| 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 - 2006.05.07 00:32:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Mr rooflez on 07/05/2006 00:33:52
Edited by: Mr rooflez on 07/05/2006 00:32:59
I'd long thought it odd how the Battlecruisers were always so slow to warp and align, especially when plated. I thus decided to run some tests.
These Tests were done in an eve window with the windows clock ticking beside it, not very scientific but it gives you an idea.
Time to get up to speed and warp:
Thorax: 7 seconds.
Thorax, 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 9 seconds.
Not a very big difference between plated and unplated if you compare the 2000ish vs 5000ish armor hp.
Brutix: 14 seconds.
Brutix, 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 19 seconds.
So a ship which has only 10% more mass than the Thorax takes twice as long to warp? And when you add a plate it's more than twice. Hmm.
Megathron: 15 seconds.
Megathron, 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 15 seconds.
No surprises here, you add on about 3% to the megathron's mass and that's well within the margin of error.
Ok. Now to explain a bit about ship agility. The way I've understood it is that if you multiply the ship's mass with the agility modifier (not shown in game but you can find it in data exports, it's 0.55 for cruisers, 1.1 for battlecruisers, and 0.155 for battleships) you get an arbitraty number which relates directly to agility. For instance a Thorax has a mass of 12 Mkg, so the agility would be 12000000*0,55 = 6,6m
Continuing this we get:
Thorax: 6,6m
Thorax with plate: 8,7m
Brutix: 14,6m
Brutix with plate: 18,7m
Megathron: 15,9m
Megathron w/plate: 16,5m
From what i understand, this number is what modifies everything agility-related. Turning, accelerating, you name it (well actually that's pretty much it).
Moving on.
After some math:
If you add a 1600mm plate to a Thorax you get a 29% increase to warp speed.
If you add a 1600mm plate to a Brutix you get a 36% increase to warp speed.
If you add a 1600mm plate to a Megathron you get almost no increase to warp speed.
It's fine for the Megathron and the Thorax, but the Brutix really suffers here and it makes no sense. You add proportionally less mass to the Brutix if you plate it compared to the Thorax, yet you get a disproportionally large increase in agility.
A cruiser with a 1600mm plate is much much more agile than a battlecruiser without one, yet a battlecruiser with a plate is much SLOWER than a battleship, even one with a plate.
I think what's wrong here is the agility modifier. The Battlecruisers have almost the same mass as cruisers, what makes them slower is the agility modifier, which is twice as big, meaning any agility/mass mod you put on it affects the ship twice as much.
I suggest first giving the battlecruisers a flat 15% or 20% agility boost. After that doubling or tripling the mass of the battlecruisers but halving or cutting in third their agility modifier, putting them more in line with the other ship classes. The Brutix obviously doesn't weigh the same as the Thorax when it's 50% bigger on the screen. Balance power/tankingwise the BCs are fine, they're just too damn slow.
And big.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 00:33:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Mr rooflez on 07/05/2006 00:33:43
The signature radius of the BC are up next.
Cruisers range from 105m(Stabber) to 150m(Blackbird, Vexor, others)
Battlecruisers range from 240m(Cyclone) to 300m(Brutix)
Battleships range from 320m(Typhoon) to 480m(Scorpion)
Here are some interesting percentage differences:
smallest cruiser -> smallest BC: +129%
biggest cruiser -> biggest BC: + 100%
smallest BC -> smallest BS: +33%
biggest BC -> biggest BS: +60%
biggest cruiser -> smallest BC: +60%
biggest BC -> smallest BS: +7%
smallest cruiser -> biggest BC: +186%
smallest BC -> biggest BS: +100%
Battlecruisers are between 60% and 186% bigger than cruisers, while battleships are between 7% and 60% bigger than battlecruisers.
I don't think this is right, the battlecruiser are right in between the cruisers and battleships firepower- and tankingwise, but almost as slow and big as a battleship. I actually got killed in a plated brutix by a tempest with Quake L at 15km while not webbed and trying to keep my transversal up.
I think we should lower the battlecruisers sig radius to range between say 200 and 250m instead of 240 and 300. That way it would be 25% between the biggest cruiser and smallest BC and 28% between the biggest BC and smallest BS, this along with an agility boost should do nicely.
That is all. Thank you if you've read this, and discuss.
|
Redmond Fiur
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 00:42:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Redmond Fiur on 07/05/2006 00:42:26
Not sure about pvp or whatnot, but I recently climbed into a cyclone from my rupture and I have noticed that it is extremely slow to warp, my mammoth maneuvers, aligns, and warps faster then my cyclone 
Though im not sure on making them more agile, it seems ok for the amount of firepower these things can field. But then I have pvp experience that ranks in the negative so...
And about the sig radius, as I don't pvp (yet, hopefully) I cant really provide any imput for that area
|
Jin Entres
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 00:43:00 -
[4]
Being largely specialized in cruisers and battlecruisers, this is something that has caused me grief. The BC handles and takes damage too close to like a battleship while it's tanking is much closer to that of cruisers'.
So, I completely agree and support the demand for changes. 
|
Toaster Oven
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 01:00:00 -
[5]
Very well thought out post. I agree on all counts. The only issue is that CCP would have to introduce 50MN AB + MWD in order to keep up with new BC mass as current cruiser class propulsion mods would become ineffective. So that would probably result in BC mass being quadrupled and agility mod cut down to 1/4 of it's value to prevent oversized propulsion modules from being used on cruisers.
|
Lefia
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 04:40:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Lefia on 07/05/2006 04:43:21
I agree too, BCs are far too bulky for their own good. They are like a destroyer, made fragile by their own size. And, for something that I believe the DEVs referred to as "a Pocket BS", I don't think they should be as fragile as they are.
 Originally by: hired goon
I agree with every point and counter point that has been brought up in this and every other argument ever had.
do
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 05:24:00 -
[7]
Great post Mr Rooflez.
This is exactly what the problem with BC's are. They move like a BS, take damage like a BS, tank like a cruiser and deal damage like a big cruiser.
Thank you for taking the time to post the math and the reasoning for you suggested fix to BC's. I can't see how anyone could argue that they are balanced as is.
100% /signed
Nyxus
Macgyver can build an airplane out of gum and paper clips, but Chuck Norris can kill him and take it.
|
Wolfgang Jager
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 06:00:00 -
[8]
As another battlecruiser fan, I agree completely. They do need to be tweaked. Either slightly less plodding and cumbersome or slightly more "pocket battleship" like. Getting pounded like a BS and being less survivable would be okay if they had heavier firepower, or staying as they are and being a little more able to get out of the way.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 07:11:00 -
[9]
Can't agree with you more Mr rooflez. You backed uped your points with quick mathmatical reasoning and proposed some rather modest and imo well ballanced change ideas.
I do hope that if this is indeed looked into by the devs that they take a quick look at destroyers as well. Personally I think the sig radius is the bigger issue for both ships however the agility on the BCs is beyond embarassing for a ship class that should have a rather significan manuverability advantage when compared to its larger kin.
|
Beowulf Scheafer
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 07:24:00 -
[10]
tbh with you all, this is sad, but not a nessecerity to do, like for examples blasters.
when do u await the changes, this year or soon ?
no jokes now, it seems the maths for bc's are just completly wrong. even tho i don't think the ship agility is something that gets a primary on the tasklist
i'm a cheap ass (that only seem to have money  ) and take a hac with the agility of a cruiser and the dmg of a good bc.... easiest solution, me thinks.
|
|
|
Beowulf Scheafer
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 07:26:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Redmond Fiur
Though im not sure on making them more agile, it seems ok for the amount of firepower these things can field. But then I have pvp experience that ranks in the negative so...
yo, man. that outspeak (if thats a prosper word) is so cool that it will make its way into my bio 
|
Ginaz
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 08:49:00 -
[12]
Ever noticed that you have the thrust of a Cruiser on Battlecruisers?
That's the problem with BCs.... everything else is totally fine
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 08:53:00 -
[13]
biggest problem is their sig
needs to be 190-225 or there abouts, 300sig is far too high and they die fast to BS fire!
-------------------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 |
Negative Nancy
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 09:06:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Negative Nancy on 07/05/2006 09:07:59
What about propulsion strength? How does that factor in to time to warp?
Oh yea and....Why not have the range bonus that you get similar to Destroyer/Frigate (the rate of fire anti-bonus is crap, that should be done away with IMHO)
|
Eximius Josari
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 09:10:00 -
[15]
Yeah, BCs seem very heavy for their role...either Bses are way too fast or they are way too slow.
~Shadowlord |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 09:12:00 -
[16]
Nice post.
It would be worth to note that with tier-2 BCs this is an issue that will come VERY MUCH to the fore, whether CCP is willing to admit it or not.
Think about it, if they make tier-2 BCs any bigger & slower and tier-1s, they will be BIGGER than battleships, and warp considerably slower. That would be just a little ridiculous.
Ive been occasinally whining for a look at BC agility - they got skipped when cruisers got that boosted - and their sig size... hopefully this will get tux to at least take it into consideration - even though hes got a lot on his plate atm - as its something that will absolutely require a look at soon anyway for the reasons stated above.
Well, here's to hoping :)
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Max Hardcase
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 10:48:00 -
[17]
Ye mighty Tuxford take notice of this worthy thread please.
----------------------------------------------
Max Hardcase > yawn-o-rama
Max Hardcase > is this typical of RA warfare ?
FreaKsh0 > yes boredom fitted in all their high slots |
Reto
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 10:56:00 -
[18]
an agility increase to bc like the one for cruisers after....cold war, exodus ? would be ace. bc are very vulnerable to bs but make a hell of a cruiser killer so a a bit more agility would be simply a good idea. at least it would make using a bc more attractive than atm.
|
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 12:50:00 -
[19]
Agreed with this, especially if t2 bcs get the same boost. Having the agility /sig radius of a bs and tanking somwhere between HAC and cruiser level is a pretty massive penalty for an otherwise useful ship class.
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
Aberash
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 13:04:00 -
[20]
Nice post roof, and agreed, imo main problem is sig radius, like you said should be made more round 200, When pvp'ing in Ferox took a Raven 2 or so volleys to strip my hardened shield  whilst i was only making a dent.
Defo need to fix then BC's will be much more useful in the field.
|
|
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 13:04:00 -
[21]
Very much agreed with rooflez.
The Brutix has twice the signature radius of a Thorax. When you look at them side by side in-game, the difference in their sizes sure as hell isn't that big. And then the Megathron is 400m sig radius, and when you look at the Brutix and Megathron side by side, the size difference is huge! Given that Thorax has 140m sig radius and Megathron 400m, Brutix should be no more than 225m.
And yeah, the propulsion and agility. I find it silly that my Megathron and Dominix are as maneuverable as the Brutix.
I love the Brutix, really, but currently the biggest thing keeping me from using it is that it really takes too much damage and is too slow and cumbersome. For lvl 3 missions that I currently do a battleship is simply a better choice. Much better survivability, and just as agile. And the latter point is just wrong.
Really, the BCs need some loving. They're a very nice ship class potentially, and Brutix and Cyclone are two of some of the best looking ships in the game, so I truly hope they will get the adjustments they deserve!
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 13:34:00 -
[22]
Ough, though to take the Brutix out for the first time since I got the battleships last week. Fitted an afterburner for travelling to my destination to go finish the mission in which I blew up with my Catalyst before downtime (due to much weirdness) - and immediately upon activation remembered why I don't usually fit an afterburner on the Brutix.
Man, it accelerates slower than a BS with AB. I remember once slapping a 100mn AB on the Brutix too, max speed was good but acceleration sucked big time.
So, to fix that acceleration in general should be improved, and also as was previously mentioned, we'd need some sort of AB/MWD type between 10mn and 100mn for BC use.
|
SilentSentinel
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 13:41:00 -
[23]
Signed
I love my proph alot, but I've noticed it is slower to warp than my corpmates BS(Domi). BC's in general (all race bc's) need more love by the Devs. I agree with the OP.
1. Smaller sig.
2. Larger Drone Bay (it's sad that some cruisers have a larger drone bay than a bc) The Proph's drone bay is only 25m3... holds only 5 light drones. It should be able to hold 75m3 in drones. Needs a mix of heavy, med, and lights.
3. The Proph doesn't get any weapon dmg bonus at all. It needs one more mid slot. Otherwise, might as well be driving a Maller.
Cheers
|
babylonstew
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 15:27:00 -
[24]
i agree 100% with the op, bc needs its agility looked at big time, and a modest sig reduction might be in order to, i think if they were a bit more agile and slightly smaller, they would be a very usefull ship class, as it stands, they are kinda gimped as allready stated
|
Dark Shikari
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 15:28:00 -
[25]
Agreed.
Their sigs should be absolutely no more than 60-80% more than that of a cruiser, and their agility modifier should not be 10 times that of a battleship 
[23] Member: Official Forum Warrior
What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 16:20:00 -
[26]
Originally by: keepiru
Nice post.
It would be worth to note that with tier-2 BCs this is an issue that will come VERY MUCH to the fore, whether CCP is willing to admit it or not.
They just need to give the Caldari Teir2 BC a 5%dmg, 5% rof bonus set, and I won't care if it gets hit easily like a Ferox with an extender.
Ofcourse, if Tux would make our assault missiles too, that'd be sweet since no short-range missile for cruisers = LAME.
At the Very least, make the assault launchers have a base ROF of 10 or so, so we can just machine gun light missiles for the time being.
|
Justice Bringer
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 16:28:00 -
[27]
I also agree with the OP, and I have long believed that BCs should have BC sized mods and not cruiser sized mods.
Maybe CCP will make some modifications, but I won't hold my breat ....
Justice 
|
Troye
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 16:51:00 -
[28]
I have to agree with this, yeah BCs do seem to take ages to warp. Afterall they are more cruisers than they are battle ships so should be abit faster.
/signed
_______________________________________________
[URL=http://www.glitteryourway.com][/URL]
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 16:52:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ghoest on 07/05/2006 16:53:44
The current situation is fine.
I say this as someone who almost only uses battlecruisers(I occassionally fly various T2 frigs for fun and exploration.)
Battlecruisers are very good as they are.
EDIT: I do agree cruiser rockets/topedoes are needed, but thats not just a BC issue.
Wherever you went - here you are.
|
Raptornas
|
Posted - 2006.05.07 17:33:00 -
[30]
Agreed.
Brutix is a fantastic ship but why is it slower to warp than a mega :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
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Viktor Fyretracker
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 22:03:00 -
[121]
speeding up the BCs to about 210m/s would be a good start(think thats still slower then any of the crusiers).
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 23:31:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
speeding up the BCs to about 210m/s would be a good start(think thats still slower then any of the crusiers).
210 would make them faster than most cruisers. Personaly I thinka very modest increase in overall speed is needed if at all. Agility modifier is imo the only stat that truly needs to be changed.
|
Eximius Josari
|
Posted - 2006.05.10 23:51:00 -
[123]
Well speed up all ships. So that the slowest BC is at least 50 m/s faster than the fastest BS, the slowest cruiser is at least 50 m/s faster than the fastest BC...and so on...something like this:
Tech 1
Frig - 455 to 490 m/s
Destroyer - 370 to 405 m/s
Cruiser - 285 to 320 m/s
Battlecruiser - 200 to 235 m/s
Battleship - 115 to 150 m/s
Course this topic is about agility not necessarily velocity. Agility def need review.
~Eximius Josari, Hegemon of the E.A.R.T.H. Federation |
InnerDrive
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 05:13:00 -
[124]
Any devs had a look into this? There is really something badly wrong with the BC agility.. its slower than a battleship..
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 06:34:00 -
[125]
As soon as the servers come up I'm running some better tests, this time measuring turning speed with afterburners on.
|
wismerhil
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 08:03:00 -
[126]
Agreed, BC take to much damage, fly like asteroids, turn like planets.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 10:00:00 -
[127]
Okay, as promised, some more agility tests. These were done with the ship flying at full speed, having the object it's going to warp to directly to the right of it, Simulating a 90 degree turn followed by a warp. These were also done with a real stopwatch for better accuracy. The graphical figure is done in a very advanced program often used by scientists at NASA*
Click
We can firstly note that there's absolutely no agility difference between having an AB fitted and not having one, the extra thrust balances out the mass addition.
Secondly we observe that the brutix turns +110% slower than the thorax, something that matches well with the mass*agility mod number. The difference between the brutix and megathron is +18%. This really is absurd. There's less difference between a brutix and a megathron than between a thorax and a lighter cruiser, say a stabber.
Well I guess that's all that can be said.
Just for the sake of science I did a worst case scenario test. A Brutix fitted with a 1600mm plate and an MWD, doing a 90 degree turn just after turning of the MWD. The result? 44.5 seconds to warp out. To illustrate this an interceptor going 4 km/s has time to travel 178km before you can warp out. Imagine ratting in a belt and seeing an inty warp in 170km from you. Even if you hit warp the second he appeared you wouldn't be warping before he's got you scrambled.
Conclusion: Boost agility on battlecruisers, the sooner the better.
*When they're teaching their kids how to use the computer at home
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 11:09:00 -
[128]
Zomg, thats awful :(
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 13:22:00 -
[129]
Ok, I always knew it was bad........
.......but that is really terrible. Really, really terrible.
Come on CCP. BC's should be bigger, heavier cruisers. Not slightly smaller crappier BS. 18% difference? 44 seconds to warp? Defending with cruiser mods, even with a bonus, is just not enough.
They need to be more agile with a lower sig radius. Tweak them. The flying chicken needs some love. At least tweak them before the introduction of the tier 2 bcs. Otherwise it will just introduce another sub par shipclass.
Please adjust BC's so they aren't such fat hogs. BS are big bulky and slow, BC's should be significantly better since they tank and have dps that is significantly lower.
Nyxus
Macgyver can build an airplane out of gum and paper clips, but Chuck Norris can kill him and take it.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 14:25:00 -
[130]
Here's also what kind of damage different close range BS guns do to brutixes and thoraxes orbiting them at their max speed after skills.
Battleships VS Thorax
Battleships VS Brutix
So a regular close range battleship's guns/missiles do around twice damage at half the range to a battlecruiser trying to keep up transversal compared with a cruiser.
And this is supposed to be compensated by a 5% resist/7,5% repair bonus per level. I think not.
|
|
|
Locke Ateid
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 14:42:00 -
[131]
*Locke remembers when BCs could fit BS weapons on the test server.*
I guess CCP forgot to change the agility back when BCs really were "Pocket BS," which justified they're over-all 'slowness'.
|
Hectaire Glade
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 15:01:00 -
[132]
If you know a dev, please point them at this thread, its one of the best data driven discussions I have seen in Ships N Modules for a long time and highlights a chasm in the BC class which needs to be addressed!
Any mods mind PMing a dev to take a peek?
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 15:10:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Locke Ateid
*Locke remembers when BCs could fit BS weapons on the test server.*
I guess CCP forgot to change the agility back when BCs really were "Pocket BS," which justified they're over-all 'slowness'.
And the fact that when Cruisers got the agility boost, and the subsequent speed boost, BCs got joyfully skipped over.
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Cadman Weyland
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 16:05:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Matrices Sunbound
No one uses those warfare link bonuses whatsoever, unless you are using T2 BC.
Wrong, very very wrong
Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear
|
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 17:00:00 -
[135]
i wish we could swap out sublight engines to make them go faster and have better agility and swap out capacitors to get more cap and better recharge and swap out shield generators to get a better base shield hp and better recharge
|
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 17:02:00 -
[136]
That would be one way to make fights last longer more variation of ship setups.
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 18:51:00 -
[137]
Those graphs really show that the BCs truly need some lovin' 
|
Arthmandar Valikari
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 19:36:00 -
[138]
/signed
Also,
/signed the proposal to add a battlecruiser class AB/MWD group (40MN?)
|
Troye
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 19:40:00 -
[139]
devs pls take a look at this.
_______________________________________________
|
sgt spike
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 22:16:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Mr rooflez
Okay, as promised, some more agility tests. These were done with the ship flying at full speed, having the object it's going to warp to directly to the right of it, Simulating a 90 degree turn followed by a warp. These were also done with a real stopwatch for better accuracy. The graphical figure is done in a very advanced program often used by scientists at NASA*
Click
We can firstly note that there's absolutely no agility difference between having an AB fitted and not having one, the extra thrust balances out the mass addition.
Secondly we observe that the brutix turns +110% slower than the thorax, something that matches well with the mass*agility mod number. The difference between the brutix and megathron is +18%. This really is absurd. There's less difference between a brutix and a megathron than between a thorax and a lighter cruiser, say a stabber.
Well I guess that's all that can be said.
Just for the sake of science I did a worst case scenario test. A Brutix fitted with a 1600mm plate and an MWD, doing a 90 degree turn just after turning of the MWD. The result? 44.5 seconds to warp out. To illustrate this an interceptor going 4 km/s has time to travel 178km before you can warp out. Imagine ratting in a belt and seeing an inty warp in 170km from you. Even if you hit warp the second he appeared you wouldn't be warping before he's got you scrambled.
Conclusion: Boost agility on battlecruisers, the sooner the better.
*When they're teaching their kids how to use the computer at home
i liked this one best especially the link .... illustrates the point perfectly and the special effects are awesome
can you put a price on peace?
|
|
|
Trevcakes
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 22:58:00 -
[141]
Signing this as well. Lowering their sig radius, making them quicker and possibly even extending their damage to bring them more in line with the pocket battleships thing CCP envisioned them to be.
|
Waenn Ironstaff
|
Posted - 2006.05.12 23:02:00 -
[142]
/Signed
|
Opiette
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 01:43:00 -
[143]
signed
-- |
Felio
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 04:20:00 -
[144]
I really hope they do something, I really wanted to work towards an absolution but with the BC agility problem combined with the absolution not being a whole lot greater than a zealot it seems like I would be downgrading.
|
Cruz
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 04:27:00 -
[145]
/signed
I avoid BCs because they are so slow... better to be in a BS that does 4x the DPS and only costs 2x the price.
................. |
Krav
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 04:37:00 -
[146]
Signed... Props for using actual data tables/graphs and not personal feelings.
Krav
=====
Close encounter of the Hijack kind?
Impossible.
Unless it is as bad as I think...
And if they were out to get m-- |
Zar Dim
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 04:45:00 -
[147]
Not signed.
BCs are fine as is. Fit nanofiber if you want more agility or train skills. BCs are very good ships already no need to pump them any more.
|
Red Raider
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 07:02:00 -
[148]
Please look into this, its a very good thread.
What the hell!!! OMG I just got left on Uranus wearing a jockstrap, flip flops, and a gas mask!!! SOMEBODY HELP ME!!! |
Stamm
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 09:30:00 -
[149]
A very good thread, thanks Mr Rofl.
With the devs looking at stats for the tier 2 battlecruisers, surely they have to notice the things you've noticed, so hopefully they'll address the problems with tier 1 BCs at the same time.
|
kikosinosi
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 10:13:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Zar Dim
Not signed.
BCs are fine as is. Fit nanofiber if you want more agility or train skills. BCs are very good ships already no need to pump them any more.
There were multiple examples and posts in this thread why BC's need fixing and that some things are really broken, ever bothered to read them?
|
|
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 10:21:00 -
[151]
Yeah, anyone who says they don't need fixing frankly doesn't have a clue. They've got the worst of the both worlds: agility and sig radius of the BS (with more severe penalty for plates) and firepower more in line with cruisers. Firepower would be fine with me, but not when combined with the fact that it takes almost as much damage as a battleship, and is a slow. How is that "fine"? Just look at the damn models, BC is a LOT smaller than a BS and only slightly bigger than cruisers, yet their sig radius is nearly that of a tier 1 BS, and over TWICE that of a cruiser.
They're. Not. Fine.
|
Jai Cee
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 10:23:00 -
[152]
/Signed
BC definately need an agility boost, I was in a fleet mostly of BS today with my Brutix. It was hilarious seeing the fact that the megas in the fleet could accelerate and get to gates faster for those when we didn't have instas.
Sig radius could do with a slight modification too but not too much of a change is needed.
|
Cosmo Raata
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 10:49:00 -
[153]
Signed--
Biggest problem i've seen is BS's hit BC's like BS's used to hit frigs back in the old days. I land almost every shot on them, whereas a cruiser with some transversal will have me missing often. Either they need to tank better, or the more logical solution is bring their agility & sig radius more in par with the damage they deal (which is a lot closer to cruiser damage than bs damage).
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 13:37:00 -
[154]
In my opinion the sig radius decrease is at least as important as the agility boost (given my mission running style, the better tanking it'd give would benefit me more than the agility, which I mainly need when I have to warp out quick). 300m sig radius for Brutix for example is just wrong.
I really hope the devs are looking into this, would be nice to get some sort of confirmation from them.
|
voidvim
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 13:49:00 -
[155]
/signed
I think the battlecrusier group should be better at tanking by having a small siq and be more agily
|
Kristen Ambrais
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 15:41:00 -
[156]
Consider this signed.
They get the top speed and turning radius of fat cow. They should be somewhere between cruiser and battleship in terms of speed and turning.
|
Jasminna deBoer
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 20:52:00 -
[157]
up to the top
|
kikosinosi
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 21:38:00 -
[158]
/boost battlecruisers
They should have:
1. less mass
2. more agility
3. they should be more noob friendly (too long training).
Avarage price for a tech 2 battlecruiser is 90 million and already you can see on escrow tech 2 battlecruisers at 110 millions - (e.g. check escrow now for Vulture prices)
On the other side it si not possible that HACs which has under 30 million production price to cost more than tech 2 battlecruisers.
/salute
|
kikosinosi
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 23:03:00 -
[159]
Edited by: kikosinosi on 13/05/2006 23:04:57
= my appologises for double post, this new reply corrects also some aspects =
/boost battlecruisers
They should have:
1. less mass
2. more agility
3. less signature radius
4. they should be more noob friendly (too long training).
Average production price for a tech 2 battlecruiser is 90 million and already you can see on escrow tech 2 battlecruisers at 110 millions - (e.g. check escrow now for Vulture prices)
On the other side it si not possible that HACs which has under 30 million production price to cost more than tech 2 battlecruisers. The actual price for tech 2 BCs reflect the fact that they need an urgent boost and or a revamp creating modules for them ( e.g. 50 MN AM & MWDs)
/salute
|
Turiel Demon
|
Posted - 2006.05.13 23:49:00 -
[160]
/signed
I don't want to lose half my lows on nano's to be usefull if the ship I'm in isn't a vaga
----
nothing to see here, move along nicely now, is that a pink dread out there. aaww you just missed it -eris
It's not an Eidolon with 5 Basic Miner's on it, that's for certain.(FF04) ~kieron
No love for me? :'( - Wrangler
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes
Cuddles Eeyore. He's soooo cute and doesn't play EVE. perfect -eris
Eve-online Forum mods arn't Pokemon, you don't need to collect them all - Ductoris
Here's my autograph - now do I get some groupie lub? Jacques'
Don't be greedy :P -Capsicum |
|
|
Heiken Wimast
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 01:21:00 -
[161]
Absolutely need an agi/sig boosting. Otherwise BCs stats are fine. And people likes them but their slowness making them unpopular. Let us bring out from hangar those fat birds
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 11:00:00 -
[162]
Originally by: kikosinosi
They should have:
4. they should be more noob friendly (too long training).
Uhh, no, not really. Consider that you can start with racial frigate 4. Therefore all you need to train to get a BC is Spaceship Command from 2 to 4, Cruiser to 3 and one level of BC. Takes what, 4 days maybe, even with newbie attributes? Of course you need various gunnery and support skills to be useful, but no, BC really isn't skill-intensive to be able to fly it, and I don't see why you think it is. Cruisers are just as skill-intensive.
Of course, Tech 2 BCs do take long training, but then again so do HACs.
|
Da Death
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 11:18:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Da Death on 14/05/2006 11:18:56
Ever try to go in warp with an Absolution? man, I can cook tea on the way...
EDIT: Typo
Absolution - Curse - T2 Laser Crystals - T2 Drones and more -> check Bio
|
Shadow Ballet
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 12:47:00 -
[164]
Just want to show my agreement for the thoughts in this thread. Warpout takes too long and general agility of these ships could be improved ever so slightly pleasenicelythankyou.
|
MOS DEF
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 13:23:00 -
[165]
Signed for agility boost. Why does the astarte while being th etopend te3ch 2 ship of gallente handle like a megathron while being so much lighter?
It just makes no sense. I'm not asking for HAC like agility but a BC shouldn't handle like a BS. Makes no sense AT ALL.
|
SilentSentinel
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 17:10:00 -
[166]
One more thing the devs have to look at please... Larger drone bay!! 25m3 is way too small for a BC. Should be around 75m3. Doesn't make sense that some cruisers have 50-75m3 and can carry med drones, while a proph with 25m3 can only carry 5 x lights. Need a boost here devs!!
Cheers
|
Waenn Ironstaff
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 18:08:00 -
[167]
Last I checked the Cruisers having large drone space are usually drone-centered cruiser like the Vexxor and Arbitrator where the small buggers are part of their DPS.
25m3 is fine for non-drone BCs.
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.14 19:17:00 -
[168]
For Gallente I kinda wish Brutix had a 75m3 bay, since even the smaller Thorax has 50m3. But well, I can live with 50m3 just fine too, if I just get the agility boost and reduced signature radius
|
Arashi Miike
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 01:39:00 -
[169]
/signed
I always knew that BC agility was bad. The numbers presented in this thread just prove it. Shouldn't be a big fix: just tweak a few of the numbers a bit.
Really, this is a great ship class, but so painful to fly because of the terrible speed and agility. It's also a great ship class for newer players. Think of the newbies! Wont anyone think of the newbies?
"I should have been a pair of ragged claws/
scuttling across the floors of silent seas." |
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 02:13:00 -
[170]
Originally by: SilentSentinel
One more thing the devs have to look at please... Larger drone bay!! 25m3 is way too small for a BC. Should be around 75m3. Doesn't make sense that some cruisers have 50-75m3 and can carry med drones, while a proph with 25m3 can only carry 5 x lights. Need a boost here devs!!
Cheers
You want more drones on the amarr battlecruiser than the gallente one?
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
|
|
Martinez
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 02:27:00 -
[171]
great post mr rooflez. i agree bc need alittle help. Maybe it would get the t2 versions into battle a bit more.
|
Merin Ryskin
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 02:32:00 -
[172]
/signed
They're smaller than battleships, they have less firepower than battleships, they have less tanking than battleships. Give them better speed, better agility and possibly lower sig radius/lock time.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 02:45:00 -
[173]
The easiest fix would probably be to just change the agility modifier from 1.1x to maybe 0.75x (Cruisers have 0.55x and 10-15% lower mass) This wouldn't need any rebalancing of afterburners/mwds since the mass isn't changed.
|
Foulis
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 05:08:00 -
[174]
/signed
Even though with a mass reduction the cyclone would be insane.
----
Cake > Pie - Imaran
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Boobies
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 10:38:00 -
[175]
*bump*
|
Kuninia
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 21:15:00 -
[176]
/signed
so no GM's interested in solving the big problems the battlecruisers have? Please fix them CCP!
|
jiane
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 12:15:00 -
[177]
/signed
I've been popped so many times just turning the ship for a warp, and i have evasive manuvering V =/
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 14:18:00 -
[178]
tuxxx, look at mee... look at meeeeeeeee.....
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Razin
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 14:25:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Mr rooflez
Here's also what kind of damage different close range BS guns do to brutixes and thoraxes orbiting them at their max speed after skills.
Battleships VS Thorax
Battleships VS Brutix
So a regular close range battleship's guns/missiles do around twice damage at half the range to a battlecruiser trying to keep up transversal compared with a cruiser.
And this is supposed to be compensated by a 5% resist/7,5% repair bonus per level. I think not.
These are some pretty scary numbers (as are the numbers for "time to warp").
There is too much agreement in this thread and this is causing it to slip down in the forums.  Maybe Tux could reply with his thoughts and we can stop bumping.
|
Taurgil
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 18:12:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Taurgil on 16/05/2006 18:14:43
At all: You failed !!!!
Just rename the thread title to: "We need a new high damage assault missile type for our caldari cruiser as waiting two weeks to become uber is still too long for me."
And soon you no longer need to bump and get a prompt DEV reply.
The truth is out there below..
The Truth
|
|
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 19:27:00 -
[181]
This issue is too important to be allowed to leave the first page.
Can a Dev at least tell us they know this thread exist?
|
Greenbolt
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 19:36:00 -
[182]
I truly love my cyclone as a general purpose ship but i agree with the original poster that the hit for warp time seems absurd for a ship thats supposed to be 'between' cruiser and battleship.
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 19:53:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Taurgil
Edited by: Taurgil on 16/05/2006 18:14:43
At all: You failed !!!!
Just rename the thread title to: "We need a new high damage assault missile type for our caldari cruiser as waiting two weeks to become uber is still too long for me."
And soon you no longer need to bump and get a prompt DEV reply.
The truth is out there below..
The Truth
The title of the thread should be either:
"Devs! don't look here!"
or
"Free beer for first dev post!"
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 19:57:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
"Free beer for first dev post!"
^^^^^WIN^^^^^
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Stamm
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 20:10:00 -
[185]
Just nudging this thread so that the devs don't miss it. It's a very good thread.
|
Tyrus Drake
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 20:58:00 -
[186]
Petition signed. BCs are great ships, however they are too clumsy and take way too much dmg from BS fire compared to a cruiser.
"I am the Homo Superior."
Mike Tyson |
Xavier Zyrae
|
Posted - 2006.05.16 23:50:00 -
[187]
/me joins the masses...
/signed =)
_________________________________________________________
EVE Ship Stats DataBase
|
Mikel Crenshaw
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 00:42:00 -
[188]
/signed
I want my Cyclone to not feel like it's wading through mud personally. I love it to death but its acceleration is atrocious, it takes more than a minute to reach near full speed with an afterburner.
---------------------
[red]
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves."
[/red |
Al Thorr
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 00:53:00 -
[189]
Not signed
This is the price you pay for survivability - Its not really rocket science.
Next whine .............
Al Thorr
"You cant polish a turd" - The new rendered font is living proof.
|
Foulis
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 01:12:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Al Thorr
Not signed
This is the price you pay for survivability - Its not really rocket science.
Next whine .............
Al Thorr
Ever try reading earlier posts first? The BC has BS agility without the survivability. That's the problem. I'd accept if it had a BS tank and cruiser weapons and no agility to speak of, but it doesn't.
----
Cake > Pie - Imaran
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Boobies
|
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 01:16:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 17/05/2006 01:17:22
Originally by: Al Thorr
Not signed
This is the price you pay for survivability - Its not really rocket science.
Next whine .............
Al Thorr
Whole point of this thread is that the BC actually has less survivability in most situations compared to its smaller cruiser cousin. You are far larger allowing almost all weapons do a large amount of damage and you are far more sluggish making it much harder to warp out of a sticky situation. Understood that it is a larger platform and should take more damage and handle worse than a cruiser however it is overdone atm.
|
Al Thorr
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 01:22:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Al Thorr on 17/05/2006 01:24:31
Sorry sttill stand by statement - op is comparing a rax / brut and a mega.
work out cost of each ship dps of each ship. - then work out survivability.
again not hard.
"You cant polish a turd" - The new rendered font is living proof.
|
Matrices Sunbound
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 01:28:00 -
[193]
It's obvious to me that the devs never PVPed with BCs. They tossed it into the game as a filler for PvE'ers to do Level 3 missions so people wouldn't be waiting forever to get from a cruiser into a BS without something to do in between.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 07:55:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Al Thorr
Edited by: Al Thorr on 17/05/2006 01:24:31
Sorry sttill stand by statement - op is comparing a rax / brut and a mega.
work out cost of each ship dps of each ship. - then work out survivability.
again not hard.
With perfect skills:
The brutix does 28% more dps than the thorax, and costs 226% more
The megathron does 50% more dps than the brutix, and costs 336% more
So with the brutix you gain roughly one third from the thorax in tanking and damage for over 3x the price, but you have over twice the signature radius, and 1/3 of the agility.
The dps and cost of the brutix compared to the mega and rax is perfectly fine. The problem is that the brutix dies MUCH faster to battleships because basically every shot hits it, while the thorax can easily avoid gunfire due to being smaller.
|
La Tortura
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 08:30:00 -
[195]
I'd rather have weber range bonus for BC/CS's. That would make BC's true close range antisupport ships.
Dreams, dreams...
|
kikosinosi
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 17:12:00 -
[196]
no official answer yet ? hmmm
|
Lardarz B'stard
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 17:13:00 -
[197]
Absolutions fly like bricks.
I don't think this is necessarily a problem though, although something could be done about the range issues.
Exiles Recruitment |
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 17:46:00 -
[198]
I ignored this thread for too long, as it was already long when I spoted it.
BUT
I agree. BC agility is damn crap ... the should be somwhere 60-70% between cruiser and BS. This does not manifest with the ferox, as it has great range and all with missiles, but the other BCs would be so much better close range if the agility modifier would be right.
For all the Caldari haters:
leave caldari BC agility as is, boost the other ones !!!
------------------------------
if you want peace, prepare for war ...
------------------------------
Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well |
Taurgil
|
Posted - 2006.05.17 22:35:00 -
[199]
*pusherman*
|
crom ralphfao
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 03:37:00 -
[200]
signed,
breath some life into the different aspect of ship classes. if one thing gets me down, it is the people who cry to make all ships, no matter what the size, cost or purpose balanced for some reason.
it would be nice to see BC get a logical boost and increase the usefulness of the ship class, i have lost many brutix to nothing more than a little lag combined with warping out and switched to bs for mission running.
i dont care about support roles, i would just like to see a mid level ship class between cruiser and bs that can actually tank better than a cruiser and warp faster than a bs.
|
|
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 08:39:00 -
[201]
BC isn't really even that good for PVE currently. With my low-ish skills I often have to warp out with a BC from level 3s. Given that it's not hard to get a BS, and with one you'll have no problems (warpouts) with level 3s and even moving around is just as fast with a BS, there's really no reason to use a BC for them. I used a Brutix as long as I had no BS, and as soon as I did... well, there's just no point in using the Brutix anymore And that's just wrong. Basically you'll just struggle with it needlessly with 2,5x the price of a Brutix you'll get a Domi. Compared to usefulness... 10x difference.
|
Amanda Zeherah
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 09:03:00 -
[202]
Have not trained for BS yet because I thought BC (and command ships) will be more agile and faster...
After this post, I'm now reconsidering... maybe BS is the pwnmobile I have been looking for...
Hope the Devs are reading this post...
|
Draycar Hazaran
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 14:34:00 -
[203]
*Sigh* Tux?
|
Th3 HuNt3r
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 15:44:00 -
[204]
/signed
i agree 120%
Just lost my first ferox to a lvl 3 mission
It irritates me that a bc is no more than a brick with some more powergrid and cpu than a cruiser!!!!
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.05.18 15:48:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
This does not manifest with the ferox, as it has great range and all with missiles, but the other BCs would be so much better close range if the agility modifier would be right.
For all the Caldari haters:
leave caldari BC agility as is, boost the other ones !!!
Jackass!  Seriously, why punish the poor Ferox drivers with such abysmal agility? That ship isn't fun to fly, changing its agility will help, but it definitely won't make the ferox overpowered. I want to align and warp before my beard grows an inch.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Zurich Quik
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 00:55:00 -
[206]
Signed.
|
Major Landes
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 14:08:00 -
[207]
Signed |
xeom
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 14:46:00 -
[208]
Bump for a great idea.
CCP where are our t2 shield power relays? |
Laboratus
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 14:56:00 -
[209]
This is true, this is really needed.
|
Pointless Vengence
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 15:01:00 -
[210]
/me not signed
too many people are bumping this thread
if anything, make a Rank 8 skill that requires Battle Cruiser 5 to help the problem. As is, its a T1 Battle Cruiser and acts just like it.
Lock This Thread . . . too many bumps (probably by alts of the same people) are making its reoccurrence in the forums . . .
-Pointless
|
|
|
Novarei
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 15:15:00 -
[211]
BC were a massive dissapointment from the day they were released.
+--------------------------------------------+
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 15:19:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Pointless Vengence
if anything, make a Rank 8 skill that requires Battle Cruiser 5 to help the problem. As is, its a T1 Battle Cruiser and acts just like it.
You do realize the agility is out of line with the progression from Cruiser to Battleship? Nobody is suggesting making it handle like a sports car, just hoping to get it positioned more evenly between the classes that bookend it.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 15:19:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Pointless Vengence
dumb stuff
You sir, are a fool.
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
kikosinosi
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 15:39:00 -
[214]
Edited by: kikosinosi on 19/05/2006 15:40:35
Originally by: Pointless Vengence
/me not signed
too many people are bumping this thread
if anything, make a Rank 8 skill that requires Battle Cruiser 5 to help the problem. As is, its a T1 Battle Cruiser and acts just like it.
Lock This Thread . . . too many bumps (probably by alts of the same people) are making its reoccurrence in the forums . . .
-Pointless
let me guess..you're a HAC BPO owner and want your ships to stay at ridiculous prices while vultures sell for 110 mils?
P.S. No im not a vulture BPO owner but its sad to see them at those prices, considering their production cost is somewhere between 80 and 90 mils / piece
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.19 15:57:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Pointless Vengence
As is, its a T1 Battle Cruiser and acts just like it.
Of course a T1 Battle Cruiser acts like a T1 Battle Cruiser... Thats like me saying an Apple looks like an Apple, there is no argument there.
As I have stated before the entire point of increasng BC agility is not to overpower them, but rather to give them a role as a flag ship for small cruiser/frig gangs. As it stands they are too slugish to fill this role or really any role for that matter. I fail to see how reducing the BC agility modifier to .75 would suddenly make the ships unbalanced.
|
Jude Kopenhagen
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 02:37:00 -
[216]
Ooops, I just Bumped into this again...
Still a valid arguement though.
|
Manion Taleroth
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 05:18:00 -
[217]
As a current and forevermore Battlecruiser pilot, I support this suggestion and/or idea.
Taleroth Scavenging - "Leave no can behind." |
Laboratus
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 08:46:00 -
[218]
I fully support this idea. Battlecruisers are suposed to be in the cruiser class as far as speed is considered. It is their description. "Relay on their speed to survive". Should get a serious agility and speed boost.
|
Fon Revedhort
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 18:35:00 -
[219]
Still no dev's comments?
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 19:22:00 -
[220]
I still fully endorse this product. Battlecruisers are painfully slow to turn.
|
|
|
CollTerminator
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 22:18:00 -
[221]
yeah, i use my BC with tech 2 small lasers and some serious plates (2x 1600mm rolled tungsten) plus 2 hardeners and 2 medium armor reppers to blow swarms of interceptors out of the sky.
only problem is: -speed sux, so if they arent dumb enough to get within webbing range, they can orbit me while i am flying 100AU to a station, and no way in h3ll i'll ever get them, if i run out of drones.
second prob: one BS warps in, and i'm toast, cause a Prophecy gets hit like a BS, though it wont ever tank like one, have range like one, or shoot like one, so yes, it does WTFPWNBBQ anything cruiser-sized or smaller, but even the most crappy BS will burn it in mere seconds. and even fitting 7 stabs wont keep you alive, cause you wont warp out in a thousand years, turning like the pregnant chicken it is =/
anyway, still waiting for a Dev to burn his fingers on this subject, cause if it's quiet to long, it cant be any good, now can it
Cheers Coll o//
PS: are you flying around in a Faction-Frig full of expensive mods? BITE ME AT ANY GATE, ANY TIME, ANY PLACE. Make me a happy BC-pilot!!!! 
|
Voculus
|
Posted - 2006.05.21 13:19:00 -
[222]
Think this needs to stay on the first page.
|
Calynus
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 04:00:00 -
[223]
I moved on to a BS and sold my Brutix because of this very problem. This does need some serious attention from the devs and should stay on the first page.
Please look at the pathetic state of BC agility
|
Mr Breakfast
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 04:23:00 -
[224]
I agree that the BC agility modifier should get a look, and it should be increased (or players should have the option of increasing it with skills).
Bumpus arumpus.
|
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 04:49:00 -
[225]
/signed
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
Muthsera
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 06:18:00 -
[226]
The agillity is a HUGE problem on the BC's and commands.
And it doesn't really give you any advantage over a hac/cruiser becus of the sig radius. You take more heat becus of that. Take the zealot. On the zealot you can fit pulses over beams. Becus you can actually get to the target. Whit a Proph/Abso you cannot fit pulse becus 99% of all ships out there are faster than you. So you'll never get close enough. Also when you fit beams your rendering yourself vunrable to frigs. In a Cruiser that should never happend. The tank isn't as propotionally good as it should be becus of the sig radius screws that up.
Lower the sig radius whit some 20-25% and increase the agility whit some 40-50% and you got a viable ship again.
My thoughts
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 08:50:00 -
[227]
Can't we at least get a "we've read this, and [yes/no/maybe]" reply?
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 08:52:00 -
[228]
...bees...
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 09:22:00 -
[229]
Maybe i should change my sig to a brutix being run over by a freighter because it was too slow to run.
|
MOS DEF
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 11:51:00 -
[230]
No this thread wont go to page 2. It's to important!
|
|
|
SilentSentinel
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 11:54:00 -
[231]
This thread will be kept alive Devs.. It won't go away!
Fixes:
1. Agility and signature.
2. Drone Bay size is way too small for BC class. 25m3 is not enough for some lvl 3 missions. 50m3 to 75m3 would be more in line. BS should hold 5 heavies, BC should hold 5 mediums and cruisers should be 5 lights or less.
3. Fix the prophecy please. Either give it more resists or add a dmg modifier for lasers to it. Can't put on guns larger than frig size and have a viable tank at the sametime(and not due to a lack of skills either). So, it lacks cpu and grid. Please look at this!! It's suppose to be a battlecruiser not a golden plated monstrosity!
Cheers
|
Daxes
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 11:54:00 -
[232]
free bump for the devs.
BC agility and signature need fixing.
|
Selya
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 19:01:00 -
[233]
/signed
I wished to buy a Brutix to have some fun, but after i read this i think i'll keep my Iteron V...
Thanks to Mr Rooflez for this very very interesting thread. Did CCP answer?
|
ragewind
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 19:10:00 -
[234]
would be nice is they said hay ive seen it stop anoying me with it now come on Dev's
------------------------------------
fix eves industrial sector!
advanced industrial ship |
Lil Belle
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 20:26:00 -
[235]
Yeah this is getting kinda annoying, A few devs must have seen this thread, it would be nice if they could give us some info about if something is going to change for BC.
|
DeadlyBob
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 20:41:00 -
[236]
I've flown BC's since they were first introduced to eve. I have always appreciated the ship but I have to agree with the issue of sluggishness. if you are going to make them slow as hell boost their firepower
On the other hand a boost in agility would be quite nice and as others have mentioned, nessisary.
Neither night nor day can give me purchase. Only purged dust on earth can avenge the worthless. |
Friedrick Psitalon
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 20:43:00 -
[237]
I tried to come after some folks in no-sec the other day, just ratting, for laughs in my Brutix:
The guy in the cruiser had time to laugh and point before he warped out.
The guy in the frig laughed, warped out, came back, laughed again, and then warped out.
The guy in the battleship just turned on his guns.
I didn't get to try anything after that. (How is this ship supposed to do anything but use Warfare Links from a safespot when Battleships shred it effortlessly?)
I've got Spaceship Command IV and Evasive Manuevering IV; I'm not uber, but those are not inconsiderable means for increasing agility. People talk about the PVP Brutix and how wonderful it is...
..sure, if you've got a warp bubble set up. Otherwise, you'll never even catch anyone to PVP them.
But hey, it's got a sold niche as a Level 3 mission ship!
So ends a long-winded...
BUMP!
/signed, someone-who-wants-to-fly-a-command-ship-some-day
_______________________________________________
The Dead Parrot Shoppe is always looking for players, new and old, who value intelligence, humor, and fun over ego, kills, and skills. Contact me. :) |
EL TITAN
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 21:17:00 -
[238]
Edited by: EL TITAN on 22/05/2006 21:18:09
/signed
Batlecruisers agility seriously need a boost. Would be nice to see more of these ships in space, to have more variety of ships actually being flown.
_________________________________________________
<3 hi |
Isabella Inari
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 22:35:00 -
[239]
/signed.
If BCs were more survivable, I'd bring out my Ferox more often.
|
NIkis
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 23:24:00 -
[240]
Edited by: NIkis on 22/05/2006 23:30:00
To those using 1600mm plates.. thats the heaviest of the plates so its obvious it would incur severe agil (and speed boost) penalty when fitted on any ship but a BS. So don't use the examples with 1600mm plates for comparisons please (for the ones who get frustrated because they cant catch cruisers while being safely tucked behind the 1600mm plates).
Also you have to keep in mind that BC's get more fitting points than cruisers (2-3 more fitting points), and more armor/shield/cap so that comes with a price.
My opinion - BC only need a tweaking in agility (to make their acceleration/warp times somewhere in the middle between cruisers and BSs), any more would be overkill. If more speed/agil is needed, nothing stops you from using nanos/overdrives.
EDIT> oh yea and inertial stabs anyone actually using those ?!
/partially signed |
|
|
Selya
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 07:03:00 -
[241]
Originally by: NIkis
Edited by: NIkis on 22/05/2006 23:30:00
To those using 1600mm plates.. thats the heaviest of the plates so its obvious it would incur severe agil (and speed boost) penalty when fitted on any ship but a BS. So don't use the examples with 1600mm plates for comparisons please
Please read all the thread before posting, not only the first post. It takes just 5 minutes
|
Bozwick
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 15:54:00 -
[242]
/Signed
Make BC agi more of a mid-point between Cruiser and BS agi, and Slightly reduce sig radius. |
Razin
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 16:17:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Mr rooflez
Can't we at least get a "we've read this, and [yes/no/maybe]" reply?
Mr rooflez,
Could you consider updating your first post with all the subsequent info (like the BS vs BC DPS and time to warp comparisons) to avoid the impression that the 1600 plates are the only issue for those that only read the first post before replying.
Thanks!
|
Faeden Pain
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 17:12:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Cruz
/signed
I avoid BCs because they are so slow... better to be in a BS that does 4x the DPS and only costs 2x the price.
That is exactly why I will be dumping my BC as soon as I get the chance.
I drank WHAT?!!?!.....Socrates |
Hans Roaming
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 17:38:00 -
[245]
Tier one battlecruisers should be more in line with cruisers in terms of agility and sig tbh. Tier 2 can be more inline with battleships.
President
Huzzah Federation
Be all you can be, join the Huzzah Armed Forces today! |
Neemz
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 17:54:00 -
[246]
When I upgraded from Maller to Prophecy I was very disappointed with its tanking.
With relevant skills at the same level they have the same resistances but the prophecy has more base armor hitpoints.
The fact that it is so slow and large completely negates its extra hitpoints and infact makes it significantly worse at tanking because it takes more damage.
Fitting pulses doesn't increase the damage much over a cruiser because it takes so damn long to get into range, use lasers and you get hurt by frigs more.
Yeah it has drones but 25m3 doesn't cut it.
The maller is just more versatile, to make the prophecy 'comparable' you need to gimp it by using ALL the low slots for tanking, you need to use up a medium slot for a webber, you have no choice then to fit an afterburner, and good luck for keeping your cap running without having a cap charger filling the other mid.
And how are you meant to use it as an EW platform like that?
|
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:20:00 -
[247]
Edited by: K1K1R1K1 on 23/05/2006 18:20:29
double post
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 18:20:00 -
[248]
I know its burried somewhere in this thread, but what role did CCP want the BC to fulfill? As an anti cruiser platform? It plays that role pretty well, and only that role. If it's supposed to fill the gap between cruisers and BS's, then it fails rather miserably at that. Anyone know where to find the exact words from a dev (probably patch update when the bc's were introduced) as to the role bc's are supposed to fill. If they said they're anti cruiser platforms, we should be asking for another ship to fill the gap between cruisers and bs's (maybe the new T2 bc's will do that?), not change the current bc's.
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 22:03:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Mr rooflez
Can't we at least get a "we've read this, and [yes/no/maybe]" reply?
Mr rooflez,
Could you consider updating your first post with all the subsequent info (like the BS vs BC DPS and time to warp comparisons) to avoid the impression that the 1600 plates are the only issue for those that only read the first post before replying.
Thanks!
Done.
|
Exigo
|
Posted - 2006.05.24 00:26:00 -
[250]
/bump
|
|
|
Nyx Opet
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 00:31:00 -
[251]
/signed
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 00:47:00 -
[252]
My JayLeno-Mobile demands liposuction.
*its true, look at a brute in profile and tell me it dont look like jay leno*
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Razin
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 01:55:00 -
[253]
Originally by: keepiru
My JayLeno-Mobile demands liposuction.
*its true, look at a brute in profile and tell me it dont look like jay leno*
It looks more like that devil guy that Tim Curry played in some old movie (looked it up: The Lord of Darkness in Legend).
|
Selya
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 07:43:00 -
[254]
Come on guys! We need more people to sign this
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 07:53:00 -
[255]
I definently agree with this.
9 pages and no comment from Tuxford is bad. He might be overworked though, being solo responsible for game balance...
---
The Eve Wiki Project |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 10:00:00 -
[256]
That's no excuse, my char's background is red and that means i deserve a response! =p
They MUST realize theyre going to have to at the very least shrink their sig radiuses, or the tier-2s will end up with larger sigs than some tier-1 battleships.
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 10:16:00 -
[257]
I really want to train for a Cyclone, it has lower sig radius than Brutix and also slightly better speed and agility (I think, not sure on the latter), but I'm afraid it'll end up a disappointment too I really wish we'd get at least SOME response from Tux.
|
Sinistro
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 10:33:00 -
[258]
Signed
|
Akiman
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 10:48:00 -
[259]
SİGNED
|
Systra
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 10:51:00 -
[260]
signed.
went from my brutix to a domi, scared.
turns out the domi is faster than my brutix in warping sometimes? :(
|
|
|
Cmd Woodlouse
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 11:09:00 -
[261]
yeh tested same on a brutix yday
its RIDICULOUS!
plz devs look into this matter!
--------------------------------
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 11:13:00 -
[262]
I've had an excellent idea about BC getting PG bonus to fit battleship sized guns, and receiving dmg bonuses to both. That way they can wield more firepower at the expense of their tanking, which still remains on par with cruisers.
---------------
VIP member of the [23]
Quote:
- Numbers alone do not win a battle
- No, but I bet they help.
|
Suvereign
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 13:39:00 -
[263]
/signed
|
Laboratus
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 13:43:00 -
[264]
/signed
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 15:18:00 -
[265]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 25/05/2006 15:20:56
Originally by: Sadist
I've had an excellent idea about BC getting PG bonus to fit battleship sized guns, and receiving dmg bonuses to both. That way they can wield more firepower at the expense of their tanking, which still remains on par with cruisers.
I personally think this is the way they should have aproached BCs initially, however I don't think we will be seeing such drastic changes to a ship that has been reballanced before. I do think we may see some tweaks to the tier 1 BCs when they release the tier 2s though(hopefully ballance slot layouts and make the ferox an actual gun ship).
Overall I don't want BCs to change very much as they are a very cost effective way to bring some muscle to fights for smaller corps or younger players. I just want the devs to take a look at the roll of the ship for veteran players.
The big problem I see atm with decreasing sig radius and and increasing agility as much as people are suggesting is that you turn the BC into an anti BS platform. With the suggest sig radius decreases many of the BC will be able to put up a good fight against a number of Battleships. Personally I don't ever want to see BCs dropping battleships 1v1 however I think that a couple of coordinated BC pilots should be able to take out almost any BS.
Overall I think these changes should be done to the tier 1 Battle Cruisers (restating my ideas from earlier in the thread).
1. Change agility modifier to .75 for all BCs.
2. Decrease sig radius of all BCs by 10% (any more would OP them).
3. Give the Ferox, Brutix(may not need it), and the Proph another slot. High slot for Ferox, Low slot for Brutix, and High slot for Proph. Mostly worried about the ballance of the Brutix if it got another low slot as a 2x MARII, 2x EANM, 1 damage control, 1x MFS II low slot setup may be too powerfull(would need to do testing)
4. Give the Ferox another turret hardpoint and maybee a 10% increase in grid so that it can fit 6 200s with a decent tank. Reason for this buff is to give the ferox a roll once the tier 2 BC comes out as it will probably outclass the ferox when it comes to missles.
5. Increase the max velocity of all the BCs by 10-15 m/s. I think they should be able to keep up with the slower heavily plated cruisers.
|
TraxNet
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 16:19:00 -
[266]
This MUST be /signed
|
Cyrus Gideon
|
Posted - 2006.05.25 18:36:00 -
[267]
/signed by me too
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 13:29:00 -
[268]
This thread is pretty well argumented and detailled, and speak about a flaw in the game mechanic that screw up 2 whole classes (Battlecruisers and Command ships), and, even after 10 pages of near total agreement by the community, there's still no sign that CCP even noticed it?
This is hardly beleivable.
You know there's a problem when you find T2 battlecruisers sold at barely more than their production cost.
|
Twiekdon
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 16:14:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Shadowsword
This thread is pretty well argumented and detailled, and speak about a flaw in the game mechanic that screw up 2 whole classes (Battlecruisers and Command ships), and, even after 10 pages of near total agreement by the community, there's still no sign that CCP even noticed it?
This is hardly beleivable.
You know there's a problem when you find T2 battlecruisers sold at barely more than their production cost.
Hopefully they are looking at it - before replying.
And it totally agree, agility boost for the people!
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 16:35:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 26/05/2006 16:35:30
Have to agree, good analysis from the OP. There's a game mechanics flaw here that hits BCs hard. I don't see too many BCs in pvp, since there's little reason to fly them over a battleship -- a bs has massively better weapons, tanking, grid, whatever. And sometimes it's also more agile(!). That's just wrong.
Current BCs combine the worst of two worlds.
|
|
|
Fio'el Testament
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 17:21:00 -
[271]
/signed
I may have a suggestion...
If BCs are the middle child between Cruisers and Battleships, why not simply make their stats the average of the best cruiser and the worst battleship for each faction?
Tier 2 BCs could be the averag between the best cruiser and the best BS.
The so called "average" would be of hull, shields, armor, speed, mass and agility. Drone bay, cargo capacity, fitting slots and resistances should stay the same as they are now because they make sense.
I think this would be the simplest option to make BCs a very viable choice.
|
Wupus
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 17:35:00 -
[272]
BOOST THE FREAKING AGILITY
|
Ikusa
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 17:47:00 -
[273]
Edited by: Ikusa on 26/05/2006 17:48:59
/signed
I totaly agree when it comes to BCs they arnt allways worth the 16ish million more then reg cruisers. The fire power is greater but the hit you take to speed and agily isnt worth it. Its better to just save money for a tier 1 battle ship sence youll take the same dmg move as slow also
:edit: hopefuly it will be fixed before kali patch or as kali patch with the tier 2 BC coming and all
|
Kuninia
|
Posted - 2006.05.26 19:59:00 -
[274]
Edited by: Kuninia on 26/05/2006 19:59:58
boost battlecruisers agility and acceleration pls
also their sig radius needs reduced or give them much more firepower to be more in line because of the massive damage they take from battleships fire.
|
SunWuKong
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 15:09:00 -
[275]
I cannot speak for everyone, but both the battle cruiser and destroyer suffer for the same reason and is why (my observation through all the gates and systems I've jumped into/through) I hardly see these two classes of ships.
I have most, if not all navigation skills to 4 and higher and my Brutix is out warped by a Raven.
Also, the overwhelming number of pilots that disagree with changing the agility and signature radius, have provided such edifying reasons not to change the BC. Thanks for your insightful counter-arguments.
The two classes canÆt do their job of taking out the class of ships below because their signature radius and agility make their regular tank null. If tanked heavily, the ships will only be able to kill pilots clueless enough to fly within web range.
|
SunWuKong
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 15:19:00 -
[276]
I fly the battle cruiser for only one reason atm. (when gang assist skills are trained up, hopefully two reasons).
1. (and only) I love the look of the ship. When I actually want to do anything more effective, I fly anything but.
|
Thayder
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 19:10:00 -
[277]
I love my ferox. I post in the ferox threads etc.. With a nano and training some ludicrous agility skills I can maneuver and warp faster than the cruisers I gang with. It just seems that the beloved BC of the RL navies of the world has turned into a cheau cheau of eve. Well taht may be abit harsh, but harsh words are necessary to break stagnation. The BC at this point is simeply a really slow cruiser with a better tank. Thats odd in their size makes me feel like they are closer to battleships. Just look at their price compared to the cheaper battleships. Im fine with its crap speed and agility, im not fine with the offense or the defense. One or the other needs to be increased to make up for their large sig radii...
EDIT: ignore this part, i was just cranky and ranting.
going through this thread and links to others I read a rumor about heavy missiles being nerfed when the cruiser class unguided came out. Man I know that this is off subject but man my bouddy and I are just gonna stop playing all together if that happens. Heavy missiles sure hit every time, and they have decent range, and they are penalized for it with reduced dps and defender missiles, sig radii reduction, and impact velocity reduction. Their only advantage is the different damage types they can deal, which isnt unique, not to mention id rather do two kinds at a time.... and of course the heavy missile boats that have damage boni are malnourished in tank and you have to restrict yourself to kinetic. Jesas there goes all its advantages again. Oh and of course the other boats may use NO AMMO or have far superior drones. Oh what was that? you never have to reload/you can use five med drones and have more in reserve. Oh well my 5 light drones and my 300dps at 60k sure make up for that....Indeed...Pff!..scoff.scoff
..scoff..~
|
Elrich Zann
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 00:10:00 -
[278]
This is one topic that most agree on. BC's are great ships and are very popular. But they are not in propotion to BS and cruisers. They need to be tweaked.
|
kuzushi
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 00:35:00 -
[279]
/signed |
Muthsera
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 00:38:00 -
[280]
I suddest devs actually jump into the commands and bc's and get a feel for how they actually preform. Becus the agility on this thing is just silly.
My thoughts
|
|
|
Waenn Ironstaff
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 01:51:00 -
[281]
/double signed
Just bought my first Ferox last night... and while I am pleased with its capabilites (at least during belt ratting, awesome tank and good damage output), the agility and acceleration of a Battlecruiser is so DAMN SLOW.
I'ts like flying a whale damnit!
|
BlackHorizon
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 06:25:00 -
[282]
Edited by: BlackHorizon on 28/05/2006 06:27:27
bump and /signed again
A geddon with two nanofibers ends up with the same number of slots (+1 high) as a Prophecy, but is LOT faster (not to mention better tanking and DPS).
|
Arienh Moyna
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 06:35:00 -
[283]
It's not flying a whale. It's flying a broken-down yellow school bus on crappy diesal with no wheels.
/sign.
|
Reto
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 09:43:00 -
[284]
/signed
Originally by: s4mp3r0r
"Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
|
Heiken Wimast
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 10:53:00 -
[285]
No official answer yet, bah.
 |
Ash Vincetti
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 11:36:00 -
[286]
/signed
If no other changes are made, at least the agility needs to be looked at. As is, they are bricks and handle horribly. i've been thinking about upgrading to a BS simply because of that.
|
Albya
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 13:32:00 -
[287]
Sure !
/Signed
|
Jerry Kornelius
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 18:21:00 -
[288]
Edited by: Jerry Kornelius on 28/05/2006 18:22:57
/signed
|
wolfelec
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 18:34:00 -
[289]
/signed
|
Indy X
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 18:46:00 -
[290]
/signed
|
|
|
Mr Peanut
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 18:54:00 -
[291]
Show BC some love! I think that most of the EVE community believes that sig radius and agility boosts are in order (unless you boost tank, firepower, or gang modules to make up for it).
|
mechtech
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 20:19:00 -
[292]
/sign
|
Lews Stark
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 21:46:00 -
[293]
Signed, of course.
|
Llu Wen
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 22:34:00 -
[294]
/I signed.
|
Dan Grommel
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 22:59:00 -
[295]
/Signed
|
Nemain
|
Posted - 2006.05.28 23:58:00 -
[296]
gotta agree with this.
Also add class size mods for bc and destroyers as well. Just up the fitting reqs so that the prior class couldn't use them, and then up the grid as well to accomodate them (just not so much that the next class up's mods can be easily used). Mind you, giving enough grid so that they could fit half as many next size guns as current class size wouldn't be too bad.
|
Mylea Tenebrae
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 00:12:00 -
[297]
/signed
|
Waenn Ironstaff
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 01:13:00 -
[298]
Can we have a look at their cargo size...? 325 m3 is not enough for such a big ship :)
|
Elendril Helas
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 02:18:00 -
[299]
I occasionally fly a prophecy and cyclone ... and yeah, *something* needs to be changed. Too big and slow, creating a nice and juicy target for BS', through which it is unable to properly fulfill its supposed cruiser killing role.
/signed
At least look at the agility modifier. A mega can warp faster than me! >.< Oh the humiliation.
|
James Draekn
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 02:50:00 -
[300]
As a BC and CS pilot.....
Very Well reasoned post.
/signed
|
|
|
Eve Phobos
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 13:31:00 -
[301]
/Signed
|
Doc Punkiller
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 14:41:00 -
[302]
signed for : more agility, more speed, more turret hardpoints for caldari and minmatar.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 18:22:00 -
[303]
While you wait for the devs to respond you can look at this MS Paint picture I made in honor of my new ship. I'm out taking her for a (very slow ) spin now.
Click
|
Morkato
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 18:35:00 -
[304]
What else can I say that hasn't been said. Thanks to the OP for awesome analysis on this.
/signed
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 19:42:00 -
[305]
Just bought a Cyclone, and will be sitting at the station I bought it from 'til I have the skills to fly it come Wednesday morning (bought it a long way off from my usual systems, so can't be arsed to fly back and forth). After that wait, if it doesn't handle at least a bit better than the Brutix, I'm gonna cry
I wonder what would it take to get a dev reply on this. Promise of free beer served by hot women?
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 20:00:00 -
[306]
Oh ****, that's what went wrong then, I got it mixed up and typed free women and hot beer on my invitation.
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.29 20:11:00 -
[307]
Edited by: Tehyarec on 29/05/2006 20:10:53
Damn you rooflez, damn you! Now all hope is lost
|
M3ta
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 00:20:00 -
[308]
/signed
Let's just hope that after 20+ days of agreement from everyone, someone "dev-like" is really watching. And caring.
|
ChronoLynx
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 02:15:00 -
[309]
Signed
(Decrease Sig Radius by about 1/3 and increase agility by 1/3)
Elitest Carebear with Fangs and Claws |
Neemz
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 03:13:00 -
[310]
This could do with a dev response.
|
|
|
7ever
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 14:04:00 -
[311]
--Signed.
When the hell is a Dev going to give some input on this??
|
aquontium
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 14:43:00 -
[312]
signed. Mr rooflez has done a great job here. Bloodlines Patch #3 requested:
Fixes:
BattleCruisers
:)
11 pages and no dev response? . shocking.
|
Hinik
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 14:46:00 -
[313]
yes indeedy! goddamnit I want my Astarte to go faster...
it takes full damage from torps ffs... TORPS!
You need a new sig boyo! - Xorus |
Daiv Streck
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:13:00 -
[314]
I honestly can't see the problem here. Yes it takes an age to get anywhere, but look at the facts.
Fairly low speed? Low agility? Large signature radius? This is a design choice - this ship is clearly intended by the devs to be vulnerable to Battleships. Increase speed or agility, or decrease signature radius, and the Battlecruiser becomes impossible to hit and/or damage with Battleship-scale weaponry.
But they do have a great tank that can handle anything smaller than a Battleship weapon without even breaking a sweat, and enough firepower to make anything smaller than a Battleship seriously regret undocking that day.
Making any of the changes suggested in this thread just because "it is annoying to wait while my ship aligns" or "it takes too long to get places" or "waaaaaaah wanna smaller sig radius because... um... because!" will make the Battlecruiser vastly imbalanced.
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:22:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Daiv Streck
But they do have a great tank that can handle anything smaller than a Battleship weapon without even breaking a sweat, and enough firepower to make anything smaller than a Battleship seriously regret undocking that day.
So can a battleship.
And it can achieve BC "agility" by using it's surplus slots to 2 nanofibers and having the same amount of effective free slots while having a better tank, better dps and better speed.
So, any reason why one should use a BC over a BS?
|
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:39:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Max Hardcase
Ye mighty Tuxford take notice of this worthy thread please.
yep .... i agree bc way to f**ed up
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 15:40:00 -
[317]
I think the best way to get some form of Dev response is to compile all our suggestions/ideas from this thread and put them into one well organized post. I think the best way to go about this is find 5 issues with Battle Cruisers that we as a comunity find imporant. Once we figure out what these 5 issues are we could then propose some reasonable numbers that we would like to see brought to the test server for testing. Eventually it may even be a good idea to start a new fresh thread once we have all this information ready to go.
Here is my top 5 BC issue list aranged from most imporant to least imporant. It is essentially the same thing that I posted earlier in the thread so I do apologise if this is redundant.
1. Agility Modifier - Simply changing it from 1.1 to .75 would be enough. I don't think such a change would have any impact on game ballance aside from allowing BCs to be agile enough to work with a gang of cruisers.
2. Sig Radius - Decreasing Sig radius by 10% across the board would be a good start. This change would require some more extensive testing to see how it effects the 1v1 ballance between BCs and BSs.
3. Slot Layout - Not all of the BCs are ballanced when comparing slot layouts. The Cyclone has 1 more slot than the rest while having the 2nd highest grid, lowest sig, highest speed, and 2nd highest drone bay. I feel that at the very least the Proph and Ferox need another slot (Brutix could possibly be ignored as it has the largest drone bay).
4. Hard Point layout - More an issue with the ferox than anything else. I feel that the ship is not using its intended weapon system (rail guns) do to a couple of issues. 5 railguns does not put out enough dps w/o a damage bonuss, and it has issues fitting them with its low power grid. I propose that it get another Turret hardpoint along with 100-150 grid. If the other tier 1 BCs recieve another slot the cyclone could potentially also need a 6th turret hp.
5. Gang Assist Modules - Meh, thats all I have to say about them. A number of them do not work, and several of the other usefull ones are subject to diminishng returns from any module that effects similar stats as they do. I would suggest that the current Gang Assist Modules in the game be revamped, or you change how diminishing returns work regaurding these modules. On a Side note I do not think that these modules should be usable from a safe spot, I think they should have a set PBAOE range that could be upwards of 100km depending on what module you are using.
With no dev responses yet I think it is best that we take a different aproach to the issue. Lets not let these ideas/suggestions die here on the boards.
Increase BC Agility |
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 16:00:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Daiv Streck
I honestly can't see the problem here. Yes it takes an age to get anywhere, but look at the facts.
Fairly low speed? Low agility? Large signature radius? This is a design choice - this ship is clearly intended by the devs to be vulnerable to Battleships. Increase speed or agility, or decrease signature radius, and the Battlecruiser becomes impossible to hit and/or damage with Battleship-scale weaponry.
But they do have a great tank that can handle anything smaller than a Battleship weapon without even breaking a sweat, and enough firepower to make anything smaller than a Battleship seriously regret undocking that day.
Making any of the changes suggested in this thread just because "it is annoying to wait while my ship aligns" or "it takes too long to get places" or "waaaaaaah wanna smaller sig radius because... um... because!" will make the Battlecruiser vastly imbalanced.
In most situations a BS can kill cruisers far faster than a BC at longer ranges. BS with a mwd or AB also moves faster than most BCs because BCs use modules that are designed to be uses on ships that are half their mass. Outside of using gimpy gang modules a BC does not really do anything that a BS can simply do better. We are not asking to overpower the BC, that is the last thing I want to see happen. We are asking that the ship have a unique roll in combat outside of being the poormans BS.
If you are worried about the BC becoming too powerfull when and if such changes are to be implemented I suggest that the changes see extensive testing in regaurds to BS - BC ballance before going live. As I said before the last thing I ever want to see happen is the BC class of ships becoming overly powerfull. Ideally all ships in eve should see some kind of use endgame and that is all we are asking for.
Increase BC Agility |
Downeaster
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 18:56:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Downeaster on 30/05/2006 18:58:04
In RL, in the early 20th century, the battlecruiser was designed to "kill anything it could catch, and outrun anything that could kill it." In other words, speed was critical to the success of the class, as it was meant to operate independantly against smaller warships, not taking a place in the line-of-battle or neccessarily raiding commerce.
The British navy achieved the balance neccesary by, basically, giving battlecruisers the firepower of battleships, with the armor of cruisers. As Admiral Jackie Fisher noted: "Speed is the best protection." Of course, when British battlecruisers came under the fire of German battleships in the Battle of Jutland, they proved not match for the battleships' heavy guns. As an alternative, the German navy gave battlecruisers lighter weapons while mantaining the heavier armor (incidently, German battlecruisers survived Jutland).
So, if the game designers want to take a page for the RL Washington Treaty era navies, they could give battlecruisers the firepower of battleships, but the tanks and speed of cruisers. I'd like to see battlecruisers become excellent hit-and-run ships for use against cruiser and frigate class ships.
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 19:23:00 -
[320]
They are doing it a little like that with the t2 BCs. The field CS seems to be more like the britsh version while the fleet command ship is more like the german version. They are not THAT different as the RL versions, but the tendancy is there.
Either way, the speed and handeling of them is way too close to BSs. When BSs can achieve or surpass BC speed & agility by using nanofibers (and still keeping about as many free slots as the BC) it hardly can get more obvious that something is not right. As they are now BCs are nothing more than a "poor mans BS".
|
|
|
Raider Zero
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 19:39:00 -
[321]
/signed
Drives like a BS, shoots like a cruiser. Needs agility boost, without sacrificing the tanks to keep them activein their roles.
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.30 19:46:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Aramendel
When BSs can achieve or surpass BC speed & agility by using nanofibers (and still keeping about as many free slots as the BC) it hardly can get more obvious that something is not right.
The real killer is that the BS doesn't even often need the damned nanofiber. Like me in a Domi and my brother in a Prophecy synchro-gang-warped from standstill both facing equally away from warp direction. That's just wrong
|
Suvereign
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 05:08:00 -
[323]
bump ?
|
Foulis
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 05:27:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Suvereign
bump ?
Shameless bump?
Really, really deserves a dev response at this point.
Oh, and at the guy who said the cyclone has an unfair number of slots... The cyclone before the slot was added sucked in comparison to all the other BCs, now it doens't. It's minmatar so of course it has higher agility and speed, it's our only advantage. The higher grid is to be able to fit arty.
----
Cake > Pie - Imaran
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Boobies
|
Alextras Tesla
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 06:21:00 -
[325]
yet another person to sign and totally agree with every word spoken in this thread
|
Grendel Marqun
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 06:49:00 -
[326]
/signed
I,too, agree with the idea of increased agility and decreased sig. Not huge mods, but enough to put these ships farther from being a crappy BS. As it stands, my Ferox with tank installed has a sig _more than_ 3/4 of a BS, and I'd best decide to warp well before I have any idea there's a threat.
I wouldn't complain about 10 m/s being added, either, but don't see it as being nearly as important as a sig/agility balancing. If I wasn't so determined to fly a command ship, I'd have bought a Raven long ago and shelved the brick.
|
Sammy Xan
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 08:28:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Sammy Xan on 31/05/2006 08:28:29
The first time I took my Cyclone out I had fitted a battleship class named AB - according to quickfit this should give me like 860 m/s top speed. So I undocked, switched it "on" - and watched in amazement as it picked up speed: 101 m/2, 102 m/2, ... 102 m/2, 103 ... incredibly slow. I thought an Afterburner with 10x the thrust of a cruiser size afterburner oughta kick butt - but it was like using a frigate AB, only with a higher top speed.
So I think this whole mass/agility/speed issue needs a little overhaul.
Oh - and I understand one of the nicest MK2 changes before RMR was improved BC agility - for some reason it didn't make into the final release. Too bad really
|
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 08:48:00 -
[328]
Sammy, noticed precisely the same with my Brutix back when I first got one Stupid, really.
|
Lorem Mon
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:18:00 -
[329]
/signed
agi really needs a bump.
i've been testing out my proph with mwd. speeds are something 1.5km / s with nanos but ... manouverability is just terrible :D at least proph's cap lasts a lot longer than cruisers ;)
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:30:00 -
[330]
12 pages and still no love, my jayleno mobile is crying T_T
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
|
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:32:00 -
[331]
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.
_______________ |
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:35:00 -
[332]
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.
I declare 31 May 2006 "Tuxford Love Day".
Originally by: General Apocalypse
the game is very well balanced
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:37:00 -
[333]
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.
Goodie...
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:37:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Sarmaul
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.
I declare 31 May 2006 "Tuxford Love Day".
Actually I think it some kind of smoke free day. Luckily I don't smoke or I fear this would quickly turn into "Tuxford Hate Day"
_______________ |
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:38:00 -
[335]
I'd call this day 'tuxford is bored and post in every topic he failed to see and post in for 1 month'..
Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs |
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:39:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Tuxford
All I can do for now is promise that I will look into it.
That's all we needed to hear
|
Tiuwaz
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:41:00 -
[337]
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.
where is my pony?
Originally by: Oveur
This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:46:00 -
[338]
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.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
----------------
Please fix BC Sig/Agility! |
Serj Darek
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:48:00 -
[339]
Originally by: KilROCK
I'd call this day 'tuxford is bored and post in every topic he failed to see and post in for 1 month'..
Mr Positive strikes again!
Fix the Typhoon description! 3 years in the making!
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:50:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Sarmaul
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.
I declare 31 May 2006 "Tuxford Love Day".
I thought we just had "Happy Dev's Day."
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
|
|
Sarmaul
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 10:51:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Originally by: Sarmaul
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.
I declare 31 May 2006 "Tuxford Love Day".
I thought we just had "Happy Dev's Day."
We did. This is Tuxford Love Day.
Originally by: General Apocalypse
the game is very well balanced
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 11:06:00 -
[342]
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.
<3
Now can you just look at the Nighthawk/Vulture targeting range and damage output? 73km locking range on a ship that has the potential to add 100% to a railgun's optimal range; is just shocking.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 11:15:00 -
[343]
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.
<3
Increase BC Agility |
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 15:51:00 -
[344]
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.
Numbers are correct, the first set of numbers (plain time to warp) are not very accurate though, since i didn't have a stopwatch handy. The second set of numbers (time to warp after turning) are wholly accurate though.
|
Taurequis
|
Posted - 2006.05.31 16:37:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Sarmaul
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.
I declare 31 May 2006 "Tuxford Love Day".
Actually I think it some kind of smoke free day. Luckily I don't smoke or I fear this would quickly turn into "Tuxford Hate Day"
Can we get a "skip to the dev comment" button? I'm totally agreeing with the post by page 1 after hitting it seeing the gold surround topic. But then i wade through 12 pages to actually find your answer.
Anyways \o/ for this obvious issue being looked at.
Well done original poster and all the spam monkeys.
Best Regards,
Taurequis
|
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 09:18:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Tehyarec
Fine? Not really. Bearable, sure, but could be a whole lot better without being overpowered too. No reason to partially gimp them like this.
Ohh realy ?? want me to bump u..
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 09:19:00 -
[347]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
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.
<3
Now can you just look at the Nighthawk/Vulture targeting range and damage output? 73km locking range on a ship that has the potential to add 100% to a railgun's optimal range; is just shocking.
In a nighthawk ur outgunned by a t1 bc..
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 09:20:00 -
[348]
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.
Tuxford primary.
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Yodohime Kibagami
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 09:24:00 -
[349]
Yay ^^
|
K1K1R1K1
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 09:52:00 -
[350]
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.
Awsome
____________________________________________
Don't worry aboutit |
|
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 14:32:00 -
[351]
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.
Thank you for replying Tux!
I addition to BC agility please also look into the [BS vs. cruiser] vs. [BS vs. BC] DPS numbers (re: BC sig radius). The BC takes a disproportional amount of damage from a BS for it's role as a midpoint between the cruiser and the BS class.
|
Blind Man
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 15:30:00 -
[352]
Edited by: Blind Man on 01/06/2006 15:30:53
edit: i win
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 15:32:00 -
[353]
their sig is far too high acceleration isnt that big a deal!
-------------------Sig-----------------------
welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s |
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 16:48:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Gronsak
their sig is far too high acceleration isnt that big a deal!
acceleration not a big deal??? for hat a bs ?
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Talmssar
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 17:00:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Gariuys
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.
Goodie...
He never said would it be decrease or increase So I wait to see BC's jumping even slower than BS soon
I just prefer that all have good time here. |
Tar Ecthelion
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 18:24:00 -
[356]
My absolution turns slower than a beached pregnant humpback whale.
Lets hope Tux see's the holy light of truth and increases agility and such. would make me a happy chap indeed.
P.S. then all we nned is a boost to command modules.
.....
"When you kill a man it costs nothing to be polite"
Winston Churchill
|
Malicious Wraith
|
Posted - 2006.06.01 19:09:00 -
[357]
/sign for making Bc's more agile.
|
Estan Drake
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 06:27:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Tar Ecthelion
My absolution turns slower than a beached pregnant humpback whale.
Lets hope Tux see's the holy light of truth and increases agility and such. would make me a happy chap indeed.
P.S. then all we nned is a boost to command modules.
Hopefully they will pay attention to this and put it up to let us test it before Tuesday's patch. I'm willing to spend some considerable time on the test server with tweaked battlecruisers to help if that were the case.
P.S. I would settlefor them fixing the current command modules like the EW and mining ones (oh and level 1 of our "100% effectiveness per level" skills should be a 2X modifier not a 1X modifier! i.e level 5 giving us a 500% bonus instead of the current 400%)
|
Muthsera
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 07:19:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Sarmaul
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.
I declare 31 May 2006 "Tuxford Love Day".
Actually I think it some kind of smoke free day. Luckily I don't smoke or I fear this would quickly turn into "Tuxford Hate Day"
Yes. It will quickly turn into that if you don't fix this agility bit. Lets make it a yearly occation.
Rabble
|
Void Walker
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 07:41:00 -
[360]
Tux, thanks muchly for letting us know you are looking into this, the BC is a great class of ship except for this one issue, right now they are a liability, the fact that T2 BC prices are collapsing quickly due to the fact that they don't even stack up closely with the HACs is indicative of the agility and sig radius issue. All help greatly appreciated, I would love to fly my Absolution again instead of the Zealot some time in the near future.
Heres hoping for positive changes to the BC class, lets move it out of rotting as a level 3 mission runner into a ship which is fielded more frequently in PVP.
|
|
|
Kuolematon
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 09:00:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Void Walker
Heres hoping for positive changes to the BC class, lets move it out of rotting as a level 3 mission runner into a ship which is fielded more frequently in PVP.
Wait what?! You cannot do lvl4's with Absolution? Argh! I just learned skills and bought one for lvl4 w***ing ...
Unnerf Amarr!
Proud member of Caldari Provisions |
Eximius Josari
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 09:21:00 -
[362]
Depending on the changes...and the new tier 2 BCs, I may abandon my BSes lol.
Click Above |
Void Walker
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 11:07:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Kuolematon
Wait what?! [:shock:
You cannot do lvl4's with Absolution? Argh! I just learned skills and bought one for lvl4 w***ing ...
TBH, your better off using a Zealot for level 4s, you take much less damage due to sig radius and speed of the ship, the range bonus gives you ~14k range on MFs and the tanking is just peachy with a thermal energized and 2 EANs, leaving you with a Med AR II and 3 HS.
I bought and fitted an Absolution for Level 4s, ran 3 missions with it and then went back to the HAC, it tanks better due to taking less damage, even though the absolution has 80%+ resists and twice the armor. Only reason I'll get the Absolution out again is if its fixed, its currently not comparable with a HAC for solo'ing level 4s. It just takes a disproportionate ammount of damage. Only time i'll consider using it is on Angel missions with high thermal/EM resists where rat-specific drones may make them a little quicker, but your still going to take a ton of damage flying a fat chicken.
honestly, a Zealot is your best bet for Level 4s. Sell the Absolution before the prices drop another 40 mil in a month, or shelve it waiting for a change to agility and sig radius.
|
Kuolematon
|
Posted - 2006.06.02 11:38:00 -
[364]
Originally by: Void Walker
honestly, a Zealot is your best bet for Level 4s. Sell the Absolution before the prices drop another 40 mil in a month, or shelve it waiting for a change to agility and sig radius.
Crap . I won't be selling Absolution but seems like I have to buy OVERPRICED Zealot .. *sigh*
Unnerf Amarr!
"Just because you can utterly ruin another player's game doesn't mean that you must."
|
Voculus
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 00:03:00 -
[365]
Bump for the CCP love machine.
|
Emeline Cabernet
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 01:21:00 -
[366]
bump to fix agility on them and make them faster.
|
Solothores
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 11:42:00 -
[367]
/sign
|
zoturi
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 11:53:00 -
[368]
signed
|
Tyrannis
|
Posted - 2006.06.04 13:06:00 -
[369]
Up you go.
|
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 06:27:00 -
[370]
Sugned
increased agility and reduced sig by 25 or maybe even 30 %
|
|
|
Darineah Charach
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 08:59:00 -
[371]
signed!
Love my cyclone but the fact that it's not quite what it could or should be is sad.
|
Kal Ehl
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 09:07:00 -
[372]
signed
|
Max Hardcase
|
Posted - 2006.06.05 09:10:00 -
[373]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 05/06/2006 09:10:06
The greatest irony is the cyclone description....they made it since they wanted something faster than BS on patrols
----------------------------------------------
Max Hardcase > yawn-o-rama
Max Hardcase > is this typical of RA warfare ?
FreaKsh0 > yes boredom fitted in all their high slots |
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 06:34:00 -
[374]
Signed again
|
Aquae
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 10:52:00 -
[375]
/Signed
null |
Tehyarec
|
Posted - 2006.06.06 14:48:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Max Hardcase
The greatest irony is the cyclone description....they made it since they wanted something faster than BS on patrols
Precisely. I only noticed that a couple of days ago myself, was a good laugh
EVE Wallpapers |
Voculus
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 07:06:00 -
[377]
Bump for Devs.
|
Chode Rizoum
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 07:17:00 -
[378]
can we please have this in the next patch....
pretty plzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Akip
|
Posted - 2006.06.07 07:42:00 -
[379]
/signed
I need to use 1-2 nanofibers to have my Sleipnir able to behave like it should.
--------
Akip
Your 720mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Watch Post, wrecking for 1557.5 damage. |
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 09:53:00 -
[380]
bump and signed
|
|
|
Aequitas Veritas
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 10:40:00 -
[381]
/signed
|
Jin Hoshinoken
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 14:49:00 -
[382]
Edited by: Jin Hoshinoken on 08/06/2006 14:50:09
Had just changed from what I thought slow Arbitrator to a flying brick called the Prophecy. Thought it would be quite slow but it surely exceeded my expectations. Somehow the middle ground between cruisers and battleships must be sloped...
Boost agi and speed please.
/signed
|
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 16:30:00 -
[383]
i love ferox... it`s ***** up. Help it
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Firequill
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 17:21:00 -
[384]
Ill buy that for a dollar!
|
Mike Atropos
|
Posted - 2006.06.08 19:20:00 -
[385]
I can't yet fly Battlecruisers, and was really looking forward to them. I enjoy the armed to the teeth, agile combat vessel designed to kill a certain class of ships. It seems to me BCs suffer from class confusion at the moment.
According to the wiki-articles and the wordweb definition of battlecruiser (A cruiser of maximum speed and firepower), it should be the zenith of cruiser technology. Fast, capable of handling medium mountings with ease, and use the command moduels (or whatever their exact name is) to help the fleet out.
They don't have and should not have the firepower to match battleships. That would make them overpowered and invite roving BC gangs just blowing things out of the water regardless of their size. Crusier fittings are fine.
However, form what I've read and observed first hand, they need a speed boost to get them into their supposed "supperior cruiser" role. To do that, simply add the following role bonus:
Role Bonus: 500% increase to 10MN Afterburner and Microwarp Drive thrust output. 100% increase In Afterburner and Microwarp Drive Capacitor Usage. 10% increase in maxinum Afterburner and Microwarp Drive Added Velocity .
Bingo. Suddenly your 10MN AB or MWD is now a 50MN afterburner/MWD. No new modules or skills required.
With a decrease in their signature radius and an improvment in agility, these ships would be true battlecruisers. Able to run from the battleships while hunting ships of smaller class and utilising their command moduels to cordinate the gang as a whole.
I fly caldari, so just to throw out some numbers form my little corner of space:
Caracal: about 4.5 million
Moa: about 6 million
Ferox: about 22 milion
The Ferox costs nearly 6 times as much of a caracal and nearly 4 times as much of a Moa. Im not asking or expecting a cruiser with battleship cannons, but I *should* get a cruiser that has a significant advantage over anything smaller than it. It currently seems to have the firepower edge and fitting edge. Now give it the speed and agility that its price tag earns it.
|
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 06:39:00 -
[386]
signed
|
Trracer
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 07:29:00 -
[387]
I usually just step outside and push my Cyclone to the gate/station/enemy.
/signed
|
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.09 13:45:00 -
[388]
helloo.. we need help
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.06.11 18:20:00 -
[389]
signed
|
Bopque
|
Posted - 2006.06.13 13:37:00 -
[390]
bumped again lol
|
|
|
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! =-
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
Fan3Spoitoru
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 12:34:00 -
[451]
look at me mister dev.. my ferox is running 5k m/s
STAND AND DELIVER!!! |
Dreamdancer
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 13:26:00 -
[452]
Been out of country or would have /signed earlier. All for this.
|
Maior Interfeci
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 13:31:00 -
[453]
I agree 100% with what the OP has said and proved. CCP please fix my space brick of a Ferox.
/signed.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 13:35:00 -
[454]
I really hope this comes through. Please make them fun to fly so i can get out of my cruisers.
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Brem Watson
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 14:01:00 -
[455]
Since i fly a Ferox, here is my sig.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 15:29:00 -
[456]
Originally by: Bopque
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%.
Nice, so now BC's would become an excelent anti BS platform and be an even better anti cruiser ship. We don't want to overpower the ships, that is the very last thing that should happen. With your proposed changes the largest bc, the brutix will have 210 sig radius, kiss your torp ravens goodbye.
As stated about a million times in this thread BCs need to have a weakness, and that weakness should be Battle Ships. However they take a disproportionate amount of damage at the moment making them little more than a cruiser to Battle Ship stepping stone. Fix the agility so that they can easily operate with a gang of cruisers and that weakness is more than justified.
I have another suggestion that is a little more radical than the sig agility buff. Personally I think that gang modules should be unique to Command ships, maybee even Fleet Command ships. I think that normal battlecruisers should drop the ability to use them all together and instead have a unique movement oriented gang bonuss inplace of the -99% cpu requirment. Most Battle Cruiser pilots don't use gang modules for 3 reasons, overly high fitting req, loss of a more usefull high slots (nos or turrets), and weaksauce bonusses unless you have expensive implants and maxed skills. This change along with a mild agility increase would truly make them an excelent ship to bring on fast moving ops and I think that is all we really want as Battle Cruiser pilots.
|
Stanis
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 15:37:00 -
[457]
Well it's obvious that they should have better agility then Battleships. That's all they should change on BCs imo.
|
Labinstein Labor
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 16:59:00 -
[458]
dont let this thread die!
/signed
|
Naginataii
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 17:03:00 -
[459]
/sign
Let it be done.
|
Irnn
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 18:59:00 -
[460]
/sign
yes please
|
|
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 19:02:00 -
[461]
I just want one comment from Tuxford on this. Whatever it is, at least he has decided something.
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Neckbone
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 20:05:00 -
[462]
/sign
The agility is horrid. I shouldn't be looking forward to a BS because it will be more maneuverable.
|
Amarraion
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 11:51:00 -
[463]
signed.
|
|
CCP Hammer
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 15:02:00 -
[464]
This thread ran it's course long ago. Now it will be locked,
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page] |