Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 06:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
If you look the amount of Battlecruisers that are flown, the numbers are simply astounding. Battlecruisers are versatile and fairly cheap for their performance.
If one were to describe the game it would be Battlecruisers Online. You don't really see BattleShips, cruisers, destroyers, and frigates used as much as Battlecruisers.
Battlecruisers do great dps, tank, maneuverability, speed, and signature radius. They obsolete many other ships in the game.
BC's pretty much obsolete HAC's, Field Command Ships, and Assault Ships. There is really nothing these ships can really do that BC's cannot, with perhaps AB HAC gangs.
Cruisers are clearly ditched in favor of BC's due to how much better BC's are while using the same skills and modules.
Tier 2 Battlecruisers can fit tank approaching Battleships due to their hitpoints and ability to fit larger sized plates and extenders.
I believe Battlecruisers must be brought down to earth in order to open way for other ships to shine.
I am sure many will disagree with this since many fly Battlecruisers and don't want to see their ships weakened.
But in order for balance to happen Battlecruisers must be brought down, because they are simply too good.
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
686
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 06:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yes.
Tier 2 BCs are too good, and obsolete cruisers, field command ships, and short range HACs. Tier 1s are fine-ish. Tier 3s almost completely obsolete sniper HACs.
It comes down to battlecruisers being way too light and agile for how much punch they pack. How a battlecruiser "should" be is represented by the Ferox or Prophecy -- perhaps with a bit more firepower tacked on. The Hurricane and Drake, plus the Myrmidon and Harbinger to some extent, are just way too powerful for their price.
The CSM minutes hinted at BCs getting the nerfbat soon. Let's hope those changes will be appropriate.
Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 06:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
for the game to be balanced Tier2 BC should be downed to the level of the Tier 1, but its never gonna happen because all the people love their BCs. i just hope CCP with the new rebalancing program will bring other ships to a level where they can have their own niche against BCs especially the Tech 1 cruiser that are complete trash compared to BCs |
Trinkets friend
Obstergo NEM3SIS.
225
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 06:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bullshnitzel the BC's will be getting a nerfbat. Tiercide, however, will normalise the power of the ships and redirect their strengths toward completing a role.
This will be more felt in frigates and cruisers, which will gain (on balance) more PG and CPU to achieve much better fittings, and hence, better combat perfrmance. Eg, the Augoror and Scythe might get useful slot layouts and ability to fill them with medium sized guns. Others may get improved or different ship class bonuses or role bonuses.
I do, however, agree the sniper BC's are too agile. Hell, you can outrun almost all cruisers in a nano'd Tornado (2800m/s), which basically means there's no way of using the cruiser's supposed edge in maneuverability to redress the advantages of the sniper BC's. The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu @trinketsfriend on twatter
|
Lunkwill Khashour
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
52
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 07:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tier 2 and Tier 3 BC's are very good. Tier 2 in a more general role, Tier 3 is better for sniping/kitage. Of all the things they're good at, perhaps the biggest is that they've got the same mass as cruisers while destroyers have 50% more mass than frigs. This gives BC's equal or better manoevreability(sp?) compared to cruisers but on a vastly superior platform. |
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
719
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 08:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
I dunno, i think Tier 1 BSs are way better than any BCs... great DPS, versatility, and a good tank too.
Tier 3 BCs DPS with field commandships tank (nearly) for 40-50 mil. The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
Mike Whiite
Progressive State
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 08:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
tier 2 and 3 are to good in the way of:
1) low skill, 2) cheap, 3) to powerful vs cruisers (wich takes loger to learn -> 1)
1) CCP seems to be adressing that one (Dev blog ballancing ships one at a time) 2) not sure if that is beein taken care off 3) CCP seems to adress that one as well (Dev blog ballancing ships one at a time)
waiting for that to see what happens now there are 5 BC in top 10 of ships with the most kills 2 tier 2 and 3 tier 3 |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 09:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
on the one side you could say 'it's a BATTLEcruiser, why would it suck at BATTLE?'. on the other side, most ships in eve are meant for combat, so the battlecruisers' overall effciency is somewhat overpowered. still, with regard to their intended role as straight up combat vessel, i'd probably nerf their speed and agility rather than firepower, tank or cost efficiency. |
Crellion
Parental Control HELL4S
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 11:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Among other bad and good things you get from increasing usage of Battlecruisers is that they give a second wind to Battleships in some cases. i.e. Against a HAC fleet or a BS fleet some would choose to field an AHAC fleet. However agaisnt a BC fleet fielding a BS fleet might be a better propositions. Especially when instead of fleet one inserts gang... |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
660
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 11:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
They are. I've been saying that for ages. Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
191
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 11:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Perhaps BS dont do enough dps or move too slow for their ehp?
BCs are too good, perhaps they are bang on and thats why everyone likes them.
Also they use medium rigs, which means access to t2 without duking it out with supercaps, they have good aglity and arnt too slow - ccp made them the more attractive cheaper option and what do you really get for upgrading to a BS. only down sides and 100 or so mroe dps AND worst tracking.
FIX bs **** BCs! |
Khanh'rhh
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
892
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 12:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Yes.
Tier 2 BCs are too good, and obsolete cruisers, field command ships, and short range HACs. Tier 1s are fine-ish. Tier 3s almost completely obsolete sniper HACs.
Which one obsoletes the Sleipnir, or Absolution? The Astarte is definately worth the upgrade (1500dps shield gank edition) and the nighthawk should see more use when the Drake gets changed.
The real issue is they do, absolutely, obsolete cruisers. There is no gain ever to using a cruiser over a BC.
IMO the easiest fix is to change the rig slots on cruisers to small, so they can be inexpencive. It's silly the rigs on a typical fit are equal to the hull cost each. Perhaps also halve the weapon hard points and give them a 100% damage bonus. Get the typical fit down from 35mil to 10mil and suddenly cruisers are awesome again. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 13:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:Perhaps BS dont do enough dps or move too slow for their ehp?
BCs are too good, perhaps they are bang on and thats why everyone likes them.
Also they use medium rigs, which means access to t2 without duking it out with supercaps, they have good aglity and arnt too slow - ccp made them the more attractive cheaper option and what do you really get for upgrading to a BS. only down sides and 100 or so mroe dps AND worst tracking.
FIX bs **** BCs!
*Powercreep Alert*
Don't go upping the battleships because the tier3 battlecruisers outperform them in so many ways. Compared to the agility difference between frigates and destroyers, the BC indeed seem way to agile, totally sending all cruisers to the dustbin.
Personally I think the balancing should start by taking away all the damage bonuses on the tier3 battlecruisers and maybe a turret. They can already fit battleship weapons on a battlecruiser-agile chassis, which is a big feature.
Why the hell do they deserve another damage bonus on top of the battleship-class weapons AND the ability to fit EIGHT of them as well? That right there is why they obsolete battleships and blow away the other BC.
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 14:09:00 -
[14] - Quote
If I remember correctly battlecruisers in this game were originally created to be a counter to cruisers as destroyers were created to be a counter to frigates. This is still true, but battlecruisers may have been taken a bit too far with tier 2 and 3, now. For Amarr and Minmatar, tier 2 was a pure upgrade from tier 1 in terms of damage and slot layout. For Gallente and Caldari, tier 2 offers a battlecruiser with a different weapon platform with a better tank and better versatility
I don't even know what role the tier 3 battlecruisers are supposed to fill. It looks like it's a ship with more firepower than a battleship or field command ship in the hull of a tech 1 cruiser. To me it represents a fast attack and hard hitting ship. However, HACs were supposed to fill that role. Tech 3 also fills that role along with other roles, but with substantially more tank and a little less DPS depending on the fit. IMO, tier 3 battlecruisers weren't necessary and are odd. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Purification of Eden XIN DOA'ED
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 14:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
BC regardless of baseline combat performance have huge issues dealing with BS sized nuets due to the restrictions of medium cap boosters and the comparable range of warp disruptors and heavy nuets. With the introduction of tier 3 BCs there are now BCs capable of applying in many cases more dps than a BS beyond the range of heavy nuets while also gaining a significant speed, agility, and sig advantage over tier 1 and tier 2 BCs and also most hacs and cruisers. I believe that this is fundamentally flawed mechanic when looking at the relatively low sp and cost of tier 3 BCs when compared to the sp and skill investment of many of the ships they have inevitably replaced.
Another major issue is in regards to both tier 1 and tier 2 BCs and their total fielding cost compared to cruisers. Sure, cruisers have an advantage in the logistical sense that far more can be stored on a carrier or in a freighter however when looking at the cost of fitting both t1 cruisers and BCs they have near the same cost due to the commonality of rigs and mods both classes use.
The most logical solution to the second issue I have talked about is a change in the size of rigs either cruisers use or BCs use. If cruisers were to use small rigs then their relative fitting cost compared to a BC that uses medium rigs will be substantially less even when factoring in insurance. The same net result would be achieved by changing BCs to use large rigs instead of medium rigs. |
Noisrevbus
104
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 14:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
I'll add my retort, but keep it brief this time ...
- BC are not too good, they are too cheap to fly.
- For most intents and purposes they are fairly equal to tech II Cruisers while the Cruisers maintain some sort of speciality.
- That means that when you draw on that speciality, a HAC - or more importantly group of HACs - will almost always beat the BC.
- Tier 3 BC are another kind of beast - but they are recent and that's another discussion in my opinion.
- The problem is that a BC cost it's fitting to replace whereas a HAC cost it's fitting + upward 150m.
That problem stem from a general profileration in the game of maximizing cost-efficiency, numerical efficiency in (and streamlining of) PvP through utilizing insurance. Basicly, tech II ships are too expensive in general and too expensive in relation to tech II fitting in particular. That is what has standardized the size-up and tech II fit approach over the years.
Dealing with that involve revisiting insurance and look at other things such as the balance between hull-cost and module-cost.
The latter is extra appealing since it encourages PvP by taking ISK from sink (deflation) and insurance (the victim), while providing for the attacker (drops). This encourages PvP as a source of income (with risk of asset loss).
Why CCP are reluctant in the matter stem from it's effects on the NPE (New Player Experience) - and the general design philosophy over the past few years that promotes numbers in cost-efficiency, over high-risk - high-potential resource management. Risk-adverse, high-volume, cost-efficient groups thrive while small-volume, high-resource and high-stake groups are being relegated to peripheral (NPC-null, Low) and instanced (WH, FW) gameplay. This relates back to the inability to balance the two to make the game inclusive and interactive since the general profileration of efficiency in 2007.
Essentially, CCP aim to encourage participation in PvP - by minimizing the risk of PvP.
As a result, the game today has become increasingly low-risk, but also increasingly risk-adverse (throw-away ships are no longer thrown away, and lack of meaning in PvP tend to be more of a discouragement than an encouragement). Before, hurting another through destruction of ships had a purpose. Today, regardless of scale, they are only instrumental and purpose lie solely in infrastructure and income-sources. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 14:33:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: The most logical solution to the second issue I have talked about is a change in the size of rigs either cruisers use or BCs use. If cruisers were to use small rigs then their relative fitting cost compared to a BC that uses medium rigs will be substantially less even when factoring in insurance. The same net result would be achieved by changing BCs to use large rigs instead of medium rigs.
I don't think BCs should use large rigs as I think their price is high enough as it is. It would be nice if cruisers could use small rigs, though. |
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 15:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
No the problem is BC's aren't out matched well enough by BS's. Battleships need support to be effective against anything smaller than themselves...BC's dont need that against cruisers or against Battleships. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
285
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 15:35:00 -
[19] - Quote
If the discussion is BS vs. BC then I would suggest new mods before recreating the wheel with BS. I'm thinking 3200mm plates or XLSE. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
686
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 15:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:3200mm plates
Squeezing one of those on a Damnation for maximum win in 3... 2...
Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
|
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 16:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
a slight nerf to BC's will make the lower ships a little bit better and also increase usage of BS's On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton. -áWhere the dripping patchouli was more than scent. -á It was a sun |
Alara IonStorm
1816
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 16:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:If the discussion is BS vs. BC then I would suggest new mods before recreating the wheel with BS. I'm thinking 3200mm plates or XLSE. I like the idea of lowering the PG / CPU of Battlescruisers and making 1600mm Plates and possibly XLSE cost in the area of 1000-1500 PG. To big to squeeze on Battlecruisers effectively making them use Cruiser Mods like they are supposed too. Along with the Drake rebalance give the Cane 7 Guns one utility slot and change the RoF Bonus to Optimal or tracking or something. Then bring the Tier 1's in line with the new Tier 2's.
I also want to see Cruiser Damage go up like 6 HAM Caracal or 6 Blaster Thorax. Redesigned bonuses like the Cap bonus turning into a Damage Bonus on the Maller or a Range Bonus on the Omen. Reajust Fitting and increase Cruiser Cap to the area of 1750-2250. More Drone bay coverage like 25m3 for the Maller. Moa 6 Rails, Optimal / Range Bonus. Bring the Logi Cruisers to the level of Tier 3, slots / fitting / cap / EHP and change their secondary bonuses to Logi. Augoror with Cap / Armor Range Roll Bonus and one Armor Rep Bonus and another Cap Transfer. Exequier Armor Range / Tranking Link Roll with one Armor Rep Bonus and another Tracking Link. Basically T1 versions of T2 Logi running Medium Reps without the resist profile.
For HAC's give the same such as 6 Guns but they have 2 Damage Bonuses and a second other bonus. 50% MWD Sig Bloom like Assault Ships and their T2 resist profiles will make them fast hitters that can gank and tank like Battlecruisers but smaller and faster. Their counter won't be T1 Battlecruisers but T2 ones. They would effectively become fast heavy skirmish ships compared to Cruisers being just skirmish ships.
Finally increase Cruiser Speed / Agility by a little bit and cut Rig Penalties out all together. Make it so Armor Cruisers can outrun Shield Battlecruisers and Shield Cruisers are just mildly faster then Armor Cruisers. Without 1600mm Plates it becomes a game of Shield Damage vs Armor Utility with Sig increases coming from Shield Extenders and Mass Increases coming from plates. Balance Tier 3 Speed to be slightly below Cruisers but quicker then Tier 2's.
The finisher, boost Battleship Sig Rad 10-20% depending on the Ship and decrease their MWD Cap Use. That should help them chase and cover the Rig Lock loss as well as make most Battlecruisers quicker to lock whilst Cruisers still have time to burn away.
The result is that Cruisers will be all around formidable ships in all area's. Speed, Tank, Damage, Cap, Utility and Range. Standard Battlecruisers will be less effective at Skirmish Warfare but will be stronger in Tank and Damage with a heavier weakness to battleships. Tier 3's will be better at range while keeping said range being the major requirement of survival. The biggest part of this preposal is to move Cruisers to the center which is currently held by Shield Battlecruisers.
Of course Frigates are being buffed in the new expansion as well and they will have to be sure to not make them toothless against Cruisers.
|
Hrett
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 17:33:00 -
[23] - Quote
Many good suggestions here. I personally love T1 cruisers so I am a bit biased, but I also love BC.
Im all for simple fixes that wont greatly upset many other things. The easiest thing to me would be either a increase in all cruiser speed (I dont think damage is a good idea - you can already get 500+ dps 700+ in some cases), or a slight change to BC tracking or perhaps speed. For instance, if you give BC a slight tracking penalty (or what is the missile version? ROF nerf?) they will have a harder time engaging frigs, dessies, and some cruisers depending on fit. It wont effect their usefulness against BS or most cruisers.
It just seems the problem with them now is that BC can wtfpwn frigs and dessies too easily. So their engagement envelope is too big.
Just my opinion. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
686
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 17:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
Hrett wrote: It just seems the problem with them now is that BC can wtfpwn frigs and dessies too easily. So their engagement envelope is too big.
They can't WTFpwn frigs that well. Interceptors can tackle BCs really well, and AFs can get all up in BC's faces and break tracking. Killing destroyers is by design -- destroyers aren't supposed to be effective against anything above their size.
However, BCs (especially nano'd) are only a little slower than crusiers, don't cost that much more (after insurance) and they pack FAR more punch (2x more). That makes the lost agility worth the extra punch in almost every case, and makes it impossible for cruisers to even compare to BCs.
Nerf BC speed/agility (or just mass) to only be slightly better than BS, and the problems go away.
Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1099
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 17:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: Nerf BC speed/agility (or just mass) to only be slightly better than BS, and the problems go away.
I'm fine with this for Tier 1/2 BCs, but Tier 3 BCs are expressly designed to be cruisers sporting BS guns. They have their own host of problems related to tracking and I would say they're probably the most balanced BCs.
-Liang
Ed: I'm a bit concerned by the term "slightly". I'm fine with nerfing Tier 1/2 BC mobility... but it doesn't need massacred. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Alara IonStorm
1818
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 17:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
Hrett wrote:The easiest thing to me would be either a increase in all cruiser speed (I dont think damage is a good idea - you can already get 500+ dps 700+ in some cases), or a slight change to BC tracking or perhaps speed. For instance, if you give BC a slight tracking penalty (or what is the missile version? ROF nerf?) they will have a harder time engaging frigs, dessies, and some cruisers depending on fit. It wont effect their usefulness against BS or most cruisers. I don't like the idea of lowering Battlecruiser DPS or tracking against smaller targets. I think that Cruiser and the Tank Battlecruiser DPS should be close to on par. The difference being Faster Cruiser Speed and tank.
The 700DPS Ship, lets face it a Thorax isn't that good. It has to role into Brawl Range with a 20k EHP Tank and against a 700 DPS Cane with double the tank that starts hitting it from 20km out you are at 25% health before you get off a shot. I like the idea of a 700 DPS Armor Rax with 35k EHP that closes range quick and gets some blows in or a 900 DPS shield Rax that applies a good amount of Damage before death. Still at a disadvantage to Battlecruisers but not as toothless.
Most of the other Cruisers that don't sacrifice all tank sit at 350-500 DPS which is okay but making that 450-600 isn't going to hurt Battlecruisers EHP and now slighter DPS advantage. A 35k EHP Ship that does 550 DPS and moves quick will not out DPS / Tank a BC but it will have the tools to fight and a larger window of escape / catch. The weakness is Frigate tackle forcing it Fight BC's instead of run as it should be. The biggest concern is buffing Frigates to balance out the change.
Petrus Blackshell wrote: However, BCs (especially nano'd) are only a little slower than crusiers, don't cost that much more (after insurance) and they pack FAR more punch (2x more). That makes the lost agility worth the extra punch in almost every case, and makes it impossible for cruisers to even compare to BCs.
Worse then that, the Cane runs circles around any serious Armor fit and actually at base speed outruns the Moa. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
686
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 18:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote: Nerf BC speed/agility (or just mass) to only be slightly better than BS, and the problems go away.
I'm fine with this for Tier 1/2 BCs, but Tier 3 BCs are expressly designed to be cruisers sporting BS guns. They have their own host of problems related to tracking and I would say they're probably the most balanced BCs. -Liang Ed: I'm a bit concerned by the term "slightly". I'm fine with nerfing Tier 1/2 BC mobility... but it doesn't need massacred.
Tier 3s are faster and more agile than sniper HACs, while having more damage at the same time, too. Tracking notwithstanding, it just seems wrong that a 60 mil ISK specialized hull is more effective at long range sniping than a 120 mil ISK specialized hull (that requires better skills). They should be the fastest of the BCs, but not any faster than cruiser hulls. (This comparison brought to you by Tornado vs Muninn)
As for the "slightly better than BS" -- I don't have numbers. Those are up to CCP to decide on. I think the Harbinger's mobility is a good reference point for what the Hurricane should be changed to, with the other BC's following suit to preserve relative racial mobility... but that's just my opinion. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
1100
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 18:09:00 -
[28] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: Tier 3s are faster and more agile than sniper HACs, while having more damage at the same time, too. Tracking notwithstanding, it just seems wrong that a 60 mil ISK specialized hull is more effective at long range sniping than a 120 mil ISK specialized hull (that requires better skills). They should be the fastest of the BCs, but not any faster than cruiser hulls. (This comparison brought to you by Tornado vs Muninn)
As for the "slightly better than BS" -- I don't have numbers. Those are up to CCP to decide on. I think the Harbinger's mobility is a good reference point for what the Hurricane should be changed to, with the other BC's following suit to preserve relative racial mobility... but that's just my opinion.
You remember last night when I told you that people ignoring tracking are dumb, and you responded that people ignoring sig radius are dumb?
Yeah.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://vimeo.com/user9887127 Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
686
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 18:31:00 -
[29] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: You remember last night when I told you that people ignoring tracking are dumb, and you responded that people ignoring sig radius are dumb?
Yeah.
-Liang
Hm, I stand corrected, in a straight up "snipe each other" thing, a Muninn would destroy a Tornado -- if it kept moving. The issue remains that against stationary or low-transversal targets (optimal situation if you're aiming for alpha), the Tornado is far superior. Coupled with the fact that Muninn has drones, I could let it go. However, it still bothers me the Tornado is faster than the Muninn, and the Naga is faster than the Eagle. It just doesn't make sense given the sizes of the ships.
Oddly enough, the Oracle is not faster than the Zealot, and I am fine with the balance between the two. I am also fine with the Talos being the mini-Megathron it is.
Tier 3s are indeed better balanced than the other battlecruiers are, but they can still use a bit of work. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Borun Tal
Border Zone Combat
54
|
Posted - 2012.03.20 18:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Just a personal opinion here, but I think BCs are used as a hammer: one quick tool for everything. Low skills, big bang. Like any ship, BCs have their place. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |