Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Evaclyn
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 03:20:00 -
[1]
I don't know if this has been suggested already, but I think when Strategic Battleships come around(and you know they will eventually), it shouldn't just be a new set of hulls with new BS-sized subsystems. Instead, keep the existing subsystems, but make new hulls that can fit multiple subsystems of the same type. I.E. a hull that can fit 2x offensive, 3xdefensive, 1xelectronic etc.
The Pros and Cons as I see it: Pros: -More Design Space and Flexibility: This opens up a lot more combinations than the current ships. Both in the number of ways the subsystems can be arranged and also in the number of possible hull types.
-Conservation of Developer's Time: Developers can focus on making new unique subsystems, rather than spending time making existing ones bigger and fit for a BS.
-Connectivity to Existing Markets: This way the new market and the old market are still heavily inter-connected. T3 producers won't get as spread out trying to make everything. This prevents less-used subsystems from being not produced, and also allows the ships to come onto the markets faster. This would in general create a more healthy market and possibly cheaper ships.
Cons: -Balance: The only downside I can really see is that this will probably make balancing quite a bit more difficult.
|
Jettisoned Can
Jenova's Witnesses
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 04:55:00 -
[2]
The only way I can see this working without being impossible to balance would be to have a cpu/powergrid/capacitor/armor/sheild multiplier on the BS hull. _________________________ Did you really not have enough room for me? I'm only 1m¦. |
Jin Labarre
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 06:46:00 -
[3]
The pros and cons are bleh. No clue. Hardly possible to foresee that at this time.
Give new things some time, so that it is actually possible to evaluate their impact on the world, before messing with modification suggestions that blow their scale. It makes no sense to discuss such options, before Tech 3 ships are at least a sight more common than an Orca.
Eventually, there might be Tech 3 battleships. It is not guaranteed, though. Actually, more tech 3 ship classes eventually just mean that tech 2 ships would become increasingly obsolete, concept-wise.
|
Fulbert
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 10:43:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Evaclyn -Balance: The only downside I can really see is that this will probably make balancing quite a bit more difficult.
The T2 Battleships are a really bad exemple. You cannot balance Risk vs Reward on uninsurable ships that cost more than 600 millions. People would complain about solopwnmachines AND about the relative weakness of the ship compared to faction Battleships. There can be "T3" (modular and general-purpose) only where there is a lot of T2 specialties. Like frigates or cruisers. ____________________________________ Fulbert Peon |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 11:05:00 -
[5]
On paper the cruisers can be fitted to deal and tank damage like the Command ships but with lots more speed and far lower signature, not sure I want that kind of performance in a BS hull to be honest
Let's wait and see what kind of things the cruisers are capable before we speculate on ways to make even bigger stuff .. there are still 2 subsystems missing as well, so we don't have the complete picture yet.
|
ollobrains2
Gallente New Eve Order Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:05:00 -
[6]
youre going to see tech 3 frigates, destroyers, mining barges, EW related platforms and battlecruisers before u see t3 battlesips
Now tech 3 ammo and guns could be an interesting move - perhaps allow more ROF at the expense of damage Or adding subsystems to t3 guns ( variants of t2 perhaps) that might add a 2nd damage type ( railguns adding 10% projectile along with thermal and EM)
Tech 3 drones that could do omni damage but with less dps on any one specific.
Theres many ways ccp could go with this, tech 3 materials could also be expanded for planetary interaction. And even into t2 booster production
|
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 14:44:00 -
[7]
you will get a serious problem with the bonus's. i mean two of the same subsystem 2* the bonus. will be a problem, and the same with the different sieze of modules that have to fit on it ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:05:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Fulbert
Originally by: Evaclyn -Balance: The only downside I can really see is that this will probably make balancing quite a bit more difficult.
The T2 Battleships are a really bad exemple. You cannot balance Risk vs Reward on uninsurable ships that cost more than 600 millions. People would complain about solopwnmachines AND about the relative weakness of the ship compared to faction Battleships. There can be "T3" (modular and general-purpose) only where there is a lot of T2 specialties. Like frigates or cruisers.
well the t2 ships are generally really worth the extra isk, look at the hac compared too cruisers, or frigs compared to interceptors or af's bc's compared to cs, they are really THAT much better in all aspects, and THEN there are the bs compared to the marauders, ehh well yer hard too say, the bs's are actually really good in this comparising and in some aspect they actually perform the same or even better then the t2 counter part, which is just SO wrong in so many aspects, they totally screwed over dedicated bs pilots.
but well not much to do, they didn't want a "best of them all" ship, so they had to do it like this, worse thing is that they suck at pve too, the dps of rats are simply soo low that the dps of your ship is so much more importent then your tanking abillity, if you look at a marauder it can tank around 2 times more then is ever needed in a lvl 4 mission and lvl 5's well they are such a big failure (since they are in low sec, REALLY not worth doing) that this is not even valid in the aspect of pve'ing. and in normal ratting, well why should you a normal bs can do more then enough for all kind of normal ratting and will cost 40mill to lose instead of 700mill.
so t2 bs needs some new bonusses, some high dps bonusses instead of tanking. ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |