open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] - a rebalancing of T1 Cruisers and Battlecruisers.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.29 13:41:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 29/07/2011 14:05:15
The problem
T1 cruisers are largely obsolete for PVP, because of the simple fact Battlecruisers exist.
Battlecruisers offer only slightly less mobility (no loss, in the case of the nanocane) for better firepower and defence, and thanks to insurance a rather insignificant price gap.

The result of this is that the majority of tech 1 cruisers have no real role, compared to the equivilent battlecruiser.

Another contributing factor is that the tier system and general CCP fail has rendered a number of cruisers seriously sub-par.

This proposal aims to go some way to rectifying both problems, through fairly simple changes.
The overall intended end result is a situation where both cruisers and battlecruisers have a role, and that someone with the money for either would actually have to think for a minute before picking their ship rather than going straight for the tier 2 BC.
I'd also like to stress - battlecruisers stomping cruisers in a 1v1 is fine.

Nerfing battlecruisers
First step - nerf insurance payouts, at least on the tier 2s. The big problem with pricing on cruisers vs battlecruisers is that they use the same mods and rigs, in very similar quantities, but that the cruisers get a few mil in insurance wheras the BCs get 20ish.

As an example, a while ago a friend and I did some price comparisons (using the Rens markets at the time) and the difference between a kitted out Rupture and Cyclone, factoring insurance, was a laughable 4 million.

So, as a first step, nerf insurance to make battlecruisers as pricey as their performance should require. I'm well aware that price is not an overall factor in balancing, but this should actually give a price gap to consider, in addition to the other factors.

Secondly, reduce BC mobility. Their speed can stay (see below for why) but slightly nerf their agility to widen the gap with cruisers.

Thirdly, this does not apply to all BCs, but their stats are getting slightly absurd in places. The Drake for example isn't far off being a battleship in EHP (and DPS, with HAMs). I'd swap out the shield bonus for missile velocity (or even precision). This brings the EHP down to the level of the others without gimping it.
Frankly I'm in favour of nerfing the tier 2s down to the level of the tier 1s all round, but that's outside the scope of this post.

Buffing cruisers
The first major change I'd make is upping cruiser mobility across the board. The main reason to pick a cruiser should ideally be their mobility, but right now their stats don't quite back this up. A Moa is a mere 200m/s faster than a Drake and the agility isn't far off either. The Hurricane is the biggest offender here, going easily around 1.4km/s.

So, buff cruisers to be faster than BCs all-round. Right now cruisers average 1.2-1.5km/s without being speed fitted, up this to around 1.5 at the slowest and 1.9 max.
Combined with the BC nerf, this means a cruiser gang has significantly higher mobility than an equivilent group of battlecruisers, but the Hurricane is still a workable option where faster gangs are concerned.

Next, give the finger to the tier system and start buffing. I won't go into too much detail but the Omen, Caracal, Moa and Thorax (to varying extents) all need a grid and/or CPU buff. The Stabber's slot layout makes it a complete joke at the moment compared to the Rupture, so give it another low and a few more drones (say 20m/3 bay.)
As for the Maller, give it a damage bonus rather than cap as well as some drones, but keep the speed way down. Omen for a faster laser platform, Maller for a tank/gank ship.

The ideal end result:
- Cruisers are lighter, faster, and more economically viable compared to battlecruisers and also have a greater number of viable classes.
- Battlecruisers are slightly toned down but maintain their role as anti-cruiser, and generally higher DPS/tank platforms for gangs where speed is less of an issue.

Thoughts?

Reppyk
The Black Shell
Posted - 2011.07.29 14:52:00 - [2]
 

Up the warp speed.

3ua/s for all the T1 cruisers... I would like to see 4 or 5ua/s.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.29 15:43:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 29/07/2011 15:45:27
Originally by: Reppyk
Up the warp speed.

3ua/s for all the T1 cruisers... I would like to see 4 or 5ua/s.



I like it. That'd work nicely.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.29 17:32:00 - [4]
 

Play balance tweaks are rarely as simple as you put them. Moving things around rarely only affect the things you are moving.

Some things you may not have considered:

Making cruisers faster, will this mean that cruisers will go faster than some frigates/destroyers?

Nerfing insurance payouts. This won't do at all. Did you think about the fact that battlecruisers are much more often ganked in lowsec and null than cruisers? This is because they have bigger sig rads and can be found easier in plexes. Nerf the insurance payouts and you make happy days for pirates. Not to mention having insurance payouts differ by ship is just too technologically complicated. Its a bazooka vs fly scenario.

200m/s faster is a great deal faster, (are you talking about maxxed out with MWD speeds?), battlecruisers are supposed to be slightly modified cruisers afterall.

Quote:
- Cruisers are lighter, faster, and more economically viable compared to battlecruisers and also have a greater number of viable classes.


Curious to hear why you think they are not economically viable presently vs battlecruisers. A caracal is 3.5m and a drake is 10x that. You can get a caracal up to 20k EHP, and a drake to 30k.
Sounds economically viable to me.


Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2011.07.29 17:38:00 - [5]
 

Increasing speed is not the key problem in cruisers as i see them but it's a nice and working buff anyway. The thing is, even with that speed cruisers can't compete vs anything else but vs frigs and destroyers.

BUT if cruisers had range they'd be completely viable as a gang vs battlecruiser gang. Or as a part of a sniper hac or BC gang. It would just open so many possibilities.

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.07.29 19:03:00 - [6]
 

I don't think we need to nerf battlecruisers, also I don't feel that drake dps is something to be desired. Drakes seem to be the least powerful battlecruiser (aside from the Ferox, which can't be made to function properly). I think the problem with drakes is that their damage isn't low enough for the incredible tank they have. I'd just leave the bonuses the same on the drake and lower its base shield by a small amount. Also, battlecruisers have higher insurance payouts because they cost more.

Command ships are quite a bit cooler than any tech 2 cruiser. But they're not overpowered when you consider how much they cost, the skills required to fly them, and mainly the fact that they don't really hit all that hard, they just have high EHP so they don't die while boosting buddies.

You're right about mobility however. Most cruisers DIAF because they're not significantly faster than battlecruisers. Given that the average tech 1 cruiser has around half the powergrid and maybe 2/3rds the slot options (bringing its slot options nearly in line with heavy frigates), they should be substantially more mobile. Instead, they are sitting ducks that can't dish out much of any help.

I propose all cruisers have max velocity increased by at least 10%, and perhaps signature radius decreased by 10%. It won't make them a ship of choice, but it'll make them useful within niches or when you want to save cash.

----------------------------------
Lastly, I want to strongly iterate that the stabber is in no way underpowered. In fact, I would propose that its powergrid be reduced by like a hundred. With six high slots and mobility more than befitting a cruiser, this thing is just a larger version of the destroyer. It should not be capable of fitting 4x 425mm autocannons and 2x HAM launchers and still have room for a good nano+tank fit. In fact the main reason a fit like that is overpowered is that autocannons have excellent tracking, meaning this thing can nano and hit at the same time while using full-size weapons. It SHOULD be using 220mms or 180mms.

I think the Moa and Ferox could perhaps use a powergrid buff. They can't fit their intended weapons at full size, let alone put on a good tank. The Thorax DEFINITELY needs a powergrid buff. It's the exact opposite of the stabber, being either able to nano OR to dps without any room to do both, and its tank isn't much either. Don't forget it's intended as a blaster ship, so it's not very good if it can't get into target range. I see thoraxes mostly used to catch people off guard, warping in right where their opponent will be and using webifiers to prevent them from getting away. It certainly doesn't chase very well, as I found out when I outran one in a webbed stabber. Its drones got me because I didn't get out of webifier range in time. In seconds I'd have been home free, as I have seen medium drones have quite a bit of difficulty hitting me in a stabber when I'm not webbed.

I haven't flown amarr cruisers so I can't speak for them.

Spacejugs
Posted - 2011.07.30 00:07:00 - [7]
 

To be honest I think the Battlecruiser tier was CCP's original attempt at T3 cruisers that went wrong which I feel is why most of them are quite broken. Why is why a dilema ensues when trying to balance the T1 cruisers in terms of price and ability.

How could you really make the T1 cruiser class better without making the battlecruiser class obselte?

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.30 14:17:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 30/07/2011 14:21:04
Quote:
Making cruisers faster, will this mean that cruisers will go faster than some frigates/destroyers?


This is already the case, but no - the majority of frigates would still be faster and a lot more agile, but the gap would shrink somewhat.

Quote:
Nerf the insurance payouts and you make happy days for pirates. Not to mention having insurance payouts differ by ship is just too technologically complicated. Its a bazooka vs fly scenario.


Insurance has been nerfed before, and if you're willing to risk a bigger ship then you should be able to take the loss.

Quote:
200m/s faster is a great deal faster, (are you talking about maxxed out with MWD speeds?),


I am indeed talking MWD speed, and yes they should be a great deal faster. Have you noticed how stupidly small the speed gap is?

Quote:
battlecruisers are supposed to be slightly modified cruisers afterall.


Umm, no, battlecruisers are not modified cruisers, they are larger ships that use cruiser sized weaponry in larger quantities.

Quote:
Curious to hear why you think they are not economically viable presently vs battlecruisers. A caracal is 3.5m and a drake is 10x that. You can get a caracal up to 20k EHP, and a drake to 30k.


Try not being utterly clueless about the ships you bring up in discussions, otherwise your credibility goes out the window. I'll address this idiocy point by point:

- A Caracal is 3.5mil, plus fittings. In case you haven't noticed, a proper t2 fit will outweigh the hull cost several times over. The cruiser however gets a much lower insurance payout than the battlecruiser, despite a minimal gap in module cost.

- Caracals do not get up to 20k EHP without making huge sacrifices, usually on the gank side of things. Come back here when you have a Caracal with 20k EHP and good DPS.

- 30k EHP? On a Drake? Are you even putting modules on it? Mine has 80k with just a three slot tank, and good DPS on top of that. Dear god you're clueless.

Quote:
Sounds economically viable to me.


Not really, no. Why would I want to fly a Caracal when I can just get a Drake that does the same thing better with a minimal price difference? The only thing Caracals really stand out at doing is swatting frigates, and let's face it - what can't swat frigates these days?

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim
Stabber stuff


Stabbers are hilariously underpowered. Have you taken a look at their stats, umm, ever? With the fit you just suggested, its in-practice DPS and EHP are utterly pathetic, and it has no anti-frigate defences whatsoever.
By the way, your HAM/425mm/tank setup is also impossible. It's over on grid by about 200 and still puts out pathetic damage and has a paper tank. So yeah, I get the feeling you're either looking at a different ship entirely and "Stabber" was a typo, or that you just never even tried EFTing it.

Quote:
Also, battlecruisers have higher insurance payouts because they cost more.


Right, the trouble with this is, factoring that insurance they don't cost more. Insurance only covers the hull.
Let me put it this way, on a t2 fit cruiser, the hull cost is around a quarter of the final total, meaning insurance covers barely anything.
On a battlecruiser on the other hand, the fitting is only slightly more expensive than the cruiser, but the insurance payout is much, much higher. The result of this is that the price difference between the two gets skewed.

Quote:
How could you really make the T1 cruiser class better without making the battlecruiser class obselte?


I thought I'd made this pretty clear - I'm talking buffing cruisers to give them a different role to battlecruisers. The only thing cruisers currently offer (besides stuff like the Blackbird) is being slightly more mobile than a BC, and that mobility gap is way too small right now.
Not only this, but the miniscule price gap means there's very little reason to pick a cruiser if you have the choice

Name Family Name
Posted - 2011.07.30 16:50:00 - [9]
 

Supported - all you see is Canes and Drakes...

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts

Posted - 2011.07.30 16:56:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 30/07/2011 16:59:28
Originally by: Name Family Name
Supported - all you see is Canes and Drakes...


Although... I wouldn't switch the Drake's kinetic bonus for a velocity bonus, as that takes it into Caracal/Cerb territory, and we're trying to differentiate these classes, and I would nerf the tier 2s down to tier 1 levels, in slot counts, fittings and base HP.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.30 17:59:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Edited by: Gypsio III on 30/07/2011 16:59:28
Originally by: Name Family Name
Supported - all you see is Canes and Drakes...


Although... I wouldn't switch the Drake's kinetic bonus for a velocity bonus, as that takes it into Caracal/Cerb territory, and we're trying to differentiate these classes, and I would nerf the tier 2s down to tier 1 levels, in slot counts, fittings and base HP.



Removing a mid from the Drake would be an excellent first step, if the bonus isn't changing. (In my opinon, anyway.)

This would mean like the Ferox it has to pick between a full 3 slot tank and proper tackle gear. Wouldn't be a huge loss to the HML Drake admittedly, but the HAM version would have a serious choice to make as a web is pretty important there.

Tiny Mongo
Posted - 2011.07.30 22:05:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Originally by: Gypsio III
Edited by: Gypsio III on 30/07/2011 16:59:28
Originally by: Name Family Name
Supported - all you see is Canes and Drakes...


Although... I wouldn't switch the Drake's kinetic bonus for a velocity bonus, as that takes it into Caracal/Cerb territory, and we're trying to differentiate these classes, and I would nerf the tier 2s down to tier 1 levels, in slot counts, fittings and base HP.



Removing a mid from the Drake would be an excellent first step, if the bonus isn't changing. (In my opinon, anyway.)

This would mean like the Ferox it has to pick between a full 3 slot tank and proper tackle gear. Wouldn't be a huge loss to the HML Drake admittedly, but the HAM version would have a serious choice to make as a web is pretty important there.


No, that's a rather heavy handed nerf to an already well balanced class/tier. In low sec the problem seems to be canes not drakes. Canes do excellent damage and are really jacks of all trades. Drakes have a lot of things going against them. They tank opposite of most other BC's, slow to lock, slow to apply dps, do less dps than most other BC's, less agile, and have a sig radius a mile wide. The only thing they really have going for them is the engagement profile and the shield brick.

Name Family Name
Posted - 2011.07.30 23:20:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Tiny Mongo

No, that's a rather heavy handed nerf to an already well balanced class/tier. In low sec the problem seems to be canes not drakes. Canes do excellent damage and are really jacks of all trades. Drakes have a lot of things going against them. They tank opposite of most other BC's, slow to lock, slow to apply dps, do less dps than most other BC's, less agile, and have a sig radius a mile wide. The only thing they really have going for them is the engagement profile and the shield brick.



The proposal isn't really aimed at balancing Tier 2 BCs against each other, but balancing cruisers against BCs. Have you encountered any cruisers, except for FW/RvB/throwaway suicide roams lately?
If you did, I bet 90 % of them were Ruptures.

I was just referring to Canes and Drakes because the Cane does tremendous DPS (thanks to OP ACs) with awesome agility and speed, while the Drake sports a BS tank and can be fitted to to good short range dps as well - hence those two are the most commonly used ones.

There's practically no reason to fly a T1 Cruiser when you can fly a BC and it only costs a couple mill more after insurance - hell - some HACs are matched by BCs in some roles, whereas losing a HAC costs 10x as much.


Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.07.31 00:01:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Stabbers are hilariously underpowered. Have you taken a look at their stats, umm, ever? With the fit you just suggested, its in-practice DPS and EHP are utterly pathetic, and it has no anti-frigate defences whatsoever.
By the way, your HAM/425mm/tank setup is also impossible. It's over on grid by about 200 and still puts out pathetic damage and has a paper tank. So yeah, I get the feeling you're either looking at a different ship entirely and "Stabber" was a typo, or that you just never even tried EFTing it.


Here's an example fit like I was talking about. I can't fit mine exactly like this due to not having advanced weapon upgrades, but it's more than possible:

Highs:
4x 425mm AC
2x HAM
Mids:
YT8 MWD
YS8 AB
Web
Lows:
Tracking Enhancer
Armor Explosive Hardener
Damage Control
Rigs:
Anti-thermic Pump
Anti-kinetic Pump
Ancillary Current Router (powergrid)

Now obviously this can't take hits like a tough cruiser, but that's irrelevant considering how swift it is. With about 11k EHP, it is a lot tougher than a destroyer. It's less agile, with a 5.4s align time (vs 4.4s in an unmodified thrasher), but its top speed is higher despite the armor rigs.

Also, it's no DPS king. It doesn't have to be, either. If you want DPS, use a Rupture (which, though high for a cruiser, is still pathetic). The Stabber can keep up with destroyers easily, as well as any frigate it gets a web on. Add to this that its dps is quite a bit higher than a destroyer (176k w/ max skills vs. 140k thrasher w/ top weapons and max skills). (154 dps w/ assault launchers) So this thing is quite good at taking out the little ships. It's tracking obviously isn't nearly as good as a frigate, but I've found it still has little trouble hitting them. Medium autocannons track about half as fast as small pulse lasers and have considerably higher range, despite losing very little range from ammo (unlike pulse lasers).

Signature radius comparison:
35m - Rifter
75m - Thrasher
105m - Stabber
130m - Rupture
240m - Hurricane

Frigate average: about 41m
Destroyer average: about 83m
Cruiser average: about 130m
Battlecruiser average: about 285m

So as you can clearly see, the stabber blurs the line between destroyer and cruiser when it comes to signature radius, as well as several other aspects. This gives it plenty of utility, and if it looks as good in practice as it does in theory, it should be a pretty useful hull.

But you can't really know if it works till you try it. I have, and it does work.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.31 05:04:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 31/07/2011 05:05:01
Duchess, do try to keep baseless inflammatory remarks to a min, and your credibility will also benefit. We aren't trying to shoot you down here, just asking due diligence questions. If you want general consensus, then the onus is on you to explain to the public (that's us!) the justifications for your arguments in plain terms, and we have the right to ask for clarifications, without any berating.

Anyways,

Quote:
Let me put it this way, on a t2 fit cruiser, the hull cost is around a quarter of the final total, meaning insurance covers barely anything. On a battlecruiser on the other hand, the fitting is only slightly more expensive than the cruiser, but the insurance payout is much, much higher. The result of this is that the price difference between the two gets skewed.


Okay, this is true. Now that its apparent that you are speaking from a purely maxxed out T2 standpoint.
So am I correct to assume that assume that your numbers are also comparing a fully T2 maxxed out Drake? By my guesstimates, comparing fully maxxed kits on the caracal and the drake, we have about 30m vs a 60m kit. Of which, only insurance covers only 2m and 30m respectively. This I presume is the source of your gripe.

1 general point, have you considered the effects of your changes on NON-maxxed out T2 fits? It does sound like a maxxed out T2 modded caracal is not a smart idea, but then what if the simple answer to this should be that you shouldn't fit one like this? Maybe the 'progression' should be (as you SP up) caracal with T1 fits, then when you can fit some T2 mods go drake, then when the mods for drake overcome the price, move to Cerberus (higher insurance).


So I'm going to put forth a postulate (which you may feel free to refute)

Quote:
The problem T1 cruisers are largely obsolete for PVP, because of the simple fact Battlecruisers exist. Battlecruisers offer only slightly less mobility (no loss, in the case of the nanocane) for better firepower and defence, and thanks to insurance a rather insignificant price gap.


Postulate:
The market based solution would be not to use T1 cruisers for PvP on a 1 on 1 basis.
As you put it (now that we understand each other) T2 modded T1 cruiser hull is not cost effective. Instead of resorting to game mechanic changes, what if this just means that if you want to use T1 cruisers (or any ship), fit them cheap (relative to their insurance prems) and just use more of them.

ie T1 fit caracal may not match a drake (nor should it) but >1 of them may give the drake a problem. A T2 fit caracal is not cost efficient, so instead you should use drakes instead if you can. Not everyone in the game can fit T2 maxxed mods. So changing mechanics only based on this situation is dodgy, and you can easily inadvertently make a T1 fitted caracal be able to destroy a T1 drake. Which then doesn't seem right considering their price differences.

Really what the perfect fix would be is if insurance worked on the mods fitted, but that would be too complicated as ins would need to be invalidated each time you refit.

In summary, I'm not against any changes you proposed perse, just the economical justification. The role of a T1 cruiser is multi-faceted. Just because it isn't a good choice for PvP, doesn't mean it needs a buff to be. Maybe its fine that its a PvE missioning boat only. Or a noob ship. If you buffed them, it would take a bit away from the role of HACs wouldn't it?

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.07.31 06:28:00 - [16]
 

Overpoweredness of tier2s was evident since the day 1. It's kind of sad to see people barely realising it now, but it's still better than nothing.

Each tier2 BC is to lose 1 high and 1 med(low) slot - and this is the prerequisite of making them actually balanced both with cruisers and command ships.

Stupid penny pinchers and abusers may now go *** themselves.

Jekyl Eraser
Posted - 2011.07.31 06:37:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren

A T2 fit caracal is not cost efficient



True. If hull cost and slotlayout ratio was static, 3mil hull could have 8 slots and 30mil hull would have 80 slots Laughing. 3mil hull costs about 3 modules worth and 30mil hull costs 30 modules.

If you buff cruisers you need to increase hull cost to maybe 9 mil. Even then the slots-hullcost ratio isn't comparable between cruiser and BC but it would help.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 11:26:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim
More Stabber stuff


That fit you suggested needs AWU V, and a 2% grid implant, and still has half the EHP and DPS of another cruiser, also it costs significantly more than a T2 frigate, which would outperform it in every way. Sorry but you're making a really terrible case for this ship. All the fits I have are mediocre at best and the ones you're suggesting are just a mess. Stabber needs a buff.

Quote:
Now that its apparent that you are speaking from a purely maxxed out T2 standpoint.


Pretty much yeah, T2 is the standard and pretty much mandatory for a lot of ships and setups.
(Lasers underperform without scorch, and have you seen the prices on meta HMLs? Just as a couple of examples.)

Quote:
1 general point, have you considered the effects of your changes on NON-maxxed out T2 fits? It does sound like a maxxed out T2 modded caracal is not a smart idea, but then what if the simple answer to this should be that you shouldn't fit one like this? Maybe the 'progression' should be (as you SP up) caracal with T1 fits, then when you can fit some T2 mods go drake, then when the mods for drake overcome the price, move to Cerberus (higher insurance).


This is exactly the problem we have now, actually. Battlecruisers are regarded as a higher tier of ship, when what they should be is an alternative with pros and cons of their own. HAC vs BC is a choice that needs to be weighed up, and is not a straightforward "upgrade" either way. BC vs cruiser should be the same.

Quote:
Postulate:


The suggested changes are not because of their performance on a 1v1 basis. In fact I'm pretty sure I specifically stated the situation of BC > Cruiser in a 1v1 fight is absolutely fine right now.
The problem is that their role has been taken over almost entirely by the battlecruiser.

Quote:
ie T1 fit caracal may not match a drake (nor should it) but >1 of them may give the drake a problem


And >1 T1 fit Drakes would give >T1 fit Caracals a problem.
Seriously, any suggestion you make on use of cruisers at their current performance I can just as easily apply to BC hulls, resulting in the cruisers getting obsoleted yet again. I happen to have a budget fit for the Drake myself which offers close to T2 performance at a fraction of the price.

This is why cruisers need a buff, anything they can do BCs can do better. (With the obvious exception of the Blackbird.)

Quote:
So changing mechanics only based on this situation is dodgy, and you can easily inadvertently make a T1 fitted caracal be able to destroy a T1 drake


There is no way the changes suggested here are going to make it a smart idea to engage a Drake in a Caracal. The buffs and nerfs on each side just aren't big enough to make this a viable fight, but they are big enough to give cruisers a role seperate from BCs.

Quote:
Maybe its fine that its a PvE missioning boat only. Or a noob ship.


This is a terrible situation. More viable ships = more variety = better game.

Quote:
If you buffed them, it would take a bit away from the role of HACs wouldn't it?


Nope, HACs would remain more or less where they are - a significant price increase for better performance and roles that BCs/cruisers can't fill.
Example: the current Harbinger/Zealot decision would then become Harbinger/Zealot/Omen.

Also how would you justify some ships being broken for PVP, PVE and as noob ships? Because you don't have to look hard to find hulls that fit that description.

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.31 13:19:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Kaelie Onren on 31/07/2011 13:29:19
Quote:
The suggested changes are not because of their performance on a 1v1 basis. In fact I'm pretty sure I specifically stated the situation of BC > Cruiser in a 1v1 fight is absolutely fine right now. The problem is that their role has been taken over almost entirely by the battlecruiser.


Lvl3 mission boat for players with <100mil isk.

Okay, it may not be much, but this IS a valid role for T1 cruisers. People who are more combat oriented in the game, perhaps can think of more.

Quote:
Maybe its fine that its a PvE missioning boat only. Or a noob ship. This is a terrible situation. More viable ships = more variety = better game.


Alright, let's look at the situation in the reverse. Instead of saying, 'hey there are these cruisers which seem to be not useful for PvP". Can you instead try to describe the fleet 'hole' that you are trying to fill with cruisers? Is there a hole? What I mean is tacklers are frigs, you have bombers, covert, the dps tank is the BC. What other role do you see that can be useful in PvP here?

What I'm trying to tease out (or perhaps bring to your attention) is buffing something is fine, when you have a objective that you want the buff to achieve. Just making a cruiser a faster but lighter tanked dpser in a gang... one must ask, is there room or even need for a lighter tanked dpser in a gang? Why not just use the BC? Cost?

If you wanted to go and rebalance all these lesser used hulls, then I would have imagined you starting with the Dessie. I mean, at least cruisers get used a lot in PvE missions for people on tight budgets. Dessies have no use at all anymore, except that of a 'budget noctis'.

Funny situation may be, after a cruiser buff, people start complaining about the uselessness of Dessies, so they buff dessies to be as fast as frigates, then people start complaining about how T1 frigates are completely useless and unused... as everyone uses dessies when they want a fast hitter.

I personally am open to a careful, controlled buff on cruisers, maybe making them a tad faster is alright, but I defer to CCP to run the numbers on the balance here. I am still of the opinion that they already have a great role to play in PvP... IE a budget Battlecruiser for those not using T2 mods. I like that I can throw away my cruiser without much financial hit.


Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 15:16:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 15:23:50
Quote:
Lvl3 mission boat for players with <100mil isk.


That's not a role, that's grasping at straws. A ships usefulness for PVE is purely incidental and should never have any bearing on PVP balancing.
I hope you don't seriously think that 15 or so ships existing purely as newbie trash is good games design.

Quote:
Can you instead try to describe the fleet 'hole' that you are trying to fill with cruisers?


... Did you even read any of the OP?
The whole purpose of the mobility buffs and nerfs is to split the two ship sizes by speed, making the Battlecruisers as slow as their size should be and the cruisers considerably more agile, and much better fitting in a gang that requires it.

This principle is already applied in practical PVP - when was the last time you saw someone bring along a Drake to a nano gang? The problem right now is that the gap is too small relative to the tank/gank difference, and the economic issues only compound this.

Seriously, the proposal outlines very clearly what the distinction and role between the two sizes should be, and all you can say is that cruisers are fine because they have stupidly niché PVE roles?

Of course, precise role will differ from ship to ship. As a few examples of post buff-
- Caracals and Omens will make very nice ranged damage dealers
- Stabbers will be very workable cheap nanoships
- Mallers will actually be worth flying
Etc. etc. etc.

There's so much potential in the current cruiser lineup that a bit of well placed rebalancing would neatly sort out.

By the way:

Quote:
but I defer to CCP to run the numbers on the balance here


... Right, defer it to the people who made the Dramiel go 6km/s and the Omen not even have the grid to fit basic weapons and an 800mm plate, among numerous other blindingly stupid design decisions.

Decaped
Posted - 2011.07.31 17:58:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Decaped on 31/07/2011 18:01:20
@ OP

The balance of t1 cruisers is fine. One point you brought up was speed. They should be slow so you want to get to t2 or specific ships. I remember it took me 3 days to get into a tech 1 cruiser. It should perform as such.

/notsupported because it would negate the importance of getting into better ships.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:02:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 18:05:50
Originally by: Decaped
@ OP

The balance of t1 cruisers is fine.


How exactly is the balance "fine" when half of them are utterly mediocre and the other half are largely obsoleted by BCs?

Quote:
They should be slow so you want to get to t2 or specific ships. I remember it took me 3 days to get into a tech 1 cruiser. It should perform as such.


This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. It takes a couple of extra days, if that, to get into a Drake from a Caracal. Does that mean it should perform barely any better?
Conversely, it takes much longer to get into a HAC - does that mean it should be an unstoppable pwnmobile what wipes out any BC that gets in my way?

Even a 2 week old player has usually figured out the game doesn't work that way. Come back when you have something remotely intelligent to contribute.

Decaped
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:06:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Decaped on 31/07/2011 18:06:45
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 18:03:20
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 18:01:46
Originally by: Decaped
@ OP

The balance of t1 cruisers is fine.


How exactly is the balance "fine" when half of them are utterly mediocre and the other half are largely obsoleted by BCs?

Quote:
They should be slow so you want to get to t2 or specific ships. I remember it took me 3 days to get into a tech 1 cruiser. It should perform as such.


This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. It takes a couple of extra days, if that, to get into a Drake from a Caracal. Does that mean it should perform barely any better?
Conversely, it takes much longer to get into a HAC - does that mean it should be an unstoppable pwnmobile what wipes out any BC that gets in my way?

Even a 2 week old player has usually figured out the game doesn't work that way.

wow trolling your own thread huh.

yea hac's should wipe bc's. cause it takes more skills/resources to get there. maybe u want to play wow


Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:11:00 - [24]
 

Quote:
yea hac's should wipe bc's.


... Right, except they don't. They have this thing called different roles.
It seems you're only capable of thinking of ship balance in the very simplest terms, namely "bigger/pricier is better".

Once again, the game doesn't work this way, and I suggest you try to understand that.

Decaped
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:13:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
yea hac's should wipe bc's.


... Right, except they don't. They have this thing called different roles.
It seems you're only capable of thinking of ship balance in the very simplest terms, namely "bigger/pricier is better".

Once again, the game doesn't work this way, and I suggest you try to understand that.


do you see the should there? nerdrage much? cya

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:16:00 - [26]
 

Quote:
do you see the should there?


According to you, who seems to know about as much about Eve as the average WoW player. Go off and learn the basics before trying to debate balance changes.

Decaped
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:17:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Decaped on 31/07/2011 18:17:55
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
do you see the should there?


According to you, who seems to know about as much about Eve as the average WoW player. Go off and learn the basics before trying to debate balance changes.


NErrrRRRRddddrrrRRRRaaaaGGGGeeeEEE!!!!! RRRrrRRrAaaaAaRRrRWWwWww!!!!

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:21:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 18:22:49
Quote:
NErrrRRRRddddrrrRRRRaaaaGGGGeeeEEE!!!!! RRRrrRRrAaaaAaRRrRWWwWww!!!!


Oh look, ad hominem attacks, last resort of truly stupid people who are way out of their deapth.

Anyway, anyone have anything to add to this proposal that isn't based on a 12 year old Counter-Strike fanboys idea of how Eve should work?

Decaped
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:29:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 31/07/2011 18:22:49
Quote:
NErrrRRRRddddrrrRRRRaaaaGGGGeeeEEE!!!!! RRRrrRRrAaaaAaRRrRWWwWww!!!!


Oh look, ad hominem attacks, last resort of truly stupid people who are way out of their deapth.

Anyway, anyone have anything to add to this proposal that isn't based on a 12 year old Counter-Strike fanboys idea of how Eve should work?


Maybe we should get our ships back too when we die, and NO PODDING IN LOW-SEC. All you are doing is saying we should water down this game so an aspect that you frequent will go better for you this will not benefit the game as a whole just what you do

Amarrinthehood
Posted - 2011.07.31 18:30:00 - [30]
 

supported, amarr get shafted the worst by this tbh. only 1 useful combat cruiser and it isn't even laser bonused.


Pages: [1] 2

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