| 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) |
Kuninia
   |
Posted - 2006.06.14 10:15:00 -
[391]
pls fix them ...and if its possible, in all thier aspects in one fix:)
|
SunWuKong
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 15:33:00 -
[392]
Sad. Only class of ship in the game that cannot run from or avoid damage from the class of ship above it.
-The battleship can warp just as fast if not faster.
-It cannot use trajectory in combintation with signature radius to lessen the damage incurred by larger ships.
At the moment, I only fly the BC because she's purdy. (Brutix)
|
Taurequis
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 15:54:00 -
[393]
Any hints if this is going to sneak into the next fixpatch? Surely its just a few stat tweaks.
Taurequis
|
Vishnupriya Sarasvati
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 16:03:00 -
[394]
This is a pressing issue for those of us whom fly Battlecruisers as our main ship class.. either out of choice, or out of inability to fly anything more expensive or skill-intensive (me).
It is enormously slow, even with considerable levels of Spaceship Command and Evasive Maneuvering.
|
Alex SOKOLOFF
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 20:43:00 -
[395]
Nice post. Thats why i dont like to fly BC. Got agility skills maxed, doesnt help.
/signed
|
Tyrannis
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 22:13:00 -
[396]
Bump
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 23:37:00 -
[397]
Not that I do not agree, but is it really necessary to continuously bumb it? Tux said he'll look at it.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 23:43:00 -
[398]
 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 
|
Taurequis
|
Posted - 2006.06.14 23:58:00 -
[399]
Aye no point in my shamelessly bumping the post to the top for attention.
But feel free to add your experiences of flying battlecruisers. Personally i'm gagging on jumping into a claymore in 4 days time when BC 5 finishes.
Its also the same day as my birthday. 
Would love my new uber BC to get a corrisponding tuneup next patch.
Best Regards,
Taurequis
|
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 10:05:00 -
[400]
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.
F*#(@n aye it is! 
*fakes 100 signatures*
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
|
|
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 11:18:00 -
[401]
the new patch came and they still did not do anything.
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.15 11:18:00 -
[402]
the new patch came and they still did not do anything.
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Doxs Roxs
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 09:13:00 -
[403]
To my huge surprise, when I changed from a Ferox to a Raven I found out that the Raven is not even noticably slower.
I can warp and move around almost as fast, so yes, in my humble opinion the BC really need something done to balance their maneuverability, the whole thing about "powerful thrusters" on one BCs desciption is a joke.
It might be of historical interest to take note of the following quote from Wikipedia where a battlecruisers role is explained:
"Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century. They evolved from armored cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a grey area between cruisers and battleships. Generally, battlecruisers were similar in layout and armament to battleships but with significantly less armour allowing for gains in speed"
Why are the battlecruisers in this game limited to cruiser weapons then? From a RP point of view they should be more agile and maneuverable then a battleship, have less survivability then a battleship but also field offensive weapons in the same league as a battleship. Mind you, not the same offensive power, but atleast in the same class.
As it is today a BC in this game is an overly nerfed battleship with no real uses, except for the ability to tank NPC spawns much better then a cruiser and their guns barely dent a real battelship since they are not even in the same class.
Another wery interesting quote:
"They were designed to hunt down and outgun smaller warships (or merchant ships in the case of the pocket battleships), and outrun larger warships that they could not outgun."
If I had my say battlecruisers would be armed with a few battleship weapons, have less shields/armour and be faster and more agile then battleships. They should not be able to field the same firepower, a good balance would probably be if they could fit a few battleship guns and a few cruiser guns.
Perhaps one way of doing this would be to give them a bonus to fittings when it comes to large turrets just like the Kestrel got a bonus to fitting cruise missiles. If balanced correctly it would make the battlecruisers really interesting since they would in essence fill their historical role.
Battleships would still be the mainstay on the battlefields but battlecruiser pilots would atleast be able to join the battle and help some instead of just sitting there watching how the battleships can fire 2-3 times as far.
While having a few battleship guns would allow it to fire back at long range careful balancing would have to be employed to ensure that the they cannot fit a full rack of battleship guns. The remaining high slots would have to be occupied by cruiser sized guns that would ensure that it would still be a wery good cruiser killer at shorter ranges. Perhaps a layout of 3-4 cruiser weapons and 3-4 battleship weapons or something similar would give it the punch it deserves but not overpower it against other battleships.
Full text from Wikipedia can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser
Regards
/Doxs
|
Cocoi
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 09:59:00 -
[404]
Signed, so very, very signed. It's just horrid the way it is.
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:03:00 -
[405]
Exept RL navy combat != EVE combat. There is not really a thing like "outrunning stronger ships" here.
The dps of BCs is just fine, the field command ships can achieve a better dps than some BSs, too. Also, if they could use large guns they also could use large tank modules.
What is the problem is their speed and agility, they move and turn way too slow right now to justify using them over a BS other than the price.
|
Pesadel0
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:03:00 -
[406]
Wghat about if you guys put some nanos on the said BC it will be more agile.
|
Doxs Roxs
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:21:00 -
[407]
Edited by: Doxs Roxs on 16/06/2006 10:22:48
Edited by: Doxs Roxs on 16/06/2006 10:22:26
Ardamendel, I never proposed for them to use any battleship modules except for the guns. And outrunning a larger ship is simply being more nimble so that you can either get away from it or avoid its fire.
If a reduction in fitting was given as a bonus (just like it is on stealth bombers, just not as extrme) then the ships ability to fit other modules would not be affected by such a change.
I still think that EvE combat could benefit from a ship class that is able to join in fleet battles but at the same time be lighter and more maneuverable then a battleship. It would not replace a battleship, but it would atleast be able to use some of its guns to fire at the same range as battleships do. The shorter range of the remaining cruiser guns would be employed against enemy cruisers or other smaller targets that come within range.
In smaller battles it would be able to outgun cruisers but they would not be a match for battleships. And just to clarify, Im talking about the basic battlecruisers here. I do not know what needs to be done to tech 2 since I have no experience with them.
Regards
/Doxs
|
Doxs Roxs
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:24:00 -
[408]
Edited by: Doxs Roxs on 16/06/2006 10:25:27
Sorry for double post, the forum is not my friend atm. 
|
Doxs Roxs
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:27:00 -
[409]
Sorry for the triple post, I get "no thread with this ID exists" when I try to edit my posts.
Please disregard my second post.
Regards
/Doxs
|
TuRtLe HeAd
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:29:00 -
[410]
/signed, These ships are FAR to heavy and Slow.
Astarte Is Horrendous, Sleipnirs not much better.
|
|
|
Trracer
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:34:00 -
[411]
Originally by: Pesadel0
Wghat about if you guys put some nanos on the said BC it will be more agile.
Ofcourse it would become more agile, but it should not have to be necessary and sacrificing low slots to fix the problem is not a solution in my eyes atleast.
|
Shigsy mya
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:35:00 -
[412]
/signed 2x ^^
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:43:00 -
[413]
The thing is that this big guns, low armor concept of BCs is not the only one. In WW2, for example the british BCs were made this way while the german BCs went the other way (high armor, low guns). And, as a sidenote, the latter fared way better in the big naval fleet battles than the first ones.
And, again, you simply cannot compare the RL naval concept of BCs with that one in EVE. EVE is using the names and not much more, the tactics are and combat mechanics are totally different.
|
Doxs Roxs
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 10:54:00 -
[414]
Originally by: Aramendel
The thing is that this big guns, low armor concept of BCs is not the only one. In WW2, for example the british BCs were made this way while the german BCs went the other way (high armor, low guns). And, as a sidenote, the latter fared way better in the big naval fleet battles than the first ones.
And, again, you simply cannot compare the RL naval concept of BCs with that one in EVE. EVE is using the names and not much more, the tactics are and combat mechanics are totally different.
That might be true, but how come a Caracal can outdamage and outmaneuver a Ferox then, the wery ship that is concieved to kill cruisers. Or maybe thats the problem, the battlecruiser class was implemented without a proper task/role assigned to them. (apart from gang modules, but I dont think thats enough)
From my point of view the battlecruiser class in EvE is not what it has the potential to be.
Regards
/Doxs
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 11:12:00 -
[415]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
That might be true, but how come a Caracal can outdamage and outmaneuver a Ferox then, the wery ship that is concieved to kill cruisers. Or maybe thats the problem, the battlecruiser class was implemented without a proper task/role assigned to them. (apart from gang modules, but I dont think thats enough)
Of cource it can outmaneuver it, it's a cruiser. It's main advantage is to be faster and more nimble that a BC.
But outdamage? Not really. Both the ferox and the caracal can mount 5 launchers. For non-kinetic missles their launcher dps is identical. With max skills the caracal has effeciently 1.25 more launchers for kinetic missles - but you forget that the ferox can also mount 2 rails in addition to the launchers. With equal skill and equipment the ferox will always have more dps.
Also, the ferox is the BC with the lowest dps. The other BCs can achieve considerably higher dps advantages to their cruiser counterparts.
|
Doxs Roxs
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 12:46:00 -
[416]
When it comes to that you are indeed correct.
However, it does not change my stance on the fact that I think battlecruisers could, and should, be a whole different type of ship compared to what they are today.
The most notable thing in my eyes is the lack of speed and manuverability, but I still think that a few large weapons on a battlecruiser might be interesting from a game balance point of view since it would introduce the battlecruiser to fleet battles.
Regards
/Doxs
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 13:32:00 -
[417]
I like both traditional BC roles/designs. Would be fun if tier 3 and tier 4 were to be BS-gunned and cruiser-tanked. Give them a -grid and -cpu bonus for heavy/BS sized weapons so they can fit 3 or 4 big guns. With this sort of addition you could even make BSes a bit harder to get into skill-wise and create another step on the piloting ladder.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Rashmika Clavain
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 13:49:00 -
[418]
Always make me smile when people compare a PC game to real life as a justification for improving something 
I do agree though, the Battlecruiser agility is an issue but it is not as game breaking as some of these posts seem to indicate.
|
Martinez
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 14:13:00 -
[419]
signed. they need a good boost in agility and sig radius. dont really think a speed bonus is needed. and i would really like to see the next tier be different. i like the bs gun idea on them, maybe 3 or 4 bs sized guns lighter armor, and better speed than the tier one versions which would make the diffenent and used in different ways. dont think they need much more than 4 high slots on the new ones though if they go with the bs sized guns.
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 15:00:00 -
[420]
Originally by: Rashmika Clavain
Always make me smile when people compare a PC game to real life as a justification for improving something
Realism, to a point, is important for immersion and suspension of disbelief. If a feature doesn't make some sort of logical sense, even in a magicaltechnicalstartrekholodeck sort of way, it loses some credibility.
oh, and /signed on the agility thing... just in case I didn't sign it earlier.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |