EVE Search - Thoughts about battlecruisers.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Thoughts about battlecruisers.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Rashmika Clavain	Posted - 2006.06.16 15:14:00 - [421] 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
SunWuKong	Posted - 2006.06.16 17:46:00 - [422] 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 Actually, I think it does hold weight as has been stated before, EvE uses a "under water" effect to simulate space movement. So, having a larger sig radius and low agility leaves the BC disproportionately vulnerable to BS guns. The size makes it move more than unreasonably slow in the EvE "water". All other ships, generally speaking with classes, are able to avoid some damage from their superior class ship by using their speed-agility-sig combination.
Bubba1977	Posted - 2006.06.16 17:55:00 - [423] 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. Hope the same goes for command ships. __________________________________________________ 2006.01.24 06:13:19 Your Tachyon Beam Laser II perfectly strikes Amarr Control Tower [TSBS]<TSDS>, wrecking for 1528.7 damage.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.16 18:09:00 - [424] Originally by: Rashmika Clavain 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. It's not gamebreaking, but it is definately balancebreaking. There are situations where it is better to use a frigate instead a BS. There are situations where it is better to use a cruiser instead a BS. There is none, nada, zip, zilch, no situation where it is better to use a BC instead a BS.
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.06.16 18:12:00 - [425] 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
Flavius Renatus	Posted - 2006.06.16 18:20:00 - [426] I agree with the OP. Signed. Flavius Renatus (Ancient Roman Military Historian) Real Power Is Something You Take!!!
StinkFinger	Posted - 2006.06.16 18:29:00 - [427] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Rashmika Clavain 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. It's not gamebreaking, but it is definately balancebreaking. There are situations where it is better to use a frigate instead a BS. There are situations where it is better to use a cruiser instead a BS. There is none, nada, zip, zilch, no situation where it is better to use a BC instead a BS. Actually, I'd prefer to use a BC over a BS when I know I'm going to lose the ship, as it's much cheaper to replace. --
Foulis	Posted - 2006.06.16 20:13:00 - [428] Originally by: StinkFinger Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Rashmika Clavain 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. It's not gamebreaking, but it is definately balancebreaking. There are situations where it is better to use a frigate instead a BS. There are situations where it is better to use a cruiser instead a BS. There is none, nada, zip, zilch, no situation where it is better to use a BC instead a BS. Actually, I'd prefer to use a BC over a BS when I know I'm going to lose the ship, as it's much cheaper to replace. No-one takes into acount suicide runs. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Selya	Posted - 2006.06.17 15:57:00 - [429] signed... again ;)
Tecron	Posted - 2006.06.18 15:20:00 - [430] /signed =)

Khadur	Posted - 2006.06.18 16:00:00 - [431] signed
pInEaPpLe MuFfInMaN	Posted - 2006.06.19 04:03:00 - [432] Signed.
Dahak2150	Posted - 2006.06.19 07:50:00 - [433] Flying a prophecy is what prompted me to start training evasive manuevering. Not the frigates and fast-cruiser's I'd previously flown, but a BC...... Something fishy there.
Jin Entres	Posted - 2006.06.19 08:19:00 - [434] I don't know if all this bumping really helps, other than keeping the topic on the first page. However there is hardly anything I would like to see addressed more than Battlecruisers' signature radius and agility, and the same goes for Command Ships aswell of course. The arguments are presented well in the OP and throughout the thread, so I guess what we are really waiting for now is confirmation and a time frame. ---
Rastaf	Posted - 2006.06.20 21:47:00 - [435] so much signed
Micheal Cassio	Posted - 2006.06.21 01:18:00 - [436] /signed
Isis Dea	Posted - 2006.06.21 03:05:00 - [437] Totally agreed with, signed and bumped. BCs, I understand the goal, but tha agility, aheesh, since I'm a massive BC user in even PvP, I feel the wait longer than most BSs do, sadly. ___ _"Akkubai Angels" - Book 1 of My EVE Novel_
Bopque	Posted - 2006.06.22 04:53:00 - [438] 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%.
Aziza	Posted - 2006.06.22 05:22:00 - [439] /Signed ------------------------- Thank you
FoxKon	Posted - 2006.06.22 08:58:00 - [440] signed..again

Aquae	Posted - 2006.06.22 08:59:00 - [441] signed http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/ffff/Stickers.bmp
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2006.06.22 10:57:00 - [442] signed -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Fan3Spoitoru	Posted - 2006.06.22 15:51:00 - [443] no no the bc`s are fnie the dev`s said... STAND AND DELIVER!!!
Grainsalt	Posted - 2006.06.22 16:13:00 - [444] Originally by: Fan3Spoitoru no no the bc`s are fnie the dev`s said... Nice to see you hanging out here too Anyway.. Agility and mass are definitly the biggest issue with Tech 1 BC's .. /Signed. --- For T2 Tinfoil Hats, contact Grainsalt ingame.
Alpine 69	Posted - 2006.06.22 18:12:00 - [445] Signed. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a134/undergrounder69/siggieartv5.jpg signature removed (max size 24000 bytes) - please email us (with the signature URL) if you want to know why - Pirlouit([email protected])
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2006.06.23 01:33:00 - [446] bump -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Fan3Spoitoru	Posted - 2006.06.23 08:23:00 - [447] tux is a sissy STAND AND DELIVER!!!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.06.23 08:52:00 - [448] Originally by: Fan3Spoitoru tux is a sissy Do you mind? It's kind of nice to read forums without personal attacks. Just because he's a dev doesn't mean that a) he doesn't have feelings nor b) you are allowed to attack him. Don't do it again, please. New sig coming soonÖ Tuxford's good for EVE.
Wulfstan	Posted - 2006.06.23 11:03:00 - [449] Excellent post OP. Logical and backed up with facts and sensible ideas to fix the game imbalance. <fx: pinches self and check he's really reading the Eve forums>! /signed .. oh and if you want a real laugh, fit a 100mn AB onto a Ferox and try doing anything other than flying in a straight line!
Ginaz	Posted - 2006.06.23 11:25:00 - [450] Please improve BC's agility. Decrease mass or something...



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

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.