open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked No parity between Black Ops and Recons (Here's to General Rebalancing)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Erotic Irony
0bsession
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:30:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Erotic Irony on 22/05/2008 15:53:37
Quote:
Is it safe to assume the gains a black ops like the Redeemer enjoys over the Armageddon should be in parity with the gains a Pilgrim gets over the Arbitrator? If so, then there are some serious gaps I don't follow.

I had to use these two links to get a side by side view but surely you have more sophisticated spreadsheets:

http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=643-22428
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=11965-628

The least controversial is the cap difference I think, for the recons, the gain is 20%, for the battleships, no gain for using tech two. Is this unprecedented in comparing tech one to tech two hulls? No other t2 ship has the same or less cap than its t1 counterpart. This is a crippling deal breaker.

As the Ewar powerhouse, pilgrim justifiably enjoys double the sensor strength of the t1, Black ops again have no difference. Same for locked targets, pilgrim gains one, redeemer is identical to tech one.

On scan res, pilgrim locks 12% slower than arby but has over 100% more lock range. Redeemer comes out ahead initially, 20% faster scan res but for reasons unknown only has 4% more lock range than the geddon--figure in the cloak and again we have a deal breaker. Running the cloak practically means dampening yourself.

On both shield and armor the numbers don't make sense. Both pilgrim and redeemer lose approximately the same amount of shield hit points by upgrading to tech two, 22% and 20% respectively, but this difference is heightened by the resistance gains of the pilgrim to explosive and kinetic, 20% and 15% increases; redeemer on shield gains a paltry 4% and 3% respectively. The redeemer's shield recharge is even longer than the geddon's despite having less hit points.

On armor, the pilgrim gains about 30% more armor and bigger native explosive and kinetic bonuses, 40% and 18.75% while the Redeemer has -20% less hit points than the tech one version and virtually no bonus armor resistance to explosive and kinetic. The only area where the redeemer comes out ahead vis a vis the pilgrim and arbitrator is on hull, the cruiser loses nearly 40% of its hull in choosing tech two while the bs only loses about 20%.

Although I use two Amarr ships to demonstrate this point, it is safe to say all black ops are suffering from this balancing crisis. If these ships are to be so ineffectual relative to recons, their invention costs should be wildly reduced with their skill requirements as no rational person would ever even consider flying one given the current state of recons.


TL;DR ***got:
There is not incentive to use these ships for any form of pvp.

-Need scan resolution and recalibration bonus
-More cap, 10-5% more fitting
-Battleship lockrange
-Double base jump range
-Reduced fitting for bridge, cheaper jumps.
-Remove restriction on jump harmonics and implement a module to enable covert bridge movement.

Papa Ina
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:35:00 - [2]
 

I'm going to support a look into balancing of blackops in general and not actually read your post, 'kay?

Heartstone
Aliastra

Posted - 2008.05.22 14:44:00 - [3]
 

Whilst Black Op ships certainly do need a rebalance in general I think it is dangerous to try to copy one type of ship design across to another. So I support a look at the rebalancing of Black Ops but not your exact points.

Erotic Irony
0bsession
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:53:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Heartstone
Whilst Black Op ships certainly do need a rebalance in general I think it is dangerous to try to copy one type of ship design across to another. So I support a look at the rebalancing of Black Ops but not your exact points.


I mentioned it to contextualize my point and reinforce how limited they are not to justify making battleship recons.

Damion Zyne
Queens of the Stone Age
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:06:00 - [5]
 

I support rebalancing black op ships esp. in regards to cyno jammer.

hammyhamm
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:43:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: hammyhamm on 22/05/2008 15:43:21
Making BlackOps ships able to bridge Jump Harmonics 2 ships into cynojammed systems via COVERT cynos would be an interesting new way to allow BlackOps ships to be utilised.

I'm definately in favour of a rethink of the BlackOps class in general.

Phil Exon
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:44:00 - [7]
 

i support this message, black ops need some loving

Gorobom
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:22:00 - [8]
 

Black Ops definitely need some love indeed.

Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs

Posted - 2008.05.22 16:23:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Lord WarATron on 22/05/2008 16:24:58
Someone needs to scrap Black ops and remake it with a role in mind. I have yet to have anybody actually come up with how exactly I am meant to use my Redeemer in a non-comedy way.

Needs to be sc****d and rebuilt with real world pvp in mind.

Darahk J'olonar
Gallente
Trans Eve Organization
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:38:00 - [10]
 

Anything to make a Black Ops BS worth half the ISK you currently pay for one would be good right now. So yeah I support it!

White Ronin
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:41:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: White Ronin on 22/05/2008 16:42:30
supported

edit...
Make it a deep space exploration ship. Solo focus.
Forget that crazy idea you have now for a cloaked hauler that you cant afford to take out of drydock.

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:50:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 22/05/2008 16:24:58
Someone needs to scrap Black ops and remake it with a role in mind. I have yet to have anybody actually come up with how exactly I am meant to use my Redeemer in a non-comedy way.

Needs to be sc****d and rebuilt with real world pvp in mind.


The panther is the only one worth anything, and I guess the widow actually has a roll so it's worth the isk (maybe). They really need a roll definement. Panther has it's speed, widow has it's ecm, but the sin and redeemer are arguably worse than their T1 counterparts save the ability to jump bridge / cyno.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:20:00 - [13]
 

Supported in general - Black Ops are over priced for their ability.

C.


Mystic Twilight
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:29:00 - [14]
 

I endorse the above product and/or service

Jalmari Huitsikko
Caldari
draketrain

Posted - 2008.05.22 19:41:00 - [15]
 

Blackops are way too expensive for their primary use in covert operation type things. Also some of their stats need to be looked at. Mostly cyno jump distance/fuel consumption etc. I'd love to use blackops for moving my recon/covops gang relatively fast in 0.0 but hey 500mil for going over like 50-100 jumps and most likely dying as a result. Meh.

Zakgram
POW ZAP THWAPP

Posted - 2008.05.22 20:00:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Zakgram on 22/05/2008 20:00:03
Yes please.

Lance Fighter
Amarr
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:41:00 - [17]
 

woah cool.

El Yatta
0utbreak
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:06:00 - [18]
 

Im not sure about making them "comparable to recons" - whatever that means. They need to stay as the DPS of a cloak gang, as well as its secret jumpgate. what they DO need is more HP (as much as t1, ffs), a fuel bay, no scanres penalty on cloaks and a better bonus on Sin and Redeemer.


Aleis
Minmatar
Playboy Enterprises
Dark Taboo
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:42:00 - [19]
 

they definatly need something

Zadren Radek
The Scope

Posted - 2008.05.23 00:09:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Zadren Radek on 23/05/2008 00:11:22
Please, for the love of all that is sane, fix these puppies up.

We spend huge amounts of training time and Isk for a ship that is utterly naff.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:18:00 - [21]
 


Yep agreed, these ships do need improvement. Covert Cyno being immune to Cyno Jammers is only the start of the fix to these vessels. Agree with the general motion.


Kinkie Yuuki
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:24:00 - [22]
 

Give something, anything.

Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:55:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Yep agreed, these ships do need improvement. Covert Cyno being immune to Cyno Jammers is only the start of the fix to these vessels. Agree with the general motion.




Quoting this! this is the key issue tbh. Giving them better jump range/fuel costs etc. would be helpful too!

J'Mkarr Soban
Posted - 2008.05.23 08:37:00 - [24]
 

Black Ops ships are not the next in line in the covert ops family of ships, just as Marauders are not the next in line in the HAC family.

However, I do support the general rebalancing of them, with the possibility to shift them so that they are the next in line with covert ops family.

Mr Ignitious
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.05.26 00:07:00 - [25]
 

*applause*

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.26 01:36:00 - [26]
 

Do I actually need to post to support something?

OK. I'd like to support looking at them again, in terms of a role.
And then a bit of adjustment to their stats to fill that role. At the moment the jumprange is unusably small, the fuel use is crippling.

AtomizerX
Supernova Security Systems

Posted - 2008.05.26 01:44:00 - [27]
 

Re-balance the new ships, CCP!

Damir36
Gallente
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2008.05.26 09:50:00 - [28]
 

.

Hitoshi Yamadori
Posted - 2008.05.26 10:03:00 - [29]
 

I support this. Please have a look into Black Ops.

Inanna Zuni
Minmatar
The Causality
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.26 11:46:00 - [30]
 

In general I'm not into the "ship needs buff / ship needs nerf" thing (see link below sig) but I will agree that *as a class* Black Ops needs some clarification as to its purpose and benefits over other classes. Its stated role just isn't met with the current spec.

What is needed though is some 'this needs to be done for the class of ships to make sense' proposal, rather than a 'look at it please' suggestion. Not an overkill of detail but something us CSM members can bring to the discussion table with the Devs.

IZ


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only