Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2465
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 03:14:43 -
[1] - Quote
These would be battleships designed for structure bashing mostly, but also for large fleet PVP, for shooting capital ships or maybe just shooting the other fleet's siege battleships. It'd be a way for a rich alliance to put a lot of resources on the line to make their fleet spectacular. I'm sure people will find uses for them solo or in small groups.
Basic layout: these all have eight high-slot weapons, two races have a damage and rate of fire bonus, the other two have a damage and range bonus. All four have a defense bonus and a mobility bonus. They all have fairly small drone bays as they are not designed to excel on their own. Lastly, they can fit the Bastion Module, should they feel willing to give up a weapon slot for it.
Amarr Siege Battleship 8 high slots, 8 turret hardpoints 4 mid slots 8 low slots 30m3 drone bay, 30mbit/sec bandwidth
Amarr Battleship skill 5% bonus to large laser turret damage per level 4% bonus to armor resists per level
Siege Battleships skill 5% bonus to large laser turret rate of fire per level 20% bonus to warp velocity per level
Role: chase medium fleets and brawl them down
Caldari Siege Battleship 8 high slots, 8 launcher hardpoints 4 mid slots 8 low slots 30m3 drone bay, 30mbit/sec bandwidth
Caldari Battleship skill 7.5% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile kinetic damage per level 2.5% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile EM, thermal, and explosive damage per level 4% bonus to shield resists per level
Siege Battleships skill 7.5% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile velocity per level 10% reduced cooldown time of Large Micro Jump Drive per level
Role: jump to a safe distance and rain missiles from afar
Gallente Siege Battleship 8 high slots, 8 turret hardpoints 4 mid slots 8 low slots 30m3 drone bay, 30mbit/sec bandwidth
Gallente Battleship skill 5% bonus to large hybrid turret damage per level 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount per level
Siege Battleships skill 10% bonus to large hybrid turret optimal range per level 10% reduction in capacitor costs of fitting and running a microwarpdrive per level
Role: maintain battlefield mobility and always fight from just outside the opponent's range
Minmatar Siege Battleship 8 high slots, 8 turret hardpoints 4 mid slots 8 low slots 30m3 drone bay, 30mbit/sec bandwidth
Minmatar Battleship skill 5% bonus to large projectile turret damage per level 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount per level
Siege Battleships skill 5% bonus to large projectile turret rate of fire per level 7.5% bonus to ship agility per level
Role: warp in, blap everything in sight, warp out
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
341
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 03:23:50 -
[2] - Quote
These are all better for 10/10 running than pvp. Siege doesn't mean fast. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2465
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 03:31:55 -
[3] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:These are all better for 10/10 running than pvp. Siege doesn't mean fast. Seems reasonable. It's nice for your siege ships to be able to make a quick getaway in a pinch, but these might also see plenty of use for running 10/10s. Would be nice to see more subcaps running those.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1004
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 03:45:10 -
[4] - Quote
Please distinguish these from Marauders. Honestly, it sounds like all you need to do is properly rig your Marauders to fill the roles you want out of these absurdities.
Edit - also, you list 8 highs, 4 mids, 8 lows for all of them. You intended this?
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2465
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 03:54:37 -
[5] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Please distinguish these from Marauders. Honestly, it sounds like all you need to do is properly rig your Marauders to fill the roles you want out of these absurdities.
Edit - also, you list 8 highs, 4 mids, 8 lows for all of them. You intended this?
These are more mobile than marauders but have less high slot fitting flexibility. They cannot fit a bastion module without giving up weapon power, and they do not possess a bonus to tractor beams or a large cargohold.
Edit - was fixed already in an edit.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
446
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 04:55:59 -
[6] - Quote
To be blunt, there's not much really to look at here. Maybe I'm missing something, but these bonuses and hard-point numbers don't really offer much in the way of making them anti-cap/structure (at least no more than your typical marauder). It's late and I'm pretty tired (and slightly buzzed as well), so again I may have missed punch line here. The siege skill bonuses are a little underwhelming. They just feel like tier 3 battleships with an extra set of bonuses.
Perhaps once they are further fleshed out, something can be made of them. What's there base stats in terms of tanks, maneuverability, fitting, cap tanks, etc? If we knew these, we could do more to make them "pop out" more.
Edit: I missed the ability to mount a Bastion. It's a start, but not enough even then. There's potential, just not there yet.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
201
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 05:42:22 -
[7] - Quote
Sounds interesting, at least at the begining og topic.
Tech II version of tier 3 BS is already good to see. Not sure about siege bonus for resists and armor/shield rep. What for? I see them mostly in sniper fleet so tanking is something not that much needed at least for structure grinding. Better to add fall off or optimal. And i'm more about RoF bonus given above straight DPS one. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
798
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 06:09:40 -
[8] - Quote
I want to like it. But I can't. There is no unifying concept to the line, other than being t2 combat ships.
The MWD role bonus on HACs and AS bring the disparate weapon systems and bonuses into a coherent class of ships.
HICs have the bubble which defines them.
Likewise recons have stealth and long range EWAR as a common theme.
Marauders have tractors, huge bays and application, as well as bastion and active tank.
All these ships have in common is damage bonuses, which, given the widely varied secondary bonuses, make for a "class" which isn't coherent.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2466
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 06:34:58 -
[9] - Quote
They're not supposed to be highly streamlined. These are basically battleship versions of the assault line.
James Baboli wrote:The MWD role bonus on HACs and AS bring the disparate weapon systems and bonuses into a coherent class of ships. I guess I could give them some sort of role bonus to make them stand out more. Maybe even take their weapon hardpoints down to 7 and boost their damage bonus to make fitting the bastion module easier.
I considered the possibility of giving them another weapon skill bonus and turning their mobility bonuses into a role bonus, but it seems odd to have a role bonus that is different for each ship, and I don't want to scrap that variety. What about a role bonus that boosts their damage and reduces their rate of fire? It would save ammo for extended siege engagements as well as offering more potential for alpha strike.
I'm not going to change anything yet until I have a coherent plan of action. Let me know what you think.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2466
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 06:37:24 -
[10] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Marauders have tractors, huge bays and application, as well as bastion and active tank.
All these ships have in common is damage bonuses, which, given the widely varied secondary bonuses, make for a "class" which isn't coherent. They all have standard racial tank bonuses, but I guess I could change it up by giving them all passive tank.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
446
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 07:30:29 -
[11] - Quote
Wall of text, so to skip, just look for "END OF MY STORY".
Something that I want to point out is that back when the warp mechanics where changed, but before the pirate rebalance, the inherent adverse affect these changes had on ship classes like the common battleship offered a unique opportunity where the 3rd Tech2 BS could come from. An idea came about with old acquaintances of mine and I in a discussion about a new line of Tech2s that where something along the lines of "Mobile Expeditionary Fighting" Battleships, the concept name was MEF-BS. A MEF-BS where largely average in damage, tanks that where only slightly better than average due to them having Tech2 resist, good to great on-grid mobility, strong sensor strengths, etc. Basically, tier 3 BS's with Tech2 resist/sensors and the usual amenities. Their role or uniqueness was that they had nearly cruiser level warp capacity and in general focused largely on being high-speed-low-drag. They were essentially the exact opposite of marauders, fast and nimble rather than slow and beefie.
The part that kind of killed it for me was when the pirate reballance came around and, more specifically, the direct changes to the Angel ships. Our MEF-BS's where basically Macharials, but one was Amarr, one was Caldari, one was Gallente, and one was Minmatar. It felt a little too similar to what is suppose to be what makes the Angel boats freaks of nature and MEF-BS's threatened to directly render the Macharial obsolete.
END OF MY STORY.
I think the issue is that (as has always been) that a 3rd Tech2 Battleship has no known role yet. The warp mechanics changes offered a possibility, but the Angels' ships have already kind of beat us to the punch in that regard. Define the role, and then we will have our 3rd Tech2. That's the problem here...no role to fill. The bastion module just makes them marauders with slightly different stats, but not really offers what we need for another line of battleships. It works for the marauders because they are the only ones that can use them. The only way that could work here is if the bastion modules do something entirely different for the 3rd Tech2s. Otherwise, and likely the better route anyways, they need that difference right out of the box and we need to dump the "just give them bastion modules too" idea all together. Food for thought.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2466
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 07:43:59 -
[12] - Quote
I feel like raw combat is a role, and one that is not yet filled properly by a battleship. Marauders do it pretty well, but with extra baggage. I think the distinction for these is in them being based around siege warfare, which is one of the main things battleships are used for, but I've generalized their stats and bonuses to be much like smaller assault ships.
I feel like it would have made more sense for a set of tech 2 siege battleships to have the bastion module, and Marauders should have been left with their tracking bonuses and utility highs so that they excel in solo PVE. Bastion modules don't fit Marauders, it was just a module that needed to be added and they shoved it on Marauders because siege battleships didn't exist.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
447
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 08:20:58 -
[13] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I feel like raw combat is a role, and one that is not yet filled properly by a battleship. Marauders do it pretty well, but with extra baggage. I think the distinction for these is in them being based around siege warfare, which is one of the main things battleships are used for, but I've generalized their stats and bonuses to be much like smaller assault ships.
I feel like it would have made more sense for a set of tech 2 siege battleships to have the bastion module, and Marauders should have been left with their tracking bonuses and utility highs so that they excel in solo PVE. Bastion modules don't fit Marauders, it was just a module that needed to be added and they shoved it on Marauders because siege battleships didn't exist.
To be fair, the problem with the Bastion module as far as the Marauders are concerned isn't simply that it does fit on them, it's that CCP couldn't stand it that a combat ship, even though having already a role established, had a role that was non-PvP centric. To be honest, I'm still largely unclear on what it was that CCP was hoping how the bastion module was going to change that. I haven't heard nor seen Marauders used in PvP anymore than they were before their rebalance. They still work incredibly as L4 killing machines, hell even better in many ways. In fact, CCP seems to have made them better at PVE than they were far more so than addressing any disparity of use of them in PVP. I can't really complain. Just can't really say that worked like a charm either.
What it sounds like you're looking for is the so-called "mini-dreads" people thought marauders were turning into at one point back in that Sept-Dec threadnaught just before Rubicon went live. The difference is that Marauders don't apply MORE damage like some pro-mini-dread players wanted, so much as they apply and project it better and with fewer forms of interruption. CCP and others argued against it due to the risk that such a ship class would overshadow other ships way too much in both PVP and PVE.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2467
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 08:38:24 -
[14] - Quote
I've proposed mini-dread ideas before, but I just want this ship to be fairly standard in battleship PVP roles. Most of that involves either structure bashing or various fleet maneuvers involved in setting up for a structure bash, or defending against a structure bash. I think a dedicated mini-dread should have a lot more DPS than regular battleships but be forced to become immobile for an extended period of time and lose tracking to get it. Maybe these ships could get a DPS boost when entering bastion mode...hmm that could even be a role bonus. But mainly I see their situational maneuverability combined with basic raw damage skill bonuses to be focused on what's needed for structure-bashers.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
448
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 09:17:20 -
[15] - Quote
Now, we're getting somewhere. The Bastion module could be reconfigured to give a set of bonuses specific to Marauders, the projection ones, a set for both (30% omni resist), and finally a set specific to the Siege Battleship. High damage, low tracking, low rate of fire.
Marauders Receive: 25% Optimal Range 25% Falloff Range 25% Missile Flight Velocity
Siege Battleships Receive: ???% Damage of Large Guns and Launchers -??% Rate of Fire of Large Guns and Launchers -??% Tracking Speed of Large Guns -??% Explosion Velocity Bonus
Both Receive: 30% Resistances to Shields, Armor, and Structure
Can be fitted to Marauders and Siege Battleships
Otherwise same penalties/advantages apply. The Bastion Module I description would also need to be modified accordingly as well. Unfortunately, I've got to go to bed, or I'll never get up tomorrow. I like where this is going though.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
799
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 10:14:20 -
[16] - Quote
I think trying to get bastion on there is counter productive. Leave bastion to the marauders.
So, when trying to build ships, especially a new class:
Purpose flows from a need. Mechanics flow from purpose.
So, the bastion module fills the "need" for a way to make marauders tank extremely well, and resistant to EWAR and apply their DPS well, without making them solowtfpwnmobiles all the time. Thus bastion is a good thing for a marauder, as the mechanics serve the purpose in a targeted way.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Kalen Pavle
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
29
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 11:25:19 -
[17] - Quote
Should fit a new mini-capital sized turret (maybe 4 of them). Has a much cheaper build cost to make them viable. This sets them up to bash undefended towers and to be an anti-capital ship. Give them a low ROF and make them only capable of getting enough range to hit a POS tower with short range ammo. We don't need them sniping battleships from 200km out. Give them a small-ish sig radius and a tracking bonus that lets them stay slightly under a dreadnaught's tracking with good piloting.
Basically you're introducing submarines to deal with the capital threat. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
800
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 11:36:30 -
[18] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote:Should fit a new mini-capital sized turret (maybe 4 of them). Has a much cheaper build cost to make them viable. This sets them up to bash undefended towers and to be an anti-capital ship. Give them a low ROF and make them only capable of getting enough range to hit a POS tower with short range ammo. We don't need them sniping battleships from 200km out. Give them a small-ish sig radius and a tracking bonus that lets them stay slightly under a dreadnaught's tracking with good piloting.
Basically you're introducing submarines to deal with the capital threat. So, like stealth bombers without the stealth, but with more DPS?
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2467
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 12:00:39 -
[19] - Quote
I'd like to see a set of mini-capital weapons with power and tracking somewhere between dreadnought and battleship, able to be fit either to a dreadnought that wants more tracking, or to a special subcap or minicap designed specifically to mount them. They could be good for shooting kiting capitals, or for when dreadnought fleets want to better defend themselves. And of course the smaller and cheaper ship mounting them would be a structure bash ship: navigate in and out more quickly and easily and break the structure at less cost than with dreadnoughts.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1841
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 12:45:44 -
[20] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote:Should fit a new mini-capital sized turret (maybe 4 of them). Has a much cheaper build cost to make them viable. This sets them up to bash undefended towers and to be an anti-capital ship. Give them a low ROF and make them only capable of getting enough range to hit a POS tower with short range ammo. We don't need them sniping battleships from 200km out. Give them a small-ish sig radius and a tracking bonus that lets them stay slightly under a dreadnaught's tracking with good piloting.
Basically you're introducing submarines to deal with the capital threat.
If you give them a tracking bonus, they might become blap machines. Especially since you want mobility too since it can help reducing transversal... |
|
Kalen Pavle
Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing
29
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 12:59:36 -
[21] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kalen Pavle wrote:Should fit a new mini-capital sized turret (maybe 4 of them). Has a much cheaper build cost to make them viable. This sets them up to bash undefended towers and to be an anti-capital ship. Give them a low ROF and make them only capable of getting enough range to hit a POS tower with short range ammo. We don't need them sniping battleships from 200km out. Give them a small-ish sig radius and a tracking bonus that lets them stay slightly under a dreadnaught's tracking with good piloting.
Basically you're introducing submarines to deal with the capital threat. If you give them a tracking bonus, they might become blap machines. Especially since you want mobility too since it can help reducing transversal...
Fair point, I suppose they don't actually need it to stay under a sieged dread's guns, as this would basically be the goal behind them. Massed carriers would still counter them until you can alpha a carrier off the field, which is basically what you have to do to a slowcat group anyway.
The question becomes how do we turn a siege battleship into a ship that isn't used to blap standard battleships. Do we give it and its guns horrible tracking? Do we give them a module that basically puts them into a siege mode to do any sort of damage?
Perhaps they should stay with large guns but have a siege module that massively increases their damage potential at the cost of massively gimping their tank, but allows them to stay mobile.
It's a ship I definitely see a need for, but I don't know if there is enough room in the eve ecosystem for a ship as designed. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
299
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 13:22:27 -
[22] - Quote
Marauders, heard about them before? |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
302
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 13:30:39 -
[23] - Quote
I came hoping for ships that would have some unique qualities to make them interesting / compelling to use for s specific role.
I saw.
I left scratching my head and wondering if they would really have a unique role to play, or are they simply Marauders with some desired bonus tweaks.
Oh well leave this ofr those who may understand better what the goal of these was. |
Christopher Mabata
The Interstellar Manipulation Consortium
336
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 15:34:32 -
[24] - Quote
Sounds a lot like "Marauders With Benefits"
In my opinion we don't need more battleships we need comprehensive re-balance of existing hulls and their use in Modern EvE
Theory-Crafter, Free Agent, Immortal Space Pirate. Generally Crazy and difficult to understand at times.
|
Alexis Nightwish
217
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 17:42:45 -
[25] - Quote
Soooo they're just Marauders with some tweeks because you want to bash structures in a 1b ISK hull when a Domi does it fine.
"Do deeps" isn't a role that needs a new ship class to fill.
-1
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
281
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 17:47:01 -
[26] - Quote
Make a lline of t2 battleship ewar platforms.
Better yet, search F&I since i bet that was already suggested. Petition that thread to be opened and post in it. Make sure to thank me on your way out. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2467
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 18:03:05 -
[27] - Quote
Christopher Mabata wrote:In my opinion we don't need more battleships but but but tier 3 battleships
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1841
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 18:25:14 -
[28] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote: The question becomes how do we turn a siege battleship into a ship that isn't used to blap standard battleships. Do we give it and its guns horrible tracking? Do we give them a module that basically puts them into a siege mode to do any sort of damage?
Easy, just look at how bombers are frigs with high DPS that never became anti-frig machines and you will see how to make anti cap battleship without creating blap machines. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2467
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 18:43:18 -
[29] - Quote
There is an issue with tracking in which effective movement of the target becomes divisively smaller with distance. This allows ships with very low tracking values to track ships that are moving rather fast relative to their tracking values, if they can sight it in at a very long range yet still be within optimal. This can make it difficult for a battleship to evade a dreadnought's fire, should the dreadnought have sufficient range while also having strong tracking bonuses, and it helps to have the target battleship painted up. Then the dreadnought can make very short work of the battleship due to its impressive rate of fire. If it is able to find and lock a battleship that is not moving somewhat perpendicular to its line of sight to the target, that dreadnought might be able to get in an easy shot without even painting the target or having the best range.
I wish that turrets would lose chance to hit on targets beyond a certain range to signature radius ratio, so for example when a target is too far away for its size, the ship would have difficulty hitting it based on the signature resolution of the weapon and irrespective of any tracking difficulties it may also be having. It should not affect the performance of any weapon systems against the same size targets, but should make it difficult to use large long-range weapons against much smaller targets when at very long ranges. That way, frigates could worry less about battleships that are in the distance, and battleships could worry less about dreadnoughts that are in the distance.
If the above feature were put into the game, it would be a lot easier to put in a mini-capital weapon system with a lot more DPS than battleship weapons, and a lot more tracking than dreadnought weapons.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1841
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 19:02:44 -
[30] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:There is an issue with tracking in which effective movement of the target becomes divisively smaller with distance. This allows ships with very low tracking values to track ships that are moving rather fast relative to their tracking values, if they can sight it in at a very long range yet still be within optimal. This can make it difficult for a battleship to evade a dreadnought's fire, should the dreadnought have sufficient range while also having strong tracking bonuses, and it helps to have the target battleship painted up. Then the dreadnought can make very short work of the battleship due to its impressive rate of fire. If it is able to find and lock a battleship that is not moving somewhat perpendicular to its line of sight to the target, that dreadnought might be able to get in an easy shot without even painting the target or having the best range.
I wish that turrets would lose chance to hit on targets beyond a certain range to signature radius ratio, so for example when a target is too far away for its size, the ship would have difficulty hitting it based on the signature resolution of the weapon and irrespective of any tracking difficulties it may also be having. It should not affect the performance of any weapon systems against the same size targets, but should make it difficult to use large long-range weapons against much smaller targets when at very long ranges. That way, frigates could worry less about battleships that are in the distance, and battleships could worry less about dreadnoughts that are in the distance.
If the above feature were put into the game, it would be a lot easier to put in a mini-capital weapon system with a lot more DPS than battleship weapons, and a lot more tracking than dreadnought weapons.
So you want small ship to double dip on their size advantage for damage avoidance? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |