08
Nov
12

Jester’s Cap: Battlecruiser Rebalancing

Jester is so far quiet on this, so I’m putting on my Jester’s Cap and having a stab at it.

So, CCP Fozzie and Ytterbium have a new dev blog. In it, they explain their plan for re balancing battlecruisers and battleships over the coming months.

The TLDR is

  • most tier 2 battlecruisers will lose a slot
  • most tier 1 battlecruisers will gain a slot
  • a few bonuses will be changed
  • battleships will also be slot normalised
  • command ships are getting comprehensively overhauled

Battlecruisers

The role changes are fairly self-explanatory, even though I disagree with the Ferox. In my opinion, the most likely changes in slots will be:

  • Harbinger loses mid slot (most Amarr ships have a utility high)
  • Prophecy gets +1 high slot
  • Ferox gets +1 mid
  • Brutix gains +1 low (+1 mid implies impressive shield tank)
  • Drake loses mid slot (losing high slot won’t affect anything)
  • Hurricane loses high slot (could also be low slot, but high slot stops the dual neut setups and leaves powergrid for a more viable armor tank)

You can see the current slot layout of the battlecruiser line here.

It will be interesting to see whether my predictions bear up. I’m not exactly the Nate Silver of Eve Predictions.

Battleships

Too early to say yet. However, there’s some isk to be made by speculating…

Command Ships

The most contentious part of the post was the bit about command ships. I have reproduced the intro:

  • Tech 3 ships to be able to carry more gang links at once than Command Ships, but with less effect
  • Tech 3 ships to be able to carry some gang links while still maintaining some combat capability
  • Command Ships to carry fewer types of gang links than Tech 3, but with stronger effects (specialization over generalization) – if fitted with gang links, they have less combat capability than Tech3 hulls.
  • All Command Ships to have a combat role on the field on top of having the possibility to be fit for a pure fleet commanding platform.

See infographic here:

The truth is that command ships (and link T3 cruisers) are inextricably linked to the warfare links they use for their arguably primary function, fleet boosting, and the skills that provide them.

I can understand Fozzie’s intense dislike of +5%/level bonuses – they make too large of a distinction between tech 1 and tech 2 ships in the same role (very few t2 ships are 25% better than their tech 1 counterpart), which is exacerbated by being able to fit multiple links without needing Command Processors (which I also suspect may be leaving the game soon)

However, the bulk of the bonuses provided by a fleet boost character is due to mind links, which provide a whopping +50% bonus to all boosts for a single racial set. Compare this to practically any other ship stat you can think of, where you need an entire pirate implant set to get a bonus that large.

This massive difference makes it utter stupidity to mix racial link types on the same ship until you hit your third or more likely fourth link, which makes Fozzie’s “small bonus to multiple types of link” idea dead on arrival.

I can see some real potential in Fozzie’s changes to command ships for flexibility and metagaming (selection of links, tank vs gank etc), as well as a resurgence of command ships having enough grunt to be worth fielding on-grid, but mindlinks need serious changes first.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Jester’s Cap: Battlecruiser Rebalancing”


  1. 1 chanina
    November 8, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    Well done jester, eehh… 😉

    Fozzie also made a post on the eve-o forums in which he comments the mindlink “problem” and the off grid boosting. No solutions yet but they are working on it. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.

    • 2 Knug
      November 9, 2012 at 7:34 am

      Mind links aren’t the problem – off grid boosting is. If boosting is on-grid only, not many folks will fly mind links into situations where they can lose them. They are expensive!

      My current hate for the command ships balancing, is that t3 ships are given command ship abilities at all.

      T3 cruisers are cruisers. Not battle cruisers. They are a ship class below battlecruisers. In my most humble opinion t3 cruisers should be very flexible, very reconfigurable, very generalized, cruisers. They should not be able to rep better than t2 logistics, for example. They should not be better at any task, than the dedicated t2 cruiser for that role, but they should be able to do more than any single t2 cruiser.

      But they should not play a role better than battlecruisers. No frigate is better at being a destroyer than a destroyer is. No cruiser, however flexible, should be better than a battlecruiser at the roles assigned to a battlecruiser. And there is certainly no way any generalized, flexible cruiser should be better at a specific battlecruiser role than a t2 battlecruiser assigned to that role.

      T3 cruisers are either way overpowered (my opinion) or command ships need a serious boost to do their roles.

  2. November 9, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    Hmmm… swamp, dark ritual, hypno spec….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: