EVE Search - Shrink the BC's Sig Radius

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Shrink the BC's Sig Radius

» 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)
DARTHxFREE	Posted - 2005.10.27 18:56:00 - [1] just a little,.... Vigil 44m Kestral 47m maller 130m Rax 140m Brutix 300m ** HIT ME ** Machariel 340m Typhoon 360m >:-E3
O'Sirius	Posted - 2005.10.27 19:06:00 - [2] I agree: Maller: 130 Prophecy: 265 Armageddon: 370. Since BC's are supposed to be halfway between Cruisers and Battleships, their sig radius should be in the middle too. So (130 + (370-130)/2) = 250. And this is not counting the further decreasing Cruiser sig radius that was planned by the devs( not sure if they still doing this, not seeing it mentioned in the new sticky) Since BC's can only use medium guns I'ld even say make their sig radius be slighly closer towards the cruiser size.
DARTHxFREE	Posted - 2005.10.27 19:09:00 - [3] Originally by: O'Sirius I agree: Maller: 130 Prophecy: 265 Armageddon: 370. Since BC's are supposed to be halfway between Cruisers and Battleships, their sig radius should be in the middle too. So (130 + (370-130)/2) = 250. And this is not counting the further decreasing Cruiser sig radius that was planned by the devs( not sure if they still doing this, not seeing it mentioned in the new sticky) Since BC's can only use medium guns I'ld even say make their sig radius be slighly closer towards the cruiser size. the amarian ratio's don't seem so bad,....but that Brutix is a joke,... with only 5 low's, 1 of which would be a dmg mod as is essential to all gun ships >:-E3
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.27 19:11:00 - [4] You forget, the typhoon has a sig of 320m. -------------
Famine Aligher'ri	Posted - 2005.10.27 19:24:00 - [5] Would just a little be good enough? Would much more be balanced enough? We got steal signature comming in, maybe that would help reduce it just enough for you. I can run one on my inty. Sure you can on the battlecruiser. -Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri
Utgardsloki	Posted - 2005.10.27 19:26:00 - [6] The sig radius of the battlecruiser's is shocking. They're pretty much just Heavy Crusiers, and that should be reflected in their sig size. They really should be about 50% more than Cruisers, no higher.
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.10.27 19:47:00 - [7] Edited by: Jim Steele on 27/10/2005 19:49:04 Originally by: O'Sirius Since BC's are supposed to be halfway between Cruisers and Battleships, their sig radius should be in the middle too. ON the same argument so should their firepower, but they are slow and week in comparison to a BS. Thats why they suck, i had a prophacy for a while until i realised this, better flying a zealot imho. Real men, play Rugby
O'Sirius	Posted - 2005.10.27 19:59:00 - [8] Zealot's expensiv to buy and to replace. Plus its hard to find one for sale these days.
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.27 20:03:00 - [9] Alrighty, people are posting information here in a manner that supports their opinion, not posting unbiased facts - for instance, they're comparing the brutix' sig radius to the typhoon; this is invalid, since Minmatar ships have a much smaller sig radius than the other races' ships. Here, I will post each race's battlecruiser sig radius, along with both battleships and the cruiser with the largest sig for proper comparison. (Data gathered from the item database.) Amarr: Apocalypse - 400 Armageddon - 370 Prophecy - 265 Maller/Arbitrator - 130 Caldari: Raven - 460 Scorpion - 480 Ferox - 285 Blackbird - 150 Gallente: Megathron - 400 Dominix - 420 Brutix - 300 Vexor - 150 Minmatar: Tempest - 340 Typhoon - 320 Cyclone - 240 Rupture - 130 I'll let you draw your own conclusions. -Wrayeth
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.27 20:09:00 - [10] You mean that considering their firepower, theyre too big and its bloody ludicrous that they warp slower than a BS? The sig wouldnt be far off if they were half as good a BS, but they aint :/ -------------
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.27 20:15:00 - [11] "Would just a little be good enough? Would much more be balanced enough? We got steal signature comming in, maybe that would help reduce it just enough for you. I can run one on my inty. Sure you can on the battlecruiser." Stealth system is supposed to be module you fit to gain edge over opponent though, not pure necessity that you have to use just to get your signature to 'reasonable' levels...
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.27 20:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Wrayeth I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I think a 5-year old with a crayon could. It DOES leap out the data. Destroyers, too. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
O'Sirius	Posted - 2005.10.27 21:44:00 - [13] Originally by: keepiru The sig wouldnt be far off if they were half as good a BS, but they aint :/ Oh come now, if BC's are not half as good as BSes then normal cruisers are totally useless. But thats not the case is it? They all have their roles. BC is really a big slow cruiser, so its good at what cruisers are supposed to do. You can't really expect it to be good at what Battleships do.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.27 22:04:00 - [14] "BC is really a big slow cruiser, so its good at what cruisers are supposed to do. You can't really expect it to be good at what Battleships do." Which is a pity considering: The design for battlecruisers was for them to be the needed mini-battleships, hard as hell and can deal above average cruiser damage, they are for offensive actions but not ôtarget me and kill me in 5 secs or you will die in these 5ö, but more like ôif you want me to stop dealing this good damage on you, you would have to focus 100% on killing me you big mean battleship pilot, cuz im almost as big as youö. ... too bad the "cuz im almost as big as you" part of the design is in practice limited pretty much to the signature size -- e.g. Ferox has 60% or Raven's signature, but 50% of her shield, 45% of armour and 40% of the cap.
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.27 22:19:00 - [15] And warps slower, for that extra-cheezy pizza flavoured ftw factor. \o/ -------------
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.27 22:25:00 - [16] "And warps slower, for that extra-cheezy pizza flavoured ftw factor. \o/" Which is pretty crazy, to be honest... they don't really weight more than cruisers -- Moa is 13 k ton, Ferox is 14 k ton... Raven is 110 k ton, yet Ferox is soooooooo sluggish >.<;; the oversized signature would be almost acceptable if they had cruiser-like agility, really. Instead they're like, meh :/
O'Sirius	Posted - 2005.10.27 23:20:00 - [17] Edited by: O''Sirius on 27/10/2005 23:20:17 Originally by: j0sephine Which is pretty crazy, to be honest... they don't really weight more than cruisers -- Moa is 13 k ton, Ferox is 14 k ton... Raven is 110 k ton, yet Ferox is soooooooo sluggish >.<;; Heh, instead of making them more agile I suspect they just might make them weight like 50 tonn to make this more realistic 8/.
keepiru	Posted - 2005.10.27 23:25:00 - [18] Right, so then 10MN ABs become useless... uhhhh... yeah that'll work :D -------------
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2005.10.28 00:18:00 - [19] I would say the primary reason dessies/BCs generally suck is their sig radius. They're not built with the tank of a battleship, so why give them a sig radius nearly comparable to one? - Proud member of the [23]. Don't get the reference in my sig? Click it.
Praenor	Posted - 2005.10.28 01:20:00 - [20] Edited by: Praenor on 28/10/2005 01:23:09 I agree. One of these five needs to happen two BC's. 1) Increase firepower. This would be a classic "ocean navy" battlecruiser, and a wholey different approach to the ship. Massive PG boost to fit the smaller BS guns (dual heavy lasers and the like). Requires an appropriate oversized armor plate/shield extender nerf so that pg cannot be exploited to make an uber tankmobile. Replace resistance mod with damage mod. Powerful but fragile. 2) Increase armor/shield/cap. Build on their current 'tankability' theme to improve survivability. They are big, they are heavily armored, they don't dish out a whole lot of damage, but they are cheap (compared to BS). 3) Improve sig. Bring it in line with its expected place in the cruiser series. 4) Massively improve speed/agility. If you built a frame (sig radius) as big as a battleship with engines to match, but you went this light on the heavy material like armor and guns, you'd expect the resulting ship to be some kind of hot rod. Think bigger version of the stabber here. 5) Some combination of smaller-scale changes in the directions of 2,3, and 4.
Dark fire	Posted - 2005.10.28 01:26:00 - [21] Edited by: Dark fire on 28/10/2005 01:27:45 So are the Dev's aware or going to do anything about the sig radius? Or do we need to whine some more
Sadist	Posted - 2005.10.28 01:26:00 - [22] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Wrayeth I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I think a 5-year old with a crayon could. It DOES leap out the data. Destroyers, too. Word. --------------- VIP member of the [23] Sadist - harsh to the idiots, kind to the smart
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.10.28 02:14:00 - [23] Pasted from MK2 because it directly applies here. BC's need more Agility and Lower Sig Up to this point we have seen BCs in EVE being treated as half way between a Cruiser and a Battleship. They are not. In fact, BCs are just "beefier" cruisers. They use cruiser weapons, have cruiser fitting allotments, and have 1 or 2 more slots than the typical tier 3 cruiser. They have the same survivability issues that cruisers have, yet suffer twice the agility and sig radius as a cruiser. This needs to be adjusted in order for them to see more use in PvP. In this case we are going to compare the Maller and the Prophecy since they have the same bonus and same design intent. All races however, show the same trending. First lets look at slots and defenses. The Prophecy has 1 extra high slot and the equivalent of a built in armor plate and shield extender. It has 1 extra cruiser gun and 1 launcher. All numbers include max skills. Prophecy - 7/3/6 Armor= 3125 & Shield= 2187 Maller - 6/3/6 Armor= 1500 & Shield= 1094 Grid and CPU: While the Prophecy has slightly more grid and cpu than the Maller, it is still pathetic in comparison to a Battleship. The Geddon has 14 times more grid than the Prophecy. It has 100 more cpu and 3 more slots. The BC is much closer to a Cruiser than a BS. Prophecy - Grid= 1500 & CPU= 437.5 Maller - Grid= 1125 & CPU= 337.5 Mass, Scan Res, and Sig Again, the BC is much more similar to a Cruiser than a BS. For comparison, the geddon has 115,000,000 mass - 8.5 times that of the Prophecy. Prophecy - Mass= 13,500,000 Scan Res= 235 Sig= 265 Maller - Mass= 12,750,000 Scan Res= 210 Sig= 130 In closing Bc's are just cruisers with an extra slot, built in plate/extender, and a bit more grid. They are limited to cruiser weapons, and thier slots, grid and cpu limit them to cruiserlike loadouts. They are NOT half way between a Cruiser and Battleship. We have already seen how incredibly sensitive the cruiser class is to signature radius and agility. Cruisers have had both lowered because of this. BCs suffer the same issues as prechange cruisers, and while they are "beefy" cruisers they still suffer like Cruisers. Giving Cruisers more survivability and agility has helped bring them back into use in PvP. The same is needed for Battlecruisers. While they do well at NPCing, thier PvP is extremely limited as they die so much easier than a BS but lack the speed to keep up with Frig/Cruiser fleets and get hit more often in fights because of thier Sig. Please increase the Agility and decrease the Sig of the Battlecruisers. This will help make them more viable for PvP and encourage the use of more Leadership mods as well. Nyxus Oveur> "CUZ I'M EEEXXTTRRREEEEEEEEMME!!"
Dryxonedes Sae	Posted - 2005.10.28 04:35:00 - [24] Edited by: Dryxonedes Sae on 28/10/2005 04:38:02 Originally by: Praenor Edited by: Praenor on 28/10/2005 01:23:09 I agree. One of these five needs to happen two BC's. 1) Increase firepower. This would be a classic "ocean navy" battlecruiser, and a wholey different approach to the ship. Massive PG boost to fit the smaller BS guns (dual heavy lasers and the like). Requires an appropriate oversized armor plate/shield extender nerf so that pg cannot be exploited to make an uber tankmobile. Replace resistance mod with damage mod. Powerful but fragile. 2) Increase armor/shield/cap. Build on their current 'tankability' theme to improve survivability. They are big, they are heavily armored, they don't dish out a whole lot of damage, but they are cheap (compared to BS). 3) Improve sig. Bring it in line with its expected place in the cruiser series. 4) Massively improve speed/agility. If you built a frame (sig radius) as big as a battleship with engines to match, but you went this light on the heavy material like armor and guns, you'd expect the resulting ship to be some kind of hot rod. Think bigger version of the stabber here. 5) Some combination of smaller-scale changes in the directions of 2,3, and 4. Ability to fit the smallest of bs sized guns would really make them interesting... They wouldn't be able to tank to do it, most likely need grid/cpu enhancement to work it, but damn, would be verrrrrryyyy interesting, atleast to me Kind of ike the exact half battleship - You can semi-bs-tank, or semi-bs-gank, but if you want to tank AND shoot, cruiser guns are for you.
Wrath Trihellion	Posted - 2005.10.28 05:51:00 - [25] For some reason i dont think the devs care about this post :( I would personally love to see the BCs become what they should be. I flew a Ferox for a little while the first week they came out, and i was very excited and Uber ready to go try and break a bs in half. Unfortunately even with all teck 2 guns and arba heavy launchers, i couldnt even come close to breaking a BS's tank, and or survive their salvos. SO i hope a dev gets to this thread soon and tells us if were just poking around in the dark, or wether we are on the right track.
Razner Cerizo	Posted - 2005.10.28 05:56:00 - [26] Wow the old minmatarr destroyer looked like 80 times sexier than the thrasher _____________ VHI - Frigate Specialists / Gankz0rs
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.28 06:00:00 - [27] Originally by: Razner Cerizo Wow the old minmatarr destroyer looked like 80 times sexier than the thrasher Um...actually, that's the ass-end of the thrasher. -Wrayeth
Derron Bel	Posted - 2005.10.28 06:04:00 - [28] bringing powergrid into the argument is ludicrous. It's not like the BS guns which require 10x more grid are 10x as powerful. BCs can mount Battleship-grade numbers of weapons, just not battleship-grade weapons, which comfortably places them between cruisers and battleships. While I agree it would be neat to have large guns on Battlecruisers, the only balanced way to do it would be to give them a large weapon fitting bonus. Increaseing BC grid/cpu to small-BB levels would just mean they would be kitted out as incredibly pimp cruisers. Prophecy with 3x 1600mm Plate and 6x Heavy Beam Laser II for the lose. As for the survivability, BCs are regularly fitted to battleship-magnitude defenses, and they all have a defensive bonus of some kind. I agree that the signature radius and agility needs to be looked at, but they shouldn't overshadow cruisers at their own game. Either they should be agile but vulnerable to BB grade weapons, or piggish with low sig. Remember as far as signature radius is concerned in gunnery, its all minimum range and missile hits. -==- Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise! LooseCannoN> ahh! LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled!
Haniblecter Teg	Posted - 2005.10.28 06:47:00 - [29] and the destroyers too! Friends Forever
Waut	Posted - 2005.10.28 07:21:00 - [30] <-- another player jumps on the "battlecruisers/destroyers need more lovin'"-bandwagon
DarK	Posted - 2005.10.28 08:35:00 - [31] I think they should have their defense increased significantly. I would like for them to be able to use BS sized repairers with the cap/armour/shields to go with it. They should still only use medium weapons though. shrug
Justice Bringer	Posted - 2005.10.28 09:23:00 - [32] Originally by: Jim Steele Edited by: Jim Steele on 27/10/2005 19:49:04 Originally by: O'Sirius Since BC's are supposed to be halfway between Cruisers and Battleships, their sig radius should be in the middle too. ON the same argument so should their firepower, but they are slow and week in comparison to a BS. Thats why they suck, i had a prophacy for a while until i realised this, better flying a zealot imho. This is why I think that all BCs should have their own weapons and ammo types. Otherwise I'd agree that it's pointless to make them tougher than cruisers but diminish their effectiveness by having larger than necessary sig rads. They need the tools to punch their weight otherwise they are effectively still as effective as cruisers. As for the Brutix having a signature radius of 300, and a Typhoon only having 320, well that speaks for itself frankly. Come on CCP drop the sig rads of BCs. Justice
lythos miralbar	Posted - 2005.10.28 10:42:00 - [33] I gotta say I agree with this. A BC has about half the firepower and defence of a BS, and its half the size.. so why almost the same sig? Although with the mk2 changes all the BC's do get even sexier And while you may worry about a brutix's sig being 300m, ever seen what happens when you activate its mwd to try and close on a target?? Now THAT is the deffinition of extreme PAIN. (im not saying that is wrong, thats the price it's going to pay for uber close range spankage)
Crellion	Posted - 2005.10.28 17:02:00 - [34] Destroyers I think need far more love than BCs. Good BC set up kills HACS. Good Destroyer set - up killing AFs? Please post here.
Keven	Posted - 2005.10.28 23:02:00 - [35] Originally by: Crellion Good BC set up kills HACS. In your wet dreams, pal. Originally by: Crellion Destroyers I think need far more love than BCs. Good Destroyer set - up killing AFs? Please post here. Destroyer: 700k Ship flyable by even the bloddiest noob. Assault frig: 40M Ships you need more skills for than for a BS. Best setup? 10 Destroyers webbing the AF and using blasters on it....
Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.10.28 23:07:00 - [36] Originally by: Crellion Destroyers I think need far more love than BCs. Good BC set up kills HACS. Good Destroyer set - up killing AFs? Please post here. 15K faction web, 20k scram, tracking disruptors, guns with ammo that provide a 15k optimal range. Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot
Istmar Hi'ma	Posted - 2005.10.28 23:39:00 - [37] Edited by: Istmar Hi''ma on 28/10/2005 23:40:15 I liked BCs better when they were able to use Large weapons (on the test server), back then they made since why they were heavy and had large sig. radiuses. I forget why CCP nerfed them so badly before releasing them on Tran shard.
Tomias Itaraou	Posted - 2005.10.29 00:02:00 - [38] I agree with Fraenors changes. In the (current) navy, BCs are basically battleships with the heavy plating removed and extra engines added. They are anticruiser vessels, able to defend against a cruiser and have the firepower of a battleship. In EVE, BCs are worthless - they have barely more firepower then a cruiser, and worse defense then a cruiser(due to sig radius and agility). They also cost 5x as much. Please CCP, listen to something of which everyone agrees to for once - don't do something that leaves half the playerbase angry and ****ed off, and for once, do something that we all agree. Giving battlecruisers a fitting reduction/cap usage bonus to battleship guns will make them the historical vessels - warships that were as fast and manueverable as a cruiser with the firepower of a battleship(Unfortunately naval commanders tended to treat BCs as BSes and they died fast - but thats a different story). Or make them the eve "halfway" battleship/cruiser - halfway meaning defenses and firepower equivalent to approximately half. Lower the sig radius to cruiser + 33%, boost agility to the same. Currently battlecruisers are sitting ducks - without the speed and agility to compete with cruisers, nor the firepower and tank to compete with battleships. Please CCP, for once do something of which the entire playerbase agrees.
danneh	Posted - 2005.10.29 00:41:00 - [39] Decrease signature radius, yes please.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.