These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battlecruisers: Projection Role Bonus

Author
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#41 - 2015-05-01 06:06:32 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

If Attack Battleships were given significant increases to their speed so they can catch Battlecruisers the same way Attack Cruisers can catch Destroyers, I would support OP's proposal. Otherwise I do believe it would just shift from Cruisers Online to BCs Online.

Are we talking about the terribad 1mn destroyers or are we talking about proper 10mn destroyers, because it takes a 100mn prop cruiser to keep up with most 10mn destroyers......

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#42 - 2015-05-01 06:07:54 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:


I don't complain about destroyers being able to wreck most frigates because cruisers can easily wreck destroyers for not that much more isk. The same cannot be said about battleships against battlecruisers. If battlecruisers were slower than battleships the same way destroyers are slower than cruisers, sure, give them double/triple the guns of cruisers and up their tracking and range by 50%. But that's not the case.


But, i'm not saying to up their tracking, just their range. Reread everything i've posted. BS are not that much slower than BC. Typhoon is only about 35m/s slower than a hurricane (base speed). Raven is about 30-40m/s slower than a drake. You also forget that BC's are using undersized prop mods compared to BS. A raven with MWD is FASTER than a drake with MWD.

Raven w/ MWD = 1028 m/s
Drake w/ MWD = 1003 m/s

The drake may accelerate slightly faster, but its not like a raven couldn't hit a drake within a 30-200km range. And If somehow the raven is being kited at 30km.. well unless they have a pimp LP, the raven can just warp away. Or, fit an MJD to jump out of long point range. Comparison between other BC's/BS is similar, some alil slower, others alil faster. Like the hurricane is roughly 100m/s faster than the typhoon and tempest (when fit with MWD). These are not huge differences.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
A lot of the comparisons in this thread are incredibly biased and inappropriate for what they're trying to prove. For example earlier in this thread someone complained that an AC Stabber could theoretically solo an Hurricane... they have different bonuses... a more valid comparison would be the rupture, and I've never heard of a competent cane pilot complain about ruptures.


What does it have to do with the bonuses matching? It doesn't have to be a stabber, it could be any number of other kitey T1 cruisers. It could be a rail thorax or a nomen for all i care. The point is, cruisers have better speed and the same projection as BC's. BC's have no way to catch a well piloted cruiser, and don't have range to engage them when fit properly. A stabber (or rail thorax, nomen, caracal etc) could all kite a BC indefinitely w/o fear of its weapons causing any significant damage.

Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Also unlike the application bonuses of destroyers which primarily affect their ability to kill frigates, buffing the application of battlecruisers not only makes them better at killing cruisers but also lets them **** on destroyers and frigates. Battlecruisers are also sufficiently fast vs battleships that range bonused battlecruisers would be able to dunk close range Battleships as their bonuses take them over the increased base range of large weapons.

You're essentially just shifting the popularity of cruisers onto battlecruisers.

I think saying this is a class issue is generalising the issue. There are actually many cruisers that see very little use even after their rebalance.


Again, nowhere in this post did i mention giving them an application bonus. ONLY a range bonus. And like I already stated (in the post you quoted too), you could still outtrack the longer ranges guns pretty easily in the faster kite cruisers because of the lack of tracking/application bonuses.

I don't know what BS you've been flying, but even a blaster hyperion or mega can shoot null out to 35km and still do decent dps. And if the BC is shooting you at 40km+ then you can just warp off since you're not pointed. A naked tempest with 800mm shoots out to 27km with faction ammo. A vagabond with 2 TE and a t2 ambit rig shoots out to 28km with faction ammo. So.. you're saying 1km of fall-off is the life/death of a BS vs a BC?

Not even mentioning the pest will outdps the hurricane pretty easily as well. So.. same/similar projection, more EHP, more dps, and more utility (BS have 24km neuts, kinda hard to kite that off), yet.. the fall-off bonused hurricane would kill it you think?

Seriously, when was the last time you saw a kiting BC? Did it need links+drugs+snakes to even be possible? Double nano+poly cane barely gets to 1600m/s. An OH cycle on a BS MWD would be enough to slingshot that. Did you forget that BC speed was nerfed into the ground a couple years ago?

If we shift the popularity of cruisers to BC's, then guess what becomes useful again? Battleships. Then if BS get out of line, cruisers/hacs/t3's will reel them back in again. That is why a ship food chain is important, its balances itself out.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#43 - 2015-05-01 06:11:30 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

If Attack Battleships were given significant increases to their speed so they can catch Battlecruisers the same way Attack Cruisers can catch Destroyers, I would support OP's proposal. Otherwise I do believe it would just shift from Cruisers Online to BCs Online.

Are we talking about the terribad 1mn destroyers or are we talking about proper 10mn destroyers, because it takes a 100mn prop cruiser to keep up with most 10mn destroyers......
A coercer with 10mn afterburner goes slower than a coercer with 1mn microwarpdrive and doesn't take half a minute to change direction. Are you talking about Tech 3 Destroyers? Since OP isn't suggesting Tech 3 Battlecruisers I don't see why I would talk about Tech 3 Destroyers.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#44 - 2015-05-01 06:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

Unless significant changes are also made to Battleships, merely making Battlecruisers able to dunk Cruisers will mean Battlecruisers win every engagement with cruisers of the same tech level and cruisers are forced to flee while at the same time, Battlecruisers have the speed to run away from Battleships. I.e. they can do more than Destroyers currently can and you've overbuffed them.


Completely different concept and league, son, and where are you going to run away with that sig, that agility of yours? Run away to 40km, where short range Battleship weaponry can't reach you?

Oh, wait. Roll

Reading such arguments gives me space cancer.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:

Seriously, when was the last time you saw a kiting BC? Did it need links+drugs+snakes to even be possible? Double nano+poly cane barely gets to 1600m/s. An OH cycle on a BS MWD would be enough to slingshot that. Did you forget that BC speed was nerfed into the ground a couple years ago?

If we shift the popularity of cruisers to BC's, then guess what becomes useful again? Battleships. Then if BS get out of line, cruisers/hacs/t3's will reel them back in again. That is why a ship food chain is important, its balances itself out.


Don't mind him, Stitch. He's just misdirecting the discussion with logical fallacies in order to preserve their beloved Cruisers Online.

Two Prime concepts, one of them being the cornerstone of Eve - the Battleship - left buried in irrelevancy between cruisers and capitals.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#45 - 2015-05-01 06:36:52 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
A coercer with 10mn afterburner goes slower than a coercer with 1mn microwarpdrive and doesn't take half a minute to change direction. Are you talking about Tech 3 Destroyers? Since OP isn't suggesting Tech 3 Battlecruisers I don't see why I would talk about Tech 3 Destroyers.

Let's hop back to the issue at hand then.

t1 combat cruisers speeds all 5s, 10mn MWD as only fitting:
Stabber: 2435
Thorax: 2028
Omen: 2018
caracal: 1881
rupture: 1693
Vexor: 1663
Maller 1580
moa: 1547


t1 BC speeds, all 5s, 10mn MWD as only fitting:
Tornado: 1585
Talos: 1529
Oracle: 1436
Naga: 1386
Cyclone: 1311
Hurricane: 1293
Brutix: 1232
Ferox: 1074
Prophecy: 1170
Harbinger: 1123
Myrmadon: 1120
Drake 1003


In the list above, the battlecruisers which are as fast or faster than the slowest cruiser are in bold. Those within 100m/s of the slowest cruiser are in italics. Now, show me where anyone wants to change any of those 2 attack battlecruisers to be more effective?

Now, for the claim about attack battleships, let us now add a third list, with Battleships running 100mn MWDs (I will, of course include the machariel as it illustrates a point.)


t1 Bs (+machariel) speeds, all 5s, 100mn MWD as only fitting:

Machariel: 1505
Typhoon: 1174
Tempest: 1154
Megathron: 1116
Hyperion 1041
Apocalypse: 1041
Raven: 1028

Dominix: 986
Armageddon: 880
Maelstrom: 835
Scorpion:835
Rokh: 783
Abaddon: 792


As above, speeds which meet or beat the slowest of the vessels in the size class below it are in Bold and those within 100m/s are in italics. For lulz sake, we find a battleship which would be in the italics in the battlecruiser class, being faster than all of the combat battlecruisers which we are currently discussing buffs to, and half the attack battlecruisers which we want left mostly alone.

So, care to try a different argument than raw speeds?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#46 - 2015-05-01 06:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
James Baboli wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
A coercer with 10mn afterburner goes slower than a coercer with 1mn microwarpdrive and doesn't take half a minute to change direction. Are you talking about Tech 3 Destroyers? Since OP isn't suggesting Tech 3 Battlecruisers I don't see why I would talk about Tech 3 Destroyers.

Let's hop back to the issue at hand then.

t1 combat cruisers speeds all 5s, 10mn MWD as only fitting:
Stabber: 2435
Thorax: 2028
Omen: 2018
caracal: 1881
rupture: 1693
Vexor: 1663
Maller 1580
moa: 1547


t1 BC speeds, all 5s, 10mn MWD as only fitting:
Tornado: 1585
Talos: 1529
Oracle: 1436
Naga: 1386
Cyclone: 1311
Hurricane: 1293
Brutix: 1232
Ferox: 1074
Prophecy: 1170
Harbinger: 1123
Myrmadon: 1120
Drake 1003


In the list above, the battlecruisers which are as fast or faster than the slowest cruiser are in bold. Those within 100m/s of the slowest cruiser are in italics. Now, show me where anyone wants to change any of those 2 attack battlecruisers to be more effective?

Now, for the claim about attack battleships, let us now add a third list, with Battleships running 100mn MWDs (I will, of course include the machariel as it illustrates a point.)


t1 Bs (+machariel) speeds, all 5s, 100mn MWD as only fitting:

Machariel: 1505
Typhoon: 1174
Tempest: 1154
Megathron: 1116
Hyperion 1041
Apocalypse: 1041
Raven: 1028

Dominix: 986
Armageddon: 880
Maelstrom: 835
Scorpion:835
Rokh: 783
Abaddon: 792


As above, speeds which meet or beat the slowest of the vessels in the size class below it are in Bold and those within 100m/s are in italics. For lulz sake, we find a battleship which would be in the italics in the battlecruiser class, being faster than all of the combat battlecruisers which we are currently discussing buffs to, and half the attack battlecruisers which we want left mostly alone.

So, care to try a different argument than raw speeds?
I actually meant CBCs instead of Attack BCs my bad. OP didn't even address Attack BCs, and my example used a CBC so I thought that was clear. But my point still stands. You've literally just shown me that with the exception of the Drake (the slowest of all the CBCs), every other Attack BS is slower than their racial counterpart and none of them are faster to the extent that attack cruisers are faster than destroyers.

Also Machariel? It's a pirate BS. If we want to use that then include the Cynabal in the cruisers list to show how easily Cynabals can catch destroyers.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#47 - 2015-05-01 07:12:20 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Completely different concept and league, son, and where are you going to run away with that sig, that agility of yours? Run away to 40km, where short range Battleship weaponry can't reach you?

Oh, wait. Roll

Reading such arguments gives me space cancer.
Where am I going to run away? Ummm. outside of point range? Thought that was obvious. The same reason why fragile frigates run from 100km cormorants, to escape point range, obviously not damage range. Use some logic dude.

A Thrasher can't outrun a Stabber, but you're implying it's fair to give the Hurricane the 50% optimal range bonus of the Thrasher while it can still outrun a Tempest?

Cool story.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#48 - 2015-05-01 07:14:40 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

I actually meant CBCs instead of Attack BCs my bad. OP didn't even address Attack BCs, and my example used a CBC so I thought that was clear. But my point still stands. You've literally just shown me that with the exception of the Drake (the slowest of all the CBCs), every other Attack BS is slower than their racial counterpart and none of them are faster to the extent that attack cruisers are faster than destroyers.


So what is the argument? No one has mentioned a speed buff to CBCs here, just an application bonus on each and every CBC.

As for the destroyer comparison....

T1 Destroyer speeds, all 5s, 1mn MWD as only fitting:

Catalyst: 1846
Thrasher:1844
Coercer: 1709
Talwar:1709
Algos: 1673
Cormorant: 1644
Dragoon: 1578
Corax: 1441

t1 combat cruisers speeds all 5s, 10mn MWD as only fitting:
Stabber: 2435
Thorax: 2028
Omen: 2018
caracal: 1881
rupture: 1693
Vexor: 1663
Maller 1580
moa: 1547


Looks like it is every cruiser that catches destroyers. Something something HARD COUNTER something something INTENDED BALANCE. Means that destroyers kill frigates, cruisers kill destroyers, Battlecruisers kill cruisers and battleships kill battlecruisers. 100m/s difference on a naked fit means alot less when both of you have the room for a nano or an overdrive, or when you can hit effectively to 100km+.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#49 - 2015-05-01 07:50:01 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Where am I going to run away? Ummm. outside of point range? Thought that was obvious. The same reason why fragile frigates run from 100km cormorants, to escape point range, obviously not damage range. Use some logic dude.

A Thrasher can't outrun a Stabber, but you're implying it's fair to give the Hurricane the 50% optimal range bonus of the Thrasher while it can still outrun a Tempest?

Cool story.


Which means he can hit at the same optimal as the tempest..... kind of.

AC numbers
All using short range ammo:
Hurricane with 425 AC km 2.25km optimal with a 13km falloff, all skills 5 and 50% bonus to optimal.
Tempest with dual 425 ACs: 2.4km optimal with a 22km falloff, as is.
Tempest with 800 ACs: 3km optimal with 22km falloff

Arty numbers
Hurricane with 720s: 22.5km optimal with 22km falloff
Tempest with 1200s: 24km optimal with 44km falloff
Tempest with 1400s: 30km optimal with 44km falloff

Hmm. Looks like their engagement basket, before TCs and TEs is going to be about the same..... Even 720 arty on the bonused hurricane vs 425s is in an ungood spot for the cane once you start adding on tracking enhancers on a shield pest, or a TC or 2 on an armor pest.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#50 - 2015-05-01 08:47:42 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Where am I going to run away? Ummm. outside of point range? Thought that was obvious. The same reason why fragile frigates run from 100km cormorants, to escape point range, obviously not damage range. Use some logic dude.

A Thrasher can't outrun a Stabber, but you're implying it's fair to give the Hurricane the 50% optimal range bonus of the Thrasher while it can still outrun a Tempest?

Cool story.


Which means he can hit at the same optimal as the tempest..... kind of.

AC numbers
All using short range ammo:
Hurricane with 425 AC km 2.25km optimal with a 13km falloff, all skills 5 and 50% bonus to optimal.
Tempest with dual 425 ACs: 2.4km optimal with a 22km falloff, as is.
Tempest with 800 ACs: 3km optimal with 22km falloff

Arty numbers
Hurricane with 720s: 22.5km optimal with 22km falloff
Tempest with 1200s: 24km optimal with 44km falloff
Tempest with 1400s: 30km optimal with 44km falloff

Hmm. Looks like their engagement basket, before TCs and TEs is going to be about the same..... Even 720 arty on the bonused hurricane vs 425s is in an ungood spot for the cane once you start adding on tracking enhancers on a shield pest, or a TC or 2 on an armor pest.
Yeah similarly a Beam Coercer can shoot to similar ranges to a beam Omen (45 vs 47 in the Omen's favour) but the Omen has advantage of not only more tank and damage but is significantly faster.

A Tempest on the other hand does not enjoy any speed advantage against a Hurricane. Which goes back to what I said earlier, if Attack Battleships were faster than Battlecruisers, the same way that Attack Cruisers are faster than Destroyers, I would be support the proposed range buffs for CBCs because its balanced by a paper/scissors/rock scenario.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#51 - 2015-05-01 08:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
James Baboli wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:

I actually meant CBCs instead of Attack BCs my bad. OP didn't even address Attack BCs, and my example used a CBC so I thought that was clear. But my point still stands. You've literally just shown me that with the exception of the Drake (the slowest of all the CBCs), every other Attack BS is slower than their racial counterpart and none of them are faster to the extent that attack cruisers are faster than destroyers.


So what is the argument? No one has mentioned a speed buff to CBCs here, just an application bonus on each and every CBC.

As for the destroyer comparison....

T1 Destroyer speeds, all 5s, 1mn MWD as only fitting:

Catalyst: 1846
Thrasher:1844
Coercer: 1709
Talwar:1709
Algos: 1673
Cormorant: 1644
Dragoon: 1578
Corax: 1441

t1 combat cruisers speeds all 5s, 10mn MWD as only fitting:
Stabber: 2435
Thorax: 2028
Omen: 2018
caracal: 1881
rupture: 1693
Vexor: 1663
Maller 1580
moa: 1547


Looks like it is every cruiser that catches destroyers. Something something HARD COUNTER something something INTENDED BALANCE. Means that destroyers kill frigates, cruisers kill destroyers, Battlecruisers kill cruisers and battleships kill battlecruisers. 100m/s difference on a naked fit means alot less when both of you have the room for a nano or an overdrive, or when you can hit effectively to 100km+.
It means quite a lot actually because it determines not only if you can keep them pointed to kill them, but whether you can catch up to them and point them before they align out and warp.

My argument is simply that the proposed range buffs by the OP are imbalanced without either nerfing the speed of BCs further OR (and preferably) increasing the speed of Attack Battleships. Flying a destroyer, you're at a much higher risk of getting caught by a non-consensual cruiser opponent than you are flying a Battlecruiser and getting caught by a Battleship opponent (practically very little risk in fact unless you **** up in a big way).
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#52 - 2015-05-01 11:14:47 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
I'm not really sure what you mean by this:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
For the Ferox the 10% optimal per level trait would be removed in favor of a different trait (perhaps 5% dmg or RoF per level). This would help it to drop 1 turret, helping fitting (which could be tuned slightly with the change as well to reduce a little PG).
There isn't a need to 'drop turrets' or do anything else drastic. I think simply adding a role bonus focused on damage application to all the CBCs would go a long way to getting them used and healthy.


We play Cruisers Online because the T3Cs are broken as hell, and the cruiser class as a whole doesn't have any natural predators. Nothing would make my happier than seeing CBCs become cruiser killers similar to how destroyers are frigate killers.

This is what I would like to see (my changes are in italics):


PROPHECY
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Drone damage and hitpoints
4% bonus to all Armor Resistances

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to drone tracking
(Drone bandwidth increased from 75 to 100)


HARBINGER
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% reduction in Medium Energy Weapon capacitor need
10% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon damage

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon optimal range


HARBINGER NAVY ISSUE
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
7.5% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon tracking speed
10% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon damage

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to Medium Energy Weapon optimal range


FEROX
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
4% bonus to all Shield resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed


DRAKE
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
4% bonus to all shield resistances
10% bonus to kinetic damage of Heavy Missiles and Heavy Assault Missiles

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to missile explosion velocity


DRAKE NAVY ISSUE
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity
5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile explosion radius per level

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to missile explosion velocity


BRUTIX
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range OR +50% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff


BRUTIX NAVY ISSUE
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range OR +50% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff


MYRMIDON
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage dealt by drones
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+37.5% bonus to drone tracking


CYCLONE
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile and Light Missile rate of fire
7.5% bonus to Shield Boost amount

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
25% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile and Light Missile explosion velocity


HURRICANE
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed


HURRICANE FLEET ISSUE
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fire

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
+25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed


GNOSIS
Special Abilities:
25% bonus to Medium Energy, Hybrid and Projectile Turret damage and tracking
25% bonus to Heavy Missiles and Heavy Assault Missiles damage and explosion velocity
50% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage dealt by drones and +25% bonus to drone tracking speed
37.5% increase to scan strength of probes

Role Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules


Role Bonuses are bonuses built into the ship class itself, they can't differ from one BC to another (like a family trait). And the most needed built in bonus for BC's is propulsion and for CS's it's propulsion & optimal range.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#53 - 2015-05-01 11:16:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
James Baboli wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Where am I going to run away? Ummm. outside of point range? Thought that was obvious. The same reason why fragile frigates run from 100km cormorants, to escape point range, obviously not damage range. Use some logic dude.

A Thrasher can't outrun a Stabber, but you're implying it's fair to give the Hurricane the 50% optimal range bonus of the Thrasher while it can still outrun a Tempest?

Cool story.


Which means he can hit at the same optimal as the tempest..... kind of.

AC numbers
All using short range ammo:
Hurricane with 425 AC km 2.25km optimal with a 13km falloff, all skills 5 and 50% bonus to optimal.
Tempest with dual 425 ACs: 2.4km optimal with a 22km falloff, as is.
Tempest with 800 ACs: 3km optimal with 22km falloff

Arty numbers
Hurricane with 720s: 22.5km optimal with 22km falloff
Tempest with 1200s: 24km optimal with 44km falloff
Tempest with 1400s: 30km optimal with 44km falloff

Hmm. Looks like their engagement basket, before TCs and TEs is going to be about the same..... Even 720 arty on the bonused hurricane vs 425s is in an ungood spot for the cane once you start adding on tracking enhancers on a shield pest, or a TC or 2 on an armor pest.


Range difference is even larger when used with Barrage - the ammo falloff range percentage bonus is the same, but applied to higher base falloff on Battleship ACs, you end up with 36 km foff.

What is it with that guy and speed? Does he envision the mega ottock of nanu canes? Roll We'll just bring Abaddons and melt them with their 1,500 m sig radiuses. Blink

Holy shiet people have forgotten how Battleships are like, figures - Cruisers Online, a long time in the making.

Daniela Doran wrote:

Role Bonuses are bonuses built into the ship class itself, they can't differ from one BC to another (like a family trait). And the most needed built in bonus for BC's is propulsion and for CS's it's propulsion & optimal range.


With their mass and agility, that extra speed would be a gimmick for Battlecruisers, without solving the issue at hand - CRUISERS ONLINE.

The whole concept trades agility and mobility in return for massive tanks and firepower, which can't be projected properly in Cruisers Online. As has been said many times before by most respectable gentlemen - the whole chain is broken, there is no prey for Battleships, because Battlecruisers are impotent, defunct, irrelevant and buried.

TL;DR Fix Ishtars.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#54 - 2015-05-01 11:36:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Completely different concept and league, son, and where are you going to run away with that sig, that agility of yours? Run away to 40km, where short range Battleship weaponry can't reach you?

Oh, wait. Roll

Reading such arguments gives me space cancer.
Where am I going to run away? Ummm. outside of point range? Thought that was obvious. The same reason why fragile frigates run from 100km cormorants, to escape point range, obviously not damage range. Use some logic dude.


Logic goes as follows: YOU'RE BUBBLED. Your fleet is dead.

Sorry, very, very sorry that Lowsec only ends up accounting for a third of PvP in Eve, if that.

Quote:
A Thrasher can't outrun a Stabber, but you're implying it's fair to give the Hurricane the 50% optimal range bonus of the Thrasher while it can still outrun a Tempest?

Cool story.


Why would I outrun your BC? I'll shoot it to pieces, then see how your cruiser logi keeps up with the damage. Roll

But I agree, even a 50% Optimal Range bonus to BCs probably won't break the hold of T3s and Ishtars.

TL;DR Fix Ishtars & T3 EHP
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#55 - 2015-05-01 12:00:06 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:


Role Bonuses are bonuses built into the ship class itself, they can't differ from one BC to another (like a family trait). And the most needed built in bonus for BC's is propulsion and for CS's it's propulsion & optimal range.


Beg to differ. Take a look at the role bonus of various destroyers some time.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2015-05-01 13:18:50 UTC
What's so bad about the potential of a double optimal bonus on the ferox? Everybody seem to want to not generate this. It work for the corm no?
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#57 - 2015-05-01 13:26:12 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
What's so bad about the potential of a double optimal bonus on the ferox? Everybody seem to want to not generate this. It work for the corm no?


Because the vulture gets a double optimal bonus. Less reason to use one if the cheap t1 BC can do the same role. Albeit with lower resists/dmg. But that didnt stop brave from using moas instead of starting with eagles.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#58 - 2015-05-01 13:39:17 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


Role Bonuses are bonuses built into the ship class itself, they can't differ from one BC to another (like a family trait). And the most needed built in bonus for BC's is propulsion and for CS's it's propulsion & optimal range.


Beg to differ. Take a look at the role bonus of various destroyers some time.


I was mainly agreeing with the OP with the need of a micro jump drive activation reduction and 50% optimal range bonus which is really all the CS's needs to be viable once again. Also they may need an additional mid or low slot.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#59 - 2015-05-01 14:32:12 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


Role Bonuses are bonuses built into the ship class itself, they can't differ from one BC to another (like a family trait). And the most needed built in bonus for BC's is propulsion and for CS's it's propulsion & optimal range.


Beg to differ. Take a look at the role bonus of various destroyers some time.


I was mainly agreeing with the OP with the need of a micro jump drive activation reduction and 50% optimal range bonus which is really all the CS's needs to be viable once again. Also they may need an additional mid or low slot.

Much as I would love a cane with another mid, or a harbi that can run prop, web, point, cap booster, TC, I'm pretty sure that would push them from appropriate to OP.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#60 - 2015-05-01 16:07:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Completely different concept and league, son, and where are you going to run away with that sig, that agility of yours? Run away to 40km, where short range Battleship weaponry can't reach you?

Oh, wait. Roll

Reading such arguments gives me space cancer.
Where am I going to run away? Ummm. outside of point range? Thought that was obvious. The same reason why fragile frigates run from 100km cormorants, to escape point range, obviously not damage range. Use some logic dude.

A Thrasher can't outrun a Stabber, but you're implying it's fair to give the Hurricane the 50% optimal range bonus of the Thrasher while it can still outrun a Tempest?

Cool story.


As a lack of grammer/punctuation seem to be running rampant in this thread as of late, ill need you to clarify.

How does a frigate need to escape point range from a corm 100km away? The smartest thing a frig pilot can do against a group of corms is warp off.

If the cane had a 50% optimal bonus (which isnt what i was proposing, but w/e), the ONLY way it could "kite" a pest is with artillery. Optimal bonus does literally nothing for autocannons. Have you ever fit an arty cane? 720s + mwd is 90% of your grid. You will have very little tank in comparison to an ac cane. If you put acs on your cane to "kite" a pest, you will need to stay at 11-18km to apply even moderate dps. Which as already pointed out will not end well for the hurricane.

You also forget one of the biggest utilities of BS. 24km neuts. Hard to kite when you have no cap. BS eat BC without a problem. Not sure why you think 100-200 m/s difference in speed is enough to mean a BS will never catch a BC.