Here are the base Agility, Mass, and Speed values for T1 and T2 frigates and destroyers, and T1 Cruisers (which is all I could bother with doing). If you'll note, Minmatter have the top ship in raw speed in every category, and their slowest ship is still faster than one (or more) of the slowest ships in every other race.

Also base mass has very little to do with how effective a ship is with an over-sized propulsion module. Because the module adds a large amount of base mass when active the key factor is the inertia modifier for the ship, and Caldari are generally toward or at the bottom. The closest competition Minmattar have for a combination of speed and agility is the Gallente, and they still win out in raw speed.

.

Wise words

The end result is that minmatar is NOT good on what they were supposed to be good (with very rare exceptions).

Gud idea, but then give Battleships a role bonus as well.

Real eve is not like that. The MASSIVE acceleration advantage of gallente means they outpace minmatar EASILY at the start of the combat, and they can get tackle (and in tackle range they win, purely and simple).


Also the Bonus do overheating MWD DENIES any racial speed advantage. No other overheat bonus is SEVERAL TIMES larger than the bonus a module modifier gives ( nanos for example). That means that It does not matter that you have 10% higher max speed. The other ship that is more agile just need to Overheat at some point and you wil NOT have time to react, because the speed boost is too massive.


Someone that cannot catch a minmatar ship , while using a gallente ship of same class is just a horrible player, or stuck in a very very singular scenario ( for example, battleships react slowly enough that the acceleration means less).

The end result is that minmatar is NOT good on what they were supposed to be good (with very rare exceptions).

You know, it wouldn't kill just to ditch the drawback completely. There are other rigs like this and reducing tank/gank for a non combat benefit is arguably enough of a trade.

Warp Speed Rig Penalty: Disruptors/Scrams work at a longer range against ships fitted with Warp Speed Rigs.

Rationale: Rigs aren't super-engineered, so the boost in warp speed comes at the result of having a more "fragile" warp field.

Or not. My vote is for "not."

Why?

Interesting idea, but out of curiosity which other rigs don't have any sort of drawback? I can't recall any right off the top of my head despite also recalling that they exist. Would be useful for comparison in power level.

It's clear from this thread and the amount of debate over Battleship warp speed that warp speed is very much a powerful thing to have so many it is appropriate for these rigs to have a drawback?

Sig increase isn't much of an issue, so i think that will be more favorable. Especially when BC/BS already have the sig of a moon. Not to mention, this is a "tiny" interceptor nerf. All these travel fit ceptors with i-stabs might actually be caught by the sensor boosted loki's that keep crying on the forums.

Done right, travel-ceptors should not be catchable due to the <2 tick aligns, as it takes a tick to start the lock, and a tick to confirm the lock, and scram/point lands the next tick

Interesting idea, but out of curiosity which other rigs don't have any sort of drawback? I can't recall any right off the top of my head despite also recalling that they exist. Would be useful for comparison in power level.

It's clear from this thread and the amount of debate over Battleship warp speed that warp speed is very much a powerful thing to have so many it is appropriate for these rigs to have a drawback?

lots and lots of talk in this thread about how useless CBCs are.


The simple solution is to remove OGB's.


Once OGB's are gone, have a look at how popular CBC's become.

Yes, CBC's have other failings but these would only be stats tweaks (lock range is one of them).

Check the agility numbers again (align time) the difference between Minmatar and Gallente ships is *tiny* and the faster speed of the Minmatar ships easily compensates in most cases, putting them at a higher speed faster than the equivalent Gallente ship. In the few cases where this isn't the case the difference is so tiny as to not matter.

For example, this is a graph of the velocity of the Claw and Ares over time as they accelerate from zero. Note that at every point in the graph the Claw is moving faster than the Ares. Also because the Minmatar ships are generally more agile than the Gallente ones they respond better to a propulsion module as well since propulsion modules add a mass penalty as part of their activation to mitigate the speed increase and reduce agility. This means that an Ares and a Claw fitted with a T2 MWD align in almost exactly the same amount of time.

I'll see about editing in the source data for the graph to my original spreadsheet so other people can make their own tests and comparisons.

The problem with CBC is simply that they are not powerful enough to justify a drop in speed of a group moving, and if the groups decide they can spare to go slower, they skip BC and go directly to Battleship level.

At the individual scale the main problem with BC is their LACK of mobility, specially because non oversized prop mods are quite worse on them than on cruisers.

You could fix that with a bonus to prop mod amount and or tweaks on mass and agility. Let BC e less agile than cruisers but make them able to reach same speeds. Otherwise they are simply unable to fight against cruisers on small scale warfare.

When the scale grows up and logistic and damage projection means everything, that is when BC collapse completely. T2 and t3 ships of cruiser sized hulls are UTTERLY superior. That is a scale of warfare where I do not see BC being relevant again with only small changes.

Eve is simple, contrary to the beliefs of many. Combat efficiency depends if you are a force multiplier/tackle or fighting material. if you are fighting material the important aspects are mobility, projection, damage and staying power. BC are BAD.. at mobility, projection and staying power and on same level as hacs for damage. No reason to use them.

The last time I flew a CBC in anger was a little while ago (when I was still able to play a lot more than now..... RL is far more important). In that situation I flew (the only BC in the fleet) a Prophecy with HAMs and an armour link. It was very beneficial to the fleet and because I had a 15% warp speed implant fitted I kept up with the T1 gang easily.

Eve is heading in a direction where getting assets on grid and doing their job very quickly will be key. Trying to setup an offgrid booster on the fly will be time consuming and will probably lose you the capture point. Also, if OGB's got deleted then people wouldn't simply just switch to command ships. They're an absolute SP sink and very expensive. They would use CBC's most of the time and switch to command ships when the need was required.
I see the future of EvE combat being very bloody with Entosis Sov so people won't be that willing to throw very expensive ships into the furnace constantly but, hey, a CBC, sure why not.

I just feel that making gang links simply have a 250-500km bubble of effectiveness would solve a hell of a lot of issues in the game and give CBC's an actual purpose.

things I agree on general terms....

Stuff about tanking modules and an overuse of capital letters

I was pleased to hear how Gorski Car had put this change to CCP and that you have embraced his idea. With these changes do you mind doing some tests on the differences in align time and warp out with the Drake compared to other T1 battlecruisers. It seems to me that my poor old Drake could never align and warp out quick enough no matter how much I trained my skills up to level 5 for navigation or changed fits to get inertia levels lower. Over the years it just seemed to react the same. Anything that can help my Drake get away quicker will surely make me dust off the cobwebs and roll them out again.

At this point, they almost require a MMJD to survive.