Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lucian Alucard
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 21:06:00 -
[1]
Well I would like to make a copendium of ideas for t2 bc's and all t2 ships that are being developed atm. And to discuss how they will change gameplay as we know.
Personally when battlecrusiers were sloted for development I took the stance that they should be heavily armed and light armored crusiers capable of near bs grade damge. With emergence of stealth bombers that now make crusie missle launchers actually useful and named t2 crusie launchers a acctual commodity the thought that CCP might do the same for some of the unloved turrets came into mind.
Like the caldari bc using 5-6 350mm rails or the gallente using 6 Electron blasters and the Amar being able to make the Dual heavy beam turret a useful mod as well as the Minmatar being able to make the 650MM turret a power house or using 4 or 5 1200mms. Sure they won't be able to do true bs grade damage due to lacking fitting requirements to equip the heavy weapons like mega pulse/beams or 425mm rails and 1400s enmass but they can use a relatively smaller number of lighter weapons. This way the t2 bc will be the dreadnaugh killers,the Hacs will be the t2 BC killer and so forth.If any one has a different idea or sees flaws in my ideas please point them out and be constructive in doing so and leave the flames out.
Please stop being a third rate flamer,I am tired of reactivating my account just to kick your ass. |
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 21:23:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jim Steele on 20/04/2005 21:22:50 I think the T2 BC's should just be a step up from a HAC.. more armour, more turrets & more damage, take the prophacy for example imagine if it had the bonuses the zealot does on all 7 turrets..
Death to the Galante |
Lucian Alucard
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 21:27:00 -
[3]
Would be nice but it still leaves the said moduals I stated as being useless. Especially the Dual 250MM damn thing has needed a fix for over a year and you need Large rail specialisation 5 and 3 t2 damage mods on a meg to get it to work good.
Please stop being a third rate flamer,I am tired of reactivating my account just to kick your ass. |
Techyon
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 21:47:00 -
[4]
Battlecruisers were meant, afaik, to be anti frigate/cruiser platforms.
And if you fit them correctly, they are extremely effective at just that. ------ ARIN Recruiter
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 22:26:00 -
[5]
Quote: Like the caldari bc using 5-6 350mm rails or the gallente using 6 Electron blasters and the Amar being able to make the Dual heavy beam turret a useful mod as well as the Minmatar being able to make the 650MM turret a power house or using 4 or 5 1200mms. Sure they won't be able to do true bs grade damage due to lacking fitting requirements to equip the heavy weapons like mega pulse/beams or 425mm rails and 1400s enmass but they can use a relatively smaller number of lighter weapons.
Agreed, imo they should be able to use low-grade large weapons (like dual 250mm rails) or a full arsenal of best medium guns (250mm's for rails). Right now all of BC's are HUGELY gimped on powergrid, costing only 2.5 times less than a tier 1 BS, but having 8-10 times weaker PG (or even more for amarr/minnie). Their tech 1 resistances and medium ship size cap, albeit bigger than all cruisers is still very vulnerable to heavy NOSsing. They should recieve some anti-BS bonuses, increase in PG, drone bays and a couple of resistances, BUT should cost ranging from 45 to 50 mil isk. Right now they just dont measure up to BS in anything, except maybe high slots (who needs high slots without PG, ffs?) my 0.02 isk on the idea _______________________________________________
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 23:07:00 -
[6]
Keep in mind that tech 2 battlecruiser will have the same bonus as tech 1 battlecruiser. So if you have a Brutix with damage bonus to medium guns, you can bet your ass that it will stay for tech 2 version. That means we shouldn't aim at making tech 2 bc use large guns.
Obviously the tech 2 battlecruiser would have more power grid, more cpu, resistances, hitpoints.. this is all standard and not subject to much manipulation.
What we should examine most closely is the 2 extra bonuses provided by tech 2 battlecruiser skill. I'd say that these bonuses shouldn't follow the classic pattern of more damage/tanking, because battlecruiser is already rather strong. We shouldn't have any superships in game.
The 2 extra bonuses should be something specialized.. not weapon related, not tanking related. I haven't thought of any good ideas for them yet.
|
Shimatu
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 23:17:00 -
[7]
turn caldari one into an EW platform. (ie. a super tough EW platform. none of this "ooh... EW or tanking?"... itll have T2 resistances (better than HACs, in fact, since its got built in ones before T2ing it) dont know about the others, as i cant remember well enough what they all are :P
3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE
|
El Yatta
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 23:45:00 -
[8]
I think the ship models and mass/agility would fit quite well to a specialised role, like Interdictor. Basically a mobile warp disruptor fittedin a ship, ZUPER fast deployment, but ship has -90% speed when active (slightly reduced byskills), and code tweaked so it can drop people out of warp mid-warp. I just think the "bumps 'n' spines" look they have realyl fits the sort of EW/Interdictor role, (like how the interdictors in star wars were star destroyers with lumps), and the fact that they'd be slow and not very nimble, but of course, not the flag-ship stylings of T2 BS.
As for other T2 ships in development
-Patrl cruiser -dunno what this will be. -Point defence cruiser- my vote for most Logistics-like Turkey. This is just one spceialism too far. -Proper Bombers- there are still 4 other bomber models out there, looking less stealthy and more warlike - red Roden missile-belly Tristan, for example. They could be the bomb-packing non-cloaking versions, needing their own skillset, wheras Stealth Bombers are just a freeby to covops.
---:::---
|
Max Payne
|
Posted - 2005.04.20 23:56:00 -
[9]
as it is now if you give a tech 2 brutix the ability to mount 6 350s you should give it more power grid than a dominix and that's just wrong
BC with the right skills has decent tank and damage, lots of turrets - it's like the cruiser version of a destroyer . They're meant to be a cheap alternative of a BS. Hell a well set up BC can take on some BSs.
anyway I'm looking forward to the new tech 1 ships - like carrier or titan or dread, not really concerned with assault BC - btw isn't this 1 descruptive too many assault battle cruiser - it even sounds ridiculous :P
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 00:32:00 -
[10]
Honestly t2 destroyers and battlecruisers is an idea that should never come to pass. There's already so little gap between all the classes.
Oh and they should not use the 'weak' BS guns. because then they'd be the same as regular battleships.
|
|
Phades
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 00:41:00 -
[11]
If they followed the current pattern, the tech2 brutix would be a pretty decent tank with the HAC resist and the base bonus to armor repair. The other 2 bonuses would either be optimal and tracking bonuses or tracking and damage. Id guess the first of the two, combined with the grid and cpu increase from being a tech2 ship would make it a pretty dangerous rail platform.
The prophecy taken to the tech2 scale would be like merging together the sacrilage and the zealot into one platform. Compared to the others, this might be too good of a combination, if the second set of bonuses followed the current pattern with optimal and damage bonus applied. If the bonus followed a different pattern, like tanking similar to the transport ships, then it would possibly be an unbreakable tank with a bonus to armor repair and duration, while in conjunction with the natural resists plus the basic resist bonus.
A tech 2 ferrox, might be the first caldari ship that possibly wouldnt have to have hardeners fitted to be effective. People would most likely still fit 1 EM hardener, but it would be alot more of a complete defensive setup compared to other ships. This could allow, like a previous poster stated, for a tech 2 EW platform, due to the free space available in the mid slots. The tech 2 increase in grid would assit it in being a rail platform and the cap bonuses for sustaining EW and shield boosting, while leaving the lows available for performance enhancers. Giving it 2 EW bonuses like range and EW strength.
Im not very familiar with the minimar version, so i have no idea how it would translate into a tech 2 ship.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 00:51:00 -
[12]
Well, it would probably be 20 m/s faster than all the others.
... and be unimaginably pathetic in every other category. As seems to be the trend for all the recently released tech 2 minmatar junk.
Can't the devs give the minmatar a ship that is slow, but can survive a pin *****/do decent damage/not be impossible to fit for once?
|
Hyey
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 01:50:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Selim Well, it would probably be 20 m/s faster than all the others.
... and be unimaginably pathetic in every other category. As seems to be the trend for all the recently released tech 2 minmatar junk.
Can't the devs give the minmatar a ship that is slow, but can survive a pin *****/do decent damage/not be impossible to fit for once?
give minmatar a ship like that? LIES STOP TRYING TO MAKE SENSE SELIM.
I feel it though, 1400's on a tempest make me wanna cry sometimes. The bonus on the cyclone... makes me cry. ~~ Hyey
I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.
|
Larry King
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 06:23:00 -
[14]
quote " they should not use the 'weak' BS guns. because then they'd be the same as regular battleships."
With no disrespect I disagree 100% with that part of your statment. *If we look at history and draw the ideals of a battle cruiser from it's origins we will find that the German Deutschland class (pocket battleship) as one of the first modren signifigant forays into battle cruisers we find that it's 6x 11 inch guns were quickly out classed by the french Dunkerque class battle cruiser's 8x 13inch guns, aswell as the British Renown class battle cruiser's 6x 15inch guns. My point being that battle cruisers carry battleship armament. Good examples of battle cruiser conflict would be the wars by the French Strasbourgs and the German Scharnhorsts of WW2. So ..yes BC's should indeed be able to carry one or two "large weapons" of battle ship caliber. Am I enjoying my current BC?..yes I love it I think ot would make the game more accurate to fit one or two large guns.
|
Roba
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 07:00:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Shimatu turn caldari one into an EW platform. (ie. a super tough EW platform. none of this "ooh... EW or tanking?"... itll have T2 resistances (better than HACs, in fact, since its got built in ones before T2ing it) dont know about the others, as i cant remember well enough what they all are :P
Intresting... ok if the amarr can create a ship that can sheild tank (vengance and sacralige if u read discription) then maybe the tech II caldari BC can use mid slots for EW and low for armor tanking. Give it a bonus and "unussualy tough" armor for a caldari ship. Another of of those secret contractors like with the destoryers.
|
GBBUTT
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 07:27:00 -
[16]
ungimp gallante Brutix for a start. give me some CPU to actually work with...
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 08:03:00 -
[17]
Originally by: GBBUTT ungimp gallante Brutix for a start. give me some CPU to actually work with...
If you'd actually have any experience with it, you'd know that when fitting it for combat (hint-hint), you have powergrid problems more than anything. Try utilizing 250mm rails or neutrons on it and you'll see what i mean.
BC should use large type weapons of lower-grade, and have a ship class bonus, like -12% for powergrid usage per level of large turrets on a BC - you wont fit a ****load of them, but you'll still have 1/2 of possible points probably. _______________________________________________
|
Lucian Alucard
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 08:27:00 -
[18]
Basically what i am trying to say is t2 bc should be like gankageddons,in that they have punishing offense but sacrifice their defense greatly. Also look at the stealth bomber if they made a bonus pakage that reduced the power grid on large turrets and increased tracking and damage then we are set. Inshort these ships would be able to do upclose damage or being dedicated snipers. The Ewar possibility is always there and added its scary but there are ways around it by shortening its lock range,thus making t2 sensor boosters manditory and that means less ewar mods to use and with the new changes means you need as many ewar mods as possible. Also if u added in a drawback like on destroyers they could balance the ships out but it should be a race specific draw back depending on each said ship. The last thing we need in this game is everyone training for a t2 bc that can out tank and out damage a apoc.
Please stop being a third rate flamer,I am tired of reactivating my account just to kick your ass. |
ArchenTheGreat
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 09:37:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lucian Alucard
The last thing we need in this game is everyone training for a t2 bc that can out tank and out damage a apoc.
Why not? AF can outdamage and outtank most cruisers, HAC can outtank and outdamage some battleships. So BC2 should outtank and outdamage most battleships.
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2005.04.21 09:39:00 -
[20]
Edited by: ErrorS on 21/04/2005 09:41:30 I Disagree completely.. I love my Ferox, I don't want it changed for tech2.
I think they should be a higher level then a heavy assault cruiser. Should be a step up from one, requiring the same skill for steps and maybe some long skill at level5.. tactical shield manipulation or something (armor tankers, don't *****. I had to train mechanic 5) ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
|
Phades
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 07:41:00 -
[21]
Originally by: ErrorS Edited by: ErrorS on 21/04/2005 09:41:30 I Disagree completely.. I love my Ferox, I don't want it changed for tech2.
I think they should be a higher level then a heavy assault cruiser. Should be a step up from one, requiring the same skill for steps and maybe some long skill at level5.. tactical shield manipulation or something (armor tankers, don't *****. I had to train mechanic 5)
Armor repair systems and hull upgrades, not mechanic for armor tanks. Structure count doesnt have alot to do armor tanking. Personally, id suggest energy grid upgrades 5, shield upgrades 5, and hull upgrades 5 for tech 2 battle cruisers. That would be in addition to heavy assault cruisers 4 and battle cruiser 5 of course, when following the same established pattern for assault ships. Generally they have been one skill that is useful, but not neccacary to train to 5, one of questionable use, and one that is probably already trained to 5. I suggested one more than in the established patter, but going from assault to heavy assult ships involves going from a training time of 2x to 3x and i couldnt think of a good mix of 2x+1x+1x skills or a balanced 2x+2x setup that wasnt already used by another tech 2 ship.
|
Lucian Alucard
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 09:09:00 -
[22]
well first crusiers have needed a defensive boost for awhile. They are the most used type of ship in game but are the most gimped imho.
Second a sacrilege out tanking a raven i can see being possible but an Apoc is just flat out wrong. ANYTHING out tanking a ship of that caliber where its main weapon is a nearly indestructible armor tank is obsecen to me.
Also take into account that faction ships will play a role on pvp,maybe not the BS but the crusiers many of which are geared to using Nos and Cap Neuts will make life intresting for AF and HAC pilots.
As far as "Pocket Battleships" go they should lack defense but make up for it with a withering offense and should be turret based ships.
Please stop being a third rate flamer,I am tired of reactivating my account just to kick your ass. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |