Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => General Non-RP EVE Discussion => Topic started by: Shaalira on 11 Jan 2013, 11:04
-
'Combat Battlecruisers' (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=191595&find=unread) - Fozzie makes a post outlining the draft of the changes to battlecruisers. I imagine battleships aren't too far down the road.
Linked in OOC chat, but a forum post might be useful for discussion.
-
Fozzie's Jan 10 Q&A Post (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2442879#post2442879)
One of his more vague answers may have the deepest repercussions.
Q: 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!
A: 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.
-
I'm probably going to /thread all over this when more details/changes are released. For now, I'm just going to drool all over the cyclone.
-
I'm really unsure about these changes. I'll wait to see how they play when they get released. But with the amount of people complaining, I don't think this will be the form they're released in.
-
I'll do some short tl;drs here, for those who stare at those numbers and have your eyes glaze over a bit:
Prophecy is becoming a major tanky droneboat with a laser/missile split. Has lots of dronebay, but comparitively limited bandwidth. Yum, endless droneswarm.
Harbi is loosing one turret, but gaining a damage bonus to compensate. Some of those Harbi fits we loved are going to become aweful tight with PG changes. Mass/speed changes make it slightly less maneuverable.
Ferox is becoming some kind of scary blastboat, though the inherent difficulties in Hybrids will likely continue to be a limiting fact. "Jack of all trades" compared to Brutix.
Drake is receiving a rather large mobility nerf combined with a fittings nerf that will force some reevaluation of popular fits. Depending on the theorycrafting, could be big or small.
Brutix is becoming a possibly far scarier blastboat. Initial looks seem to suggest it can be nicely tanky, face melting DPS-ey, or surprisingly nimble - but none at the same time.
Myrm is getting some tweaks which, combined with the gate-guns-shoot-drones change, I suspect will make it a very nice lowsec ship. The loss of one turret is offset by the return of the ability to field 4 Heavy drones at once.
Don't QQ for the Cyclone's changes - it seems to be becoming a missile Hurricane, with some nice DPS output, good mobility, and 2 utility highs.
The Hurricane itself, however, seems to be coming to the ends of its run. Pity, as I damn love that ship. Changes are almost entirely nerfs - mobility, loss of a highslot, capacitor - and aren't offset by a slight armor bonus.
-
As much as I am happy of the numerous hurricane nerfs (less pwg was really needed), I am not sure that nerfing it again and that much will be ideal considering all the other BCs are getting more or less quite boosted.
Similarily, they didnt nerfed the rupture at all and used it as an example for the rest, and the same for the rifter. And yet, the rupture especially, was quite OP before the nerf. Of course, I acknowledge that the hurricane was even more OP but well.
-
Autocannon Ferox is going to become a beast
-
Ferox is the clear winner, these will be -everywhere-
Proph needs to field 4 heavies, I haven't checked the math on that though?
Myrm's are another great thing to add to our Pirate Christmas patch.
Terrible on Cyclone. Thing needs to be a mini-sleipnir.
Drake - don't care
Cane - MOAR NERF :P
Harbinger - looks like nerf to me, on a boat that certainly didn't need one
Brutix - meh
-
I think they just need to decide what each ship does and go from there.
Perhaps they should start by making the tier 1 and tier 2 be better with different warfare links (fx Myrmiydon - Info; Brutix - Armor).
-
Proph needs to field 4 heavies, I haven't checked the math on that though?
Fuck that. If anything it needs to drop to 5 mediums instead of having the ability to field the 2h/2m/1l combo (and enough space for a backup damage wave, medium group and 4 lights more lights). Because having a 700dps and a heavy tank isn't enough.
Myrm gets to have 4 heavies. woopidoo, I'm holding out hope for an active tank tweak but not holding my breath for them to come out with the BC changes.
Cyclone looks good though vOv
TL:DR; imo, not as good a job as the cruiser overhauls. But I guess that was easier because so many were pants.
-
I think overall that their changes are on the good path, but they sure still seem very unpolished.
- Prophecy vs Myrmidon : looks like one is going to get a better tank capacity (1 more low slot) while the other one will be more versatile (1 more med slot) and have a lot more DPS. What I am not totally easy with however, is that I don't think the supplemental low slot on the prophecy will compensate the ability to field 4 heavies on the myrm. They seem to think like for the Arbitrator vs the Vexor, where the arbi has less bandwith but more dronebay, which is fine since the arbi also is a great EW ship. The prophecy however, is not, so it does not compensate...
- Cyclone vs Drake : one of the few minmatar missile ships, in the same vein of their new destroyer, which is good. Being able to fit some launchers on most of their ships as a complementary weapon caused it to be sometimes quite frustrating not to have the opposite at times, even on the typhoon. As long as they keep these missile bonus in the minmatar flavor and not the caldari doctrine, i am fine with it. Considering the drake's tanking abilities mostly unchanged... I think it is still a decent ship. Will have to see how it fares compared to the new cyclone, though the doctrine remains quite different. But with ASBs available for the active Cyclone, I am not sure that the drake will still be usefull in pvp... :/
- Hurricane : nerf is good, but too much nerf as I explained above, might be counterproductive. Everybody already seems to have stopped flying hurricanes... Why nerfing it more ?
- Harbinger : I guess that the agility nerf is mostly due to shield harbingers, but I think they may take it totally in the wrong direction. The issue is not the agility, but the shield superiority. They should instead wonder why they started to add shit like ASBs and OP nano shield buffers in the first place, and fix that instead. However I do not think that the loss of a turret and a high slot is a bad thing, since it is compensated by a turret bonus. 50% on 6 turrets makes a virtual 9 turrets boat, where 25% on 7 turrets made a virtual 8,75 turrets boat. So, there is a slight DPS potential gain. Also, it loses 175 pwg and 25 cpu where with AWU 5, a heavy pulse costs 183 pwg and 26 cpu to fit, and a heavy beam 223 pwg and 27 cpu to fit. Here again, there is a slight gain and it will be slightly easier to fit it. Overall I don't think that is a nerf. Actually, it is a slight boost. Who cares for agility ? That's for nano LSE fits. Fuck that.
- Brutix : Better than before. If people are complaining because it can't get close to the target, then they shoudlnt fly blaster boats in the first place and go kiting like everyone does. Boosting blaster boats that already work just fine would be a mistake, the real thing to change is the current kiting mechanisms.
- Ferox : I don't know what to think about it. With blasters it could be a less brutal... brutix but with a really better range, so easier to manage in pvp. With rails... Meh. I don't know why med rails are so crappy, it's like they forgot to change their stats as well when they redesigned the small and large ones, that have a better tracking and DPS.
-
Hey guys.
Remember Black Ops?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2482199#post2482199
Greetings spacefriends.
Those of you who have read the CSM minutes (You've read the CSM minutes, right?) will already know that we have a modest package of Black Ops tweaks in the pipeline that didn't quite make it into Retribution 1.0. These changes are meant to reduce some of the difficulties using Black Ops battleships for covert bridging, and hopefully open up some more options for those of you who are or will be involved in covert gameplay. This is not the big Black Ops rebalance, and we here at CCP do not consider Black Ops "done" after these changes. We are putting these tweaks out now since it may be a while before we can get to the full Black Ops rebalance and we don't want to leave them in their current state in the meantime.
None of this will be a surprise to you avid minute-readers, but for everyone else here's what we have planned:
Increase the base jump range of all Black Ops ships to 3.5 light years (equal to that of Titans)
Reduce the mass multipler used for Covert Jump Portal fuel costs from 0.00000018 to 0.000000135 (Reduces the fuel cost of covert bridges by 25%)
Increase the fuel bay on all Black Ops to 1250m3 (25% increase)
These changes will not be in the current Sisi build but should be in the build after that so you can start playing with them. We're aiming to have the changes out in Retribution 1.1 on February 12th.
Let us know what you think of the proposed changes in this thread.
:Edit: Also apparently Two Step is getting close to me in likes so you should all like this post. Takk. :Edit:
-
BLOPS boost!
Win :)
-
I'm also currently in the process of putting together fits for the re-done BCs, courtesy of Namamai's excellent eft addition. So far I have these:
[Prophecy, New - First Attempt]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Damage Control II
Warp Disruptor II
Stasis Webifier II
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile
Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Ogre II x2
Hammerhead II x2
Hobgoblin II x1
Hammerhead II x5
Ogre II x2
Warrior II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5
This thing is so hilarious it stops being funny. Assuming the 2/2/1 drone set, it puts out 561dps, has 125k ehp with 83/75/73/70 resists on 26k of armour, and moves at the wonderful pace of 829m/s. It's going to eat anything thats caught, but it's going to be outrun by an AF with an afterburner. Also, wonderful bait. The tracking disruptor was added with the intention of making it harder for people to kill off it's drones, hence the script.
Next, we have the cyclone:
[Cyclone, New - First Attempt]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Co-Processor II
Damage Control II
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Small 'Vehemence' Shockwave Charge
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5
Actually, not too bad, I was a bit worried about this ship, thinking that it may have been made too hard to fit. As it is, only requires a single fitting mod, and that can be removed by downgrading the neut and putting a 1% cpu implant in. The presented fit puts out 571dps including drones, moves at 1311m/s and has 39k ehp with a 568dps active tank (for as long as it has charges). This can be improved with blue pill, crystals, etc. So not too bad actually.
Next, Ferox:
[Ferox, blerox]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Power Diagnostic System II
Damage Control II
Stasis Webifier II
Large Shield Extender II
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
The Ferox is a real winner here. The extra low slot just makes it. Removing the neut allows neutron blasters, which is also quite cool. So, for this buffer tanked version, we have 63k ehp with 54/48/61/67 resists over 18k of shields. Moves at 1061m/s and puts out 572dps including drones. It's quite similar to the previous edition of the Ferox, but with an improved tank basically. I rather like it :P I'm relatively sure a xlasb version will also be quite possible.
Finally for now, the Harbinger:
[Harbinger, New - First Attempt]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Centii C-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Damage Control II
Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script
Warp Disruptor II
Small Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 200
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive 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
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5
Well.. It's not bad. 634dps including drones, 72k ehp and 886m/s (Amarr don't need to move right?) So yeah, pretty decent I guess, the tank is certainly improved, and the dps has gone up a little, but I think the mobility nerf has really screwed the Harby. It's still going to have it's place, but frankly, if it can't properly keep up with a Ferox, I'd rather fly an Omen.
I'll have more posts later when I've looked at some of the other ships and attempted some less 'cookie-cutter' style fits. Feel free to request any you particularly want to see :)
-
Quick addition, not even sorry:
[Myrmidon, 2xlasb]
Co-Processor II
Co-Processor II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
150mm Light AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
150mm Light AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
150mm Light AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP S
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Ogre II x4
Hammerhead II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5
-
Fozzie's Jan 10 Q&A Post (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2442879#post2442879)
One of his more vague answers may have the deepest repercussions.
Q: 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!
A: 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.
Well, finally some details.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2496241& (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2496241&)
Is my title pretentious enough?
We've got the resources all properly committed so I'm now ready to share with you all our initial plan to fix some of the biggest problems that face armor tanking in this game. Sorry for the extended period of teasing, hopefully the happy ending will make it all worthwhile.
I was going to go into this big spiel about all the problems with armor tanking in general and active armor tanking in particular, but you all know this so I'll jump straight to the interesting bits.
Here's what we're looking for feedback on:
Armor Rigs- New rig called the Nanobot Overcharger that increased the overheat bonus on your local armor reps by 30% (40% for T2). So with one of the T1 rigs overheating gives the rep 13% more rep amount and 19.5% faster rate of fire instead of the default 10% and 15% respectively. This effect is stacking penalized and gives no bonus when the reps are not overheated. Same calibration and build costs as a Aux Nano or Nanobot Acc rig.
- Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity.
Plates- Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3) This skill affects all plates and is unconnected to the stat change listed below.
- Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%
Ancillary Armor Repairer- Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end.
- Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
- When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
- Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
- Same cycle time as T1 reps
- Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads
- Limited to one per ship
Quick Q&A about the AAR:
Why limited to one per ship?
The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR.
Why keep the cap use consistent?
The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further.
Why not just buff all armor reps?
One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.
So we are very interested in hearing your feedback on this proposal. Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
-
We've posted the same thing at the same time, in different threads :P http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3990.msg64018#msg64018
Mods, feel free to merge/remove/etc my post.
-
Fozzie's Jan 10 Q&A Post (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2442879#post2442879)
One of his more vague answers may have the deepest repercussions.
Q: 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!
A: 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.
Well, finally some details.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2496241& (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2496241&)
Is my title pretentious enough?
We've got the resources all properly committed so I'm now ready to share with you all our initial plan to fix some of the biggest problems that face armor tanking in this game. Sorry for the extended period of teasing, hopefully the happy ending will make it all worthwhile.
I was going to go into this big spiel about all the problems with armor tanking in general and active armor tanking in particular, but you all know this so I'll jump straight to the interesting bits.
Here's what we're looking for feedback on:
Armor Rigs- New rig called the Nanobot Overcharger that increased the overheat bonus on your local armor reps by 30% (40% for T2). So with one of the T1 rigs overheating gives the rep 13% more rep amount and 19.5% faster rate of fire instead of the default 10% and 15% respectively. This effect is stacking penalized and gives no bonus when the reps are not overheated. Same calibration and build costs as a Aux Nano or Nanobot Acc rig.
- Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity.
Plates- Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3) This skill affects all plates and is unconnected to the stat change listed below.
- Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%
Ancillary Armor Repairer- Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end.
- Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
- When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
- Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
- Same cycle time as T1 reps
- Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads
- Limited to one per ship
Quick Q&A about the AAR:
Why limited to one per ship?
The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR.
Why keep the cap use consistent?
The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further.
Why not just buff all armor reps?
One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.
So we are very interested in hearing your feedback on this proposal. Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
seeeeex
-
We've posted the same thing at the same time, in different threads :P http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3990.msg64018#msg64018
Mods, feel free to merge/remove/etc my post.
Hah! I guess excitement over the change to armor tanking runs rampant. I'm fairly interested in seeing what this will do to the meta.
seeeeex
QFT.
I might have to stop being so dismissive of the active armor tanking bonuses of the Brutix, Myrm, and Hyperion.