| 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) |
Caldorous
   |
Posted - 2006.05.07 17:44:00 -
[31]
Signed.
I though that the bc were slow, but not slower than a bs!
-----------------------------
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 17:44:00 -
[32]
On the subject of their manuverability:
Eve has some stats that aren't listed in the ship's details. One of them is a factor called "Agility". I believe that this factor is a multiplier on the ships mass, to determine how a ship manuvers. Frigates have an Agility multiplier of 3.1x, Destroyers 3.5x, Cruisers 0.55x, BC 1.1x, and BS 0.155x, except for the Vindicator which has an Agil of 0.105x
Here are the masses, and Mass * Agility multipliers for a batch of Minmatar Frigates and Cruisers:
Rifter: 1.1 Mt, 3.41 MtA
Thrasher: 1.5 Mt, 5.25 MtA
Rupture: 11.5 Mt, 6.325 MtA
Cyclone: 12.5 Mt, 13.75 MtA
Tempest: 102.5 Mt, 15.8875 MtA
Vindicator: 110 Mt, 11.55 MtA
Now, for the fun bit, the effects of a 10 MN thruster. These add 5 Mt to a ship's mass. Here is what happens when you do that:
Rifter: 6.1 Mt, 18.91 MtA
Thrasher: 6.5 Mt, 22.75 MtA
Rupture: 16.5 Mt, 9.075 MtA
Cyclone: 17.5 Mt, 19.25 MtA
Tempest: 107.5 Mt, 16.6625 MtA
And a 100 MN thruster (+50 MtA)
Rifter: 51.1 Mt, 158.41 MtA
Thrasher: 51.5 Mt, 180.25 MtA
Rupture: 61.5 Mt, 33.825 MtA
Cyclone: 62.5 Mt, 68.75 MtA
Tempest: 152.5 Mt, 23.6375 MtA
Vindicator: 160 Mt, 16.8 MtA
And the MtA rating is pretty much proportional to the time it takes a ship to come about.
The reason you are seeing a BC get hit so much harder by plates and AB, is because they gain twice the effective mass from them. Very simple.
On a side note, it might be worth considering changing the Battlecruiser's tanking bonus into a role bonus, and giving them something else for their secondary secondary bonuses. They are supposed to tank somewhere between the capability of a Battleship and a Cruiser, but that only works if you presume a perfect tank bonus for them. Really, they should have just been made as an entirely separate line to battleships and cruisers, with their own BC grade weapons and gear, rather than the current half BC half CA they are now.
Harry Voyager
|
xgalaxy
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 18:06:00 -
[33]
/signed
-- xgalaxy |
Phoenix Jones
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 18:17:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Phoenix Jones on 07/05/2006 18:17:30
I have to agree with this, being both a Brutix and Prophecy Pilot.
Drop the Sig a bit, and increase either agility or propulsion strength.
Consider making a 50MN Propulsion and MWD Module..
|
Moridan
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 18:52:00 -
[35]
You also gotta realize that your using the same AB/MWD on a BC as a Cruiser and they have the same thrust.
I'm not gonna do a chart or anything, but think of a 4cyl engine in a compact, it will zip around ok. Put the same engine in a full size sedan, and its not gonna get up to speed very fast.
Add a stack of lumber on the back of the compact, and it will be slower but still go. Add the same stack to the sedan with the 4cyl and its not going anywhere very fast.
So, we need a BC only AB/MWD and an agility improvement to really help em out.
The problem is, how do you keep a BC based module off a cruiser? If you tailor a MWD for a BC, and then put it on a cruiser, its gonna fly ...
"Speak quietly and carry a big torpedo."
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 19:09:00 -
[36]
 Originally by: Harry Voyager
On a side note, it might be worth considering changing the Battlecruiser's tanking bonus into a role bonus, and giving them something else for their secondary secondary bonuses. They are supposed to tank somewhere between the capability of a Battleship and a Cruiser, but that only works if you presume a perfect tank bonus for them.
I fully agree.
Its also extremely limiting to bonus-based role definition, something that will become painfully apparent when tier-2s come out - the amarr MUST have the same bonuses as the prophecy. the minnie one MUST have a tank bonus + projectile rof bonus.
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 19:46:00 -
[37]
Yeah it probably would have made more sense to use a microwarpdrive or afterburner as the example module as they're more common than plates, but the point still stands, you add in practice twice as much mass to the brutix when you fit anything on it due to the agility modifier.
One idea is giving the battlecruisers the same agility modifier as the cruisers, but increase their mass to somewhere above 15M kg, making them a bit more slow than a cruiser with a 1600mm plate on. I guess this means you won't get the full speed boost from the afterburner/MWD but what about increasing the max thrust on the propulsion modules to 20MN instead of 15?
If this went through you would have figures like:
Thorax 7 seconds to warp, Brutix 10 seconds to warp (50%) more than the Tthorax), Megathron 15 seconds (50% more than the Brutix).
|
Mr Breakfast
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 19:49:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Moridan
You also gotta realize that your using the same AB/MWD on a BC as a Cruiser and they have the same thrust.
I'm not gonna do a chart or anything, but think of a 4cyl engine in a compact, it will zip around ok. Put the same engine in a full size sedan, and its not gonna get up to speed very fast.
Add a stack of lumber on the back of the compact, and it will be slower but still go. Add the same stack to the sedan with the 4cyl and its not going anywhere very fast.
So, we need a BC only AB/MWD and an agility improvement to really help em out.
The problem is, how do you keep a BC based module off a cruiser? If you tailor a MWD for a BC, and then put it on a cruiser, its gonna fly ...
You add a note to the new AB/MWD information saying "Note: Battlecruiser-class module". If people try to put it on a cruiser or frigate, the game will give them an error message and refuse it. Pretty simple 
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 19:56:00 -
[39]
Not as simple as adjusting the stats so theyre balanced even though they use cruiser-sized modules. Which is what will happen, if anything does at all.
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Taurgil
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 20:50:00 -
[40]
/signed and pushed to the eyes of the omnipotent dev deities
|
madaluap
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 20:53:00 -
[41]
yep just a /signed...
_________________________________________________
In worldwar 2 they called me *****slap |
Eximius Josari
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 20:54:00 -
[42]
The Power of Kriest compells you!
~Eximius Josari, President of the E.A.R.T.H. Federation |
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 21:28:00 -
[43]
/signed
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 21:34:00 -
[44]
I wholeheartedly agree with the original post. I can't help but feel that a decision should be made to make the battlecruiser closer to either the cruiser or battleship on *all* counts.
I think given their current abilities the best course of action is moving their agility and handling characteristics closer to that of a cruiser. Don't forget that since the BC's were released, cruisers have had a major rework of their speed and agility.
|
Bisq
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 21:38:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Bisq on 07/05/2006 21:40:25
/signed
And change the thread name in somthing even more eye attracting for DEVS...like petition or something
|
WildAmishRose
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:12:00 -
[46]
I agree with the OP. I love my ferox, but it's a slug. |
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:13:00 -
[47]
its not just agility, infact that isnt the big prob
its the dam sig, apart from maybe mini bc they have far too high a sig
-------------------Sig-----------------------
Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen |
DeadRow
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:25:00 -
[48]
Originally by: madaluap
yep just a /signed...
What the mad dutchman said
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:29:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Moridan
[...]
The problem is, how do you keep a BC based module off a cruiser? If you tailor a MWD for a BC, and then put it on a cruiser, its gonna fly ...
You use the same method you use to keep Battleship ABs off of frigates and cruisers: the agility modifiery*mass addition.
In order ot add an entire line of BC grade modules, CCP would have ot make BCs a distinct line of ships, separate from cruisers, with masses somewhere between battleships and cruisers for it to work, say, around 50Mt. That way, you would have a line of 50MN Thrusters, that added 25MT to a ship's mass. Assuming that the target Manuver for a BC would be around 10MtA, one would need a 0.2x Agility mod.
In that case you would have (with a 50MN AB):
Frigate: 26Mt, 80.6MtA
Destroyer: 26.5Mt, 92.75MtA
Cruiser: 35Mt, 19.25MtA
Battlecruiser: 75Mt, 15MtA
Battleship: 125Mt, 19.375MtA
The Cruiser would have worse agility with an active 50MN than most battleships, and because of the way overmass boosters work, they would only be getting a 40% more speed than if they were fitting a ship size AB. Throw in the necesseary grid req increases, and you have a module that is not worth fitting.
Harry Voyager
|
Nemoto
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:43:00 -
[50]
I agree that bc are underpowered in their current form, they can do about 50% more damage than a cruiser due to extra guns, but then lose a lot of that extra damage due to being so slow which makes them unable to get to their required optimal ranges.
They have a tank maybe 50% better than a normal cruiser, which doesn't mean anything when your sig radius is so huge and speed is so slow that even battleships have no problem blowing you to pieces without tracking problem.
A battlecruiser is currently like a battleship with 1/10th of the powergrid and cruiser sized guns/repairers, the pluses of an extra couple of guns and a slightly better tank are not worth the negatives of being so slow and bulky, sure, they have a little more hp, but thats only going to prolong your destruction very slightly.
Add BC size afterburner/mwd, lower BC sig radius and make them more agile.
|
Octavio Santillian
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:46:00 -
[51]
Signed. I loved my Cyclone until I flew a typhoon for the first time. I was amazed that it was just as fast and maneuverable. Plus the tier 2 Min BC looks like it will be a beautiful ship, and I would so love to fly it. But if it is as clumsy as the Cyclone (a veritable cat amongst BCs) I will skip it.
ôWeÆre not doing for ISK...........WeÆre doing it for a ****load of ISK!ö
|
Felio
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 22:49:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Felio on 07/05/2006 22:48:52
I stick more to the medium sized ships and so I really would like to see BCs fixed.
/signed
|
Uggster
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 23:20:00 -
[53]
agreed.
signed
|
Jack'O Blades
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 23:51:00 -
[54]
One of the reasons I did not want to train BS skills (...yet) was due to their slowness and unagility.
Therefore, BC ships seemed a good balance between firepower, tankage and mobility...
So I do agree with the OP that BC should be tweaked a bit...
|
BlackHorizon
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 23:54:00 -
[55]
I also agree with this. Ways to "fix" it:
Add more grid/CPU/cap to BCs across the board (~2000-2300 grid per BC, ~3000 cap) so that BCs can fit some BS sized items. This would be a true "pocket BS" solution.
-or-
Reduce sig radius to about 180-220, increase base speed by about 5%, and agility more in line with cruisers.
|
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 00:11:00 -
[56]
signed i hate my ferox for its agility even when stationary it takes fecking years
------------------------------------
fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
FatHed
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 00:25:00 -
[57]
/signed
The speed is why I only use a brutix for mining now.
|
Waenn Ironstaff
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 01:03:00 -
[58]
/signed!
|
Nyabinghi
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 02:10:00 -
[59]
/signed
As for BCs I find for all their sluggishness you might as well go for a BS and all that extra shield, armour and slots.
I make cool banners for ISK. |
Sebroth
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 07:09:00 -
[60]
In my book a BC are supposed to be the nummber 1 anti cruiser ship in eve. If you want to kill any ship that are cruiser sized a BC will do it. Thats why they using medium turrets and not large turrets. But atm you have to be lucky if you want to get that kill. I do also think that they need something to compensate for the effektivness as a cruiser killer and atm that thing is their weakness against BSs.
They dont do that much more dmg then a cruiser, they dont tank that much better then a cruiser but you will find out that it will still do a damn good job killing cruiser if you just can catch one. Its here we have the problem they are to slow and are not more agile then a roid belt. So if you dont land ontop of him you will not have a chans before the cruiser warps away.
But if you making the BC smaller you might change the BC from a cruiser killer till a viable BS hunter and thats not what a BC is or supposed to be. Im sure that is the reason the devs gave the BC a so big sig radius, they did not want people to use the ship for anti BS work so they came up w/ the idea to give it a big sig radius so the large BS guns would hit the BC hard.
Make the BC more agile and give it more speed. Dont make the BC a BS hunter by changing the sig radius. (to much)
Im not saying that the sig radius on the BCs today are optimal and dont need to be change. Im just pointing out the danger of changing the sig radius to much. The same danger can be found in changes of the BCs speed. I do think that a the sig radius on a cyclone is ok but feel sorry for the brutix pilot one that department.
BTW The BC has one more roll and that roll is:
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.
If you using a t1 BC for that one I do more the well understand the potentially bad thing by having a big sig radius when you use it in gangs/fleets. But I dont think many FCs will ever call a BC primary just by becouse it might use one of those modules. Not for that is a good reson for the current sig radius on the bigger BCs. :P
|
| |
|
| 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 |