Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sh00ter McGavin
Barr None
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 07:55:38 -
[271] - Quote
Love it. Absolutely love it. +1 |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
324
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 14:44:41 -
[272] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Kenrailae wrote:So again, bc's and projection?
Just like cruiser hulls, a plate so large would destroy any mobility the Bc class enjoys. I would st. l lean toward a slight hp buff, and a rebalance of arty I agree with the HP buff. 4.7% HP boost to the primary tank and 2.5% boost to the secondary tank and a 2% boost to tertiary (mostly hull) seems about right to me, which brings up the native EHP back towards the gap enjoyed pre-odyssey, without as much of a PG and cap gap and less mobility. This brings us back to projection. Personally, I feel a ~ 50% projection bonus is appropriate on all the turret BCs, with missiles around a 40% flight time bonus and drone boats getting a medium and light drone speed bonus. And yes, flight time. With the new missile computers, flight time bonuses and ROF bonuses will be extra powerful due to the ability to potentially inflict stacked volleys via time on target. Also, unlock the drake somewhat, with a slightly weaker bonus to the other types of missiles.
While im not opposed to a 40% projection bonus to missiles as the logic sound. The fact is missiles will still apply poorly whether they can shoot out to 20-30km for HAMS, or 60-95km for HML. Unless you have a rapier/huginn/loki.
Missile enhancers are coming out which is great, i dont think missile bonuses really need a rework. I guess depending on how good the MTE/MTCs are, will determine if i drop my TP or not. Or make some uber application fit HML nighthawk, since it has extra low.
I do like the drake idea though. Kind of like a big hookbill or nosprey. However, if the navy drake wasnt garbage, that would make that hull more desirable and the drake wouldnt need much tweaking.
Navy drake needs to have a utility high. Its a freakin BC that has a bonus to links, but cant even fit them with its weapon system. Dropping a launcher means youll do even less dps than a t1 drake. I really hope they tweak it, i like the bonuses, but one should be a role bonus. That way the other trait can be a RoF or dmg bonus and it can drop a launcher and finally have a utility high.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 01:59:34 -
[273] - Quote
I thought of another options for BC's with mostly the Hurricane in mind since it's the second weakest T1 BC in the current meta behind the drake. In my honest opinion I believe the current Role Bonus on the T1 BC to be fine as is and the Optimal Role bonus should be added to the Faction BC's. That been said I also believe the current T1 BCs should indeed have some kind of projection, so I propose that CCP should reconfigure their base BC skill level attributes. Using the Hurricane as an example, something like this:
Revised Hurricane Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff Role Bonus: GÇó Can fit Warfare Link modules
Revised Hurricane Fleet Issue Minmatar Battlecruiser bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed Role Bonus: GÇó 50% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
732
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 21:45:03 -
[274] - Quote
We're saved bois - 110km Talwars & Jackdaws coming to a REAL server near you.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
328
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 02:26:05 -
[275] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:We're saved bois - 110km Talwars & Jackdaws coming to a REAL server near you.
Good thing neither can point that far.
Looks like they've posted more new stuff for upcoming patch... put nothing on BC's yet. CCP, masters of suspense.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
James Baboli
Novablasters
909
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 02:30:15 -
[276] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:We're saved bois - 110km Talwars & Jackdaws coming to a REAL server near you. Good thing neither can point that far. Looks like they've posted more new stuff for upcoming patch... put nothing on BC's yet. CCP, masters of suspense. At least 110km puts them right where you land when you MJD.....
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 04:12:01 -
[277] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:We're saved bois - 110km Talwars & Jackdaws coming to a REAL server near you. Good thing neither can point that far. Looks like they've posted more new stuff for upcoming patch... put nothing on BC's yet. CCP, masters of suspense.
Where do you go to look about what CCP's gonna cripple next patch?
|
Falken Falcon
32022
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 06:32:57 -
[278] - Quote
+1
Aye, Sea Turtles
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
546
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 08:22:45 -
[279] - Quote
I still like the idea of them being the natural predators to Cruisers in the same way that destroyers are to frigates. Gaining a 3rd combat bonus as a role would be perfect for them, as the power they would enjoy would help balance the cruiser meta without needing it to be nerfed, and give people reason to bring battleships out to play.
Plus something like the Devilcane listed below would make for an amazing HFI to fly solo:
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill: 10% bonus to medium projectile turret damage per level 7.5% bonus to medium projectile turret tracking speed per level
Role bonus: 50% bonus to medium projectile falloff per level
It'd be like flying a Sleip without the phat shield reps lol |
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
546
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 08:28:59 -
[280] - Quote
Also, here's a 'balance' idea. If all the combat bc's get 3 bonuses like destroyers have, why not just set it up so only the faction battlecruisers can use links? It'd bump up their price so folks can make a good buck selling them, and it would help keep the power on the cheap t1 battlecruisers down (especially so CCP doesn't have to retroactively nerf them because of it if they want to go the triple bonus route).
As per the point made about the drake navy issue earlier, an easy fix would be moving the range bonus into the role bonus, and giving it a 5% RoF bonus, while dropping a launcher (or two). It would get the utility high to fit a command link AND gain some dps out of the deal too. |
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
363
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 13:42:29 -
[281] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I still like the idea of them being the natural predators to Cruisers in the same way that destroyers are to frigates. Gaining a 3rd combat bonus as a role would be perfect for them, as the power they would enjoy would help balance the cruiser meta without needing it to be nerfed, and give people reason to bring battleships out to play.
Plus something like the Devilcane listed below would make for an amazing HFI to fly solo:
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill: 10% bonus to medium projectile turret damage per level 7.5% bonus to medium projectile turret tracking speed per level
Role bonus: 50% bonus to medium projectile falloff per level
It'd be like flying a Sleip without the phat shield reps lol
Yes, similar to a sleip, just without the tank bonus and more armor orientated. Though, it will have a tracking bonus, so it would still be different enough and fill another role.
As to the DNI you mentioned, that is the idea for the change. Roll the projection trait into the role bonus, give it a RoF bonus, and open up some high slots for utility/links. CCP dropped the ball on faction BCs. The faction cane and drake being the worst offenders.
Look at all the other faction BCs. Then look at the cane, wheres the tracking bonus? Wheres the amped up damage bonus? No one wants to pay 150m for the "old cane". They paid 40m for them previously because they were cheap and effective. After nano and TE nerf, the old cane is dead. The faction cane needs to be realigned with the other faction BCs.
The navy drake has interesting bonuses, but with no utility high and having to squeeze 8 launchers on a BC is taxing on fitting. Plus the whole "can fit warfare links" role bonus, but has no slots to put them in. I know CCP hates caldari.. but cmon, at least make the ship able to fit weapons and 1-2 links like every other BC. Dropping a launcher means its dps is less than t1 drake. I want to fly navy drake.. but missing a utility high for neut makes me use t1 everytime.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
412
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 19:36:37 -
[282] - Quote
Ceh ceh peh, pls halp BC's.
The Law is a point of View
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
394
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 13:50:34 -
[283] - Quote
Guess we will be hearing about CCPs latest info on BC/BS tweaks in the next week or two. Crossing my fingers that they'll be decent.
Hopefully faction BCs will have a role to fill with their changes. I know they specifically called them out.. hopefully HFI and DNI get some love.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
James Baboli
Novablasters
992
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:06:19 -
[284] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Guess we will be hearing about CCPs latest info on BC/BS tweaks in the next week or two. Crossing my fingers that they'll be decent.
Hopefully faction BCs will have a role to fill with their changes. I know they specifically called them out.. hopefully HFI and DNI get some love.
Really hope they make arty canes viable again on at least the HFI.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Dean Wong
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 15:29:07 -
[285] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Guess we will be hearing about CCPs latest info on BC/BS tweaks in the next week or two. Crossing my fingers that they'll be decent.
Hopefully faction BCs will have a role to fill with their changes. I know they specifically called them out.. hopefully HFI and DNI get some love.
CCP fixing something????
We should really hope they stop breaking things
Anyway, I love to see any sort of improvements to Battlecrusiers to lift them out of their current sorry state. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
424
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 20:25:04 -
[286] - Quote
Hey on the plus side they are slowly fixing the swishtar. .... slowly. There may be some hope for bc's
The Law is a point of View
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Academy Heiian Conglomerate
584
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:28:43 -
[287] - Quote
I just hope they'll take a clue from this thread and others like it and give them the love they need; buffing bc's to get 3 bonuses would be one of the few ways they can kill two birds with one stone and give people good reasons to bring out battleships more often while fixing an entirely different ship class.
God knows even in FW we'd be flying battlecruisers all the time even if they couldn't fit into mediums if they got 3 bonuses.
EDIT: TBH i'd be fine with them removing the link bonuses to t1 battlecruisers and leaving it on faction as the low-sp alternative to command ships. It would 'balance' the t1 versions for gaining the extra bonus and powerful pvp increase (at least from a CCP balance perspective), and make faction battlecruisers immensely valuable. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
429
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 17:14:04 -
[288] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I just hope they'll take a clue from this thread and others like it and give them the love they need; buffing bc's to get 3 bonuses would be one of a few ways they can kill two birds with one stone and give people good reasons to bring out battleships more often while fixing an entirely different ship class.
God knows even in FW we'd be flying battlecruisers all the time even if they couldn't fit into mediums if they got 3 bonuses.
EDIT: TBH i'd be fine with them removing the link bonuses to t1 battlecruisers and leaving it on faction as the low-sp alternative to command ships. It would 'balance' the t1 versions for gaining the extra bonus and powerful pvp increase (at least from a CCP balance perspective), and make faction battlecruisers immensely valuable.
I suppose i see it as a bit of the opposite.
Faction BCs should be the the epitome of an anti-cruiser ship. Tracking/projection bonuses with decent EHP/fitting/SS etc. They are what make cruisers go "oh hell" when they pop up on dscan. Instead of the current thought process of "easy kill, lets just hang out at 20km".
T1 BCs are more flexible (hence t1) in what role they fill. If you want a 50m link boat, or a 50m combat ship, either should be viable. Idk bout you, but 150m link boat is kinda steep compared to what used to be 50m.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
317
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 03:45:46 -
[289] - Quote
+1 to OP, sounds like a great way to give purpose to BC's and BS's.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1722
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 12:59:54 -
[290] - Quote
I'll freely admit I have not read the whole thread so I will apologise up front is this is a repost, but I didn't want to open a new thread.
I've been doing some hard thinking about why these hulls (and to a lesser extent) battleships see reduced use. Looking at EHP, ranges, application, DPS and the results were less than obvious.
So I looked at speed and there it hits you. Speed is the killer, particularly in how it scales with bonuses.
I looked at the caldari line (because initially I was looking at DPS and the rails are a decent starting point).
Merlin/moa/ferox/rokh
Paper speeds: bs111 bc175 cru260 fri388
These are not too bad, the problems start appearing with mods:
all have a x-MN cold gas enduing MWD fit:
bs790 bc1083 cru1560 fri2838
Suddenly the bigger boys are left in the dirt, completely. Add links/implants/drugs if you like, it only opens the gap wider. Lef tin the dirt to the point there's no sane reason to fly one.
That's the issue, to me. In terms of combat they absolutely will shred cruisers today, they just never get the chance.
I do not believe there is an issue at the frigate tier and nor do I believe we should be speeding battleships and battlecruisers up, I think we need to bring cruisers back down. Slow them down so there is a maybe ~100-150m/s (subject to debate) gap between cruisers and BC with a mod on - skew acceleration as required to suit.
Kiting remains viable, but it's not a ridiculous family guys style greased up deaf guy situation we have today.
The fear here would be that "but everyone will only fly battlecruisers!" and the fear is valid and should be discussed. I feel like the bloated BC sig, the slower warps, the lower agility would keep this from being the case. It would also introduce them back as the natural predator of cruisers and give battleships a nice target to go stomping on. A return to rock paper scissors world of cruiser>battleship>battlecruiser>cruiser.
Anyway, it's something worthy of consideration alongside this thread I think - that maybe the problem is the cruiser tier/sized hulls and not actually the other ones directly and adding projection alone (or at all, actually) might not solve it/cause other issues further down the line.
If this is a bad derail I'm sorry - just say and I'll make a new thread. |
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
452
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 14:26:39 -
[291] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I'll freely admit I have not read the whole thread so I will apologise up front is this is a repost, but I didn't want to open a new thread.
I've been doing some hard thinking about why these hulls (and to a lesser extent) battleships see reduced use. Looking at EHP, ranges, application, DPS and the results were less than obvious.
So I looked at speed and there it hits you. Speed is the killer, particularly in how it scales with bonuses.
I looked at the caldari line (because initially I was looking at DPS and the rails are a decent starting point).
Merlin/moa/ferox/rokh
Paper speeds: bs111 bc175 cru260 fri388
These are not too bad, the problems start appearing with mods:
all have a x-MN cold gas enduing MWD fit:
bs790 bc1083 cru1560 fri2838
Suddenly the bigger boys are left in the dirt, completely. Add links/implants/drugs if you like, it only opens the gap wider. Lef tin the dirt to the point there's no sane reason to fly one.
That's the issue, to me. In terms of combat they absolutely will shred cruisers today, they just never get the chance.
I do not believe there is an issue at the frigate tier and nor do I believe we should be speeding battleships and battlecruisers up, I think we need to bring cruisers back down. Slow them down so there is a maybe ~100-150m/s (subject to debate) gap between cruisers and BC with a mod on - skew acceleration as required to suit.
Kiting remains viable, but it's not a ridiculous family guys style greased up deaf guy situation we have today.
The fear here would be that "but everyone will only fly battlecruisers!" and the fear is valid and should be discussed. I feel like the bloated BC sig, the slower warps, the lower agility would keep this from being the case. It would also introduce them back as the natural predator of cruisers and give battleships a nice target to go stomping on. A return to rock paper scissors world of cruiser>battleship>battlecruiser>cruiser.
Anyway, it's something worthy of consideration alongside this thread I think - that maybe the problem is the cruiser tier/sized hulls and not actually the other ones directly and adding projection alone (or at all, actually) might not solve it/cause other issues further down the line.
If this is a bad derail I'm sorry - just say and I'll make a new thread.
Well caldari have always been extremely slow. Though there are some BCs that need tweaking. Like a raven is faster than a drake with MWD.
Nerfing cruiser speed could help slightly, but after tiericide, i dont see CCP changing that all back, as almost every ship would need to have its speed rebalanced. Looking at the "faster" race, my hurricane with some speed mods can get to 1500m/s to 2200m/s with heat. Which isnt too shabby for a BC, and is normally enough to slingshot or maintain range on target till they die.
With my cane, im right at your cruiser speed. So, looking at only caldari can be misleading, as they are the shield tanky race that is slow.
However, i would try to not look at it as a speed issue. Going back to OP, consider destroyers. They are slower than frigates. But they have no issues killing frigs. Yea you might have an ac thrasher get kited by a LML condor and die. But everything has its counter. The point is, a destroyer has bonuses to projection and tracking. That dessy is slower than most frigs, but it is irrelavent because it can track the frig at range or up close with no problem (when properly fit). It also has more EHP, so also has a moderately increased tank over its frigate targets.
Now compare that to BCs. They have more tank and EHP than cruisers, but they cant apply it. As they have no range. A stabber could still kill a HAM drake if it orbited out of missile range. Give that drake a velocity bonus to its missiles however, and that stabber can no longer orbit for ez kill. Or, for a less extreme speed example, how bout a rail thorax? It could kite most BCs with no problem. Even an ac cane couldnt project the dps to break its tank out at point range. Give the cane falloff bonus, and speed, again, becomes irrelavent.
With the combination of projection and MJD, you also force cruisers to get close if you want them to hold you through scram. Which is really where BCs shine. I believe this would really restrain cruiser blobs when you have a few BCs on your side. Since they could no longer kite around, and have to commit to the fight to bring a BC down.
OR
Upship to BS to kill the BC gang. Which means my BC gang can also upship to BS, and we can have a BS slugfest, which most of us have been missing.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1723
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 14:42:47 -
[292] - Quote
Don't get hung up on caldari, even a cane vs a rupture is 1303 vs 1708. It's huge differences. Adding heat it is 1852 vs 2430.
Certainly, things can be heated etc and mods added, but that applies to both sides.
They absolutely might need a little projection help (I'm not 100% sold yet, all examples are short range guns being kited by long range ones, as one would expect to happen. Aint no throax kiting an arty cane as your video showed), but I don't think it'll be enough, they can't force an engagement. They are too damned slow. Remember the cruisers that are killing them also lack the projection bonuses (for the most part).
So I'm not saying they don't need projection, just that I think speed of the cruiser tier has caused a shedload of problems and we should consider it alongside.
I really don't want to make BC faster, speed creep is hell but if we aren't willing to pull the cruisers back into line we will have to (imo).
Edit: or give them a DST style role bonus to overheating prop mods to give some more options. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
826
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 22:17:02 -
[293] - Quote
Don't mind me, I'm just putting this back to the front page where it belongs.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
489
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 04:15:38 -
[294] - Quote
BC updates incoming? Or SoonGäó?
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
128
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 05:19:48 -
[295] - Quote
for Ferox, let it keep its 10% optimal range plus 50% role bonus. it would be same idea as Cormorant which do have double range bonus.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 06:41:31 -
[296] - Quote
I doubt we will see BC rebalance or Assault frig rebalance until early next year. Because "monitoring sov changes" |
Dato Koppla
Kiwis In Space No Points Necessary
866
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 07:27:53 -
[297] - Quote
Just dropping in to say I agree with the range bonus proposal and that Stitch knows what he's talking about when it comes to BCs. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3071
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 08:48:48 -
[298] - Quote
The only thing I disagree with is the falloff bonus for the Brutix,
Looking at a Heavy Neutron Blaster II (Null) your base ranges are 6300m + 8800m. A falloff bonus would lead to a range of 6300m + 13200m = 19500m @ falloff. An optimal bonus would lead to a range of 9450 + 8800 = 18250 @ falloff.
While it is slightly less range you have better damage application with an optimal bonus and it would then also work well with railguns.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
828
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 09:50:26 -
[299] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:The only thing I disagree with is the falloff bonus for the Brutix,
Looking at a Heavy Neutron Blaster II (Null) your base ranges are 6300m + 8800m. A falloff bonus would lead to a range of 6300m + 13200m = 19500m @ falloff. An optimal bonus would lead to a range of 9450 + 8800 = 18250 @ falloff.
While it is slightly less range you have better damage application with an optimal bonus and it would then also work well with railguns.
Yes but then you have a Caldari Ferox and a Gallente Ferox - the Caldari Ferox can already shoot into long point range with null and the falloff bonus would better fit into an Astarte.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3071
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 10:00:23 -
[300] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The only thing I disagree with is the falloff bonus for the Brutix,
Looking at a Heavy Neutron Blaster II (Null) your base ranges are 6300m + 8800m. A falloff bonus would lead to a range of 6300m + 13200m = 19500m @ falloff. An optimal bonus would lead to a range of 9450 + 8800 = 18250 @ falloff.
While it is slightly less range you have better damage application with an optimal bonus and it would then also work well with railguns. Yes but then you have a Caldari Ferox and a Gallente Ferox - the Caldari Ferox can already shoot into long point range with null and the falloff bonus would better fit into an Astarte. Look at the catalyst and the cormorant, the have the same optimal role bonus but don't obsolete each other.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |