Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
101
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 22:16:00 -
[151] - Quote
Baron vonDoom wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Hell, t3 cruisers surpass field commands. Compare tengu to nighthawk, or legion to absolution. They are both better at being what those field commands are designed for than the field commands themselves. At least the Astarte and Sleipnir are better gankers than their races t3 so they are better at something . And when it comes to ganking, you're usually better off using a Tier 3 BC rather than a Tech 2.
Indeed, why use a shield Astarte when you can use a cheaper and more powerful shield Talos.
The Talos compared to the Astarte is:
-Cheaper -More DPS -Faster -More Range -Less of a Gank Me target. |
Noisrevbus
123
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 02:36:00 -
[152] - Quote
Since this thread resurrected again, i can only repeat my argument from page one...
Battlecruisers are not too good. Most HAC flown as a comp proper will decimate any equal or even larger BC gang. In order to understand how or why you need to look past the direct comparison and understand some of the finer points of the game, like how mitigation apply to RR (appropriate, given how most Tech II have their class-trait of resists).
The problem came from the fact a BC would essentially cost it's 20-25m given insurance deposit and 20 odd slots filled by 1m mods, whereas a HAC would range around 200m possibly up toward 250m given some entry-level faction mod here or there. That means you'd be able to lose 10 BC for every single HAC loss.
The difference in price relative performance made HAC unappealing in the popular eye. BC are not better though, possibly barring Tier 3. They would have been perfectly balanced provided they'd do about half the DPS of what they currently push out. A 250-300 dps cheap sniper with the drawback of BS-turret resolution would have been as tolerable (or not) as other BC.
Once again though, don't make the mistake and think a BC comp would stand any chance against a similar HAC comp under any normal circumstances (eg., Tier 3 as SHAC removed from the equation). Even the infamous Drake get whipped by many HAC-comps out there, or should i say, particularily by HAC-comps as that class lend itself well to the intricate backsides of the mundane BC-class. |
Death Toll007
Fleet of Doom Psychotic Tendencies.
53
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 11:22:00 -
[153] - Quote
Parsee789 wrote:I believe Battlecruisers must be brought down to earth in order to open way for other ships to shine.... But in order for balance to happen Battlecruisers must be brought down, because they are simply too good.
Why is every butt-hurt eve players first response to nerf it???
Based on what? Yes, if max skilled a BC obsoletes Cruisers. If a pilot is max skilled in cruiser fighting a noob/fledgling in a BC, the cruiser will win if they know what they are doing.
Battlecruisers are a good way for characters 6 months to 2 years old to engage in PvP while building support skills, and pursuing random skill trees to their fancy. If you nerf them you take away the long term vitality of the game in that players have nothing fun to fly for this time frame.
Yes you can fly HACs, but they are so prohibitively expensive there is no reason to for PvP when you know it's not a question of if you are going to lose your ship, but when.
You want to see more variety and distribution of roles... reduce the cost of T2 ships to about 50% more of T1 counterpart. Then keep faction stuff the same for cost due to the limited release.
Ferox... 24 mil, Vulture... 36 mil OMIGOSH... I will skill to fly the shiny for 12 mil more. Scorpion... 70mil, Widow... 105mil OMIGOSH... i can haz cloaks now?
If PvP is cheap there will be more of it, in shinnier ships, limited only by players skill.
This would all be possible if CCP KEEPS LEVEL FIVE SKILL REQUIREMENTS.
-DT
|
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 11:42:00 -
[154] - Quote
The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.
the cost would go down and more people would use them. Fix FW ! |
Lunkwill Khashour
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 11:58:00 -
[155] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.
the cost would go down and more people would use them.
How about making BC's use large rigs instead? |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:10:00 -
[156] - Quote
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:DeBingJos wrote:The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.
the cost would go down and more people would use them. How about making BC's use large rigs instead?
Also fine. However that will make pvp een more expensive and as I'm always space-poor if prefer cheaper ships.
Small rigs will also allow new players to get into pvp more easy. Fix FW ! |
Pinstar Colton
Sweet Asteroid Acres
58
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:16:00 -
[157] - Quote
It could be that they are at the nexus of price and functionality. An increase in power would make an uncomfortably large increase in price/risk (Battleships) while a decrease in price causes too much of a drop in power (Cruisers). Thus BCs are at a 'sweet spot'.
Are they OP or not? I don't PVP enough to answer that. I *do* know that they are all I see in Low Sec. I've been shot at and popped by them, and they certainly have no trouble tanking the gate guns. I don't make minerals. I just make ore 20% cooler. |
Tub Chil
Heretic University Heretic Nation
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:41:00 -
[158] - Quote
BC-s would be balanced if they'd follow same design principles as destroyers, lots of guns and few mid/low slots
But I don't support such change, because OP or not, I ******* love battlecruisers. |
FT Diomedes
Factio Paucorum
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 13:01:00 -
[159] - Quote
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:DeBingJos wrote:The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.
the cost would go down and more people would use them. How about making BC's use large rigs instead?
That's not a bad idea at all.
/me runs off to fit out dozens of BCs with cheap medium rigs before a dev sees this.
|
Noisrevbus
123
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 13:14:00 -
[160] - Quote
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:DeBingJos wrote:The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.
the cost would go down and more people would use them. How about making BC's use large rigs instead?
Simple, yet thoughtful .
|
|
Alara IonStorm
2111
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 13:16:00 -
[161] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.
the cost would go down and more people would use them. I doubt that if you tanked T1 Cruiser cost people would use them.
Right now Armor Rigged T1 Cruisers fitting even an 800mm plate like the Thorax, Maller, Vexor, Arbitrator are all slower then a Shield Hurricane and an Armor Rupture fitting a 800mm Plate not a 1600mm is only 3m/s faster. The Moa which is a Shield Cruiser is slower then a Shield Cane. This is all before you throw on the Nano or even Nano's.
I understand that Shield is supposed to be quicker then Armor but a Ship a class above.
The single biggest boost you can give to Cruisers is to remove Rig Penalties, right there every Armor Cruiser is now as fast or faster then Shield Battlecruisers. As a bonus Cruiser become harder to take down by Battleships while still being vulnerable to heavier Battlecruiser platforms designed to kill them. It also slightly buffs Armor Battlecruisers whose use currently is more limited. Not only that but it lets Shield Ships fit electronic rigs, Armor Ships fit Astronautics and tight PG / CPU Ships fit weapons rigs increasing potential rig variety.
Removing Rig Penalties would be a colossal buff to Shield / Armor Cruisers and Armor Battlecruisers.
The second biggest thing you can do is remove the Tier System and give every Cruiser the fitting. cap, slot number of ships like the Rupture and Thorax.
Make cruisers free and people will still save up up for Hurricanes. Hurricanes with Large Rigs at that. Make Cruisers well balanced fast attack platforms and people will fly them because they are good at their role and not because they are throwaway. |
FT Diomedes
Factio Paucorum
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 14:00:00 -
[162] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Removing Rig Penalties would be a colossal buff to Shield / Armor Cruisers and Armor Battlecruisers.
The second biggest thing you can do is remove the Tier System and give every Cruiser the fitting. cap, slot number of ships like the Rupture and Thorax.
The first suggestion raises some potential concerns all around, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it. It does make calibration the only consideration when fitting rigs (whereas currently you must consider increased PG/CPU use, loss of EHP, etc).
The second suggestion is superb. I cannot wait for tiericide. I'm really looking forward to a time when the T1 cruisers are all equally viable options - but the difference is the role they fill. They don't necessarily need to same fitting, cap, slot layout, but they do all need to be viable options.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Wraiths of Abaddon Byzantine Empire
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 14:49:00 -
[163] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:
The second biggest thing you can do is remove the Tier System and give every Cruiser the fitting. cap, slot number of ships like the Rupture and Thorax.
Thorax is no where near the rupture when it comes to fitting potential and cap stability, or even number of slots (ruppy gets +1). Thorax is basically 2 slots fewer than ruppy when fitting it with an armor buffer. -1 natural slot, and -1 for a fitting mod to fit a 1600 plate with smallest med guns, something a rupture does not require. They are not comparable based on the merits you have listed, rupture is in it's own class... A class that all cruisers including the thorax should be balanced against.
Other than that I pretty much agree with your post alara. While reducing the relative cost of t1 cruisers by having them fit small rigs is arguably a good solution I agree that people will not fly them with any consistency on that potential change alone. As you stated, cruisers need to be balanced against the top tier of t1 cruisers atm, aka rupture. An increase in speed is also mandatory allowing even armor buffer fit cruisers to be faster than shield nano canes as many have stated in this thread and others. |
Alara IonStorm
2111
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:06:00 -
[164] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Thorax is no where near the rupture when it comes to fitting potential and cap stability, or even number of slots (ruppy gets +1). Thorax is basically 2 slots fewer than ruppy when fitting it with an armor buffer. -1 natural slot, and -1 for a fitting mod to fit a 1600 plate with smallest med guns, something a rupture does not require. They are not comparable based on the merits you have listed, rupture is in it's own class... A class that all cruisers including the thorax should be balanced against.
Yes that is all very true but it doesn't mean you should be so quick to foresake the Armor Thorax. It has almost twice the Capacitor for a start letting it run its MWD longer. Even with the lowest weapons it does more DPS then a Ruptures guns with the option for medium drones that push it higher. It maintains near the same tank with that fitting rig do to a stronger base buffer and without that third rig its speed is comparable to an Armor Rupture.
I actually prefer flying the Armor Thorax to the Armor Rupture because of all that. It is my favorite Armor Cruiser.
[Thorax, Alara's Thorax] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Valkyrie II x5
I use this fit as a Cruiser killer overheating my MWD and Scram to get in range. In a Brawl scenario at range the Thorax is one of the best ships their is. Between the Valks, Web and Electrons most Frigates bite the dust pretty quickly too though it isn't as good as some of the other anti frigate options. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Wraiths of Abaddon Byzantine Empire
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:31:00 -
[165] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: Yes that is all very true but it doesn't mean you should be so quick to foresake the Armor Thorax. It has almost twice the Capacitor for a start letting it run its MWD longer. Even with the lowest weapons it does more DPS then a Ruptures guns with the option for medium drones that push it higher. It maintains near the same tank with that fitting rig do to a stronger base buffer and without that third rig its speed is comparable to an Armor Rupture.
I'm not trying to forsake the armor thorax, I fly them all the time. All I was trying to do is highlight the obvious advantages the rupture has compared to the thorax in fitting potential as well as slotage. Longer range, and capless weapons and slightly more speed/smaller sig should be the ruptures advantage. Not +2 slots making it arguably the best brawling cruiser.
And btw alara, we fly the exact same thorax fit
|
Alara IonStorm
2111
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:32:00 -
[166] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:And btw alara, we fly the exact same thorax fit Even the Valks? |
Jerick Ludhowe
Wraiths of Abaddon Byzantine Empire
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:34:00 -
[167] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:And btw alara, we fly the exact same thorax fit Even the Valks?
Depends on target really. I carry several types of drones in hold and if i have a chance to dock up and swap them around to suit a potential fight I will.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |