EVE Search - T2 Flagships *Battleship Hulls*

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

T2 Flagships *Battleship Hulls*

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:07:00 - [31] Ships which are merely more powerful, more expensive, more difficult to fly versions of existing ships are and always will be a terrible idea. Any ship which follows this pattern makes its predecessor, to a greater or lesser degree, redundant. Which means it makes those players only capable of flying the predecessor redundant. MUDflation means that over time the standard expected of PvP characters will rise ever higher, to the point where the ability to fly the new ship becomes first common and eventually a necessity, making the original ship a useless time-consuming step towards the new standard. The point of new upper-end content is, or at least should be (I'm looking at you, HACs), to expand what older characters can do beyond the roles they have been filling while working their way up to the point where they can access the upper end content in question. This allows new roles for older players to keep them interested and offer a benefit to their commitment to the game, offers a natural role for upcoming players who cannot access the high end content which is to fulfil the role left by the more experienced player, avoids making the role the experienced player is leaving redundant and thus leaves the role as valid and as interesting for the upcoming player as it was for the experienced player, provides additional goals for the upcoming player without making their current role an undesirable stepping stone, and makes the game more varied and interesting for all. A ship which is merely a better, more expensive, more difficult to fly version of an existing one, fails on all these points. On top of this, as has been mentioned, this exact idea has been brought up many times by different people, as apparently the fact that it is obviously a fundamentally flawed idea also makes it an obvious thing for people to think of and post about. - DesuSigs
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:15:00 - [32] Frigates do not have a ganglink-boosting T2 variant. Cruisers do not have a ganglink-boosting T2 variant. Destroyers do not have a ganglink-boosting T2 variant. Battlecruisers DO have a ganglink-boosting T2 ship. Battleships do not have a ganglink-boosting T2 ship. Tier 2 Battlecruisers (period) do not have a T2 variant. Tier 3 Battleships (period) do not have a T2 variant. In any case, you need to read what i posted a bit earlier aswell if you have not. Comprehend it. Tak the Critisism and Admit to the follies. Also, you are not asking for a "just buffed up variant" of the Tier 3 Battleships, you are asking for a "just buffed up" command ship. So your disagreement was that it could ganglink aswel as being a buffed up variant ? I just added the ganglink cuase then everyone would shout OMGWTFPWNMoblie (which is already happening to some extent) I realised that Battleships dont have a PVP viable T2 variant, is that a more precise description or am I still doing it wrong ? + I said Command ships were acting as buffed up BCs and every other subcapital has that T2 variant (by that I meant buffed up not ganglinking) and Tier 3 Battleships were the only Tier that hadnt been used for T2 and it was only fitting they should be a fun more powerful versionf of T1 Battleships If they can use ganglink modules (which are rarely used judging by command ships) then thats just an added and not game breaking bonus Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:18:00 - [33] Originally by: Crumplecorn A ship which is merely a better, more expensive, more difficult to fly version of an existing one, fails on all these points. So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:20:00 - [34] Originally by: Korrakas So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Define successful. - DesuSigs
northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:21:00 - [35] Originally by: Intense Thinker It should be a highsec dread with no weapon slots and a big smiley face painted on the side I support this idea long it has can we be friends on it as well :P Trinity Corporate Services
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:22:00 - [36] Originally by: Korrakas My point was that Command Ships end up acting outside of their intended role e.g just a more beefed up version of BCs and every other subcapital ship has this T2 variant, so why shouldnt battleships have it ? Sure, but "beefed up T2 pvp version" is not a role — it's a design choice. What you're describing is a role that is already covered and thus not needed. Incidentally, since we're talking about command ships here, you'll notice an interesting thing about them: there are two kinds. The field command ships gives damage bonuses and T2 resists over the T1 BC hulls — and that's all. They are also generally less versatile than the T1 versions. The fleet command ships, on the other hand, get T2 resists and command bonuses, but are actually much worse in the offensive deparment than the T1 hulls. Both variants pay for their bonuses by losing ability or capability in some form. Compare this to Marauders: increased offensive and defensive at the cost of being vulnerable to even the weakest ewar frigate. So again: what should its role be? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:22:00 - [37] Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Crumplecorn A ship which is merely a better, more expensive, more difficult to fly version of an existing one, fails on all these points. So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Because Af's Are not Command Ships or Hacs. Hac's are not Command ships or Afs. And Command ships are not Hac's or Af's. You "Fixed" something being a solowtfpwnmobile by ADDING another thing to it? That explains quite alot tbfh. You could argue that HAC's are just bigger AFs, But in reality, AF's and HAC's serve completely different roles, AF's are now, quite excellant armored tackler/anti drone ships. With the exception of the Retribution heh. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:24:00 - [38] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Korrakas So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Define successful. Used by many pilots, considered part of the course of progression of a pilots skills, used widely in pvp and not considered a failure like the so called specialised ships like BlackOps. If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:25:00 - [39] Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Korrakas So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Define successful. Used by many pilots, considered part of the course of progression of a pilots skills, used widely in pvp and not considered a failure like the so called specialised ships like BlackOps. If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... Blackops serves a Niche role, hence the Niche amount of people who use them successfully. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:30:00 - [40] Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Crumplecorn A ship which is merely a better, more expensive, more difficult to fly version of an existing one, fails on all these points. So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Because Af's Are not Command Ships or Hacs. Hac's are not Command ships or Afs. And Command ships are not Hac's or Af's. You "Fixed" something being a solowtfpwnmobile by ADDING another thing to it? That explains quite alot tbfh. You could argue that HAC's are just bigger AFs, But in reality, AF's and HAC's serve completely different roles, AF's are now, quite excellant armored tackler/anti drone ships. With the exception of the Retribution heh. They serve completley diffrent roles but their progression is linear as a ship class in that Cruiser<Heavy Assualt Cruiser Frigate<Assualt Frigate and their roles do not radically change from Frigate to Assualt Frigate, they still are designed to perform the same position just better Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:30:00 - [41] Originally by: Korrakas Used by many pilots, considered part of the course of progression of a pilots skills, used widely in pvp and not considered a failure like the so called specialised ships like BlackOps. If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... As I suspected (but wished to confirm) you succeeded in utterly missing the point. Putting aside for a moment that HACs are the only class which I might consider being guilty of the design flaw I discussed, my entire point was that ships which are subject to this uninspired progression will eventually effectively replace their predecessors, and thus will inevitably become "Used by many pilots, considered part of the course of progression of a pilots skills, used widely in pvp". Ships which fail to become popular by definition cannot cause the issues I highlighted, though they would still be regarded as poorly designed, their failure of design would be mitigated by their failure of practicality. - DesuSigs
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:32:00 - [42] Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Korrakas So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Define successful. Used by many pilots, considered part of the course of progression of a pilots skills, used widely in pvp and not considered a failure like the so called specialised ships like BlackOps. If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... Blackops serves a Niche role, hence the Niche amount of people who use them successfully. Yes but HACs AFs and Command Ships (atleast field command ships as Tippia pointed out) do not perform niche roles and lend themselves admirably to a breadth of situations while battleships just do not have that Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:35:00 - [43] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Korrakas Used by many pilots, considered part of the course of progression of a pilots skills, used widely in pvp and not considered a failure like the so called specialised ships like BlackOps. If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... As I suspected (but wished to confirm) you succeeded in utterly missing the point. Putting aside for a moment that HACs are the only class which I might consider being guilty of the design flaw I discussed, my entire point was that ships which are subject to this uninspired progression will eventually effectively replace their predecessors, and thus will inevitably become "Used by many pilots, considered part of the course of progression of a pilots skills, used widely in pvp". Ships which fail to become popular by definition cannot cause the issues I highlighted, though they would still be regarded as poorly designed, their failure of design would be mitigated by their failure of practicality. And you argue that this replacment of T1 by T2 is wrong and that T2 ships should only be well designed to perform specialised roles and not just act as "the better version" linear progression? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:36:00 - [44] Originally by: Korrakas And you argue that this replacment of T1 by T2 is wrong and that T2 ships should only be well designed to perform specialised roles and not just act as "the better version" linear progression? Essentially, yes. - DesuSigs
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:36:00 - [45] Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Crumplecorn A ship which is merely a better, more expensive, more difficult to fly version of an existing one, fails on all these points. So why are HACs, AFs and Command ships so sucessful when their role is in your own words better, more expensive, more difficult to fly ? Because Af's Are not Command Ships or Hacs. Hac's are not Command ships or Afs. And Command ships are not Hac's or Af's. You "Fixed" something being a solowtfpwnmobile by ADDING another thing to it? That explains quite alot tbfh. You could argue that HAC's are just bigger AFs, But in reality, AF's and HAC's serve completely different roles, AF's are now, quite excellant armored tackler/anti drone ships. With the exception of the Retribution heh. They serve completley diffrent roles but their progression is linear as a ship class in that Cruiser<Heavy Assualt Cruiser Frigate<Assualt Frigate and their roles do not radically change from Frigate to Assualt Frigate, they still are designed to perform the same position just better Assault frigates are sure as hell not designed to perform in the same position as ALL frigates. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:40:00 - [46] Assault frigates are sure as hell not designed to perform in the same position as ALL frigates. Ofcourse not but there is one class for most frigates e.g Ishkur to Incursus, that is a linear progression line where Incursus just outperforms Ishkur Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:41:00 - [47] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Korrakas And you argue that this replacment of T1 by T2 is wrong and that T2 ships should only be well designed to perform specialised roles and not just act as "the better version" linear progression? Essentially, yes. Be as that may this is already to far gone to reverse, you are arguing to keep Battleships T1 and only have specialist roles becuase you do not want to see linear proggression in battleships aswel ? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:41:00 - [48] Originally by: Korrakas If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... No, HACs are no "beefed up cruisers" — they're beefed up force projection (tier 2/3) cruisers. They take the defining feature of the T1 hull and pushes it further, while losing other (cap)abilities of that hull. Same as recons — take the (tier 2) ewar role and push that to the limit, while giving up flexibility. Same as logistics — take the (tier 1) remote support role and push it while giving up flexibility. The key to T2 is specialisation of existing roles. Why don't we see a T2 command cruiser? Because there is no T1 command cruiser whose abilities we can push. So, likewise, what command role in the T1 battleships are you trying to push? There is none, because the "command" role is owned entirely by the battlecruiser class. The problem is that the T1 battleships generally only have one role: force projection (the Scorpion aside). This makes the scope T2 versions somewhat limited, and also goes some way to explain why BlackOps are such niche ships. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:46:00 - [49] Edited by: Korrakas on 04/04/2009 00:48:19 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Korrakas If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... No, HACs are no "beefed up cruisers" ù they're beefed up force projection (tier 2/3) cruisers. They take the defining feature of the T1 hull and pushes it further, while losing other (cap)abilities of that hull. Same as recons ù take the (tier 2) ewar role and push that to the limit, while giving up flexibility. Same as logistics ù take the (tier 1) remote support role and push it while giving up flexibility. The key to T2 is specialisation of existing roles. Why don't we see a T2 command cruiser? Because there is no T1 command cruiser whose abilities we can push. So, likewise, what command role in the T1 battleships are you trying to push? There is none, because the "command" role is owned entirely by the battlecruiser class. The problem is that the T1 battleships generally only have one role: force projection (the Scorpion aside). This makes the scope T2 versions somewhat limited, and also goes some way to explain why BlackOps are such niche ships. But exactly becuase of that point of Battleships already having the role of force projection so inbred anything that does not push that further (while losing flexibilty) will be shunned by public as being too weak etc. + The loss of flexibilty in HACs is minimal compared to their gain. I can see what you suggest though that becuase of that force projection a truly succesful T2 battleship would have to have a diffrent role to specialise in, but as they only have force projection only how can they specialise in something they do not even have a basic role in... that is why I suggested beefed up versions as they are the most logical step up for battleships, increased force projection or multiple foe specialisation. Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:47:00 - [50] Originally by: Korrakas Be as that may this is already to far gone to reverse, you are arguing to keep Battleships T1 and only have specialist roles becuase you do not want to see linear proggression in battleships aswel ? That it cannot be reversed (though it could, if CCP were willing to make significant changes to the game) does not mean that it should be continued. In fact, to my knowledge it was only the earliest types of T2 ships which had this issue, so apparently CCP are actually trying to avoid it. Furthermore, the degree of harm done scales with the difference in power, cost, and skill requirements of the replacement ship. If T2 BSes suddenly replace T1 BSes, that is a larger issue than T2 cruisers suddenly replacing all cruisers. So no, I don't want to see linear progression in BSes. - DesuSigs
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:48:00 - [51] Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Korrakas If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... No, HACs are no "beefed up cruisers" ù they're beefed up force projection (tier 2/3) cruisers. They take the defining feature of the T1 hull and pushes it further, while losing other (cap)abilities of that hull. Same as recons ù take the (tier 2) ewar role and push that to the limit, while giving up flexibility. Same as logistics ù take the (tier 1) remote support role and push it while giving up flexibility. The key to T2 is specialisation of existing roles. Why don't we see a T2 command cruiser? Because there is no T1 command cruiser whose abilities we can push. So, likewise, what command role in the T1 battleships are you trying to push? There is none, because the "command" role is owned entirely by the battlecruiser class. The problem is that the T1 battleships generally only have one role: force projection (the Scorpion aside). This makes the scope T2 versions somewhat limited, and also goes some way to explain why BlackOps are such niche ships. But exactly becuase of that point of Battleships already having the role of force projection so inbred anything that does not push that further (while losing flexibilty) will be shunned by public as being too weak etc. + The loss of flexibilty in HACs is minimal compared to their gain. Look at it this way. HAC's work, because they keep within legitimate levels of "bonuses". You take a battleship and apply the same theory, you get "overpowered" and "be all end all". You make countless ships redundant. Get it now? ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:48:00 - [52] 1 Wrong Fourm section 2 Balqoure Harlin's version of flag ships are superior to yours in many ways 3 My yards are developing Juggernaughts, tier 2 dreadnaughts 4 need better names 5 The notion of being able to fit for pvp only is silly most ships can fit any purpose pod pilot see fit PVP muraders are extremely deadly provided they are backed up with remote eccms 6 Your going have to give me a reason to pick this ship over command ships 7 and making a superior performing ship isnt good enough needs more niche role Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 2Apr09
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:50:00 - [53] Originally by: Nova Fox 1 Wrong Fourm section 2 Balqoure Harlin's version of flag ships are superior to yours in many ways could you link me this thread if you have it handy ? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.04.04 00:53:00 - [54] Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Korrakas Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Korrakas If you are going to start arguing with me that HACs arent succesful or arent considered beefed up cruisers then idk what to say anymore... No, HACs are no "beefed up cruisers" ù they're beefed up force projection (tier 2/3) cruisers. They take the defining feature of the T1 hull and pushes it further, while losing other (cap)abilities of that hull. Same as recons ù take the (tier 2) ewar role and push that to the limit, while giving up flexibility. Same as logistics ù take the (tier 1) remote support role and push it while giving up flexibility. The key to T2 is specialisation of existing roles. Why don't we see a T2 command cruiser? Because there is no T1 command cruiser whose abilities we can push. So, likewise, what command role in the T1 battleships are you trying to push? There is none, because the "command" role is owned entirely by the battlecruiser class. The problem is that the T1 battleships generally only have one role: force projection (the Scorpion aside). This makes the scope T2 versions somewhat limited, and also goes some way to explain why BlackOps are such niche ships. But exactly becuase of that point of Battleships already having the role of force projection so inbred anything that does not push that further (while losing flexibilty) will be shunned by public as being too weak etc. + The loss of flexibilty in HACs is minimal compared to their gain. Look at it this way. HAC's work, because they keep within legitimate levels of "bonuses". You take a battleship and apply the same theory, you get "overpowered" and "be all end all". You make countless ships redundant. Get it now? depends on what bonuses you apply wouldnt it ? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't have holidays. I don't leave the forums unattended. I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2009.04.04 01:02:00 - [55] Balor Harliquin's Flagships Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 2Apr09
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2009.04.04 01:03:00 - [56] Originally by: Korrakas depends on what bonuses you apply wouldnt it ? Sure, you just have to come up with a set of bonuses which guarantees that the ship is neither too costly to be worth it, nor too powerful to become the new standard, without knowing in advance exactly how much it will cost or how it will balance against other ships, and guarantee that this state will hold for the remaining lifetime of the game. What could possibly go wrong. - DesuSigs
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.04 01:05:00 - [57] Originally by: Korrakas I can see what you suggest though that becuase of that force projection a truly succesful T2 battleship would have to have a diffrent role to specialise in, but as they only have force projection only how can they specialise in something they do not even have a basic role in... that is why I suggested beefed up versions as they are the most logical step up for battleships, increased force projection or multiple foe specialisation. …and maybe that's approaching the real answer: not to add T2 battleships just yet, but refine the roles of the T1 ships to give them some more spread. The Caldari (for some reason) already have this in the EWar/tier 1 Scorpion. With that kind of differentiation — or preferably even more — in place, the further specialised T2 roles could be more easily defined. The alternative would be to add another new/niche ship class. I would personally like to see a support battleship — just not one that intrudes on the roles of command ships (basic ship stat bonuses) or logistics ships (remote repairs and beneficial ewar). Perhaps something along the lines of race-specific defensive ships such as a Gallente anti-missile platform (to beat those nasty squids) and a Caldari anti-drone platform (to crush the surrendermonkeys)… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Armoured C Gallente Armoured Investments	Posted - 2009.04.04 01:12:00 - [58] leave my commandship alone, and normal CS last longer in fleet fights since in fleet fight BS are always target first after EW and logistics XD i confuse people with my laser EOS or my lovly abso :) plus they do look sexy :) looking for someone to teach me how to audit
Schalac Caldari Apocalypse Reign	Posted - 2009.04.04 01:14:00 - [59] Aren't these ships already in the game? Oh yeah they are, they go by the moniker of Navy Issue, Republic Issue......But if people already do not use these ships in PvP then what is going to make them use a more expensive T2 variant? SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2009.04.04 01:22:00 - [60] not sure how much it would help you but ask yourself these questions. 1 Is there a need in eve that needs to be fulfilled? Needs go alot further than wants. 2 Do you have to make a need? Ships that require another need to be made are less likely to be implimented 3 Can other ships partially fill that need as they are? 4 Can those other ships fully meet that need if fitted for it? 5 Does the ship's role is capable something beyond the sigular use? 6 Does the ship role obsolete anyone in any form or fasion? It shouldnt, even if the price tag justifies it 7 what would want a player BUY your ship? 8 what would drive a player to FLY your ship? 9 what would motivate a player to BUILD your ship? They're just some things I go by when I design my own fanships, everything from the corvette pod piloted fighter to the tier 2 dreadnaught juggernaught Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 2Apr09

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.