

Gabrielle Lamb

Pator Tech School

Minmatar Republic



14



Posted - 2012.08.24 18:33:00 - [1] - Quote

I'm just curious how you guys think faction battlecruisers would fit in to the current lineup of ships? Tier 1 and 2 ones in peticular.



I'm personally thinking they could fill a nice niche allowing newer players to access to high powered medium/high pricetag ships working well for low-SP pilots. And their price tag and lack of GTFO ability and speed deterring widespread use in PVP.



Gibbo3771

AQUILA INC

Verge of Collapse



202



Posted - 2012.08.24 18:41:00 - [2] - Quote

They would most likely be just like faction cruisers.



They would have improved fitting, better base ehp and a slight slot difference. Basically just a slightly improved version of its standard counterpart.



Maybe give a Caldari Navy Ferox 1 extra turret slot, some more pg/cpu and a little more base hp. Everytime you dont like my comments/posts the terrorists win and your a disgrace to your country.



Gabrielle Lamb

Pator Tech School

Minmatar Republic



14



Posted - 2012.08.24 18:45:00 - [3] - Quote

Gibbo3771 wrote: They would most likely be just like faction cruisers.



They would have improved fitting, better base ehp and a slight slot difference. Basically just a slightly improved version of its standard counterpart.



Maybe give a Caldari Navy Ferox 1 extra turret slot, some more pg/cpu and a little more base hp.



Yeah, pretty much, but for new pilots in need of a "Go-to" ship they could be pretty awesome. Unlike a T2 Cruiser you could likely step in to a faction meta 4 fit Brutix, Cane or Drake with about a week or two worth of training, go out and rock the world. Without directly competing with more skill intensive ships like T2-T3 cruisers / battlecruisers.



Zhilia Mann

Tide Way Out Productions



618



Posted - 2012.08.24 18:47:00 - [4] - Quote

You'd be very, very hard pressed to make a worthwhile ship that slots between BCs (already the most popular hulls in the game) and CSs (already overwhelmed by T3s and to a certain extent tier 2 BCs).



And trust me, if they are worthwhile for low SP pilots they're going to be gangbusters in high SP pilots' hands. See Malcanis' Law.



Gabrielle Lamb

Pator Tech School

Minmatar Republic



14



Posted - 2012.08.24 19:08:00 - [5] - Quote

Zhilia Mann wrote:

And trust me, if they are worthwhile for low SP pilots they're going to be gangbusters in high SP pilots' hands. See Malcanis' Law.



This is what I'm wondering about though, using the Drake as an example, imagining that you added a Caldari Navy Drake with one extra mid and low. Possibly one extra launcher but I think that would be a bad idea.



Given the Battlecruisers beeing somewhat slow by design, and having less defense / offense then a battleship but with better damage projection vs different sizes of targets. Would an experienced pilot use this over a Tengu or a Raven / CNR?



Then take the Myrmidion, add 25 MB Drone Bandwidth, 50 m3 Drone Capacity and a low slot. It would still be a relatively low ship, it would have less Drone Bandwidth then an Ishtar or Domi, and lower defenses then a Proteus. Thereby providing an alternative without directly competing with either.



Take the Cane, add an extra Turret Hardpoint (goes at the expense of a Neut or Missile launcher so this should be okey), and add a low or mid slot. Would an experienced pilot fly one over a Sleipnir or Loki?



Amarr I don't really know so can't speak about it, but as far as I can see, faction Battlecruisers could be an exception to Malcanis' Law because they're designed to be a part of a numbers game. Adding a faction variant would increase performance, but you'd still have better alternatives if you were a high-SP experienced pilot, so it wouldn't nessecarily screw anyone over. And their role as Cannon fodder wouldn't really change.



PS: CS's is a story for themselves, they're generally in need of a buff or two. But a 2 week or 2 month pilot won't be able to use one anyhow so even if you place the faction BC's below them in power it wouldn't really be a problem as long as it allows that pilot to be in a ship closer to the T2 counterparts performance.



Zhilia Mann

Tide Way Out Productions



619



Posted - 2012.08.24 19:30:00 - [6] - Quote

Gabrielle Lamb wrote: This is what I'm wondering about though, using the Drake as an example, imagining that you added a Caldari Navy Drake with one extra mid and low. Possibly one extra launcher but I think that would be a bad idea.



Given the Battlecruisers beeing somewhat slow by design, and having less defense / offense then a battleship but with better damage projection vs different sizes of targets. Would an experienced pilot use this over a Tengu or a Raven / CNR?



Yes. Add a mid and a low and you're looking at an insane nanoDrake with extra tank and extra speed/agility. Either slot alone would be pushing it but both together is definitely not sane.



Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Then take the Myrmidion, add 25 MB Drone Bandwidth, 50 m3 Drone Capacity and a low slot. It would still be a relatively low ship, it would have less Drone Bandwidth then an Ishtar or Domi, and lower defenses then a Proteus. Thereby providing an alternative without directly competing with either.



Extra low plus bandwidth means more room for a DDA to support an ASB fit or more resists to support a dual/triple rep fit. It isn't inherently overpowered, but that has more to do with the current odd scaling of drone ships in the first place. But no, it wouldn't impinge on Ishtar territory. It would see heavy duty use in small gangs though.



Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Take the Cane, add an extra Turret Hardpoint (goes at the expense of a Neut or Missile launcher so this should be okey), and add a low or mid slot. Would an experienced pilot fly one over a Sleipnir or Loki?



Good god yes. Adding a turret slot to a Hurricane translates to giving it 11.7 effective turrets (up from 10). If it costs less than a Sleipnir it will see use.



Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Amarr I don't really know so can't speak about it, but as far as I can see, faction Battlecruisers could be an exception to Malcanis' Law because they're designed to be a part of a numbers game. Adding a faction variant would increase performance, but you'd still have better alternatives if you were a high-SP experienced pilot, so it wouldn't nessecarily screw anyone over.



No, it won't work out that way. Either 1) these faction variants are comparable to CSs but cheaper, in which case they'll see heavy use, 2) faction variants are comparable to CSs but more expensive, in which case no one will really want anything to do with them including new players, 3) they are more powerful to CSs but cheaper, in which case they are directly competitive with T3s for a lower cost, or 4) they are more powerful than CSs but more expensive, in which case T3s are a better train anyhow.



I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of new ships to fill new roles, including roles that will help newer players play more meaningful roles in both PvE and PvP, but building improved versions of the most popular class of ships in the game is just asking for trouble.



Le'Mon Tichim

Immortal Syndicate



28



Posted - 2012.08.24 20:52:00 - [7] - Quote

Zhilia Mann wrote: Gabrielle Lamb wrote: This is what I'm wondering about though, using the Drake as an example, imagining that you added a Caldari Navy Drake with one extra mid and low. Possibly one extra launcher but I think that would be a bad idea.



Given the Battlecruisers beeing somewhat slow by design, and having less defense / offense then a battleship but with better damage projection vs different sizes of targets. Would an experienced pilot use this over a Tengu or a Raven / CNR?



Yes. Add a mid and a low and you're looking at an insane nanoDrake with extra tank and extra speed/agility. Either slot alone would be pushing it but both together is definitely not sane.



Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Then take the Myrmidion, add 25 MB Drone Bandwidth, 50 m3 Drone Capacity and a low slot. It would still be a relatively low ship, it would have less Drone Bandwidth then an Ishtar or Domi, and lower defenses then a Proteus. Thereby providing an alternative without directly competing with either.



Extra low plus bandwidth means more room for a DDA to support an ASB fit or more resists to support a dual/triple rep fit. It isn't inherently overpowered, but that has more to do with the current odd scaling of drone ships in the first place. But no, it wouldn't impinge on Ishtar territory. It would see heavy duty use in small gangs though.



Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Take the Cane, add an extra Turret Hardpoint (goes at the expense of a Neut or Missile launcher so this should be okey), and add a low or mid slot. Would an experienced pilot fly one over a Sleipnir or Loki?



Good god yes. Adding a turret slot to a Hurricane translates to giving it 11.7 effective turrets (up from 10). If it costs less than a Sleipnir it will see use.



Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Amarr I don't really know so can't speak about it, but as far as I can see, faction Battlecruisers could be an exception to Malcanis' Law because they're designed to be a part of a numbers game. Adding a faction variant would increase performance, but you'd still have better alternatives if you were a high-SP experienced pilot, so it wouldn't nessecarily screw anyone over.



No, it won't work out that way. Either 1) these faction variants are comparable to CSs but cheaper, in which case they'll see heavy use, 2) faction variants are comparable to CSs but more expensive, in which case no one will really want anything to do with them including new players, 3) they are more powerful to CSs but cheaper, in which case they are directly competitive with T3s for a lower cost, or 4) they are more powerful than CSs but more expensive, in which case T3s are a better train anyhow.



I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of new ships to fill new roles, including roles that will help newer players play more meaningful roles in both PvE and PvP, but building improved versions of the most popular class of ships in the game is just asking for trouble. Yes. Add a mida low and you're looking at an insane nanoDrake with extra tank and extra speed/agility. Either slot alone would be pushing it but both together is definitely not sane.Extra low plus bandwidth means more room for a DDA to support an ASB fit or more resists to support a dual/triple rep fit. It isn't inherently overpowered, but that has more to do with the current odd scaling of drone ships in the first place. But no, it wouldn't impinge on Ishtar territory. It would see heavy duty use in small gangs though.Good god yes. Adding a turret slot to a Hurricane translates to giving it 11.7 effective turrets (up from 10). If it costs less than a Sleipnir itsee use.No, it won't work out that way. Either 1) these faction variants are comparable to CSs but cheaper, in which case they'll see heavy use, 2) faction variants are comparable to CSs but more expensive, in which case no one will really want anything to do with them including new players, 3) they are more powerful to CSs but cheaper, in which case they are directly competitive with T3s for a lower cost, or 4) they are more powerful than CSs but more expensive, in which case T3s are a better train anyhow.I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of new ships to fill new roles, including roles that will help newer players play more meaningful roles in both PvE and PvP, but building improved versions of the most popular class of ships in the game is just asking for trouble.



What about keeping the layout the same, but give them better powerfgrid, cpu, and slightly better hp? Perhaps I'm a bit short sighted, but the only battlecruiser I see this being an issue with would be the Drake.

Legion is best T3



Airto TLA

Puppeteers of Doom

Real Life Rejects



23



Posted - 2012.08.24 21:02:00 - [8] - Quote

The only way you could have faction BCs would be, nerf the tier 2s to a little better then tier 1 and put the faction in basically at this level (and fix the Amar/Gal whil your at it). Yes in general tier 2 is that good and a faction "buff" to teir 1 would basically give you an overpriced teir 2. (except for maybe the XL ASB faction cyclone, that may be worth it)



Kitty Bear

Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam

Disturbed Acquaintance



12



Posted - 2012.08.25 02:14:00 - [9] - Quote

Gibbo3771 wrote: They would most likely be just like faction cruisers.



They would have improved fitting, better base ehp and a slight slot difference. Basically just a slightly improved version of its standard counterpart.



Maybe give a Caldari Navy Ferox 1 extra turret slot, some more pg/cpu and a little more base hp.



If there were to be another bunch of BC's introduced it would probably be better to use the models that don't already have advanced varients.



ie Myrm, Drake etc.



Not just Navy Faction versions, but Pirate Faction versions of those hulls would be nice to see in game aswell.



Equus

Royal Order of Security Specialists

Late Night Alliance



50



Posted - 2012.08.25 03:52:00 - [10] - Quote

I would prefer to see HACs looked at rather than introducing another ship.



Exploited Engineer

Creatively Applied Violence Inc.



74



Posted - 2012.08.25 08:26:00 - [11] - Quote

Gabrielle Lamb wrote: I'm personally thinking they could fill a nice niche allowing newer players to access to high powered medium/high pricetag ships working well for low-SP pilots. And their price tag and lack of GTFO ability and speed deterring widespread use in PVP.



Regular BCs are already pretty high-powered. If you want even higher powered, higher price tag, just add bling. Can't put T2 HMLs on your Drake? Use CN HMLs. (Reminds me of when I lost a Drake fitted this way by taking a shortcut through lowsec ... luckily, I was only a day away from T2 launchers).



non judgement

Without Fear

Flying Burning Ships Alliance



807



Posted - 2012.08.25 08:56:00 - [12] - Quote

With the bonus to the turret damage that the Ashimmu, Phantasm and Vigilant get, I almost think of them as battlecruisers instead of cruisers. Bhaalgorn and Nightmare seem more like faction marauders to me as well.



Abannan

Moira.

Villore Accords



25



Posted - 2012.08.25 10:23:00 - [13] - Quote

The thought of a faction brutix makes seriously moist



Veshta Yoshida

PIE Inc.

Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris



268



Posted - 2012.08.25 11:16:00 - [14] - Quote

Problem remains that there is not room in the line-ups for faction BCs if they were to be modelled after the current cruisers. With the faction EHP/DPS increase they would be placed somewhere near tier2 BS which is just plain wrong.



That said, if/when off-grid gang links are axed one could conceivably make faction BCs into a mobile HQ sort of thing, with a fitting service and ability to field more than one link .. essentially sidestepping the above issue of room in the line-ups by applying "soft" bonuses.

Alternative is to ask the question again when the Tiericide process has run its course and we know where everything stands power wise, although CCP has stated that they are not planning on doing much of anything to the BS lines as they are pretty well placed as is, which I mostly agree with.



Cpt Branko

The Scope

Gallente Federation



59



Posted - 2012.08.25 11:27:00 - [15] - Quote

I mean, I would love another Hurricane hull, because it is the best looking hull in game (and on par with T2 Rifter hulls for pure style), and even if it were overpriced, cost-ineffective or even utterly rubbish I'd own and occasionally fly one.



That said: Adding (expensive) power level +1 ships which outclass their T1 counterparts is really only to the benefit of old and wealthy players, and further robbing the new and poor of competitive options. Which is bad; if competitive PVP (by which I mean, flying something in which you can fight a good amount of the ships you see in space with, with a decent hope of success) requires a Tier 2 BC which costs to lose maybe 50-ish million but drops about 15 million on death, it's something which is largely attainable for a pilot which is reasonably new and entices PVP and actual :good fights:.



On the other hand, if high-grade implants*, 1B ships and loki booster alts** are required for competitive PVP, then it is not conductive to actual interesting PVP at all and is very "closed" to newcomers, but is largely conductive to ganking (for which we have better tools now then we used to, for some reason), and people shy away from actual reasonable fights under such a system. This is something which is flat out overlooked by the proponents of shiny "new toys", but undock and compare and contrast to say two years ago, you'll find a lot less people willing to actually fight unless they have or think they have an overwhelming (not some - which is to be expected - but overwhelming) advantage.



I don't expect CCP to understand that, however - they're thinking about how to fix this or that minor imbalance without thinking about how will the players adapt to it, and finally, is the way the players will adapt to it in the "right" direction for the game. Everyone is excited about Tiericide, of course, because if done right, a good number of T1 ships might actually have a reason to exist which they previously didn't - and that is a good thing.



In the last few years, the introduction of badly-thought out and ill-advised T3s, then the (overdone) Tier 3s, boosting warfare links, introducing ASBs - the general direction of the changes, ever since (and including) the nano-nerfs, isn't in the direction of "more fun and attainable PVP".



* Which I have and are largely too damn good.

** Even a normal covops alt - which I didn't bother to resubscribe because I hate dual-boxing nonsense - gives you 10% to some very important stats which you could not have otherwise. Having a cloaking probing boosting loki alt (which used to be unprobeable, to make things better) is just... sick. And that particular evil was brought to us by T3s.



Lili Lu



362



Posted - 2012.08.25 13:08:00 - [16] - Quote

Threads like this get shat out onto the forums at a steady pace. Basically they are just slobbering over the thought of a tech II or III or faction Drake or Hurricane.



These ships are already due for a trim. When they get that trim let's talk about whether the game really needs new ships that would quite possibly only resurrect our current problems. Those being the rush to tier 2 BC and the isk/utility/power imbalance with them as compared to tech II or faction Cruisers.



Look at it this way. We are getting new ships. Tiericide has begun. And there is talk of a new Destroyer for each race where there is currently only one. Recently we got tier 3 BCs. So, there are your new ships. And frankly they are more exciting than another drake.



Diesel47

Painkiller.



182



Posted - 2012.08.25 13:32:00 - [17] - Quote

I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.







Gabrielle Lamb

Pator Tech School

Minmatar Republic



15



Posted - 2012.08.25 14:02:00 - [18] - Quote

Lili Lu wrote:



These ships are already due for a trim. When they get that trim let's talk about whether the game really needs new ships that would quite possibly only resurrect our current problems. Those being the rush to tier 2 BC and the isk/utility/power imbalance with them as compared to tech II or faction Cruisers.



Look at it this way. We are getting new ships. Tiericide has begun. And there is talk of a new Destroyer for each race where there is currently only one. Recently we got tier 3 BCs. So, there are your new ships. And frankly they are more exciting than another drake. Threads like this get shat out onto the forums at a steady pace. Basically they are just slobbering over the thought of a tech II or III or faction Drake or Hurricane.These ships are already due for a trim. When they get that trim let's talk about whether the game really needs new ships that would quite possibly only resurrect our current problems. Those being the rush to tier 2 BC and the isk/utility/power imbalance with them as compared to tech II or faction Cruisers.Look at it this way. We are getting new ships. Tiericide has begun. And there is talk of a new Destroyer for each race where there is currently only one. Recently we got tier 3 BCs. So, there are your new ships. And frankly they are more exciting than another drake.





Haha, I agree. A fix to how income scales with ship size would be a lot more interesting.



Muad 'dib

The Imperial Fedaykin



439



Posted - 2012.08.25 17:03:00 - [19] - Quote

faction talos please :D



some how get 9 guns on it, thanks http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



1999



Posted - 2012.08.25 17:08:00 - [20] - Quote

Muad 'dib wrote: faction talos please :D



some how get 9 guns on it, thanks



I'd rather have 4 guns and 100% damage bonus. Same damage output, longer overheat.



-Liang



Ed: And potentially room for a small neut or two! Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Muad 'dib

The Imperial Fedaykin



440



Posted - 2012.08.25 17:24:00 - [21] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Muad 'dib wrote: faction talos please :D



some how get 9 guns on it, thanks



I'd rather have 4 guns and 100% damage bonus. Same damage output, longer overheat.



-Liang



Ed: And potentially room for a small neut or two! I'd rather have 4 guns and 100% damage bonus. Same damage output, longer overheat.-LiangEd: And potentially room for a small neut or two!



like it, perhaps 5 guns with 100% bonus, some 50% falloff role bonus too.



oh and at least 2 ultil slots, 5 mids, and enough drone space for 2 sets of lights.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg



Riot Girl

State War Academy

Caldari State



0



Posted - 2012.08.25 17:31:00 - [22] - Quote

I hope they make some faction BCs or T2 BCs with more varied functions. Waiting to train the skills to fly BSes is extremely tedious. It would be nice to have the option to focus your training on more powerful BCs instead of being forced into a bigger ship before you're ready, just because you want the bigger rewards.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



1999



Posted - 2012.08.25 17:33:00 - [23] - Quote

Diesel47 wrote: I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.







Also, this would be amazing.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Muad 'dib

The Imperial Fedaykin



440



Posted - 2012.08.25 17:35:00 - [24] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Diesel47 wrote: I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.







Also, this would be amazing.



-Liang Also, this would be-Liang



dual ASB fan boi detected http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



1999



Posted - 2012.08.25 17:42:00 - [25] - Quote

Muad 'dib wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Diesel47 wrote: I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.







Also, this would be amazing.



-Liang Also, this would be-Liang



dual ASB fan boi detected dual ASB fan boi detected



Dual oversized ASB fan boi... get it right!



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





MeBiatch

Republic University

Minmatar Republic



535



Posted - 2012.08.25 19:16:00 - [26] - Quote

i would like pirate faction bc's to be honnest... but only tier 1.. like a serp brutix would be boss. or a guristas ferox... though that would be odd cuss it would be a drone boat... but tbh there needs to be more bc drone boats... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?

-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...



Vadeim Rizen

Infernal Intentions

Exodus.



9



Posted - 2012.09.05 22:04:00 - [27] - Quote

I too would like to see pirate BC. I dream of this actually.



Would love to see an angel BC to compete with long range tier 3 bc, would love to see a Blood neuting BC, would love to see a Guristas drone boat as well.



Cynabals as they are aren't anywhere near as awesome as they used to be as most people have evolved and know how to battle them. Also with the introduction of tier 3 bc, nano fleets are much more common and cynabals just die. Machs are a bit big and op and tend to scare away fights, so I think if you introduce an Angel BC somewhere in between the mach and cyna, I would fly it pretty much all the time :) Imagine a nano cane with a bit of a damage bonus. ~ 500 mil cost, ~2500 m/s, ~ 700 dps.... would be a ton of fun and with the speed/neuts a nice counter to tech 3's in general.



Navy BC would be a bit tougher, where as you can already fit a BS-sized tank on BC and adding more base HP would just increase this. (Imagine a Myrmidon with 200k ehp) Would be fun and I wouldn't mind seeing this, but could get a bit ridiculous. That being said, Tier 3 BC's have pretty much made tier 1 and tier 2 bc's obsolete, maybe this could sort of balance the field.



TL;DR Version



I WANT PIRATE BC'S RIGHT MEOW!!!



Arbiter Reformed

Analog Folk

SRS.



50



Posted - 2012.09.05 22:32:00 - [28] - Quote

the problem lies in the undereffectiveness of cruisers, the fact cs are terrible and that the bc hulls they would be based of of are already overpowered



Songbird



61



Posted - 2012.09.06 16:39:00 - [29] - Quote

pirate BC's is an old idea and quite popular - they won't be necessary more damaging than say existing tier 2 but they could have bonuses , i.e. 90% webs for serpentis , drones and missiles for guristas , falloff and speed for angel, tracking and marauder like turrets to the sansha and the bloody guys get neuts + web range. If a pirate cruiser is 2-300 mil and a bs is around a bil I'd think a BC will be around 4-600 mil. Their effectiveness offset by the price tag - dps and range less than tengu - it's perrrrrfect



CCP Ytterbium

C C P

C C P Alliance



966







Posted - 2012.09.06 17:12:00 - [30] - Quote

This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:





Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.



We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.



What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:



Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.

Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about

Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example) . Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.

. Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos. HACs, they need love too.

Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.



When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2058



Posted - 2012.09.06 17:15:00 - [31] - Quote

I will love you long time if you fix the Sansha ships. Seriously.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Aaron Greil

Royal Imperial Navy Reserves



20



Posted - 2012.09.06 17:30:00 - [32] - Quote

yeah, sansha love would be very nice. I have a phantasm. I use it for exactly one thing: that one mission where you race to the accel gate while the poison gas cloud attacks you. Yep.



Still, I think a big part of this is that tier 2 and 3 BCs are some of the best looking ships in the game. It would be really cool to have some different paint jobs.



Cephelange du'Krevviq

Hephaestus LLC

Get Off My Lawn



52



Posted - 2012.09.06 17:32:00 - [33] - Quote

Throwing my 0.02 ISK in the mix.



First, thanks for the dev perspective, CCP Ytterbium.



Secondly, I'd prefer there be pirate faction BCs only. Drake, even after the proposed changes, will still be the hull of choice over he Ferox (my poor, poor, Ferox). We don't really need a CN Drake, and Drake fanbois will pitch a fit if we get a CN Ferox instead of a Drake.



Seondly, part two - aside from the endless arguments that would ensue over why we got a CN This instead of That, or a RF Other versus RF Another, pirate faction ships add a bit more flavor and variety in their bonuses and functions.



Zarnak Wulf

Imperial Outlaws



552



Posted - 2012.09.06 17:41:00 - [34] - Quote

I've expected a strategic cruiser nerf for a while and have refused to train for them for that reason. I didn't expect it to take 3+ years though...



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2060



Posted - 2012.09.06 17:56:00 - [35] - Quote

Zarnak Wulf wrote: I've expected a strategic cruiser nerf for a while and have refused to train for them for that reason. I didn't expect it to take 3+ years though...



I trained them for the purpose of stealing them from wormhole POSes.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Serena Serene

Heretic University

Heretic Nation



3106



Posted - 2012.09.06 18:03:00 - [36] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Zarnak Wulf wrote: I've expected a strategic cruiser nerf for a while and have refused to train for them for that reason. I didn't expect it to take 3+ years though...



I trained them for the purpose of stealing them from wormhole POSes.



-Liang I trained them for the purpose of stealing them from wormhole POSes.-Liang



Hehe.. that made me chuckle. Best reason ever



Zarnak Wulf

Imperial Outlaws



552



Posted - 2012.09.06 18:03:00 - [37] - Quote

Oh! I was wondering about that when I saw your skill set for them.



Gypsio III

Chemikals

Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork



338



Posted - 2012.09.06 18:39:00 - [38] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote: we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.



Worm.



Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



757



Posted - 2012.09.06 18:42:00 - [39] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1508537&page=1#29



CCP Greyscale wrote: NH balance - is the Nighthawk actually underpowered? I see people saying that there's things that they'd like to be able to do but can't due to grid issues, but is this driven by "the NH is really underpowered/under-used compared to other ships in its class because of this grid issue"?



http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=905941&page=2#41



CCP Zulupark wrote:

Field Command Ships:

I think they're pretty fine as-is.



Since Command Ships and Drake haven't been changed in the slightest for all these years, I guess we should treat your confession as a sign of a sudden increase in PvP compherension within CCP



Plus a MEGALOL quote:

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=905941&page=1#20



CCP Zulupark wrote: Fleet command ships:

We want to make command bonuses grid wide only, but there are some technical restraints we have to figure out first.

Check out the date

14



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2060



Posted - 2012.09.06 18:55:00 - [40] - Quote

Fon Revedhort wrote:

Since Command Ships and Drake haven't been changed in the slightest for all these years, I guess we should treat your confession as a sign of sudden increase in PvP compherension within CCP?

Since Command Ships and Drake haven't been changed in the slightest for all these years, I guess we should treat your confession as a sign of sudden increase in PvP compherension within CCP?



Not that Ytterbium doesn't have his head on straight, but ... dude, they hired Raivi and the Top Dawg (Unifex) also solo PVPs. Yeah, they've got some PVPers up there.



-Liang



Ed: Or, at least, Unifex *did* solo PVP and seemed quite competent. I haven't talked to him recently. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Historical Research Advocate

State War Academy

Caldari State



8



Posted - 2012.09.06 18:57:00 - [41] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote: Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2060



Posted - 2012.09.06 19:01:00 - [42] - Quote

Historical Research Advocate wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose. if you're looking for the best way to kick the most players in the nuts at one time, this would be it. Fair warning: people who get kicked in the nuts usually fight back. Expect untold levels of drama.



Three comments:

- That will pale in comparison to Summer of Rage 1 and Summer of Rage 2.

- Players are always short sighted in their balancing requests and they never have the long term good of the game in mind.

- Think of it like pruning a tree - yes it may hurt and suck for a while but you and the game will be better off in the end.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Gabrielle Lamb

Pator Tech School

Minmatar Republic



25



Posted - 2012.09.06 19:19:00 - [43] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote:

Three comments:

- That will pale in comparison to Summer of Rage 1 and Summer of Rage 2.

- Players are always short sighted in their balancing requests and they never have the long term good of the game in mind.

- Think of it like pruning a tree - yes it may hurt and suck for a while but you and the game will be better off in the end.



-Liang



I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2060



Posted - 2012.09.06 19:21:00 - [44] - Quote

Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Liang Nuren wrote:

Three comments:

- That will pale in comparison to Summer of Rage 1 and Summer of Rage 2.

- Players are always short sighted in their balancing requests and they never have the long term good of the game in mind.

- Think of it like pruning a tree - yes it may hurt and suck for a while but you and the game will be better off in the end.



-Liang



I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death. I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death.



I have only this to respond to that: LOL.



-Liang



Ed: Also, you didn't actually respond to anything in my post. You may as well have responded directly to Ytterbium. I was commenting on general balancing and e-rage surrounding it. But your commentary is 100% in line with what I said. :) Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Damu'Khonde



509



Posted - 2012.09.06 19:23:00 - [45] - Quote

Quote: if you're looking for the best way to kick the most players in the nuts at one time, this would be it. Fair warning: people who get kicked in the nuts usually fight back. Expect untold levels of drama.





I will be sure to stock up on popcorn.



Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



757



Posted - 2012.09.06 19:26:00 - [46] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote:



I have only this to respond to that: LOL.



Gonna second this. 14



MotherMoon

Blue Republic

RvB - BLUE Republic



1116



Posted - 2012.09.06 19:45:00 - [47] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote:





Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.



We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.



What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:



Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.

Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about

Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example) . Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.

. Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos. HACs, they need love too.

Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.



When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right. This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.



ok ok hear me out



AT Battle Cruisers for next years prize



come on, doooooooo itttttttt http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg



Roime

Shiva Furnace

Dead On Arrival Alliance



1146



Posted - 2012.09.06 20:19:00 - [48] - Quote

Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Liang Nuren wrote:

Three comments:

- That will pale in comparison to Summer of Rage 1 and Summer of Rage 2.

- Players are always short sighted in their balancing requests and they never have the long term good of the game in mind.

- Think of it like pruning a tree - yes it may hurt and suck for a while but you and the game will be better off in the end.



-Liang



I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death. I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death.



I don't they give T3s to NPC corp members



That said not all T3s are OP, just one.



Rest have their niches where they are really good, and isn't that sort of their purpose?



Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman



Suleiman Shouaa

The Tuskers



147



Posted - 2012.09.06 20:32:00 - [49] - Quote

Compare a Proteus to a Deimos. Just do it.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2062



Posted - 2012.09.06 20:43:00 - [50] - Quote

Suleiman Shouaa wrote: Compare a Proteus to a Deimos. Just do it.



Heh, that's such a sad comparison. The Vigilant is slightly better but still falls horrifically short.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Lili Lu



396



Posted - 2012.09.06 20:50:00 - [51] - Quote

Dear Ytterbium,



Thank you for your post. Glad to see that you are as disgusted with the player impulse for new even sweeter tooth-rotting candy. But I would like to let you know I had a thread in Test Server forum addressed to you about this issue (BC imbalances). You didn't respond So, I will repost a link to it. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=122188&find=unread I wish the original eve-kill top twentys for those months would open with the links, oh well.



Basically, here we are again facing another month of . . well I would link the eve-kill top twenty again. But they appear to be undergoing repairs on the site. Oh hey it finally loaded. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20



Last month's final day totals were the most extreme I've ever seen. This month it looks like a couple armor ships are breaking in for trials with the newly respecced tech II 1600 plates (Zealots and Navy Apocs). But other that that it is shield and missile boat heaven once again (or mod-slot blessed ships that can fit a TD, which still don't affect missiles, and no working anti-missile ewar in sight still).



Anyway, how many more months must we endure? And if the current mindset is to buff Tier 1 BCs to tier 2 levels, and not somewhat the other way around as I suggest, how will cruisers gain in utility? I've also posted my concerns about ewar boat imbalances, emerging TD usage as the new multispec of doom, and unevenly applied racial bonus and fitting restriction straightjacketing particularly with destroyers, in the frig and destroyer rebalancing threads above on this subforum. I hope those patterns get reevaluated.



Getting back on track with BCs, I do not think it is being unreasonably impatient to ask for some interim adjustments. Afterall these BC problems have been very obvious for 3 or more years, for pve basically since the Drake was introduced, and in pvp a couple years later when sniping BSs were nerfed and people started marrying Drakes to logis for fleets and for smaller scale stopped thinking their purger rigs would operate there as in pve.



Do we really have to endure another year and a half or more of Drakes and Tengus Online?



Sincerely,



LiLu



Malcanis

Vanishing Point.

The Initiative.



4540



Posted - 2012.09.06 20:52:00 - [52] - Quote

Hi Kell.



I had a quick look, but I can't seem to find your posts complaining about the days when armour RR BS, AHACs and sniper HACs were the only viable doctrines, and people trying to bring shield ships to fleets were routinely kicked. Can you assist me with some keywords for my google search? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.



Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2063



Posted - 2012.09.06 20:54:00 - [53] - Quote

Lili Lu wrote: And if the current mindset is to buff Tier 1 BCs to tier 2 levels, and not somewhat the other way around as I suggest, how will cruisers gain in utility?



If the new frigates are any example of how the balancing is going to happen, BCs may be what becomes obsolete.



Yes, really.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Lili Lu



396



Posted - 2012.09.06 23:09:00 - [54] - Quote

Malcanis wrote: Hi Kell.



I had a quick look, but I can't seem to find your posts complaining about the days when armour RR BS, AHACs and sniper HACs were the only viable doctrines, and people trying to bring shield ships to fleets were routinely kicked. Can you assist me with some keywords for my google search?

Who's Kell?



Anyway, armor RR BSs, AHACs, and Sniper HACs (which are shield tanked btw) collectively did not account for the number of months at the top position on eve-kill that the Drake has. And even had they, notice that all those are ship class doctrines, not single ship doctrines. Additionally, you and I both discovered the fact that over the 150-200 size Drakes + Logi > AHACs + Logi.



As for shield ships getting kicked, Malc, you surprise me. Are you still harboring some resentment for being told at one point as a noob to go home with a purger rigged Drake? Say it ain't so Malc, say it ain't so



Liang Nuren wrote: If the new frigates are any example of how the balancing is going to happen, BCs may be what becomes obsolete.



Yes, really.



-Liang



When did I disagree with that possiblity? Yes they are buffing tech I frigs rather massivley. One could say overdoing it. Tech II ships like EAF are being left further in the dust.



However, I think you are engaging in some hyperbole. There is still a fair amount of room between the hp and dps stats on present cruisers and those on tier 1 BCs. It would take some massive buffs, probably more than we are seeing with frigs atm to obsolete BCs. Besides, all I was asking for was hp reduction to tier 1, not for slot or fitting loss (and thus dps loss) on tier 2s. Slot and fitting could be buffed to tier 2 and hp nerfed to tier 1 rather easily as part of rebalancing. And that would still leave BCs with some advantages over buffed tech I cruisers.



Lin-Young Borovskova

Science and Trade Institute

Caldari State



705



Posted - 2012.09.06 23:35:00 - [55] - Quote

Gabrielle Lamb wrote: Liang Nuren wrote:

Three comments:

- That will pale in comparison to Summer of Rage 1 and Summer of Rage 2.

- Players are always short sighted in their balancing requests and they never have the long term good of the game in mind.

- Think of it like pruning a tree - yes it may hurt and suck for a while but you and the game will be better off in the end.



-Liang



I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death. I don't really agree, T3's is balanced very well around risk / reward. They're not overly powerful except when combined with offgrid boosting. The only thing that isn't balanced properly is training time, which is made up by SP loss upon death.



This



If a ship requiring:

-same skill effort than T2 to be effective

-requires specific training ship type + subs on top

-does just as good or even less than T2 specialised ship when both T2 fitted

-can perform well above T2 specialised ship but requires extreme fittings, implants and OGB

-brings you heavy penalties when you are killed with on top of isk loss



Then where's the real problem?

If T3's are OP then frigates are completely out of whack, most BC's "I win" buttons, Angel ships are "God Mode :on: "

Yes they need some balance, Command subs are ridiculous because "bonus" and generous slots/fittings on those ships.

Yes some of them are in need of balance to be on pair of Tengu and Loki, but not the other way around.



But welp, lets wait and see how much the nerf will hit (chances they become worthless are high)



brb



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2066



Posted - 2012.09.07 00:01:00 - [56] - Quote

A T2 fit T3 is much better than a T2 fit T2, and a faction/deadspace fit T3 is arbitrarily better than a faction/deadspace fit T2. Seriously, T3s utterly obsolete HACs and pirate cruisers.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Omnathious Deninard

Extrinsic Operations



84



Posted - 2012.09.07 00:07:00 - [57] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: A T2 fit T3 is much better than a T2 fit T2, and a faction/deadspace fit T3 is arbitrarily better than a faction/deadspace fit T2. Seriously, T3s utterly obsolete HACs and pirate cruisers.



-Liang

I confirm this, my tengu alt can solo level 4 missions, only t2 fit and will not fall below. 75% shields.



Jude Lloyd

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



462



Posted - 2012.09.07 01:09:00 - [58] - Quote

Id rather have T2 Drakes, Canes, Myrms, and Harbys first. Heretic Army Warlord and Diplomat

Host of Frigfest

http://judelloyd.blog.com/

http://kbarmy.heretic-army.biz/





Jude Lloyd

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



462



Posted - 2012.09.07 01:11:00 - [59] - Quote

Although I'm perfectly happy playing "Eve Online:Frigates" for the next year tbh. Heretic Army Warlord and Diplomat

Host of Frigfest

http://judelloyd.blog.com/

http://kbarmy.heretic-army.biz/





Jerick Ludhowe

Toxic Waste Industries



150



Posted - 2012.09.07 05:33:00 - [60] - Quote

t3 Nerf, and a field command buff? **** yeah (about time). Been "yelling" about this with other oldies like Liang and Fon for so many years now



Arbiter Reformed

Analog Folk

SRS.



50



Posted - 2012.09.07 06:41:00 - [61] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote:





Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.



We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.



What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:



Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.

Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about

Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example) . Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.

. Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos. HACs, they need love too.

Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.



When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right. This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.



thats what i said



inb4 cruiser speed buff... srsly



Darius Brinn

Iberians

Iberians.



90



Posted - 2012.09.07 08:06:00 - [62] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote:





Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.



We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.



What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:



Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.

Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about

Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example) . Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.

. Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos. HACs, they need love too.

Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.



When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right. This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.



Too much work. Just give the Brutix another slot, switch the graphics of the Proteus Friction Extension processor with the CPU efficiency gate, and I-¦m happy.



Still, a dev specifically mentioning that the Eos needs some hard and sweet love is awesome.



Daniel Plain

Science and Trade Institute

Caldari State



330



Posted - 2012.09.07 09:05:00 - [63] - Quote

don't nerf my tengoose! "I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF



John Ratcliffe

Sausy Sausages



7



Posted - 2012.09.07 10:39:00 - [64] - Quote

I really want to see a CN Drake. But only as long as it's more OP than it is already.



The T3 Cruisers can be completely removed from the game as far as I care, should never have been introduced in the first place.



Oh and if they nerf off-grid boosting I am going to be seriously pissed off, given I've been training an alt for precisely this role for the last 2 months. The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go?



GsyBoy

Hooded Underworld Guys

Cascade Imminent



9



Posted - 2012.09.07 11:21:00 - [65] - Quote

Though i would love to see more ships in the game, anything between bc's and bs's would make the bs obsolete there would have a price tag which would make them costly. This is currently where T3 (Loki/Tengu) cruiser sits, a cruiser with bs tank but with crusier speed and agility.



Personally, would like to see more elite battleships (with stats better than the mach) implemented for PVP therefore closing the gap with bs and capital class in the right direction. No more dumbing down capitals and just fill the hole from the bottom up.



Gsy



CCP Ytterbium

C C P

C C P Alliance



984







Posted - 2012.09.07 11:35:00 - [66] - Quote

Lili Lu wrote: Dear Ytterbium,

*snip!*

Sincerely,



LiLu



Hello there, we've read your post a while back - again, it's not because we are not replying that we aren't interested in various hot topics.



What's making (some) tier2 BCs partially so good is due to the modules they use and less to the hull itself. That's the case for the Drake for example. The combination of long range heavy missiles plus shield tanking is amplifying the potential of the ship far too much than intended. That's an issue that cannot be fixed by just quickly changing some numbers up and down as part of a temporary fix.



Sure, a temporary fix may help in the meantime, but it can actually complicate things when we actually get to fully rebalance the battlecruisers. We're not saying it cannot be done, but, for being an old Dev chap within CCP, I have seen first hand what happens when ship balance is prematurely rushed: things tend to get over-nerfed or buffed one way or another and then left to rot for ages. And don't let me fool anyone here by trying to put the blame on other Devs, for this isn't the case: I know this for a fact for doing this very mistake myself several times. I was the one overbuffing the Dramiel to insane speeds in the first place (and to an extend all Angel Cartel Pirate ships).



That's why I tend to be cautious and recommend the balancing guys to do the same when dealing with such problems. Balancing ship hulls on their own is already difficult, but add module balancing into the fray and the complexity blows out of proportion. Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.



We're not trying to specifically wallow in self-pity here but to explain it is important to learn from previous mistakes. We are not excluding the possibility of giving temporary fixes to ships that need them, we are just suggestion caution.





We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels, because it breaks the purpose of a sandbox game which offers differently shaped tools for you to use as you see fit. And that's without even saying that, with time, as your playerbase gets older and accumulate resources, entry requirements are more and more easily reached, thus resulting in everyone getting their hands on the ship that was initially restricted to a few. And before you ask, some ships, like the Navy/PIrate hulls were designed to be plain better than tech1, others, like tech2/tech3 were not. Tech2 are supposed to be specialized, and tech3 more generalized - performance gap should not be so great that you can forget about tech1 entirely.



Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.



However, we are not here to win a popularity contest, we, as ship balancing designers are here to make sure the state of the game is healthy in the long run, and if we have to be universally hated for doing what's needed for EVE Online to last 10 more years in the long run, so be it.





Ooops, made a wall of text , well, hope that helps a bit.



Aineko Macx

Royal Amarr Institute

Amarr Empire



203



Posted - 2012.09.07 11:44:00 - [67] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote: , well, hope that helps a bit. Ooops, made a wall of text, well, hope that helps a bit.

I approve of every bit of it. Much love



ITTigerClawIK

Galactic Rangers

Intrepid Crossing



132



Posted - 2012.09.07 11:53:00 - [68] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote:





Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.



We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.



What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:



Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.

Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about

Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example) . Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.

. Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos. HACs, they need love too.

Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.



When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right. This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.



i totaly wish we got more replys like this for alot of other commonly asked things so thanks for this.



also, TOTALY looking foward to seeing the first run of T1 cruiser changes, i am hoping that my omen is in the first batch( let it use lasers without fitting mods please).





Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



758



Posted - 2012.09.07 12:08:00 - [69] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote: Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.

I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?



For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations? 14



mama guru

Evolution

The Retirement Club



58



Posted - 2012.09.07 12:26:00 - [70] - Quote

HAC's and pirate cruisers have been out for over 7 years and people STILL think they have ever been relevant.



Heres a hint: T3 is not what killed them. ______



EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak.



John Ratcliffe

Sausy Sausages



7



Posted - 2012.09.07 13:15:00 - [71] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote: , well, hope that helps a bit. Ooops, made a wall of text, well, hope that helps a bit.



It'll only help as long as you don't nerf the Drake or any other ship I own.

The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go?



Metal Icarus

Endless Destruction

Against ALL Anomalies



269



Posted - 2012.09.07 13:36:00 - [72] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote: (and to an extend all Angel Cartel Pirate ships).



That's why I tend to be cautious and recommend the balancing guys to do the same when dealing with such problems. Balancing ship hulls on their own is already difficult, but add module balancing into the fray and the complexity blows out of proportion. Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers. And don't let me fool anyone here by trying to put the blame on other Devs, for this isn't the case: I know this for a fact for doing this very mistake myself several times. I was the one overbuffing the Dramiel to insane speeds in the first place That's why I tend to be cautious and recommend the balancing guys to do the same when dealing with such problems. Balancing ship hulls on their own is already difficult, but add module balancing into the fray and the complexity blows out of proportion. Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.



it was yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuu!



Harvey James

Prospero's Sight



12



Posted - 2012.09.07 13:48:00 - [73] - Quote

well ccp ytterbium heres a question is there any possibility you would consider making navy bc's as a mixture of weapon systems ?

for example make a new hull with blasters/missiles for caldari etc... it would add a different element without being a drake or ferox on roids.



chris elliot

EG CORP

Talocan United



45



Posted - 2012.09.07 13:53:00 - [74] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

*snip*



We would also like to reply on the comments about tech3 ships being balanced for their cost and skill requirements. This should not be a factor for balancing most EVE vessels, because it breaks the purpose of a sandbox game which offers differently shaped tools for you to use as you see fit. And that's without even saying that, with time, as your playerbase gets older and accumulate resources, entry requirements are more and more easily reached, thus resulting in everyone getting their hands on the ship that was initially restricted to a few. And before you ask, some ships, like the Navy/PIrate hulls were designed to be plain better than tech1, others, like tech2/tech3 were not. Tech2 are supposed to be specialized, and tech3 more generalized - performance gap should not be so great that you can forget about tech1 entirely.



Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.









You're not planning on making t3's as hilariously useless for the cost as the nighthawk is currently when compared to the drake and tengu are you? (I think that's what a lot of people really want to know, not so much that you plan to change things)



If someone needs to spend about a billion isk and risk loosing skillpoints for loosing the ship it kinda should be just plain better than a command ship that only costs a quarter to half of that no? Risk vs reward and all that jazz.





Oh and on Langs earlier post, while you're giving some lovin to the Succubus, any chance you could kick a little love towards the Cruor?





Meditril

T.R.I.A.D

Ushra'Khan



115



Posted - 2012.09.07 14:59:00 - [75] - Quote

Please NO.

Before adding new ship types please fix the broken ones first... so let's wait until CCP finishes their ongoing process of ship-rework.



Zarnak Wulf

Imperial Outlaws



553



Posted - 2012.09.07 15:00:00 - [76] - Quote

I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!



Harvey James

Prospero's Sight



12



Posted - 2012.09.07 15:30:00 - [77] - Quote

i would be intrigued how the gurista pirate drone boat would turn out i would like to see it getting different drone bonuses to the gallente line cos atm gila is better than ishtar and myrmidon and we'll see about the amarr drone combat ships.

But it would certainly add more reason to use the different races drone boats if they all bonused drones differently so maybe amaar could bonus tank more gallente more damage bonuses and then gurista maybe more tracking/geared towards sentries.

Just something to make drone ships more interesting like turret ships are.

And would be more of a choice rather than if i want shields i go gila, armour i go amarr and gallente are kind of the bottom of the pile.



Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



758



Posted - 2012.09.07 16:16:00 - [78] - Quote

Zarnak Wulf wrote: I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!

lol



That's one of these few things which keep me subscribed 14



Jerick Ludhowe

Toxic Waste Industries



150



Posted - 2012.09.07 16:40:00 - [79] - Quote

Zarnak Wulf wrote: I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!



rewrite of cyno mechanics is the problem. Simply balancing the ships fighting capabilities will just mask the underlying problem.





Korvin

Shadow Kingdom

Best Alliance



353



Posted - 2012.09.07 16:45:00 - [80] - Quote

Navy and Pirates the way I see them in devblog seems to do the same bad thing tiers do now. Why not making them with interracial specialization instead? Giving them some advantages of 2 races involved in skill requirements and making navy more defensive and pirate more offensive...



90% webs is a step in a right direction. __________________________________

Member of CSM 4&5



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2083



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:08:00 - [81] - Quote

Fon Revedhort wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.

I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?



For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations? I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations?



Heh, the falloff is insane because the devs didn't communicate when balancing the two things. That is to say that Nozh was balancing TEs and added +30% falloff and Ytterbium was looking at the same problem from another angle and simultaneously gave the Mach a falloff bonus. I think what this may mean is that Angel ships are going to lose their falloff bonus - which I'm actually a fan of.



Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Karah Serrigan

The Hatchery

Team Liquid



64



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:15:00 - [82] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: Another anecdote: the insane falloff we get on particular Angel Cartel ship fits was because I failed to properly communicate with CCP Nozh when rebalancing the Machariel while he was looking at Tracking Enhancers.

I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?



For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations? I don't get it: the falloff is insane cause of Mach or cause TE is so ridiculously good?For instance, both Locus coordinator and ambit extension rigs buff optimal and falloff by 15%, while TE impacts fallof twice as much. How is it balanced and how long does it actually take to tune this a bit, given your own words of smaller iterations?



Heh, the falloff is insane because the devs didn't communicate when balancing the two things. That is to say that Nozh was balancing TEs and added +30% falloff and Ytterbium was looking at the same problem from another angle and simultaneously gave the Mach a falloff bonus. I think what this may mean is that Angel ships are going to lose their falloff bonus - which I'm actually a fan of.



Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.



-Liang Heh, the falloff is insane because the devs didn't communicate when balancing the two things. That is to say that Nozh was balancing TEs and added +30% falloff and Ytterbium was looking at the same problem from another angle andgave the Mach a falloff bonus. I think what this may mean is that Angel ships are going to lose their falloff bonus - which I'm actually a fan of.Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is astronger mechanic than falloff is.-Liang

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2083



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:24:00 - [83] - Quote

Karah Serrigan wrote:

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.



I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses are still much stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships are still much stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Karah Serrigan

The Hatchery

Team Liquid



64



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:31:00 - [84] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Karah Serrigan wrote:

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.



I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses are still much stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships are still much stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?



-Liang



Ed: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at. I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses aremuch stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships aremuch stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?-LiangEd: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at.

Nevermind me, i misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying autocannons should rely on optimal and ships should get an optimal bonus rather than falloff because optimal is the better mechanic.

Im bad and i should feel bad.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2083



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:32:00 - [85] - Quote

Karah Serrigan wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Karah Serrigan wrote:

Yeah, because if there is anything we want its homogenization. And there is totally no other weapon system that relies on optimal rather than falloff already...oh wait.



I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses are still much stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships are still much stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?



-Liang



Ed: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at. I don't understand what you're getting at. Even with 30% falloff TEs, optimal bonuses aremuch stronger than falloff bonuses. High optimal ships aremuch stronger than high falloff ships. What is your point?-LiangEd: Seriously, just lose the snark and try to say what you meant to say. I honestly don't know wtf you are getting at.

Nevermind me, i misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying autocannons should rely on optimal and ships should get an optimal bonus rather than falloff because optimal is the better mechanic.

Im bad and i should feel bad. Nevermind me, i misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying autocannons should rely on optimal and ships should get an optimal bonus rather than falloff because optimal is the better mechanic.Im bad and i should feel bad.



Heh, it happens to us all on occasion.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



758



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:33:00 - [86] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. 14



Cephelange du'Krevviq

Hephaestus LLC

Get Off My Lawn



52



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:36:00 - [87] - Quote

John Ratcliffe wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: , well, hope that helps a bit. Ooops, made a wall of text, well, hope that helps a bit.



It'll only help as long as you don't nerf the Drake or any other ship I own.

It'll only help as long as you don't nerf the Drake or any other ship I own.



Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2083



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:37:00 - [88] - Quote

Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.



I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





John Ratcliffe

Sausy Sausages



8



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:38:00 - [89] - Quote

Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:



Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.



If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.

The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go?



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2083



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:54:00 - [90] - Quote

John Ratcliffe wrote: Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:



Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.



If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.

If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.



Hard to give up your ez mode win button? Awww, it'll be ok. :)



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



758



Posted - 2012.09.07 17:59:00 - [91] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.



I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.

It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues. 14



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2083



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:01:00 - [92] - Quote

Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.



I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.

It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues. It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues.



What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





ITTigerClawIK

Galactic Rangers

Intrepid Crossing



132



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:13:00 - [93] - Quote

Zarnak Wulf wrote: I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!



I think this is going to be down to whoever draws the short straw, kinda like what they do when they need work that involves tackling POS code,









Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2084



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:16:00 - [94] - Quote

ITTigerClawIK wrote: Zarnak Wulf wrote: I can't wait for the tears when the rebalancing program gets to supercaps!



I think this is going to be down to whoever draws the short straw, kinda like what they do when they need work that involves tackling POS code,

I think this is going to be down to whoever draws the short straw, kinda like what they do when they need work that involves tackling POS code,



I'm really sad that removing forcefields is going to ruin a hobby of mine - guessing POS passwords to steal stuff.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





stoicfaux



1550



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:16:00 - [95] - Quote

CCP Devs wrote: blah blah blah



I can has cheese ... pirate faction Tengu?





You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.





Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



758



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:24:00 - [96] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Liang Nuren wrote:

Also, regarding the 15% vs 30% of optimal/falloff. I think it's the correct choice. Optimal is a MUCH stronger mechanic than falloff is.

Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point. Falloff rigs should provide 30% (40% for tech2) bonus then. That's kinda the whole point.



I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot. I see your argument and to a point I agree with it. But I feel that the opportunity cost of a low slot is much higher than that of a rig slot.

It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues. It is. So what? It's like saying opportunity cost of lows in armour ships are lower than those of shield ones and thus should provide reduced bonuses from damage mods. No way! If admitted that optimal is twice as valuable as falloff (which is debatable on itself, btw), corresponding rigs should keep this ratio just as modues.



What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be. What a silly assertion. Opportunity cost should and does play a massive role in how powerful something should be.

What a demagogy. In that case locus coordinator rigs provide way too strong bonus compared to TE/TC - since their opportunity cost is so much lower. 14



Historical Research Advocate

State War Academy

Caldari State



19



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:36:00 - [97] - Quote

CCP Ytterbium wrote: Also, we are aware of the number of used tech3 ships in general, and how far the repercussions could go for tweaking them. We know this would be a hot discussion from our playerbase as nobody wants to see their assets changed. That is normal human reaction. We can guarantee you that no matter what happens here, we will definitely do our very best to be as diplomatic, open minded and communicative as we have been in the past to ensure we hear all ends of the arguments and annoy the less amount of people.



However, we are not here to win a popularity contest, we, as ship balancing designers are here to make sure the state of the game is healthy in the long run, and if we have to be universally hated for doing what's needed for EVE Online to last 10 more years in the long run, so be it.



I'm not thinking of the next 10 years, I'm thinking of the last 4. The 4 in which I made long term decisions with results that wouldn't be seen for as long as a year or two. EVE has always stressed the importance of long term planning. When you guys say stuff like this, you're putting everyone who has been or will be making decisions about T3 training, acquisition, building, selling, etc into a very bad spot. You're making our old decisions, the ones whose repercussions we're still working through because thats how you designed the game, into potentially irrelevant or stupid choices. You're making decisions on future actions difficult as well, because no one knows how this will turn out. The issue here isn't so much the T3 itself. I'd care a whole lot less about redesigns if they didn't mean that 14 months of training was wasted or that the last 12 months I spent building up a production unit inside a WH was wasted because the produced ship's value drops.



You may not be here to win a popularity contest, but your company is. In fact, that's its purpose-- designing popular games that people want to play. Designing games that keep changing their fundamental elements and rendering old decisions irrelevant but requiring that decisions be made years in advance does not make your game popular, it makes it tedious and frustrating. There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts.



postscript: Every CCP employee who communicates with the public should be sent to a Communications 101 class. Saying things like "we're not here to win a popularity contest" and "if we have to be universally hated... so be it" is provocative and puts the reader/listener into an adverserial mindset. Half of the crap CCP mods have to deal with from the playerbase is a direct result of poor communication by CCP employees.



John Ratcliffe

Sausy Sausages



8



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:37:00 - [98] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: John Ratcliffe wrote: Cephelange du'Krevviq wrote:



Wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first. The Drake is in need of some balancing, as are a bunch of other hulls. I'm looking forward to what their tiercide does for the cruiser and BC line.



If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.

If CCP nerf it then they can suck my **** TBH.



Hard to give up your ez mode win button? Awww, it'll be ok. :)



-Liang Hard to give up your ez mode win button? Awww, it'll be ok. :)-Liang



I don't PVP with it, but it's perfect in PVE and I want it left alone if it's not going to get a buff.

The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go?



Metal Icarus

Endless Destruction

Against ALL Anomalies



271



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:39:00 - [99] - Quote

Who cares about faction BC's anyways, faction tech 3's are where its at!



Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



758



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:40:00 - [100] - Quote

Historical Research Advocate wrote: There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts.

It's right the reverse - bittervets pop up when CCP is unwilling to admit its own faults - like with Drakes, tech3, Titans, cynoes and so on and so forth. 14



Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2085



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:46:00 - [101] - Quote

Fon Revedhort wrote:

What a demagogy. In that case locus coordinator rigs provide way too strong bonus compared to TE/TC - since their opportunity cost is so much lower.





I'm not sure that this is actually true. It feels false, but I can't really put my finger on why. My gut says that I rarely feel compelled to fit optimal rigs to optimal based ships that I fly, but I frequently feel compelled to fit falloff rigs to the falloff based ships that I fly. I feel compelled to fit a TE or two on every turret ship I fly - though for different reasons depending on the ship. Most of the time, it's for the tracking bonus (TCs require a mid, capacitor, and have massive fitting costs) - though for falloff ships it's for the falloff bonus.



However, increasing the falloff bonus on Ambits would make feel utterly compelled to fit them. I think the big thing here is that falloff based weapons (blasters, projectiles) have fairly good tracking and I'm just trying to extend their damage projection out. Lasers have fantastic damage projection already and I need to shore up the weakness up close. I guess that's why I prefer metastasis rigs for lasers.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Liang Nuren

Heretic Army

Heretic Nation



2085



Posted - 2012.09.07 18:47:00 - [102] - Quote

Fon Revedhort wrote: Historical Research Advocate wrote: There is a reason EVE has so many bittervets--you keep kicking us in the nuts.

It's right the reverse - bittervets pop up when CCP is unwilling to admit its own faults - like with Drakes, tech3, Titans, cynoes and so on and so forth. It's right the reverse - bittervets pop up when CCP is unwilling to admit its own faults - like with Drakes, tech3, Titans, cynoes and so on and so forth.



Dammit why you gotta go saying reasonable things.



-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)

Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com

PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos

Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren





Fon Revedhort

Monks of War

DarkSide.



759



Posted - 2012.09.07 19:10:00 - [103] - Quote

Liang Nuren wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote:

What a demagogy. In that case locus coordinator rigs provide way too strong bonus compared to TE/TC - since their opportunity cost is so much lower.





I'm not sure that this is actually true. It feels false, but I can't really put my finger on why. My gut says that I rarely feel compelled to fit optimal rigs to optimal based ships that I fly, but I frequently feel compelled to fit falloff rigs to the falloff based ships that I fly. I'm not sure that this is actually true. It feels false, but I can't really put my finger on why. My gut says that I rarely feel compelled to fit optimal rigs to optimal based ships that I fly, but I frequently feel compelled to fit falloff rigs to the falloff based ships that I fly.

That's cause in small-scale PvP there's a certain, so to speak, level of optimal you can fully utilize and buffing it beyond that point (mostly point range, btw) is not that beneficial. At the same time increased falloff always has an impact of increased DPS.



That's pretty clear, but it doesn't justify the disparity in rig bonuses. I could even somewhat agree with reduced bonuses on ambits (25/30%), but leaving them as-is simply makes no sense if you really long for an established game balance. 14



Warde Guildencrantz

TunDraGon



29



Posted - 2012.09.07 19:20:00 - [104] - Quote

It would be interesting if you did in fact make navy BCs, but instead of making them uber versions of the non-navy hulls, you could make them "Stolen intel" or something, ships designed in rapid departure from racial philosophy to confuse enemies, while still utilizing the same weapons systems of each race. For example, Navy Drake would have missiles still, but have 6 low slots and 4 mids, meant to fit an armor tank. Navy Harb would have the drake's layout with lasers, navy cane woul