| 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) |
Mario Putzo
1265
   |
Posted - 2015.04.27 16:10:49 -
[331] - Quote
Styphon the Black wrote:Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.
Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps.
You don't have to?
The BCs are getting a warp speed increase upfront. The rig changes are secondary. Im not sure why CCP chose to announce them in the same thread but they really are not linked in any fashion. 2 completely different changes.
|
abrasive soap
Chest Bumpers
Oh My Bad
6
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 20:25:32 -
[332] - Quote
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
429
|
Posted - 2015.04.27 21:12:38 -
[333] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Styphon the Black wrote:Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.
Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps. You don't have to? The BCs are getting a warp speed increase upfront. The rig changes are secondary. Im not sure why CCP chose to announce them in the same thread but they really are not linked in any fashion. 2 completely different changes.
Really? You can't see why CCP nerf would announce them together?
He knows the pseudo buff to BC's is pointless, so used the (also pointless) change to warp rigs in an attempt to make both look like they may be valid change.
Fozzie Logic - Put warp rigs on your BC's and they are good to roam with.. Thuth is; There not really, the new drawback to warp rigs is likely to see them used on nothing more than ceptors who don't have a tank to worry about but then the extra sig on a ceptor makes it easier to hit so they may not be all that useful there either..
Fozzie has done his usual with warp rigs, added a nerf and attempted to make it look like a buff.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
|
Mario Putzo
1292
|
Posted - 2015.04.28 15:07:32 -
[334] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?
Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1125
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 12:49:07 -
[335] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.
Cruiser DPS is just flat out too damned high across the board. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
135
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 03:51:00 -
[336] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:
Also if someone has a insta locker and you are sub 2 second to get to warp, but your warp destination is 180 degree's from where your ship face (ie you want to warp behind you), i have seen ships get lock.
Still... i have done it, under heavy gates, and still made it out perfectly fine... lol
From a stationary position (i.e. coming out of a gate jump), the direction of your warp destination doesn't have any bearing on the time it takes for you to enter warp. In EVE, ships are modelled as vectors, and the actual orientation of the engines has no relevance to the direction in which thrust is applied. Therefore the time to warp from a stationary position pointing in one direction is the same as if the ship were pointing in the opposite direction and stationary. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 21:23:25 -
[337] - Quote
abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?
You get cruiser warp speed by dropping one rig on the warp speed. Do you actually believe that 'dropping' one rig makes the BC flat out worse than a cruiser, to the point where you have to keep whining about it? I don't even know what you want, exactly. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 21:25:06 -
[338] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.
When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
594
|
Posted - 2015.05.01 21:28:57 -
[339] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that. When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah?
Finite amount of minerals. Importing stuff is harder and harder for doctrines. More efficient use of isk or m3 is becoming more important.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Mario Putzo
1385
|
Posted - 2015.05.02 04:30:12 -
[340] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:abrasive soap wrote:Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable? Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that. When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah?
Its a common theme regardless of Tech level. Cruisers are just off more bang for the buck. Period. They have no real predators, other than other cruisers. The fact BC are so **** in comparison is one of the primary reasons we rarely see BS (in addition to other things like Bombers) since BS are just not practical to use against Cruisers (outside a couple of drone boats but drones are a whole different gripe for a different thread).
Cruisers have no real hard counter, so why would you really ever use anything but them. All you have to do is plan to counter other cruisers, since you can dunk on Dessies, and Frigs. If you see BC, you can just run away, they can't keep up, they can't hit out to range effectively, if you see BS, dunk on them too. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] [12]:: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |