Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
392
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 07:09:20 -
[271] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Is it too much to ask that I can fight 5 ishtars under gategun fire and may last long enough to bring down 3 of them?
Yes, for one each of those Ishtars costs as much as your BS hull and they outnumber you, and numbers trump pretty much everything in Eve.
elitatwo wrote:I believe you mean well but when you do go to the tradehubs and your mood feels like flying a battleship and you go and see the pricetag on a bare hull and insurace and fitting and lookt at you wallet again when you are about to undock, you may have a certain expectation of what you got. Only to discover a few minutes later that your 300-400m in meta and tech 2 fittings just got you yolo-rofl-stomped over by an ishtar and some Navy Omens which you didn't even get a target lock on to begin with.
I also don't believe that warping around in my Brutix a few seconds less than before doesn't help that 5 firgates yolo-kite that Brutix into an explosion in 2 minutes or one svipul in 1 under gate-gun fire.
Look at it this way, that Brutix did cost 45m without fitting and a Thorax costs 10m without fitting but for 30m more isk I get 20% of the performance of that Thorax.
Eve has always been a game of specialization and linear increases in power for exponential increases in cost more or less since its inception. The exception is where specialization comes in and trumps this in some way. In the past when this hasn't been the case CCP have (eventually) stepped in and corrected things.
Battleships have never been flat better than a well fitted HAC because the HAC had more flexibility, and this has been the case for about 8 years now.
The exception to this rule used to be Null fleet fights, but that's been shifting steadily over the last six or so years, ever since the original Sig-tanked A-HAC gangs. Nothing matches a Battleship for raw DPS but it's unrealistic and not in keeping with Eve's base principals that a single Battleship should be able to even remotely take on 5 Ishtars. Realistically it shouldn't be able to take on two without massive difficulty on the part of the pilot and more than a few big mistakes on the part of the Ishtars.
I certainly agree there's room for improvement in the Battleship class at present to allow them to better deal with Cruiser sized targets, but that shouldn't mean a Battleship hull can kill its hull cost in T1 Cruiser hulls. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
634
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 10:54:49 -
[272] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Eve has always been a game of specialization and linear increases in power for exponential increases in cost more or less since its inception. The exception is where specialization comes in and trumps this in some way. In the past when this hasn't been the case CCP have (eventually) stepped in and corrected things.
Stop repeating what others have said already, it is insulting and doesn't answer my question. I only need to read things once to have it inscripted in my mind.
Cade Windstalker wrote: Battleships have never been flat better than a well fitted HAC because the HAC had more flexibility, and this has been the case for about 8 years now.
That is what you have been saying 10 times in two days, care you learn a new sentence? I didn't.
Since it is public record now, you can go ahead and read it again, sometimes our primitive human minds play tricks on us and we only read what we want to read instead of what is written.
Cade Windstalker wrote:The exception to this rule used to be Null fleet fights, but that's been shifting steadily over the last six or so years, ever since the original Sig-tanked A-HAC gangs. Nothing matches a Battleship for raw DPS but it's unrealistic and not in keeping with Eve's base principals that a single Battleship should be able to even remotely take on 5 Ishtars. Realistically it shouldn't be able to take on two without massive difficulty on the part of the pilot and more than a few big mistakes on the part of the Ishtars..
I almost care what some lawyers do in drama-sec or better, well actually I don't. And I D I S A G R E E.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
865
|
Posted - 2015.04.18 13:45:38 -
[273] - Quote
Delarian Rox wrote:Ocih wrote: tl;dr - In Min/Max EVE the BC is a waste of minerals.
Not realy. Personaly i use them like havy tacking ships and more resilient ships for a FC in cruiser gangs. Of course they need some improvement, but i'm pretty sure that targeting range improvement (to a point where you can reach 100km lock range with only one rig) along with this warp speed change is enough to bring them to a very good position. And you always can buff their role of a cheap booster by just reducing time needed to learn t2 links.
Not really but pretty much the same thing I said?
Ocih wrote:
Something I see people say a lot. "Cost shouldn't dictate the effectiveness of the ship in a linear fashion. That's all fine, I won't bother debating it but BattleCruiser is an example of cost over run with disproportionate benefit. 100% bonus for 600% the cost. They can't very well give a Prophecy 6 times the tank of a Vexor but don't act surprised when people just build 6 Vexors instead of one Prophecy.
tl;dr - In Min/Max EVE the BC is a waste of minerals.
You use it in situations where cruisers outnumber BC 6:1 or more.
And don't get me wrong, I really don't care what they do. I've been nerf bat proof for years. Most of us are, it's why the the nerf bat fails to get results. We have trained out all the racial hulls and weapons platforms. Nerf this, buff that. It's all a dog ******* a football. |
Atreides 47
Union of independent miners and industrials Cybran Nation Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 11:11:42 -
[274] - Quote
Sir Livingston wrote:battlecruiser usage must be low Because they are really damn slow and battleships moving like slowpokes its almost unbearable, all except Machariel, it have good bonus.
Long Live the Fighters !
CCP and nerfs - http://i.imgur.com/MejTGfL.jpg
|
Alia Ravenswing
DARK HAT
35
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 17:54:30 -
[275] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet? Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets. Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon? Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run.
There already are. Medium Autocannons. There is a reason that bombers don't attack BC's
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
541
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 17:56:10 -
[276] - Quote
Alia Ravenswing wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet? Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets. Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon? Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run. There already are. Medium Autocannons. There is a reason that bombers don't attack BC's
And because finding enough BCs to be worth blopsing is hard.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:05:14 -
[277] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Stop repeating what others have said already, it is insulting and doesn't answer my question. I only need to read things once to have it inscripted in my mind.
Well, it certainly didn't seem like you understood this from what you were saying.
elitatwo wrote:I almost care what some lawyers do in drama-sec or better, well actually I don't. And I D I S A G R E E.
You can disagree all you want. If your idea of Battleship balance is Battleship > 5 HACs you're going to be nothing but disappointed with anything CCP do. |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:05:19 -
[278] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Alia Ravenswing wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can you also boost their agility and speed? Tornado/ naga fleet? Not possible any more because of bombers and interceptors. Those where very fun fleets. Ability to counter bombs on those hulls can help bringing them back. Can we get some decent anti bomber/ bomb weapon? Many fleet fights are won/lost depending on who first made good bomb run. There already are. Medium Autocannons. There is a reason that bombers don't attack BC's And because finding enough BCs to be worth blopsing is hard.
Yeah I think this has to do more with a lack of BC's rather than BC's being scary... I am certain that torps have better range than medium ac's and that sb's can run circles around BC's including the hurricane
BC's and BS's: when nerfing goes too far
If they nerfed the damage output like they did and kept them as being fairly fast, maybe that would've been okay
If they merged the speed like they did and kept them doing respectable damage, maybe that would've been okay
Instead they did both things and we now have crappy 6 launcher drakes, 6 turret harbingers, 6 turret brutixes, etc. Not only is their damage weak compared to not just hac's but even t1 cruisers, they are unusably slow |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:24:20 -
[279] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Yeah I think this has to do more with a lack of BC's rather than BC's being scary... I am certain that torps have better range than medium ac's and that sb's can run circles around BC's including the hurricane
BC's and BS's: when nerfing goes too far
If they nerfed the damage output like they did and kept them as being fairly fast, maybe that would've been okay
If they merged the speed like they did and kept them doing respectable damage, maybe that would've been okay
Instead they did both things and we now have crappy 6 launcher drakes, 6 turret harbingers, 6 turret brutixes, etc. Not only is their damage weak compared to not just hac's but even t1 cruisers, they are unusably slow
A SB can only run circles around it if the SB drops its bomb and runs off. If you're fighting anything other than a completely homogeneous BC fleet you can't get under the tracking of long-range guns and stay outside the range of ACs. The point where ACs pretty much stop blowing your ship out from under you is pretty much the point where Railguns start, and if you're making a bombing run it's a moot point because you're dropping at ~30km anyways, which is in range of both.
Really, the BC nerf was entirely justified. They were stupidly good for the cost and they were still used and useful after the nerf, just not nearly to the extent that they used to be (because that was broken). Also the BC nerf included precisely zero changes to their speed and only tiny changes to align time and mass.
BCs still easily out-damage T1 Cruisers too, it's just that the T1 Cruiser is way faster. If the BC could catch the Cruiser then they'd simply trump cruisers flat out.
At the end of the day it hasn't really been nerfs that have done in BS and BC class ships in PvP, it's been successive and small buffs to other ship classes. |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 18:57:56 -
[280] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Yeah I think this has to do more with a lack of BC's rather than BC's being scary... I am certain that torps have better range than medium ac's and that sb's can run circles around BC's including the hurricane
BC's and BS's: when nerfing goes too far
If they nerfed the damage output like they did and kept them as being fairly fast, maybe that would've been okay
If they merged the speed like they did and kept them doing respectable damage, maybe that would've been okay
Instead they did both things and we now have crappy 6 launcher drakes, 6 turret harbingers, 6 turret brutixes, etc. Not only is their damage weak compared to not just hac's but even t1 cruisers, they are unusably slow A SB can only run circles around it if the SB drops its bomb and runs off. If you're fighting anything other than a completely homogeneous BC fleet you can't get under the tracking of long-range guns and stay outside the range of ACs. The point where ACs pretty much stop blowing your ship out from under you is pretty much the point where Railguns start, and if you're making a bombing run it's a moot point because you're dropping at ~30km anyways, which is in range of both. Really, the BC nerf was entirely justified. They were stupidly good for the cost and they were still used and useful after the nerf, just not nearly to the extent that they used to be (because that was broken). Also the BC nerf included precisely zero changes to their speed and only tiny changes to align time and mass.BCs still easily out-damage T1 Cruisers too, it's just that the T1 Cruiser is way faster. If the BC could catch the Cruiser then they'd simply trump cruisers flat out. At the end of the day it hasn't really been nerfs that have done in BS and BC class ships in PvP, it's been successive and small buffs to other ship classes.
Your hypothetical mixed range BC fleet doesn't make sense because a. No one flies bc's and b. What kind of fleet would have people using railguns and autocannons on their backbone ships
There are numerous bc's that are straight outdamaged by the Vexor for example
And adding mass is basically a speed nerf
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
638
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 19:26:20 -
[281] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:You can disagree all you want. If your idea of Battleship balance is Battleship > 5 HACs you're going to be nothing but disappointed with anything CCP do.
And yet, I didn't say that.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 19:37:15 -
[282] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Your hypothetical mixed range BC fleet doesn't make sense because a. No one flies bc's and b. What kind of fleet would have people using railguns and autocannons on their backbone ships
There are numerous bc's that are straight outdamaged by the Vexor for example
And adding mass is basically a speed nerf
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility
We're discussing the balance between BCs and Cruisers, saying "well no one uses BCs" isn't a counter argument.
As to B, how about some hypothetical BC roam. Small gang and what-not, since null doctrines tend to run whatever scales best with number of players, cost, and various other factors which are rarely constant.
The Vexor also, in theory, out-damages every other T1 Cruiser, but can have its drones popped as well as needing to fit basically no tank for all that gank.
Adding mass is not a speed nerf, this is not how the speed mechanics work, it adjusts align time and acceleration but not overall speed. The changes in this case were *tiny* and generally offset by changes to agility, meaning in many cases the align time remained the same, the only thing that changed was performance with prop mods, which generally increased since with a prop mod agility matters more than base mass value.
I'm pointing out the advantages BCs have over T1 Cruisers, not HACs, and I'm not arguing that they have some major niche that isn't currently better filled by another ship for one reason or another, I'm just saying that in a straight fight they do have some advantages over a T1 Cruiser. HACs are generally 3-4 times more expensive for the base hull, are T2 combat focused ships, and require way better skills to fit and fly effectively than a T1 BC.
It's not even like these hulls aren't being used at all anywhere in Eve. Just check the stats on ZKillboard versus the various HACs. There are actually more people going out and getting popped in BCs than HACs, but T1 Cruisers beat both of them soundly. (I'd link you, but that's against forum rules) |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 19:38:42 -
[283] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:You can disagree all you want. If your idea of Battleship balance is Battleship > 5 HACs you're going to be nothing but disappointed with anything CCP do. And yet, I didn't say that.
Then I have no idea what you meant by "And I D I S A G R E E."
Soooo not my fault if you don't want to actually try and get your point across or communicate effectively. |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:05:46 -
[284] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Your hypothetical mixed range BC fleet doesn't make sense because a. No one flies bc's and b. What kind of fleet would have people using railguns and autocannons on their backbone ships
There are numerous bc's that are straight outdamaged by the Vexor for example
And adding mass is basically a speed nerf
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility We're discussing the balance between BCs and Cruisers, saying "well no one uses BCs" isn't a counter argument. As to B, how about some hypothetical BC roam. Small gang and what-not, since null doctrines tend to run whatever scales best with number of players, cost, and various other factors which are rarely constant. The Vexor also, in theory, out-damages every other T1 Cruiser, but can have its drones popped as well as needing to fit basically no tank for all that gank. Adding mass is not a speed nerf, this is not how the speed mechanics work, it adjusts align time and acceleration but not overall speed. The changes in this case were *tiny* and generally offset by changes to agility, meaning in many cases the align time remained the same, the only thing that changed was performance with prop mods, which generally increased since with a prop mod agility matters more than base mass value. I'm pointing out the advantages BCs have over T1 Cruisers, not HACs, and I'm not arguing that they have some major niche that isn't currently better filled by another ship for one reason or another, I'm just saying that in a straight fight they do have some advantages over a T1 Cruiser. HACs are generally 3-4 times more expensive for the base hull, are T2 combat focused ships, and require way better skills to fit and fly effectively than a T1 BC. It's not even like these hulls aren't being used at all anywhere in Eve. Just check the stats on ZKillboard versus the various HACs. There are actually more people going out and getting popped in BCs than HACs, but T1 Cruisers beat both of them soundly. (I'd link you, but that's against forum rules)
This does 713 DPS, does it look like tank is sacrificed?
[Vexor, Vexor1] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 150
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Ogre II x2Hammerhead II x2Hobgoblin II x1
This does maybe 10 more DPS, probably not even that since it is with rage HAM's which never do full damage and plus basically no one would fit that HAM launcher over a small neut [Hurricane, Hurricane 220] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Stasis Webifier II Warp Disruptor II Warp Scrambler II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Hail M Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Inferno Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hobgoblin II x5
This is doing 689 DPS but you do gain the medium neut (questionable usability because the harb is extremely cap hungry)[Harbinger, Harbinger focused] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Adaptive Nano Plating II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration M Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x5Acolyte II x5
656 DPS but again this is using rage HAM's which do not do full damage basically ever (the turret t2 DPS ammo seems to be better in general and almost usable outside of benchmark comparisons) [Drake, Drake] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
10MN Microwarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Warp Disruptor II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5 |
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:09:08 -
[285] - Quote
You can have infinite max velocity but it means nothing if your acceleration is so slow that you never reach it
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
369
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:16:20 -
[286] - Quote
soap, nevermind them - they just love Cruisers Online.
http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png
A reasonable balancing thing to do would be to raise 1600mm / LSE fitting reqs, while compensating with more CPU/PG on all BCs, so that the cruiser peasants stick to the 800mm plates.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
abrasive soap
State Protectorate Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 20:35:03 -
[287] - Quote
We all know what happens now. The Vexor gets nerfed while the BC's stay terrible |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:05:20 -
[288] - Quote
Nah, not even that.
BCs will just stay terrible in this cruiser meta.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:17:35 -
[289] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:You can have infinite max velocity but it means nothing if your acceleration is so slow that you never reach it
Again, they didn't significantly nerf the align time of BCs. As in only two ships significantly changed align time. The +.7 seconds on the Drake and the -.4 on the Prophecy. Everything else was either +.05 or nothing, and lower inertia means that with a prop mod the ships accelerate and perform better.
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:A reasonable balancing thing to do would be to raise 1600mm / LSE fitting reqs, while compensating with more CPU/PG on all BCs, so that the cruiser peasants stick to the 800mm plates.
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
abrasive soap wrote:We all know what happens now. The Vexor gets nerfed while the BC's stay terrible
Only if the Vexor is over-performing relative to other T1 Cruisers, but that would be a problem within the T1 Cruiser class and wouldn't have any bearing on the standing of BCs or BS class ships. So far that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not nearly to the extent that the Ishtar was the dominating HAC.
Overall it kind of feels like BCs aren't as bad off as people are making them out to be, they're just no longer the sweet spot between cost and effectiveness for T1, and at least some of the people complaining just want that back. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:22:55 -
[290] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring.
Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods; Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact;
Ever heard of ratios?
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:50:19 -
[291] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring. Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods; Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact; Ever heard of ratios?
T2 and T3 Cruisers are balanced around being able to fit those modules and the trade-offs that entails, plus that has zero effect on active-tanked fits which still make up a significant portion of Cruiser gameplay.
Those modules are also a significant portion of the fitting cost on a BC, as well as BS sized fits, so BCs would still need a rebalance to be able to fit them (currently a 1600 plate takes about 1/3rd of the PG on a Hurricane), and BSes would see at least some effect.
There's also no evidence here that those modules are a problem, you've simply decided seemingly arbitrarily that they're a problem based on the magnitude of the bonus provided without taking anything else into account. For example that LSEs are equivalent to 800 plates and the buffer tanks just have sizes they're intentionally not tied to ship size. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2015.04.19 21:55:57 -
[292] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
Never going to happen, it would require a rebalance/re-look at fittings on basically every ship. If there's a problem with BCs and BSes then fix it with BS and BC sized modules or base stats.
How so? Your demagogy is starting to be tiring. Goal 1) cruisers can't fit 1600mm & LSEs without multiple fitting mods; Goal 2) BCs and BS can fit them just as they do now with current fits intact; Ever heard of ratios? T2 and T3 Cruisers are balanced around being able to fit those modules
Oh, now they're balanced around them? HACs were always balanced around local tanking ever since their introduction in 2005.
But thanks for the laugh. Useless to continue this discussion, which no one takes note of anyway.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
542
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 01:50:33 -
[293] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:
They are garbage now and making it seem as if they have some niche is ridiculous, a HAC would be better in literally any situation. It used to be that BC's were the cheap option but with the change in insurance and the survivability of BC's being nil, I don't think that is the case anymore. A hac might be more expensive in simple terms, but the insurance changes brought them in line to a degree and you also are much less likely to get stuck and die because of poor mobility
BCs can manage slightly more versatile fits, and all BCs have at least 1 utility high, making them a better middleweight middle cost combat exploration ship than most HACs. They are still dunked on by ishtars in that category though. As PVP ships, don't even.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
398
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 03:15:05 -
[294] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Oh, now they're balanced around them? HACs were always balanced around local active tanking ever since their introduction around 2005, but thanks for the laugh! Compared to these setups, local cruiser active tanks are a joke, hence you have dead brick cancer as the epitome of combat in Eve, without either Battlecruisers or Battleships being present in that equation, courtesy of over-sized plates and especially extenders, which coupled with sig and speed tanking, make cruisers reach BC EHP levels in effect, and in the case of T3 - they simply match Battleship EHP levels de facto.
HACs haven't been used as fleet active tanked ships since at least 2008/9, and given that the entire class has been rebalanced that claim is flatly false. Rise flew (and I would presume still flies) a lot of HACs has a PvP pilot and is perfectly aware of their capabilities. They're fantastic fleet ships because of their resists. The buffer is simply a nice bonus that lets the Logi get reps on them.
Also no, Cruisers do not hit BC levels of tank, unless you mean a completely unfitted BC vs a Cruiser with tank fitted. Fully fitted BCs can consistently end up with 3-4 times the EHP of a Cruiser fit due to more slots, more fitting room, and much higher base HP.
The only places Cruisers really beat out BCs is in speed, agility, and cost, which are clearly more important in most current meta's.
How you're getting "the problem is Cruisers fitting larger tank mods" out of that I haven't a clue, especially since Cruisers have been able to fit LSEs and 1600 plates since more or less the inception of Eve as a game. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
377
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 12:13:15 -
[295] - Quote
Battlecruisers are finally fixed, tovarischi!
We can warp 8% faster - the only single detriment that had been in place to successfully employing battlecruisers in spaceships space PvP. Yes.
Rejoice, fellow pilotes. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2303
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 12:24:30 -
[296] - Quote
Felter Echerie wrote:Challus Mercer wrote:Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :( nope; they should be slow. Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.
Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
399
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:02:21 -
[297] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships.
Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical.
Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower.
Taking a game and saying "look! Real life does it this way so we should to!" is utter nonsense. We play games like because they're different from real life and let us do things we never could in real life. That's why the people who make games are called Game Developers and not Urban Planners.
Games can take inspiration from real life and even mimic it when appropriate, but that should always be because doing so favors gameplay in some way and in this case Eve Battleships are slow. It's one of the fundamentals of the class for the last 8-9 years, ever since the Nano-Nerf, and the game is better for it. |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4406
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:05:07 -
[298] - Quote
I have removed a rule breaking post.
The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
639
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:03:11 -
[299] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Eve has borrowed the names, nothing more, and it's hardly alone in Sci-Fi for doing that. Battleships in Eve have always traded the speed of the smaller classes for projection and firepower...
And here is the problem that battlecruisers and battleships face. Warping fast or not is only a tiny part that makes them bad.
The warping thing is bad because you want to get from a to b at some point. As long as you are in the warp tunnel nothing happens anyway, everything is out of your control.
The being useless on grid is the other thing that makes those classes bad. Fine you have 1000-2000dps that you can neither project nor apply to anything.
Both classes are too slow to keep up with the cruiser speeds and long range guns need so much help that it is always better to keep them in a station. So there goes the projection out of the window.
Battleships have that other problem that they need to get a target lock on something before they get volleyd of the field.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2318
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:08:46 -
[300] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Felter Echerie wrote:Challus Mercer wrote:Nice! Thx for listening to the community and giving us at least something. Would be very nice to see the same for battleships. They are damn slow at warping :( nope; they should be slow. Not at all. Historically battleships were always high speed ships. The reason destroyers and frigates were required to be fast was to keep up with capital ships. Given that EvE's classes are based on naval vessel classes the idea they should be slow is pretty non-sensical. Historically you could send a few carriers out and decimate half of the American Pacific fleet with but a few losses. But that wouldn't be fun for gameplay though. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |