| 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) |
Mr rooflez
   |
Posted - 2006.05.08 23:00:00 -
[91]
Anway, if we increased the thrust on 10mn ABs and MWDs to say 20MN, this will mean all ships weighing below 20Mkg will get full thrust, instead of 15MN/15Mkg. After this we halve the BCs agility modifier and increase their mass to 18-19Mkg, giving them a agility boost and eliminating the mass addition = slug problem.
I'm not sure if this would mean all light ships would suddenly get twice the acceleration and screw up everything but if it doesn't it's a good idea.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 23:11:00 -
[92]
They would get more acceleration than now...
Really, its just easyer to mess with the mass and agility of BCs until a good result is reached, any other solution has ramifications that involve far too many designer/programmer work-hours to fully implement/balance.
The problem is screaming loudly enough that Tux will say "its fine like it is" or "ill take a look at it".
Cruisers had the same issue and their agaility boost was straightforward, now we only have to get the same done to BCs.
I suspect it might have noticed by some people at CCP, but they do have a policy of incremental upgrades... the 25% cap boost and massive fitting increases they got in RMR was already quite strong by CCP standards.
----------------
teqNo > I don't read eve-o forums, they bore me |
Apertotes
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 23:11:00 -
[93]
 Originally by: Mr rooflez
Anway, if we increased the thrust on 10mn ABs and MWDs to say 20MN, this will mean all ships weighing below 20Mkg will get full thrust, instead of 15MN/15Mkg. After this we halve the BCs agility modifier and increase their mass to 18-19Mkg, giving them a agility boost and eliminating the mass addition = slug problem.
I'm not sure if this would mean all light ships would suddenly get twice the acceleration and screw up everything but if it doesn't it's a good idea.
no, i dont think they would get twice the acceleration, but it would mean that every cruiser would get full aceleration from ABs, even caracal an blackbird, and i dont think that is what devs want
Apertotes, the Guybrush Threepwood of New Eve |
Capt planet
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 23:35:00 -
[94]
Could we get a dev reply to this thread? I've never seen so many people actually all agree that something needs changing without flaming each other.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 23:43:00 -
[95]
You had to go and jinx it, didnt ya? 
Flame, Flame FLAME FLAME! *feels better* 
----------------
teqNo > I don't read eve-o forums, they bore me |
Cadman Weyland
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 23:49:00 -
[96]
I have to fully agree with the OP. As a frequent BC flier i find they really need a buff.
Flown em all and find them to be pretty much the same when it comes to warping and turning. A boost please Tux 
Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear
|
Mystic Rose
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 01:12:00 -
[97]
been there, done that, alot.
Being an amarr, dying alot in a Prop in pvping, I admit that geddon or maller can done better job than a Prophercy can - ghost fleet - use a cruiser, serious fight, bust camp - get a BS. Their speed r problems. But the point of having faster moving, better agility BCs may make HACs lost their roles somewat, just an idea came through my mind - and I love it 
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 02:15:00 -
[98]
I totally agree with the OP.
IMO, the BC is a great ship and has a lot of potential as a stepping stone from Cruiser to BS but does seriously suck when it comes to agility. This means that most people skip BC's and go straight for HACS that have all the strength of a BC but the handling of a Cruiser.
With four named nanofibers, the BC comes closer to what it should handle like as normal but you lose both low slots and hull strength doing that so you may as well go back to Cruisers.
Even my Apoc accelerates faster than the Prohpecy, granted you are using a 100mn instead of a 10mn but stripping everything off a Prophecy and putting a 100mn MWD on it, the acceleration is barely faster than the Apoc. For a ship of only 13.5millon kg against a ship of 107.5million kg, the difference in handling is completely unproportional.
I also agree with the addition about drone space. The BC is to Cruisers what a Destroyer is to Frigates. The fact that a BC can only field 5 small drones against Cruisers is stupid. They need to have their drone bay increased to 50 m3 to hold 5 med drones, small drones are for fighting Frigates not Cruisers.
--
|
One Percent
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 04:41:00 -
[99]
The OP hits the nail squarely upon the head here.
The current imbalance of BC mass and sig radius is what has prevented me from training battlecruisers past lvl 4.
|
Algey
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 11:11:00 -
[100]
I was training battlecruisers, probably still will. I like the idea of a solid ship that can run from battleships, and hunt cruisers/frigates. The problem is that the BC just doesn't do that.
If I'm mad enough to put a plate on my prophecy I can be outrun by most battleships, and watch cruisers and frigates have a good meal, a sit down, and then walk slowly away before I can get even close to them.
A little more agility would make these ships a real joy to fly, instead of how it is currently, which is like flying a passenger aircraft.
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 16:12:00 -
[101]
The OP has a definitely good idea and the math to back it up.
The BC's are balanced very well within their own class (so IMO there is no need to add slots and/or drone bays), now all that's left is to adjust them to fit their niche according to their relative size and mass.
Please give them proportionally more agility (and possibly speed) and less signature radius.
|
Hellspawn01
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 16:29:00 -
[102]
Signed.
Also I started flying the Astarte, Absolution and Nighthawk last week and they suffer the same issue. It even takes longer for them to get to full speed with an AB than on a BS.
**Ship lovers click here** |
Kahor
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 17:02:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Kahor on 09/05/2006 17:02:25
Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe
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.
Sorry for rambling
That's because the price is so much closer to one of a cruiser that one of a BS. BC are like the perfect counters to cruisers IMMO and can do well as Damage dealing/ECM platform as well, provided they are not tanking, but who needs that when you have 6 racks of Jammers in mid and Launchers in High (and that you are supposedly not alone if fitted that way) ?.
And yes, BC can't tank VERY well AND do MASS damage at the same time, same goes to most ships, they have to find a 'middle'. And Immo most BCs can do enough of both to be balanced.
An eye for an eye make a whole world blind.
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
|
kikosinosi
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 00:03:00 -
[104]
/signed
|
EL TITAN
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 00:32:00 -
[105]
aye totally agree with op 100%
BC's are just wayyyy tooo slooowwww.
_________________________________________________
<3 hi |
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 03:11:00 -
[106]
/signed
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
Dynast
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 03:36:00 -
[107]
/signed
I like the Ferox and Brutix a lot.. in principle. In practice, they have been plenty effective in combat, interesting to fit, but utterly painful to play due to the massive agility penalty. They corner similarly or worse than Battleships, and it just doesn't make sense. At first I just shrugged it off and figured BS's would be worse, but when I finally got around to skilling for the BS, I was astounded at just how bad the BCs were, given that they were supposted to be somewhere between Cruiser and Battleship.
|
Hectaire Glade
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 06:50:00 -
[108]
Really hoping for some Dev input on this thread, seems the majority of people would like to see a slight tweak to this class of ship, lets not leave them to rot in the hands of mission runners for ever.
|
Katamarino
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 11:46:00 -
[109]
I just tried this out, with my Brutix and a 1600mm plate. It was painful beyond words. PLEASE fix this!
|
Waut
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 11:50:00 -
[110]
le signed
In Soviet EVE, roids pop YOU |
sgt spike
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 11:58:00 -
[111]
/signed in big black marker
still no dev comment? cmon guys throw us a bone
can you put a price on peace?
|
Yuleth Gix
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 12:21:00 -
[112]
Yarr!
|
Cocyte
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 12:22:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Hellspawn01
Signed.
Also I started flying the Astarte, Absolution and Nighthawk last week and they suffer the same issue. It even takes longer for them to get to full speed with an AB than on a BS.
I finished training for an Absolution last month. I used it on one mission, then just jumped back to the zealot.
*signed*
-----
Cocyte.
Ex-lecturer of the University of Caille.
Fired after the disparition of a large part of the dean's stockpile of fine wines... |
Gozmoth
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 12:29:00 -
[114]
Simply common sense ?
I sign.
|
Scifa
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 13:16:00 -
[115]
/signed |
Shardrael
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 13:22:00 -
[116]
/signed
I love my battlecruiser even if it does fly like a dead whale, please ccp make her soar again 
|
Eximius Josari
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 17:44:00 -
[117]
/bump
/signagainwithdifferentname
~Eximius Josari, Hegemon of the E.A.R.T.H. Federation |
Jude Kopenhagen
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 19:54:00 -
[118]
Just a quick question, does anyone actually use warfare link modules on their battle cruisers, somehow the training times compared to the amount of time you would use one in a fleet does not make sense.
Perhaps is they got another bonus instead of one that very few people use?
Anyway, agree that something needs to be done. |
Matrices Sunbound
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 20:53:00 -
[119]
No one uses those warfare link bonuses whatsoever, unless you are using T2 BC.
I have flown the Cyclone a long time. It's one slow bastard. 2 nanos in the lows help, but that's 2 slots I shouldn't have to waste.
After a long discussion with corpmates about PVP, came to realization that the crux of the problem is that the BS is too slow and HAC is too expensive and requires too many SPs to use for small gang quick strike ops. The BC would fit the gap nicely for up and coming players, but currently it is way too fat and slow.
/signed
|
Waenn Ironstaff
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 21:24:00 -
[120]
Why the lack of warfare link modules on T1 Battlecruisers?
|
| |
|
| 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 |