And a 300 million price tag for a battlecruiser.
Depends on when you buy. Id snatch em when they were 220m. Better than a nighthawk, especially now with t2 prices being jacked up.
1 Like
Yeah, donāt remind me and remember, you may want to fit them first. T2 rigs are ridiculous.
1 Like
over the last year there was one day where the median price for a navy drake was 300m or higher. Sure the price may be high, but the DNI hasnāt ever been a meta ship, and caldari FW is has been low tier for a while.
Could be that everyone forgot that heavy missiles are a weapon system.
Rapid ancillary online -yeayā¦
1 Like
Itās hard to get excited about these changes when other things promised or started by the balance team havenāt been completed. Is module tiercide no longer a thing? Thereās still quite a handful of Meta 1-4 modules. What about faction turrets and launchers? No changes after a year+ of ādiscussionsā.
3 Likes
I dont consider cost when fitted. How you fit may be different than how i do. Hull price is 200-250m depending. Perfectly reasonable considering HACs are in that range and the NH far exceeds it price wise with a similar performance (DNI might be better now, just less tanky).
buh-bye
12 Likes
It would be nice if you could increase the number of contracts an individual can make since these days a lot of alliance/coalition ships are placed fitted on contracts for people to buy.
1 Like
- More change is better, even if itās small
- The meta is feeling stagnant, particularly around Feroxes and the Marchariel
A bunch of small tweaks over time can result in large changes. Far better than the old nerf sledgehammer and leave it for 2-3 years approach. Something Iāve probably been arguing for 10 years now.
And now the changes:
T1 BS: sounds like a nice start, but I think Iād like to see a scan res and warp speed change too. Maybe even a bigger cargo bump. Heck when it comes to warp speed Iād probably want to bump almost everything up just a bit, leaving the top few ships where they are.
ABCs with an MJD: sounds interesting. with the MJDFGs Iām not too concerned with it, like I might have been back when you first put MJDs on BCs.
Orthrus: about time, a RLML pass might also help here. Smaller clip with reduced reload time sounds like the way to do it.
Ferox: not too surprised here. medium railguns with the double range bonus are strong. Fitting nerf might hurt blaster brawlers but Iāve never flown one so couldnāt say for sure.
Mach: cant decide if this hurts me, or gives some new options. The falloff nerf is a hit, but I always liked getting close anyways. The extra mid should be nice for shield fits though. Canāt comment on impact for fleet machs.
DNI: very interesting, finally getting that utility high and a nice DPS buff. And with one less launcher to fit an indirect fitting buff.
Cyclone: nice small buff. Brawl cyclone was already one of my favorite BCs.
Eagle: Drone bay should be nice for brawlers, but not sure it does much for fleet comps. And some extra speed is nice for everyone. Gains some utility but doesnāt take a hit, so doesnāt hurt anything either.
Muninn: that thingās needed something for a long time, maybe this is the thing.
Monitor: Throw your FC into something else and use a few of these for bait? Makes me wonder if signaling who your FC is will entice the opponent into trying to headshot them?
3 Likes
One thing i thought about for the orthrus. This is going to make ham/hml fits even harder to work. I had a dual prop ham fit that was fun, but quite hard to fit.
I know this is a ātweakā and you guys dont want time consuming changes, but wouldnt it be better to do a fitting nerf to RLML to achieve similar results (along with a minor fitting nerf to the orthrus). Just feel like youre forgetting HAMS and HML exist too. The issue with the orthrus is the same on most of the common RLML ships.
4 Likes
Recommend giving the range bonus, storage bay, and the scan resolution bonuses suggested by Stitch Kaneland to T2 battleships as well. BLOPS and Marauders need the same treatment as badly as the T1s. Recommend consider increasing the range bonus from 20% to 35% to reduce the need of using one of the three sebos commonly used on long range battleships.
2 Likes
This Monitor shipās name speaks for itself. Itās only good to monitoring things during the battle and make nice vids. Reminds me Polaris frig.
Nasty joke from CCP about command ships without ability to fit command burst well and if thatās the case make those fleet boosters at least build in role bonuses.
1 Like
Then that would not end up being a nerf to the Mach, just a swap of armor for shields. You will now have extra low slots open though, so you can use them for more deeps or the extra CPU.
If you improve battleshipsā scan res and mobility, you push battlecruisers back into āthere is literally no reason to use theseā territory. As for cargoā¦ hah. Right now, battleships are already the best mining ship an alpha clone can fly. You wanna make that even more the case?
They canāt fly Expedition Frigates.
They canāt fly Barges, let alone Exhumers.
8 Miner IIs on a battleship outperforms 2 on a Venture by about 100%. (2 Miner IIs + 1 MLU II Venture: 6.28m3/s. 8 Miner IIs on an Apoc: 12.5m3/s, no MLUs). The Ventureās got a 5k m3 ore hold. Fully expanded, the current Apoc has 6.12k m3 cargo capacity. Thatās going to go up by roughly 25% as the base cargo increases. 100% more yield, 50% more carrying capacity. Mine faster, in fewer trips. And you can carry an assortment of dps, ECM, and mining drones.
So sure, letās make the cargo hold even bigger. Who needs Badgers and Wreaths, weāve got battleships.
1 Like
You act like anything you just said is a bad thing. Sounds just fine to me. Bring back mining in an Apoc!
3 Likes
Also, that 100% increased mining yield comes at a 54,000% increase in cost.
2 Likes
Nobody cares about alphas mining in battleships. They arent going to be making 100s of billions in a mining BS. 100% more than a venture?! Mah gawd, thats like 2m per cargohold instead of 1m. A venture also costs 800k, an apoc is 150m. Battleships wont become the top tier miner.
What is hurting battleships, that numerous people do care about is that pvp fits cannot hold the ammo or cap boosters needed to actually put up a fight. To expand on this, you know those deployables ccp released a few years ago? Cant fit them in battleships cause no space next to the bulky cap boosters and ammo.
As far as BCs go, youre forgetting tracking. A ferox tracks much better than a rokh, is also much cheaper as well. Battlecruisers counter cruisers, while battleships counter battlecruisers and caps counter battleships. Currently we are at the āwhy fly a battleshipā point, battleships need a buff to some basic stats to bring them out of the hole and see more use, outside of null blobs (although im not in favor of warp speed buffs, unless all ships end up going faster).
6 Likes
It is a bad thing. It means that CCPās balancing ships without any eye toward how these changes impact other ships they want people to be using. The mining frigates and the small T1 haulers are just examples. Next time, it could be assault frigates being made completely useless by Tech III Des-waaaitā¦
And yes, the battleshipās more expensive. Itāll pay for itself over time though. Fewer trips means less interruptions means less downtime means thatās really more like 110% improvement. And no, itās not a 54,000% increase in cost.
Venture, 2x Miner IIs and MLU II (no other modules): 2.69M.
Apoc, 8x Miners IIs, fully-expanded cargo (n.o.m.): 242M.
So itās actually only 10,000%. But yes, itās 100x the cost. So if the Venture pays for itself in 5 hours, the Apoc pays for itself in 250 hrs. Thing isā¦ if someoneās actually looking to get anywhere mining in EVE? That 250 hrs is maybe 2 weeks. As an alpha. With ratting bounties the Venture really canāt get, because itās got all of 2 drones and (esp in the hands of an alpha) no resists to speak of. So at a month, the Ventureās made enough for Apoc. The Apocās made enough for 2. Both have paid for a replacement Apocā¦ and now the Apocās pulling ahead in the no-life of a miner.
Thatās not how you get the ships you want people in to be used. And thatās really what Iām pointing out here, again:
It means that CCPās balancing ships without any eye toward how these changes impact other ships they want people to be using.
Theyāre ābalancingā in a bubble. Thatās how the DNI wound up in this position in the first place. Itās how HACs wound up outclassed completely by BCs in all rolesā¦ and even with these changes, probably still will be. The Eagleās supposed to be improved byā¦ a 25m3 drone bay? Really? Itās still 6x the price of a Ferox for worse performance. Yeah. Itās got 10km better range. But I can field 6 fleets all around you for the price of your Eagle gang. And when I do get you in range, Iām going to tear you up. The ADC isnāt going to save you, because it ends. And then youāve only got 10k EHP more than me.
3 Likes