Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Eve Phobos
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 13:31:00 -
[301]
/Signed
|
Doc Punkiller
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 14:41:00 -
[302]
signed for : more agility, more speed, more turret hardpoints for caldari and minmatar.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 18:22:00 -
[303]
While you wait for the devs to respond you can look at this MS Paint picture I made in honor of my new ship. I'm out taking her for a (very slow) spin now.
Click
|
Morkato
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 18:35:00 -
[304]
What else can I say that hasn't been said. Thanks to the OP for awesome analysis on this.
/signed
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 19:42:00 -
[305]
Just bought a Cyclone, and will be sitting at the station I bought it from 'til I have the skills to fly it come Wednesday morning (bought it a long way off from my usual systems, so can't be arsed to fly back and forth). After that wait, if it doesn't handle at least a bit better than the Brutix, I'm gonna cry
I wonder what would it take to get a dev reply on this. Promise of free beer served by hot women?
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 20:00:00 -
[306]
Oh ****, that's what went wrong then, I got it mixed up and typed free women and hot beer on my invitation.
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 20:11:00 -
[307]
Edited by: Tehyarec on 29/05/2006 20:10:53 Damn you rooflez, damn you! Now all hope is lost
|
M3ta
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 00:20:00 -
[308]
/signed
Let's just hope that after 20+ days of agreement from everyone, someone "dev-like" is really watching. And caring.
|
ChronoLynx
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 02:15:00 -
[309]
Signed
(Decrease Sig Radius by about 1/3 and increase agility by 1/3)
Elitest Carebear with Fangs and Claws |
Neemz
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 03:13:00 -
[310]
This could do with a dev response.
|
|
7ever
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 14:04:00 -
[311]
--Signed.
When the hell is a Dev going to give some input on this??
|
aquontium
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 14:43:00 -
[312]
signed. Mr rooflez has done a great job here. Bloodlines Patch #3 requested:
Fixes:
BattleCruisers
:)
11 pages and no dev response? . shocking.
|
Hinik
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 14:46:00 -
[313]
yes indeedy! goddamnit I want my Astarte to go faster...
it takes full damage from torps ffs... TORPS! You need a new sig boyo! - Xorus |
Daiv Streck
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:13:00 -
[314]
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.
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:22:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Daiv Streck 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.
So can a battleship. And it can achieve BC "agility" by using it's surplus slots to 2 nanofibers and having the same amount of effective free slots while having a better tank, better dps and better speed.
So, any reason why one should use a BC over a BS?
|
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:39:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Max Hardcase Ye mighty Tuxford take notice of this worthy thread please.
yep .... i agree bc way to f**ed up STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:40:00 -
[317]
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 -
[318]
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 |
Downeaster
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 18:56:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Downeaster on 30/05/2006 18:58:04 In RL, in the early 20th century, the battlecruiser was designed to "kill anything it could catch, and outrun anything that could kill it." In other words, speed was critical to the success of the class, as it was meant to operate independantly against smaller warships, not taking a place in the line-of-battle or neccessarily raiding commerce.
The British navy achieved the balance neccesary by, basically, giving battlecruisers the firepower of battleships, with the armor of cruisers. As Admiral Jackie Fisher noted: "Speed is the best protection." Of course, when British battlecruisers came under the fire of German battleships in the Battle of Jutland, they proved not match for the battleships' heavy guns. As an alternative, the German navy gave battlecruisers lighter weapons while mantaining the heavier armor (incidently, German battlecruisers survived Jutland).
So, if the game designers want to take a page for the RL Washington Treaty era navies, they could give battlecruisers the firepower of battleships, but the tanks and speed of cruisers. I'd like to see battlecruisers become excellent hit-and-run ships for use against cruiser and frigate class ships.
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 19:23:00 -
[320]
They are doing it a little like that with the t2 BCs. The field CS seems to be more like the britsh version while the fleet command ship is more like the german version. They are not THAT different as the RL versions, but the tendancy is there.
Either way, the speed and handeling of them is way too close to BSs. When BSs can achieve or surpass BC speed & agility by using nanofibers (and still keeping about as many free slots as the BC) it hardly can get more obvious that something is not right. As they are now BCs are nothing more than a "poor mans BS".
|
|
Raider Zero
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 19:39:00 -
[321]
/signed
Drives like a BS, shoots like a cruiser. Needs agility boost, without sacrificing the tanks to keep them activein their roles.
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 19:46:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Aramendel When BSs can achieve or surpass BC speed & agility by using nanofibers (and still keeping about as many free slots as the BC) it hardly can get more obvious that something is not right.
The real killer is that the BS doesn't even often need the damned nanofiber. Like me in a Domi and my brother in a Prophecy synchro-gang-warped from standstill both facing equally away from warp direction. That's just wrong
|
Suvereign
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 05:08:00 -
[323]
bump ?
|
Foulis
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 05:27:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Suvereign bump ?
Shameless bump?
Really, really deserves a dev response at this point.
Oh, and at the guy who said the cyclone has an unfair number of slots... The cyclone before the slot was added sucked in comparison to all the other BCs, now it doens't. It's minmatar so of course it has higher agility and speed, it's our only advantage. The higher grid is to be able to fit arty. ----
Cake > Pie - Imaran
Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
|
Alextras Tesla
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 06:21:00 -
[325]
yet another person to sign and totally agree with every word spoken in this thread
|
Grendel Marqun
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 06:49:00 -
[326]
/signed
I,too, agree with the idea of increased agility and decreased sig. Not huge mods, but enough to put these ships farther from being a crappy BS. As it stands, my Ferox with tank installed has a sig _more than_ 3/4 of a BS, and I'd best decide to warp well before I have any idea there's a threat.
I wouldn't complain about 10 m/s being added, either, but don't see it as being nearly as important as a sig/agility balancing. If I wasn't so determined to fly a command ship, I'd have bought a Raven long ago and shelved the brick.
|
Sammy Xan
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 08:28:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Sammy Xan on 31/05/2006 08:28:29 The first time I took my Cyclone out I had fitted a battleship class named AB - according to quickfit this should give me like 860 m/s top speed. So I undocked, switched it "on" - and watched in amazement as it picked up speed: 101 m/2, 102 m/2, ... 102 m/2, 103 ... incredibly slow. I thought an Afterburner with 10x the thrust of a cruiser size afterburner oughta kick butt - but it was like using a frigate AB, only with a higher top speed. So I think this whole mass/agility/speed issue needs a little overhaul. Oh - and I understand one of the nicest MK2 changes before RMR was improved BC agility - for some reason it didn't make into the final release. Too bad really
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 08:48:00 -
[328]
Sammy, noticed precisely the same with my Brutix back when I first got one Stupid, really.
|
Lorem Mon
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:18:00 -
[329]
/signed
agi really needs a bump. i've been testing out my proph with mwd. speeds are something 1.5km / s with nanos but ... manouverability is just terrible :D at least proph's cap lasts a lot longer than cruisers ;)
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:30:00 -
[330]
12 pages and still no love, my jayleno mobile is crying T_T ----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |