| 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) |
Exogene
   |
Posted - 2006.05.08 07:17:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Exogene on 08/05/2006 07:19:23
Not signed!
Everyone keeps talking about the "role" of a BattleCruiser but no one seems to know or seems to be confused about what its role really is. Battlecruisers primary role is not fighting but support, it is not an ofensive ship class but rather a defensive one. If you look at the bonusses, they are the only T1 ships that get a bonus to help tanking. Asking for agility on a support ship is just plain ridiculous, since in a support cruiser you won't be orbiting hostiles. It is just as ridiculous as asking for damage bonusses for logistics ships or more high-slots for indys. I think best solution would be to rename Battlecruisers to something more in line with their primary role and change their damage bonusses to tank bonusses, whether it's resistance or shield/tank boost bonusses and make a new ship class or a new tier of BCs that are built for offensive fighting.
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 08:48:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Exogene
Edited by: Exogene on 08/05/2006 07:19:23
Not signed!
Everyone keeps talking about the "role" of a BattleCruiser but no one seems to know or seems to be confused about what its role really is. Battlecruisers primary role is not fighting but support, it is not an ofensive ship class but rather a defensive one. If you look at the bonusses, they are the only T1 ships that get a bonus to help tanking.
Moa
Auguror
Maller
Just to name a few...
Originally by: Exogene
Asking for agility on a support ship is just plain ridiculous, since in a support cruiser you won't be orbiting hostiles. It is just as ridiculous as asking for damage bonusses for logistics ships or more high-slots for indys. I think best solution would be to rename Battlecruisers to something more in line with their primary role and change their damage bonusses to tank bonusses, whether it's resistance or shield/tank boost bonusses and make a new ship class or a new tier of BCs that are built for offensive fighting.
Brutix: close range, 7 guns, damage bonus -> a defensive ship, indeed 
FYI, the defensive bonus is there only because CCP needed a ship that can tank better than cruisers, while still using cruiser-sized bonuses. Your argument about defensive ships may be valid when speaking about destroyers, but applied to battlecruisers it's utter crap.
If you don't beleive me, go read the CCP'references to BC when they made them, and they were clearly designing them to an offensive role, espescailly as a cruiser/BS hunter, in packs.
Now, about the original subject, I completely agree. BC currently are too much of a flying brick, and too easily dispatched by large guns and torps.
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 09:50:00 -
[63]
I dont think the BCs need any change to their opffensive/defensive capability. But their signature radius/mass certainly needs to be normalized and put into context along side Cruisers/Battleships.
|
Astrum Ludus
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 10:11:00 -
[64]
Yeah, my Prophecy is sooo slow to warp and I can't see why this has to be the case.
It's not like they have BS offence or defence.
|
Wilfan Ret'nub
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 10:15:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Exogene
Not signed!
Everyone keeps talking about the "role" of a BattleCruiser but no one seems to know or seems to be confused about what its role really is. Battlecruisers primary role is not fighting but support, it is not an ofensive ship class but rather a defensive one.
[...snip...]
If by defensive you mean just tanking, then BC must pose a significant threat to the enemy AND be on front line (as opposed to a safespot).
If it's not a significant threat, say more than an ECM ship (Blackbird/Scorp/Rook) or a damage dealer, it will not get fired upon much and its tanking will be wasted. If it is not on the front line (if its role is only gang bonus and logistics), it needs no tanking at all.
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 11:03:00 -
[66]
The math is wrong because a BC doesnt need a 1600 plate thats a BS module and BCs have enough armour to be able to tnak with no plate at all IMo.
Still the reasoning is not without merit and I too believe that BCs are overpenalised for their small advantages over top of the line cruises.
I believe the only purpose they serve well at present is what their description in the Items DB says... essentially that they are a good option if you want more than a cruiser but cant afford a BS. Seeing however how easier it is to make isk today compared to a year ago and how BS prices and availability have dopped this is a niche market that is becoming smaller and smaller.
BCs can still be formidable in the hands of a top skilled pilot but there is very little reason for a top skilleed pilot to take a BC over a BS (unless if he knows for a fact that his enemy will be flying no BSs).
In conclusion perhaps a timy decrease in sig radius and a substantial increase in speed and decrease in mass are actually warranted. I dont sign everything said here... not even the OP in its entirety but do sign the need for devs to look at this at some point.
|
Voculus
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 12:52:00 -
[67]
Gotta give this thread a co-sign. My Cyclone takes about 14 seconds to warp from a standstill. If I'm cruising at 200 m/s without the AB, and I have to make a 90 degree turn to align for warp, it takes 30 seconds.
It's maddeningly sluggish, and for no good reason.
|
Calynus
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 13:59:00 -
[68]
I have to agree with the OPs logic.
This is something that seriously needs attention from CCP. They should be balancing the existing ships before adding new ones IMHO.
Battlecruisers should be the middle road between cruisers and battleships, thus their stats need to be brought more into line with this. Seeing as they don't have significantly more powergrid than the top end cruisers and far, far less than a battleship, it's not reasonable for them to be so slow and have such a large signature.
Considering the modest gain in firepower/survivability you get over cruisers paired with these disadvantages, there is really little reason to use one over a battleship if you can afford a battleship.
A little more agility, lower signatures radius and top speed please and, while you're looking at it, how about just a smidgeon more powergrid? It seems kind of silly to give a Brutix room for 7 guns but not even enough grid to fit it with a full rack of 200mm or Heavy Ions (the middle road medium hydrid) without completely tossing your ability to tank any damage at all out the window.
/signed
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 14:28:00 -
[69]
BCs should out perform all cruiser class ships in tank and firepower but not beat out the battleship for tank and firepower.(oddly enough the Ferox out tanks a raven due to its resist bonus)
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 15:06:00 -
[70]
/signed
I quit flying my Ferox long ago because it was just too painfully slow to turn and warp etc. Gilas and Moas and Caracals replaced it for L3 mission running.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 15:12:00 -
[71]
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
|
Draycar Hazaran
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 15:16:00 -
[72]
Please fix agility/sig radius. I stopped flying my Cyclone due to these problems.
|
Hectaire Glade
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 15:22:00 -
[73]
I finally gave up on my Prophecy fetish after loosing yet another one to slow turning and crappy warp alignment/acceleration. Bought a Zealot and it outperforms the BC in all areas except size of cargo hold. 8 times the price but 10 times the ship.
Have an Absolution in the hanger but would honestly rather fly the HAC due to speed/performance. Currently BCs can be a liability, putting a plate on it just makes the problem worse.
Something needs to be done to make them more central between cruisers and BS, I'm all for more help on this class of ship.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 15:52:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Mr rooflez on 08/05/2006 15:54:09
Originally by: Crellion
The math is wrong because a BC doesnt need a 1600 plate thats a BS module and BCs have enough armour to be able to tnak with no plate at all IMo.
Still the reasoning is not without merit and I too believe that BCs are overpenalised for their small advantages over top of the line cruises.
I believe the only purpose they serve well at present is what their description in the Items DB says... essentially that they are a good option if you want more than a cruiser but cant afford a BS. Seeing however how easier it is to make isk today compared to a year ago and how BS prices and availability have dopped this is a niche market that is becoming smaller and smaller.
BCs can still be formidable in the hands of a top skilled pilot but there is very little reason for a top skilleed pilot to take a BC over a BS (unless if he knows for a fact that his enemy will be flying no BSs).
In conclusion perhaps a timy decrease in sig radius and a substantial increase in speed and decrease in mass are actually warranted. I dont sign everything said here... not even the OP in its entirety but do sign the need for devs to look at this at some point.
Yeah I stated in a later post that i probably should have used a microwarpdrive (or afterburner) instead of a plate for my example, but the only thing that would have done (a 5M kg mass increase instead of a 3,75M) is increase the gap and make BCs look even worse.
If you look at the cost it's also quite clear that the BCs are underpowered. The brutix costs the same as 4 thoraxes, is it 4 times more useful than a thorax? I don't think so. It's also just below half the price of a dominix, and you can be damn sure that the dominix (or any t1 battleship) is at least 3 times as useful as the brutix (or any battlecruiser).
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.
|
Haniblecter Teg
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 15:59:00 -
[75]
Excellent post. Excellent points.
BC's right now are used as the firepower in cruiser/frig gangs.
Their mass means they cant keep up, adn slow down what should be a medium speed fleet. Their sig radius means they take a disproportionate amount of damage to the actualy damage they do (take BS damage yet do cruiser x 1.4 damage)
Making htem a bit mroe agile and allowing their radius to reflect their true addition to a fleet will balance them nicely.
----------------------------------------
Friends Forever
|
Haniblecter Teg
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 16:02:00 -
[76]
Quote:
FYI, the defensive bonus is there only because CCP needed a ship that can tank better than cruisers, while still using cruiser-sized bonuses. Your argument about defensive ships may be valid when speaking about destroyers, but applied to battlecruisers it's utter crap.
If you don't beleive me, go read the CCP'references to BC when they made them, and they were clearly designing them to an offensive role, espescailly as a cruiser/BS hunter, in packs.
Now, about the original subject, I completely agree. BC currently are too much of a flying brick, and too easily dispatched by large guns and torps.
I disagree.
CCP added the tanking bonuses because they realized the HUGE step from a cruiser to a BS.
They wanted to encourage people to move out into 00, so they made a ship that is half as expensive adn a 1/3 less to insure, be able to tank 00 spawns and move newbs to the danger zone.
What PVP'ers should do with this bonus is run a solo gank, or small fleet op with the BC as the centerpiece. By fitting a very solid tank + above cruiser damage, you can have a flagship for a medium sized/speed gang be able to survive longer than .3 seconds.
----------------------------------------
Friends Forever
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 16:16:00 -
[77]
In any case, the tank bonuses are a defining part of BCs, and will be present in any ship oif the class.
Moving them to a role bonus is an interesting idea, I think, though of course balancing is an issue - for example, the brutix is arguably strong enough, bar mass/agility issues; its quite capable of humiliating most HACs and many a BS pilot/setups.
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 17:02:00 -
[78]
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.
|
Kahor
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 17:04:00 -
[79]
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.
An eye for an eye make a whole world blind.
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
|
SunWuKong
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 17:16:00 -
[80]
Check this out. You decide how much this should hold true to a space game, but I think it defines what the intended role and function should be for the BC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 17:18:00 -
[81]
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
|
The Angle
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 17:45:00 -
[82]
I'm gonna agree as well that the BC needs some kind of boost to agility and needs to be able to get into warp faster.
It is a huge and noticeable difference when you jump from Cruiser to BC. If anything the loss in agility should be incremental just like the difference between Frigate and Cruiser agility.
|
Fon Revedhort
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 19:13:00 -
[83]
Yep, I agree as well.
No one wants to ruin the ballance, but a small reduction of the time needed to warp seems fair.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 19:19:00 -
[84]
Even if the BCs don't get an agility- and/or signature radius boost (which they should) they should at least get the agility modifier/weight ratio fixed. Under no condition should a battlecruiser with an afterburner have 20-30% LESS agility than a battleship with the same module(albeit a different size) fitted. That's not even a boost, it's just fixing what's broken.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 19:19:00 -
[85]
Even if the BCs don't get an agility- and/or signature radius boost (which they should) they should at least get the agility modifier/weight ratio fixed. Under no condition should a battlecruiser with an afterburner have 20-30% LESS agility than a battleship with the same module(albeit a different size) fitted. That's not even a boost, it's just fixing what's broken.
|
Jasminna deBoer
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 21:07:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Nemoto
Add BC size afterburner/mwd, lower BC sig radius and make them more agile.
/signed
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 21:16:00 -
[87]
Well if you add BC sized modules they should logically have higher fitting requirements. This would unbalance battlecruisers, which frankly are fine powergrid/fitting-wise.
|
Apertotes
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 21:49:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Mr rooflez
Well if you add BC sized modules they should logically have higher fitting requirements. This would unbalance battlecruisers, which frankly are fine powergrid/fitting-wise.
well, i dont know if it can be done with every module, but just like warfere link modules or cover cloaks got insane fitting requirements, and then get a 99% fitting reduction on the right ship, maybe this could be balanced like that, or at least for some time.
so that a 50 mn AB will need crazy fitting requirements, but BC's got a 99% reduction, which would put 50 mn AB on the line of 10 mn AB. this way you wont need to change the grid and cpu of BCs, and cruisers would not be able to fit this new modules.
maybe this is not possible or a bad idea. it just came to my mind while reading your post
Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 22:21:00 -
[89]
think that through for a second. youd need an entire new production line and t2 bpos for any modules that you wanted to make bc-only, not to mention named modules.
its simply not viable.. anyway, BCs are CRUISERS. Making BC-only modules would be merely chickening out of balancing them properly.
----------------
teqNo > I don't read eve-o forums, they bore me |
Apertotes
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 22:29:00 -
[90]
Originally by: keepiru
think that through for a second. youd need an entire new production line and t2 bpos for any modules that you wanted to make bc-only, not to mention named modules.
its simply not viable.. anyway, BCs are CRUISERS. Making BC-only modules would be merely chickening out of balancing them properly.
well, i agree with you. i do not think a new BC-class module is needed, it was just that while reading the quoted post, i though that maybe it could be done without that much balancing. and of course, this BC-size modules would only be needed for a few modules (AB, MWD)
still, i agree, BC are cruisers
Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve |
| |
|
| 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 |