|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Jerick Ludhowe
   |
Posted - 2006.05.07 07:11:00 -
[1]
Can't agree with you more Mr rooflez. You backed uped your points with quick mathmatical reasoning and proposed some rather modest and imo well ballanced change ideas.
I do hope that if this is indeed looked into by the devs that they take a quick look at destroyers as well. Personally I think the sig radius is the bigger issue for both ships however the agility on the BCs is beyond embarassing for a ship class that should have a rather significan manuverability advantage when compared to its larger kin.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 15:12:00 -
[2]
Now as I stated earlier I do think these issues need to be adressed however if the devs take a look at them they must be very modest with their changes. If you decrese sig by to much and increase agility by too much you are going to have realativly cheap platforms that are capable of going toe to toe with Battleships because they are small enough and agile enough to avoid a portion of close range Battleship fire.
Now just pulling numbers out of my ass I think reasonable sig radi would be.
Cyclone: 210
Proph: 220
Ferox: 230
Brutix: 250 (should be the highest as it is potentially the most dangerouse BC to Battleships.)
If we are discussing BC ballance I'll bring up some interclass ballance proposals (be kind  ). I noticed that the minmatar BC has 1 more slot than the rest, the ship also has the 2nd highest drone bay, smallest sig radius, and highest top end speed. My propsal is to add a slot to each other the other BCs. Proph could get another high slot, Ferox could get another med, and Brutix could get another low (May not need anything).
As a side note I personally think they change the name of Battle Cruisers to Heavy Cruisers as they have FAR more in common with cruisers than they do with Battleships. If such a named change was made they could potentially introduce true Battle Cruisers later down the road that use Battleship weaponry with a -25% to plate/shield-extenders and repper/booster amounts (again just pulling numbers/ideas out of my ass).
my .02 isk
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 17:02:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Mr rooflez
I don't think a boost is needed to the stats of the ships except maybe add another slot to the non-minmatar BCs, right now the cyclone, sleipnir, and claymore have 1 more slot than the competitors, making them arguably the best ships in their class.
Agreed however the counter argument against giving the other tier 1 BCs another slot is that the cyclone has a more limited number of turret hardpoints (ferox excluded). So if overall balance must be achieved and the cyclone is indeed an AC platform maybee giving both the ferox and the cyclone another turret HP along with giving all the other BCs (including the ferox) another slot would be reasonable. However I feel that cyclone has an extra slot because it was always intended to be a mixed weapon platform (5x AC/arty 3xMissles) atm people tend to fill those free 3 high slots with nos because they arguably cause more damage to a tank than missles would while allowing you to run a large shield booster.
In the above paragraph I started to adress the issues with the ferox and imo the primary issue is that it does not have enough turret hardpoints for a turret oriented ship. Giving this ship an extra mid along with another turret hardpoint would allow this ship to be a durrable long range support ship that could use a limited number of ecms (think caracal with turrets). Of all the BCs I find that the ferox is probably the least commonly used in pvp and should be looked into. Another point, people tend to use the ferox as a missle platform and when the tier 2 Caldari BC is released (probably missile bonusses) I fear that the ferox will become nearly non existant.
As stated above BCs need to fill a roll and I think that roll should be a flag ship in cruiser and frig gangs. To do this it is imperative that their agility and speed be increased, sig radius reduction is still a very important issue however it should take a back seat imo.
Understood that this thread is about BCs however I think that if the Devs do take a look into this problem they must also look at destroyers as they suffer from nearly the exact same probles. Destroyers either need an hp increase or a sig reduction, probably a bit of both. Anyhoo I will drop the destroyer issue and stop derailing the thread, cheers.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 17:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kahor
Immo the agility, fire power and tanking abiliy of BC compared to cruiser and BS is alright if you stop a few second to think about the price.
70/100 million for a BS I would expect it to have some proper upgrade compared to BC. And it does.
Don't fix it unless it's broken.
Yes, however I think overall there is a larger gap between BC -> BS thanking and firepower than there is between Cruiser -> BC. Of course there are cetain BC setups that can tank or gank like a BS however they generally sacrifice a large amount of firepower or tanking to do so. Examples would be that a Brutix can aproach Megathron DPS if it dedicates most of its slots to damage mods and fitting modules gimping its tank. Proph could also dedicate its 6 low slots to a monster resistance tank however it would have no room for damage mods preventing it from really being a threat.
Another issue that I will bring up is that reducing sig and increasng agility on BCs could potentially have a negative effect on the Ballance of Field Command ships. ATM they already stand a reasonable chance of taking on Battleships and if they are made to the point where Battleships have trouble hitting them then there potentially would be little to no reason to bring a Battleship to a close range fight instead of a Field Comand. Understood that Commands take more skilling than Battleships however I don't think skill point req should ever be a reason to displace a tier 1 ship unless the ships are of the same class.
Sorry for rambling
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 23:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
speeding up the BCs to about 210m/s would be a good start(think thats still slower then any of the crusiers).
210 would make them faster than most cruisers. Personaly I thinka very modest increase in overall speed is needed if at all. Agility modifier is imo the only stat that truly needs to be changed.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 01:16:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 17/05/2006 01:17:22
Originally by: Al Thorr
Not signed
This is the price you pay for survivability - Its not really rocket science.
Next whine .............
Al Thorr
Whole point of this thread is that the BC actually has less survivability in most situations compared to its smaller cruiser cousin. You are far larger allowing almost all weapons do a large amount of damage and you are far more sluggish making it much harder to warp out of a sticky situation. Understood that it is a larger platform and should take more damage and handle worse than a cruiser however it is overdone atm.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 15:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Pointless Vengence
As is, its a T1 Battle Cruiser and acts just like it.
Of course a T1 Battle Cruiser acts like a T1 Battle Cruiser... Thats like me saying an Apple looks like an Apple, there is no argument there.
As I have stated before the entire point of increasng BC agility is not to overpower them, but rather to give them a role as a flag ship for small cruiser/frig gangs. As it stands they are too slugish to fill this role or really any role for that matter. I fail to see how reducing the BC agility modifier to .75 would suddenly make the ships unbalanced.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 15:18:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 25/05/2006 15:20:56
Originally by: Sadist
I've had an excellent idea about BC getting PG bonus to fit battleship sized guns, and receiving dmg bonuses to both. That way they can wield more firepower at the expense of their tanking, which still remains on par with cruisers.
I personally think this is the way they should have aproached BCs initially, however I don't think we will be seeing such drastic changes to a ship that has been reballanced before. I do think we may see some tweaks to the tier 1 BCs when they release the tier 2s though(hopefully ballance slot layouts and make the ferox an actual gun ship).
Overall I don't want BCs to change very much as they are a very cost effective way to bring some muscle to fights for smaller corps or younger players. I just want the devs to take a look at the roll of the ship for veteran players.
The big problem I see atm with decreasing sig radius and and increasing agility as much as people are suggesting is that you turn the BC into an anti BS platform. With the suggest sig radius decreases many of the BC will be able to put up a good fight against a number of Battleships. Personally I don't ever want to see BCs dropping battleships 1v1 however I think that a couple of coordinated BC pilots should be able to take out almost any BS.
Overall I think these changes should be done to the tier 1 Battle Cruisers (restating my ideas from earlier in the thread).
1. Change agility modifier to .75 for all BCs.
2. Decrease sig radius of all BCs by 10% (any more would OP them).
3. Give the Ferox, Brutix(may not need it), and the Proph another slot. High slot for Ferox, Low slot for Brutix, and High slot for Proph. Mostly worried about the ballance of the Brutix if it got another low slot as a 2x MARII, 2x EANM, 1 damage control, 1x MFS II low slot setup may be too powerfull(would need to do testing)
4. Give the Ferox another turret hardpoint and maybee a 10% increase in grid so that it can fit 6 200s with a decent tank. Reason for this buff is to give the ferox a roll once the tier 2 BC comes out as it will probably outclass the ferox when it comes to missles.
5. Increase the max velocity of all the BCs by 10-15 m/s. I think they should be able to keep up with the slower heavily plated cruisers.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:40:00 -
[9]
I think the best way to get some form of Dev response is to compile all our suggestions/ideas from this thread and put them into one well organized post. I think the best way to go about this is find 5 issues with Battle Cruisers that we as a comunity find imporant. Once we figure out what these 5 issues are we could then propose some reasonable numbers that we would like to see brought to the test server for testing. Eventually it may even be a good idea to start a new fresh thread once we have all this information ready to go.
Here is my top 5 BC issue list aranged from most imporant to least imporant. It is essentially the same thing that I posted earlier in the thread so I do apologise if this is redundant.
1. Agility Modifier - Simply changing it from 1.1 to .75 would be enough. I don't think such a change would have any impact on game ballance aside from allowing BCs to be agile enough to work with a gang of cruisers.
2. Sig Radius - Decreasing Sig radius by 10% across the board would be a good start. This change would require some more extensive testing to see how it effects the 1v1 ballance between BCs and BSs.
3. Slot Layout - Not all of the BCs are ballanced when comparing slot layouts. The Cyclone has 1 more slot than the rest while having the 2nd highest grid, lowest sig, highest speed, and 2nd highest drone bay. I feel that at the very least the Proph and Ferox need another slot (Brutix could possibly be ignored as it has the largest drone bay).
4. Hard Point layout - More an issue with the ferox than anything else. I feel that the ship is not using its intended weapon system (rail guns) do to a couple of issues. 5 railguns does not put out enough dps w/o a damage bonuss, and it has issues fitting them with its low power grid. I propose that it get another Turret hardpoint along with 100-150 grid. If the other tier 1 BCs recieve another slot the cyclone could potentially also need a 6th turret hp.
5. Gang Assist Modules - Meh, thats all I have to say about them. A number of them do not work, and several of the other usefull ones are subject to diminishng returns from any module that effects similar stats as they do. I would suggest that the current Gang Assist Modules in the game be revamped, or you change how diminishing returns work regaurding these modules. On a Side note I do not think that these modules should be usable from a safe spot, I think they should have a set PBAOE range that could be upwards of 100km depending on what module you are using.
With no dev responses yet I think it is best that we take a different aproach to the issue. Lets not let these ideas/suggestions die here on the boards .
Increase BC Agility |
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 16:00:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Daiv Streck
I honestly can't see the problem here. Yes it takes an age to get anywhere, but look at the facts.
Fairly low speed? Low agility? Large signature radius? This is a design choice - this ship is clearly intended by the devs to be vulnerable to Battleships. Increase speed or agility, or decrease signature radius, and the Battlecruiser becomes impossible to hit and/or damage with Battleship-scale weaponry.
But they do have a great tank that can handle anything smaller than a Battleship weapon without even breaking a sweat, and enough firepower to make anything smaller than a Battleship seriously regret undocking that day.
Making any of the changes suggested in this thread just because "it is annoying to wait while my ship aligns" or "it takes too long to get places" or "waaaaaaah wanna smaller sig radius because... um... because!" will make the Battlecruiser vastly imbalanced.
In most situations a BS can kill cruisers far faster than a BC at longer ranges. BS with a mwd or AB also moves faster than most BCs because BCs use modules that are designed to be uses on ships that are half their mass. Outside of using gimpy gang modules a BC does not really do anything that a BS can simply do better. We are not asking to overpower the BC, that is the last thing I want to see happen. We are asking that the ship have a unique roll in combat outside of being the poormans BS.
If you are worried about the BC becoming too powerfull when and if such changes are to be implemented I suggest that the changes see extensive testing in regaurds to BS - BC ballance before going live. As I said before the last thing I ever want to see happen is the BC class of ships becoming overly powerfull. Ideally all ships in eve should see some kind of use endgame and that is all we are asking for.
Increase BC Agility |
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 11:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tuxford
Jeebus you guys sure need a lot of handholding  Yeah I've noticed this thread, actually some time ago. The numbers I saw if correct show that battlecruiser warps about as fast as a battleship which seems odd. All I can do for now is promise that I will look into it.
<3
Increase BC Agility |
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 23:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Aramendel
Not that I do not agree, but is it really necessary to continuously bumb it? Tux said he'll look at it.
Was going to say the same thing but then i thought about how funny such a statment is. Uhh...ohh I'm now guilty too
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 18:12:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 16/06/2006 18:13:16
Originally by: Rashmika Clavain
Edited by: Rashmika Clavain on 16/06/2006 15:20:47
I disagree that it is a valid point in this case... suspension of disbelief is not affected because a space faring Battlecruiser in EVE is somewhat different to a sea faring battlecruiser from the early quarter of the last century 
Yes, the EVE Battlecruiser is sluggish even compared to an EVE Battleship. Yes, the EVE Battlecruiser has less firepower than an EVE Battleship. Does this mean it should be changed? No.
It would be very nice if it was (I am a Battlecuiser pilot myself), but I'd rather see them resolve the issues with Drones/ECM/Jump Clones/etc first 
The point that is trying to be made with this thread is that battlecruisers are little more than a stepping stone for people to move from cruisers to battleships. Most battleships do everything a BC can do but much better. That idea is not present in most other ship classes in eve. What people want is to give reason beyond a stepping stone for people to pilot a BC, and to give it a true roll. A single gimpy gang module is not nearly enough to make someone fly a BC over a BS.
A point that has been made before is that we do not want to buff sig/agility too much so that BCs become an anti BS platform, for a BC to be ballanced it needs to be vulnerable to BS fire. Unfortunataly this vulnerability is overdone at the moment and BC are often far less survivable than cruisers or even frigates on sisi. A resonable reduction in the agility modifier along with a very modest decrease in sig radius should be more than enough to ballance these ships.
*edit* Aramendel beat me to the punch and did it with far less words
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 15:29:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Bopque
Cmon CCp fix the dam Battlecruisers already its an easy fix to fix agility and sig radius in the next static update decrease sig 30% and increas speed and agility 30%.
Nice, so now BC's would become an excelent anti BS platform and be an even better anti cruiser ship. We don't want to overpower the ships, that is the very last thing that should happen. With your proposed changes the largest bc, the brutix will have 210 sig radius, kiss your torp ravens goodbye.
As stated about a million times in this thread BCs need to have a weakness, and that weakness should be Battle Ships. However they take a disproportionate amount of damage at the moment making them little more than a cruiser to Battle Ship stepping stone. Fix the agility so that they can easily operate with a gang of cruisers and that weakness is more than justified.
I have another suggestion that is a little more radical than the sig agility buff. Personally I think that gang modules should be unique to Command ships, maybee even Fleet Command ships. I think that normal battlecruisers should drop the ability to use them all together and instead have a unique movement oriented gang bonuss inplace of the -99% cpu requirment. Most Battle Cruiser pilots don't use gang modules for 3 reasons, overly high fitting req, loss of a more usefull high slots (nos or turrets), and weaksauce bonusses unless you have expensive implants and maxed skills. This change along with a mild agility increase would truly make them an excelent ship to bring on fast moving ops and I think that is all we really want as Battle Cruiser pilots.
|
|
|
| |
|