Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

[Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Goonswarm Federation
#741 Posted: 2013.01.10 19:46  |  Edited by: mynnna
Mole Guy wrote:
i dont know, maybe i misread it and i wasnt going to read through 37 pages to see if its been pointed out:

harbinger now has 6 lasers with a 10% damage bonus vs 7 with a 5% bonus.

7x 1.25% (25% bonus at rank 5)= the power of 8.75 lasers.
6X1.5% (50% bonus at rank 5)= the power of 9 lasers.

do the math

seems to me dps out went up, power consumption went down, cpu and power grid needs went down, cost of outfitting a ship went down by 1 laser and 1 crystal of each flavor. granted, its a small bonus, but less draw on my cap makes me a happier camper.



the grid and cpu get lowered, cause we dont need the extra laser. acceptable.
more drone bay so we can use 5 lights or 5 mediums... great!
armor got lowered, its a tad slower, a few minor tweaks...


lemme go back and reread it again to make sure i am right, but i think the harby is still a beast. maybe the armor got dropped a little...i can deal with that. 500 armor isnt THAT bad...less draw on my cap is a plus though!


The problem people who have a problem with the Harbinger have is that decent fits require unreasonably large compromises. You have to jump through some pretty serious hoops to get both heavy pulse lasers and a 1600mm plate on, like "ditch two trimarks for a CPU and Grid rig and add in a CPU implant" compromises. Even if you drop to an 800mm plate, you still need an implant. It can also drop to smaller guns, but that's a ~14% loss of range and damage, and it still requires a CPU implant too. Compar that to the prophecy and myrmidon, which can fit a 1600mm plate with no problems. Or compare it to the hurricane - to fit a 1600mm plate and 425mm autos, it either uses one fitting rig, or downgrades the guns to 220mm ACs, which is a only a ~5% loss in damage/range. Or it can go all the way down to dual 180mm ACs, which is a 17% loss of range and 10% loss of damage, more similar to the price the harbinger pays...but in return, it gets to actually use its utility high, fitting a neut or something. Even a lot of Tech 1 cruisers have an easier time fitting a plate than a Harbinger does.

So no, it's not actually "fine".
Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
C C P Alliance
#742 Posted: 2013.01.10 19:48  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.

I've been reading all the feedback here and everything I can find on other websites, thanks for the help so far. I'm going to pick out a few common questions to answer today.

Are the Battlecruiser skills being split into racial version at the same time as these changes?

We have been planning to split the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skills into racial variations (Details can be found in CCP Ytterbium's dev blog here) for a while, but we've been vague about the when. Originally I had hoped to get the changes into this point release, but we've seen an opportunity to both build better tools to help players understand the changes (communicating the mechanics involved is something we could have done better so far) and also combine the skill changes with some other adjustments that fit together well. So I now have permission to let you all know that the skill change is scheduled for our Summer expansion 2013 (which most of you know tends to fall in the late spring). We'll be working to make sure that as many people as possible understand the changes beforehand. I know that some of you may feel that we've been stringing you guys along since the changes were first proposed so long ago, but we're working to make sure a huge change like this is done in the most responsible way possible.

To repeat, the skill split is scheduled for the big Summer 2013 expansion.


Why aren't there Tier 3 BC changes in this thread?

This thread is focused on the Combat line of Battlecruisers, which are the former Tier 1 and Tier 2 ships. The Tier 3 BCs will be rechristened Attack Battlecruisers and will have their own thread when we're ready to start gathering feedback.


What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!

I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.


Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?

This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.


Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!

There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus:
1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings).
2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook.
3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.


I thought the Drake was going to get missile range and RoF bonuses?

That rumor stems from a discussion that was made during a previous CSM summit, and represented an early idea rather than a completed design. I have always been of the opinion that the Drake was actually decently balanced other than the problems with the weapon system, and now that we have taken our shot at balancing heavy missiles in Retribution the changes the drake needed are smaller.
There has also been a feeling expressed that we had been planning to remove all single damage type missile bonuses. It is true that we switched a few ships to omnidamage in Retribution, but we also specifically left the kinetic bonus on the Condor, as well as adding new racial damage bonuses to the Corax and Talwar. We do not consider the single damage bonus to be obsolete. Both RoF and damage missile bonuses are valid tools to use, and I prefer having a variety. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and provide different interesting gameplay in different situations.


Why is the Cyclone getting just 5 launchers and why does it keep 2 turrets?

Creating effective balance between the Cyclone and the Drake is tricky business. We are aiming for a useful tradeoff between the ships, with the Cyclone significantly faster and more maneuverable and with two utility highs vs the Drake's extra missile damage, with the shield boost bonus vs resists. If it turns out that the Cyclone needs more damage to be competitive, then changing it is not off the table, but we're going to be careful here.
As for the turrets, we consider these slots to be utility highs. The existence of the turrets is simply to provide people more room to do creative things with fits and go max gank if they feel the need. A vast majority of the time we expect those remaining highs to be filled with Neuts, Smartbombs, Gang links, Probes, Salvagers or other handy highslot modules. Having two unbonused weapons available as an option for utility highs is not the same thing as split weapons, and the Cyclone is no more a split weapon ship than the Raven is. Examples of split weapon ships are the Typhoon and Naglfar, both of which are designs that I consider obsolete and worth changing when we get to them.


Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?

This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Sleeper Social Club
#743 Posted: 2013.01.10 19:57
Thanks for the reply, Fozzie. I'd still love to see more variety in the Gallente BC bonuses, or at least hear some options of what you guys are kicking around.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.

>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! <<
#744 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:02
Double drone bonus on myrm would be pretty kick ass. The ship flys better as a shield tanker anyway Twisted
#745 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:05
Lili Lu wrote:
Yep, Ferox 8.2 align time, Harbinger 9.1 align time. That makes so much sense because once you put plates on the Ferox . . Ugh
The Harbinger is now a space cow, moo, moo, run away lest I present my posterior and projectile laser poo in your direction Pirate Yeah what happened to avoiding the blessing of sniper ships with speed and agility such that they can do their thing without worries. And conversely let's give the probable pulse range ship the mobility of a cow moo moo

Concerning the gallente BCs, how about swapping out those 7.5% armor repper bonuses for something like the old Auguror used to have. IdeaAttention A 10% (or whatever number) per level armor hp bonus. It's differnt from a resist bonus. Essentially Amarr ships have a built in eanm, but gallente ships would have a built in plate instead. This would make sense, as they might not have to fit a plate then and could just load resist mods and that way hope to burn into blaster range.

Can't do the same with shield hp, because then you are messing with regen, and anyway with ASBs the active shield bonuses are not worthless like the active armor is. The only reason it works on an Incursus is because the bonus is 10% and the ship has enough grid to fit two and well it's a frig. Once you get to BC and MAR it just doesn't work anymore for pvp. Of course you could buff MARs, but I think it would still be preferable to go buffer and broadcast for logi loving.


Buff MAR, create an armor version of ASB... either way the Prophecy resist buff is still better. I agree that both ships shouldn't have the active tank bonus. Either tracking or 10% HP bonus would be a much better choice.
Ivy League
#746 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:09
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.

Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%.
Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.
Heretic Initiative
#747 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:13
Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.

I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.

-Liang
Heretic Initiative
#748 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:14
Aethlyn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.

Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%.


I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership.

-Liang
C C P Alliance
#749 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:17
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.

I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.

-Liang


Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at.
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
#750 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:21
I really like your t1 cruiser changes as i do for the BC change and BS change coming soon.

But what i do not like is that once again you remove an advantage to the solo players by making the navy and faction ships absolutly useless to pvp next to the t1 ones.
A T1 caracal tank more, tackle better, have more speed, more CPU than a navy caracal....its just one from all the others.

Pimp was a way to give an extra boost to your solo ship against blobs (because lets say it, eve is all about blobs nowaday).

I'd like to see some serious thinking about the navy and faction.

Otherwise, thank you for all the efforts you do to make the game better for PVP.
Amarr Empire
#751 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:22
I'm not sure about the Harbinger on tranq being the worst t2 BC, but after these nerfs it certainly brings nothing to the table that other BCs don't already possess. Well, except for the worst maneuverability. That's unique. (its not the slowest one, guys, remember there are 3 slower ships).

So overall its just a completely forgettable hull.
#752 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:24
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.

What about armor tanking? The imbalances caused by the mass of plates, the speed penalty on armor rigs and the weakness of armor reps in pvp situations are a problem that becomes more pronounced for these ships than for any of the smaller classes and should be fixed as soon as possible!

I completely agree. ~Working on it~. However since we want to be very careful about what we promise and when that's all I can say at this exact moment.


Even if active armor tanking gets better, Gallente don't need two ships with a active armor bonus! Why not give them more variety in bonuses?

This is a very legitimate concern and is something I am open to changing, we have other options being looked at and are always interested in all your ideas. However I want to wait a bit before switching the design around.




if you up the brutix to 10% bonus for amor reps per level and made it include external incomming armor RR that would fix the scale problem with armor tanking all together...

now you can fit plates without waisting a bonus.

secondly get rid of the tanking bonus on the myrn reduce to only 4 high slots and give us a 6th mid slot (its a shield tanked ship anyways) and give us a bonus to 7.5% to drone optimal range and tracking per level

this will make the myrm a mean green sentry machine...

also to help medium rails please please please increase the rof of them... doing this would help make up for thier lackluster dps...

also while you are at it rebalance hybrid tech I ammo to ad divercity... (like they did for projectile ammo years ago)

thanks in advance

Fuk
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
#753 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:25  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Yay, you are back!
And I do see your point with most of them.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?

This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.

In the Caldari lineup, both Ferox and Drake could be made work with 6 damage (or RoF) bonused hardpoints. Roll
Prophecy already lends itself to it.
Myrm... must drone ships keep the one slot less, when it doesn't even have enough bay for ONE spare flight, yet alone utility drones (rep/ewar/frigkiller)?
Minmatar are OK with their utility highs, if let's say Drake gets down to 6 launchers, Cyclone could have it's go up. Roll
Although then they'd be quite competing with each other.
"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#754 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:41
@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking.
Liang Nuren wrote:
Aethlyn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.

Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%.


I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership.

-Liang

I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?
Amarr Empire
#755 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:42  |  Edited by: B'reanna
@fozzie

You addressed most of my points with got feedback. but

why the values for the bandwidht and drone bay on the myrm? at it has 100 bandwidth which is a weird amount bc it means either 4 large or a mix of large and medium drones. and it cant hold 2 flights of drones with only 175m3 bay which is odd for a drone boat

and how the proposed changes seem to hurt the harb even more.
ie. a net 7% increase in dps(with max skills only 2% with lvl 4) while further limiting its ability to get in range and actually do dps.
as you said you cant comment on changes to how amour tanks vs shield tanking will work but are you considering these factors in how your changing the harb?
Amarr Empire
#756 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:46  |  Edited by: B'reanna
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking.
Liang Nuren wrote:
Aethlyn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.

Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%.


I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership.

-Liang

I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?

15 for leadership not sure were they are gtting 25m
Sleeper Social Club
#757 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:49
Mund Richard wrote:
Myrm... must drone ships keep the one slot less, when it doesn't even have enough bay for ONE spare flight, yet alone utility drones (rep/ewar/frigkiller)?
This is very true. I'm all for Amarr being about smaller bandwidth and 3x bandwidth m3 drone bay, and Gallente being about more bandwidth, but the Gallente's drone bay should at least represent one new flight of drones. Otherwise, you're leaving almost all your dps on the field if you have to warp out--and this is especially true with the Myrm fielding SLOW Heavy drones. We all know we're not going to have time to wait for them to slowboat back to the ship if we have to bug out.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.

>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! <<
Heretic Initiative
#758 Posted: 2013.01.10 20:59  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
@Fozzie: Still wondering why you are going drone boat for the Prophecy instead of sticking to the resist/damage formula that has worked wonders for its smaller brethren. Being a brick should be an option not a requirement which I am sad to say is what a 7 slot drone boat with resists will be .. simple no real (read: viable) options beyond bricking.
Liang Nuren wrote:
Aethlyn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.

Nerf off-grid boosts a bit to make on-grid boosting more interesting (even if it's just a slight reduction in effectiveness; something like 25% or 50%.


I don't want off grid boosting nerfed. I want all boosting nerfed. And I have something around 25M SP in leadership.

-Liang

I keep hearing those SP numbers thrown around, but doing the training multiplier x 256k for all skills (using EveMon) only yields 15M and change .. are there some secret skills I am not aware of or do people include peripheral skills?


Multiple characters, all mindlinks, etc.

-Liang

Ed: I'm trying to point out how much I have invested in leadership, and it would be wrong to simply say the max of one of my characters.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#759 Posted: 2013.01.10 21:00  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
Should you take another look at the Harbi, please note that Scorch + Energy Locus Coordinators create the sweet synergy that made the ship viable for me even if it was slow as hell.
There should be enough PG left to fit energy weapon rigs as a valid alternative to the standard 3xTrimarks.
As far as fitting is concerned, CPU should be the limiting factor, not both CPU and PG.
I'm just going to walk the Earth. You know, like Caine in Kung Fu: walk from place to place, meet people, get into adventures and die of autoerotic asphyxation in a sleazy Thai hotel room.
Rote Kapelle
#760 Posted: 2013.01.10 21:01
a bit off topic but has there been talk of treating the battleship skill like the BC skill?
How the **** do you remove a signature?
Forum Jump