn't that fantastic.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2724	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:31:32 - [155] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Ao Kishuba wrote: [quote=CCP Fozzie] I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.[/i] Then why aren't Gallente drones damage locked? Or Amarr drones? Or Minmatar missiles or projectiles? Why is Caldari the only race with an artificial damage lock on a weapon system which should otherwise be free to use any damage type? What?! .................... Damage types of Existing weapon systems and what damage type they are locked to. Gallente Drones - Thermal Amarr Drones - EM Caldari Drones - Kinetic Minmitar Drones - Explosive Gecko - Universal Hybrid weapons: Kinetic/Thermal Lazors: EM/thermal Projectiles - Damage type varies, DPS changes based on range with nerfs with penalties hitting certain areas, certain damage applying differently to Shields or Armor. Nuclear, Lead, Proton - Range Bonus 60% , tracking Speed Mult 1.05x Titanium, Uranium - Tracking Speed Mult 1.2x Fusion, Plasma, Emp - Range bonus -50% Tracking speed Mult 1x Missiles: Scourge: Kinetic Inferno: Thermal Nova: Explosive Mjolnir: EM Ship types Locked into Damage Types: Any Hybrid Turret Boat is Locked into firing thermal/Kinetic Any Laser Boat is locked into firing EM/Thermal SOME Caldari missile boats are locked into Kinetic Projectile boats can change Damage types while having to remember each penalty for each ammo type as well as which two damage types that ammo type did, range it worked at and if it worked better against shields or Armor for each combat situation they are getting into. Some of Caldari ships are Kinetic locked? While except for Projectiles and Drones(almost every ship today has them.. no longer a gallente thing..) every other weapon type has locked damage. Great OK, let's only give the Myrmidon bonuses to Gallente drones. That'll make it more interesting! And let's only give the Hurricane turret bonuses while using Fusion Ammo! Gallente drones already do the most damage tho... Drones have a very noticeable change in damage from gallente to minmatar, while this isnt hull specific since it affects all drone boats, it's still there. Same with projectiles. You have a huge split between its primary and secondary damage types (with no primary kinetic) and a couple of them even have opposing secondary damages like EMP that does about 25% of its secondary/tertiary (explosive/kinetic) on the opposite end of the spectrum. Missiles are the only weapon system that has full and untethered selectability. On that note, you'll notice that each faction of missile boats has its own bonuses that favor one loadout over another. Looking at the different damage types available in a given weapon system leaves a lot on the table. The biggest issue with the bonuses really, is the heavy-handed bonuses like on the drake and condor. It makes it a much harder choice to use non-kinetic since you lose the 50% bonus, which is huge. Also the inconsistency of the bonuses, but thats more annoying than problematic. And with that in mind, most caldari ships (I might gamble to say all) that have a kinetic bonus, also have more launchers than their class counterparts. If not extra bonuses too. damage specific bonuses are not bad, but heavy bonuses can be a pain.
Lucius Exitius Trademarque Alternate Allegiance 47	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:36:36 - [156] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Malcanis wrote: They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. Well, that is actually a very good point. It makes a lot of sense.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17011	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:44:23 - [157] - Quote Lucius Exitius wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: Malcanis wrote: They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. Well, that is actually a very good point. It makes a lot of sense. "The Drake does normal damage for it's class when firing Kinetic missiles, and 2/3 as much when firing anything else. Can't you see why this is actually a good thing for the Drake???" "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Hengle Teron Order In Disorder Virtus Crusade Protectorate 57877	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:45:11 - [158] - Quote Funny, but the navy Cane is the only ship getting decreased base damage.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1975	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:48:16 - [159] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Lucius Exitius wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: Malcanis wrote: They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. Well, that is actually a very good point. It makes a lot of sense. "The Drake does ~~normal~~ subpar when application is considered, damage for it's class when firing Kinetic missiles, and 2/3 as much when firing anything else. Can't you see why this is actually a good thing for the Drake???" Fixed. Make the missile speed bonus an application one please.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1975	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:49:37 - [160] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: Funny, but the navy Cane is the only ship getting decreased base damage. Barely, it has 2x5% bonuses today, vs 1x10% tomorrow.

Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 215	Posted - 2015.09.11 20:57:04 - [161] - Quote Ao Kishuba wrote: Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Ao Kishuba wrote: [quote=CCP Fozzie] I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.[/i] Then why aren't Gallente drones damage locked? Or Amarr drones? Or Minmatar missiles or projectiles? Why is Caldari the only race with an artificial damage lock on a weapon system which should otherwise be free to use any damage type? What?! .................... Damage types of Existing weapon systems and what damage type they are locked to. Gallente Drones - Thermal Amarr Drones - EM Caldari Drones - Kinetic Minmitar Drones - Explosive Gecko - Universal Some of Caldari ships are Kinetic locked? While except for Projectiles and Drones(almost every ship today has them.. no longer a gallente thing..) every other weapon type has locked damage. Not sure why you listed different racial drones... every bonused drone ship gets a bonus to all drones (some are restricted to a size of drone, but never to a damage type or race), so listing separate racial drones is like listing different missile types and saying "See? It's damage locked". There is a difference between "My battleship has 50mbit/s of bandwidth and is bonused for missiles" and "My cruiser can field a flight of sentries and gets several bonuses use them". I'm talking about main weapon systems, not utility drones. edit: and again, you've missed that every non-Caldari missile ship in the game (with the exception of the Talwar) is not damage locked.Caldari are the only race without a selectable-damage main weapon system in every ship class. Every Ship class? Since i'm bored as hell and fly Caldari a decent amount of times without having to worry about Kinetic missiles.. I decided to Look into all the Caldari ships to Verify that Every Class is unable to select Damage for its main weapon system. Caldari ships NOT damage Locked - T1 Missile Bonused Hulls Kestrel -Frigate Class: No damage lock Caldari Frigate bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Light Missile and Rocket damage 10% bonus to Light Missile and Rocket max velocity Caracal- Cruiser class : An Often used PVP ship across all regions - No Damage Lock Caldari Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Rapid Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity Raven - Battleship Class: This ship seeing ALOT of PVP usage lately - No Damage Lock Caldari Battleship bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Rapid Heavy Missile, Cruise Missile and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo max velocity Phoenix - Dreadnought Class - No Damage Lock Caldari Dreadnought bonuses (per skill level): 4% bonus to all shield resistances 5% bonus to Citadel Cruise and Citadel Torpedo Launcher rate of fire Role Bonus: GÇó Can fit Siege modules Caldari Ships that Are Kinetic Locked - T1 Hulls Condor - Frigate Class Corax - Destroyer Class Drake - Battlecruiser 4 Missile boats NOT locked on damage type Kestrel, Caracal, Raven, Phoenix 3 Missile boats Locked Condor, Corax, Drake Tech 2 Hulls. T2 Missile Bonused Hulls Not Locked Crow - Interceptor Jackdaw - Tactical Destroyer Widow - Black Ops Golem - Marauder T2 Missile Bonus Hulls Kinetic Locked Hawk - Assault Frigate Manticore - Bomber Flycatcher - Interdictor Cerberus - HAC Onyx - Heavy Interdictor Nighthawk - Command ship T2 hulls have 6 locked 4 not locked Navy Issues (since why not finish off the types...) Caldari Navy Hookbill - 20% bonus to Kinetic Light missile and rocket Damage + 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, thermal for light missiles and rockets. Since the larger Bonus is towards Kinetic.. I'll throw this as Locked for ya to save debating Caracal Navy Issues - Not Locked Drake Navy Issue - Not Locked Raven Navy Issue - Not Locked Navy Hulls have 3 Not Locked to 1 locked. Tech 3 Tengu Offensive subsystems have 2 Not Locked and 1 Locked. All classes are NOT damage Locked. Plenty of ships to choose from across the spectrum. You may continue your argument about how they are all forced to use one damage type now.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17013	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:00:48 - [162] - Quote The kestrel, caracal and phoenix used to have a kinetic lock Let's all pause for a moment and mourn the loss of interest in those ships since they became so much less interesting. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 215	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:07:29 - [163] - Quote Malcanis wrote: The kestrel, caracal and phoenix used to have a kinetic lock Let's all pause for a moment and mourn the loss of interest in those ships since they became so much less interesting. I dunno man, I seen a lot of Kestrels running around before the Tac destroyers came out. I still see Caracals all over the place, Especially after that amazing makeover they got.
unidenify Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium 131	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:09:11 - [164] - Quote I just notice that Drake Navy issue while get nice boost, actual lost its range bonus. Current Drake Navy issue have 10% per level for range, 50% when have max BC level. new Drake navy issue only have 25%. is it intended?
ArmyOfMe No.Mercy Triumvirate. 448	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:10:17 - [165] - Quote Cyclone still has **** dps, at least if u want to fit a tank as well. So please look a bit more into that. QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17015	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:10:34 - [166] - Quote Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Malcanis wrote: The kestrel, caracal and phoenix used to have a kinetic lock Let's all pause for a moment and mourn the loss of interest in those ships since they became so much less interesting. I dunno man, I seen a lot of Kestrels running around before the Tac destroyers came out. I still see Caracals all over the place, Especially after that amazing makeover they got. Wow you're completely correct, removing the kinetic lock doesn't make ships less interesting, it makes them actually useful and popular. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
Darius Caliente The Pinecone Squad Clockwork Pineapple 106	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:10:59 - [167] - Quote I'd really like to see the missile ships get a bonus to rapid lights as wells.
Alexis Nightwish 326	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:14:16 - [168] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Malcanis wrote: They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. This would be true if the kinetic damage bonus was much higher, and there was a lesser bonus to non-kinetic. However as it stands with all the kin locked ships, you can either fire kinetic and do meh damage due to high kinetic resists on everything not T1, or you can fire not kinetic and do crap damage due to having no bonus. To me, missiles and drones have the advantage of being able to select a singular damage type, with the disadvantages of delayed damage (flight time till damage occurs) and weapon system destruction (missiles and drones can be destroyed). Now they've gone and removed that advantage and provided nothing in return. Removing options is not good for any game, especially a sandbox. You can say that people can still choose to use different ammo, but it's just the illusion of choice and the result is a bunch of dudes running around only shooting scourge because there's really no other viable option. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 215	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:15:26 - [169] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Malcanis wrote: The kestrel, caracal and phoenix used to have a kinetic lock Let's all pause for a moment and mourn the loss of interest in those ships since they became so much less interesting. I dunno man, I seen a lot of Kestrels running around before the Tac destroyers came out. I still see Caracals all over the place, Especially after that amazing makeover they got. Wow you're completely correct, removing the kinetic lock doesn't make ships less interesting, it makes them actually useful and popular. Right after I hit post and realized I was talking to the king of setups and sarcasm. I face palmed.. contemplated editing and said screw it.. just take it like a real pilot.. He's either going get me.. or hit elsewhere :P It went elsewhere ... but damn it lol Must have New York blood in you
Ao Kishuba Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 40	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:15:52 - [170] - Quote If putting damage locks on missile ships is healthy, why aren't Minmatar ships damage locked?

Align Planet1 Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 84	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:20:25 - [171] - Quote Overall, I'm very happy with the direction. I do have two comments: 1. Every race except Caldari has an alternative weapon system that allows for damage type variation. Although I would greatly prefer missile damage bonuses to apply for all damage types on all missile ships -- Caldari or otherwise -- I would settle for a compromise that allowed Caldari missile ships to have the same bonus for thermal missiles that they get for kinetic missiles (on hulls where they are presently kinetic locked). That would allow at least some variation for counter-play, while giving Caldari boats the exclusive and somewhat interesting quirk of having a primary thermal damage weapon. And you'd still have Gallente armor ships as a reasonably direct counter, since they typically have equal kin/therm resists. 2. I would suggest that the second utility high on the Cyclone is more of a weakness than a strength of the hull. An extra launcher slot, or moving a high slot to a mid, would make the hull more versatile without breaking it.
Colonel Santiago Hax. Shadow Cartel 3	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:24:08 - [172] - Quote +1 awesome changes
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4639	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:28:59 - [173] - Quote CCP Fozzie, would you consider giving the Drake a 5% rate of fire bonus instead of the flat +10% kinetic damage bonus? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Gneeznow Chemically Unbalanced 112	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:29:05 - [174] - Quote Cyclone could probably use a bit more . . . something Maybe a bonus to rapid lights? Maybe -1 low and +1 mid? Some kind of built in capacitor safeguard for lower cap shield boosting? Also not a fan of the Ferox changes, I would rather the 7 guns with shield resistances to be honest. All in all though, cool set of changes for the most part.
Captain StringfellowHawk Forsaken Reavers Goonswarm Federation 216	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:29:07 - [175] - Quote Ao Kishuba wrote: If putting damage locks on missile ships is healthy, why aren't Minmatar ships damage locked? Why isn't the Drone race the only race using drones? Why isn't the Missile race the only race using missiles? Multiple ship types are damage locked. Your just unhappy that the ones you fly are kinetic. You still HAVE the option of changing damage type against what its bonused For. It's not FORCED on you. Your weapon system is not locked. Your ship is not locked. You have the option of changing at your will. It's just Bonused towards it. You feel you are locked in because of the Bonus. Plenty of times tho I have changed ammo off of Bonused ammo to get better hits on something. You just need to know when to cycle ammo. Hybrid ships are Locked Damage type. No way to change it. Lazors are Locked Damage type. It EM/thermal.. no matter how much you stare at it. Hell you want to see some fun, everyone tanks high EM/therm/Kinetic. This covers most of the races. Some will get the Explosive tanked high also. Run around with nova ammo even on a Kinetic bonused ship, watch the fun because someone thinks your going to be firing scourge and tanks high kinetic.
Hengle Teron Order In Disorder Virtus Crusade Protectorate 57882	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:29:45 - [176] - Quote afkalt wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: Funny, but the navy Cane is the only ship getting decreased base damage. Barely, it has 2x5% bonuses today, vs 1x10% tomorrow. No, it has dps of 10 turrets today and 9 turrets tomorrow.
Lucas Quaan Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 111	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:31:49 - [177] - Quote Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote: Here's an idea: give the medium micro jump drive a bonus to targeting range while active. Right now MMJD is only usable as a defensive module except for the buffer tanked Myrmidon, Gnosis and N. Harbinger which can afford to sacrifice their 5th midslot for a sensor booster. This would allow battlecruisers to start locking as they spool up their MMJD which would make them a real threat to kiting ships which is very useful and much needed. This is a really cool idea worth looking at. It would also work well on the BS version.
Bakuhz Ebon Cartel Sixth Empire 168	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:44:33 - [178] - Quote Destoya wrote: This flat 12.5% drone velocity bonus on the Proph and Myrm is a little strange in my opinion. Was there any consideration made to it being something like 10% speed, 10% tracking? I have concerns that increasing the drone speed without increasing tracking as well will cause the drones to miss more often against small targets, and against heavier targets the drone speed bonus is hardly worth considering. I know sentry drone tracking is something that you are pretty wary about giving out after the Domi and Ishtar but I hardly think a small flat bonus would break these two ships in the sentry role. it's their MW speed so jsut the closing speed their orbits should stay the same https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1975	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:49:45 - [179] - Quote Hengle Teron wrote: afkalt wrote: Hengle Teron wrote: Funny, but the navy Cane is the only ship getting decreased base damage. Barely, it has 2x5% bonuses today, vs 1x10% tomorrow. No, it has dps of 10 turrets today and 9 turrets tomorrow. So...barely then. And the applied damage bonuses will likely make up for it by allowing more dmaage further out to faster targets. There is more to eve than paper.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 133	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:57:10 - [180] - 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.

Mixu Paatelainen Soggy Biscuit. 215	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:57:12 - [181] - Quote Very interesting changes. Please make them warp a bit faster though, it's the one thing we gripe about more than any other shortcoming.
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 150	Posted - 2015.09.11 21:58:31 - [182] - Quote Overall these changes look very good. I think Heavy Missiles and HAMs could still use a small buff to base application outside of the balancing for various hulls, but that's probably best in a different thread. The rest of my thoughts have already been addressed by others, so I'm just going to throw out a list of things I'm seconding. Seconding the idea that 10% bonus + kinetic lock on the Drake is too penalizing. 5% bonus to other damage types would keep the incentive to fire scourge, while reasonably allowing ammunition switching to shoot resist holes. Seconding that all BCs could still use a small buff to lock range. Back-of-the-napkin math suggests that, with the new bonuses, a max-skilled Drake will be able to shoot farther than it can lock by default (sans links, drugs, etc.). I do not think this is a desirable outcome. Seconding that the drone velocity bonus for the Proph/Myrm should be clarified as a drone MWD bonus. (This should probably also be changed on any other ships/mods that still list it as a "veolcity bonus" for the sake of clarity.) I think the bonus itself is probably fine, drones are never going to act exactly parallel to other weapon systems, and the Myrm and Proph can still fit other (nonbonused) weapon systems so we wouldn't want to risk overbuffing them. Seconding the request for a bit of a cargo bay increase for those ships with active rep bonuses, for holding additional charges.
Alek Row Silent Step 51	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:01:13 - [183] - Quote In some ships it looks like you only used the ship usage/damage to make changes, while in others (cyclone) you went with other "data" ... you have to admit Fozzie, it really isn't much transparent :-) Anyway, thanks for keep trying to do this a better game, for better or worse you at least continue trying. Obs: CCP still uses agile right? Please try to have time between those agile sprints to do small touches on things that need those touches, we all though it would be different with the 1.5 months release cycle but some little things are really taking too long, scream to who ever you need to scream, get that time - example: with those hull hp increases shouldn't hull rig penalties be changed to something that matters?
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 352	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:09:42 - [184] - Quote Quote: Multiple ship types are damage locked. Your just unhappy that the ones you fly are kinetic. You still HAVE the option of changing damage type against what its bonused For. It's not FORCED on you. Your weapon system is not locked. Your ship is not locked. You have the option of changing at your will. It's just Bonused towards it. You feel you are locked in because of the Bonus. Plenty of times tho I have changed ammo off of Bonused ammo to get better hits on something. You just need to know when to cycle ammo. Nope. It's like flying rails with laser bonuses hull. If there are no application no point of not choose kinetic. Most of guns deal 2 types of damage, whole point of missiles at its base: less damage (and only one type) but selectable. Also insta swap ammo vs. 10sec (or 35sec). Look at drone boats. We can have drone boats with selectable damage but not missiles hulls? Same damage delay in most cases. Now a riddle: some hull don't have kinetic lock and it's good, some have and it's called "a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships". Why? "(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
Feodor Romanov Blitzkrieg Federation OLD MAN GANG 16	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:10:00 - [185] - Quote My thoughts about pvp usefulness of BC's after the upcoming patch. Hurricane and Cyclone will be Awesome! Hull Brutix is fine, solo Myrm is still OK. I think Prophecy need drone bandwidth 100+ or it will be the bad copy of Navy Vexor (If somebody want to use it not as bait or cyno ship) Harbinger need more capacitor and PG to fit beams. Ferox will be interesting, but need more targeting range to use double range bonus with rails. Drake have not enough mid slots for solo PVP fits. For fleet use Drake have bad DPS and only kinetic damage. And no damage application bonus. So I think drake will remain newbie ratting machine.
Pleniers Appetite 4 Destruction 146	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:21:59 - [186] - Quote I been flying, almost exclusively, combat battlecruisers in the last couple month, specially the Gnosis. The combat battlecruiser class need something unique in order to make the the "go to" ships in a particular situation. Even though damage application is welcome it still falls into the competition with Hacs and Assault BCs. The MJD is a great tool to make them unique (and generally more survival because 95% of times I use it to dodge long range intercepters) but another unique feature would be nice. Boosting the sensor strengh to values around 40 or 50 would provide a unique set of characteristics to this class and avoid competition with Assault BCs or Hacs. This could turn them into a nice ECM resistant ship, or create a new gameplay due to being harder to probe. Or In alternative, why not make them invulnerable to enemy neuts? This would allow for combat BCs to perform unique roles in fleets or solo alike. I trully think this "damage projection" aproach rather unimaginative. For me a great example of success is how you made force recons invisible to D-Scan. That option was out-of-the-box and I'd like to see such a thing for a Combat BC to trully differenciate from other ships with DPS roles. Also, the reason I use almost exclusively the Gnosis is due to it's amazing align and warp off fast reaction. Nowdays, in a Combat BC it takes aaaaaaages for it to enter warp. More than once I tried to avoid being tackled while being 0km on a gate, only to find out that the damn ship slowboated more than 5km off the gate trying to align out, getting me killed in the process ofc.... I fear the proposed changes to align time and inertia might not be enough to avoid such ridiculous events from happening again, and having people put the BC class back in the shelf due to that factor.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2100	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:25:06 - [187] - Quote Ty fozz... cant wait to see whats in store for battleships There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1118	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:26:58 - [188] - Quote Malcanis wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: this whole thing sucks, but I really do like seeing generic (optimal + falloff) range bonuses. it's pretty horrible getting an optimal bonus on a projectile ship, or pretty much any range bonus on a gallente ship (T2 ammo blasters being about as much optimal as falloff, and antimatter being all falloff). Uh, the Myrm and Brutix are getting an optimal and falloff bonus I was talking about all the existing range bonuses in game, and how these new ones are less awkward for autocannons and hybrids.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 939	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:41:16 - [189] - Quote Destoya wrote: I'll admit I laughed when I saw the Drake Navy damage statistics. Was the worst ship in the game in my opinion. Adding that resist bonus and extra shields will help a lot. The Navy Drake already had plenty of shields. Adding more in addition to the resist bonus is going to be rather powerful. I'm surprised they're giving it such a strong buff. No missile range bonus is probably going to hurt its utility with HAMs though.
Feodor Romanov Blitzkrieg Federation OLD MAN GANG 16	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:43:27 - [190] - Quote Navy Harb have no PG to fit beams and no cap for MWD. Pulse fits usually have double webs, so +25 drone bandwidth is good but Valks is good enough to kill double webbed anything. Navy drake is bad really. How about 10% ER bonus? Or - 2 launcher slots + 1 mid slot, and 10% missile damage per lvl bonus (not kinetic) like other BC's have?! Or just leave ship bonuses as we have now. I'd like to have drake with good speed and double range bonus as ferox will have. Navy Britix is a good fleet and solo machine. Shield arty Fleet Cane with 10% tracking bonus and such alpha damage will be crazy.

Lucius Exitius Trademarque Alternate Allegiance 47	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:46:06 - [191] - Quote Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Ao Kishuba wrote: Captain StringfellowHawk wrote: Ao Kishuba wrote: [quote=CCP Fozzie] I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.[/i] Then why aren't Gallente drones damage locked? Or Amarr drones? Or Minmatar missiles or projectiles? Why is Caldari the only race with an artificial damage lock on a weapon system which should otherwise be free to use any damage type? What?! .................... Damage types of Existing weapon systems and what damage type they are locked to. Gallente Drones - Thermal Amarr Drones - EM Caldari Drones - Kinetic Minmitar Drones - Explosive Gecko - Universal Some of Caldari ships are Kinetic locked? While except for Projectiles and Drones(almost every ship today has them.. no longer a gallente thing..) every other weapon type has locked damage. Not sure why you listed different racial drones... every bonused drone ship gets a bonus to all drones (some are restricted to a size of drone, but never to a damage type or race), so listing separate racial drones is like listing different missile types and saying "See? It's damage locked". There is a difference between "My battleship has 50mbit/s of bandwidth and is bonused for missiles" and "My cruiser can field a flight of sentries and gets several bonuses use them". I'm talking about main weapon systems, not utility drones. edit: and again, you've missed that every non-Caldari missile ship in the game (with the exception of the Talwar) is not damage locked.Caldari are the only race without a selectable-damage main weapon system in every ship class. Every Ship class? Since i'm bored as hell and fly Caldari a decent amount of times without having to worry about Kinetic missiles.. I decided to Look into all the Caldari ships to Verify that Every Class is unable to select Damage for its main weapon system. Caldari ships NOT damage Locked - T1 Missile Bonused Hulls Kestrel -Frigate Class: No damage lock Caldari Frigate bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Light Missile and Rocket damage 10% bonus to Light Missile and Rocket max velocity Caracal- Cruiser class : An Often used PVP ship across all regions - No Damage Lock Caldari Cruiser bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Rapid Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light Missile, Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile max velocity Raven - Battleship Class: This ship seeing ALOT of PVP usage lately - No Damage Lock Caldari Battleship bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Rapid Heavy Missile, Cruise Missile and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo max velocity Phoenix - Dreadnought Class - No Damage Lock Caldari Dreadnought bonuses (per skill level): 4% bonus to all shield resistances 5% bonus to Citadel Cruise and Citadel Torpedo Launcher rate of fire Role Bonus: GÇó Can fit Siege modules Caldari Ships that Are Kinetic Locked - T1 Hulls Condor - Frigate Class Corax - Destroyer Class Drake - Battlecruiser 4 Missile boats NOT locked on damage type Kestrel, Caracal, Raven, Phoenix 3 Missile boats Locked Condor, Corax, Drake Tech 2 Hulls. T2 Missile Bonused Hulls Not Locked Crow - Interceptor Jackdaw - Tactical Destroyer Widow - Black Ops Golem - Marauder T2 Missile Bonus Hulls Kinetic Locked Hawk - Assault Frigate Manticore - Bomber Flycatcher - Interdictor Cerberus - HAC Onyx - Heavy Interdictor Nighthawk - Command ship T2 hulls have 6 locked 4 not locked Navy Issues (since why not finish off the types...) Caldari Navy Hookbill - 20% bonus to Kinetic Light missile and rocket Damage + 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, thermal for light missiles and rockets. Since the larger Bonus is towards Kinetic.. I'll throw this as Locked for ya to save debating Caracal Navy Issues - Not Locked Drake Navy Issue - Not Locked Raven Navy Issue - Not Locked Navy Hulls have 3 Not Locked to 1 locked. Tech 3 Tengu Offensive subsystems have 2 Not Locked and 1 Locked. All classes are NOT damage Locked. Plenty of ships to choose from across the spectrum. You may continue your argument about how they are all forced to use one damage type now. Not able to look at every ship on the list to see their bonuses but the whens you have the stats for is that if they have the lock, they have a damage bonus and not just a velocity, RoF, or explosion radius bonus.
Yong Shin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:46:48 - [192] - Quote For some reason, all the battleships in my station feel a little more irrelevant now. Brutix base EHP (before counting resists/modules, of course) is coming disturbingly close to my Marauders now. Don't mind me, though. Probably just my jealous tears that BCs are getting buffed~
sten mattson Virtus Crusade Curatores Veritatis Alliance 89	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:52:56 - [193] - Quote i love the changes so far! however i am not sure that the cap buff to the navy harb will be enough to help with its cap hungry lasers which collectively consume more cap that a running microwarp drive! the vanilla harb is fine thanks to its cap use bonus (which should really be a role bonus tbh). kinda dissappointed the warp speeds werent upped slightly. and i am not looking forward to fight arty hurricane fleets thats for sure! :P IMMA FIRING MA LAZAR!!!
Blackfeathers Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 31	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:53:35 - [194] - Quote <3 the Hurricane / Hurricane Fleet issue changes. Should make them fun to fly!
Kamahl Daikun Back To Basics. It's Complicated 65	Posted - 2015.09.11 22:54:55 - [195] - Quote Ravcharas wrote: No warp-speed tweaks? Yea, this. These are all really great changes but I'd think the warp speed of BCs is one of the main reasons you don't see them in fleets too often. Even traveling behind frigs in a cruiser is frustrating.
Feodor Romanov Blitzkrieg Federation OLD MAN GANG 16	Posted - 2015.09.11 23:31:05 - [196] - Quote If Caldari ships have kinetic damage restrictions, then gallente ships must have only thermal drone damage bonus, amarr EM drone damage bonus and all Matar missile boats explosive damage restrictions.
Ransu Asanari AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 336	Posted - 2015.09.11 23:41:50 - [197] - Quote There are enough people upset about the racial damage lock on the Drake - maybe we can have that discussion in a separate thread? I've created one here: F&I - Missile Damage Lock Discussion
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 836	Posted - 2015.09.11 23:44:56 - [198] - Quote Aww, since it's Friday night, they won't hit SiSi tonight or tomorrow, my guess is later next week. (Read with Morgan Freemans deep serious voice) Or will they? Now the only thing the Harbinger needs is a tad more grid to fit heavy beams and the Navy Drake maybe -1 launcher but a 10% explosion radius bonus? /me makes puppy eyes Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 134	Posted - 2015.09.11 23:49:51 - [199] - 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. CODE. 14412	Posted - 2015.09.11 23:54:38 - [200] - Quote Really like most of these, they are about in line with where I view BCs ought to be. That said, the mobility and role bonuses need to be applied to Command Ships as well. It makes sense to have a unified design for the battlecruiser hulls, they suffer from the same projection problems that the T1 and Navy versions do, and giving those bonuses to them would go a long way towards their seeing more widespread use. There really is no reason not to have these apply to Command Ships as well, in my opinion. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.09.11 23:59:02 - [201] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: All these buffs should also apply to command ships as they struggle with the same issues Combat battlecruisers do, just on a lesser scale as theyre flown less and are also a tiny bit better. If they do apply to command ships aswell, then sorry for posting this. EDIT: the role bonus I mean and the agility buffs. Also the Absolution needs its optimal bonus finally. I agree completely, I continued to ignore the Absolution because it lacked an Optimal Range Bonus. It desperately needs an Optimal Range bonus along with better cap recharge rates. Also all the Command Ships need a 70% reduction in Medium Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay and a 100% bonus to Cap Boost Injected amount added to their Role Bonuses along with larger cargo bays.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2463	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:00:48 - [202] - Quote Another call for this to continue onto the CS as well. We don't see CS everywhere, and their training time is actually in line with their ship class provided you don't use the worst remap for CS and the best for Marauders as your base line (Fixable by removing attributes anyway).
Ransu Asanari AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 338	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:05:38 - [203] - Quote 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
Igor Nappi Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 128	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:16:39 - [204] - Quote Drone nerf when? Turret/Missile ships can't really compete with droneboats. Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
Jamir Von Lietuva LDK Sorry We're In Your Space Eh 30	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:18:35 - [205] - Quote Could we make the ROF bonus on the Cyclone apply to Rapid Lights? because if you leave it like it is it will be the rifter of BCs
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 836	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:25:17 - [206] - Quote 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. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2724	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:27:43 - [207] - Quote Ao Kishuba wrote: If putting damage locks on missile ships is healthy, why aren't Minmatar ships damage locked? Notice the cyclone waaaaaaaay down on the bottom of both stats in the OP. And also observe the drakes prominence at the top of both lists. Usage stats definitely don't tell the whole story, but it surely can't be ignored that something is causing a gap between the two. Probably a toss-up between tank and gank.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:33:25 - [208] - Quote Buzz Kill wrote: Dont forget about the command ships Yes, The Command Ships are the biggest time sinkers in the game right now. Don't Forget about them!!
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 134	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:42:03 - [209] - 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.
Minty Aroma Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 57	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:56:23 - [210] - Quote THANK YOU SO MUCH FOZZIE - SOOOO HYPED!

Ransu Asanari AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 338	Posted - 2015.09.12 00:58:26 - [211] - Quote I really don't want to see Rapid Lights bonuses on Battlecruiser hulls. They are already a bit too oppressive in a lot of cases for Cruisers. Making point-defense Battlecruisers with Rapid Light specific bonuses would just be stupidly OP. You CAN fit them, and they'll apply damage well, but you won't get a damage bonus on them. That's why they work well on hulls with unbonused launcher hardpoints, like the Prophecy or Hurricane.
Ransu Asanari AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 339	Posted - 2015.09.12 01:10:15 - [212] - Quote Quote: Or you could like fit the right size shield booster on the cyclone. I believe those x-large are for battleships. Fair enough, there will always be fitting choices when trying to fit oversized mods. But even if I drop down to a LSE + Large ASB, there is still a lot of extra powergrid, and CPU is still tight, or you go over trying to use your utility highslots. I still think it could use some tweaking: http://i.imgur.com/LHMuqNG.png
Dersen Lowery Scanners Live in Vain 1752	Posted - 2015.09.12 01:20:04 - [213] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: Malcanis wrote: They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. This would be true if the kinetic damage bonus was much higher, and there was a lesser bonus to non-kinetic. However as it stands with all the kin locked ships, you can either fire kinetic and do meh damage due to high kinetic resists on everything not T1, or you can fire not kinetic and do crap damage due to having no bonus. So in other words, the Drake does crap damage. ... Yeah. Always has. Decent alpha firing HMLs, though. If it was a straight across the board buff, can you think of a single time you'd ever load Scourge? I mean, you almost made an argument there for increasing the kinetic-only bonus. Alexis Nightwish wrote: Removing options is not good for any game, especially a sandbox. You can say that people can still choose to use different ammo, but it's just the illusion of choice and the result is a bunch of dudes running around only shooting scourge because there's really no other viable option. If there's no reason to ever load Scourge because of more-or-less universal resist profile characteristics, hasn't a choice been effectively removed? I still haven't seen how the Drake's bonus is anything other than "crap DPS or maybe somewhat less crap if you fire kinetic." Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Dato Koppla Kiwis In Space No Points Necessary 871	Posted - 2015.09.12 01:51:01 - [214] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Buzz Kill wrote: Dont forget about the command ships Yes, The Command Ships are the biggest time sinkers in the game right now. Don't Forget about them!! Chiming in for the Command Ships. They need some love too Fozzie.
Bobby Artrald Capitalist Pigs Inc. 4	Posted - 2015.09.12 02:19:11 - [215] - Quote i love you guys so much
Humang Mobius Logistics 104	Posted - 2015.09.12 02:24:01 - [216] - Quote All looks good to me, and looking forward to playing around with them. Chiming in on the damage lock for the drake discussion, I would bring up the old idea (can't remember who brought it up) that the damage bonus simply adds bonus kinetic damage to any missile used, instead of just a bonus to kinetic missiles themselves. AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Nevil Kincade Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 19	Posted - 2015.09.12 02:29:44 - [217] - Quote About the T1 Harbinger skill level bonus: "10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use" This is essentially not a bonus but merely compensating for the terribly balanced cap consumption of lasers and their ammunition types. All other hulls are getting a bonus on their tank, damage or application instead.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7145	Posted - 2015.09.12 02:32:56 - [218] - Quote Ah some love for the Cyclone, my favorite ship. One note: Interceptors are bubble immune, recons D-scan immune. The T2 command ship variant of the BC needs some "special ability" to further the cost and time of training for and using them. I don't know what, but something would be interesting. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Galphii Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn 344	Posted - 2015.09.12 02:40:29 - [219] - Quote Weapon range, agility and speed - just what they needed! My only quibble is the harb's 10% capacitor use 'bonus' which should probably be removed from all amarr ships, and then just balance the weapon's cap usage. This places BC's very nicely as heavier, long ranged mid-sized weapon platforms to give them something over cruisers. Hoping to see battleships move further above BC's in terms of endurance (100% hitpoint boost for most of them!) which will plant them between subcaps and capitals :) Oh, and should the scan resolution be made a little better too? Not quite cruiser level but something closer to it perhaps. "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.09.12 02:52:14 - [220] - Quote Nevil Kincade wrote: About the T1 Harbinger skill level bonus: "10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use" This is essentially not a bonus but merely compensating for the terribly balanced cap consumption of lasers and their ammunition types. All other hulls are getting a bonus on their tank, damage or application instead. Agreed, this skill should be built into the hull itself and replace with an Armor Resist, Optimal Range, or a Tracking Speed bonus. Same with the Abso.

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3089	Posted - 2015.09.12 02:56:27 - [221] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Buzz Kill wrote: Dont forget about the command ships Yes, The Command Ships are the biggest time sinkers in the game right now. Don't Forget about them!! But they are not, they are up there in their training time, but it is iirc less than before. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.09.12 03:09:51 - [222] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Ah some love for the Cyclone, my favorite ship. One note: Interceptors are bubble immune, recons D-scan immune. The T2 command ship variant of the BC needs some "special ability" to further the cost and time of training for and using them. I don't know what, but something would be interesting. Been thinking about this for ages and came up with: * 70% reduction in Medium Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay * 100% Bonus to Cap Boost Injected Amount And Increase cargo bays for Command Ships to around 650m3 to 800m3. Or increase their Cap Recharge rates by an additional 35%.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.09.12 03:17:06 - [223] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Daniela Doran wrote: Buzz Kill wrote: Dont forget about the command ships Yes, The Command Ships are the biggest time sinkers in the game right now. Don't Forget about them!! But they are not, they are up there in their training time, but it is iirc less than before. They currently only have ONE (very niche) Role Bonus. I mean seriously, a T2 BC shouldn't have only ONE Role Bonus. Their current abilities doesn't justify the 1 year training time it takes to fly these hulls.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 285	Posted - 2015.09.12 03:23:15 - [224] - Quote Nice tweaks to the Combat BCs, thank you. While I will miss the resist bonus on the Ferox, it will be nice to have the extra slot to better utilize the MMJD. It would be small minded to comment on the Caldari Kinetic only buff... especially seeing how the Drake is used so much more than any other BC. So... I won't
FearlessLittleToaster GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 52	Posted - 2015.09.12 03:54:19 - [225] - Quote I know that normally I only really comment on the big meta issues etc. Real life is a pain like that, growing up has proven to be vastly overrated. However, in this instance I think a simple fact from the hard data in the opening dev post needs pointed out. 1. The Brutix constitutes a very small portion of the total jumps taken by BCs. 2. The Brutix, and its navy counterpart, are both second for damage dealt. Conclusion: The Brutix is made of pain. ~Gallente4lyfe~
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 69	Posted - 2015.09.12 04:14:50 - [226] - Quote Incorrect. The brutix is a hand grenade. See enemy.. Throw at enemy.. Podride express for another hand grenade.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2725	Posted - 2015.09.12 04:46:39 - [227] - Quote FearlessLittleToaster wrote: I know that normally I only really comment on the big meta issues etc. Real life is a pain like that, growing up has proven to be vastly overrated. However, in this instance I think a simple fact from the hard data in the opening dev post needs pointed out. 1. The Brutix constitutes a very small portion of the total jumps taken by BCs. 2. The Brutix, and its navy counterpart, are both second for damage dealt. Conclusion: The Brutix is made of pain. ~Gallente4lyfe~ On the other hand, we have the Drake Navy Issue at the highest for jumps and almost nothing in terms of damage. I'm guessing they accidentally locked up their salvaging alt or something.
The Hamilton Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 109	Posted - 2015.09.12 05:10:30 - [228] - Quote Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! I've been waiting for this pass for too long, now it's time to update the game and log back in.
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1547	Posted - 2015.09.12 05:26:36 - [229] - Quote Ok I do have a valid complaint.... is there anyway to make the Ferox not look so god damn fuggin Ugly?!?! It seriously needs a image "tweak". Yaay!!!!
Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 406	Posted - 2015.09.12 05:41:13 - [230] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Ok I do have a valid complaint.... is there anyway to make the Ferox not look so god damn fuggin Ugly?!?! It seriously needs a image "tweak". I don't think that's a very valid complaint. The ferox (and by extension the Vulture) are fantastic looking ships. The only problem with them is when they have an odd number of guns.

Solarus Explorer The Church of Awesome Heiian Conglomerate 6	Posted - 2015.09.12 06:48:27 - [231] - Quote I'm surprised that the usage data on the cyclone was pushed aside, and said that it was being simply underestimated. As someone in this thread already pointed out, eve players aren't min/maxers one second and complete noobs the other. The cyclone is POOR at what it does, and needs a serious relook.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4639	Posted - 2015.09.12 06:52:02 - [232] - Quote Chainsaw Plankton wrote: I'm tempted to say bring back the 7x launcher drake with a 5% kinetic damage bonus for 8.75 launchers with kinetic but 7 otherwise. where the current drake has 9 effective launchers with kinetic but 6 otherwise. Or maybe give the drake a 5% bonus to other damage types, Some other missile ships have the 10% primary 5% other damage types. I still think a 25% rate of fire on the Drake would make it a lot more interesting than the +50% kinetic damage bonus. For starters, it doesn't pigeon-hole the Drake to kinetic damage - and it will do the same damage previously (only applied faster). This also penalizes fitting rapid light launchers so they don't become all too prevalent in use. If we could also see a slight damage application bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles (-5% explosion radius, +10% explosion velocity) I think the Drakes would once again find a useful niche. Any chance of getting a slight EHP buff to shields, armor and hull for Combat Battlecruisers as well? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Doris Dragonbreath StarHunt Mordus Angels 6	Posted - 2015.09.12 07:00:31 - [233] - Quote This buff does not include T2 BC's? I believe these could use some love as well?
Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 406	Posted - 2015.09.12 07:08:51 - [234] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Chainsaw Plankton wrote: I'm tempted to say bring back the 7x launcher drake with a 5% kinetic damage bonus for 8.75 launchers with kinetic but 7 otherwise. where the current drake has 9 effective launchers with kinetic but 6 otherwise. Or maybe give the drake a 5% bonus to other damage types, Some other missile ships have the 10% primary 5% other damage types. I still think a 25% rate of fire on the Drake would make it a lot more interesting than the +50% kinetic damage bonus. For starters, it doesn't pigeon-hole the Drake to kinetic damage - and it will do the same damage previously (only applied faster). This also penalizes fitting rapid light launchers so they don't become all too prevalent in use. If we could also see a slight damage application bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles (-5% explosion radius, +10% explosion velocity) I think the Drakes would once again find a useful niche. Any chance of getting a slight EHP buff to shields, armor and hull for Combat Battlecruisers as well? Your math is off. 6 launchers with 50% damage increase is 9 effective launchers 6 launchers with 25% duration reduction is 8 effective launchers It also makes the cyclone even more laughable, as the cyclones 6.67 effective launchers is even weaker by comparison.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 540	Posted - 2015.09.12 07:24:53 - [235] - Quote Moraguth wrote: I don't understand how a huge increase to the mass of a ship (Prophecy, I'm looking at you), is considered a buff/benefit? Increasing the mass and speed mitigates the slowing effect of the additional mass from plates, as they are now a smaller portion of the total mass.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 540	Posted - 2015.09.12 07:46:10 - [236] - Quote Is there a special reason for Myrmidon's miniature cargo hold? And a question that keeps me wondering- why gallente is cursed with the biggest signatures? This completely ruins the intended use of ships like the Eris, and at BC level strongly counters the already weak rep bonus.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 16620	Posted - 2015.09.12 07:52:40 - [237] - Quote Doris Dragonbreath wrote: This buff does not include T2 BC's? I believe these could use some love as well? Best love they can get is for t3 cruisers to lose the ability to fit warfare links and be nullified and fit a cov ops cloak at the same time. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1986	Posted - 2015.09.12 08:24:10 - [238] - Quote FearlessLittleToaster wrote: I know that normally I only really comment on the big meta issues etc. Real life is a pain like that, growing up has proven to be vastly overrated. However, in this instance I think a simple fact from the hard data in the opening dev post needs pointed out. 1. The Brutix constitutes a very small portion of the total jumps taken by BCs. 2. The Brutix, and its navy counterpart, are both second for damage dealt. Conclusion: The Brutix is made of pain. ~Gallente4lyfe~ Alternate postulation: The brutix is a common suicide ship which never actually makes a jump on it's first, and final flight but racks up damage regardless.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1986	Posted - 2015.09.12 08:25:17 - [239] - Quote Solarus Explorer wrote: I'm surprised that the usage data on the cyclone was pushed aside, and said that it was being simply underestimated. As someone in this thread already pointed out, eve players aren't min/maxers one second and complete noobs the other. The cyclone is POOR at what it does, and needs a serious relook. Actually the hull isn't the problem, it's the weapons. Slap a Eplx radius bonus on that hull and....daaaaaamn
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 541	Posted - 2015.09.12 08:26:16 - [240] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Doris Dragonbreath wrote: This buff does not include T2 BC's? I believe these could use some love as well? Best love they can get is for t3 cruisers to lose the ability to fit warfare links and be nullified and fit a cov ops cloak at the same time. Id prefer making Command Processors fittable on BC hulls only, maybe caps and mining support too if needed.

gascanu Bearing Srl. 242	Posted - 2015.09.12 09:00:48 - [241] - Quote the 10%/lvl kinetic only dmg on drake is a mistake: either give it 10%/lvl to kinetic and thermal like guristas ships or 10%/lvl kinetic and 5%lvl to the rest; locking it to kinetic only is a mistake but yea, i'm sure you guys know better... again (for the idi.. i mean the very good players that are comparing drake kinetic ONLY bonus to gallente or amar dmg type, just keep in mind they have kin and thermal or em and thermal so... ) oh also lol at the Quote: underestimated cyclone; maybe i'm too new around here, but really, since when "underestimated" is a metric in eve online?
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 837	Posted - 2015.09.12 09:19:22 - [242] - Quote Ransu Asanari wrote: Quote: Or you could like fit the right size shield booster on the cyclone. I believe those x-large are for battleships. Fair enough, there will always be fitting choices when trying to fit oversized mods. But even if I drop down to a LSE + Large ASB, there is still a lot of extra powergrid, and CPU is still tight, or you go over trying to use your utility highslots. I still think it could use some tweaking: http://i.imgur.com/LHMuqNG.png Hmm, can you ditch one ballistic control and fit a powerdiagnostic? Would give you more shield hp and cap for a little less damage. Well I am sorry, I don't fly minmatar, so I can give advice from what I see on the screen. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels FETID 749	Posted - 2015.09.12 10:03:43 - [243] - Quote Not sure if anyone else has spoken about the Cyclone yet but I find the ship extremely frustrating. One of the low slots in a Cyclone essentially has a Co-Processor welded in it. This is extremely annoying. I can't find any effective fit (which isn't armour tanked - yes you can armour tank a Cyclone. It's not bad) which doesn't require that co-processor. I would approve of the cyclone receiving a heavy buff to CPU and moving a low slot to a mid (I would shed a tear for losing the armour tank option but I think it is worth it). The reasons for this are that I simply find that the Cyclone does not have enough mid slots. A CBC really needs to fit both a prop mod and a MJD to be effective. The cyclone then needs to squeeze in a shield booster and a scram and web along with an invul field to be 100% effective. It needs that extra mid. Also, in order to use a MJD aggressively, CBC's require the ability to lock a target at 100km. Minmatar CBC's literally can not do this effectively. Other racial CBC's can, even with a slight fitting tweak. This is a "must buff" for me.
Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 47	Posted - 2015.09.12 10:33:58 - [244] - Quote CCP buffing my propheceptor \o/
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1698	Posted - 2015.09.12 10:34:35 - [245] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: Not sure if anyone else has spoken about the Cyclone yet but I find the ship extremely frustrating. One of the low slots in a Cyclone essentially has a Co-Processor welded in it. This is extremely annoying. I can't find any effective fit (which isn't armour tanked - yes you can armour tank a Cyclone. It's not bad) which doesn't require that co-processor. I would approve of the cyclone receiving a heavy buff to CPU and moving a low slot to a mid (I would shed a tear for losing the armour tank option but I think it is worth it). The reasons for this are that I simply find that the Cyclone does not have enough mid slots. A CBC really needs to fit both a prop mod and a MJD to be effective. The cyclone then needs to squeeze in a shield booster and a scram and web along with an invul field to be 100% effective. It needs that extra mid. Also, in order to use a MJD aggressively, CBC's require the ability to lock a target at 100km. Minmatar CBC's literally can not do this effectively. Other racial CBC's can, even with a slight fitting tweak. This is a "must buff" for me. I am shocked that you have to use a fitting mod to fit an oversized module to a ship. Not in my Eve! Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1986	Posted - 2015.09.12 10:44:16 - [246] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Spugg Galdon wrote: Not sure if anyone else has spoken about the Cyclone yet but I find the ship extremely frustrating. One of the low slots in a Cyclone essentially has a Co-Processor welded in it. This is extremely annoying. I can't find any effective fit (which isn't armour tanked - yes you can armour tank a Cyclone. It's not bad) which doesn't require that co-processor. I would approve of the cyclone receiving a heavy buff to CPU and moving a low slot to a mid (I would shed a tear for losing the armour tank option but I think it is worth it). The reasons for this are that I simply find that the Cyclone does not have enough mid slots. A CBC really needs to fit both a prop mod and a MJD to be effective. The cyclone then needs to squeeze in a shield booster and a scram and web along with an invul field to be 100% effective. It needs that extra mid. Also, in order to use a MJD aggressively, CBC's require the ability to lock a target at 100km. Minmatar CBC's literally can not do this effectively. Other racial CBC's can, even with a slight fitting tweak. This is a "must buff" for me. I am shocked that you have to use a fitting mod to fit an oversized module to a ship. Not in my Eve! The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises. Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons. Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2463	Posted - 2015.09.12 10:52:31 - [247] - Quote afkalt wrote: The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises. Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons. Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises. His point was that you are oversizing your shield booster rather than using the actual one for BC's size. Just because oversizing plates & boosters is common does not make it required.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1986	Posted - 2015.09.12 11:03:28 - [248] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: afkalt wrote: The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises. Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons. Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises. His point was that you are oversizing your shield booster rather than using the actual one for BC's size. Just because oversizing plates & boosters is common does not make it required. And mines is that missiles are the only weapon system harshly penalized because they don't have the options all others do for their weapon fittings. Therefore those are the only ships forced into fitting mods, or just not bothering. Downsizing from 425 to 220 or 180 is a far smaller hit than losing a BCU for a fitting mod, for example.
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels FETID 749	Posted - 2015.09.12 11:10:20 - [249] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: afkalt wrote: The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises. Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons. Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises. His point was that you are oversizing your shield booster rather than using the actual one for BC's size. Just because oversizing plates & boosters is common does not make it required. Actually, oversizing a shield booster is a requirement. It has been balanced this way because of the value of mid slots. Dual or even triple armour rep fitting is possible and it also doesn't completely ruin your ship's overall effectiveness because it uses low slots. In order to get similar overall effectiveness in an active shield fit, oversizing is necessary and plain well "in the design". Look at it yourself. Work the numbers. You will see that it is so and it is so because of the value of mid slots. I also dislike the modules in game which are prefixed with a size. I feel this is completely out of character for a Sci-Fi atmosphere and the names should be much more similar to propulsion mods. For example a Medium shield booster should be called a "500 Gj shield booster". A large shield booster a "750 Gj shield booster" and so on. This naming convention would also uncouple "size" from a module (at least a little) which would remove the term "oversizing" and create the ideology of "Maximum Capability" of the ship.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 837	Posted - 2015.09.12 11:30:43 - [250] - Quote afkalt wrote: And mines is that missiles are the only weapon system harshly penalized because they don't have the options all others do for their weapon fittings. Therefore those are the only ships forced into fitting mods, or just not bothering. Downsizing from 425 to 220 or 180 is a far smaller hit than losing a BCU for a fitting mod, for example. I love to bring this up as often as I can, muahahaha The reason for this "punishment" was as you might have guessed - 100% application. I didn't bring it up the last few times but it was implied. Can you see now why I want it back? Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!

The Sinister Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 100	Posted - 2015.09.12 11:45:56 - [251] - Quote Thank You very much CCP for finally making BCs capable of defending against kiting ships. Was about damm time, 2 thumbs Up.
Jita Jitara Booze Blues n' Tattoos 23	Posted - 2015.09.12 11:52:53 - [252] - Quote :S
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 837	Posted - 2015.09.12 12:15:10 - [253] - Quote Oh before I forget, can you give the Ferox her 5 unbonused missile launchers back? It's just for old times sake because it reminds me of my nubie days. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 343	Posted - 2015.09.12 12:56:21 - [254] - Quote Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote: Here's an idea: give the medium micro jump drive a bonus to targeting range while active. Right now MMJD is only usable as a defensive module except for the buffer tanked Myrmidon, Gnosis and N. Harbinger which can afford to sacrifice their 5th midslot for a sensor booster. This would allow battlecruisers to start locking as they spool up their MMJD which would make them a real threat to kiting ships which is very useful and much needed. Single best idea in this thread.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 343	Posted - 2015.09.12 13:08:20 - [255] - Quote Also, for the people not understanding the cyclone: The ship has 2 fits mostly, first you have the single xlasb + ham setup, atm (prechanged) that shup deals 623 dps preheat and has 92kehp after the first reload (with the option to get a reload off). This gives it fairly amazing combat stats, especially in the current meta. It isnt good for fleets, for pve and similar but a 1 or 2 man gang of these is fairly powerfull. The second one is the poor mans sleipnir or claymore, dual xlasb + hams, this gives the ship with force multipliers a peak tank of nearly 9k, or 4.4k per booster, resulting in about 2.2k permatanked. 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.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 881	Posted - 2015.09.12 13:25:10 - [256] - Quote 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. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 98	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:23:06 - [257] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Doris Dragonbreath wrote: This buff does not include T2 BC's? I believe these could use some love as well? Best love they can get is for t3 cruisers to lose the ability to fit warfare links and be nullified and fit a cov ops cloak at the same time. baltec seriously, could you please give the T3C hate a rest. Nerfing the T3C isn't what this thread is about. Also nerfing the T3Cs to hard could destroy blue loot value and forcing many wormholers into galactic poverty.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 344	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:33:29 - [258] - Quote 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.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 881	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:50:46 - [259] - Quote No it wasnt. All of them had some super niche traplord fits for solo pvp (2x ASB Ferox, Kite shield or Armor brawl Harbinger for frig blapping comes to mind for example) just like the Cyclone does now. If the Cyclone is good they are aswell. If they are bad then the Cyclone is aswell. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 522	Posted - 2015.09.12 14:54:00 - [260] - 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. They all needed some love, but were still capable. I found them great at killing t3ds. Could handle most brawler cruisers and the arty kite cane was actually quite strong in the right hands (at the cost of having 0 tank minus a dcu). 100mn/MJD canes/harby were also very strong at brawling and range control. Anything that you couldnt catch, you mjd away from. Max application drake with MJD also murdered frigs, t3d and low sig cruisers with ease. I killed prenerf 10mn fessors with THERMAL missiles. Nuked svipuls with kinetic and handled sig tanking scyfi's. The thing with BCs is everyone echo chambered "they were bad", and instead of being creative or adapting, they just decided to stop using them completely. The MJD is an incredibly useful tool and when setup for brawling, BCs can tear apart most ships in scram range and MJD away from things it cant catch. With these changes, these ships are going to be strong, or at least more viable now. The fleet cane is a mini sleip now and im going to have a field day with it. It has a 50% bonus to tracking, which means 720s with sabot/quake will track like scorch HPL. But it will have a 4k volley. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 137	Posted - 2015.09.12 15:05:19 - [261] - 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.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2617	Posted - 2015.09.12 15:30:15 - [262] - Quote Who cares about Drakes, I want to fly a Ferox! Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Arec Bardwin 1850	Posted - 2015.09.12 15:34:42 - [263] - Quote elitatwo wrote: afkalt wrote: And mines is that missiles are the only weapon system harshly penalized because they don't have the options all others do for their weapon fittings. Therefore those are the only ships forced into fitting mods, or just not bothering. Downsizing from 425 to 220 or 180 is a far smaller hit than losing a BCU for a fitting mod, for example. I love to bring this up as often as I can, muahahaha The reason for this "punishment" was as you might have guessed - 100% application. I didn't bring it up the last few times but it was implied. Can you see now why I want it back? Missiles has 100% damage application? It is clear you have 0% understanding of this.
Mad Abbat Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET 3	Posted - 2015.09.12 15:47:02 - [264] - Quote Dear Fozzie, pls don't forget to revisit ship fitting space. It is outdated as it is. Addition of MJD and kite meta made it desirable to have mwd+mjd+cap booster+guns+plate/dual rep setup. Can't fit it in my ship sorry, also can't downgrade guns and make my range horrendous, so, I predict, CBC will stay noobish PVE boats afrer the patch as they are of this moment. I also don't like proph bonuses, that ship is laking in my oppinion, I'd rather have minigeddon or fattycurse on its place.
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels FETID 753	Posted - 2015.09.12 16:18:28 - [265] - Quote Ferox looks like it will be a lot of fun to fly. A buffer tanked fit with Neutrons and null loaded will push effective dps out to 23km and then another 11km of secondary falloff after that! It will still have a medium neut too with MJD + MWD and scram and web. Not sure which is the better blaster boat now. The Ferox or the Brutix.
Captain Megabyte Starkiller inc 2	Posted - 2015.09.12 16:47:13 - [266] - Quote Id really like to see the Caldari Naga changed to a Cruise missile ship/
Great Creator PPCORP 1	Posted - 2015.09.12 17:59:50 - [267] - Quote Lol - rly lol. why anythere is 25% for opti and fallof? give 50... oh no, ok - give 37.5% (i know CCP you like dat numbers) of nation bonuses - as 37,5 falloff fpr hurri and 37,5 opti for harbi. Same goes for brutix/ferrox pair. It`s rly obvious. and dat 12.5% dronespeed bonus - it`s good, but 12.5% - not a speed buff to take myrm or proph if u can Ishtar/VNI - not even close to their bonuses. It`s like a t1 dronespeed rig - qutie useless w/o dron navi comp. But it`s better than nothing. More MWD dronespeed or light tracking bonuses. And i also thing about bonuses for mjd like on maradeur... or on t2 bcs
Alghara Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation 28	Posted - 2015.09.12 18:04:43 - [268] - Quote Remove this bonus on Amarr 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use ...... This is not a bonus
Kelsey Auditore Shadow State The Bastion 143	Posted - 2015.09.12 18:08:39 - [269] - Quote I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea. What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation.
Gneeznow Chemically Unbalanced 114	Posted - 2015.09.12 18:31:03 - [270] - Quote Kelsey Auditore wrote: I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea. What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation. That's similar how it used to work probably less than two years ago. There were fleet command and field command ships. If CCP followed your suggestion they'd be largely undoing a balance pass done less than 24 months ago, where you had booster commands and combat commands. I think your idea is bad, command ships should retain their high skill requirements, their purposes is bonuses, if anything OGB is the problem not the high skill req

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3089	Posted - 2015.09.12 18:32:28 - [271] - Quote Kelsey Auditore wrote: I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea. What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation. They used to be that way, it was terrible. Also the 3% to links is a 3rd t2 skill bonus, they all have decent combat bonuses not, and if you only want to use them for combat, all you need to do is not train the warfare specialization skills. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kelsey Auditore Shadow State The Bastion 143	Posted - 2015.09.12 18:36:30 - [272] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Kelsey Auditore wrote: I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea. What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation. They used to be that way, it was terrible. Also the 3% to links is a 3rd t2 skill bonus, they all have decent combat bonuses not, and if you only want to use them for combat, all you need to do is not train the warfare specialization skills. You still need to train the warfare skills to even fly a t2 bc.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3089	Posted - 2015.09.12 18:39:03 - [273] - Quote Kelsey Auditore wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Kelsey Auditore wrote: I made a post about wanting to shorten the train of t2 bc's already, but I do have a more complex idea. What if we separated the role of t2 bc's into their own category and skill train Certain T2 BC's aren't used as actual boosters at all, like the sleipnir or absolution now a days. Wouldn't it make sense to make one section of t2 bc's be combat only and not have such a long train as the actual booster t2 bc's? Make the combat bc's like the sleipnir just be minmatar battlecruiser 5 only so you don't have to train all the boosting skills. Then if you really want a t2 bc booster like the astarte, then make people do the 90 day train to run them. It's the reason why you don't see t2 bc's being used that much other than lowsec boosting or large on grid fleet fights, like the damnation. They used to be that way, it was terrible. Also the 3% to links is a 3rd t2 skill bonus, they all have decent combat bonuses not, and if you only want to use them for combat, all you need to do is not train the warfare specialization skills. You still need to train the warfare skills to even fly a t2 bc. Which are useful in any fleet with or without links. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 344	Posted - 2015.09.12 19:04:48 - [274] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: No it wasnt. All of them had some super niche traplord fits for solo pvp (2x ASB Ferox, Kite shield or Armor brawl Harbinger for frig blapping comes to mind for example) just like the Cyclone does now. If the Cyclone is good they are aswell. If they are bad then the Cyclone is aswell. Execpt those were trap fits, like a light neutron talos or similar. The cyclone and the myrm were/are legit good pvp ships due to their active tank + slots + decent dps. Triple rep myrm and either single or dual rep cyclone are still good ships. They however arent good in gangs nor are they good at pve, which is why you dont really see them very much.
DR BiCarbonate Doomriders. 98	Posted - 2015.09.12 19:11:11 - [275] - Quote Yo fozzie, great changes so far. Loving the Fleet cane. Myrm is great for tanking and all but dat drone bay is atrocious. Any semi competent gang with just kill your drones and then you are just sitting there tanking all the things and dying a slow death. PLEASE double the drone bay to 400m3. Why does the stratios A CRUISER get 400 and a Myrm gets ** on with 200? really? Even the prophecy gets 25m3 more? As for the cyclone, sure its can be strong in the right hands but you need all the bells and whistles to make it worth it. maxed skilled pilot who knows wtf they're doing with HG crystals (MG can work) Blue pill and maxed tengu/loki booster alt. Please take another look at it. It needs a tad more CPU. there are few viable fits for the cyclone and they all require fitting mods/rigs. Either swap it back to a turret boat (YES PLEASE, HAMs are pretty garbage) or give it more damage and some more cpu. Also they all need a good chunk extra cargo space. Especially the active tanked ships. As some have mentioned they also need that lock range to 100km. You know you **** up when you have to introduce a mod that lets larger ships get away from the risk averse kite ships. As of right now MJD is probably 90% used to only get away from kite ships. Just throwing this out there but how about a special rig/subsystem slot for CBC for only fitting MJD? Add another role bonus for MJD use either reduced fittings requirements or like 50% reduced reactivation time or even 50% reduced spool up time? This pass is a step in the right direction to making BC relevant again but they could use a bit more love.
Ransu Asanari AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 346	Posted - 2015.09.12 20:19:19 - [276] - Quote DR BiCarbonate wrote: Myrm is great for tanking and all but dat drone bay is atrocious. Any semi competent gang with just kill your drones and then you are just sitting there tanking all the things and dying a slow death. PLEASE double the drone bay to 400m3. Why does the stratios A CRUISER get 400 and a Myrm gets **** on with 200? really? Even the prophecy gets 25m3 more? This is actually a good point - the Myrmidon could use more drone bay space. It won't be OP since the bandwidth still limits it to 4 Heavies/Sentries. Right now you can't fit any spares if you want a flight of heavies to take advantage of the new drone speed bonus if you carry a full complement: 4 Heavies, 5 Mediums, 5 Smalls, 5 Utility/ECM. Even if you drop the utility, that would only give you room for one more Medium. Having a bit more drone space to be able to pull in damaged drones and swap out is good gameplay since you have to do a lot of micromanaging, which is already tough on an active tanked ship.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 923	Posted - 2015.09.12 21:00:13 - [277] - Quote sooo...Does this mean we're stuck with missiles the way they are???
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 72	Posted - 2015.09.12 23:37:19 - [278] - Quote Lets not drag the missile crap into this thread. While I personally didn't approve of the way the missile rebalance was handled the BC changes so far have been handled infinitely better with good information transfer and feedback. They are well thought out and define the roll far better than previously. Post Vanguard BCs will be one of the defacto defense doctrine ships. Enough EHP to slug with the agility to zip around. Invading cruiser gangs will actually have to fight well or bugger off.
Quesa Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 82	Posted - 2015.09.13 00:09:25 - [279] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Rename Missiles skills to kinetic damage skills. FFS non missiles races are better in missiles than Caldari. If you want to keep kinetic lock on Caldari, make Minmatars missiles boats - explosions lock, an Amarr EM lock. That would be interesting distinction, don't you think? You are denying your own missiles philosphy - selectable damage. I do not understand the ruckus about the Kinetic damage bonus. The difference on a Cerb with 3 BCU between CN Scourge and CN Mjolnir is 90 DPS. Considering that some races have extremely high Kinetic resistances, they can reduce your applied kinetic DPS and if you chose another damage type, you can apply more DPS. 90 DPS difference on a Cerb is an entire launcher's worth of effective DPS. Add in that the base resists for Kin on both shields and armor, T1 and T2 hulls alike, starts out rather high, pigeon-holing that damage boost into a single damage type restricts the uses. With those kinetic being innately high (comparatively to other without resist mods) it effectively removes a great deal of what the damage boost provides, not just on specific ships or races either. What if the Zealot only got it's damage bonus while shooting Minmatar? Comparing the missile weapon system to turret based systems is problematic because of the application differences.
Quesa Burning Napalm Northern Coalition. 82	Posted - 2015.09.13 00:24:20 - [280] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: The whole kinetic being the less desirable damage type is bullsh. Its less desirable now because gallente is master race and has arguably recieved way too many buffs. So everyone and their mother flies them. If you take a step back and look at other ships, then kinetic is still quite useful. In my arty ships i still prefer sabot over depleted uranium. Save Minmatar, shield tankers generally have a high kin resist. Armor tankers, kin is usually #2 or #3 for highest innate resists. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Kinetic is lowest resist for any t2 minmatar ship, most t1 ships have kinetic holes, the svipul and loki have kinetic holes. Yes you cant engage a deimos or ishtar in a t1 drake. Sure but Minmatar is also very flat in their resist profiles so while Kin may be the weakest, it's very close to the other damage resists. Also, every race has another that shoots damage designed for the target's resist hole. Stitch Kaneland wrote:** But guess what, the navy drake certainly has the potential to. Admitting defeat by saying, lol use another ship. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Its no different if you compare amarr vs t2 minmatar, or gal vs t2 caldari (which have shield resist bonus on top of t2 resists). A deimos would struggle vs a nighthawk for example. Kinetic certainly has its uses, but is not the swiss army knife everyone wants it to be. A drake is not going to counter everyship in the game, accept it. Amarr, Gallente and Minmitar primary weapon systems have the ability to, through ammo selection, shift their damage profile from one damage type to another....not by 100% but that is supposedly a benefit to using a missile system.

Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 923	Posted - 2015.09.13 00:31:37 - [281] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Lets not drag the missile crap into this thread. While I personally didn't approve of the way the missile rebalance was handled the BC changes so far have been handled infinitely better with good information transfer and feedback. They are well thought out and define the roll far better than previously. Post Vanguard BCs will be one of the defacto defense doctrine ships. Enough EHP to slug with the agility to zip around. Invading cruiser gangs will actually have to fight well or bugger off. I realize that, but I'm worried that this will make the issue of heavies go ignored. Drake and drake Navy have been popular for reasons other than Heavy missile systems. I'm afraid CCP doesn't see this only because the ships get used. How many of them are HAM fit vs HML? How many are flown solo vs fleets? How many are used in fleets due to their innate nature to fit well into shield comps vs their raw dps? I realize they're used more than others, but I rarely see one out on their own running solo compared to some of the better hulls such as brutix.. I'm just wondering if their usage is hindering the fact that heavy missiles are kinda bad.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 137	Posted - 2015.09.13 01:06:15 - [282] - 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.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 526	Posted - 2015.09.13 03:17:52 - [283] - Quote Quesa wrote: Save Minmatar, shield tankers generally have a high kin resist. Armor tankers, kin is usually 2nd or 3rd but I can't find any T1 or T2 ship where kin is lowest, again, save Minmatar. Its only high if they fit an invuln, which is rare, which can be neuted off fairly easily. Its rare a shield ship is going to put kinetic rigs over EM/thermal, except certain T2 minmatar ships/fits. Against things like an armor cruiser, the drake has more than enough tank to kill them before they kill it. Not to mention being able to fit a medium neut. Setup for tank and scram/web, it still has plenty of tank and dps to handle other larger ships when properly fit for it. The drake i fly with can do 720dps cold with rage, and 800+ heated. Using faction is over 600dps cold. Comparing that to other BC's, it out dps' the hurricane, is about on par with the harbinger, and is just under the brutix. Before these nerf's, a drake could scram kite a brutix and MAYBE win the dps race. It is still on par with other BC's, and does decent dps even with the kinetic lock. Even with unbonused missiles, it was not hard to kill smaller, tankier ships since you were shooting directly into their resist hole anyway. Quesa wrote: Sure but Minmatar is also very flat in their resist profiles so while Kin may be the weakest, it's very close to the other damage resists. Also, every race has another that shoots damage designed for the target's resist hole and at the same time, there is always one race that is very efficient in absorbing the primary damage type of another race. Minmatar t2 profile is not flat, its 75/60/40/50 before mods. Unless you are specifically brawling, the kinetic hole is left open. The svipul is 60% in tank mode, but are still easy to kill with a drake. Neuts and consistently applied dps brings t3d's down. T1 shield ships also follow this same logic, they fill therm/EM holes over kinetic ones. Quesa wrote: Admitting defeat by saying, lol use another ship. Or adapting and accepting that one ship cannot fight every ship, and every type of fit in the game. Seriously.. cry more. Quesa wrote: Amarr, Gallente and Minmitar primary weapon systems have the ability to, through ammo selection, shift their damage profile from one damage type to another....not by 100% but that is supposedly a benefit to using a missile system. Put it this way, list any T1 ship that is traditionally a shield tanker/buffer and you'll be listing off ships that are prime targets for Lasers and decent targets for Hybrids (shields generally have a relatively low therm resist). Now, take that same list and look at the kin resists. You are still able to shift your damage profile, just at the reduction of damage. No one is forcing you into using only kinetic. I have killed multiple ships with unbonused missiles on a drake. As i could shoot directly into their resist hole, and apply neut pressure. Combined with good application, I could bring them down. Now in a situation like drake vs ishtar, deimos, then i would accept i could not realistically tank and outdamage them with unbonused missiles. That is a fight I would try to avoid. Laser/hybrids use cap, missiles do not. I have far more resistance against neuting, don't need to worry about transversal or range. I get within web range, apply neuts, drones and missiles and go to town. Trying to compare missiles to turrets outright, and focusing only on resists is foolish. Think you should step away from EFT and just fly the ship. You'll realize the kinetic lock is not as restrictive as you think. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Mario Putzo 1509	Posted - 2015.09.13 04:55:43 - [284] - Quote FINALLY ITS ABOUT TIME! Exactly what the meta has needed for 2 years...BCs that are capable of projecting their damage onto Cruisers. Thanks for finally listening to us Fozzie. Now 2 things I do not like. 1) Drake damage lock is still dumb. One of the biggest advantages of missiles is ability to select type. This Kinetic lock **** really needs to go.....which leads to #2 2) Please for the love of god fix heavy missiles. Its super duper simple. Revert the changes made to their explosion radius...and redact the 5% damage increase given to them a couple months back. Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010.
RavenPaine RaVeN Alliance 1123	Posted - 2015.09.13 05:05:29 - [285] - Quote I understand that buffs need to be done in baby steps. Power creep and all that. And, I think these improvements are good on soooo many levels. I seriously believe that nerfing Hurricanes/Drakes/Heavies/Invulns had a huge negative impact on EVE. I truly hope these changes will have the desired results I think they might have. Eve lost a lot of pilots in the past year. I hope this isn't "too little, too late". I think BC's have always been the gateway ship for sub-cap fights to escalate. BC should be able to run off the cruisers, or kill them, and they should draw attention from BS pilots. In My Opinion: This is just the right approach for bringing back BS camps and more hi-sec PvP. Which will keep more pilots entertained, and be better for subscription rates, player activity, bottom line, and general fun for all gaming. I have harped about the Drake many times, but I like the fact that ALL BC have been addressed. I really don't care about any particular ship, (they're all fun if they do their job) but I do care about the big picture and I think this is a huge step in the right direction.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 99	Posted - 2015.09.13 05:25:25 - [286] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010. As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs. Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%.
Mario Putzo 1510	Posted - 2015.09.13 05:31:13 - [287] - Quote RavenPaine wrote: Edit for Marios comment: I think if you see BC's doing what they should do, T3's will start dying like they should. And yes, I'd like heavies to be a bit better myself, but I think these changes are still 100% moving in the right direction. Nah as is T3s will still dust BC's by virtue of 2 things. 1) T3s will apply more DPS to BC's than BC's do to T3s. Most (not all) BC's take 100% damage from medium sized weaponry, all T3's mitigate about 30% damage from medium weapons simply by using an AB, and 10-15% (depending on the hull) simply moving at max speed. 2) T3's can achieve nearly double the tank of BC's while maintaining similar DPS peaks. This is probably the biggest issue in comparison, while damage differences make sense (bigger ships should take more "full" hits from smaller guns) the tank difference is huge. If you put an equal sized T3 group against an equal sized BC group, even post changes the T3 group will always win out due to their ability to out-tank and apply more DPS. They are basically battleships with cruiser sized sigs and BC like damage peaks. Keep the damage, keep the "size" lose the tank. HACs are capable of taking on BS fleets with their ~60K EHP tanks, T3s could do the same with 70-80K EHP tanks id wager.
Mario Putzo 1510	Posted - 2015.09.13 05:37:13 - [288] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010. As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs. Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%. I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group. T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 923	Posted - 2015.09.13 05:43:53 - [289] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: RavenPaine wrote: Edit for Marios comment: I think if you see BC's doing what they should do, T3's will start dying like they should. And yes, I'd like heavies to be a bit better myself, but I think these changes are still 100% moving in the right direction. Nah as is T3s will still dust BC's by virtue of 2 things. 1) T3s will apply more DPS to BC's than BC's do to T3s. Most (not all) BC's take 100% damage from medium sized weaponry, all T3's mitigate about 30% damage from medium weapons simply by using an AB, and 10-15% (depending on the hull) simply moving at max speed. 2) T3's can achieve nearly double the tank of BC's while maintaining similar DPS peaks. This is probably the biggest issue in comparison, while damage differences make sense (bigger ships should take more "full" hits from smaller guns) the tank difference is huge. If you put an equal sized T3 group against an equal sized BC group, even post changes the T3 group will always win out due to their ability to out-tank and apply more DPS. They are basically battleships with cruiser sized sigs and BC like damage peaks. Keep the damage, keep the "size" lose the tank. HACs are capable of taking on BS fleets with their ~60K EHP tanks, T3s could do the same with 70-80K EHP tanks id wager. I think t3 cruisers need to be rebalanced as t3 BCs. This means all their capabilities fall better in line, and their ship stats - IE agility, velocity, sig radius, and Scan Res can be rebalanced to fall in line with BCs. It makes T3s less powerful by way of size classification while retaining everything else.
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3387	Posted - 2015.09.13 05:47:06 - [290] - Quote some seem to misunderstand how ship mass in this game works. if agility and speed is kept the same but mass is increased it essentially means that plates and prop mods will affect your align time less. Think: your ship is already heavy but still agile due to space magic, adding more mass through plates is now like adding a feather to the load on your pickup truck. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

RavenPaine RaVeN Alliance 1123	Posted - 2015.09.13 05:49:20 - [291] - Quote I still want my cloaky/nullified Tengu for null sec exploration though. I need that tank for solo sites, and the nullified fit has crap DPS. So that ship for that role, seams ok to me. Perhaps the 'combat' subsystems could use some tweeking? DPS/Tank offsets, or something. I'll say this. You get caught and hard tackled in a T3 by a couple guys, and you generally going to die. Mobility is everything for them.
Maraner The Executioners Shadow Cartel 319	Posted - 2015.09.13 06:13:48 - [292] - Quote Make the MJD an ability on the ship. All BC's should be able to MJD without a requirement to fit the module. At the moment, the shield ships have to sacrifice a great deal more to fit MJD than the Armor ships. Please. If we can make T3 destroyers have the ability to switch modes, then CCP could add a MJD button with a cool down for BC's thanks
Mario Putzo 1512	Posted - 2015.09.13 06:41:37 - [293] - Quote Maraner wrote: Make the MJD an ability on the ship. All BC's should be able to MJD without a requirement to fit the module. At the moment, the shield ships have to sacrifice a great deal more to fit MJD than the Armor ships. Please. If we can make T3 destroyers have the ability to switch modes, then CCP could add a MJD button with a cool down for BC's thanks I dunno about a great deal more...a bit more maybe...About the only drawback i see shield ships having is being slightly quicker to lock thanks to sig bloom. Armor ships have to first sacrifice DPS to even fit tank, second need to sacrifice application or utility to fit MJD. Shield ships sacrifice some tank or utility, but can add DPS or application in the lows. Id say for the most part it is a wash. That being said I think all BC's should have ability to use MJD Including the Teir 3 BCs.... Also unrelated to the above Make the Naga shoot Rapid Heavies please something like -reload time % as it bonus...Ferox is king sniper now.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 99	Posted - 2015.09.13 07:02:50 - [294] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Daniela Doran wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010. As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs. Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%. I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group. T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb. They have an offsetting penalty if they die (SP LOSS) so T3Cs needs their current tanks. The only time their 150 EHP is OP is when receiving logi from outside support. So I propose that CCP add a penalty to the buffer sub systems that disallows them from receiving logi from external sources.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 550	Posted - 2015.09.13 07:57:32 - [295] - Quote Not sure if this has been discussed already, but a logical reason for Myrm's popularity in the stats could well be solely it's slot layout, allowing it to fit MMJD with another prop and everything else.
Joe Risalo State War Academy Caldari State 923	Posted - 2015.09.13 07:58:22 - [296] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Daniela Doran wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Good to see however you have decided to make BC's more like Dessies as they should be. The food chain is becoming more healthy again. Kill T3 Cruisers and we might actually see solid "ship size" balance for the first time since 2010. As I already mentioned, killing T3Cs would destroy the blue loot value. WHs provide a vital income stream to many players and even huge WH corps. What do you thinks gonna happen when they see their precious blue loot value plummet from estimated 1bill to 200 mill because the T3Cs got jackknifed by CCP which relegated them to Oblivion. Not to mention the same players who primarily use these T3Cs to conduct their activities in WHs. Answer: Sub rates plummet another 35-50%. I doubt it. T3s are so universal their value will always remain high, even if you nerfed their tankability down to a spot between C and BC (which is probably the only change really need to be made). They would still be the dominant cruiser option for most things, but they would be opposed by well piloted BC's. The relationship would function much like how T3Ds kind of bridge between Dessies and Cruisers. A good T3D group can kill a decent cruiser group, but a good cruiser group can kill a good T3D group. T3's absolutely should not have BC DPS and BS Tanks. Its dumb. They have an offsetting penalty if they die (SP LOSS) so T3Cs needs their current tanks. The only time their 150 EHP is OP is when receiving logi from outside support. So I propose that CCP add a penalty to the buffer sub systems that disallows them from receiving logi from external sources. Seems counter intuitive to say that t3c's need their tank then turn around and suggest an idea that neuts their tank.... Back to my suggestion though. If t3Cs were made into t3BCs, they would fit really well. Reduce velocity, scan res, and agility, then increase mass. (And maybe some other changes here and there.) Now, their tank, DPS, projection, and other aspects fall in line with that of the balance changes to BCs. It also calls in line with that of T3Ds, in that they're more powerful and versatile. Even with the change from C to BC, they are still more powerful and versatile than BCs, but at least they become a bit easier to counter while still retaining all their power.
Freelancer117 So you want to be a Hero 335	Posted - 2015.09.13 09:04:58 - [297] - Quote CCP games if you really serious about bringing BC's into the fight with enhanced mobility and projection, then please take a look at T1 / navy BC warp speed and enhance them also from 2.7 to 3.0 AU/sec Or at the least re-balance hyperspatial velocity optimizer rigs so they won't interfere with a(ny) meta game fitting requirements. Regards, a Freelancer 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?
Vibiana Frontier Trading Company 28	Posted - 2015.09.13 09:47:17 - [298] - Quote More fitting to squeeze that mjd in pls
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 1995	Posted - 2015.09.13 10:18:48 - [299] - Quote Does increased optimal/falloff really make BCs any better at killing cruisers? I would have thought optimal and tracking speed would have been better... + 1 mid and -1 low on the hurricane would have been nice. You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
Planeten Schreck Bittersweet Corp 4	Posted - 2015.09.13 10:51:44 - [300] - Quote Hi, is there also something planned for the gnosis to keep this ship usefull compared to the others bc ?

Blackfeathers Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 31	Posted - 2015.09.13 11:10:57 - [301] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Does increased optimal/falloff really make BCs any better at killing cruisers? I would have thought optimal and tracking speed would have been better... + 1 mid and -1 low on the hurricane would have been nice. You leave my Hurricane alone you monster. Stay away from her - she doesn't like you and your lack of falloff bonus anyway!
Kenji Noguchi We are not bad. Just unlucky The Bastion 11	Posted - 2015.09.13 11:50:32 - [302] - Quote Are these bonuses being "ported" to the T2 versions of the ships? Are you planning on doing a rebalance pass on T2 BCs?
Amber Solaire Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 48	Posted - 2015.09.13 12:12:55 - [303] - Quote Can you please explain why both types of Harbinger get a larger Capacitor, but an increase in cap recharge time?? All the other BCs have got a lower recharge time, so why have you given the Harbinger a cap nerf??
Serenit Adoulin Stille Gewalt Dead Terrorists 35	Posted - 2015.09.13 12:24:43 - [304] - Quote will we see a balance for command ships to be better fitted for ongrid boosting as well? Their current fighting abilities are very powerfull as it is i guess.
Ortilus Orsides Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 4	Posted - 2015.09.13 13:22:28 - [305] - Quote Serenit Adoulin wrote: will we see a balance for command ships to be better fitted for ongrid boosting as well? Their current fighting abilities are very powerfull as it is i guess. Use a T3 for that.
Serenit Adoulin Stille Gewalt Dead Terrorists 36	Posted - 2015.09.13 15:19:28 - [306] - Quote Ortilus Orsides wrote: Serenit Adoulin wrote: will we see a balance for command ships to be better fitted for ongrid boosting as well? Their current fighting abilities are very powerfull as it is i guess. Use a T3 for that. But shouldn't every ship be able to surve within it's purpose? And why would the ship with the generally more spread bonuses for boosts be better than a specialized one. Also i can't use a t3 with 7links, I can't even tank one with 4 I daresay.
Reah Darknorth Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2015.09.13 15:25:25 - [307] - Quote I trained battlecruiser to level 5 a few months ago because I knew that these ships HAD to be getting buffed some time in the future. These changes all look amazing. I'm a bit disappointed that the Ferox no longer has a shield resist bonus but I guess that's alright. All in all this is going to be crazy. Welcome to the new T1 BC meta.
Serenit Adoulin Stille Gewalt Dead Terrorists 37	Posted - 2015.09.13 15:36:42 - [308] - Quote Reah Darknorth wrote: I trained battlecruiser to level 5 a few months ago because I knew that these ships HAD to be getting buffed some time in the future. These changes all look amazing. I'm a bit disappointed that the Ferox no longer has a shield resist bonus but I guess that's alright. All in all this is going to be crazy. Welcome to the new T1 BC meta. Right ? **** yea :D
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1704	Posted - 2015.09.13 15:46:32 - [309] - Quote Serenit Adoulin wrote: Ortilus Orsides wrote: Serenit Adoulin wrote: will we see a balance for command ships to be better fitted for ongrid boosting as well? Their current fighting abilities are very powerfull as it is i guess. Use a T3 for that. But shouldn't every ship be able to surve within it's purpose? And why would the ship with the generally more spread bonuses for boosts be better than a specialized one. Also i can't use a t3 with 7links, I can't even tank one with 4 I daresay. In this day and age you would not expect an Armageddon with eight Mega Pulse Lasers and eight Heat Sinks to do very well in a stand up fight. So why would you expect a Command Ship with seven links to do well in a stand up fight? It is more than possible to use on-grid Command Ships to support a small gang. My Claymore seems to do just fine in small gang fights: adequate tank while running three links and bringing some punch to the fight. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Leon Ruhh Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.09.13 16:04:27 - [310] - Quote Rebalance and remodel of Gnosis gib? Also a gnosis skin would be adored.

unidenify Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium 132	Posted - 2015.09.13 18:00:55 - [311] - Quote Reah Darknorth wrote: I trained battlecruiser to level 5 a few months ago because I knew that these ships HAD to be getting buffed some time in the future. These changes all look amazing. I'm a bit disappointed that the Ferox no longer has a shield resist bonus but I guess that's alright. All in all this is going to be crazy. Welcome to the new T1 BC meta. well extra mid slot should make it up though
Reah Darknorth Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2	Posted - 2015.09.13 19:42:16 - [312] - Quote unidenify wrote: Reah Darknorth wrote: I trained battlecruiser to level 5 a few months ago because I knew that these ships HAD to be getting buffed some time in the future. These changes all look amazing. I'm a bit disappointed that the Ferox no longer has a shield resist bonus but I guess that's alright. All in all this is going to be crazy. Welcome to the new T1 BC meta. well extra mid slot should make it up though Yeah, that's the idea. I think a single invulnerability field will more than make up for the lack of shield resist bonus, actually.
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 45	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:03:44 - [313] - Quote Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%?
Skyler Hawk Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co. 46	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:38:55 - [314] - Quote It would be interesting if they got the ability to fit at least one more link without requiring command processors, especially if there's eventually going to be a move to end off-grid boosting.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1191	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:43:22 - [315] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. ferox will have awesome range on 7.5 turrets worth of blasters + 5 drones, on droneships i think the amount of turrets/launchers and highs should be cut down by at least -2 slots as drone damage requires no highs at all. harbinger and all amarr ships using lasers should have the best cap recharge rate, its in the lore is it not that amarr have the best cap technology.. 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
Dalikah TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 57	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:46:39 - [316] - Quote How do you feel about a bit of a speed buff to the Gnosis, while you're at it? .
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 45	Posted - 2015.09.13 20:56:06 - [317] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. ferox will have awesome range on 7.5 turrets worth of blasters + 5 drones, on droneships i think the amount of turrets/launchers and highs should be cut down by at least -2 slots as drone damage requires no highs at all. harbinger and all amarr ships using lasers should have the best cap recharge rate, its in the lore is it not that amarr have the best cap technology.. 5 LIGHT drones is indeed terryfying. Totally not worth +5% to turrets. Better not to have droes at all and have +10% to turrets. CCP please do ships fully finished, not partly normal, partly crap. Ammar cap bonus is useless, sometimes better just to use different turrets instead of lasers, or do it more valuable, like +15% to cap usage.
Arch-Magus Mephisto Black Scorpions Inc Fidelas Constans 9	Posted - 2015.09.13 22:48:24 - [318] - Quote I like the proposed changes. But it's not enough. Right now and it has been all about Heavy Assault Cruisers as well as T3 Cruisers. That said it sure seems as though players prefer Caldari and Gallente races. I say take it a step further and make Minmitar Battlecuisers overpowered or some ability that might rival their popularity to give Ishtars and Cerverus a run for their money. With Eve Online diversity is one of the game's strengths. Play to that. Otherwise the changes are little more than cosmetic.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 528	Posted - 2015.09.13 22:57:46 - [319] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. Because caldari always favor range over raw dps. I think you're looking for gallente ships if you want max dps but no range. The main reason the ferox got 5% only was to drop a turret to make fitting much easier. The ferox has always been setup for rails, which it will do better in its role than a brutix. Just because its a hybrid boat doesn't mean it should automatically get 10% dmg bonus. Proph/Myrm get 1 less slot because they're drone boats, that is normal for drone boats. They are bonused to drones, not guns. Meaning they can fill their high's with neuts, and still do decent damage. Or supplement unbonused weapons with bonused drones for more dps. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 388	Posted - 2015.09.13 23:55:05 - [320] - Quote I like the changes but it would be nice to give them a slight buff in sensor strength across the board.

Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 100	Posted - 2015.09.13 23:56:05 - [321] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. ferox will have awesome range on 7.5 turrets worth of blasters + 5 drones, on droneships i think the amount of turrets/launchers and highs should be cut down by at least -2 slots as drone damage requires no highs at all. harbinger and all amarr ships using lasers should have the best cap recharge rate, its in the lore is it not that amarr have the best cap technology.. Agreed! Amarr ships are completely cap dependent and should have the strongest cap recharge rates.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 100	Posted - 2015.09.14 00:05:14 - [322] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Harvey James wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. ferox will have awesome range on 7.5 turrets worth of blasters + 5 drones, on droneships i think the amount of turrets/launchers and highs should be cut down by at least -2 slots as drone damage requires no highs at all. harbinger and all amarr ships using lasers should have the best cap recharge rate, its in the lore is it not that amarr have the best cap technology.. 5 LIGHT drones is indeed terryfying. Totally not worth +5% to turrets. Better not to have droes at all and have +10% to turrets. CCP please do ships fully finished, not partly normal, partly crap. Ammar cap bonus is useless, sometimes better just to use different turrets instead of lasers, or do it more valuable, like +15% to cap usage. CCP needs to reduce the cap usage for the medium lasers and give lasers a better built in tracking bonus if they insist on keeping the "10% reduction in Medium Energy Turret activation cost" as a ship bonus skill. And give these ships better cap recharge rates so they don't need cap mods for cap stability just to use the guns.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 100	Posted - 2015.09.14 00:08:04 - [323] - Quote Rovinia wrote: I like the changes but it would be nice to give them a slight buff in sensor strength across the board. Yes, but only for the T2 BCs so they won't be so easily jammed by griffins.
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 597	Posted - 2015.09.14 00:38:55 - [324] - Quote Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships....
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 189	Posted - 2015.09.14 00:57:01 - [325] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2465	Posted - 2015.09.14 01:29:32 - [326] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... How can you balance BS without first balancing BC and seeing how that interacts with Cruisers online. Since balancing BS is based on how they interact with BC also.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 138	Posted - 2015.09.14 01:32:45 - [327] - 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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14418	Posted - 2015.09.14 02:21:05 - [328] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... The reasons battleships are bad remain unchanged whether CCP buffs battlecruisers or not. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Cearain Goose Swarm Coalition 1372	Posted - 2015.09.14 03:36:08 - [329] - Quote This is really nice overall. But I question whether the Harbinger will be competitive with the other navy bcs in pvp. It was relatively weak going into the changes and seems to be getting the fewest enhancemnts. Will these changes make the Navy Harbinger even less competitive? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1708	Posted - 2015.09.14 03:39:21 - [330] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter. This is how it used to work, before BC's were nerfed and Cruisers buffed. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.

Shinta Kobi 101st E. Company 12	Posted - 2015.09.14 04:34:03 - [331] - Quote The positive with all of this is the meta will change to be more diverse. On top of that, this will be a content generator. I cannot wait to see these changes in affect on Sisi.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1109	Posted - 2015.09.14 08:54:22 - [332] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: 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. I would like to second that, I rather like the changes, my group has been using BC's and BS's and having quite some success too, I really think that improved EHP would be a good reason to use a BS, though I love the new improved Tempest.... Ella's Snack bar. With all the data supplied on API/CREST the game should be renamed to Jabber Online, look something to kill, ping everyone!!!!
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 2725	Posted - 2015.09.14 10:05:28 - [333] - Quote Markus Reese wrote: Am curious to what is coming for the command ships as well. There will be much more coming soon Maybe Fozzie can tell us more already ? DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !
Val'Dore PlanetCorp InterStellar 1018	Posted - 2015.09.14 11:13:12 - [334] - Quote Nou Mene wrote: solon101 wrote: Quesa wrote: For the love of everything that is holy and right in this world, can we please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pigeonholing Caldari to Kinetic damage? yes totally agreed and make laser shoot kin+explo, oh and hybrids do em + explo..... missiles are the only weapon that can shoot one and only one dmg type... you think thats (plain) bad? t2 ammo for every dmg type, also. Drones. Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy. I invented Tiericide
Gramps Pljugi Fragile Mortality 2	Posted - 2015.09.14 11:14:14 - [335] - Quote In regards to Prophecy, how about adding another 10mb of bandwith which can be used as i imagined it for Small Utility drones, in combination with heavy drones 85mb would provide a good combination which would give us more diversity in use with small utility drones for heavy drone damage application. 10mb would open up 2 small drones which could be either: Webifying drones x2 Target painter drones x2 or any other other utility, or even another medium one in combination with 3 heavys, it would not be an op buff but would help with damage application of heavy drones mostly.
Gauro Charante Vile Duck Pond 12	Posted - 2015.09.14 11:41:54 - [336] - Quote BC sig radius is still quite big. I mean compare the Megathron to Brutix it's not much of a differens. Yes most BS are 400ish and BC 300. But how would it affect the balance if all BC were more around 250-280?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1192	Posted - 2015.09.14 12:20:17 - [337] - Quote Gauro Charante wrote: BC sig radius is still quite big. I mean compare the Megathron to Brutix it's not much of a differens. Yes most BS are 400ish and BC 300. But how would it affect the balance if all BC were more around 250-280? i agree and have said this multiple times in different threads, they are still cruiser/medium hulls they are physically much smaller than a battleship so why are there sigs so similar? also why do some of them have the same sig? no 2 ships are ever the same size and in every other class have different sigs, come on fozzie we want more thoroughness in every regard please. 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14422	Posted - 2015.09.14 13:03:50 - [338] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Gauro Charante wrote: BC sig radius is still quite big. I mean compare the Megathron to Brutix it's not much of a differens. Yes most BS are 400ish and BC 300. But how would it affect the balance if all BC were more around 250-280? i agree and have said this multiple times in different threads, they are still cruiser/medium hulls they are physically much smaller than a battleship so why are there sigs so similar? also why do some of them have the same sig? no 2 ships are ever the same size and in every other class have different sigs, come on fozzie we want more thoroughness in every regard please. Signature radius is not just a function of size. It also takes into account electronic and radar signature. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 890	Posted - 2015.09.14 13:21:01 - [339] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Harvey James wrote: Gauro Charante wrote: BC sig radius is still quite big. I mean compare the Megathron to Brutix it's not much of a differens. Yes most BS are 400ish and BC 300. But how would it affect the balance if all BC were more around 250-280? i agree and have said this multiple times in different threads, they are still cruiser/medium hulls they are physically much smaller than a battleship so why are there sigs so similar? also why do some of them have the same sig? no 2 ships are ever the same size and in every other class have different sigs, come on fozzie we want more thoroughness in every regard please. Signature radius is not just a function of size. It also takes into account electronic and radar signature. Lore shouldnt influence ship balancing. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
ivona fly Black Fox Marauders 14	Posted - 2015.09.14 13:35:55 - [340] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. Do you really want the Ferox to project 450DPS at 160km with spike? because that is probably what it can do if you give a double damage bonus + a triple range one. It trades the extreme damage of the brutix for extreme range i think that is pretty balanced. I think the cyclone needs more though you struggle to get 600dps out of it in a full gank setup, and struggle even more to actually apply the paper DPS it does have, I would consider giving it a very weak bonus to light missiles. possibly 5% to damage . I would not give this to the drake though as it has an extra launcher so could become oppressive, as a frigate killer because of the volley + resists under logi.

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3091	Posted - 2015.09.14 13:51:37 - [341] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Harvey James wrote: Gauro Charante wrote: BC sig radius is still quite big. I mean compare the Megathron to Brutix it's not much of a differens. Yes most BS are 400ish and BC 300. But how would it affect the balance if all BC were more around 250-280? i agree and have said this multiple times in different threads, they are still cruiser/medium hulls they are physically much smaller than a battleship so why are there sigs so similar? also why do some of them have the same sig? no 2 ships are ever the same size and in every other class have different sigs, come on fozzie we want more thoroughness in every regard please. Signature radius is not just a function of size. It also takes into account electronic and radar signature. Lore shouldnt influence ship balancing. It seems to influence ship balancing more than you like. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Natasha Rachmaninova Interminatus Aeterna Anima 8	Posted - 2015.09.14 13:58:55 - [342] - Quote I really wanna see a Rapid Light Missle BC... and if so than not kinetic bonus only...
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14426	Posted - 2015.09.14 14:02:46 - [343] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Harvey James wrote: Gauro Charante wrote: BC sig radius is still quite big. I mean compare the Megathron to Brutix it's not much of a differens. Yes most BS are 400ish and BC 300. But how would it affect the balance if all BC were more around 250-280? i agree and have said this multiple times in different threads, they are still cruiser/medium hulls they are physically much smaller than a battleship so why are there sigs so similar? also why do some of them have the same sig? no 2 ships are ever the same size and in every other class have different sigs, come on fozzie we want more thoroughness in every regard please. Signature radius is not just a function of size. It also takes into account electronic and radar signature. Lore shouldnt influence ship balancing. Nor should simple graphical size. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 531	Posted - 2015.09.14 14:11:28 - [344] - Quote ivona fly wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. Do you really want the Ferox to project 450DPS at 160km with spike? because that is probably what it can do if you give a double damage bonus + a triple range one. It trades the extreme damage of the Brutix for extreme range - I think that is pretty balanced. I think the Cyclone needs more though you struggle to get 600dps out of it in a full gank setup, and struggle even more to actually apply the paper DPS it does have. I would consider giving it a very weak bonus to light missiles. possibly 5% to damage . I would not give this to the Drake though, it has an extra launcher so could become oppressive as a frigate killer because of the volley + resists under fleet Logi. Ferox having a 10% bonus to damage plus 75% bonus to range would also almost completely outperform the vulture, which costs 2-3 times more. No to RLML on BCs. BCs are meant to kill cruisers and field a large tank. We dont need 600 burst dps ships with MJD and 100k EHP tank. Rlml are for anti-frig, and BCs are anti-cruiser. Id like to see different missile systems other than RLML being used. HAMs are still viable, you just have to focus on application, and not max tank. If BCs can field RLML effectively, then they can do what cruisers/dessies do, in an all in one package. Obsoleting cruisers again. Each class needs to counterplay the other classes in some way. We dont need a one size fits all. I mean, look at the orthrus, i have never seen one without RLML. It can kill cruisers, frigs, BCs and probably BS given enough time. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
ivona fly Black Fox Marauders 14	Posted - 2015.09.14 14:16:49 - [345] - Quote Natasha Rachmaninova wrote: I really wanna see a Rapid Light Missle BC... and if so than not kinetic bonus only... I also would like it but would have to be a small damage bonus otherwise the tank + neuting power will make it very stronk frigate killer. I would propose the Cyclone for this and not the Drake, as it suits Cyclone to have burst tank and burst damage, to solo frigate gangs where as the Drake in a small gang with ospreys might be to stronk in this role.
ivona fly Black Fox Marauders 14	Posted - 2015.09.14 14:22:49 - [346] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: ivona fly wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Quote: Ferox: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) Why does FEROX gets only 5% damage instead of 10%? added a bit: Nice changes. Few poins: - why hardinger still have turret cap bonus, instead some more valuable bonus? Better give faster cap recharge bonus instead. Harb will be more universal. - cyclone is still ******** with shield bonus, 5 med and 2 hi non-launcher slots. Move 1 hi-slot to med. - prophecy and myrmidon still have less one slot than other BCs, that is stupid, there is no need in such big drone bay. Cut drones a bit a return that slot to hi rack. Do you really want the Ferox to project 450DPS at 160km with spike? because that is probably what it can do if you give a double damage bonus + a triple range one. It trades the extreme damage of the Brutix for extreme range - I think that is pretty balanced. I think the Cyclone needs more though you struggle to get 600dps out of it in a full gank setup, and struggle even more to actually apply the paper DPS it does have. I would consider giving it a very weak bonus to light missiles. possibly 5% to damage . I would not give this to the Drake though, it has an extra launcher so could become oppressive as a frigate killer because of the volley + resists under fleet Logi. Ferox having a 10% bonus to damage plus 75% bonus to range would also almost completely outperform the vulture, which costs 2-3 times more. No to RLML on BCs. BCs are meant to kill cruisers and field a large tank. We dont need 600 burst dps ships with MJD and 100k EHP tank. Rlml are for anti-frig, and BCs are anti-cruiser. Id like to see different missile systems other than RLML being used. HAMs are still viable, you just have to focus on application, and not max tank. If BCs can field RLML effectively, then they can do what cruisers/dessies do, in an all in one package. Obsoleting cruisers again. Each class needs to counterplay the other classes in some way. We dont need a one size fits all. I mean, look at the orthrus, i have never seen one without RLML. It can kill cruisers, frigs, BCs and probably BS given enough time. Yeah just checked and Caracal only has a 5% RoF bonus to rapid light missile launcher so on reflection it could be to strong with even a 5% damage bonus as they will have a neut and full flight of drones that the Caracal does not have.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7154	Posted - 2015.09.14 16:14:25 - [347] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Ah some love for the Cyclone, my favorite ship. One note: Interceptors are bubble immune, recons D-scan immune. The T2 command ship variant of the BC needs some "special ability" to further the cost and time of training for and using them. I don't know what, but something would be interesting. Been thinking about this for ages and came up with: * 70% reduction in Medium Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay * 100% Bonus to Cap Boost Injected Amount And Increase cargo bays for Command Ships to around 650m3 to 800m3. Or increase their Cap Recharge rates by an additional 35%. I like those ideas. Figure that a command ship cannot be cloaked in order to do its job, and can therefore risk being scanned down and ambushed. Or, if OGB is ever removed, it will have even more survival concerns being on grid. The jump timer buff would be PERFECT for the command ship. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Hendrink Collie Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation. 70	Posted - 2015.09.14 18:00:49 - [348] - Quote I've seen this a few times already in this thread, but +1 for a small increase in CPU for the cyclone. I've flown a cyclone a few times, and a small bump in CPU (+25 would be perfect) would help out a lot with variety in fitting options + less need for faction/deadspace bling to make a brawler fit work.
Natasha Rachmaninova Interminatus Aeterna Anima 8	Posted - 2015.09.14 19:01:31 - [349] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Ferox having a 10% bonus to damage plus 75% bonus to range would also almost completely outperform the vulture, which costs 2-3 times more. No to RLML on BCs. BCs are meant to kill cruisers and field a large tank. We dont need 600 burst dps ships with MJD and 100k EHP tank. Rlml are for anti-frig, and BCs are anti-cruiser. Id like to see different missile systems other than RLML being used. HAMs are still viable, you just have to focus on application, and not max tank. If BCs can field RLML effectively, then they can do what cruisers/dessies do, in an all in one package. Obsoleting cruisers again. Each class needs to counterplay the other classes in some way. We dont need a one size fits all. I mean, look at the orthrus, i have never seen one without RLML. It can kill cruisers, frigs, BCs and probably BS given enough time. I disagree, simply because drone boats always have option to deal with frigs using smaller drones. Why shouldn't missile boats get the option too? That could give every race a boat that can deal with frigs then.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.09.14 19:36:24 - [350] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: For the three non-kinetic damage types, the drake does ~5% less dps than a caracal. The raw dps increase when using kinetic is (partially) countered by the resist profiles of most of the common fits you'll see in nullsec, so the drake usually only does ~5-10% more effective dps using kinetic than a caracal selecting the correct ammo type. It would be less of an issue if the bonus was universal across all missile based caldari ships, but right now it sticks out like a sore thumb. Edit: Need food, but if you really care I can dig out the numbers later. Bump. If your having issues with the drake, try making them missile skills V instead of IV. That missile velocity bonus should help counter cruiser close kite fits.

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 533	Posted - 2015.09.14 19:39:12 - [351] - Quote Natasha Rachmaninova wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Ferox having a 10% bonus to damage plus 75% bonus to range would also almost completely outperform the vulture, which costs 2-3 times more. No to RLML on BCs. BCs are meant to kill cruisers and field a large tank. We dont need 600 burst dps ships with MJD and 100k EHP tank. Rlml are for anti-frig, and BCs are anti-cruiser. Id like to see different missile systems other than RLML being used. HAMs are still viable, you just have to focus on application, and not max tank. If BCs can field RLML effectively, then they can do what cruisers/dessies do, in an all in one package. Obsoleting cruisers again. Each class needs to counterplay the other classes in some way. We dont need a one size fits all. I mean, look at the orthrus, i have never seen one without RLML. It can kill cruisers, frigs, BCs and probably BS given enough time. I disagree, simply because drone boats always have option to deal with frigs using smaller drones. Why shouldn't missile boats get the option too? That could give every race a boat that can deal with frigs then. HAMs kill frigs too. You just need a web or 2 (preferably 2), neuts help a lot here as well. The benefit of BCs is you have the slots for extra utility. Whether thats 2 webs and a tp, or 1 web and 2 neuts. You can disable frigs pretty quickly. All BCs can also field a full flight of drones. So, constant dps from missiles, neuts, drones and webs = dead frig/t3d. I have killed AB dram with a drake. Its not overly difficult if you fit properly. If you fit max tank, 100k EHP drake and fit only a scram. then yea, youll die to a frig when using HAMs. What about my artillery ships? Why cant my 720s transform into 280s? That is basically what you are trying to say. The existing weapons work fine when you have a role in mind when fitting the ship. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.09.14 19:46:19 - [352] - Quote Harvey James wrote: some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? .. its either a brawler or a kiter.. pick one Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it's basically an attack bc now, now you removed resist for damage, you could have simpler swapped the 50% range for the damage, does it even need 75% range bonus, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least here. Ham's don't need a nerf. Last I checked they were only viable on 2-3 ships.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.09.14 19:52:28 - [353] - Quote Nou Mene wrote: solon101 wrote: Quesa wrote: For the love of everything that is holy and right in this world, can we please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pigeonholing Caldari to Kinetic damage? yes totally agreed and make laser shoot kin+explo, oh and hybrids do em + explo..... missiles are the only weapon that can shoot one and only one dmg type... you think thats (plain) bad? t2 ammo for every dmg type, also. And you have to fly Amarr Armor ships to put your missiles skills to good use.. Start training amarr ships and armor fitting before you realize you've been kinetic locked and can't get in armor fleets with shield fits.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.09.14 20:06:32 - [354] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Alexis Nightwish wrote: Dat Navy Drake doe! As much drone BW/bay as the Amarr and Gallente, most agile BC, second fastest, arguably strongest tank... Don't get me wrong as I have been waiting for BC buffs for over a year, but damn! Remember the days of Drake fleets everywhere? You don't have to be Nostradamus to see that we're going to have a repeat but with Navy Issue Drakes. Please consider cutting the drones to 40BW/60bay, and reducing the agility and/or speed. If you do that and the Navy Drake falls into disuse, you can buff them up later using the fast release cadence. surely that drone bandwidth/bay is a typo fozzie?? alongside the excessive crazy hp and mobility buff.. the weakest Numbers means it got the biggest buff.
Gleb Koskov Hedion University Amarr Empire 15	Posted - 2015.09.14 20:57:06 - [355] - Quote It's a brave new world for battlecruisers, I'm very interested in how they turn out.
Evon R2 Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.09.14 21:02:05 - [356] - Quote Uhm everyone is complaining about caldari ships being kinetic locked while other races have selectable damage type weapon systems. Speaking for Amarr and Gallente, selecting the damage type of drones doesn't completely work like it does for missiles actually. Yea sure I can decide which drones to carry in my cargo before I undock, but I'm not that "free" to choose once I undock because of the restrictions of drone bay. Just look at the Mrymidion, with 200 drone bay I can't possibly carry 4 flight of heavy drones with me to select the suitible one on the fly. Hell even if I carry 2 sets I can't carry meds or lights. If I take ogres with me I can't magically spawn preators once I encounter ships with em resist hole. Drone boats can select the damage type before undocking while missiles can do the same thing on the fly. I think it is a big difference people are missing while comparing the two.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.09.14 21:12:31 - [357] - Quote Thanatos Marathon wrote: Color me a little worried about projection issues and power creep. The one thing I would have love to see that they need is higher sensor strength across the board. - Than If your getting jammed out all the time in a BC , consider getting the appropriate sensor skill.. Gilas are just short (by a point) on BC sensor strength. They are a huge pain to jam.. BS jamming is alot of missing.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1192	Posted - 2015.09.14 21:44:40 - [358] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? .. its either a brawler or a kiter.. pick one Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it's basically an attack bc now, now you removed resist for damage, you could have simpler swapped the 50% range for the damage, does it even need 75% range bonus, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least here. Ham's don't need a nerf. Last I checked they were only viable on 2-3 ships. HAM's a medium weapon has the same range as torps a large weapon... need i go on?? 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
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1192	Posted - 2015.09.14 21:45:28 - [359] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: Alexis Nightwish wrote: Dat Navy Drake doe! As much drone BW/bay as the Amarr and Gallente, most agile BC, second fastest, arguably strongest tank... Don't get me wrong as I have been waiting for BC buffs for over a year, but damn! Remember the days of Drake fleets everywhere? You don't have to be Nostradamus to see that we're going to have a repeat but with Navy Issue Drakes. Please consider cutting the drones to 40BW/60bay, and reducing the agility and/or speed. If you do that and the Navy Drake falls into disuse, you can buff them up later using the fast release cadence. surely that drone bandwidth/bay is a typo fozzie?? alongside the excessive crazy hp and mobility buff.. the weakest Numbers means it got the biggest buff. talk about pointing out the obvious.. doesn't mean cos its the worst it should now become by far the best.. 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
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.09.14 22:01:26 - [360] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? .. its either a brawler or a kiter.. pick one Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it's basically an attack bc now, now you removed resist for damage, you could have simpler swapped the 50% range for the damage, does it even need 75% range bonus, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least here. Ham's don't need a nerf. Last I checked they were only viable on 2-3 ships. HAM's a medium weapon has the same range as torps a large weapon... need i go on?? so you want hams to have the same range as small missiles or rockets? Torps need a range buff. not Hams need a range nerf.

Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.09.14 22:02:29 - [361] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: Alexis Nightwish wrote: Dat Navy Drake doe! As much drone BW/bay as the Amarr and Gallente, most agile BC, second fastest, arguably strongest tank... Don't get me wrong as I have been waiting for BC buffs for over a year, but damn! Remember the days of Drake fleets everywhere? You don't have to be Nostradamus to see that we're going to have a repeat but with Navy Issue Drakes. Please consider cutting the drones to 40BW/60bay, and reducing the agility and/or speed. If you do that and the Navy Drake falls into disuse, you can buff them up later using the fast release cadence. surely that drone bandwidth/bay is a typo fozzie?? alongside the excessive crazy hp and mobility buff.. the weakest Numbers means it got the biggest buff. talk about pointing out the obvious.. doesn't mean cos its the worst it should now become by far the best.. It's not about the ship, its about what the pilot in the ship does with it.
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 598	Posted - 2015.09.15 01:18:43 - [362] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter. I guess that I'm wondering if a BS can counter a BC, after these changes. Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage.
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 598	Posted - 2015.09.15 01:26:02 - [363] - Quote Since you CCP folks are working on optimal/falloff bonuses, which really affect the gun modules, would it also make sense to do the module tiericide pass on guns now, too? And, I don't know when you are thinking about doing ammo tiericide, but this is something worth looking at. I'm sure that a statistical plot of ammo usage by type would prove that only a relatively few types are commonly used - and several are probably never used.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 166	Posted - 2015.09.15 02:38:11 - [364] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter. I guess that I'm wondering if a BS can counter a BC, after these changes. Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage. I don't see how that's possible. A 25% bonus to medium turrets doesn't get them anywhere near the ranges of their large turret counterparts. Not to mention that many PvP battleships field heavy neuts that stretch out to 25km (even longer if you're in an armageddon). There's no way any of the proposed Battlecruiser projection bonuses will help them avoid damage from Battleships. What it does do is stop Battlecruisers from getting kited by Cruisers as easily. As for the balances in general. I love them and they're pretty much spot on to the suggested numbers I proposed a while back. As for Command Ships, I think some of them need a look at as well. I think several Command Ships like the Sleipnir and Eos are perfectly fine and that giving them the same role bonuses would be overkill, but I think passing on some of the agility/speed changes to Command Ships would be a good idea.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 100	Posted - 2015.09.15 03:34:16 - [365] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter. I guess that I'm wondering if a BS can counter a BC, after these changes. Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage. I don't see how that's possible. A 25% bonus to medium turrets doesn't get them anywhere near the ranges of their large turret counterparts. Not to mention that many PvP battleships field heavy neuts that stretch out to 25km (even longer if you're in an armageddon). There's no way any of the proposed Battlecruiser projection bonuses will help them avoid damage from Battleships. What it does do is stop Battlecruisers from getting kited by Cruisers as easily. As for the balances in general. I love them and they're pretty much spot on to the suggested numbers I proposed a while back. As for Command Ships, I think some of them need a look at as well. I think several Command Ships like the Sleipnir and Eos are perfectly fine and that giving them the same role bonuses would be overkill, but I think passing on some of the agility/speed changes to Command Ships would be a good idea. Sleipnir not so much as the others, but it still needs a MMJD bonus and an increase in cargo space at least. An increase in Sensor strength would be helpful also.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 167	Posted - 2015.09.15 03:47:14 - [366] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter. I guess that I'm wondering if a BS can counter a BC, after these changes. Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage. I don't see how that's possible. A 25% bonus to medium turrets doesn't get them anywhere near the ranges of their large turret counterparts. Not to mention that many PvP battleships field heavy neuts that stretch out to 25km (even longer if you're in an armageddon). There's no way any of the proposed Battlecruiser projection bonuses will help them avoid damage from Battleships. What it does do is stop Battlecruisers from getting kited by Cruisers as easily. As for the balances in general. I love them and they're pretty much spot on to the suggested numbers I proposed a while back. As for Command Ships, I think some of them need a look at as well. I think several Command Ships like the Sleipnir and Eos are perfectly fine and that giving them the same role bonuses would be overkill, but I think passing on some of the agility/speed changes to Command Ships would be a good idea. Sleipnir not so much as the others, but it still needs a MMJD bonus and an increase in cargo space at least. An increase in Sensor strength would be helpful also. Even bonused how many people would fit an MMJD on a shield tanked CS that's already very fast with good damage projection? A typical brawl Sleip needs scram + web + mwd. That leaves 2 mids for tank (usually dual XLASB). With MMJD that's 1 slot for tank... For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 535	Posted - 2015.09.15 04:35:40 - [367] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless. Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur. MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 167	Posted - 2015.09.15 06:20:18 - [368] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless. Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur. MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus. I'm not talking about herp derp frig pilots burning into a double neut Sleipnir, in most cases those are dream kills for the Sleipnir pilot. I'm talking more like hard tackle double LSE/double nos stabbers or cap boosted Svipuls. Keeping an arty Sleipnir long pointed without dying isn't exactly a cakewalk without dying or letting it slip out unless you're in a linked garmur. Also didn't say MMJD is useless on CS in general, on slow brawl fit CS it's very useful, just that an MMJD bonus on the Sleipnir won't really make it any more or less viable than it currently is, on slow brawl fit CS (particularly armor fit ones) it's very useful, but my opinion it's hardly the go-to option for a Sleipnir, I mean how often do you plan to get perma pointed and not be able to shake it off that you need a Marauder cooldown bonus for it? Passing on the agility/speed buffs to Command Ships will help them farm more in those situations than an MMJD bonus.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 100	Posted - 2015.09.15 06:35:25 - [369] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: [quote=Daniela Doran][quote=Iyacia Cyric'ai] Even bonused how many people would fit an MMJD on a shield tanked CS that's already very fast with good damage projection? A typical brawl Sleip needs scram + web + mwd. That leaves 2 mids for tank (usually dual XLASB). With MMJD that's 1 slot for tank... For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless. The MMJD bonus will eliminate the need for a dual-prop on the Sleip that only has 5 mids. And when I began using the Sleipnir for PVP, it will be dual web fitted so anything within scram range will have to fight it at it's strength, which is brawling (assuming 180s can still get the job done).
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2000	Posted - 2015.09.15 08:31:07 - [370] - Quote I would rather the MJD skill be buffed than the ship having a MJD bonus. You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!

Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2001	Posted - 2015.09.15 11:07:58 - [371] - Quote CCP Fozzie, I realize this isn't exactly the right thread for this but it is somewhat related. I would like you guys to reduce the jump range for the medium MJD to 75km. My reason for this request is two fold: 1. BC can naturally target ships at 75km so this change to the MJD would allow it to be used within the ships operational range. Yes i know you can increase your targeting range but that is only needed for sniping setups. 2. Dropping it to 75km means that they can still be pointed by ships with the bonus to point range. This provides a counter to using the MJD simply as an escape tool. I think the large MJD is fine as it is but i think the MJD skill should have a cool-down reduction bonus added to it. You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 535	Posted - 2015.09.15 11:35:53 - [372] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: CCP Fozzie, I realize this isn't exactly the right thread for this but it is somewhat related. I would like you guys to reduce the jump range for the medium MJD to 75km. My reason for this request is two fold: 1. BC can naturally target ships at 75km so this change to the MJD would allow it to be used within the ships operational range. Yes i know you can increase your targeting range but that is only needed for sniping setups. 2. Dropping it to 75km means that they can still be pointed by ships with the bonus to point range. This provides a counter to using the MJD simply as an escape tool. I think the large MJD is fine as it is but i think the MJD skill should have a cool-down reduction bonus added to it. No. Then the MJD becomes useless. All it takes is a garmur/orthrus and they can point you indefinitely, even after you jump. Thats not balancing, it ruins the entire concept. Are you a garmur/orthrus pilot? That sounds like something a garmur/orthrus pilot would say when he keeps losing kills. Sarcasm aside, Its the only way to escape those cancerous ships. Even with the 100km jump range, they can still sometimes burn in that direction that you're jumping to and still manage to get point on you since they have some ridiculous 70km point range. Also voting no on the 75km range. Activating MJD can be obvious to a pilot if they use the "look at" feature, warping in at 70km is useless if they see it coming. Warping in at 100km and burning a few KM back so they can't see you, and then activating makes MJD dunking a little harder to predict. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1193	Posted - 2015.09.15 11:37:30 - [373] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? .. its either a brawler or a kiter.. pick one Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it's basically an attack bc now, now you removed resist for damage, you could have simpler swapped the 50% range for the damage, does it even need 75% range bonus, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least here. Ham's don't need a nerf. Last I checked they were only viable on 2-3 ships. HAM's a medium weapon has the same range as torps a large weapon... need i go on?? so you want hams to have the same range as small missiles or rockets? Torps need a range buff. not Hams need a range nerf. well the natural development would mean rockets being nerfed in range too, they have as good range as medium guns do. 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
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 535	Posted - 2015.09.15 11:41:24 - [374] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless. Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur. MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus. I'm not talking about herp derp frig pilots burning into a double neut Sleipnir, in most cases those are dream kills for the Sleipnir pilot. I'm talking more like hard tackle double LSE/double nos stabbers or cap boosted Svipuls. Keeping an arty Sleipnir long pointed without dying isn't exactly a cakewalk without dying or letting it slip out unless you're in a linked garmur. Also didn't say MMJD is useless on CS in general, on slow brawl fit CS it's very useful, just that an MMJD bonus on the Sleipnir won't really make it any more or less viable than it currently is, on slow brawl fit CS (particularly armor fit ones) it's very useful, but my opinion it's hardly the go-to option for a Sleipnir, I mean how often do you plan to get perma pointed and not be able to shake it off that you need a Marauder cooldown bonus for it? Passing on the agility/speed buffs to Command Ships will help them farm more in those situations than an MMJD bonus. Long webs tend to stop that from happening. Not to mention positioning, if a stabber comes in at 100km from me, i can lock him at 80km+ and get a few shots in by the time he gets into OH Fed Web range. Dual LSE stabbers are not that tanky, and have a big sig. Easy to track. Svipuls are also not super hard to kill, sabot ruins them with proper piloting. Inties will be something to worry about as usual. I understand what you're saying, but i don't think we are saying to ONLY give CS an MJD bonus. But for those who use them, having an MJD to reposition around the grid quickly (something an arty sleip would find useful) is not a bad thing. Marauders have an MJD bonus and people have found plenty of uses for it, both in PvP and PvE. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Anthar Thebess 1305	Posted - 2015.09.15 13:48:20 - [375] - Quote Can we get a secondary bonus to all battle cruiser hulls, something that will make them unique in some way. Suggested boosts are nice, but without considering the ability to mount links, and MJD - there is nothing special about those hulls. Most of the people don't consider putting links on this ship class, as better ships can be easily obtained that have better bonuses, as for the MJD - it is fun, but not necessarily provide good use on a battlefield , or make this hull useful because of this. Battle crusers are quite often used by a new players , and because of this i suggest that more of the stats are migrated from BC level to a basic hull bonus. Basically i don't have idea what we can else offer to this class to make it more unique. Probably bad idea, but can we make them to have 1000 m3 of cargo hold? This way we will have ship that can haul additional supplies for the battle or roam. Set of additional large bubbles , mobile depos, MJD etc etc. For higsec players shield BC could be adapted to low cost armored trucks to haul some more valuable stuff. But this is probably bad idea. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2002	Posted - 2015.09.15 14:18:48 - [376] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Can we get a secondary bonus to all battle cruiser hulls, something that will make them unique in some way. Suggested boosts are nice, but without considering the ability to mount links, and MJD - there is nothing special about those hulls. So providing you discount the things that make them unique, they are not unique/special? Yeah funny how that works You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 537	Posted - 2015.09.15 15:39:30 - [377] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Harvey James wrote: some nice buffs too certain ships especially harbinger, but some big overbuffs too the navy bc's i mean a drake that has more tank than a raven, smaller sig aswell, with only 25% less range on HAM's than torps, really?? .. when are HAM's getting that range nerf? and better mobility than a navy brutix WTF???? .. its either a brawler or a kiter.. pick one Ferox changes are interesting, more of a shield brutix now .. ish, would expect it too be quicker than the drake though, tiny mass difference isnt good either, i would also expect a lower sig as it's basically an attack bc now, now you removed resist for damage, you could have simpler swapped the 50% range for the damage, does it even need 75% range bonus, which also begs the question why not just move the current ABC's too T2 and make the 4 more speedy bc's proper attack bc's.. this would open up a greater range of stats, being speed lower sig better agility etc.. more variety of sig radius is needed at least here. Ham's don't need a nerf. Last I checked they were only viable on 2-3 ships. HAM's a medium weapon has the same range as torps a large weapon... need i go on?? so you want hams to have the same range as small missiles or rockets? Torps need a range buff. not Hams need a range nerf. well the natural development would mean rockets being nerfed in range too, they have as good range as medium guns do. The only person complaining about rockets having too much range is you. The medium weapon system with comparable range as rockets is medium, unbonused blasters. This isnt taking into account most rocket ships use rage missiles which drops them down to under 9km of range. Regardless its still some pretty silly logic. Especially when you consider small railguns, beams and artillery have more range than rockets. Hell small acs with barrage or scorch pulse have same or better range. HAMs = 20km HML = 60km rockets = 10km LML = 42km Torps = 20km Cruise = 148km One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same. Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2202	Posted - 2015.09.15 16:31:53 - [378] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: HAMs = 20km HML = 60km rockets = 10km LML = 42km Torps = 20km Cruise = 148km One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same. Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous. If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 537	Posted - 2015.09.15 16:50:35 - [379] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: HAMs = 20km HML = 60km rockets = 10km LML = 42km Torps = 20km Cruise = 148km One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same. Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous. If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at. Also having higher fitting costs than its long range weapon system. Torp/cruise relations are just derpy as hell. I agree with you though. I was merely pointing out that because HAMs have the same range as torps, does not mean HAM range needs to be nerfed. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2202	Posted - 2015.09.15 17:01:41 - [380] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: HAMs = 20km HML = 60km rockets = 10km LML = 42km Torps = 20km Cruise = 148km One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same. Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous. If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at. Also having higher fitting costs than its long range weapon system. Torp/cruise relations are just derpy as hell. I agree with you though. I was merely pointing out that because HAMs have the same range as torps, does not mean HAM range needs to be nerfed. Yeah the range are all over the place. There is no progression scheme. LML to HML is close to a 50% gain while HML to cruise is over 100% gain. Rocket to HAM is 100% gain and then 0 from HAM to torp. I have no idea where those numbers come from.

Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.15 17:09:04 - [381] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: Sizeof Void wrote: Seems like there will be even less of a reason to fly battleships.... Or more of a reason depending on how you look at it, if battlecruisers see more use it seems like battleships would be the natural counter. I guess that I'm wondering if a BS can counter a BC, after these changes. Seems to me that a BC should be able to more easily kite a BS, with the buffs to both speed and weapon range. Maybe a drone or missile BS would still be ok, but anything with large guns is probably going to do less damage. Well, as someone posted earlier, a scorpion would be hard put to Jam a BC if they all got sensor strengths at the BS level. Im pretty sure a Gheddon can nuet out ever last one of these, less a pure passive fit drake, but you'd more than likely be doing more dps and can fit a stronger tank. BS's will get a pass soon enough I am sure. I hope all ewar gets a better look soon at the BS level. Lots of platform types missing. They'd be fun to fly :)
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 52	Posted - 2015.09.15 17:13:35 - [382] - Quote Please increase the base targeting range on all BC below 60km, and make 60km the minimum base range. The Prophecy and Cyclone at 50km is too short and even the Myrmidon at 55km. Both drone boats can send their drones out faster, but can't even target far enough away to call it a projection bonus. The Cyclone deserves better than 50km base targeting range.
Phoenix Jones Small-Arms Fire 1553	Posted - 2015.09.15 18:33:09 - [383] - Quote Terra Chrall wrote: Please increase the base targeting range on all BC below 60km, and make 60km the minimum base range. The Prophecy and Cyclone at 50km is too short and even the Myrmidon at 55km. Both drone boats can send their drones out faster, but can't even target far enough away to call it a projection bonus. The Cyclone deserves better than 50km base targeting range. Yea would have to agree here. Yaay!!!!
MR Spleen Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 16	Posted - 2015.09.15 20:32:53 - [384] - Quote Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 538	Posted - 2015.09.15 20:55:14 - [385] - Quote MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right? Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Can your carrier fire a doomsday? Where have you been? Hull tanked navy brutix gets over 130k EHP with current stats. These buffs could push it to 140-150k depending on fit. Meanwhile it can still pump out 800 well applied dps with neutrons, as it has plenty of fitting. Also, did your corp call a CTA on your forum post? Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
MR Spleen Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 30	Posted - 2015.09.15 21:05:01 - [386] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right? Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Can your carrier fire a doomsday? Where have you been? Hull tanked navy brutix gets over 130k EHP with current stats. These buffs could push it to 140-150k depending on fit. Meanwhile it can still pump out 800 well applied dps with neutrons, as it has plenty of fitting. Also, did your corp call a CTA on your forum post? Ok how long can your mega tank 25 catalyst doing a total of 12500 dps for? And how many catalysts does it take Code. to kill 1 frieghter? And yes I mentioned it in corp but theres only 4 of us in corp chat!
Nafensoriel KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 74	Posted - 2015.09.15 21:29:41 - [387] - Quote Forum CTA? Good gods the Imperium should just steamroll this thread to 1000 pages just to introduce you to an actual forum CTA. 10 vs 1 140k ehp brutix survives a minimum of 17.5 seconds. A brutix can murder a standard gank catalyst in 5 seconds minimum. Meaning 3 brutix pilots will murder your 10 man gang. Oh and this ignores all the other tricks CBCs can do that destroyers can't.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 538	Posted - 2015.09.15 21:33:41 - [388] - Quote MR Spleen wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right? Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Can your carrier fire a doomsday? Where have you been? Hull tanked navy brutix gets over 130k EHP with current stats. These buffs could push it to 140-150k depending on fit. Meanwhile it can still pump out 800 well applied dps with neutrons, as it has plenty of fitting. Also, did your corp call a CTA on your forum post? Ok how long can your mega tank 25 catalyst doing a total of 12500 dps for? And how many catalysts does it take Code. to kill 1 frieghter? Oh and another interesting point a titan firing at anything smaller than a battleship is pointless as guns don't track targets and they have no drone bay so no help there. And yes I mentioned it in corp but theres only 4 of us in corp chat! Depends how the fight starts and how competent you are as a pilot. Ive tanked a 14 man gang with 3 catalysts, multiple frigs and t2 frigs with a extender rigged application fit drake. A mega using null could blap a catalyst at range before it becomes an issue. Especially if its a nano mega with MWD. As its speed could dictate range. Then it could blap 25 in the same way. Not all fights start at 0 on a gate with an autopiloting freighter. Blap dreads/titans were horribly broken at killing subcaps, thats why they were nerfed. Capitals tracking subcaps poorly is working as intended. I still dont see a carrier or dread firing DDs, so titans are still unique there. Also, being able to bridge any ships is unique to titans as well. Can your carrier, dread, mega, brutix, catalyst do any of those things? Looking at just dps numbers and trying to base an argument around it is a bit narrow minded. Only 4 in chat with 3-4 alts each? Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
MR Spleen Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 30	Posted - 2015.09.15 21:38:51 - [389] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right? Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Can your carrier fire a doomsday? Where have you been? Hull tanked navy brutix gets over 130k EHP with current stats. These buffs could push it to 140-150k depending on fit. Meanwhile it can still pump out 800 well applied dps with neutrons, as it has plenty of fitting. Also, did your corp call a CTA on your forum post? Ok how long can your mega tank 25 catalyst doing a total of 12500 dps for? And how many catalysts does it take Code. to kill 1 frieghter? Oh and another interesting point a titan firing at anything smaller than a battleship is pointless as guns don't track targets and they have no drone bay so no help there. And yes I mentioned it in corp but theres only 4 of us in corp chat! Depends how the fight starts and how competent you are as a pilot. Ive tanked a 14 man gang with 3 catalysts, multiple frigs and t2 frigs with a extender rigged application fit drake. A mega using null could blap a catalyst at range before it becomes an issue. Especially if its a nano mega with MWD. As its speed could dictate range. Then it could blap 25 in the same way. Not all fights start at 0 on a gate with an autopiloting freighter. Blap dreads/titans were horribly broken at killing subcaps, thats why they were nerfed. Capitals tracking subcaps poorly is working as intended. I still dont see a carrier or dread firing DDs, so titans are still unique there. Also, being able to bridge any ships is unique to titans as well. Can your carrier, dread, mega, brutix, catalyst do any of those things? Looking at just dps numbers and trying to base an argument around it is a bit narrow minded. Only 4 in chat with 3-4 alts each? Who said there was 4 people I said 4 in corp chat!
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 538	Posted - 2015.09.15 21:53:17 - [390] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Forum CTA? Good gods the Imperium should just steamroll this thread to 1000 pages just to introduce you to an actual forum CTA. Not every corp is goon size. Maybe a CTL? Call to Like? Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Mordus Angels 369	Posted - 2015.09.16 03:49:35 - [391] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Natasha Rachmaninova wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Ferox having a 10% bonus to damage plus 75% bonus to range would also almost completely outperform the vulture, which costs 2-3 times more. No to RLML on BCs. BCs are meant to kill cruisers and field a large tank. We dont need 600 burst dps ships with MJD and 100k EHP tank. Rlml are for anti-frig, and BCs are anti-cruiser. Id like to see different missile systems other than RLML being used. HAMs are still viable, you just have to focus on application, and not max tank. If BCs can field RLML effectively, then they can do what cruisers/dessies do, in an all in one package. Obsoleting cruisers again. Each class needs to counterplay the other classes in some way. We dont need a one size fits all. I mean, look at the orthrus, i have never seen one without RLML. It can kill cruisers, frigs, BCs and probably BS given enough time. I disagree, simply because drone boats always have option to deal with frigs using smaller drones. Why shouldn't missile boats get the option too? That could give every race a boat that can deal with frigs then. HAMs kill frigs too. You just need a web or 2 (preferably 2), neuts help a lot here as well. The benefit of BCs is you have the slots for extra utility. Whether thats 2 webs and a tp, or 1 web and 2 neuts. You can disable frigs pretty quickly. All BCs can also field a full flight of drones. So, constant dps from missiles, neuts, drones and webs = dead frig/t3d. I have killed AB dram with a drake. Its not overly difficult if you fit properly. If you fit max tank, 100k EHP drake and fit only a scram. then yea, youll die to a frig when using HAMs. What about my artillery ships? Why cant my 720s transform into 280s? That is basically what you are trying to say. The existing weapons work fine when you have a role in mind when fitting the ship. So drones are balanced is what you're saying.... Oh wait.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Mordus Angels 369	Posted - 2015.09.16 03:54:27 - [392] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right? Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Can your carrier fire a doomsday? Where have you been? Hull tanked navy brutix gets over 130k EHP with current stats. These buffs could push it to 140-150k depending on fit. Meanwhile it can still pump out 800 well applied dps with neutrons, as it has plenty of fitting. Also, did your corp call a CTA on your forum post? Ok how long can your mega tank 25 catalyst doing a total of 12500 dps for? And how many catalysts does it take Code. to kill 1 frieghter? Oh and another interesting point a titan firing at anything smaller than a battleship is pointless as guns don't track targets and they have no drone bay so no help there. And yes I mentioned it in corp but theres only 4 of us in corp chat! Depends how the fight starts and how competent you are as a pilot. Ive tanked a 14 man gang with 3 catalysts, multiple frigs and t2 frigs with a extender rigged application fit drake. A mega using null could blap a catalyst at range before it becomes an issue. Especially if its a nano mega with MWD. As its speed could dictate range. Then it could blap 25 in the same way. Not all fights start at 0 on a gate with an autopiloting freighter. Blap dreads/titans were horribly broken at killing subcaps, thats why they were nerfed. Capitals tracking subcaps poorly is working as intended. I still dont see a carrier or dread firing DDs, so titans are still unique there. Also, being able to bridge any ships is unique to titans as well. Can your carrier, dread, mega, brutix, catalyst do any of those things? Looking at just dps numbers and trying to base an argument around it is a bit narrow minded. Only 4 in chat with 3-4 alts each? lol, dude, WTF are you talking about.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Mordus Angels 369	Posted - 2015.09.16 03:58:52 - [393] - Quote Evon R2 wrote: Uhm everyone is complaining about caldari ships being kinetic locked while other races have selectable damage type weapon systems. Speaking for Amarr and Gallente, selecting the damage type of drones doesn't completely work like it does for missiles actually. Yea sure I can decide which drones to carry in my cargo before I undock, but I'm not that "free" to choose once I undock because of the restrictions of drone bay. Just look at the Mrymidion, with 200 drone bay I can't possibly carry 4 flight of heavy drones with me to select the suitible one on the fly. Hell even if I carry 2 sets I can't carry meds or lights. If I take ogres with me I can't magically spawn preators once I encounter ships with em resist hole. Drone boats can select the damage type before undocking while missiles can do the same thing on the fly. I think it is a big difference people are missing while comparing the two. That's a somewhat reasonable argument, However... I'd rather choose what damage type my Drake has when it undocks than literally having no choice. Sorry, but drones are still broken.
Aramis Rosicrux ASB0 Hooligans BLUE Alliance 21	Posted - 2015.09.16 04:27:02 - [394] - Quote Buzz Kill wrote: Dont forget about the command ships THIS!!! I spent most of six months training Command Ships and all four races and they stink for almost any role. You might as well paint a big red X on your back as fly a Command Ship. Also, Anyone want my old Myrmidon BPC's? They're fully researched and a bargain at just 500M ISK. Assessment: Myrm and Prophecy now the worst BC's. Join the Planetary Society! planetarysociety.org My EveBoard Signature PNG
Gramps Pljugi Fragile Mortality 2	Posted - 2015.09.16 06:15:07 - [395] - Quote Like i was saying, prophecy could use another 10mb bandwith for drones, that would help with heavy drone damage application on smaller targets 3x heavy 2x Light target painter/web drones Its not much but it would help, not sure why ships are locked into 50/75/100/125 drone bandwiths and nothing between. (yes aware of Gila, not relevant to this discussion due to the huge drone buff)
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2004	Posted - 2015.09.16 07:59:17 - [396] - Quote Re: Drone velocity bonus I'm curious whether the velocity bonus applies to drone MWD speed and the orbit speed... If it's both then isn't this negatively affect drone tracking and therefore it's actually a nerf to drone boats? If it is just MWD speed then what is the point? I'm assuming that this bonus isn't intended to help drones chase micro warp driving frigates but i have never had a problem with drones not being able to catch up with larger targets... So it seems like CCP are just adding this bonus for the sake of it. I feel that the drone boats equivalent to the 25% optimal and fall off bonus for turrets, would be 25% bonus to drone velocity and optimal range. You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
Danny John-Peter Snuff Box Snuffed Out 576	Posted - 2015.09.16 08:04:04 - [397] - Quote Changes look alright to be honest, better than I would have expected for pass 1 anyways. Contentious points seem to be the kinetic lock and the Harbs cap bonus. The kinetic lock is probably less a problem for the Drake at small gang scale than the over-riding fast cruiser meta and the way HMLs apply to smaller things, ie really terribly.The kinetic lock in theory makes for meaningful choices and certainly wasn't the death of the ship in days of yore, HMLs just need more work IMO. As for the cap usage bonus on the Harb, its fine, pulses get better base range and base damage than other turret weapon systems, the cap usage bonus is the price you pay for having a short range turret with amazing base DPS and the ability to apply a good chunk of that DPS out to medium range (or further, with this new bonus). Generally I still think BCs are always going to be a bit overshadowed until the general cruiser line gets a mobility balance pass, but the combination of decent tank, decent EHP and good DPS out to better range, coupled with an MJD is certainly going to make them more viable than before.
Anthar Thebess 1305	Posted - 2015.09.16 08:24:17 - [398] - Quote Make battle cruisers first ship that have bonus to the range of the smart bombs. This will put interesting meta to the game play. Have BC in fleet , and smartbomb bombs , dictor bubbles, enemy drones , and all other stuff. We can make this to apply only to Medium Smartbombs , let say 500% range but at half damage. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1712	Posted - 2015.09.16 08:39:24 - [399] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Re: Drone velocity bonus I'm curious whether the velocity bonus applies to drone MWD speed and the orbit speed... If it's both then isn't this negatively affect drone tracking and therefore it's actually a nerf to drone boats? If it is just MWD speed then what is the point? The Devs already said it was just to Drone MWD speed. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Rek Seven Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 2004	Posted - 2015.09.16 09:01:23 - [400] - Quote Oh... then yeah it doesn't seem as useful as the falloff and optimal bonus. You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!

Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1055	Posted - 2015.09.16 10:55:35 - [401] - Quote MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. Ignoring other aspects of these fleets/ships, I'd say design philosophy based on diminishing returns working as intended. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
X4me1eoH AirGuard LowSechnaya Sholupen 245	Posted - 2015.09.16 11:03:05 - [402] - Quote Need more lockrange for all bc, for use mjd
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 139	Posted - 2015.09.16 11:55:05 - [403] - 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.
Rammel Kas KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 8	Posted - 2015.09.16 12:48:46 - [404] - Quote Find I have to agree with a few of the others on targeting range. If it's a bit closer to the more common weapons projection you would use it does take a lot of the frustrations out of the box game play, make it easier for a new player to pick up. And hopefully make alternatives for the mid slots a bit more compelling.
Delarian Rox Wicked Privateers Smile 'n' Wave 22	Posted - 2015.09.16 14:29:06 - [405] - Quote X4me1eoH wrote: Need more lockrange for all bc, for use mjd Every BC with 60+ base lock range now capable to MJD offensively. It just require good skills and a rig slot as a tradeoff. Previously it was a mid slot tradeoff. Now only Prophecy, Cyclone and Myrmidon can't trade a rigslot for offensive MJD without links. And i think it's fine.
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers 137	Posted - 2015.09.16 14:31:07 - [406] - Quote Great. BC are getting rebalanced again. CCP we are still waiting for T3, Capital and Black Ops...
Krell Kroenen The Devil's Shadow 256	Posted - 2015.09.16 15:25:00 - [407] - Quote It's not often that I get to say this but I am optimistic about these changes. Though I do find it amusing that the metrics presented were only comparisons between ships of the same class when the changes are suppose to make them more appealing to use vs other classes. ie make Eve less cruiser and T3 online. I think these changes will help with that but I can't phantom by how much but it would be nice to see some before and after numbers. Any how if the Battleship changes look this good I may just have to become more active again..
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 542	Posted - 2015.09.16 17:42:56 - [408] - Quote One thing i forgot to mention. Thanks CCP for listening to player feedback, from my thread and everyone who contributed. Obviously these are not the exact changes I mentioned, but the 25/25 split is great and keeps them flexible, especially minmatar. The fleet cane is now very much different from its t1 variant, and im excited to see how this will change things. Guess i wont be the only one flying kiting arty canes anymore. Not to mention my Battleships i solo roam with, on occasion, will have more targets to choose from. The ship food chain wont feel quite so broken anymore. To those that claim CCP doesnt listen, id say this is pretty clear that they do. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Lucas Quaan Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 114	Posted - 2015.09.16 18:28:03 - [409] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: 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. The +lockrange bonus to active MJDs is clearly the solution for this.
Asuka Solo Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 2993	Posted - 2015.09.16 18:31:09 - [410] - Quote Why after 10 years + we are still re-re-inventing the same old ships over and over again, is beyond me... But don't worry, while we waste our time with this, we'll make the same ship look different for a nominal fee. That will distract you long enough for us to reconsider what we've done today. Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right? Yes. And it seems sub caps online is the only ship class that enjoys any of those facets... However, what my esteemed colleague was trying to emphasis in his own way, was that this new direction of pro-sub caps in Eve online has gimped the food chain the moment you go beyond battleship sized hulls. Sub caps are at a point where they enjoy more bonuses / perks (not to mention they are insanely cheap) compared to capitals and even super capitals (and lest not forget, they seem to be "more fun"). Capital and Super Capital hulls are in dire need of a mountain of love.... more hull options and a significant boost in teeth that can be applied to sub caps... after all, a risk free eve is bad. And right now, taking sub caps up against carriers, dreads, supers and titans seems to be as risk free as its going to get with this sesame street sov system and dumbass limitation on "force projection" called jump fatigue. Caps and supers need to become fun again... and being a giant "tackle me and apply F1 here" i-lose button is not fun. Sub cap pilots who beg to differ on these forums are free to logonski their titans while parking on a lowsec gate and notify the rest of us of their intentions so we can show you exactly how "much fun" it is. But maybe if smaller ships did less damage to bigger targets like certain big ships do to little ones, and if the tackle modules in eve were different sizes that were not only limited to certain hull sized, but affected different sized hulls respectively, it'll be a step in the right direction to force sub cap pilots to bring more expensive toys to an expensive party. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Yes it can. Its called kiting with logi. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Yes it can. Its called a jump bridge. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your carrier fire a doomsday? It used to be able to.... it was called drive by doomsdays. CCP deleted that ability because rifter hobos cried about it killing their pvp and subsequently makes their ship classes less fun. ironic. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

MR Spleen Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 31	Posted - 2015.09.16 18:50:34 - [411] - Quote I agree with Asuka But will add the dps is less of an issue than the application of the dps as not being able to apply the dps to small targets from larger ships is the most frustrating part of Eve. This probably why most of the older players from 2003-2006 no longer play!
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 543	Posted - 2015.09.16 19:58:16 - [412] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Yes. And it seems sub caps online is the only ship class that enjoys any of those facets... However, what my esteemed colleague was trying to emphasis in his own way, was that this new direction of pro-sub caps in Eve online has gimped the food chain the moment you go beyond battleship sized hulls. Sub caps are at a point where they enjoy more bonuses / perks (not to mention they are insanely cheap) compared to capitals and even super capitals (and lest not forget, they seem to be "more fun"). Capital and Super Capital hulls are in dire need of a mountain of love.... more hull options and a significant boost in teeth that can be applied to sub caps... after all, a risk free eve is bad. And right now, taking sub caps up against carriers, dreads, supers and titans seems to be as risk free as its going to get with this sesame street sov system and dumbass limitation on "force projection" called jump fatigue. Caps and supers need to become fun again... and being a giant "tackle me and apply F1 here" i-lose button is not fun. Sub cap pilots who beg to differ on these forums are free to logonski their titans while parking on a lowsec gate and notify the rest of us of their intentions so we can show you exactly how "much fun" it is. But maybe if smaller ships did less damage to bigger targets like certain big ships do to little ones, and if the tackle modules in eve were different sizes that were not only limited to certain hull sized, but affected different sized hulls respectively, it'll be a step in the right direction to force sub cap pilots to bring more expensive toys to an expensive party. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Yes it can. Its called kiting with logi. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Yes it can. Its called a jump bridge. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your carrier fire a doomsday? It used to be able to.... it was called drive by doomsdays. CCP deleted that ability because rifter hobos cried about it killing their pvp and subsequently makes their ship classes less fun. ironic. Please stop whining about capitals. You seem to have forgotten that a lil over a year ago capitals were jumping across the map in minutes, and dropping on frigates for lulz. Slowcats had the tank of a carrier and the application of a subcap with sentries(not to mention huge repping power). Before that we had max tracking titans and dreads that would literally volley a BS off grid. As you pointed out there was also the drive by DD. How many carriers are in operation now? Can you imagine a fight of nothing but DDs? As thats what would happen. If you couldnt see how horribly broken this was, thats your problem. Im happy about the nerfs caps have recieved as its reigned them in. The new sov is whats pushed them into irrelevence, which will be addressed soon. Capitals are supposed to require sub cap support, that is intended and why they require support ships to kill smaller ships. Otherwise we would have nothing but caps roaming round and it would be boring as hell. CCP has stated in the CSM minutes that cap rebalances will be mentioned in EVE:Vegas at the end of October. So dry up those cap tears, as changes are coming. As to your other points. Your corpmate said "a catalyst", not "a catalyst with a logi wing". The mega goes the same way. Who do you think will win in a fight of 25 megas vs 25 catalysts, both with logi chains? A jump bridge is a structure that is put down when you own sov. A mega on its own cannot jump across systems.. didnt think i needed to break this down for you. What carriers used to do is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, dont muddy the waters.. BCs were rebalanced as they had no role to speak of except glorified MJD brawlers. T1/T2 cruisers got faster and rebalanced, BCs were nerfed. Hence why they are rebalancing BCs to be useful and fill the role of anti-cruiser. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
MR Spleen Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 32	Posted - 2015.09.16 20:42:13 - [413] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: Yes. And it seems sub caps online is the only ship class that enjoys any of those facets... However, what my esteemed colleague was trying to emphasis in his own way, was that this new direction of pro-sub caps in Eve online has gimped the food chain the moment you go beyond battleship sized hulls. Sub caps are at a point where they enjoy more bonuses / perks (not to mention they are insanely cheap) compared to capitals and even super capitals (and lest not forget, they seem to be "more fun"). Capital and Super Capital hulls are in dire need of a mountain of love.... more hull options and a significant boost in teeth that can be applied to sub caps... after all, a risk free eve is bad. And right now, taking sub caps up against carriers, dreads, supers and titans seems to be as risk free as its going to get with this sesame street sov system and dumbass limitation on "force projection" called jump fatigue. Caps and supers need to become fun again... and being a giant "tackle me and apply F1 here" i-lose button is not fun. Sub cap pilots who beg to differ on these forums are free to logonski their titans while parking on a lowsec gate and notify the rest of us of their intentions so we can show you exactly how "much fun" it is. But maybe if smaller ships did less damage to bigger targets like certain big ships do to little ones, and if the tackle modules in eve were different sizes that were not only limited to certain hull sized, but affected different sized hulls respectively, it'll be a step in the right direction to force sub cap pilots to bring more expensive toys to an expensive party. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your catalyst tank a gang like a mega can? Yes it can. Its called kiting with logi. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your mega jump past systems like a carrier or dread can? Yes it can. Its called a jump bridge. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Can your carrier fire a doomsday? It used to be able to.... it was called drive by doomsdays. CCP deleted that ability because rifter hobos cried about it killing their pvp and subsequently makes their ship classes less fun. ironic. Please stop whining about capitals. You seem to have forgotten that a lil over a year ago capitals were jumping across the map in minutes, and dropping on frigates for lulz. Slowcats had the tank of a carrier and the application of a subcap with sentries(not to mention huge repping power). Before that we had max tracking titans and dreads that would literally volley a BS off grid. As you pointed out there was also the drive by DD. How many carriers are in operation now? Can you imagine a fight of nothing but DDs? As thats what would happen. If you couldnt see how horribly broken this was, thats your problem. Im happy about the nerfs caps have recieved as its reigned them in. The new sov is whats pushed them into irrelevence, which will be addressed soon. Capitals are supposed to require sub cap support, that is intended and why they require support ships to kill smaller ships. Otherwise we would have nothing but caps roaming round and it would be boring as hell. CCP has stated in the CSM minutes that cap rebalances will be mentioned in EVE:Vegas at the end of October. So dry up those cap tears, as changes are coming. As to your other points. Your corpmate said "a catalyst", not "a catalyst with a logi wing". The mega goes the same way. Who do you think will win in a fight of 25 megas vs 25 catalysts, both with logi chains? A jump bridge is a structure that is put down when you own sov. A mega on its own cannot jump across systems.. didnt think i needed to break this down for you. What carriers used to do is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, dont muddy the waters.. BCs were rebalanced as they had no role to speak of except glorified MJD brawlers. T1/T2 cruisers got faster and rebalanced, BCs were nerfed. Hence why they are rebalancing BCs to be useful and fill the role of anti-cruiser. Clearly you misundertood my original point but thats ok your only a 2011 pilot my point was in terms of isk fielded 25 catalyst's will desimate a single mega and no catalyst gang is going to warp in at range and burn straight at a mega yet the cost is pretty much identical. As for large ships not being able to track smaller ships why not we had those issues in 2004-2008ish you just had to play smarter but if your not intelligent enough to figure out how to deal with that issue why should those who had learnt how to deal with that be punished, aoe doomsdays were a great option and meant you had to use a well tanked HIC to hold the target and well fitted BS's and others too kill it.
Asuka Solo Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 2997	Posted - 2015.09.16 21:10:22 - [414] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Please stop whining about capitals. You seem to have forgotten that a lil over a year ago capitals were jumping across the map in minutes, and dropping on frigates for lulz. Slowcats had the tank of a carrier and the application of a subcap with sentries(not to mention huge repping power). Before that we had max tracking titans and dreads that would literally volley a BS off grid. As you pointed out there was also the drive by DD. How many carriers are in operation now? Can you imagine a fight of nothing but DDs? As thats what would happen. If you couldnt see how horribly broken this was, thats your problem. Im happy about the nerfs caps have recieved as its reigned them in. The new sov is whats pushed them into irrelevence, which will be addressed soon. Capitals are supposed to require sub cap support, that is intended and why they require support ships to kill smaller ships. Otherwise we would have nothing but caps roaming round and it would be boring as hell. Its not my fault if you can't see how fun that used to be. Eve is supposed to be a cold heartless game. Funny how hot dropping on frigates is a war crime in a game that promotes war crime behavior. Stitch Kaneland wrote: A jump bridge is a structure that is put down when you own sov. A mega on its own cannot jump across systems.. didnt think i needed to break this down for you. Same function as a jump portal generator... which is fitted to Titans and happens to be Sov independent... didn't think I needed to break this down for you. Stitch Kaneland wrote: What carriers used to do is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, dont muddy the waters.. Ask stupid questions... get stupid answers. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 189	Posted - 2015.09.16 21:49:36 - [415] - Quote Cassius Invictus wrote: Great. BC are getting rebalanced again. CCP we are still waiting for T3, Capital and Black Ops... They need to be looked at too, but this makes the biggest impact for the most players.
Roti Rotineque Dodixie Mining Corporation 1	Posted - 2015.09.16 21:56:40 - [416] - Quote Ok, ty CCP. Now fix the skill thingy please. I have to train 102731923 days of leadership just to fly an absol? Are you serious. This is shi... not good. Fix it. Fix it now. CCPlleeeeease.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3095	Posted - 2015.09.16 22:18:13 - [417] - Quote Roti Rotineque wrote: Ok, ty CCP. Now fix the skill thingy please. I have to train 102731923 days of leadership just to fly an absol? Are you serious. This is shi... not good. Fix it. Fix it now. CCPlleeeeease. 100 days, get over it. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 189	Posted - 2015.09.17 01:19:03 - [418] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: I do have a slight reservation on the navy drake. It still has no High's for links or nos/neut. It is bonused for links but cant fit them without sacrificing dps, something all the other BCs dont have to consider. I dont mind the navy drake not having a tank bonus, as to be honest having good application and range can kill things quickly before harming you. Plus MMJD. So kiters are a non issue. Would changing it to something like this be a possibility? Navy Drake 5% RoF per level 5% explosion radius per lvl 25% bonus to missile velocity Drop a launcher, frees up fitting and now you can add neut/nos or links as needed without sacrificing dps. The Navy Drake was a square peg before because nobody outside pve had much use for a pricey drake with worse dps/tank, no neut, and nothing to offer but an extreme range bonus on weapons that do delayed dps. Now it has medium drones the lower dps is less of an issue, the tank bonus with navy stats means it has an even better tank than the t1 drake, a full rack of unbonused launchers lets people play around with RLML set ups, the application bonus sets it apart when using HML, or rage HAM's ... so the new Navy Drake has a lot of potential roles because the tank bonus compliments all set ups especially PVE which is the bread and butter of Drakes now. A neut/nos is only useful for brawling and no use at all in PVE.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 545	Posted - 2015.09.17 03:50:35 - [419] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: I do have a slight reservation on the navy drake. It still has no High's for links or nos/neut. It is bonused for links but cant fit them without sacrificing dps, something all the other BCs dont have to consider. I dont mind the navy drake not having a tank bonus, as to be honest having good application and range can kill things quickly before harming you. Plus MMJD. So kiters are a non issue. Would changing it to something like this be a possibility? Navy Drake 5% RoF per level 5% explosion radius per lvl 25% bonus to missile velocity Drop a launcher, frees up fitting and now you can add neut/nos or links as needed without sacrificing dps. The Navy Drake was a square peg before because nobody outside pve had much use for a pricey drake with worse dps/tank, no neut, and nothing to offer but an extreme range bonus on weapons that do delayed dps. Now it has medium drones the lower dps is less of an issue, the tank bonus with navy stats means it has an even better tank than the t1 drake, a full rack of unbonused launchers lets people play around with RLML set ups, the application bonus sets it apart when using HML, or rage HAM's ... so the new Navy Drake has a lot of potential roles because the tank bonus compliments all set ups especially PVE which is the bread and butter of Drakes now. A neut/nos is only useful for brawling and no use at all in PVE. Good luck killing any active tanked t3d or 10mn t3d (or both) without a neut. There's a reason I prefer the T1 drake over the navy one, and its because of the neut. Take for instance, this perfectly balanced svipul. [Svipul, 10mn Svipul] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II 10MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction [empty high slot] Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I Small Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Small Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Without links and only using bluepill it has a cap stable 267dps tank (before heat). Using a navy drake with only a scram/web, you are applying 111dps out of your 475dps. Add another 90dps from drones and your at 201dps. Drones will die, and then you'll be left with 111dps. Using dual webs on the navy drake, you can hit for around 230dps before drones. The svipul can OH to 350dps to tank your missiles and drones, until he pops all your drones (which will happen quickly). From there on, he can still tank your applied dps with no problem. 10mn dual rep fessor the same way, but even worse since it has a smaller sig. Anyway, my point is, you hit them with a medium neut, and get that AB to turn off, even for just 5-6 seconds, you will apply 300+dps easy, and with the fits I use, max damage. Get yourself an easy kill. Now, this didn't even touch on a linked svipul, as it gets even worse from there. But even with links, there is no link that gives you cap, and i've killed plenty of linked fessors and svipuls. Now, you do bring up a good point with RLML, but your not using either velocity or application bonus. Why not just buy a raven then, will probably be cheaper, and have a better tank. The last thing I would mention is the fact the navy drake gets a link bonus, but has to sacrifice dps to fit it. No other BC has to make this sacrifice. If you bonus the ship for the role, it should be able to do the role without sacrificing something in return. I know this is a minor thing as most people won't be using links on it, but why handicap it in the first place? Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 190	Posted - 2015.09.17 05:46:29 - [420] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Good luck killing any active tanked t3d or 10mn t3d (or both) without a neut. There's a reason I prefer the T1 drake over the navy one, and its because of the neut. Take for instance, this perfectly balanced svipul. You could use RLML it should kill that before reload.

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 545	Posted - 2015.09.17 06:07:06 - [421] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Good luck killing any active tanked t3d or 10mn t3d (or both) without a neut. There's a reason I prefer the T1 drake over the navy one, and its because of the neut. Take for instance, this perfectly balanced svipul. You could use RLML it should kill that before reload. Looks like RLML navy drake could kill the fessor and non linked svipul. Linked svipuls in LS are pretty common though. You could overwhelm them quick enough though where it might work. Unless he swaps bluepill for x-instinct to sig tank better. Suppose thats splitting hairs though. Still has to lose dps to fit links, which it has a bonus for. And i'd hate to see the navy drake's best fitting made for RLML instead of the other medium weapon systems its actually bonused for. The tank bonus also feels out of place compared to the other navy BC's. But i suppose it could possibly make a decent fleet ship with heavy missiles. Regardless, its getting a buff so its all good. Arty fleet cane makes up for my minor disappointment with navy drake. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 105	Posted - 2015.09.17 06:53:15 - [422] - Quote Roti Rotineque wrote: Ok, ty CCP. Now fix the skill thingy please. I have to train 102731923 days of leadership just to fly an absol? Are you serious. This is shi... not good. Fix it. Fix it now. CCPlleeeeease. Nope, why should they. They'll just replace those skills with some other useless time sink skill so what's the difference. Just suck it up and train those skills if you want to undock in CSs. If anything you should request that CCP make them worth training for.
Asuna Crossbreed Redemption Road Affirmative. 0	Posted - 2015.09.17 07:41:18 - [423] - Quote Just looking at this I see the cyclone being a little left in the dust, something I felt it already was in with the last pass. The reason being that it has 5 launchers and a 5% bonus, where nearly every other ship in this class gets 6 and a 10% bonus. This seems a little unbalanced to me. A fair push of either the rof bonus or the number of launchers would go a long way. personally I feel that a double rof bonus could be a lot of fun along with a expanded cargo hold. Maybe even a ammo reload bonus in place with a smaller range bonus? there is a lot that could be done with this ship to give it that fun little edge instead of it just being a cheap claymore.
Danny John-Peter Snuff Box Snuffed Out 577	Posted - 2015.09.17 07:43:44 - [424] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Why after 10 years + we are still re-re-inventing the same old ships over and over again, is beyond me... But don't worry, while we waste our time with this, we'll make the same ship look different for a nominal fee. That will distract you long enough for us to reconsider what we've done today. Stitch Kaneland wrote: MR Spleen wrote: Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :- Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships! Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option. You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right? Yes. And it seems sub caps online is the only ship class that enjoys any of those facets... However, what my esteemed colleague was trying to emphasis in his own way, was that this new direction of pro-sub caps in Eve online has gimped the food chain the moment you go beyond battleship sized hulls. Sub caps are at a point where they enjoy more bonuses / perks (not to mention they are insanely cheap) compared to capitals and even super capitals (and lest not forget, they seem to be "more fun"). Capital and Super Capital hulls are in dire need of a mountain of love.... more hull options and a significant boost in teeth that can be applied to sub caps... after all, a risk free eve is bad. And right now, taking sub caps up against carriers, dreads, supers and titans seems to be as risk free as its going to get with this sesame street sov system and dumbass limitation on "force projection" called jump fatigue. Caps and supers need to become fun again... and being a giant "tackle me and apply F1 here" i-lose button is not fun. Sub cap pilots who beg to differ on these forums are free to logonski their titans while parking on a lowsec gate and notify the rest of us of their intentions so we can show you exactly how "much fun" it is. But maybe if smaller ships did less damage to bigger targets like certain big ships do to little ones, and if the tackle modules in eve were different sizes that were not only limited to certain hull sized, but affected different sized hulls respectively, it'll be a step in the right direction to force sub cap pilots to bring more expensive toys to an expensive party. [SNIP] I mean, if you are having difficulty killing Sub-Caps with Dreads or Supers that, frankly, is a fault with your playstyle. Right now, in my opinion, Capitals and Super-Carriers (I won't speak for Titans as I have no experience with them) are in a generally good place when it comes to on grid performance. There are a few hull specific exceptions such as the Nidhoggur and Revelation which aren't in great places but I am happy for CCP to take there time and sort these hulls out the right way. Since the change to drone modules causing them to effect fighter-bombers and, particularly, fighters they have the potential to murder Subs, even a fairly small group of them put out huge DPS against cruiser+ targets with relatively minimal support. Dreads are in a pretty similar boat, being an excellent burst DPS platform against BS size targets, fleets of which are very common at the moment due to there high DPS and flexibility. All you require is a few Vindis and some painters and you can easily chew larger subcaps, with good amount of tackle HACs/TIIIs and BC hulls are also fair game. Carriers still reserve that very key place in many fleets as burst tank in triage form, long term tank in pantheon form or resilient DPS platforms in Combat form with good RR capabilities and lots of options in terms of dealing with threats because of there refitting abilities and the natural flexibility that comes with drone ships. In short, I don't see an issue with caps on grid performance, strategic mobility is something that needs looked at yes but from a purely on grid perspective they are largely in a good place, your just doing it wrong.
Suitonia True Solo 634	Posted - 2015.09.17 09:38:56 - [425] - Quote Asuna Crossbreed wrote: Just looking at this I see the cyclone being a little left in the dust, something I felt it already was in with the last pass. The reason being that it has 5 launchers and a 5% bonus, where nearly every other ship in this class gets 6 and a 10% bonus. This seems a little unbalanced to me. A fair push of either the rof bonus or the number of launchers would go a long way. personally I feel that a double rof bonus could be a lot of fun along with a expanded cargo hold. Maybe even a ammo reload bonus in place with a smaller range bonus? there is a lot that could be done with this ship to give it that fun little edge instead of it just being a cheap claymore. I think the main strength of the Cyclone is the 2 Utility highs and the extra mobility that it has, with good fitting space. I have flown the Cyclone a lot and I personally feel like it is currently (pre-patch) one of the best BCs right now. I think the buffs it's already getting are enough. Giving it +25m3 bay would help a bit though. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Suitonia True Solo 635	Posted - 2015.09.17 10:01:48 - [426] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I don't think the Kinetic Damage bonus in this case really applies though. By Restricting a damage bonus to Kinetic you are able to 'over budget' damage missile damage and make it more powerful, at the expense of dealing predictable damage which can be taken advantage of by specific fittings like Resistance Modules, Reactive Hardeners and by choosing an Appropriate ship (i.e. Gallente T2) with 'under budget' damage for the other missile damage types. Where this works well is the Hawk and the Flycatcher, for example, the Hawk has 4 Missile launchers, but gets 5% Rate of Fire, and 10% Kinetic Missile Damage bonuses. The Above average Kinetic Damage bonus in this case allows the Hawk to Achieve 8 effective launchers with kinetic damage, which is incredible. However, it only has 5.33 Universal Launchers (For Reference the Kestrel has 5, and when not using Kinetic Damage, the only damage advantage the Hawk has over the Kestrel is the fact that it gets 5% RoF instead of 5% damage). For other reference, Garmur has 6.75 Universal Launchers, Vengeance has 6.65. This is good because it allows the Hawk to achieve un-matched damage with Kinetic Missiles, but below average damage similar to it's frigate counterpart with non-kinetic throughout it's class. It doesn't work well in the Drakes case though because 9 Kinetic Effective Launchers is average in today's world where most Missile Cruisers have been powered up. For example, the Orthrus has 10! Universal Launchers, outdamaging the Drake even with Kinetic with every single damage type. The Cerberus has 8 Universal and 10 Kinetic, again, outdamaging the Drake, both the Cerberus and Orthrus out project the Drake, and have other strengths which the Drake does not have. The Drake is also restricted to HAM and HML where the Cerberus and Orthrus can use RLML too, which is the most powerful and more used weapon system in the game right now. I Understand that the Drake is more of a 'tanky' ship than those listed ships (altho cerb has better ehp/s from logi thanks to resists). But comparing it to Sacrilege, which is also more of a 'tanky' ship, which gets 8.3125 effective universal launchers with a bigger drone bay, and better fittings still appears shallow. If the Drake had 15% Kinetic per level then it would achieve 10.5 effective launchers (5% more damage than Orthrus, Cerberus) with only HMLs and HAMs. and I think it would be reasonable to be locked then. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Cassius Invictus Thou shalt not kill A Nest of Vipers 140	Posted - 2015.09.17 10:04:29 - [427] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Cassius Invictus wrote: Great. BC are getting rebalanced again. CCP we are still waiting for T3, Capital and Black Ops... They need to be looked at too, but this makes the biggest impact for the most players. I kinda agree that as the most popular class they receive more attention but, pardon me, FFS everyone was crying so much that T3 are so OP that they brake the whole game that it would be wise to balance them ASAP. I don't mind little nerf to T3 as long as all subs are fixed and they are balanced against each other (HAM legion seems to be the new meta now while loki is in a poor state)
Suitonia True Solo 635	Posted - 2015.09.17 10:13:00 - [428] - Quote Alternatively, nerf the Orthrus))) Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1120	Posted - 2015.09.17 11:26:10 - [429] - Quote Suitonia wrote: I think the main strength of the Cyclone is the 2 Utility highs and the extra mobility that it has, with good fitting space. I have flown the Cyclone a lot and I personally feel like it is currently (pre-patch) one of the best BCs right now. I think the buffs it's already getting are enough. Giving it +25m3 bay would help a bit though. I really don't see it. sure, it's a lot faster, but it loses so much for that. you typically only get 2 mids for tank, so you can pretty much only do invuln + xlasb - yeah, the overpoweredness of xlasbs mitigates this issue somewhat I guess. low paper dps like the guy says, which comes with low alpha and not great overheat potential (oh boy I sure do love ROF bonuses) and low range. do I really want 15% or so speed when I could fly a myrmidon and vastly improved tank and damage, with +1 midslot to play with after fitting the cap booster. maybe being unable to undock without at least a stasis web to go with your neuts is a lowsec thing? the only use I see for this ship is getting underestimated because people don't see it much, but I'm not such a space hipster that I want it to be ******. I think I'd like it and the breacher a lot more if they were like the typhoon, i.e. not stuck with finicky ASB setups and bad damage.
Suitonia True Solo 639	Posted - 2015.09.17 12:16:26 - [430] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Suitonia wrote: I think the main strength of the Cyclone is the 2 Utility highs and the extra mobility that it has, with good fitting space. I have flown the Cyclone a lot and I personally feel like it is currently (pre-patch) one of the best BCs right now. I think the buffs it's already getting are enough. Giving it +25m3 bay would help a bit though. I really don't see it. sure, it's a lot faster, but it loses so much for that. you typically only get 2 mids for tank, so you can pretty much only do invuln + xlasb - yeah, the overpoweredness of xlasbs mitigates this issue somewhat I guess. low paper dps like the guy says, which comes with low alpha and not great overheat potential (oh boy I sure do love ROF bonuses) and low range. do I really want 15% or so speed when I could fly a myrmidon and vastly improved tank and damage, with +1 midslot to play with after fitting the cap booster. maybe being unable to undock without at least a stasis web to go with your neuts is a lowsec thing? the only use I see for this ship is getting underestimated because people don't see it much, but I'm not such a space hipster that I want it to be ******. I think I'd like it and the breacher a lot more if they were like the typhoon, i.e. not stuck with finicky ASB setups and bad damage. I use a web on my fit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i68ij_ZjahA Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o

MR Spleen Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 33	Posted - 2015.09.17 12:25:33 - [431] - Quote [/quote] I mean, if you are having difficulty killing Sub-Caps with Dreads or Supers that, frankly, is a fault with your playstyle. Right now, in my opinion, Capitals and Super-Carriers (I won't speak for Titans as I have no experience with them) are in a generally good place when it comes to on grid performance. There are a few hull specific exceptions such as the Nidhoggur and Revelation which aren't in great places but I am happy for CCP to take there time and sort these hulls out the right way. Since the change to drone modules causing them to effect fighter-bombers and, particularly, fighters they have the potential to murder Subs, even a fairly small group of them put out huge DPS against cruiser+ targets with relatively minimal support. Dreads are in a pretty similar boat, being an excellent burst DPS platform against BS size targets, fleets of which are very common at the moment due to there high DPS and flexibility. All you require is a few Vindis and some painters and you can easily chew larger subcaps, with good amount of tackle HACs/TIIIs and BC hulls are also fair game. Carriers still reserve that very key place in many fleets as burst tank in triage form, long term tank in pantheon form or resilient DPS platforms in Combat form with good RR capabilities and lots of options in terms of dealing with threats because of there refitting abilities and the natural flexibility that comes with drone ships. In short, I don't see an issue with caps on grid performance, strategic mobility is something that needs looked at yes but from a purely on grid perspective they are largely in a good place, your just doing it wrong. [/quote] I would have to agree about the carriers to an extent because as with all drone ships the drones are a bit overpowered as in they are the only weapon type you have to either tank or kill even when the ship is unable to lock you or apply damage due to ewar as for the super carriers as they only use fighters and fighter bombers I'm not sure about that, but the dps per isk is still low and any capital caught alone will die if unable to dock, I made a post probably about 8 years ago suggesting point defense batteries like you would have on real life carriers and battleships for dealing with smaller ships and I still feel this is a good idea as long as they are autotargeting and not controlled by the player, but that's another subject. Drones are another issue all together as I said before they are the only weapon unaffected by any ewar and is probably why they have become so heavily over used by alliances for killing pos's with ishtars etc I would like to see ewar affect the drones as well as the ships making non drone ships have a more level playing field against them and if you want proof that there OP just look at the allaince tournament where they made people use t1 drones. Sorry for getting off topic slightly. Now waiting for the comments telling me I'm wrong Gåô
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 548	Posted - 2015.09.17 12:27:15 - [432] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Please stop whining about capitals. You seem to have forgotten that a lil over a year ago capitals were jumping across the map in minutes, and dropping on frigates for lulz. Slowcats had the tank of a carrier and the application of a subcap with sentries(not to mention huge repping power). Before that we had max tracking titans and dreads that would literally volley a BS off grid. As you pointed out there was also the drive by DD. How many carriers are in operation now? Can you imagine a fight of nothing but DDs? As thats what would happen. If you couldnt see how horribly broken this was, thats your problem. Im happy about the nerfs caps have recieved as its reigned them in. The new sov is whats pushed them into irrelevence, which will be addressed soon. Capitals are supposed to require sub cap support, that is intended and why they require support ships to kill smaller ships. Otherwise we would have nothing but caps roaming round and it would be boring as hell. Its not my fault if you can't see how fun that used to be. Eve is supposed to be a cold heartless game. Funny how hot dropping on frigates is a war crime in a game that promotes war crime behavior. Stitch Kaneland wrote: A jump bridge is a structure that is put down when you own sov. A mega on its own cannot jump across systems.. didnt think i needed to break this down for you. Same function as a jump portal generator... which is fitted to Titans and happens to be Sov independent... didn't think I needed to break this down for you. Stitch Kaneland wrote: What carriers used to do is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, dont muddy the waters.. Ask stupid questions... get stupid answers. Well thankfully CCP doesn't follow your line of reasoning of "who cares if its game breaking, its fun, huurr". Cry more about how your "I win" button got a well deserved nerf. I'm sure you were some of those people using skynet with an insta-lock procurer on a gate for "elite pvp". Yep, that is UNIQUE to titans (and to a lesser extent blops), something your corpmate and yourself have glazed over from the start of the conversation. Since you were looking at strictly dps, and omitted the fact a Titan can fire a DD or use a jump portal generator. Something a mega, carrier, brutix, catalyst can not do. Thats why looking at only dps figures is misleading and narrow minded. At this point i'd wager you're trolling, as no one could be this unknowingly dumb. Ask relevant questions, get moving of the goal posts due to being unable to admit that your wrong and full of sh**. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
MR Spleen Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 33	Posted - 2015.09.17 12:32:45 - [433] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Asuka Solo wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Please stop whining about capitals. You seem to have forgotten that a lil over a year ago capitals were jumping across the map in minutes, and dropping on frigates for lulz. Slowcats had the tank of a carrier and the application of a subcap with sentries(not to mention huge repping power). Before that we had max tracking titans and dreads that would literally volley a BS off grid. As you pointed out there was also the drive by DD. How many carriers are in operation now? Can you imagine a fight of nothing but DDs? As thats what would happen. If you couldnt see how horribly broken this was, thats your problem. Im happy about the nerfs caps have recieved as its reigned them in. The new sov is whats pushed them into irrelevence, which will be addressed soon. Capitals are supposed to require sub cap support, that is intended and why they require support ships to kill smaller ships. Otherwise we would have nothing but caps roaming round and it would be boring as hell. Its not my fault if you can't see how fun that used to be. Eve is supposed to be a cold heartless game. Funny how hot dropping on frigates is a war crime in a game that promotes war crime behavior. Stitch Kaneland wrote: A jump bridge is a structure that is put down when you own sov. A mega on its own cannot jump across systems.. didnt think i needed to break this down for you. Same function as a jump portal generator... which is fitted to Titans and happens to be Sov independent... didn't think I needed to break this down for you. Stitch Kaneland wrote: What carriers used to do is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, dont muddy the waters.. Ask stupid questions... get stupid answers. Well thankfully CCP doesn't follow your line of reasoning of "who cares if its game breaking, its fun, huurr". Cry more about how your "I win" button got a well deserved nerf. I'm sure you were some of those people using skynet with an insta-lock procurer on a gate for "elite pvp". Yep, that is UNIQUE to titans (and to a lesser extent blops), something your corpmate and yourself have glazed over from the start of the conversation. Since you were looking at strictly dps, and omitted the fact a Titan can fire a DD or use a jump portal generator. Something a mega, carrier, brutix, catalyst can not do. Thats why looking at only dps figures is misleading and narrow minded. At this point i'd wager you're trolling, as no one could be this unknowingly dumb. Ask relevant questions, get moving of the goal posts due to being unable to admit that your wrong and full of sh**. Personally I think your the troll and all comments are worthy of a view point whether you agree or not.
Asuka Solo Instant Annihilation This Isn't Going To End Well 2997	Posted - 2015.09.17 16:09:21 - [434] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: I'm sure you were some of those people using skynet with an insta-lock procurer on a gate for "elite pvp". God, now those were good times. And FYI, interceptors in a bubble worked wayyy better than a barge.... just sayin. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
aldhura Facepalm Central 4	Posted - 2015.09.17 20:11:35 - [435] - Quote sooo the nighthawk becomes more and more useless.. nice
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 23046	Posted - 2015.09.17 20:30:29 - [436] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Ferox: The Ferox is getting a very significant change in the form of a new skill bonus and slot changes. The shield resistance bonus is being swapped for hybrid damage, and a highslot (and turret) is being traded for a mid. This leaves the Ferox with 7.5 effective turrets (compared to 7 before) and the ability to use the new midslot to either compensate for the resistance bonus or to go in a completely different direction through tracking computers, webs, or whatever else you wish. The extra range provided by the role bonus is obviously valuable for fleet fighting with rails, and the addition of falloff helps the Ferox take advantage of its range advantage with blasters as well. Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Role Bonus: 25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and falloff Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7H (-1), 6M (+1), 4L, 6 (-1) turrets Fittings: 1250 PWG, 530 (+20) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250 (+250) / 3500 / 4000 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2900 (+150) / 725s (+1.5) / 4 (+0.2) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 (+10) / 0.63 (-0.03) / 13,250,000 / 11.75s (-0.55s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+10) / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 Cargo capacity: 475 This. *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.17 20:38:11 - [437] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: The only person complaining about rockets having too much range is you. The medium weapon system with comparable range as rockets is medium, unbonused blasters. This isnt taking into account most rocket ships use rage missiles which drops them down to under 9km of range. Regardless its still some pretty silly logic. Especially when you consider small railguns, beams and artillery have more range than rockets. Hell small acs with barrage or scorch pulse have same or better range. HAMs = 20km HML = 60km rockets = 10km LML = 42km Torps = 20km Cruise = 148km One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same. Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous. pretty much
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.17 20:58:48 - [438] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Yes. And it seems sub caps online is the only ship class that enjoys any of those facets... However, what my esteemed colleague was trying to emphasis in his own way, was that this new direction of pro-sub caps in Eve online has gimped the food chain the moment you go beyond battleship sized hulls. Sub caps are at a point where they enjoy more bonuses / perks (not to mention they are insanely cheap) compared to capitals and even super capitals (and lest not forget, they seem to be "more fun"). Capital and Super Capital hulls are in dire need of a mountain of love.... more hull options and a significant boost in teeth that can be applied to sub caps... after all, a risk free eve is bad. And right now, taking sub caps up against carriers, dreads, supers and titans seems to be as risk free as its going to get with this sesame street sov system and dumbass limitation on "force projection" called jump fatigue. Caps and supers need to become fun again... and being a giant "tackle me and apply F1 here" i-lose button is not fun. Sub cap pilots who beg to differ on these forums are free to logonski their titans while parking on a lowsec gate and notify the rest of us of their intentions so we can show you exactly how "much fun" it is. But maybe if smaller ships did less damage to bigger targets like certain big ships do to little ones,eve were different sizes that were not only limited to certain hull sized, but affected different sized and if the tackle modules in hulls respectively, it'll be a step in the right direction to force sub cap pilots to bring more expensive toys to an expensive party. So.. using a carrier and equiping it as dps means I can probably launch 15 drones... @ V, and a 25% bonus to dmg , thats 18.75 fighter drones.. that can warp and chase that guy who though he might make it till he hit those bubbles... cause you know, all capitol weapons when fired will follow and kill the target if they stay in system... oh wait, they don't... Why do I think your asking for a "I fly carrier's so I win" button? A solo rifter shouldn't be able to kill any capitol.. why is it unfair you can't instapop him unless you launch your 15 drones and he is dumb enough to get caught? Maybe, what needs to happen is make carriers the counter to battleships instead on them being "the elite class". this would also mean making them cheaper, but id say the training times are still spot on since they are above battleships. lets make teh same with dreads.. but this also means taking away all that bloated EHP that that the capitol's enjoy. They'd still be higher than battleships and pretty safe, unless you get swarmed by however much DPS that can break your tank. New fozzie sov is in. your boated HP for long structure grind is soon to not be needed anymore. Cap's are going to be changed.. but I doubt they are getting the "I win" button.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14435	Posted - 2015.09.17 23:44:50 - [439] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: New fozzie sov is in. your bloated HP for long structure grind is soon to not be needed anymore. Cap's are going to be changed.. but I doubt they are getting the "I win" button. Heh, you might want to double check that. New Dev Blog, and all. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.18 00:22:26 - [440] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: New fozzie sov is in. your bloated HP for long structure grind is soon to not be needed anymore. Cap's are going to be changed.. but I doubt they are getting the "I win" button. Heh, you might want to double check that. New Dev Blog, and all. Edited, but I still like my idea better.

Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 150	Posted - 2015.09.18 03:32:50 - [441] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Alternatively, nerf the Orthrus))) Better yet, both.
Rampage2010 Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 0	Posted - 2015.09.18 04:18:25 - [442] - Quote Plz Do not forget the Gnosis
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2477	Posted - 2015.09.18 05:37:32 - [443] - Quote Rampage2010 wrote: Plz Do not forget the Gnosis The Gnosis is not a normal CBC. It's a zero skill special gift that was given out. It doesn't need to be made competitive against other BS, because of it's special gift nature and it's non replaceable nature also.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 106	Posted - 2015.09.18 07:01:32 - [444] - Quote Rampage2010 wrote: Plz forget about the Gnosis Corrected that for you.
Kasia en Tilavine School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 44	Posted - 2015.09.18 09:20:43 - [445] - Quote Suitonia wrote: /wisdom Suitonia, what would you think about giving it 8 highs with 7 launchers with 5 percent to kin damage? KIN damage is nerfed by a quarter of a launcher, with selectable damage going up and low sp damage starting higher.
Nevil Kincade Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 20	Posted - 2015.09.18 09:45:51 - [446] - Quote Danny John-Peter wrote: Changes look alright to be honest, better than I would have expected for pass 1 anyways. Contentious points seem to be the kinetic lock and the Harbs cap bonus. [...] As for the cap usage bonus on the Harb, its fine, pulses get better base range and base damage than other turret weapon systems, the cap usage bonus is the price you pay for having a short range turret with amazing base DPS and the ability to apply a good chunk of that DPS out to medium range (or further, with this new bonus). [...] . It's not pass 1 ... The Harb is not fine ... And the usage stats show that ... I used the harb for over 6 month gatecamping in null and low sec just around the time BCs got changed the last time when the Harbinger received the 10% dmg bonus and one turret slot was removed. A change that increased dmg and reduced cap consumption slightly. I was rather new back then and the Harb was the only ship i had nearly maxed out and therefore i used it a lot. I am sad to see that the next balance pass took years to come along and still does not address the Harbinger's issues. Once again the Harbs cap is buffed but it's problems remain. Again: It is the only BC that gets only one effective bonus instead of two. And that is completely unjustified. "The price you pay" for the lasers advantages are already compensated by their innate weaknesses: - Pulse base damage is certainly not as good as blasters. And has a worse (less universal) damage profile. - Pulse tracking is the worst among all short range turrets - Lasers are vulnerable to neuts like no other weapon system while hybrids can be cycled to a certain degree under neuts. - Tracking and damage get even worse once you start using the only advantage pulse lasers have here: Scorch M and range. If your point was valid then all laser platforms need to have one bonus slot removed. Balance passes on cruisers have shown that CCP is willing to replace energy turret cap consumption bonuses. Why it has been overlooked here is beyond my comprehension. Anyway, maintaining range and making use of it's turrets range is problematic for a Harb: In it's current state a harb would run dry on it's own by only shooting pulse lasers even with max capacitor skills despite the 10% energy turret cap bonus. Let alone pulsing MWD. I sincerely hope that the buff to capacitor capacity will finally enable the Harb to continueouly shoot it's guns at least because being the only BC unable to do so despite a bonus slot dedicated to enabling it to do so was an extraordinarily pathetic state over the last years even for CCP balancing standards. To run it's MWD after the new balance changes I would still expect the ship to need a cap booster which costs so much power grid that you can't fit a 1600mm plate anymore at which point i would choose any other BC over the Harb (if i was looking for an armor tank). So you can basically choose between pest and cholera either having: - no PG for tank - or no CAP for propulsion - or no CAP for lasers But what will really keep people from using the ship again is the fact that one of the hull bonuses is ****. I could live with the Harb running dry after a couple of minutes and even with the implications of fitting a cap booster but other hulls dont have the cap issue and offer a 2nd bonus. Screw the Harb, not going back to it.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 552	Posted - 2015.09.18 10:37:55 - [447] - Quote Nevil Kincade wrote: To run it's MWD after the new balance changes I would still expect the ship to need a cap booster which costs so much power grid that you can't fit a 1600mm plate anymore at which point i would choose any other BC over the Harb (if i was looking for an armor tank). So you can basically choose between pest and cholera either having: - no PG for tank - or no CAP for propulsion - or no CAP for lasers But what will really keep people from using the ship again is the fact that one of the hull bonuses is ****. I could live with the Harb running dry after a couple of minutes and even with the implications of fitting a cap booster but other hulls dont have the cap issue and offer a 2nd bonus. Screw the Harb, not going back to it. [Harbinger, test] 1600mm Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II 50MN Microwarpdrive II Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I 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 Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Infiltrator II x5 Warrior II x5 - absolutely no PG issues. as a comparison, your "any other armor BC": [Brutix, test] 1600mm Steel Plates II [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] 50MN Microwarpdrive II [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Heavy Ion Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M [empty high slot] - already requires a 5% PG implant to fit.
HiddenPorpoise Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 387	Posted - 2015.09.18 11:40:25 - [448] - Quote Why do they all have the exact same cap regen?
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels FETID 755	Posted - 2015.09.18 12:01:40 - [449] - Quote I feel the Harbinger is still going to be fairly weak standing next to a Prophecy. Harbinger should receive a large capacitor recharge buff but lower the capacitor capacity. Swap the 10% cap reduction bonus for a 4% armour resist bonus Harbinger then becomes an excellent brawler with a small capacitor reservoir that gives it an inherent weakness. Although its cap recharge time will allow for endurance with lasers. The smaller cap reservoir will also mean it gets hit with the MWD cap penalty less which also helps. The Cyclone is at the bottom of the usage pile for a reason. It's a two or three trick pony at best. It really needs a rework of the slot layout and hardpoint profile. It really needs: . A heavy CPU buff An extra midslot at the cost of a low slot An extra launcher or the RoF bonus buffing to 7.5% if 1-3 are implemented - reduce it's drone bandwidth to 25 but keep the 50 bay.
TheMercenaryKing Ultimatum. The Bastion 368	Posted - 2015.09.18 12:59:22 - [450] - Quote HiddenPorpoise wrote: Why do they all have the exact same cap regen? That is Average regen, look at the regen time and the cap pool.

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 550	Posted - 2015.09.18 13:12:28 - [451] - Quote Nevil Kincade wrote: Danny John-Peter wrote: Changes look alright to be honest, better than I would have expected for pass 1 anyways. Contentious points seem to be the kinetic lock and the Harbs cap bonus. [...] As for the cap usage bonus on the Harb, its fine, pulses get better base range and base damage than other turret weapon systems, the cap usage bonus is the price you pay for having a short range turret with amazing base DPS and the ability to apply a good chunk of that DPS out to medium range (or further, with this new bonus). [...] . It's not pass 1 ... The Harb is not fine ... And the usage stats show that ... I used the harb for over 6 month gatecamping in null and low sec just around the time BCs got changed the last time when the Harbinger received the 10% dmg bonus and one turret slot was removed. A change that increased dmg and reduced cap consumption slightly. I was rather new back then and the Harb was the only ship i had nearly maxed out and therefore i used it a lot. I am sad to see that the next balance pass took years to come along and still does not address the Harbinger's issues. Once again the Harbs cap is buffed but it's problems remain. Again: It is the only BC that gets only one effective bonus instead of two. And that is completely unjustified. "The price you pay" for the lasers advantages are already compensated by their innate weaknesses: - Pulse base damage is certainly not as good as blasters. And has a worse (less universal) damage profile. - Pulse tracking is the worst among all short range turrets - Lasers are vulnerable to neuts like no other weapon system while hybrids can be cycled to a certain degree under neuts. - Tracking and damage get even worse once you start using the only advantage pulse lasers have here: Scorch M and range. If your point was valid then all laser platforms need to have one bonus slot removed. Balance passes on cruisers have shown that CCP is willing to replace energy turret cap consumption bonuses. Why it has been overlooked here is beyond my comprehension. Anyway, maintaining range and making use of it's turrets range is problematic for a Harb: In it's current state a harb would run dry on it's own by only shooting pulse lasers even with max capacitor skills despite the 10% energy turret cap bonus. Let alone pulsing MWD. I sincerely hope that the buff to capacitor capacity will finally enable the Harb to continueouly shoot it's guns at least because being the only BC unable to do so despite a bonus slot dedicated to enabling it to do so was an extraordinarily pathetic state over the last years even for CCP balancing standards. To run it's MWD after the new balance changes I would still expect the ship to need a cap booster which costs so much power grid that you can't fit a 1600mm plate anymore at which point i would choose any other BC over the Harb (if i was looking for an armor tank). So you can basically choose between pest and cholera either having: - no PG for tank - or no CAP for propulsion - or no CAP for lasers But what will really keep people from using the ship again is the fact that one of the hull bonuses is ****. I could live with the Harb running dry after a couple of minutes and even with the implications of fitting a cap booster but other hulls dont have the cap issue and offer a 2nd bonus. Screw the Harb, not going back to it. Harb with HPL and conflag and 2 heatsinks is 55% stable. How are you running out of cap with just guns running? Also, pulse lasers arent the only weapons it can fit. Beams are quite viable and will be even more viable with range/cap buff plus cap cost reduction bonus. Beams use considerably more cap than pulses. Even the biggest beam is stable with 2 heatsinks at 46%. I tinkered with the harb a bit, and its certainly not terrible. I was using quad light beams, 100mn AB and MJD on my fit. Could brawl down most other ships and MJD away from anything faster. Meanwhile pumping out 700+ dps and having a set of medium and light drones. Excluding the drone BCs, it also has the largest drone bay. Its also got a very decent amount of grid. 1600 plate, 100mn AB, MMJD, med nos and quad lights all fit with only a single MACR. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 946	Posted - 2015.09.18 14:18:31 - [452] - Quote Cyclone is only i see that could use bit more help,at least fitting(cpu),extra mid slot or swap from low to mid...or it will remain where it is usage wise....someone need to be at the end anyway...
HiddenPorpoise Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 391	Posted - 2015.09.18 14:19:22 - [453] - Quote TheMercenaryKing wrote: HiddenPorpoise wrote: Why do they all have the exact same cap regen? That is Average regen, look at the regen time and the cap pool. I know that. Why do they all, unlike every other class, have the same regen across the class?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1194	Posted - 2015.09.18 15:20:51 - [454] - Quote not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness 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
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 550	Posted - 2015.09.18 16:36:44 - [455] - Quote Harvey James wrote: not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness Except that the brutix isnt bonused to drones, and still does more damage than any other BC before drones (670ish with AM, 750 with void). Brutix is a hybrid boat, not a drone boat. If the drake got bonuses to hybrids then id tend to agree with you, but it didnt. Giving BCs a better drone bay is a way to increase overall dps of the hull without changing slot layouts or traits. Probably why they went this route with the navy drake, instead of dropping a launcher and giving a RoF bonus. Since its launchers are unbonused via damage, they increased potential dps by giving it more dronebay/bandwidth. Same with the navy cane as it technically lost dps compared to t1 cane, so they are compensating with more drone bay/bandwidth. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1196	Posted - 2015.09.18 16:55:44 - [456] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Harvey James wrote: not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness Except that the brutix isnt bonused to drones, and still does more damage than any other BC before drones (670ish with AM, 750 with void). Brutix is a hybrid boat, not a drone boat. If the drake got bonuses to hybrids then id tend to agree with you, but it didnt. Giving BCs a better drone bay is a way to increase overall dps of the hull without changing slot layouts or traits. Probably why they went this route with the navy drake, instead of dropping a launcher and giving a RoF bonus. Since its launchers are unbonused via damage, they increased potential dps by giving it more dronebay/bandwidth. Same with the navy cane as it technically lost dps compared to t1 cane, so they are compensating with more drone bay/bandwidth. i know why they are doing it that's quite obvious, however that doesn't justify it, navy drake will have huge tank on top the bizzare mobility buff, it doesn't need too go out of caldari lore just too buff its dps slightly. 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
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2218	Posted - 2015.09.18 17:45:10 - [457] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Harvey James wrote: not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness Except that the brutix isnt bonused to drones, and still does more damage than any other BC before drones (670ish with AM, 750 with void). Brutix is a hybrid boat, not a drone boat. If the drake got bonuses to hybrids then id tend to agree with you, but it didnt. Giving BCs a better drone bay is a way to increase overall dps of the hull without changing slot layouts or traits. Probably why they went this route with the navy drake, instead of dropping a launcher and giving a RoF bonus. Since its launchers are unbonused via damage, they increased potential dps by giving it more dronebay/bandwidth. Same with the navy cane as it technically lost dps compared to t1 cane, so they are compensating with more drone bay/bandwidth. i know why they are doing it that's quite obvious, however that doesn't justify it, navy drake will have huge tank on top the bizzare mobility buff, it doesn't need too go out of caldari lore just too buff its dps slightly. The balance is more important than lolore.
Gramps Pljugi Fragile Mortality 6	Posted - 2015.09.18 18:34:17 - [458] - Quote CCP consider giving Prophecy 10 extra drone bandwith, it would help field 2x small webifier drones or 2x small target painter drones, both would help with application of missile damage and heavy drone damage, its not a significant buff but its one with most potential to bring it up to speed with other ships...
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 190	Posted - 2015.09.18 20:00:43 - [459] - Quote Looking at the Navy variants I see value for money even for pvp where before only the Navy Brutix lived up to it's price tag, but now they all look good except the Navy Harb. Is there a role that the Navy Harbinger is so good at you would risk 200mil isk for the hull knowing you're not getting much of it back from insurance if you lose it?
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 551	Posted - 2015.09.18 20:44:43 - [460] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Looking at the Navy variants I see value for money even for pvp where before only the Navy Brutix lived up to it's price tag, but now they all look good except the Navy Harb. Is there a role that the Navy Harbinger is so good at you would risk 200mil isk for the hull knowing you're not getting much of it back from insurance if you lose it? Beams + tracking/optimal bonus and 5th mid could quite flexible in shield or armor doctrines. Or small gang. I personally would probably run it as a MJD/100mn brawler /w cap booster and neut. Pretty much a mirror of t1 harb, but adding cap booster and replacing NOS with neut. But im alil weird in how i fly BCs. I like to solo with them. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Asuna Crossbreed Redemption Road Affirmative. 0	Posted - 2015.09.19 00:40:44 - [461] - Quote After thinking about it. The harbinger feels a little weak still, but its in such a nice spot that it can be hard to argue away the cap bonus, which many argue is worthless. What if the cap bonus was made 15% per level. that would be a 75% reduction, it would make it a actual coveted bonus as your guns would be good and use little cap.
Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 410	Posted - 2015.09.19 06:51:55 - [462] - Quote I'm not a PvP expert, but I think my main issue with the navy harbinger is that anything you would use it for would be better served by getting into a navy brutix instead. It seems more of a role playing ship than anything else. I get the same overall feeling for the regular Amarr battle cruisers as well. The other battle cruisers seem to have a niche of some niche they fill, but the Amarr ones feel like the roleplaying choice. I'm noob though.
Randy Wray AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 150	Posted - 2015.09.19 09:01:13 - [463] - Quote Cyclone really needs a 6th launcher, it can't rely on a 50m3 drone bay to be 1/4th of it's dps. Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @-áhttp://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec twitch.tv/randywray
Danny John-Peter Snuff Box Snuffed Out 578	Posted - 2015.09.19 09:47:19 - [464] - Quote Nevil Kincade wrote: Danny John-Peter wrote: Changes look alright to be honest, better than I would have expected for pass 1 anyways. Contentious points seem to be the kinetic lock and the Harbs cap bonus. [...] As for the cap usage bonus on the Harb, its fine, pulses get better base range and base damage than other turret weapon systems, the cap usage bonus is the price you pay for having a short range turret with amazing base DPS and the ability to apply a good chunk of that DPS out to medium range (or further, with this new bonus). [...] . It's not pass 1 ... The Harb is not fine ... And the usage stats show that ... I used the harb for over 6 month gatecamping in null and low sec just around the time BCs got changed the last time when the Harbinger received the 10% dmg bonus and one turret slot was removed. A change that increased dmg and reduced cap consumption slightly. I was rather new back then and the Harb was the only ship i had nearly maxed out and therefore i used it a lot. I am sad to see that the next balance pass took years to come along and still does not address the Harbinger's issues. Once again the Harbs cap is buffed but it's problems remain. Again: It is the only BC that gets only one effective bonus instead of two. And that is completely unjustified. "The price you pay" for the lasers advantages are already compensated by their innate weaknesses: - Pulse base damage is certainly not as good as blasters. And has a worse (less universal) damage profile. - Pulse tracking is the worst among all short range turrets - Lasers are vulnerable to neuts like no other weapon system while hybrids can be cycled to a certain degree under neuts. - Tracking and damage get even worse once you start using the only advantage pulse lasers have here: Scorch M and range. If your point was valid then all laser platforms need to have one bonus slot removed. Balance passes on cruisers have shown that CCP is willing to replace energy turret cap consumption bonuses. Why it has been overlooked here is beyond my comprehension. Anyway, maintaining range and making use of it's turrets range is problematic for a Harb: In it's current state a harb would run dry on it's own by only shooting pulse lasers even with max capacitor skills despite the 10% energy turret cap bonus. Let alone pulsing MWD. I sincerely hope that the buff to capacitor capacity will finally enable the Harb to continueouly shoot it's guns at least because being the only BC unable to do so despite a bonus slot dedicated to enabling it to do so was an extraordinarily pathetic state over the last years even for CCP balancing standards. To run it's MWD after the new balance changes I would still expect the ship to need a cap booster which costs so much power grid that you can't fit a 1600mm plate anymore at which point i would choose any other BC over the Harb (if i was looking for an armor tank). So you can basically choose between pest and cholera either having: - no PG for tank - or no CAP for propulsion - or no CAP for lasers But what will really keep people from using the ship again is the fact that one of the hull bonuses is ****. I could live with the Harb running dry after a couple of minutes and even with the implications of fitting a cap booster but other hulls dont have the cap issue and offer a 2nd bonus. Screw the Harb, not going back to it. Yeah those weakness's do not compensate for how good Scorch is already, add in a 25% optimal bonus on top and it only gets better. There has always been this debate around ships with this bonus since the dawn of time but the fact is Scorch is so freaking amazing it makes it worth it.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 142	Posted - 2015.09.19 13:51:04 - [465] - 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
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 520	Posted - 2015.09.19 15:24:54 - [466] - Quote 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. And, why are BCs being rebalanced as medium gun snipers with their range bonus, but then one gets to be far and away best in that class? Of course this is the Ferox. It will be what all the others will essentially fail at. It will be able to form a fleet doctrine or stand off snipers with some defensive dronage, and decent native agility, aided by ease of fitting nanos, with which to disengage if enemies get too close. This will mirror the current state of Destroyers. Sniper Corms are the thing in FW plexes. They are uncounterable unless you up ship to sniper Harpys. If you are still reading this, Fozzie, how can you miss the weighted advantage that Corms and now Feroxes will have? They will be double range bonused. All other ships in class will essentially have a worthless range bonus. They will always be outsniped by Feroxes. Corms rule FW small plexes. Numbers being equal no other destroyer can knock them out of a plex, due to the range advantage. I like the class range bonus on Destroyers and now on BCs. But to not recognize the built in advantage double range bonused ships such as the Ferox will have against other ships in their class, is a serious error. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 551	Posted - 2015.09.19 15:29:46 - [467] - Quote 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. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 551	Posted - 2015.09.19 15:33:51 - [468] - Quote Deacon Abox 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. And, why are BCs being rebalanced as medium gun snipers with their range bonus, but then one gets to be far and away best in that class? Of course this is the Ferox. It will be what all the others will essentially fail at. It will be able to form a fleet doctrine or stand off snipers with some defensive dronage, and decent native agility, aided by ease of fitting nanos, with which to disengage if enemies get too close. This will mirror the current state of Destroyers. Sniper Corms are the thing in FW plexes. They are uncounterable unless you up ship to sniper Harpys. If you are still reading this, Fozzie, how can you miss the weighted advantage that Corms and now Feroxes will have? They will be double range bonused. All other ships in class will essentially have a worthless range bonus. They will always be outsniped by Feroxes. Corms rule FW small plexes. Numbers being equal no other destroyer can knock them out of a plex, due to the range advantage. I like the class range bonus on Destroyers and now on BCs. But to not recognize the built in advantage double range bonused ships such as the Ferox will have against other ships in their class, is a serious error. Pretty sure a couple maulus could counter a sniper corm. So they are far from uncounterable. Other races have damage selection for their range bonuses (navy drake/cane), so against lets say an ishtar, cerb, or eagle gang, it might be better to use a missile or cane based doctrine. Especially navy drake since it gets a tank bonus and application bonus with selectable damage types. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 521	Posted - 2015.09.19 16:55:56 - [469] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Pretty sure a couple maulus could counter a sniper corm. So they are far from uncounterable. Other races have damage selection for their range bonuses (navy drake/cane), so against lets say an ishtar, cerb, or eagle gang, it might be better to use a missile or cane based doctrine. Especially navy drake since it gets a tank bonus and application bonus with selectable damage types. You are correct if one limits your statement to exactly that. A couple Maulus can easily apply 6 damps to take out one to three Corms. However, you do not appear to be in FW (or at least have fighting experience with sniper corms) and thus I doubt you have much experience with massed sniper corms. I will explain. Sniper corms get into a small plex. They sit out at about 80 or 90 km. Any frig, af, or detroyer that comes in is sniped. If anything burns in it is primaried and does not have a tank to withstand a dozen and usually more corms beating on it. Nothing can outrange it except a snarpy. But you need just as many snarpys to counter the corms. No other destroyer comp will work. Well, there has been attempts with ranged algoses and maybe breacher coraxes which really were better designed to counter Talwar gangs. But the only reliable counter is to upship to snarpys. You happen to be mentioning the Maulus to one that has flown the ship for the majority of my FW pvp career. They can outrange and out pace a snip corm. However, they are in falloff. They do provide a lovely irritant to any other fleet. But distributing damps reliably on a mass of corms is never a certain endeavor. There will always be some undamped corms due to falloff and overlap amongst a Maulus squad embedded within a gang of other ships. Ships that hope to get close enough to the corms to kill them. As the number of corms rises you soon approach the point where the Mauluses don't matter. They haven't damped enough of the corms. Now Mauluses make an excellent compliment to any sniping comp including corms. As long as the opposition cannot snipe back out past 100km or so, they can damp anything that closes on the corms until the corms have killed it as it closes distance. However, Mauluses cannot be used as a reliable counter as the numbers increase. Where the tipping point will be always is a matter of circumstances such as fleet makeup, discipline and abilities, FC experience, starting conditions and geography, etc. Anyway, as I said, to create a class role bonus, but then to give one ship in the class a further similar ship bonus, is simply to make that particular ship better in the role than all the others. edit - especially when the ship that gets the ship bonus similar to the class bonus is using the weapon system with the best stats for that role. Here that being rails which have the greatest range of any other gun or missile of the same weapon size. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 145	Posted - 2015.09.19 17:39:04 - [470] - 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

Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 190	Posted - 2015.09.19 19:20:01 - [471] - Quote 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?
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 552	Posted - 2015.09.19 19:26:16 - [472] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: 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. Caldari are actually closer or tied to 1st in agility with gallente, than 3rd overall. Quick comparisons: T1 Cruisers Caracal: 5.2s align, 288 m/s Stabber: 5.3s align, 363 m/s Omen: 5.2s align, 325 m/s thorax: 5.2s align, 300 m/s Faction cruisers Navy Osprey: 4.2s align 325m/s Exeq Navy: 4.2s align 319m/s ScyFI: 4.5s align, 350 m/s Omen Navy: 4.4s align, 331m/s Assault frigs Harpy: 3.9s align 330m/s Retribution: 4.5s align, 348m/s Jagaur: 4.1s align, 446m/s Enyo: 4.3s align, 360m/s Ishkur: 4.4s align, 359m/s T3D's (in their prop modes) Jackdaw: 2.1s align 283m/s Confessor: 3.4s align 489m/s Svipul: 3.3s align 479m/s Hecate: 2s align 213m/s 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. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 145	Posted - 2015.09.19 20:13:45 - [473] - 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 - [474] - 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
HiddenPorpoise Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 395	Posted - 2015.09.19 21:02:49 - [475] - Quote 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?
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 145	Posted - 2015.09.19 21:25:52 - [476] - 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
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 190	Posted - 2015.09.19 22:15:16 - [477] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: 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. Thanks for clearing that up, but imo it's because the intended roles are different. Minmattar would be the fastest if they had a Cyclone Fleet Issue instead of the Fleet Cane for example. It doesn't say anywhere in the lore that Caldari have to be the second slowest always, just like Amarr have sometimes fast ships and sometimes the slowest ships it depends more on the role they were designed for than the lore itself. You don't design a kiting ship and then make it slow just because of lore, that makes no sense. EDIT: on the same logic I agree that the Ferox has no business being one of the fastest, it should really be one of the slowest. I think they did that so it would still be effective as a brawler, but nobody will put blasters on a Ferox now.
Hannah Englen Controlled Chemical Exposure Ltd. 0	Posted - 2015.09.20 01:46:25 - [478] - Quote I would like to bring up a couple of things from earlier in the thread, the Navy Drake getting great buffs overall but comes with a range nerf ? down from a 50% range to a 25%, and again not sure if this is intended, ill obviously have to switch to HM's instead of HAM's but the shing id like to bring up most is maybe a cargo bay buff across the board ? i mean they are pretty decent sized ships would be nice to have a little more room in that hull, even as mentioned with an ammo/charges hold apart from maybe having to lose some dps in favor of HM's i love the buffs overall
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 522	Posted - 2015.09.20 14:53:40 - [479] - Quote I have to agree with some of the concern already posted. The Navy Drakes base speed and time to align agility seem out of proportion in comparison to the other Navy BCs. Especially considering how these characteristics could be easily further enhanced with a nanofiber. Gunboats sorta need mobility to deal with tracking considerations. Missile and drone boats not so much. Additionally, where the hell is the expanded drone bay coming from? The ship mobility already gives it an edge on the others. It does not need more drone options. Also, lore be ****** I guess. We will not see fleets of Navy Harbs or Brutix, and I doubt even Navy Canes. Although Navy Canes for alpha strike type fighting will always have appeal. But we could see some return of fleets of Drakes in Navy form. The only drawback from the old omnipresent perma mwd regular Drakes being pricetag. Fozzie, when you imbalance Navy ships you induce FW farmer alts to migrate faction. The Navy Drake is much better than the others as a fleet ship. There probably will be a surplus demand for them in comparison to the other Navy BCs. And being a fleet comp capable ship, that demand could be very large. This will affect FW game balance. Something to consider. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:15:25 - [480] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless. Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur. MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus. Celestis counter?

Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:23:06 - [481] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Make battle cruisers first ship that have bonus to the range of the smart bombs. This will put interesting meta to the game play. Have BC in fleet , and smartbomb bombs , dictor bubbles, enemy drones , and all other stuff. We can make this to apply only to Medium Smartbombs , let say 500% range but at half damage. They already took a hit to the firewall meta.. I don't think they want to add to it.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:24:40 - [482] - Quote Cassius Invictus wrote: Great. BC are getting rebalanced again. CCP we are still waiting for T3, Capital and Black Ops... And battleships.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:30:41 - [483] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: I do have a slight reservation on the navy drake. It still has no High's for links or nos/neut. It is bonused for links but cant fit them without sacrificing dps, something all the other BCs dont have to consider. I dont mind the navy drake not having a tank bonus, as to be honest having good application and range can kill things quickly before harming you. Plus MMJD. So kiters are a non issue. Would changing it to something like this be a possibility? Navy Drake 5% RoF per level 5% explosion radius per lvl 25% bonus to missile velocity Drop a launcher, frees up fitting and now you can add neut/nos or links as needed without sacrificing dps. The Navy Drake was a square peg before because nobody outside pve had much use for a pricey drake with worse dps/tank, no neut, and nothing to offer but an extreme range bonus on weapons that do delayed dps. Now it has medium drones the lower dps is less of an issue, the tank bonus with navy stats means it has an even better tank than the t1 drake, a full rack of unbonused launchers lets people play around with RLML set ups, the application bonus sets it apart when using HML, or rage HAM's ... so the new Navy Drake has a lot of potential roles because the tank bonus compliments all set ups especially PVE which is the bread and butter of Drakes now. A neut/nos is only useful for brawling and no use at all in PVE. Good luck killing any active tanked t3d or 10mn t3d (or both) without a neut. There's a reason I prefer the T1 drake over the navy one, and its because of the neut. Take for instance, this perfectly balanced svipul. [Svipul, 10mn Svipul] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II 10MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 200mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S 5W Infectious Power System Malfunction [empty high slot] Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I Small Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer II Small Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Without links and only using bluepill it has a cap stable 267dps tank (before heat). Using a navy drake with only a scram/web, you are applying 111dps out of your 475dps. Add another 90dps from drones and your at 201dps. Drones will die, and then you'll be left with 111dps. Using dual webs on the navy drake, you can hit for around 230dps before drones. The svipul can OH to 350dps to tank your missiles and drones, until he pops all your drones (which will happen quickly). From there on, he can still tank your applied dps with no problem. 10mn dual rep fessor the same way, but even worse since it has a smaller sig. Anyway, my point is, you hit them with a medium neut, and get that AB to turn off, even for just 5-6 seconds, you will apply 300+dps easy, and with the fits I use, max damage. Get yourself an easy kill. Now, this didn't even touch on a linked svipul, as it gets even worse from there. But even with links, there is no link that gives you cap, and i've killed plenty of linked fessors and svipuls. Now, you do bring up a good point with RLML, but your not using either velocity or application bonus. Why not just buy a raven then, will probably be cheaper, and have a better tank. The last thing I would mention is the fact the navy drake gets a link bonus, but has to sacrifice dps to fit it. No other BC has to make this sacrifice. If you bonus the ship for the role, it should be able to do the role without sacrificing something in return. I know this is a minor thing as most people won't be using links on it, but why handicap it in the first place? A drakes best friend is the falcon.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:35:55 - [484] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: Roti Rotineque wrote: Ok, ty CCP. Now fix the skill thingy please. I have to train 102731923 days of leadership just to fly an absol? Are you serious. This is shi... not good. Fix it. Fix it now. CCPlleeeeease. Nope, why should they. They'll just replace those skills with some other useless time sink skill so what's the difference. Just suck it up and train those skills if you want to undock in CSs. If anything you should request that CCP make them worth training for. I actually think that the skills are inline and fine. not, to actually max out the specialist skills is more for your booster.. but.. they stillc an have pvp / pve viability. They are command ships.. so they are bonused towards leadership. If your looking at more dmg ask for a Tactical Battlecruiser T2.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:42:52 - [485] - Quote 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. Because the legs of caldari healed better after getting hit my the missile , BS and ECM nerf-bats years ago.
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 192	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:50:46 - [486] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: I have to agree with some of the concern already posted. The Navy Drakes base speed and time to align agility seem out of proportion in comparison to the other Navy BCs. Especially considering how these characteristics could be easily further enhanced with a nanofiber. Gunboats sorta need mobility to deal with tracking considerations. Missile and drone boats not so much. Additionally, where the hell is the expanded drone bay coming from? The ship mobility already gives it an edge on the others. It does not need more drone options. Also, lore be **** I guess. We will not see fleets of Navy Harbs or Brutix, and I doubt even Navy Canes. Although Navy Canes for alpha strike type fighting will always have appeal. But we could see some return of fleets of Drakes in Navy form. The only drawback from the old omnipresent perma mwd regular Drakes being pricetag. Fozzie, when you imbalance Navy ships you induce FW farmer alts to migrate faction. The Navy Drake is much better than the others as a fleet ship. There probably will be a surplus demand for them in comparison to the other Navy BCs. And being a fleet comp capable ship, that demand could be very large. This will affect FW game balance. Something to consider. I'm glad someone brought that up I'm just suprised it was someone in Galmil because the Calmil LP store is full of lemons and carebear PVE ships that never leave high sec, while Galmil have some of the most popular pvp ships in the game. Faction frigates** Fed Navy Comet: between 4k-5k get destroyed every month; that creates demand for ~40-50million lp per month vs Caldari Navy Hookbill: 1.1k - 1.5k destroyed per month = ~11-15 million lp per month advantage Gallente by more than 3:1 Faction Cruisers Vexor Navy Issue: 2k-2.8k get destroyed per month = ~90-126 million LP per month Exequror Navy Issue: 160-300 get destroyed per month = ~7-13.5 million LP per month vs Caracal Navy Issue: 140-180 destroyed per month; ~6-8 million per month Osprey Navy Issue: 60-90 destroyed per month; ~2.7-4 million per month advantage Gallente by more than 10:1!! 100-140million vs Caldari 9-12 million per month Faction Battlecruisers Brutix Navy Issue: 150-170 destroyed per month = ~15-17million lp per month vs Drake Navy Issue: 80-110 destroyed per month = ~8-11million per month advantage gallente again over 50% more than Caldari Faction Battleships Raven Navy Issue: 100-150 destroyed per month = ~25-37.5 million per month Scorpion Navy Issue: 40-60 destroyed per month = ~10-15 million per month vs Megathron Navy Issue: 50-80 destroyed per month = 12.5-20 million per month Dominix Navy Issue: 40-50 destroyed per month = 10-12.5 million per month advantage Caldari by nearly 2:1 Overall Gallente 177.5-240million vs Calari 63-90.5million. So you're right, Navy ships do impact balance, it's the reason why FDU LP is worth more despite galmil making 2-3 times as much of it from being in higher tiers.
Flyinghotpocket Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica 493	Posted - 2015.09.20 19:59:58 - [487] - Quote IF you want people to actually come back to this game for these bc's your gonna have to buff harder than that. only 50% tracking bonus on hurricane fleet and all the others are getting only 37.5%? make them all 50%. And wheres all the damage buffs? these are BATTLEcruisers, not tankcruisers. harbinger least used in game. gets nerfs and buffs. making it really just a nerf. ferox just gets buffs. prophecy and myrm get a completely garbage bonus. that little drone bonus, is nothing. IT NEEDS something better. suck it up loose your WOW money, nerf logi and links into the ground. and you might actually get your player base back. back in the day, no logi no links. 20 v 20, everybody got kills everybody died. simple formula and it worked. all out bc brawls. Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 554	Posted - 2015.09.20 21:44:47 - [488] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: For arty Sleipnirs people burn in to scram them anyway making the MMJD useless. Someone can attempt to burn in to scram range on arty sleip. I have an arty sleip fit that was good and used MJD. MJD, XLASB, 720's, MWD, was good kite combination. I also had dual neuts, so most small tackle could get neuted out semi-quick. MJD is more to escape things faster than you that hold a point. Like garmur. MMJD is far from useless on CS though. I've actually had a number of CS with MJD as its too useful not to use. Vulture has over 100km long range, making MJD dunks easy. Damnation can get over 100km lock range with single range rig. So there are definitely fits that could benefit from a MJD bonus. Celestis counter? warp or use MJD for max wisdom Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3394	Posted - 2015.09.20 22:55:14 - [489] - Quote here is a concern which occurred to me while fitting a sentinel actually: all BCs have now the same cap recharge rate, while having different cap pool size. Cap recharge rate however is directly influenced by the cap pool size (just like shield recharge is by the shield buffer). so lets say you put a semiconductor rig on a ferox and one on a harb. The ferox would have a better cap recharge rate than a harb. is this intended? (maybe i miss something obvious - note i also did no math maybe the recharge difference is even not worth mentioning) how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 522	Posted - 2015.09.20 23:49:37 - [490] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month. All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff. Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake. Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery 2745	Posted - 2015.09.21 01:42:54 - [491] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Osprey Navy Issue: 60-90 destroyed per month; ~2.7-4 million per month Yeah, well, there's a massive problem right there with the osprey navy issue, which is the only ship in EVE with literally no point to its existence at all. Oh, besides the Hoarder. Your whole post basically is an argument for keeping the outrageous buffs to the navy Drake (or as I like to call it, the low-SP Nighthawk) because it will cause a huge demand for Caldari LP's and even out matters somewhat. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 193	Posted - 2015.09.21 02:19:03 - [492] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month. All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff. Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake. Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake. A pve ship can be bought and sold ten times over before it gets destroyed - that doesn't help calmil flush their lp. The same way the game needs ISK sinks to get rid of all the new ISK coming into the game, LP markets need LP sinks. It's pretty obvious that in the long run ship losses most definitely drive the demand for faction LP, and at the minute that equates to roughly 3 times as much demand for Gallente LP as there is for Caldari LP. It was my biggest gripe about faction war but not many people understood what I was talking about so I gave up - but ultimately it has a big impact on the warzone: It makes Calmil corps and pilots poorer, it makes it harder for them to attract players and new corps to their side, and it makes it harder to get people to sit in the plexes. I wish the Navy Drake was OP because calmil need something stupidly OP to balance things out, but it's clearly not. Overall it's in a far better place than it was before because it has the speed to dictate range better but they're not about to darken the skies! Overall I think the Fleet Cane looks best and hardly anyone is talking about it. It will be good in small gangs where the tracking bonus and the bigger alpha will help arty fits one shot smaller ships off the field - should be popular in the current meta, and it will work well with Autocannons too. The Navy Brutix just got more hull tank, mobility bufs and the 25% range bonus. People shouldn't write off the 25% range bonus on blasters either because it helps close range ammo apply better in scram range and with long range ammo it allows the blasters to do damage further into disruptor range, along with the mobillity buffs and some decent manual piloting that should make them harder for small ships to kite - so it was already a solid pvp ship and it just got better. In terms of pvp it's a close between Navy Brutix and Navy Drake for second imo, the Drake should be able to keep range if the fight starts at range so the New Navy Drake will be strong. It's got the speed to keep away from better brawlers but it needs that because it doesn't have cap warfare or dps to live with them in scram range, it has more dps from the drones but it's still got the weakest overall dps. It has a decent tank now (awesome tank for pve fits and gang fits without tackle or ewar) but it's lost a big range bonus while all the others gained range. The Navy Harbinger is last imo, even though it's got nice buffs to mobility everything I see it do one of the others, or one of the t1 BC's can do better.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery 2745	Posted - 2015.09.21 03:17:54 - [493] - Quote 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. The biggest issue for the Cyclone is the huge sig radius - 250 - which is only a bit less than a Tempest. Given you have to shield tank the thing, it really is a giant punching bag with mediocre DPS and woeful application of the DPS. 25% missile velocity bonus = 20km Rage HAMs. uh...ok. It is going to be over-run by the Brutix easily, and easily outmaneuvered. its tank is quite weak - the Ferox is going to do it better without the shield HP bonus for repping, given the oversupply of mids. As a buffer fit, it's still going to be OK but it still lacks a midslot for full tackle (scram and web). 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. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels FETID 756	Posted - 2015.09.21 07:12:26 - [494] - Quote 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).
DarkLander Elite pilots Project.Mayhem. 2	Posted - 2015.09.21 09:12:11 - [495] - Quote Good changes, but i think better for Cyclone will be 10% RofFfor lvl BC and -1high slot for +1 mid slot. And i think will be good for Navy Hurricane -1 high slot and +1 mid slot for Shield Fitting ability or electronic slot for armor variant TY!
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 148	Posted - 2015.09.21 09:36:39 - [496] - 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
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels FETID 756	Posted - 2015.09.21 11:59:31 - [497] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: 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. which was my original proposal. That + an extra launcher. However, dropping a high and buffing the RoF bonus means the "Surprise Armour" fit is still viable. (and actually better)
zhang elliott Yulai Heavy Industries 4	Posted - 2015.09.21 13:24:42 - [498] - Quote Overall the changes don't look bad, I guess. But still waiting patiently for a Cov-ops/EWAR type BC.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2224	Posted - 2015.09.21 14:26:16 - [499] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month. All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff. Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake. Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake. I guess navy vexor online for god know all long was ok but navy drake online would be bad...
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 556	Posted - 2015.09.21 16:54:54 - [500] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month. All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff. Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake. Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake. Tiericide also happened in that 4 year window after drakes got dropped/nerfed. The meta is not the same and almost every other ship has been rebalanced for the better. A navy drake MWD'n around will have the sig of a moon. Hop in a BS and shoot it down. You will have the range/tracking/utility to handle it without much issue. Apoc maybe? Will it have a role? The anti-drake. Now if you take a cruiser to a BC fight, then id say working as intended. Same way you dont take a frig gang into a destroyer/t3d gang, unless you have the right gang comp. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Gramps Pljugi Fragile Mortality 6	Posted - 2015.09.21 18:19:58 - [501] - Quote Indeed as someone mentioned earlier on the page, Prophecy and Myrmidon bonus is kind of bad, its said its used to "project damage" with drones on range, but both of those ships are Close-Range brawlers, leave the projection bonuses for other battlecruiser (harby, oracle, talos), and give something else to prophecy and myrmidon so they can actualy be slightly better at what they are nowadays used for, Frontline brawling and tanking..
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 2568	Posted - 2015.09.21 19:42:39 - [502] - Quote Now that combat battlecruisers will be getting role bonuses like destroyers, can CCP finally look at a destroyer-class equivalent of the attack battlecruiser lineup that uses cruiser weapons? Aside from bringing more parity to the battlecruiser and destroyer lineups...I'd kind of be interested in seeing what people would do with a 250mm rail Cormorant-esque glass cannon platform.... Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery 2750	Posted - 2015.09.22 01:14:41 - [503] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: [ which was my original proposal. That + an extra launcher. However, dropping a high and buffing the RoF bonus means the "Surprise Armour" fit is still viable. (and actually better) Fleet Cyclone The velocity bonus as proposed here is OK, insofar as a fleet ship has to be able to project damage. Most people who look at the stats of usage of ships have toruble separating imbalances in ships and weapon systems in the meta (ie; the over-proponderance of Navy Vexor, Gila, ishtar), from prominence based on the ability of a ship to form a "fleet doctrine". Fleet doctrine ships have to have several elements: - maneuverability - tank - damage projection - ISK/DPS/Tank in the sweet spot relative to other choices With the velocity bonus the Cyclone will be able to be buffer-fit effectively and gains damage projection. The "underestimated" claim Fozzie makes is possibly related to true fleet-fit Cyclones where you dispense entirely with tackle, and pile on buffer and T2 rigs. You can get 670DPS and 100K EHP out of a Cyclone, 5 minutes cap with 2 x medium neuts. This is a nasty, nasty ship, and having 25% more missile range will help it project DPS. Kinda. Arguably, it's not really enough projection though. The whole use of that ship that I've found is to be underestimated and get into range of enemy logistics and kill them because no one credits you with being dangerous. You still need to burn into 16km (soon to be 20km) if not 9km to use neuts and apply DPS. In this role the difference in projection is negligible, really as you have to get into neut range anyhow. HML fitting it, your niche disappears. By now you may as well use a Drake if you're going to be dispensing with 150DPS and sitting back tossing missiles. You'll need the EHP the resists get, and no point using a ship where a hull bonus is given over to active tanking, in a fleet situation. Thus the Cyclone remains potentially dangerous if used situationally, for anti-logi brawling. Or, say, dropping it on laser boats or marauders where capacitor is key. But you won't see fleet Cyclones proliferating because by the time you go for damage projection with HML's other ships with the same cost and greater maneuverability begin appearing. Solo Cyclone Now, the Cyclone is set up as a solo brawler ship, due to its bonus to shield boosting. Mostly this is interpreted by the user as "fit an XLASB" but that narrows your flying style down into very restricted space; you especially need to be able to use pills, links and so on. But even so, in the majority of cases the Cyclone sucks or doesn't do so well at this because missiles are really quite apalling for solo work and shield brawling, where you will lack hard tackle. (this is why I say the proposed Ferox is going to dominate it due to fitting a web). It also doesn't help much when your sig radius starts out at stupendous levels and you blow this out even more. So, the Cyclone is a niche ship designed around a fairly rare, narrow gameplay option for people. The missile velocity bonus adds range, so you might be able to flail ineffectually at kiters, but it's still going to die horribly to Gilas, VNI's and ishtars because you won't be able to run them down. For this role, the two highslot utilities are pointless. In fact, ANY utility high is useless, because nos is a crapshoot and for active tanking neuts are a disaster. Smartbombs are cap destroying and worthless (mediums won't knacker Gila drones or Ogres fast enough) so you basically end up tossing PG and CPU into mids and lows or sacrifice to rig penalties (egl CPU -> missile rigs) and end up with pathetic 2 x small neuts "for capping out tackle". Yeah right. Thus, twin utility highs for solo Cyclone theory are extraneous and worthless. It's just a fact CCP Fozzie. Take the shot to your ego, and dump them and adjust hardpoints and slot layout accordingly. Finally, armour surprise Cyclone This is possible, and OK. 1600 plated you get sooo many mids. I ran twin TD, web, scram, MWD. It absolutely murders, eg, the few laser legions i dropped it on. Lessons from the Typhoon The Phoon is also an "underrated" battleship. The reason the phoon does well is Cruise Missiles and application rigs, you can get the cruise missiles behaving like light missiles. This puts it into a very,very dangerous category of ship where you can single-shot MWDing ceptors with cruise missiles (usually two shots). The key is damage application. The Cyclone really needs to have damage application buffs to truly be nasty. A HML Cyclonewith 25% buff to explosion velocity would be a dangerous foe vs AHACs at range. it would be nasty vs T3D's. It would be nasty vs frigs, including garmurs (possibly). HAMs with 25% application, again nasty vs AHACs and with javs versus kiting cruisers. Please consider, CCP Fozzie. please consider. if you do this, Cyclones will be avoided like the plague by the current meta of link-wh0re Confessor-Svipuls and kitefaq meta. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.09.22 05:50:15 - [504] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Deacon Abox wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month. All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff. Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake. Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake. A pve ship can be bought and sold ten times over before it gets destroyed - that doesn't help calmil flush their lp. The same way the game needs ISK sinks to get rid of all the new ISK coming into the game, LP markets need LP sinks. It's pretty obvious that in the long run ship losses most definitely drive the demand for faction LP, and at the minute that equates to roughly 3 times as much demand for Gallente LP as there is for Caldari LP. It was my biggest gripe about faction war but not many people understood what I was talking about so I gave up - but ultimately it has a big impact on the warzone: It makes Calmil corps and pilots poorer, it makes it harder for them to attract players and new corps to their side, and it makes it harder to get people to sit in the plexes. I wish the Navy Drake was OP because calmil need something stupidly OP to balance things out, but it's clearly not. Overall it's in a far better place than it was before because it has the speed to dictate range better but they're not about to darken the skies! Overall I think the Fleet Cane looks best and hardly anyone is talking about it. It will be good in small gangs where the tracking bonus and the bigger alpha will help arty fits one shot smaller ships off the field - should be popular in the current meta, and it will work well with Autocannons too. The Navy Brutix just got more hull tank, mobility bufs and the 25% range bonus. People shouldn't write off the 25% range bonus on blasters either because it helps close range ammo apply better in scram range and with long range ammo it allows the blasters to do damage further into disruptor range, along with the mobillity buffs and some decent manual piloting that should make them harder for small ships to kite - so it was already a solid pvp ship and it just got better. In terms of pvp it's a close between Navy Brutix and Navy Drake for second imo, the Drake should be able to keep range if the fight starts at range so the New Navy Drake will be strong. It's got the speed to keep away from better brawlers but it needs that because it doesn't have cap warfare or dps to live with them in scram range, it has more dps from the drones but it's still got the weakest overall dps. It has a decent tank now (awesome tank for pve fits and gang fits without tackle or ewar) but it's lost a big range bonus while all the others gained range. The Navy Harbinger is last imo, even though it's got nice buffs to mobility everything I see it do one of the others, or one of the t1 BC's can do better. Are these changes even live on Sisi? the hard critique seems out of place until it's tested. Hopefully for longer than 3 days like the new missile module "buffs".
Gramps Pljugi Fragile Mortality 6	Posted - 2015.09.22 06:23:49 - [505] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: Deacon Abox wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month. All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff. Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake. Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake. A pve ship can be bought and sold ten times over before it gets destroyed - that doesn't help calmil flush their lp. The same way the game needs ISK sinks to get rid of all the new ISK coming into the game, LP markets need LP sinks. It's pretty obvious that in the long run ship losses most definitely drive the demand for faction LP, and at the minute that equates to roughly 3 times as much demand for Gallente LP as there is for Caldari LP. It was my biggest gripe about faction war but not many people understood what I was talking about so I gave up - but ultimately it has a big impact on the warzone: It makes Calmil corps and pilots poorer, it makes it harder for them to attract players and new corps to their side, and it makes it harder to get people to sit in the plexes. I wish the Navy Drake was OP because calmil need something stupidly OP to balance things out, but it's clearly not. Overall it's in a far better place than it was before because it has the speed to dictate range better but they're not about to darken the skies! Overall I think the Fleet Cane looks best and hardly anyone is talking about it. It will be good in small gangs where the tracking bonus and the bigger alpha will help arty fits one shot smaller ships off the field - should be popular in the current meta, and it will work well with Autocannons too. The Navy Brutix just got more hull tank, mobility bufs and the 25% range bonus. People shouldn't write off the 25% range bonus on blasters either because it helps close range ammo apply better in scram range and with long range ammo it allows the blasters to do damage further into disruptor range, along with the mobillity buffs and some decent manual piloting that should make them harder for small ships to kite - so it was already a solid pvp ship and it just got better. In terms of pvp it's a close between Navy Brutix and Navy Drake for second imo, the Drake should be able to keep range if the fight starts at range so the New Navy Drake will be strong. It's got the speed to keep away from better brawlers but it needs that because it doesn't have cap warfare or dps to live with them in scram range, it has more dps from the drones but it's still got the weakest overall dps. It has a decent tank now (awesome tank for pve fits and gang fits without tackle or ewar) but it's lost a big range bonus while all the others gained range. The Navy Harbinger is last imo, even though it's got nice buffs to mobility everything I see it do one of the others, or one of the t1 BC's can do better. Are these changes even live on Sisi? the hard critique seems out of place until it's tested. Hopefully for longer than 3 days like the new missile module "buffs". I like how everything is nicely outlined and in place with the buffs and the guy solidly explained on what and where with the ships buffed, though he did not mention anything about Myrmidon and Prophecy, i wonder why?
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 194	Posted - 2015.09.22 06:27:59 - [506] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Are these changes even live on Sisi? the hard critique seems out of place until it's tested. Hopefully for longer than 3 days like the new missile module "buffs". It's not a hard critique I prefixed everything with "possibly, imo, or I think" these are just my impressions, and it's hardly out of place on a feedback thread.
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 194	Posted - 2015.09.22 06:30:15 - [507] - Quote Gramps Pljugi wrote: I like how everything is nicely outlined and in place with the buffs and the guy solidly explained on what and where with the ships buffed, though he did not mention anything about Myrmidon and Prophecy, i wonder why? because I was just talking about the faction ships and the myrm and prophecy aren't Navy ships.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 168	Posted - 2015.09.22 07:49:04 - [508] - Quote 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. The biggest issue for the Cyclone is the huge sig radius - 250 - which is only a bit less than a Tempest. Given you have to shield tank the thing, it really is a giant punching bag with mediocre DPS and woeful application of the DPS. 25% missile velocity bonus = 20km Rage HAMs. uh...ok. It is going to be over-run by the Brutix easily, and easily outmaneuvered. its tank is quite weak - the Ferox is going to do it better without the shield HP bonus for repping, given the oversupply of mids. As a buffer fit, it's still going to be OK but it still lacks a midslot for full tackle (scram and web). 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. Yes to the 1 utility high to the mid, no to the extra launcher. No one would fly drakes if the Cyclone had 6 launchers and a non-damage locked damage bonus to go with it. I do think that HAMs should get a very slight damage application buff though.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 908	Posted - 2015.09.22 22:43:40 - [509] - Quote Test server feedback: The agility and mobility buff is a gift from god, thank you fozzie. Navy drake and Navy cane finally good ships. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Lili Andedare Fast Furious and Dead 371	Posted - 2015.09.23 05:33:08 - [510] - Quote bullshit

Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1063	Posted - 2015.09.23 06:03:11 - [511] - Quote Lili Andedare wrote: bullshit Care to elaborate? Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 6382	Posted - 2015.09.23 06:41:40 - [512] - Quote Removed some profanity. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 557	Posted - 2015.09.23 12:50:10 - [513] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: Test server feedback: The agility and mobility buff is a gift from god, thank you fozzie. Navy drake and Navy cane finally good ships. I took the navy drake out and fit my current fleet cane up to the new setup and.. yea, things are going to be awesome. The cane feels more agile and is a bit faster (1600-1700m/s cold, compared to 1500m/s), and i can drop an ACR with my current fit for a different rig. Drake feels agile and is decently fast with a single nano (1500m/s cold). I think it will fill a good fleet role, being able to be semi fast and project with HML w/ application bonus. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 910	Posted - 2015.09.23 15:22:54 - [514] - Quote My initial feedback stands by the way, if command ships are supposed to be something more than overtanked FC boats without guns or station hugging offgrid boosters then they need a rework done. As it is now the t1 Battlecruisers (especially navy BCs) will obsolete them as combat ships. Not as much due to raw stats and bonuses, but navy BCs are a much more well rounded package than command ships are. Offensive wise navy BCs are almost as good as command ships with for example the Harbinger Navy Issue being clearly superior to the Absolution as it has a projection AND application bonus while the Absolution just gets a tiny bit of more raw damage on top. However the Harbinger Navy Issue gets much better mobility which isnt just good in combat but also makes travelling a lot more bearable. EDIT We had this happen with the t1 Cruiser rebalance before, when t1 Cruisers obsoleted HACs in the meta, not being superior in direct comparison but being the better overall package. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2236	Posted - 2015.09.23 17:00:22 - [515] - Quote Baali Tekitsu wrote: My initial feedback stands by the way, if command ships are supposed to be something more than overtanked FC boats without guns or station hugging offgrid boosters then they need a rework done. As it is now the t1 Battlecruisers (especially navy BCs) will obsolete them as combat ships. Not as much due to raw stats and bonuses, but navy BCs are a much more well rounded package than command ships are. Offensive wise navy BCs are almost as good as command ships with for example the Harbinger Navy Issue being clearly superior to the Absolution as it has a projection AND application bonus while the Absolution just gets a tiny bit of more raw damage on top. However the Harbinger Navy Issue gets much better mobility which isnt just good in combat but also makes travelling a lot more bearable. EDIT We had this happen with the t1 Cruiser rebalance before, when t1 Cruisers obsoleted HACs in the meta, not being superior in direct comparison but being the better overall package. I'm in support of this but care should be used because I don't think anyone want any Ishtar like situation where a ship from a changed class just outshine many different class all by itself.
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 523	Posted - 2015.09.23 22:53:14 - [516] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: I guess navy vexor online for god know all long was ok but navy drake online would be bad... Yes. Considering there was a never a vexor navy online. The navy vexor is a good ship, but it does not and never has constituted a complete fleet comp. 3 years though of Drakes Online, with that ship at the top of the pvp kill stats by at least double the second place ship, was very very bad. Any time of Navy Drakes Online would just be adding insult to injury. Stitch Kaneland wrote: Tiericide also happened in that 4 year window after drakes got dropped/nerfed. The meta is not the same and almost every other ship has been rebalanced for the better. A navy drake MWD'n around will have the sig of a moon. Hop in a BS and shoot it down. You will have the range/tracking/utility to handle it without much issue. Apoc maybe? Will it have a role? The anti-drake. Now if you take a cruiser to a BC fight, then id say working as intended. Same way you dont take a frig gang into a destroyer/t3d gang, unless you have the right gang comp. We shall see. Since judging by past performance, at this point the proposed changes will become the changes. Wonder if Fozzie is even still reading this thread. Funny you should mention different ship classes since you appear to have no problem with the Navy Drake counter requiring an upship to a BS Apoc or Napoc. Btw, Apocs were used as a counter to the regular T1 drake blobs of 3 years ago or whenever. Fourteen Maken wrote: A pve ship can be bought and sold ten times over before it gets destroyed - that doesn't help calmil flush their lp. The same way the game needs ISK sinks to get rid of all the new ISK coming into the game, LP markets need LP sinks. It's pretty obvious that in the long run ship losses most definitely drive the demand for faction LP, and at the minute that equates to roughly 3 times as much demand for Gallente LP as there is for Caldari LP. It was my biggest gripe about faction war but not many people understood what I was talking about so I gave up - but ultimately it has a big impact on the warzone: It makes Calmil corps and pilots poorer, it makes it harder for them to attract players and new corps to their side, and it makes it harder to get people to sit in the plexes. I wish the Navy Drake was OP because calmil need something stupidly OP to balance things out, but it's clearly not. Overall it's in a far better place than it was before because it has the speed to dictate range better but they're not about to darken the skies! Overall I think the Fleet Cane looks best and hardly anyone is talking about it. It will be good in small gangs where the tracking bonus and the bigger alpha will help arty fits one shot smaller ships off the field - should be popular in the current meta, and it will work well with Autocannons too. The Navy Brutix just got more hull tank, mobility bufs and the 25% range bonus. People shouldn't write off the 25% range bonus on blasters either because it helps close range ammo apply better in scram range and with long range ammo it allows the blasters to do damage further into disruptor range, along with the mobillity buffs and some decent manual piloting that should make them harder for small ships to kite - so it was already a solid pvp ship and it just got better. In terms of pvp it's a close between Navy Brutix and Navy Drake for second imo, the Drake should be able to keep range if the fight starts at range so the New Navy Drake will be strong. It's got the speed to keep away from better brawlers but it needs that because it doesn't have cap warfare or dps to live with them in scram range, it has more dps from the drones but it's still got the weakest overall dps. It has a decent tank now (awesome tank for pve fits and gang fits without tackle or ewar) but it's lost a big range bonus while all the others gained range. The Navy Harbinger is last imo, even though it's got nice buffs to mobility everything I see it do one of the others, or one of the t1 BC's can do better. You are correct that Navy Drakes and Fleet Canes will be the big demand ships because they can make valid fleet comps for pvp. The Navy Brutix and Navy Harb are **** in comparison I agree. You complain though about Comets and Navy Vexors. They don't make large fleet comps though and so even if they sell better for solo or small gang pvp they cannot equal the demand a large fleet comp capable ship has. Also, I think you underestimate the pve market. As I said it is healthy in a different manner than pvp ships are due to pvp losses. Pve favored ships find a continuing stream of buyers. Some of these are new casual highsec missioners. This is how Navy Ravens continue to sell even as they are rarely used in pvp and suffer very few pvp losses. Likewise Drakes and Navy Drakes will continue to sell extremely well for wormhole pve due to the ridiculous passive tanking abilities. An ability few other ships can match and those that can match or exceed in this all have a larger pricetag. Lastly, BCs are not soloing ships. So to talk about hypothetical one on one battles between these ships to miss the point. It is all about whether a ship can make a fleet comp, or whether it can stupidly sit like a tanking brick and missile spew in pve content, that will determine the number of sales. Navy Drakes will do both and too well. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Maraner The Executioners Shadow Cartel 319	Posted - 2015.09.23 23:26:50 - [517] - Quote Is CCP still monitoring this thread? seeing lots of good points. For myself IGÇÖd like to say a big thank you for the upcoming BC buff. It is most welcome and needed. As part of the battlecruiser rebalance and in the spirit of CCP looking at past changes that may not have worked out well and revising them where applicable I would like to humbly ask for the warp speed of BCGÇÖs and BBGÇÖs be re-examined. I believe that most of us welcomed the increased warp speed of the smaller ships in the game, and the addition of warp faster clones, rigs and low slot warp speed modules was a nice addition to the depth that EVE has. It did however come at a cost of a speed nerf to many of the most enjoyed and frequently flown ship classes in the game namely battlecruisers and battleships. I would therefore like to suggest that BC (and BB) warp speeds are returned to a base of 3.0 I have no issue with smaller ships going faster, all power to them but please un nerf / buff the warp speeds to these classes of ships. It is a giant pain in the arse when you are on a roam when half of your fleet is getting left behind. It discourages mixed ship composition of fleets. This is part of the reason why fleets have become so generic. Thanks
Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 419	Posted - 2015.09.24 01:54:11 - [518] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: You are correct that Navy Drakes and Fleet Canes will be the big demand ships because they can make valid fleet comps for pvp. The Navy Brutix and Navy Harb are **** in comparison I agree. You complain though about Comets and Navy Vexors. They don't make large fleet comps though and so even if they sell better for solo or small gang pvp they cannot equal the demand a large fleet comp capable ship has. I am unconvinced that any faction battle cruiser would ever make a decent large scale fleet concept, especially the fleet cane. The cost of faction battle cruisers puts them in competition with battleships and hacs. I think if you compared navy canes to muninns they would be embarrassed as a fleet concept. I don't think that navy drakes would do so much better than normal drakes to justify the huge price increase, and I still think they would get their teeth kicked in by any of the more standard fleets that sport 200m line ships. So no, I don't see any of these becoming the next new fleet concept. The benefit of faction battle cruisers is in small gang work where they take advantage of their large tanks and good damage application to push through other small gangs, not putting them in max sized fleets where damage application takes a back seat to range. Not a professional fleet designer though, so what do I know.
Jed Airtech Australian Belt Strippers Apocalypse Now. 0	Posted - 2015.09.24 04:23:37 - [519] - Quote Nerfing something because it is popular to use is such a ill-thought idea. Here's how I imagine the people at CCP think things through: Quote: "Let's see now... what do people like to do in our game? OK YES, let's nerf that" "Next item for discussion: Why are we losing subscriptions?" If all of your development time is spent destroying the things people like to do, then do not be surprised when people do not like to play.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 560	Posted - 2015.09.24 05:42:38 - [520] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Funny you should mention different ship classes since you appear to have no problem with the Navy Drake counter requiring an upship to a BS Apoc or Napoc. Btw, Apocs were used as a counter to the regular T1 drake blobs of 3 years ago or whenever. Battleships have always been the proper counter to BC's, its just BC's have been outclassed for so long, people stopped flying them. Hence the lull in BS activity outside of specific doctrine fits. Cruisers countered BC's far more effectively since they had range/projection/speed to stay outside of a BC's range and still apply damage (not to mention far cheaper than a BS). Or they could out brawl them in the case of a deimos/vaga/sac etc. So if Apoc's countered them years ago, does it not make sense they will still continue to counter them? A BS countering a BC, seems to working as intended like i mentioned. Apoc and navy drake prices are comparable, but a BS will insure far better than a faction BC. I can't see how having more BC's on field is a bad thing. It will bring cruiser blobs in line, and when BC blobs start happening, then BS can come out and stretch their legs. Heavy neuts, high dps, good projection, MJD, there are plenty of tools there to counter these ships. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 560	Posted - 2015.09.24 05:52:49 - [521] - Quote Ersahi Kir wrote: Deacon Abox wrote: You are correct that Navy Drakes and Fleet Canes will be the big demand ships because they can make valid fleet comps for pvp. The Navy Brutix and Navy Harb are **** in comparison I agree. You complain though about Comets and Navy Vexors. They don't make large fleet comps though and so even if they sell better for solo or small gang pvp they cannot equal the demand a large fleet comp capable ship has. I am unconvinced that any faction battle cruiser would ever make a decent large scale fleet concept, especially the fleet cane. The cost of faction battle cruisers puts them in competition with battleships and hacs. I think if you compared navy canes to muninns they would be embarrassed as a fleet concept. I don't think that navy drakes would do so much better than normal drakes to justify the huge price increase, and I still think they would get their teeth kicked in by any of the more standard fleets that sport 200m line ships. So no, I don't see any of these becoming the next new fleet concept. The benefit of faction battle cruisers is in small gang work where they take advantage of their large tanks and good damage application to push through other small gangs, not putting them in max sized fleets where damage application takes a back seat to range. Not a professional fleet designer though, so what do I know. Actually the new fleet cane will blow a muninn out of the water as a doctrine fit. Shield fit cane will have double the EHP of shield fit Muninn (which is the last doctrine i saw for alpha muninns). The fleet cane will have more tracking than the muninn and with a combined 25% optimal/falloff bonus, will have very similar projection, but much larger alpha. The cane has 6 turrets + 50% alpha, whereas the Muninn has 5 turrets + 25% alpha and RoF. DPS will be less on the cane, but alpha will be considerably more. Navy drakes can utilize omni damage, where as T1 drakes are stuck with T1. A drake fleet would get murdered by an ishtar/vulture/tengu doctrine. Not saying a navy drake would fair better, but at least it could shoot into their resist holes. Small gang would have a role for it as well, since its fairly quick/agile, and paired with MJD + HML, could be decent with proper support. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Jed Airtech Australian Belt Strippers Apocalypse Now. 1	Posted - 2015.09.24 06:46:41 - [522] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: [quote=Ersahi Kir][quote=Deacon Abox] Cry more. This is a thread about BC buffs, no nerfs. Not to mention CCP isn't nerfing ships because they're popular, its because they are overpowered and breaking ship balance/variety. Pull your head out of your ass and understand there is more going on than your Level 4 mission runner and your isk/hr ratio. Please direct your self-entitled whine somewhere else. Hey calm down dude, please direct your aggression somewhere else. By admission in this thread, CCP does in fact balance ships so that popular ones are used less. When you buff everything more than something else, I would say you have effectively nerfed the thing that got less buffed (but I can see how that is totally debatable).
Yngvar ayShorn Einheit X-6 477	Posted - 2015.09.24 06:50:35 - [523] - Quote CCP Fozzie, do you look at this thread anymore? Maybe, could you give us some feedback about the requestet "Cyclone needs some more love"-thing? Cyclone wasn't used much, checked. After rebalance, Cyclone won't be used much. Incomming check. By design? 30 Tage EVE testen! -->> Klick mich <<--
widgetman Widgetland 9	Posted - 2015.09.24 07:06:50 - [524] - Quote I do not see any changes to the Gnosis? They state that all Battlecrusiers are being buffed? This BC is very slow compared to the others.....just my Two Penneth worth :)
Jezza McWaffle Isogen 5 248	Posted - 2015.09.24 07:44:14 - [525] - Quote I've looked at some of these changes now in Pyfa so I can get an idea of what is viable and what isn't. The tank on the Navy Drake (shield) and the Navy Brutix (hull) is insane, and I think the other ships need to be buffed slightly in base HP to compensate, when you can easily hit the 100K mark on the Navy Drake yet the Harb for instance lacks behind massively it feels at odd ends. The Fleet Cane needs more PG and especially CPU in my opinion, I had trouble getting an arty fit to work that included any tank, and thats without putting anything in the 2 spare highs, and with an armour auto fit I had exactly the same problem. The regular Harb feels like it could do with a slight PG buff (maybe by +60) to make beams viable, it can get a semi decent fit with Pulses but it doesn't feel like any difference before the buffs. Edit: Just to add, I do think more PG and CPU buffs to all the ships would increase the viability and flexibility. Obviously some ships need more buffs than others. EVE's worst badass
Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 420	Posted - 2015.09.24 07:54:01 - [526] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Actually the new fleet cane will blow a muninn out of the water as a doctrine fit. Shield fit cane will have double the EHP of shield fit Muninn (which is the last doctrine i saw for alpha muninns). The fleet cane will have more tracking than the muninn and with a combined 25% optimal/falloff bonus, will have very similar projection, but much larger alpha. The cane has 6 turrets + 50% alpha, whereas the Muninn has 5 turrets + 25% alpha and RoF. DPS will be less on the cane, but alpha will be considerably more. Navy drakes can utilize omni damage, where as T1 drakes are stuck with kinetic damage. A drake fleet would get murdered by an ishtar/vulture/tengu doctrine. Not saying a navy drake would fair better, but at least it could shoot into their resist holes. Small gang would have a role for it as well, since its fairly quick/agile, and paired with MJD + HML, could be decent with proper support. I understand the points you're trying to make, but I disagree with your conclusion. I don't see enough additional performance in the fleet ships over the tech 1 battle cruisers to justify the additional cost. I see tracking bonuses as mostly wasted as fleet engagements tend to happen at ranges where tracking isn't going to be a major issue. I would agree with what some people said earlier about the ship that's going to come out of this as a fleet concept being the ferox, but it's not going to be the go to sov war fleet.
Alek Row Silent Step 53	Posted - 2015.09.24 11:17:39 - [527] - Quote I know this problem is not new - the low/high fitting costs of acs/arties There are lots of minmatar ships where an arty fit is very difficult to achieve without too many fitting mods. Also, everybody needs a tank, some races have to install fitting mods just to install guns and a mwd, the race that benefits the most with hull rigs doesn't need ONE fitting mod to get their guns and mwd running, not one, and they are not only sporting a 60% tank across the board but also also have all mids and lows to play with whatever they want. Pretty please, think of a penalty for those hull rigs.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 561	Posted - 2015.09.24 13:09:06 - [528] - Quote Ersahi Kir wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Actually the new fleet cane will blow a muninn out of the water as a doctrine fit. Shield fit cane will have double the EHP of shield fit Muninn (which is the last doctrine i saw for alpha muninns). The fleet cane will have more tracking than the muninn and with a combined 25% optimal/falloff bonus, will have very similar projection, but much larger alpha. The cane has 6 turrets + 50% alpha, whereas the Muninn has 5 turrets + 25% alpha and RoF. DPS will be less on the cane, but alpha will be considerably more. Navy drakes can utilize omni damage, where as T1 drakes are stuck with kinetic damage. A drake fleet would get murdered by an ishtar/vulture/tengu doctrine. Not saying a navy drake would fair better, but at least it could shoot into their resist holes. Small gang would have a role for it as well, since its fairly quick/agile, and paired with MJD + HML, could be decent with proper support. I understand the points you're trying to make, but I disagree with your conclusion. I don't see enough additional performance in the fleet ships over the tech 1 battle cruisers to justify the additional cost. I see tracking bonuses as mostly wasted as fleet engagements tend to happen at ranges where tracking isn't going to be a major issue. I would agree with what some people said earlier about the ship that's going to come out of this as a fleet concept being the ferox, but it's not going to be the go to sov war fleet. So the 25% more alpha, 50% more tracking, and more EHP over t1 doesn't add up to "additional performance" for you? Combine those bonuses with the 25% optimal/fall-off. It will already knock the muninn out for being the better alpha doctrine, and is about the same price. Muninn is around 130m, and fleet cane is about 150m. The thing with the fleet cane though, is if an alliance has members in FW who farm LP, they can get them even cheaper (around 80m). Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2237	Posted - 2015.09.24 13:24:28 - [529] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Ersahi Kir wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Actually the new fleet cane will blow a muninn out of the water as a doctrine fit. Shield fit cane will have double the EHP of shield fit Muninn (which is the last doctrine i saw for alpha muninns). The fleet cane will have more tracking than the muninn and with a combined 25% optimal/falloff bonus, will have very similar projection, but much larger alpha. The cane has 6 turrets + 50% alpha, whereas the Muninn has 5 turrets + 25% alpha and RoF. DPS will be less on the cane, but alpha will be considerably more. Navy drakes can utilize omni damage, where as T1 drakes are stuck with kinetic damage. A drake fleet would get murdered by an ishtar/vulture/tengu doctrine. Not saying a navy drake would fair better, but at least it could shoot into their resist holes. Small gang would have a role for it as well, since its fairly quick/agile, and paired with MJD + HML, could be decent with proper support. I understand the points you're trying to make, but I disagree with your conclusion. I don't see enough additional performance in the fleet ships over the tech 1 battle cruisers to justify the additional cost. I see tracking bonuses as mostly wasted as fleet engagements tend to happen at ranges where tracking isn't going to be a major issue. I would agree with what some people said earlier about the ship that's going to come out of this as a fleet concept being the ferox, but it's not going to be the go to sov war fleet. So the 25% more alpha, 50% more tracking, and more EHP over t1 doesn't add up to "additional performance" for you? Combine those bonuses with the 25% optimal/fall-off. It will already knock the muninn out for being the better alpha doctrine, and is about the same price. Muninn is around 130m, and fleet cane is about 150m. The thing with the fleet cane though, is if an alliance has members in FW who farm LP, they can get them even cheaper (around 80m). How cheaper you can get them might rely a lot on how much more used it gets and that is valid for all the navy BC receiving a buff right now. Feeding the soon to be increased market will drive LP demand up unless something else's demand drop. Unless you make your member "farm it for free"...
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2238	Posted - 2015.09.24 13:28:21 - [530] - Quote Alek Row wrote: I know this problem is not new - the low/high fitting costs of acs/arties There are lots of minmatar ships where an arty fit is very difficult to achieve without too many fitting mods. Also, everybody needs a tank, some races have to install fitting mods just to install guns and a mwd, the race that benefits the most with hull rigs doesn't need ONE fitting mod to get their guns and mwd running, not one, and they are not only sporting a 60% tank across the board but also also have all mids and lows to play with whatever they want. Pretty please, think of a penalty for those hull rigs. Hull tanking require less modules but also offer less options. You can't self rep worth **** and logi support is also impossible. It's good for short term engagement with repair facility available close by. It's bad for other stuff like roaming in space where you can't dock or long engagement where the DPS will end up eating that large buffer over time anyway.

Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 420	Posted - 2015.09.24 14:12:47 - [531] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: So the 25% more alpha, 50% more tracking, and more EHP over t1 doesn't add up to "additional performance" for you? Combine those bonuses with the 25% optimal/fall-off. It will already knock the muninn out for being the better alpha doctrine, and is about the same price. Muninn is around 130m, and fleet cane is about 150m. The thing with the fleet cane though, is if an alliance has members in FW who farm LP, they can get them even cheaper (around 80m). Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. In fleet fights the EHP is nice, but if you're resists aren't good the logi support isn't going to catch reps on you. Battle cruisers also have a large sig radius which makes them far more vulnerable to bombs. The cane has a 50% tracking bonus, but the muninn has 37.5% bonus so it's not like it's getting blown out of the water there. The alpha fleet doctrine has also been out of style since medium rails and sentry drones took over. I don't know why you got into the FW farm part. Large alliances don't care if you farmed for the ship or not, they're going to pay SRP based on the difference between the hull cost and the insurance payout. For battleships this cost difference is easy to cover, for T2 and faction ships it's harder. If a titans worth of SRP goes into the field you had better believe that it better outperform what it may come up against. If a fleet cane doctrine did come up I can guarantee that they wouldn't remain at 150m. We're talking about thousands of ships to get the doctrine up with hundreds of replacements for losses a week. I know that when the tempest fleet issue was a doctrine ship the cost went significantly up, and that was a doctrine that was held in reserve and not used much.
gascanu Bearing Srl. 249	Posted - 2015.09.24 16:09:36 - [532] - Quote patch notes are out, soo.... what can i say, another great example of using player feedback? op success?
Alek Row Silent Step 53	Posted - 2015.09.24 16:10:06 - [533] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Hull tanking require less modules but also offer less options. You can't self rep worth **** and logi support is also impossible. It's good for short term engagement with repair facility available close by. It's bad for other stuff like roaming in space where you can't dock or long engagement where the DPS will end up eating that large buffer over time anyway. In reality, thanks to better pg/cpu, a secondary tank is also possible. I understand the problems in fleet/null but I think it is a bit to much. Maybe it made sense when nobody used railguns, now it looks more like the cherry on top. If you take into account not only null sec and fleet work, does the arty alpha justifies the heavy fiting costs? And is the cargo space an enough drawback to hull rigs? Honest question, I may be wrong and not seeing the whole picture. o7
Faren Shalni Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 151	Posted - 2015.09.24 16:42:42 - [534] - Quote gascanu wrote: patch notes are out, soo.... what can i say, another great example of using player feedback? op success? I saw the patch notes and just facepalmed......lets hope nothing ends up being too strong otherwise it will be another few years before its fixed also why is it I need fitting mods to fit beams and arty's So Much Space
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2239	Posted - 2015.09.24 16:51:53 - [535] - Quote Alek Row wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Hull tanking require less modules but also offer less options. You can't self rep worth **** and logi support is also impossible. It's good for short term engagement with repair facility available close by. It's bad for other stuff like roaming in space where you can't dock or long engagement where the DPS will end up eating that large buffer over time anyway. In reality, thanks to better pg/cpu, a secondary tank is also possible. I understand the problems in fleet/null but I think it is a bit to much. Maybe it made sense when nobody used railguns, now it looks more like the cherry on top. If you take into account not only null sec and fleet work, does the arty alpha justifies the heavy fiting costs? And is the cargo space an enough drawback to hull rigs? Honest question, I may be wrong and not seeing the whole picture. o7 I think part of the issue comes from how many ship fot the hull tank module (DCU) anyway because of how good it is which then make the hull tanking ships feel a bit like they didn't even take that slot because there would be a DCU there anyway. The tank gain to fitting cost ratio is rather high.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1743	Posted - 2015.09.24 17:53:26 - [536] - Quote Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
Gramps Pljugi Fragile Mortality 7	Posted - 2015.09.24 19:32:31 - [537] - Quote Feels like talking to a wall, CCP please do consider reiterating the buffs on prophecy and myrmidon, they are frontline brawlers and tanks, they engage in close range, the mwd bonus on drone speed is useless 95% of the fights that will happen.. I fly prophecy and myrm a lot and considering the other ships, their main buff is useless... While I do understand you do not want to overpower the boats please do reconsider and give them something they can actually use in a role they are most used in..
Alek Row Silent Step 53	Posted - 2015.09.24 21:17:49 - [538] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead. I really don't agree that they are well-balanced. With time this may be a topic to be reviewed (or not). The other question: mwd + arties = fitting mods mwd + railguns = still lots of powergrid to play with mwd + beams = ? In the arties case, the alpha is big, but it have lower dps, isn't that enough to keep it in check?
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1379	Posted - 2015.09.25 01:50:21 - [539] - Quote I had a chance to play around with the DNI today. It's a little light on CPU with HMLs. Needs 2x Overclocker rigs and perfect fitting skills just to fit it with 8 launchers, long point, Quad-LiF MWD, MGC, 2x hardeners, L-ASB, 3x BCS, and meta 4 DC. Leaves only 1 rigging slot available. So I put medium aux thruster I rig in to make it faster. Fit was actually more than viable. Decent range (locking range was limited because no links available at the time. Could run the MWD pretty much continuously. Did decent damage with good application. Could tank well enough to kite for a bit then close in for the finish. (Barring any surprise hull tanks.) The enlarged drone bay was a big help in the dps department since it lacks any dps bonuses. But it heats the launchers like no tomorrow. Burned them out twice. I was also able to 1-shot an orbitting whiptail using MGC with precision script and precision mjolnir heavies. Application on this thing is really good. And it has the option of swapping to fury ammo for bigger targets. The resist bonus is a big help for survivability. And the improved manuverability/agility allowed me to slingshot out of tackle easily. Cap is an issue if you are running everything. But running just the MWD and hardeners is not a problem. It can MWD around for quite a while. But turn on that long point and ouch. Like most Caldari ships it is vulnerable to neuts. But you shouldn't be running into neut range with this right off the bat anyway. And you can exchange the MGC for a cap booster. But the added application from the MGC is really strong on top of the hull application bonus. Its a pretty solid ship now if you have the skills to fit it. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Mario Putzo 1518	Posted - 2015.09.25 04:12:08 - [540] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead. No its not really comparable at all to shield or armor. To hull tank you have to pretty much give up your lows and rigs. EHP bonuses from hull boosting modules are not on the same level of Shield or Armor, especially considering the Resist boosting options available to these other tanks...sure DC is nice, but it also boost Shield and Armor independent of other resist mods so... Adding on to the fact its already providing a reduced raw HP, and reduced EHP from additional mods (while sacrificing Damage modules, or utility modules) hull repair is well below the threshold of Shield or Armor repair...and non existent in Remote Logistics Repair and it is clearly inferior to armor or shield tanking by a very very large margin in any sort of group play.

Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 518	Posted - 2015.09.25 06:01:57 - [541] - Quote Sorry if it was already said but could we have 5 turrets slots (bonusless) on Cyclone please. Adding Rapids to ships HAM & HM would be also great.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2260	Posted - 2015.09.25 17:02:05 - [542] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: Sorry if it was already said but could we have 5 turrets slots (bonusless) on Cyclone please. Adding Rapids to ships HAM & HM would be also great. It's not meant to use guns so no.
Yasuo Aldent Hammer of Hephaestus Reign of Olympus 0	Posted - 2015.09.25 17:30:35 - [543] - Quote I'm definitely liking the drone speed buffs. Though, I'm curious since it was mentioned that it was a buff to "drone microwarpdrive" speed if it's literally a buff to how fast drones get to their targets, not how fast they orbit the target (as drones orbit targets MUCH slower than they reach said target). If this is the case then tracking isn't much of an issue. Also, I'm loving this buff since I can get my precious drones out of the way of those pesky sleeper frigates that apparently can hit your little drone from 30km away while it's traveling at close to 5km per second.
Yasuo Aldent Hammer of Hephaestus Reign of Olympus 0	Posted - 2015.09.25 17:39:16 - [544] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead. No its not really comparable at all to shield or armor. To hull tank you have to pretty much give up your lows and rigs. EHP bonuses from hull boosting modules are not on the same level of Shield or Armor, especially considering the Resist boosting options available to these other tanks...sure DC is nice, but it also boost Shield and Armor independent of other resist mods so... Adding on to the fact its already providing a reduced EHP from additional mods (while sacrificing Damage modules, or utility modules) hull repair is well below the threshold of Shield or Armor repair...and non existent in Remote Logistics Repair and it is clearly inferior to armor or shield tanking by a very very large margin in any sort of group play. Make Gallente ships specialize in hull tanking. WIth their already good chunk of structure HP they would make great hull tanking candidates. Just swap all the armor bonuses to hull and maybe give a role bonus to all gal ships to decrease CPU usage of hull reppers and buffer mods (excluding DC). This would make gal ships differently fitting than all the three other races which would be better to be honest since gal armor tanking is currently pretty much a copy of amarr armor tanking, While Minmatar ships are fit nothing like any of the other races. Aka. Gallente - Hull, Caldari - Shield, Amarr - Armor, Minmatar - kitchen sink/speed
Gramps Pljugi Fragile Mortality 8	Posted - 2015.09.25 19:25:40 - [545] - Quote So while everyone is praising the buffs to all the other ships Myrm and Prophecy will be left collecting dust for probably years to come, since their buff as i stated is not as good as the other ships... Thanks balance team, i have no idea what stats you used to pull out this bonus from, must be from all of those Rail myrmidons on the killboards that snipe from 60km, also the heavy missile/beam laser prophecys that also snipe from very far so they need drones to reach to target 50/60km away faster to apply the dps.. Pointless, just plain pointless......
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 561	Posted - 2015.09.25 20:14:03 - [546] - Quote Gramps Pljugi wrote: So while everyone is praising the buffs to all the other ships Myrm and Prophecy will be left collecting dust for probably years to come, since their buff as i stated is not as good as the other ships... Thanks balance team, i have no idea what stats you used to pull out this bonus from, must be from all of those Rail myrmidons on the killboards that snipe from 60km, also the heavy missile/beam laser prophecys that also snipe from very far so they need drones to reach to target 50/60km away faster to apply the dps.. Pointless, just plain pointless...... What are you talking about? Myrm/proph were the most common/powerful BCs being used. Why overbuff them when they were already good? They even mentioned this in the OP. The ships that see the most usage get the smallest buffs, the ships with less usage get bigger buffs. Not a hard concept. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Ms GoodyMaker Delainen Technologies 0	Posted - 2015.09.26 12:08:16 - [547] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Khador Vess wrote: return of the drakefleet... awesome Forget Drakefleet. Welcome FeroxFleet. EDIT: Not only FeroxFleet...but symetrically-placed turret FeroxFleet! WAHOO! I wouldn't think so, you missed the part about the shield buffs being swapped out for gun buffs. The Ferox w/o shield buffs will be a paper ship, I predict, most players will now pass on.
God's Apples Interbus Shipping Interstellar State 633	Posted - 2015.09.26 14:53:36 - [548] - Quote Ms GoodyMaker wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Khador Vess wrote: return of the drakefleet... awesome Forget Drakefleet. Welcome FeroxFleet. EDIT: Not only FeroxFleet...but symetrically-placed turret FeroxFleet! WAHOO! I wouldn't think so, you missed the part about the shield buffs being swapped out for gun buffs. The Ferox w/o shield buffs will be a paper ship, I predict, most players will now pass on. It gets an extra mid so you just fit an additional invul to make up for the lack of the resist bonus. "Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 847	Posted - 2015.09.26 15:23:05 - [549] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: I've looked at some of these changes now in Pyfa so I can get an idea of what is viable and what isn't. The tank on the Navy Drake (shield) and the Navy Brutix (hull) is insane, and I think the other ships need to be buffed slightly in base HP to compensate, when you can easily hit the 100K mark on the Navy Drake yet the Harb for instance lacks behind massively it feels at odd ends. The Fleet Cane needs more PG and especially CPU in my opinion, I had trouble getting an arty fit to work that included any tank, and thats without putting anything in the 2 spare highs, and with an armour auto fit I had exactly the same problem. The regular Harb feels like it could do with a slight PG buff (maybe by +60) to make beams viable, it can get a semi decent fit with Pulses but it doesn't feel like any difference before the buffs. Edit: Just to add, I do think more PG and CPU buffs to all the ships would increase the viability and flexibility. Obviously some ships need more buffs than others. I agree, the Harbinger still feels a little sad and despite the optimal and falloff and slight mobility increase it is still the same ship. I would have really liked if we could fit heavy beams on and something that can be considered an armor tank. A tad more powergrid would go a long way. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1123	Posted - 2015.09.26 16:27:01 - [550] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Jezza McWaffle wrote: I've looked at some of these changes now in Pyfa so I can get an idea of what is viable and what isn't. The tank on the Navy Drake (shield) and the Navy Brutix (hull) is insane, and I think the other ships need to be buffed slightly in base HP to compensate, when you can easily hit the 100K mark on the Navy Drake yet the Harb for instance lacks behind massively it feels at odd ends. The Fleet Cane needs more PG and especially CPU in my opinion, I had trouble getting an arty fit to work that included any tank, and thats without putting anything in the 2 spare highs, and with an armour auto fit I had exactly the same problem. The regular Harb feels like it could do with a slight PG buff (maybe by +60) to make beams viable, it can get a semi decent fit with Pulses but it doesn't feel like any difference before the buffs. Edit: Just to add, I do think more PG and CPU buffs to all the ships would increase the viability and flexibility. Obviously some ships need more buffs than others. I agree, the Harbinger still feels a little sad and despite the optimal and falloff and slight mobility increase it is still the same ship. I would have really liked if we could fit heavy beams on and something that can be considered an armor tank. A tad more powergrid would go a long way. they don't really want you fitting the biggest guns and the biggest tank, except on broken ships where it's acceptable. I think downgrading to lower tier long range guns is really painful though, maybe they could be made less bad. can't be having a big drop in dps, range and alpha and still be useful.

Shade Alidiana PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate 77	Posted - 2015.09.26 20:11:52 - [551] - Quote Just a question. Why do you call it a major buff for navy hurri? Alpha is good but rof is like.. really useful. Why not 10% rof instead, if you can't keep both? (5% rof and damage wouldn't look out of order in one line and/or as one bonus with some of the other ships out there..)
Mario Putzo 1521	Posted - 2015.09.26 22:07:56 - [552] - Quote Yasuo Aldent wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead. No its not really comparable at all to shield or armor. To hull tank you have to pretty much give up your lows and rigs. EHP bonuses from hull boosting modules are not on the same level of Shield or Armor, especially considering the Resist boosting options available to these other tanks...sure DC is nice, but it also boost Shield and Armor independent of other resist mods so... Adding on to the fact its already providing a reduced EHP from additional mods (while sacrificing Damage modules, or utility modules) hull repair is well below the threshold of Shield or Armor repair...and non existent in Remote Logistics Repair and it is clearly inferior to armor or shield tanking by a very very large margin in any sort of group play. Make Gallente ships specialize in hull tanking. WIth their already good chunk of structure HP they would make great hull tanking candidates. Just swap all the armor bonuses to hull and maybe give a role bonus to all gal ships to decrease CPU usage of hull reppers and buffer mods (excluding DC). This would make gal ships differently fitting than all the three other races which would be better to be honest since gal armor tanking is currently pretty much a copy of amarr armor tanking, While Minmatar ships are fit nothing like any of the other races. Aka. Gallente - Hull, Caldari - Shield, Amarr - Armor, Minmatar - kitchen sink/speed That would be the route I would take if I were in charge of balance. But alas all I can do is offer ideas and watch CCP poach them without credit. I have a good track record of it too (I wouldn't look at my post history though its long and unattractive).
Tiddle Jr Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 527	Posted - 2015.09.26 23:16:58 - [553] - Quote Why does CCP think that sniper fleet doctrine is so good? Having buff BC stats they also added range and fall off, so that's ideal for long range engagements and make logi support even more effective sincr you can outrange dps coming into their end.
Bayou Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.09.27 02:09:02 - [554] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: Spugg Galdon wrote: [ which was my original proposal. That + an extra launcher. However, dropping a high and buffing the RoF bonus means the "Surprise Armour" fit is still viable. (and actually better) Solo Cyclone Now, the Cyclone is set up as a solo brawler ship, due to its bonus to shield boosting. Mostly this is interpreted by the user as "fit an XLASB" but that narrows your flying style down into very restricted space; you especially need to be able to use pills, links and so on. But even so, in the majority of cases the Cyclone sucks or doesn't do so well at this because missiles are really quite apalling for solo work and shield brawling, where you will lack hard tackle. (this is why I say the proposed Ferox is going to dominate it due to fitting a web). It also doesn't help much when your sig radius starts out at stupendous levels and you blow this out even more. So, the Cyclone is a niche ship designed around a fairly rare, narrow gameplay option for people. The missile velocity bonus adds range, so you might be able to flail ineffectually at kiters, but it's still going to die horribly to Gilas, VNI's and ishtars because you won't be able to run them down. It's strange how my Cyclone doesn't need links or implants, has web + scram and 2 neuts, is faster than Gilas, VNI's, Ishtars and pretty much any other cruiser, gets multiple kills vs gangs. I really doubt you have ever used it, like most people here. It is underestimated.
Devil Seven PizzaCsinta Legio immortales CXCI 4	Posted - 2015.09.27 02:31:24 - [555] - Quote Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too
Devil Seven PizzaCsinta Legio immortales CXCI 4	Posted - 2015.09.27 02:35:14 - [556] - Quote Gramps Pljugi wrote: So while everyone is praising the buffs to all the other ships Myrm and Prophecy will be left collecting dust for probably years to come, since their buff as i stated is not as good as the other ships... Thanks balance team, i have no idea what stats you used to pull out this bonus from, must be from all of those Rail myrmidons on the killboards that snipe from 60km, also the heavy missile/beam laser prophecys that also snipe from very far so they need drones to reach to target 50/60km away faster to apply the dps.. Pointless, just plain pointless...... The prophecy and the Myrm are fine the way they are learn to fly them right
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 1752	Posted - 2015.09.27 03:00:00 - [557] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Yasuo Aldent wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead. No its not really comparable at all to shield or armor. To hull tank you have to pretty much give up your lows and rigs. EHP bonuses from hull boosting modules are not on the same level of Shield or Armor, especially considering the Resist boosting options available to these other tanks...sure DC is nice, but it also boost Shield and Armor independent of other resist mods so... Adding on to the fact its already providing a reduced EHP from additional mods (while sacrificing Damage modules, or utility modules) hull repair is well below the threshold of Shield or Armor repair...and non existent in Remote Logistics Repair and it is clearly inferior to armor or shield tanking by a very very large margin in any sort of group play. Make Gallente ships specialize in hull tanking. WIth their already good chunk of structure HP they would make great hull tanking candidates. Just swap all the armor bonuses to hull and maybe give a role bonus to all gal ships to decrease CPU usage of hull reppers and buffer mods (excluding DC). This would make gal ships differently fitting than all the three other races which would be better to be honest since gal armor tanking is currently pretty much a copy of amarr armor tanking, While Minmatar ships are fit nothing like any of the other races. Aka. Gallente - Hull, Caldari - Shield, Amarr - Armor, Minmatar - kitchen sink/speed ... (I wouldn't look at my post history though its long and unattractive). That's what she said! On topic, I like hull tanking being a very niche thing that is good in one or two situations utilizing one or two specific ships. So I would not support switching one race over to being hull tankers. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here? I'm stubborn.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 850	Posted - 2015.09.27 04:52:38 - [558] - Quote Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too You would have to remove one slot from somewhere else for that. With your layout the Ferox would one more slot that all the other battlcruisers. As far as I have seen the Ferox is okay. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 563	Posted - 2015.09.27 12:25:32 - [559] - Quote Shade Alidiana wrote: Just a question. Why do you call it a major buff for navy hurri? Alpha is good but rof is like.. really useful. Why not 10% rof instead, if you can't keep both? (5% rof and damage wouldn't look out of order in one line and/or as one bonus with some of the other ships out there..) When you have an alpha doctrine, or like me, just want to fly around blapping with arty, the 10% dmg/tracking is well worth the sacrifice of RoF. 3-4k alpha with tracking similar to scorch, at least with drop booster. Fleet cane was compensated slightly with a bigger drone bay to make up for the "DPS" loss, but the raw damage is actually a buff. I'm good with an overall dps loss, minny need an arty ship that actually works, but isn't god awfully OP like the svipul. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 200	Posted - 2015.09.27 14:19:52 - [560] - Quote Bayou wrote: Trinkets friend wrote: Spugg Galdon wrote: [ which was my original proposal. That + an extra launcher. However, dropping a high and buffing the RoF bonus means the "Surprise Armour" fit is still viable. (and actually better) Solo Cyclone Now, the Cyclone is set up as a solo brawler ship, due to its bonus to shield boosting. Mostly this is interpreted by the user as "fit an XLASB" but that narrows your flying style down into very restricted space; you especially need to be able to use pills, links and so on. But even so, in the majority of cases the Cyclone sucks or doesn't do so well at this because missiles are really quite apalling for solo work and shield brawling, where you will lack hard tackle. (this is why I say the proposed Ferox is going to dominate it due to fitting a web). It also doesn't help much when your sig radius starts out at stupendous levels and you blow this out even more. So, the Cyclone is a niche ship designed around a fairly rare, narrow gameplay option for people. The missile velocity bonus adds range, so you might be able to flail ineffectually at kiters, but it's still going to die horribly to Gilas, VNI's and ishtars because you won't be able to run them down. It's strange how my Cyclone doesn't need links or implants, has web + scram and 2 neuts, is faster than Gilas, VNI's, Ishtars and pretty much any other cruiser, gets multiple kills vs gangs. I really doubt you have ever used it, like most people here. It is underestimated. The Cyclone is clearly better the the Drake for solo/small gangs with local tank, while the Drake is clearly better in fleets. People asking for buffs to the Cyclone don't seem to realize how close it is to surpassing the Drake in every way. For example if it lost a utility high for an extra mid it would have to come with a PG nerf and that means it probably can't fit XLASB which would hurt it's strongest fits, so you basically end up fitting double large ancillary boosters where before you only used one mid for the xlasb and losing a utility high for no real gain in tank. At the same time it would work better in gangs with an extra mid because you could fit better resists and buffer tank, add in the speed/agillity of the hull, selectable damage, smaller sig radius and it would probably be better in gangs than a t1 Drake... so I prefer the way it is now, the Cyclone and Drake both tanky missile bc's but with different roles. Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war: The sinews of war; infinite money.

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1197	Posted - 2015.09.27 16:16:17 - [561] - Quote Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too the problem the ferox has and has always had is that it has too compete with the drake for usage, and ofc caldari being mainly missile based that has always been against it, only recent buffs too rails has made it useful, these changes still don't really bring it out of the drakes shadow especially with the drake having nearly the same range as a raven now, some things too help ferox too be more useful - lower sig and more mobility - 5th lowslot for a high for greater options - nerf HAM range too 10km instead of its 20km range it shares with torps - drake could lose its resist bonus too for some tracking - myrmidon in a shield dps config also outdoes a ferox for dps and only slightly lower than a shield dps brutix. T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. 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
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 852	Posted - 2015.09.27 16:24:56 - [562] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too the problem the ferox has and has always had is that it has too compete with the drake for usage, and ofc caldari being mainly missile based that has always been against it, only recent buffs too rails has made it useful, these changes still don't really bring it out of the drakes shadow especially with the drake having nearly the same range as a raven now, some things too help ferox too be more useful - lower sig and more mobility - 5th lowslot for a high for greater options - nerf HAM range too 10km instead of its 20km range it shares with torps - drake could lose its resist bonus too for some tracking - myrmidon in a shield dps config also outdoes a ferox for dps and only slightly lower than a shield dps brutix. Where do you get your numbers from? The Drake has 83km maximum heavy missile range with tech1 and faction missiles. That range is only true IF the Drake is not moving and the thing the Drake is shooting at is also not moving. The Raven gets 266km range with regular and faction missiles. The Ferox has 100/114km range with 200mm railguns and Spike M or 11/26km with Null M and neutron blasters. And all Gallente ships should automatically explode on undock when they have shield mods on except for the Talos. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1197	Posted - 2015.09.27 16:32:15 - [563] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too the problem the ferox has and has always had is that it has too compete with the drake for usage, and ofc caldari being mainly missile based that has always been against it, only recent buffs too rails has made it useful, these changes still don't really bring it out of the drakes shadow especially with the drake having nearly the same range as a raven now, some things too help ferox too be more useful - lower sig and more mobility - 5th lowslot for a high for greater options - nerf HAM range too 10km instead of its 20km range it shares with torps - drake could lose its resist bonus too for some tracking - myrmidon in a shield dps config also outdoes a ferox for dps and only slightly lower than a shield dps brutix. Where do you get your numbers from? The Drake has 83km maximum heavy missile range with tech1 and faction missiles. That range is only true IF the Drake is not moving and the thing the Drake is shooting at is also not moving. The Raven gets 266km range with regular and faction missiles. The Ferox has 100/114km range with 200mm railguns and Spike M or 11/26km with Null M and neutron blasters. And all Gallente ships should automatically explode on undock when they have shield mods on except for the Talos. read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. 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
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 852	Posted - 2015.09.27 17:04:16 - [564] - Quote Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1197	Posted - 2015.09.27 18:02:29 - [565] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. 50km torps is just madness, range on a jav raven would be crazy, nerfs are just necessary sometimes for balance (looks at T3's), better than powercreep which is what the navy drake kind of feels like HAM's having 16km range with rage is just OP, 30km with javelin is also OP and better than scorch .. range being the supposed strong point of lasers, but conflag doing 10km is just lame compared, then you only need too look at auto's and blasters too see how strong that range actually is on HAM's. T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. 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
WrATH2Zero The Scope Gallente Federation 24	Posted - 2015.09.27 18:23:17 - [566] - Quote Really glad about this. battle cruisers are so crap now, I recently tried a Cyclone, T2 fit in a Cosmos mission and it struggle, took a Caracal T2 fit in with HMs, found it better and the Cerberus just layed waste. OK, T1 battlecruisers are only 60 million but preferring a L5 skilled cruiser shouldn't be the case.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 853	Posted - 2015.09.27 18:25:28 - [567] - Quote Harvey James wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. 50km torps is just madness, range on a jav raven would be crazy, nerfs are just necessary sometimes for balance (looks at T3's), better than powercreep which is what the navy drake kind of feels like HAM's having 16km range with rage is just OP, 30km with javelin is also OP and better than scorch .. range being the supposed strong point of lasers, but conflag doing 10km is just lame compared, then you only need too look at auto's and blasters too see how strong that range actually is on HAM's. You do know that missile range is very relative right? And even javelin missiles have trouble shooting smaller stuff. The explosion velocity on hams is just terrible. I tell you what, you make a video where you show me without doubt and reproducible where heavy assault missiles will have 30km range and I give you one million isk. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.27 18:26:57 - [568] - Quote Harvey James wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too the problem the ferox has and has always had is that it has too compete with the drake for usage, and ofc caldari being mainly missile based that has always been against it, only recent buffs too rails has made it useful, these changes still don't really bring it out of the drakes shadow especially with the drake having nearly the same range as a raven now, some things too help ferox too be more useful - lower sig and more mobility - 5th lowslot for a high for greater options - nerf HAM range too 10km instead of its 20km range it shares with torps - drake could lose its resist bonus too for some tracking - myrmidon in a shield dps config also outdoes a ferox for dps and only slightly lower than a shield dps brutix. Where do you get your numbers from? The Drake has 83km maximum heavy missile range with tech1 and faction missiles. That range is only true IF the Drake is not moving and the thing the Drake is shooting at is also not moving. The Raven gets 266km range with regular and faction missiles. The Ferox has 100/114km range with 200mm railguns and Spike M or 11/26km with Null M and neutron blasters. And all Gallente ships should automatically explode on undock when they have shield mods on except for the Talos. read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. The Ferox Optimal Bonus is huge. Hams and torps are not function on a similar level due to torps having the larger exp radius than cruises.. they just don't balance. ELitatwo has it right. As a close in weapon, it takes a bomber with all that extra damage to make it effective.. go figure right? so cut ham range which is only effective on a couple ships that push out range and shrink the explosion radius.. cause they are too long of range and people cant get in close and kite tank on like the 3-4 ships that can effectively use them? Hams are fine.. other ships aren't meant to be close in missile brawlers, and it sounds like your fighting a couple people that are fitting hams right. However, I'll have to check the new fits to see if I can use them better on the drakes.. that seems to have you worried. That navy drake with that speed and hams (IF it can fit um all now). it may be an incredibly nice ham brawler BC. It didnt work prior.. not enough CPU I believe.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2015.09.27 18:30:08 - [569] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. 50km torps is just madness, range on a jav raven would be crazy, nerfs are just necessary sometimes for balance (looks at T3's), better than powercreep which is what the navy drake kind of feels like HAM's having 16km range with rage is just OP, 30km with javelin is also OP and better than scorch .. range being the supposed strong point of lasers, but conflag doing 10km is just lame compared, then you only need too look at auto's and blasters too see how strong that range actually is on HAM's. You do know that missile range is very relative right? And even javelin missiles have trouble shooting smaller stuff. The explosion velocity on hams is just terrible. I tell you what, you make a video where you show me without doubt and reproducible where heavy assault missiles will have 30km range and I give you one million isk. I think it's 27Km on a sacralige.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1197	Posted - 2015.09.27 18:31:57 - [570] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. 50km torps is just madness, range on a jav raven would be crazy, nerfs are just necessary sometimes for balance (looks at T3's), better than powercreep which is what the navy drake kind of feels like HAM's having 16km range with rage is just OP, 30km with javelin is also OP and better than scorch .. range being the supposed strong point of lasers, but conflag doing 10km is just lame compared, then you only need too look at auto's and blasters too see how strong that range actually is on HAM's. You do know that missile range is very relative right? And even javelin missiles have trouble shooting smaller stuff. The explosion velocity on hams is just terrible. I tell you what, you make a video where you show me without doubt and reproducible where heavy assault missiles will have 30km range and I give you one million isk. a drake with lv5 skills can get 30km range with javs FACT.. T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. 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

Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 201	Posted - 2015.09.27 18:42:50 - [571] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too the problem the ferox has and has always had is that it has too compete with the drake for usage, and ofc caldari being mainly missile based that has always been against it, only recent buffs too rails has made it useful, these changes still don't really bring it out of the drakes shadow especially with the drake having nearly the same range as a raven now, some things too help ferox too be more useful - lower sig and more mobility - 5th lowslot for a high for greater options - nerf HAM range too 10km instead of its 20km range it shares with torps - drake could lose its resist bonus too for some tracking - myrmidon in a shield dps config also outdoes a ferox for dps and only slightly lower than a shield dps brutix. ... Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war: The sinews of war; infinite money.
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 853	Posted - 2015.09.27 21:39:22 - [572] - Quote Harvey James wrote: ..a drake with lv5 skills can get 30km range with javs FACT.. On your fitting screen. And only if your Drake is not moving and the thing it is shooting at isn't moving too. Then and only then you get ~29km range. Missile range does not work like turrets. Turret range is always true. The End. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1197	Posted - 2015.09.27 21:47:03 - [573] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ..a drake with lv5 skills can get 30km range with javs FACT.. On your fitting screen. And only if your Drake is not moving and the thing it is shooting at isn't moving too. Then and only then you get ~29km range. Missile range does not work like turrets. Turret range is always true. The End. well with the 25% buff drake defo will do 30km always T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Bayou Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2015.09.27 23:19:09 - [574] - Quote HAM's does crap dps without applying webs to your taget so saying 30km range is op is just dumb.
Vailen Sere the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.09.27 23:53:43 - [575] - Quote Harvey James wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. 50km torps is just madness, range on a jav raven would be crazy, nerfs are just necessary sometimes for balance (looks at T3's), better than powercreep which is what the navy drake kind of feels like HAM's having 16km range with rage is just OP, 30km with javelin is also OP and better than scorch .. range being the supposed strong point of lasers, but conflag doing 10km is just lame compared, then you only need too look at auto's and blasters too see how strong that range actually is on HAM's. On which ships? I saw alot of boosts there to Optimal ranges.. are they currently balanced out or are you looking for a gunnery superiority over missiles (That do not crit?) Your missing comparative was mentioned above. gunnery ranges are set, and the only way to outrun guns is to get out of range, whereas to avoid missiles, you simply move fast enough and either 1) they do not hit or 2) you mitigate 40% of the damage. That's where the missile velocity increase comes into play.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 195	Posted - 2015.09.28 00:44:17 - [576] - Quote Switch the drone bandwidth of the Myrmidon and the Ishtar.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1260	Posted - 2015.09.28 14:12:15 - [577] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ..a drake with lv5 skills can get 30km range with javs FACT.. On your fitting screen. And only if your Drake is not moving and the thing it is shooting at isn't moving too. Then and only then you get ~29km range. Missile range does not work like turrets. Turret range is always true. The End. I've been orbiting a Domi's sentries with my Tengu at 1km, I ran under the guns of T3s and out of reach of harbingers, always hitting for 610dps with HAMs. Not only do missiles get awesome damage at range - they also got it regardless of your own movement. It's a miracle I never roll into your hole tho.
Shade Alidiana PROSPERO Corporation MinTek Conglomerate 77	Posted - 2015.09.28 15:25:15 - [578] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Shade Alidiana wrote: Just a question. Why do you call it a major buff for navy hurri? Alpha is good but rof is like.. really useful. Why not 10% rof instead, if you can't keep both? (5% rof and damage wouldn't look out of order in one line and/or as one bonus with some of the other ships out there..) When you have an alpha doctrine, or like me, just want to fly around blapping with arty, the 10% dmg/tracking is well worth the sacrifice of RoF. 3-4k alpha with tracking similar to scorch, at least with drop booster. Fleet cane was compensated slightly with a bigger drone bay to make up for the "DPS" loss, but the raw damage is actually a buff. I'm good with an overall dps loss, minny need an arty ship that actually works, but isn't god awfully OP like the svipul. Aren't similar features already included in Sleipnir? Which isn't much more expensive but is tankier as well. I want some difference in my ships :)
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 222	Posted - 2015.09.28 15:35:39 - [579] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. 50km torps is just madness, range on a jav raven would be crazy, nerfs are just necessary sometimes for balance (looks at T3's), better than powercreep which is what the navy drake kind of feels like HAM's having 16km range with rage is just OP, 30km with javelin is also OP and better than scorch .. range being the supposed strong point of lasers, but conflag doing 10km is just lame compared, then you only need too look at auto's and blasters too see how strong that range actually is on HAM's. You do know that missile range is very relative right? And even javelin missiles have trouble shooting smaller stuff. The explosion velocity on hams is just terrible. I tell you what, you make a video where you show me without doubt and reproducible where heavy assault missiles will have 30km range and I give you one million isk. sac has 45km range with HAM jav's
Denson022 Defiance LLC 14	Posted - 2015.09.28 15:36:43 - [580] - Quote In general i like the way these changes have been done. The Ferox got the biggest buff IMHO. The new 6 mid slot layout gives more flexibility. In the other hand the Cyclone did not received any game breaking changes. Still no 6th mid slot => If you go XLASB + Invul you do not have the cap booster to feed the neuts/MWD, but you have the Web. If you go old school active tank + cap booster you cant fit a (mandatory) Web in order to get decent HAM damage application. The new missile enhancer doesn't help much. It's DPS is low due to having only 5 bonused hardpoints. As stated earlier, drones represent 20-25 % of total DPS. Compared to the Cyclone the Ferox has gained much more appeal. It lost it's resist bonus but has the DPS the Cyclone is lacking and with a dual web setup will murder frigs , dessies and cruisers given the damage projection bonus. CCP , you had the opportunituy to bring back the CBC king of speed crown back to the cyclone. I hoped it could at least fulfill the role of a tackle / cruiser hunter... Get in range, scram, web, neut to death.

Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 564	Posted - 2015.09.28 16:12:19 - [581] - Quote Shade Alidiana wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Shade Alidiana wrote: Just a question. Why do you call it a major buff for navy hurri? Alpha is good but rof is like.. really useful. Why not 10% rof instead, if you can't keep both? (5% rof and damage wouldn't look out of order in one line and/or as one bonus with some of the other ships out there..) When you have an alpha doctrine, or like me, just want to fly around blapping with arty, the 10% dmg/tracking is well worth the sacrifice of RoF. 3-4k alpha with tracking similar to scorch, at least with drop booster. Fleet cane was compensated slightly with a bigger drone bay to make up for the "DPS" loss, but the raw damage is actually a buff. I'm good with an overall dps loss, minny need an arty ship that actually works, but isn't god awfully OP like the svipul. Aren't similar features already included in Sleipnir? Which isn't much more expensive but is tankier as well. I want some difference in my ships :) Not really. Sleip is 300m and has loads of training time behind it to sit in one. Not to mention needing CS5 to get the max alpha. Sleip also doesnt have the 50% tracking bonus which is extremely useful. For reference, on the fleet cane, with a metastasis rig, TE and sabot/quake you are approaching scorch tracking but with 3k vollies. Add a drop booster and you're there. Fleet cane is also faster/agile than sleip now, making it a better kiter. Sleip is a better brawler and is good with arty, but nowhere as easy to sit in, and squeezing arty, XLASB, neuts and prop can be challenging. HFI will be a fun easy to fly, relatively cheap arty ship. The tracking bonus alone is enough of a difference for more. Plus the hybrid optimal/falloff bonus which will make sabot/depleted uranium very nice to use. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
elitatwo Eve Minions The-Company 860	Posted - 2015.09.28 21:08:36 - [582] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: I've been orbiting a Domi's sentries with my Tengu at 1km, I ran under the guns of T3s and out of reach of harbingers, always hitting for 610dps with HAMs. Not only do missiles get awesome damage at range - they also got it regardless of your own movement. It's a miracle I never roll into your hole tho. That is what you want to do with hams. But in order to do that you need to pin your target first, which you want to do too. Now imagine that you are chasing a svipul with your ham Drake or Tengu. Your ham range will be 50% of the maximum at best. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 170	Posted - 2015.09.29 05:43:31 - [583] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Lloyd Roses wrote: I've been orbiting a Domi's sentries with my Tengu at 1km, I ran under the guns of T3s and out of reach of harbingers, always hitting for 610dps with HAMs. Not only do missiles get awesome damage at range - they also got it regardless of your own movement. It's a miracle I never roll into your hole tho. That is what you want to do with hams. But in order to do that you need to pin your target first, which you want to do too. Now imagine that you are chasing a svipul with your ham Drake or Tengu. Your ham range will be 50% of the maximum at best. I don't see a problem with this. Use rapid light missiles if you want to damage Svipuls without tackling them.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 170	Posted - 2015.09.29 05:57:44 - [584] - Quote Denson022 wrote: In general i like the way these changes have been done. The Ferox got the biggest buff IMHO. The new 6 mid slot layout gives more flexibility. In the other hand the Cyclone did not received any game breaking changes. Still no 6th mid slot => If you go XLASB + Invul you do not have the cap booster to feed the neuts/MWD, but you have the Web. If you go old school active tank + cap booster you cant fit a (mandatory) Web in order to get decent HAM damage application. The new missile enhancer doesn't help much. It's DPS is low due to having only 5 bonused hardpoints. As stated earlier, drones represent 20-25 % of total DPS. Compared to the Cyclone the Ferox has gained much more appeal. It lost it's resist bonus but has the DPS the Cyclone is lacking and with a dual web setup will murder frigs , dessies and cruisers given the damage projection bonus. CCP , you had the opportunituy to bring back the CBC king of speed crown back to the cyclone. I hoped it could at least fulfill the role of a tackle / cruiser hunter... Get in range, scram, web, neut to death. Cyclones hunt cruisers and dessies (t1 and t2) fine. Web is more about applying damage to t3ds and frigates.
Devil Seven PizzaCsinta Legio immortales CXCI 5	Posted - 2015.09.29 06:03:06 - [585] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too You would have to remove one slot from somewhere else for that. With your layout the Ferox would one more slot that all the other battlcruisers. As far as I have seen the Ferox is okay. You really don't have to remove a slot from somewhere but anyways atm the way it will be the ferox is so out classed by the other BCs it already is a unfavorable ship for most the 7/6/5 would have more useful uses with the bonuses they have planned with the new bonuses it will be a sniper and a weak one at that as the attack bc already has that role and is better at it
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 170	Posted - 2015.09.29 09:46:45 - [586] - Quote Devil Seven wrote: elitatwo wrote: Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too You would have to remove one slot from somewhere else for that. With your layout the Ferox would one more slot that all the other battlcruisers. As far as I have seen the Ferox is okay. You really don't have to remove a slot from somewhere but anyways atm the way it will be the ferox is so out classed by the other BCs it already is a unfavorable ship for most the 7/6/5 would have more useful uses with the bonuses they have planned with the new bonuses it will be a sniper and a weak one at that as the attack bc already has that role and is better at it That's a fairly ridiculous statement. Ferox is already used in Rail doctrines, the buffs only help with that. Also the additional mid helps gives it more control for brawling so it's a solid buff for brawling fits as well. The only thing adding an extra low will do is encourage people to armor fit it and make it an OP control orientated brawler with 6 utility mids (mwd + double web + scram + MJD + cap booster).
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2281	Posted - 2015.09.29 14:14:24 - [587] - Quote Devil Seven wrote: elitatwo wrote: Devil Seven wrote: Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too You would have to remove one slot from somewhere else for that. With your layout the Ferox would one more slot that all the other battlcruisers. As far as I have seen the Ferox is okay. You really don't have to remove a slot from somewhere but anyways atm the way it will be the ferox is so out classed by the other BCs it already is a unfavorable ship for most the 7/6/5 would have more useful uses with the bonuses they have planned with the new bonuses it will be a sniper and a weak one at that as the attack bc already has that role and is better at it BC are supposed to have 17 slots (apply drone ship -1 slots when applicable), not 18 so yes the ferox would have to lose either a high or a mid to get an extra low.
Azazel The Misanthrope Proioxis Assault Force Exodus. 73	Posted - 2015.09.29 15:54:00 - [588] - Quote Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. I think if this were to happen, Caldari missile ships would end up outclassing other missile ships outright unless they were then rebalanced to be more like their competitors damage wise.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 567	Posted - 2015.09.29 16:20:45 - [589] - Quote Changes are live my friends. Go forth and rain destruction on the cruiser meta. Bonus points if you kill some orthrus'. Should be fun. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 12	Posted - 2015.09.29 22:03:06 - [590] - Quote First impression not good. Drake and Cane replaced by Navy Drake and Fleet Cane. basicly that all. Ships with drone max. velocity - well, bad english here as class BC are still sucks. especially against HAC and navy cruisers fix Cyclone, please proposal: may be it will be good to mess CBC and ABC. example: Harbinger - 5H/4M/6L (4 large turrets) and role bonus - 50% tracking

Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 12	Posted - 2015.09.29 22:11:21 - [591] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Changes are live my friends. Go forth and rain destruction on the cruiser meta. Bonus points if you kill some orthrus'. Should be fun. simply do not understand your enthusiasm. your proposal was good, but it looks like BC also need some dps, especially against HAC's after 1-3 month everything will be same as before Vanguard
Relyt Remarc Jarlhettur's Drop 0	Posted - 2015.09.29 22:25:33 - [592] - Quote Captain Megabyte wrote: Id really like to see the Caldari Naga changed to a Cruise missile ship/ i agree. more along the lines of being able to use cruise/ torpedo launchers and rapid heavy launchers though. you know, sticking with caldari doctrines.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 170	Posted - 2015.09.29 23:16:09 - [593] - Quote Uriam Khanid wrote: First impression not good. Drake and Cane replaced by Navy Drake and Fleet Cane. basicly that all. Ships with drone max. velocity - well, bad english here as class BC are still sucks. especially against HAC and navy cruisers fix Cyclone, please proposal: may be it will be good to mess CBC and ABC. example: Harbinger - 5H/4M/6L (4 large turrets) and role bonus - 50% tracking That's a terrible giant nerf to the Harbinger. No. Just No. Use an Oracle if you want mobility and large lasers. Navy BCs are 4 times the cost of the standard BCs. The standard Hurricane does more raw DPS than the Fleet Cane, the Fleet Issue does more alpha and tracks better. It works. Have you even tried using these ships? Same with the Drake, the standard drake does more damage than the Navy Drake when using kinetic missiles. The Navy Drake applies the damage better and is more agile. All the BCs are much faster as well and the Cyclone can get over 2k with some heat. The changes are great.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 913	Posted - 2015.09.29 23:34:59 - [594] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Reserved for FAQ RIP RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 569	Posted - 2015.09.29 23:56:55 - [595] - Quote Uriam Khanid wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Changes are live my friends. Go forth and rain destruction on the cruiser meta. Bonus points if you kill some orthrus'. Should be fun. simply do not understand your enthusiasm. your proposal was good, but it looks like BC also need some dps, especially against HAC's after 1-3 month everything will be same as before Vanguard How so? Drake can do 630dps cold with faction and 750 with rage. Harb does 700dps with quad lights. Cane does roughly 600 with acs and 550 with arty. Brutix is 800-1k depending on fit. Myrm and proph are alittle light but they can get huge tanks. Only a deimos could rival those numbers. Deimos doesnt have the utility of a BC though. Dps has always been fine, its the application thats been the issue, which the projection buffs will fix. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Rekt Zero State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.09.30 10:43:01 - [596] - Quote Pretty sure drake is popular because of the tank, the dps is laughable at best.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2548	Posted - 2015.09.30 11:42:36 - [597] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: How so? Drake can do 630dps cold with faction and 750 with rage. Harb does 700dps with quad lights. Cane does roughly 600 with acs and 550 with arty. Brutix is 800-1k depending on fit. Myrm and proph are alittle light but they can get huge tanks. Only a deimos could rival those numbers. Deimos doesnt have the utility of a BC though. Dps has always been fine, its the application thats been the issue, which the projection buffs will fix. I'm guessing their argument is because HAC's have better resists that a HAC vs BC actually does more effective damage once the higher average resists are taken into account. It's a tough one to fully quantify especially taking into account we are talking T2 vs T1 in these cases, since the Command Ships did not get the improvement.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 569	Posted - 2015.09.30 12:51:11 - [598] - Quote Rekt Zero wrote: Pretty sure drake is popular because of the tank, the dps is laughable at best. Not the ships fault you don't know how to use it effectively. Nevyn Auscent wrote: I'm guessing their argument is because HAC's have better resists that a HAC vs BC actually does more effective damage once the higher average resists are taken into account. It's a tough one to fully quantify especially taking into account we are talking T2 vs T1 in these cases, since the Command Ships did not get the improvement. In what I quoted, it was mentioned they needed more dps, I think the dps is fine on the BC's, most of them are either on par with a HAC, or quite a bit higher (depending on fit). Fleet cane has more dps with artillery than Muninn, and more dps with a/c's than vagabond. Brutix does more dps than deimos, drake does similar dps of a cerb, but can sport a better tank. So seems to be working as intended. Yea, there is sig/speed and other things to consider, but its not like BC's are worthless, you'll just need to work harder for the kill. Even with MWD sig reduction, proper piloting and maintaining transversal will still allow you to hit a HAC just fine. I've yet to see a HAC that can fit an MJD. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 201	Posted - 2015.09.30 16:45:26 - [599] - Quote Uriam Khanid wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Changes are live my friends. Go forth and rain destruction on the cruiser meta. Bonus points if you kill some orthrus'. Should be fun. simply do not understand your enthusiasm. your proposal was good, but it looks like BC also need some dps, especially against HAC's after 1-3 month everything will be same as before Vanguard Battlecruisers are cheap hulls, T1 insurance, low skillpoint threshold, MJD capable now more agile and with better range... players will find plenty of use for them. Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war: The sinews of war; infinite money.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 17084	Posted - 2015.09.30 18:45:00 - [600] - Quote Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. I think if this were to happen, Caldari missile ships would end up outclassing other missile ships outright unless they were then rebalanced to be more like their competitors damage wise. Man that would be terrible, imagine an EVE where there was some kind of racial theming to ship bonuses. You'd see ridiculous outcomes like Gallente drone ships outclassing other drone ships outright. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"

Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 3037	Posted - 2015.09.30 18:46:39 - [601] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. I think if this were to happen, Caldari missile ships would end up outclassing other missile ships outright unless they were then rebalanced to be more like their competitors damage wise. Man that would be terrible, imagine an EVE where there was some kind of racial theming to ship bonuses. You'd see ridiculous outcomes like Gallente drone ships outclassing other drone ships outright. heaven forbid, that would also derail the plan to make all the ships look the same . . . 1960's rocket style (and I so love the litte triangle fins) m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery 2777	Posted - 2015.10.01 01:05:31 - [602] - Quote First impressions: Ferox: ridiculously ridonkadonk brawler, great dualprop MWD-MJD rail fleet boat, perfetto. italian kissing motions Cylone: Thanks for the projection bonus, but still sucks. Drake: Thanks, feels like the Old Drake Cane; Kinda feels like the old Cane, but crappier. Arty is still a horrible bloaty weapon choice, terrible tracking. Not bad armour brawler. Prophecy: Meh. Drone speed is good if you hate being kited by Garmurs. Harby: Eh. Slooow. Brutix: Thanks for the mobility, now every other brawler is toast. No one active tanks these anymore. Myrm: Same-same. Navy Drake: Honestly, you can buffer fit a Cyclone and get the same effect, so why bother. Fleet Cane: Hellooo alphacanes. Pity you have to pay through the nose to get not much more of a ship. Welp. Brutix navy: Same-same, still a decent gank hull-tank station camper's paradise boat Harby navy: Same-same. Sloooow. I think you can call this, basically, the Ferox Rebalance. it's more or less a missed opportunity to redo the lineup, I think. The tweaks aren't very substantial in most parts. I would have thought that spreading some EWAR bonuses through half the non-navy lineup would have done something better. You know, neut bonus on Prophecy, damp bonus on Myrm, TP's on Cyclone (with more mids!), etc. I dunno. Something more than "oh, we better give these slow punching bags some projection buffs, that's going to save them". Nope. The only significant change is the Ferox, and that came about due to slot layout changes. That's an interesting lesson to take away, isn't it, Fozzie? Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1072	Posted - 2015.10.01 06:20:07 - [603] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: BC are supposed to have 17 slots (apply drone ship -1 slots when applicable), not 18 so yes the ferox would have to lose either a high or a mid to get an extra low. I personally don't see much of a problem with deviations from standard slot count. In the end we get a space sphere with certain stats. If that is achievable with less base stats and more modules (for added flexibility, most likely) - all power to you. Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Bayou Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.10.01 10:44:16 - [604] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: First impressions: Ferox: ridiculously ridonkadonk brawler, great dualprop MWD-MJD rail fleet boat, perfetto. italian kissing motions Cylone: Thanks for the projection bonus, but still sucks. Drake: Thanks, feels like the Old Drake Cane; Kinda feels like the old Cane, but crappier. Arty is still a horrible bloaty weapon choice, terrible tracking. Not bad armour brawler. Prophecy: Meh. Drone speed is good if you hate being kited by Garmurs. Harby: Eh. Slooow. Brutix: Thanks for the mobility, now every other brawler is toast. No one active tanks these anymore. Myrm: Same-same. Navy Drake: Honestly, you can buffer fit a Cyclone and get the same effect, so why bother. Fleet Cane: Hellooo alphacanes. Pity you have to pay through the nose to get not much more of a ship. Welp. Brutix navy: Same-same, still a decent gank hull-tank station camper's paradise boat Harby navy: Same-same. Sloooow. I think you can call this, basically, the Ferox Rebalance. it's more or less a missed opportunity to redo the lineup, I think. The tweaks aren't very substantial in most parts. I would have thought that spreading some EWAR bonuses through half the non-navy lineup would have done something better. You know, neut bonus on Prophecy, damp bonus on Myrm, TP's on Cyclone (with more mids!), etc. I dunno. Something more than "oh, we better give these slow punching bags some projection buffs, that's going to save them". Nope. The only significant change is the Ferox, and that came about due to slot layout changes. That's an interesting lesson to take away, isn't it, Fozzie? Explain how the Ferox is a good brawler when it moves at 1650 m/s OH and why the Cyclone sucks.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1124	Posted - 2015.10.01 12:36:33 - [605] - Quote 5 mid shield tank, very low paper dps
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 526	Posted - 2015.10.01 13:24:50 - [606] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: First impressions: Ferox: ridiculously ridonkadonk brawler, great dualprop MWD-MJD rail fleet boat, perfetto. italian kissing motions Cylone: Thanks for the projection bonus, but still sucks. Drake: Thanks, feels like the Old Drake Cane; Kinda feels like the old Cane, but crappier. Arty is still a horrible bloaty weapon choice, terrible tracking. Not bad armour brawler. Prophecy: Meh. Drone speed is good if you hate being kited by Garmurs. Harby: Eh. Slooow. Brutix: Thanks for the mobility, now every other brawler is toast. No one active tanks these anymore. Myrm: Same-same. Navy Drake: Honestly, you can buffer fit a Cyclone and get the same effect, so why bother. Fleet Cane: Hellooo alphacanes. Pity you have to pay through the nose to get not much more of a ship. Welp. Brutix navy: Same-same, still a decent gank hull-tank station camper's paradise boat Harby navy: Same-same. Sloooow. I think you can call this, basically, the Ferox Rebalance. it's more or less a missed opportunity to redo the lineup, I think. The tweaks aren't very substantial in most parts. I would have thought that spreading some EWAR bonuses through half the non-navy lineup would have done something better. You know, neut bonus on Prophecy, damp bonus on Myrm, TP's on Cyclone (with more mids!), etc. I dunno. Something more than "oh, we better give these slow punching bags some projection buffs, that's going to save them". Nope. The only significant change is the Ferox, and that came about due to slot layout changes. That's an interesting lesson to take away, isn't it, Fozzie? Actually, the Ferox win here is also related to getting a ship bonus that enhances the class bonus, while no other ship in class does. Otherwise excellent analysis of this below standard rebalance pass. I have liked most rebalancing from Fozzie, Rise et al, but this was a real disappointment and poorly done. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Feodor Romanov Blitzkrieg Federation NEOS FLEET 20	Posted - 2015.10.01 20:04:14 - [607] - Quote I think Ferox deserve to have 10% damage/ skill lvl as most others BC have.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 573	Posted - 2015.10.01 20:39:09 - [608] - Quote Feodor Romanov wrote: I think Ferox deserve to have 10% damage/ skill lvl as most others BC have. Yes, let the 55m BC obsolete the 300m CS (Vulture) even more. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 2062	Posted - 2015.10.01 20:46:48 - [609] - Quote Cyclone could do with a bit of a bigger bay, if you're expecting us to carry 4-12 ammo types AND cap charges. OR....balance the cap charges sizing a little.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 573	Posted - 2015.10.01 20:58:57 - [610] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: First impressions: Ferox: ridiculously ridonkadonk brawler, great dualprop MWD-MJD rail fleet boat, perfetto. italian kissing motions Cylone: Thanks for the projection bonus, but still sucks. Drake: Thanks, feels like the Old Drake Cane; Kinda feels like the old Cane, but crappier. Arty is still a horrible bloaty weapon choice, terrible tracking. Not bad armour brawler. Prophecy: Meh. Drone speed is good if you hate being kited by Garmurs. Harby: Eh. Slooow. Brutix: Thanks for the mobility, now every other brawler is toast. No one active tanks these anymore. Myrm: Same-same. Navy Drake: Honestly, you can buffer fit a Cyclone and get the same effect, so why bother. Fleet Cane: Hellooo alphacanes. Pity you have to pay through the nose to get not much more of a ship. Welp. Brutix navy: Same-same, still a decent gank hull-tank station camper's paradise boat Harby navy: Same-same. Sloooow. I think you can call this, basically, the Ferox Rebalance. it's more or less a missed opportunity to redo the lineup, I think. The tweaks aren't very substantial in most parts. I would have thought that spreading some EWAR bonuses through half the non-navy lineup would have done something better. You know, neut bonus on Prophecy, damp bonus on Myrm, TP's on Cyclone (with more mids!), etc. I dunno. Something more than "oh, we better give these slow punching bags some projection buffs, that's going to save them". Nope. The only significant change is the Ferox, and that came about due to slot layout changes. That's an interesting lesson to take away, isn't it, Fozzie? Some of your points I agree with, others are hidden behind smug/snark that are quite off base. Ferox: Yep, it seems more versatile Prophecy: Widely used, not much wrong with it before the patch tbh, drone speed and some mass changes is all gravy Myrm: Again widely used, didnt need an overhaul, drone speed buffs are fine Drake: Agreed Cane: Got some tweaks and a bit more fitting, yes arty is a pain to fit, it seems CCP has no intention of changing this. However, looking at what can be done with a good pilot with a DCU only arty cane. You will realize having loads of tank and 3.5k vollies could be bad. Brutix: Should probably speak for yourself, i still see loads of ppl use dual rep brutix, or a hybrid hull/rep tank (like comet). Harb: Got faster and more agile plus range, beams can reach out to 50km with 450dps no problem Navy cane: poorboi need not apply. Honestly though, prices will settle down and be equivalent to a muninn, which the fleet cane outperforms in every way. Not to mention is loads of fun to fly as nano arty cane. Navy drake: Please show me this cyclone fit that has better buffer fit than navy drake, and can recieve reps better. Also explo radius bonus, where is it on the cyclone? Navy brutix: yep Navy harb: mostly Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role

Fourteen Maken Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance 201	Posted - 2015.10.01 21:33:28 - [611] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Trinkets friend wrote: First impressions: Ferox: ridiculously ridonkadonk brawler, great dualprop MWD-MJD rail fleet boat, perfetto. italian kissing motions Cylone: Thanks for the projection bonus, but still sucks. Drake: Thanks, feels like the Old Drake Cane; Kinda feels like the old Cane, but crappier. Arty is still a horrible bloaty weapon choice, terrible tracking. Not bad armour brawler. Prophecy: Meh. Drone speed is good if you hate being kited by Garmurs. Harby: Eh. Slooow. Brutix: Thanks for the mobility, now every other brawler is toast. No one active tanks these anymore. Myrm: Same-same. Navy Drake: Honestly, you can buffer fit a Cyclone and get the same effect, so why bother. Fleet Cane: Hellooo alphacanes. Pity you have to pay through the nose to get not much more of a ship. Welp. Brutix navy: Same-same, still a decent gank hull-tank station camper's paradise boat Harby navy: Same-same. Sloooow. I think you can call this, basically, the Ferox Rebalance. it's more or less a missed opportunity to redo the lineup, I think. The tweaks aren't very substantial in most parts. I would have thought that spreading some EWAR bonuses through half the non-navy lineup would have done something better. You know, neut bonus on Prophecy, damp bonus on Myrm, TP's on Cyclone (with more mids!), etc. I dunno. Something more than "oh, we better give these slow punching bags some projection buffs, that's going to save them". Nope. The only significant change is the Ferox, and that came about due to slot layout changes. That's an interesting lesson to take away, isn't it, Fozzie? Actually, the Ferox win here is also related to getting a ship bonus that enhances the class bonus, while no other ship in class does. Also, on the Navy Drake I think you miss the stupidly above par agility and tank on it in comparison to the other navy BCs. The dps on missile boats is not as important as on turret boats. Otherwise excellent analysis of this below standard rebalance pass. I have liked most rebalancing from Fozzie, Rise et al, but this was a real disappointment and poorly done. "Also, on the Navy Drake I think you miss the stupidly above par agility and tank on it in comparison to the other navy BCs" - hyperbole. The Navy Brutix has a 200k EHP hulltank with full tackle, cap booster, neut and a smaller sig radius. Can't even get close to that with a pvp fit Navy Drake with tackle. Navy Drake is the most agile but we're talking about ~1 second align time, hardly classes it as "stupidly" above par and it pays for these strengths with lower DPS and no utility high. Theoretically the tank on the Navy Drake is very good if you don't have to fill your mids with tackle and application mods, but it's unlikely to make it as mainline dps in a fleet doctrine. The t1 Drake has nearly as much tank and higher dps for a fraction of the cost but it's not being used extensively because of delayed dps and the need for dedicated tackle/ewar. Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war: The sinews of war; infinite money.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:12:42 - [612] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: elitatwo wrote: Harvey James wrote: ...read the post properly, i mentioned HAM's NOT cruise missiles, and you have clearly not looked at brutix/myrm shield fits compared too what the ferox shield tank will be. You and your nerfs all the time. I say increase torpedo range to 50km and nerf bombers accordingly. And for christ sake give them full application. 50km torps is just madness, range on a jav raven would be crazy, nerfs are just necessary sometimes for balance (looks at T3's), better than powercreep which is what the navy drake kind of feels like HAM's having 16km range with rage is just OP, 30km with javelin is also OP and better than scorch .. range being the supposed strong point of lasers, but conflag doing 10km is just lame compared, then you only need too look at auto's and blasters too see how strong that range actually is on HAM's. You do know that missile range is very relative right? And even javelin missiles have trouble shooting smaller stuff. The explosion velocity on hams is just terrible. I tell you what, you make a video where you show me without doubt and reproducible where heavy assault missiles will have 30km range and I give you one million isk. sac has 45km range with HAM jav's Faction, not T2
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:16:18 - [613] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Shade Alidiana wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Shade Alidiana wrote: Just a question. Why do you call it a major buff for navy hurri? Alpha is good but rof is like.. really useful. Why not 10% rof instead, if you can't keep both? (5% rof and damage wouldn't look out of order in one line and/or as one bonus with some of the other ships out there..) When you have an alpha doctrine, or like me, just want to fly around blapping with arty, the 10% dmg/tracking is well worth the sacrifice of RoF. 3-4k alpha with tracking similar to scorch, at least with drop booster. Fleet cane was compensated slightly with a bigger drone bay to make up for the "DPS" loss, but the raw damage is actually a buff. I'm good with an overall dps loss, minny need an arty ship that actually works, but isn't god awfully OP like the svipul. Aren't similar features already included in Sleipnir? Which isn't much more expensive but is tankier as well. I want some difference in my ships :) Not really. Sleip is 300m and has loads of training time behind it to sit in one. Not to mention needing CS5 to get the max alpha. Sleip also doesnt have the 50% tracking bonus which is extremely useful. For reference, on the fleet cane, with a metastasis rig, TE and sabot/quake you are approaching scorch tracking but with 3k vollies. Add a drop booster and you're there. Fleet cane is also faster/agile than sleip now, making it a better kiter. Sleip is a better brawler and is good with arty, but nowhere as easy to sit in, and squeezing arty, XLASB, neuts and prop can be challenging. HFI will be a fun easy to fly, relatively cheap arty ship. The tracking bonus alone is enough of a difference for me (highest tracking BC to boot). Plus the hybrid optimal/falloff bonus which will make sabot/depleted uranium very nice to use. Unlike the sleip which is strictly falloff bonused. Missiles still take longer to train.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:19:14 - [614] - Quote Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. I think if this were to happen, Caldari missile ships would end up outclassing other missile ships outright unless they were then rebalanced to be more like their competitors damage wise. So instead, the Amarr Missile ships outclass other missile ships and fit perfectly in the common armor doctrine. Isn't amarr's 2nd weapon system drones?
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:22:47 - [615] - Quote Uriam Khanid wrote: First impression not good. Drake and Cane replaced by Navy Drake and Fleet Cane. basicly that all. Ships with drone max. velocity - well, bad english here as class BC are still sucks. especially against HAC and navy cruisers fix Cyclone, please proposal: may be it will be good to mess CBC and ABC. example: Harbinger - 5H/4M/6L (4 large turrets) and role bonus - 50% tracking "No ABC was touched inappropriately in this patch."
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.10.01 23:28:58 - [616] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Rekt Zero wrote: Pretty sure drake is popular because of the tank, the dps is laughable at best. Not the ships fault you don't know how to use it effectively. In what I quoted, it was mentioned they needed more dps, I think the dps is fine on the BC's, most of them are either on par with a HAC, or quite a bit higher (depending on fit). Fleet cane has more dps with artillery than Muninn, and more dps with a/c's than vagabond. Brutix does more dps than deimos, drake does similar dps of a cerb, but can sport a better tank. So seems to be working as intended. Yea, there is sig/speed and other things to consider, but its not like BC's are worthless, you'll just need to work harder for the kill. Even with MWD sig reduction, proper piloting and maintaining transversal will still allow you to hit a HAC just fine. I've yet to see a HAC that can fit an MJD. I mention something similar before.. maybe in a different thread. I have opinions on drake fits I will not be sharing in here to protect what may be a beastly cruiser killer. MMJD's don't fit on a hac. hands down.
Feodor Romanov Blitzkrieg Federation NEOS FLEET 20	Posted - 2015.10.02 09:06:05 - [617] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Feodor Romanov wrote: I think Ferox deserve to have 10% damage/ skill lvl as most others BC have. Yes, let the 55m BC obsolete the 300m CS (Vulture) even more. Vulture have t2 resists, more EHP, better range bonus. If you think that it is not enough, then this is discussion about vulture's boost.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 576	Posted - 2015.10.02 13:18:58 - [618] - Quote Feodor Romanov wrote: Stitch Kaneland wrote: Feodor Romanov wrote: I think Ferox deserve to have 10% damage/ skill lvl as most others BC have. Yes, let the 55m BC obsolete the 300m CS (Vulture) even more. Vulture have t2 resists, more EHP, better range bonus. If you think that it is not enough, then this is discussion about vulture's boost. Ferox = 6 turrets, Vulture = 5 turrets. If you give the ferox a 10% dmg bonus, it will have more dps than a t2 CS with very similar range. Higher EHP/Resists is irrelevant when being used as a throw away sniper. Rail corm comes to mind here. I've already been running across Ferox's in lowsec that are fit with MJD+MWD and are setup purely for sniping. Setup to shoot 300+ dps out to about 160km. The vulture with the same fit will shoot out to `190km with identical damage as a ferox currently. That isn't much difference in range, and again EHP/resists are largely irrelevant when you aren't going to be hit by any conventional means. Short of a dedicated prober to get a warp-in. Caldari Hybrid ships always favor range over damage, gallente ships favor damage/tracking over range, this isn't new. The new ferox is quite strong, lets not go overboard with it. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Ersahi Kir Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 425	Posted - 2015.10.02 19:19:58 - [619] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. I think if this were to happen, Caldari missile ships would end up outclassing other missile ships outright unless they were then rebalanced to be more like their competitors damage wise. So instead, the Amarr Missile ships outclass other missile ships and fit perfectly in the common armor doctrine. Isn't amarr's 2nd weapon system drones? Before tiericide amarr ships were mostly lasers with a few T2 Khanid ships being missiles. They decided during diericide that amarr was lasers and drones, but they never changed the T2 missile ships, so now the amarr ship line is confused.
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 952	Posted - 2015.10.03 05:53:52 - [620] - Quote I did not follow this thread since my first posting ...just an add on would like to see fleet hurricane get same drone space as every other hull. It already lost gun dps and not be able to have spare light or troll drones like everyone else means it will not be able to use 5 med drones to compensate for lost dps! Can anyone upstairs explain why is this reasonable idea and why on just hurry hull?

Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 1955	Posted - 2015.10.03 07:07:28 - [621] - Quote Poranius Fisc wrote: So instead, the Amarr Missile ships outclass other missile ships and fit perfectly in the common armor doctrine. Isn't amarr's 2nd weapon system drones? Amarr missile ships do not outclass any other missile ship at long range. You cannot use a Sacrilege or Damnation or Malediction with long range missiles (as their damage with these and the lack of kity-ness hampers them a lot) unlike all the other missile ships. The only thing Amarr missile ships are good at are HAM/Rockets in case of Sacri/Malediction and a whore gun on the Damnation. And even at short range, the armor ships have their problems with keeping up or getting in effective range (ie. web range) in the first place. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 580	Posted - 2015.10.04 00:26:14 - [622] - Quote Mina Sebiestar wrote: I did not follow this thread since my first posting ...just an add on would like to see fleet hurricane get same drone space as every other hull. It already lost gun dps and not be able to have spare light or troll drones like everyone else means it will not be able to use 5 med drones to compensate for lost dps! Can anyone upstairs explain why is this reasonable idea and why on just hurry hull? Hint: Use artillery There is a slight dps loss, but you're still getting a double damage bonus (10%, instead of 5%). With artillery, you get huge vollies, more than what the old cane stats could, albeit at the cost of RoF. Tbh though, that slightly slower RoF is made up in the sheer damage. I was alpha'ing through an LSE+XLASB cruiser and making them bleed armor/structure on each shot. In terms of drones, old cane had 25m3 of drone, now it has 50m3. Its a buff no matter how you look at. No one is forcing you to use mediums. You can still have your light drone and "troll" drones. If you're smart, you fit an MJD for brawler fits and just stick with mediums when you tackle something, MJD from anything that kites you which mediums can't catch. The cyclone has the same drone bay, and does less dps than the cane. So its comparable to other minmatar ships. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 526	Posted - 2015.10.04 01:15:23 - [623] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: "Also, on the Navy Drake I think you miss the stupidly above par agility and tank on it in comparison to the other navy BCs" - hyperbole. The Navy Brutix has a 200k EHP hulltank with full tackle, cap booster, neut and a smaller sig radius. Can't even get close to that with a pvp fit Navy Drake with tackle. Navy Drake is the most agile but we're talking about ~1 second align time, hardly classes it as "stupidly" above par and it pays for these strengths with lower DPS and no utility high. Theoretically the tank on the Navy Drake is very good if you don't have to fill your mids with tackle and application mods, but it's unlikely to make it as mainline dps in a fleet doctrine. The t1 Drake has nearly as much tank and higher dps for a fraction of the cost but it's not being used extensively because of delayed dps and the need for dedicated tackle/ewar. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. That agility does a lot to evade those hulltanked Brutixes you worry about. BCs are not solo ships. If these were frigs I would worry. They are not though. They are still relatively lumbering lumps that the bulk of the playerbase will not ride through lowsec or null looking for the elusive solo fight in. It is the fleet comps that we have to be careful of. There will not be fleets of hulltanked Brutixes for the obvious reason of no logi and no spider because remote hull tank modules blow chunks. There may be fleets of perma mwd Drakes and yes Navy Drakes. Hell people run around in tech3 and command ship fleets. Navy Drakes would be nbd. And just about every fleet comp needs dedicated tackle and ewar. BCs will be no different. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2761	Posted - 2015.10.04 02:59:52 - [624] - Quote Ersahi Kir wrote: Before tiericide amarr ships were mostly lasers with a few T2 Khanid ships being missiles. They decided during diericide that amarr was lasers and drones, but they never changed the T2 missile ships, so now the amarr ship line is confused. Now that you mention it, it is funny the different racial combos. Too bad no projectiles on anyone but minmatar :(
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 581	Posted - 2015.10.04 03:13:24 - [625] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: Fourteen Maken wrote: "Also, on the Navy Drake I think you miss the stupidly above par agility and tank on it in comparison to the other navy BCs" - hyperbole. The Navy Brutix has a 200k EHP hulltank with full tackle, cap booster, neut and a smaller sig radius. Can't even get close to that with a pvp fit Navy Drake with tackle. Navy Drake is the most agile but we're talking about ~1 second align time, hardly classes it as "stupidly" above par and it pays for these strengths with lower DPS and no utility high. Theoretically the tank on the Navy Drake is very good if you don't have to fill your mids with tackle and application mods, but it's unlikely to make it as mainline dps in a fleet doctrine. The t1 Drake has nearly as much tank and higher dps for a fraction of the cost but it's not being used extensively because of delayed dps and the need for dedicated tackle/ewar. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. That agility does a lot to evade those hulltanked Brutixes you worry about. BCs are not solo ships. If these were frigs I would worry. They are not though. They are still relatively lumbering lumps that the bulk of the playerbase will not ride through lowsec or null looking for the elusive solo fight in. It is the fleet comps that we have to be careful of. There will not be fleets of hulltanked Brutixes for the obvious reason of no logi and no spider because remote hull tank modules blow chunks. There may be fleets of perma mwd Drakes and yes Navy Drakes. Hell people run around in tech3 and command ship fleets. Navy Drakes would be nbd. And just about every fleet comp needs dedicated tackle and ewar. BCs will be no different. Says you. Ive been soloing in BCs about a year before this patch. Ive also seen others use them.fairly frequently, even the null guys with their kitchen sinks. They are viable solo ships, you just have to use the utility and damage to your advantage. Just tonight i killed a svipul with logi on grid with my arty fleet cane, and many other ships before him. I go 1600m/s cold, and to you that seems slow, but is more than enough to dictate range against most frigs (except garmurs and linked frigs) long enough for them to die to arty. The highish targeting range, projection and shear damage is more than enough for these ships to handle themselves in solo roles. A BC is countered by BS. You might get 200k ehp navy drakes, but you can get 200k+ EHP Apocs that counter them just as easily. I dont see BC/drake fleets making a huge comeback. But they will be viable in smaller doctrines or gang setups. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 952	Posted - 2015.10.04 15:02:36 - [626] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Mina Sebiestar wrote: I did not follow this thread since my first posting ...just an add on would like to see fleet hurricane get same drone space as every other hull. It already lost gun dps and not be able to have spare light or troll drones like everyone else means it will not be able to use 5 med drones to compensate for lost dps! Can anyone upstairs explain why is this reasonable idea and why on just hurry hull? Hint: Use artillery There is a slight dps loss, but you're still getting a double damage bonus (10%, instead of 5%). With artillery, you get huge vollies, more than what the old cane stats could, albeit at the cost of RoF. Tbh though, that slightly slower RoF is made up in the sheer damage. I was alpha'ing through an LSE+XLASB cruiser and making them bleed armor/structure on each shot. In terms of drones, old cane had 25m3 of drone, now it has 50m3. Its a buff no matter how you look at. No one is forcing you to use mediums. You can still have your light drone and "troll" drones. If you're smart, you fit an MJD for brawler fits and just stick with mediums when you tackle something, MJD from anything that kites you which mediums can't catch. The cyclone has the same drone bay, and does less dps than the cane. So its comparable to other minmatar ships. I appreciate response and you are right on workaround from don't use med drones to usem with mjd but what i asked is simpler all other ships received buffs including 75mb drone capacity hurricane did not.
Poranius Fisc State War Academy Caldari State 11	Posted - 2015.10.11 19:03:17 - [627] - Quote Ersahi Kir wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: Arkon Olacar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out. I'm not sure how to make this more clearcut. This is bad. Stop doing this. Please. I think if this were to happen, Caldari missile ships would end up outclassing other missile ships outright unless they were then rebalanced to be more like their competitors damage wise. So instead, the Amarr Missile ships outclass other missile ships and fit perfectly in the common armor doctrine. Isn't amarr's 2nd weapon system drones? Before tiericide amarr ships were mostly lasers with a few T2 Khanid ships being missiles. They decided during diericide that amarr was lasers and drones, but they never changed the T2 missile ships, so now the amarr ship line is confused. And even as a Caldari pilot, id fly a sacrilege well before a cerb.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1216	Posted - 2015.10.16 19:33:38 - [628] - Quote could we unsticky this now please? T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 14	Posted - 2015.10.22 11:46:59 - [629] - Quote so, BC crash the cruiser era or they are still not in game?
Hasikan Miallok Republic University Minmatar Republic 1601	Posted - 2015.10.29 00:08:53 - [630] - Quote This rebalance seems to be working out OK. Be nice one day to see one of the Drone BC get a navy version.

Dredward Teach Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.11.20 17:42:11 - [631] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Khador Vess wrote: return of the drakefleet... awesome Forget Drakefleet. Welcome FeroxFleet. EDIT: Not only FeroxFleet...but symetrically-placed turret FeroxFleet! WAHOO! Called it


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: [one page]

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