EVE Search - Why Battlecruisers generally suck

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why Battlecruisers generally suck

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.22 06:49:00 - [1] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 22/03/2005 08:37:32 There are a many reasons battlecruisers have not been widely accepted into PVP, especially fleet PVP. Here are some of the larger handicaps that are affecting battlecruisers. #1: Signature Radius This is the big one. The signature radius between cruisers, BCs and battleships, when compared to their fitting abilities, costs, and combat calabilities HIGHLY favors cruisers and battleships. I will use Amarr for this example (Was going to use Gal like usual, but Brutix is too messed up to get an accurate idea) Maller: Volume: 118K mass: 12.75mil speed: 160 CPU: 300 PG: 850 Medium weapons DOT: 68.57 dmg/sec (5 HP with MF, no player skills factored in) Sig Rad: 130 Prophesy Volume: 130K mass: 13.5mil speed: 150 CPU: 350 PG: 1200 DOT: 89.79 (6 HP, 1 H-50, no player skills factored in) Sig Rad: 265 Medium weapons Apocalypse volume: 1,150K mass: 107.5mil speed: 115 CPU: 500 PG: 19500 Large weapons DOT: 146.29 (8 MPs, no player skills factored in) sig rad: 400 When looking at the vital stats, it is quite obvious that battlecruisers are MUCH more closely related to cruisers than battleships in every respect but one, sig radius. The prophesy is right in the middle between the maller and the apoc on sig radius. Yet its capabilities are really only a step up from the maller, and nowhere near the Apoc. BC mass, volume, weapons, PG, ect. are a step up from cruisers, so their sig radius needs to reflect this. BC sig radius should be centered around 200m, or, about 50% greater than their smaller cruiser siblings to reflect their capabilities. #2 Agility: BC do not maneuver like their volume/mass would make you think. Wow Meri, I'm going to quote you're quote of someone else Originally by: Meridius Originally by: Seraph Demon Evasive Maneuvering Skill: Makes ships more agile. Bonus per level: -5% agility Lower agility is better, rate of acceleration of a ship is inversely proportional to massagility, so the inverse accelerations (slowness if you will) are... Cruiser: 0.97510,000,000 = 9,750,000 Battlecruiser: 1.113,300,000 = 14,630,000 this was all wrong, corrected it Battleship: 0.155 100,000,000 = 15,500,000 Meri proposes an agility of 12mil (along with his own proposed changes for cruisers,) which I think is even a tad too high. A simple agility modifier change from 1.1 to .875 will bring the avg. BC to 11.6375mil, proph to 11.8125mil. Cruiser base (with Meri's proposed change) will be 7.5mil, maller 9.5625mil. Thus a Proph will be about 23% less agile than the Maller, instead of 50%, and the apoc will now be 41% less agile than the proph instead of a mere 12.2%. These changes will push the BC handling characteristics and its advantages/disadvantages against frig/cruiser/bs turrets to be inline with their role and fitting/combat capabilities. I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.22 07:01:00 - [2] I personally think battlecruisers are sloppy rushed ships. They really are a poor mans bs imo. ________________________________________________________
Bad'Boy	Posted - 2005.03.22 07:08:00 - [3] BC can easy kill any cruiser...so its more powerfull then cruiser. but it cant kill BS, so its in the middel, between cruiser and BS, is that what it suppouse to be? more agility might be good tho... B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling "Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.22 07:43:00 - [4] Originally by: Meridius I personally think battlecruisers are sloppy rushed ships. They really are a poor mans bs imo. Of course they are, but there has to be some reason OTHER than cost to use them... I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Nanus Parkite	Posted - 2005.03.22 07:50:00 - [5] I'd still much rather use 2 cruisers to take on a BS than 2 battlecruisers. Their agility speed a sig radius are too akin to a BS's to make them reasonable opponents in a fight. I still wish the BC's would be made into what they are supposed to be which is cruisers with an armament to match a BS.
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2005.03.22 08:03:00 - [6] Only reason battlcruisers suck is because of torps.
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.22 08:25:00 - [7] Originally by: Nanus Parkite I'd still much rather use 2 cruisers to take on a BS than 2 battlecruisers. Their agility speed a sig radius are too akin to a BS's to make them reasonable opponents in a fight. I still wish the BC's would be made into what they are supposed to be which is cruisers with an armament to match a BS. Er, was my post not entirely about sig radius when you posted this? (it now has the agility problem in there as well.) Make these changes will make the ships much less vulnerable to battleship fire, and not as cumbersom. Small losses in agility, sig radius and speed for about equal gains in potential. I am the OG PIIIIIMP
kessah	Posted - 2005.03.22 08:29:00 - [8] yeah i personally expected battlecruisers to be able to use entry level large guns. was a dissapointment. -------------------------------------------------------- Im Your Huckleberry ;-)
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.22 08:39:00 - [9] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 22/03/2005 08:52:43 Originally by: kessah yeah i personally expected battlecruisers to be able to use entry level large guns. was a dissapointment. As did I, but I would be happy if they would simply change their agility and sig radius to match their current fitting and combat capabilities. I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Cracken	Posted - 2005.03.22 08:59:00 - [10] bc's were fine while in testing before the grid nerf after omg batman suck my nutz.
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.03.22 09:21:00 - [11] using large guns on BC is useless, cause shooting on bs from 15+km is instadeath. Use small guns, go into their as* and fry em.
Del Narveux	Posted - 2005.03.22 12:20:00 - [12] I personally think BCs are okay as combat ships, but they dont really fill a specific role like most ships do. Cruisers are good general-purpose ships, for PvP, misisons, even hauling, the problem is cruisers often have several fatal flaws which severely limit their effectiveness. BCs deal with these problems, indeed essentially creating a 'poor mans bs'. To use caldari cruisers as an example, the Caracal is a real damage boat but it lacks decent defense, blackbirds 6 midslots give it awesome defensive capabilities in terms of shield tanking but very little offense, moa has a little of both but not enough to stand out...but ferox is a nice blend of all three, with a bigger loadout than caracal, more slots than the bbird, and enough base stats to make moa cry. But I think this is the goal with BC, to make a full-featured ship that is more accessible than BS's are, in terms of cost, time, and upkeep. That all being said I actually fear for the future of the cruisers, as theyre now squeezed between the anti-frigate destroyers and anti-cruiser BCs, a few like the rax and bbird will probably survive but that may be it. _________________ [SAK] And Proud Of It! aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.03.22 13:00:00 - [13] Cruisers have no purpose as they die to quickly to torp gankage, i think bs sufffer the same problems but have high resists so survive a bit longer Death to the Galante
jason hill	Posted - 2005.03.22 13:34:00 - [14] Originally by: kessah yeah i personally expected battlecruisers to be able to use entry level large guns. was a dissapointment. I was half hoping the the h.a.c were gonna have this ability ..was very disapointed to find they couldnt "THE HUMAN SHIELD"
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2005.03.22 14:13:00 - [15] i think both, crusie and bc need more agility cruiser only a bit, but mer and let are so right.. also because the ferox is the caldaris only big longrail ship, except eagle.
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.22 17:26:00 - [16] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 22/03/2005 17:36:41 I'd also like to bring up the fact that the Brutix needs some huge lovin'. To think it can compete with other BCs with only 325 CPU and 1000 PG is silly. Proph has 1200 and 1 less turret HP. 6x heavy beams and a heavy launcher = 1550 pg, proph has 1500 with skills, requiring 1 PDU to just fit guns. Throw 7 250mms on a brutix = 1575, brutix has 1250 with skills, needing 2 RCUs on top of a PDU to just fit guns. See the problem? I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.22 17:38:00 - [17] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Only reason battlcruisers suck is because of torps. It troubles me how everyone points the finger at torps. Yes missles are a problem but they are far from being the only one. The fact is that a battlecruisers stats are nowhere near in between that of a cruiser-bs. I'd rant more but i don't really care about this broken class of ships ________________________________________________________
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.22 17:40:00 - [18] Originally by: Letifer Deus Edited by: Letifer Deus on 22/03/2005 17:36:41 I'd also like to bring up the fact that the Brutix needs some huge lovin'. To think it can compete with other BCs with only 325 CPU and 1000 PG is silly. Proph has 1200 and 1 less turret HP. 6x heavy beams and a heavy launcher = 1550 pg, proph has 1500 with skills, requiring 1 PDU to just fit guns. Throw 7 250mms on a brutix = 1575, brutix has 1250 with skills, needing 2 RCUs on top of a PDU to just fit guns. See the problem? Yes that sounds pretty stupid. Whats more stupid is that the brutix has more turrets then the prophecy and no launcher slot. It should be the opposite. I guess RP is offically dead when it comes to new ships eh CCP ________________________________________________________
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.03.22 17:41:00 - [19] i do think the Prophacy should get a tiny bit more grid, with engineering 5 i can only just fit 5 large beams, and im my opinion BC's should be able to fit the best weapons in the cruiser class without sacrificing slots and as far as i understand it beams do more damage than pulses As for the Ferox it cant fit a rack of hybrids to use its bonus as it also lacks grid, its easier just to stick launchers on it! Im sure the same can be said for the brutix and its lack of CPU. Death to the Galante
Meridius	Posted - 2005.03.22 18:26:00 - [20] Originally by: Jim Steele i do think the Prophacy should get a tiny bit more grid... Well if thats the case all the others should get large boosts of grid as well. I agree that they shouldn't have any problems fitting the largest cruiser guns. They should be able to fit the lower class large guns imo. ________________________________________________________
Sorja	Posted - 2005.03.22 18:44:00 - [21] Battlecruisers are fine PvE ships and crap PvP ships, like cruisers. They fit between cruisers and BSs for missions and do a very nice job (while I still do all level 3 missions in frigates, for fun). Torps are not more of a problem for BCs than large guns, since you get hit when a cruiser would have a chance to avoid guns.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.22 18:47:00 - [22] I wouldn't mind BC sluggishness and big sig radius, if it could actually fit top of the line cruiser equipment. For example, Ferox can't fit 5x 250mm rails, 2x heavy launchers, and a large shield booster without running into grid problems God forbid someone actually tries to put 7 neutron blasters on a Brutix I mean come on.. these are regular cruiser problems. BC, if it can't even fit a couple large guns, should fit the best of medium guns
Ranger 1	Posted - 2005.03.22 18:56:00 - [23] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 22/03/2005 18:57:33 I think a grid increase, and a slight increase in agility is in order. They should indeed be able to be tweaked to handle the larger cruiser guns. However, people who insist that they were supposed to be able to mount BS weaponry COMPLETELY missesd the original premise for them as stated by the DEV's. Heavy on defense, good cruiser weaponry. We have the first, we just need the second. Everyone focused on the catch phrase the Dev's used... "pocket battleship".... and completely overlooked the next sentence. That being "tough enough to force a BS to focus entirely on me to take me out, while delivering above average cruiser firepower." A valid premise, but the firepower part is largely lacking. That, and they are a bit too slow for their own good. "Edit" Make that "a bit to clumsy for their own good." Kill the enemy, and break their toys.
slapp	Posted - 2005.03.22 19:32:00 - [24] well, all bc except prophecy should get some pg and cpu lovin. i mean, i use 6*pulse laser (and i wtfpwn everything as big as i am or smaller )
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.22 19:35:00 - [25] Originally by: Jim Steele Im sure the same can be said for the brutix and its lack of CPU. Brutix PG is even more of a problem than CPU I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Odin Tahmorrex	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:01:00 - [26] They were never intended to take on BS, but rather to destroy cruisers... and they do. So the problem is... that you can't kill a solo BS with a solo BC that costs less and wasn't designed to fight against BS alone? MMMk.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:10:00 - [27] Nobody is talking about taking bs solo and just cause a ship is cheaper, doesn't mean it has to suck.. that's a bad bad approach to design
akim	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:20:00 - [28] Edited by: akim on 22/03/2005 20:21:47 I aswell did expect BC's to be able to mount atleast 1 or 2 BS sized weaponry. That would fit in more with their class. But since they decided to basicly make them slightly scaled up cruisers with BS handling. I agree that the sig and agility should be closer to cruisers. However, theres realy no role for BC's atm. They're intended as an anti cruiser platform. But just about everything in this game kills cruisers just as well or better the BC's as is. So why bother? In a fleet fight, theres nothing for you to kill in a BC... Just alot of BS's and Intys wanting to get an easy kill of you. Firepower of 1.2 cruiser. Handling of a BS. Sig Rad. of a BS. Armor of half a BS. Speed of a BS. What's the point? Only slightly usefull role I can think of, is tank up a prophecy and use it as bait or cannon fodder.
Tyrrax Thorrk	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:34:00 - [29] Huh personally I think Prophecy rules for PvP.. Maybe you guys just have ****ty setups eh? http://eve.klaki.net/
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.22 20:50:00 - [30] Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk Huh personally I think Prophecy rules for PvP.. Maybe you guys just have ****ty setups eh? I don't use them so I wouldn't really know. But Brutix definately sucks. =) I am the OG PIIIIIMP

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.