EVE Search - Destroyers / Battlecruisers Stats

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Destroyers / Battlecruisers Stats

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:07:00 - [1] Edited by: Arleonenis on 07/10/2004 10:09:47 dont change destroyers, they are nice now oh you could increase they cargo space if you must change something
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:07:00 - [2] Edited by: Arleonenis on 07/10/2004 10:09:47 dont change destroyers, they are nice now oh you could increase they cargo space if you must change something
CCP Hammer	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:07:00 - [3] I just wanted to make a quick post before things get out of hand that the stats on current destroyers and battlecruisers on SISI are temporary and any discussion about the balance of the hard numbers is rather pointless right now. Feel free to discuss the ships and give suggestions but understand that there can and will be drastic changes to the numbers before Shiva hits.
CCP Hammer	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:07:00 - [4] I just wanted to make a quick post before things get out of hand that the stats on current destroyers and battlecruisers on SISI are temporary and any discussion about the balance of the hard numbers is rather pointless right now. Feel free to discuss the ships and give suggestions but understand that there can and will be drastic changes to the numbers before Shiva hits.
CCP Hammer	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:08:00 - [5] Originally by: Arleonenis dont change destroyers, there are nice now WOW, you're quick!
CCP Hammer	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:08:00 - [6] Originally by: Arleonenis dont change destroyers, there are nice now WOW, you're quick!
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:09:00 - [7] i know
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:09:00 - [8] i know
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:11:00 - [9] heavy assault ship = tech2 destroyers/battlecruisers = tech1
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:11:00 - [10] heavy assault ship = tech2 destroyers/battlecruisers = tech1
Sternburg Export	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:11:00 - [11] Why have Battlecruisern and destroyers so low Skill req¦s? I mean thea are specialcruisers too. and for assaultcruisers u ave many things to skill before u can use one ____________________________ [ 2005.03.31 20:53:50 ] (mining) Your Basic Miner perfectly strikes Veldspar Roid, wrecking for 20 Ore units.
Sternburg Export	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:11:00 - [12] Why have Battlecruisern and destroyers so low Skill req¦s? I mean thea are specialcruisers too. and for assaultcruisers u ave many things to skill before u can use one ____________________________ [ 2005.03.31 20:53:50 ] (mining) Your Basic Miner perfectly strikes Veldspar Roid, wrecking for 20 Ore units.
Ruiz Mateos	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:21:00 - [13] Edited by: Ruiz Mateos on 07/10/2004 10:27:17 Destroyers are fine now...DONT CHANGE THEM! DTs and BCs are both new clases no elite ships. Im not a carebear! NO!NO!NO! AND NO!
Ruiz Mateos	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:21:00 - [14] Edited by: Ruiz Mateos on 07/10/2004 10:27:17 Destroyers are fine now...DONT CHANGE THEM! DTs and BCs are both new clases no elite ships. Im not a carebear! NO!NO!NO! AND NO!
Helmut 314	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:22:00 - [15] Yes, the Destroyers are very nice, a small mass reduction wouldnt be unwelcome though..... ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Helmut 314	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:22:00 - [16] Yes, the Destroyers are very nice, a small mass reduction wouldnt be unwelcome though..... ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:26:00 - [17] Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 10:49:38 Ha! One thing that should be important for battlecruisers: As heavy-hitters, and 'pocket battleships', they should be able to mount either: - a large number of medium-size weapons - a small number of large weapons Would that be possible? Make their powergrid able to support 2-3 L-size pieces of equipment. That would make for very nice surprises and more mixed battles. I saw that most BCs are now around 1500-1700 PG, which should be increased to around 4500-5000. In that way, a BC pilot could choose to equip some L equipment at the expense of other aspects. - If the choice is for defence, then the pilot cannot mount L guns (simply not enough powergrid) - If the choice is for offence, then the pilot cannot mount L repairers/batteries, etc (simply not enough powergrid too) --> That would make them real pocket bs's, and dangerous as they should be. My 2 Ç cents :)
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:26:00 - [18] Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 10:49:38 Ha! One thing that should be important for battlecruisers: As heavy-hitters, and 'pocket battleships', they should be able to mount either: - a large number of medium-size weapons - a small number of large weapons Would that be possible? Make their powergrid able to support 2-3 L-size pieces of equipment. That would make for very nice surprises and more mixed battles. I saw that most BCs are now around 1500-1700 PG, which should be increased to around 4500-5000. In that way, a BC pilot could choose to equip some L equipment at the expense of other aspects. - If the choice is for defence, then the pilot cannot mount L guns (simply not enough powergrid) - If the choice is for offence, then the pilot cannot mount L repairers/batteries, etc (simply not enough powergrid too) --> That would make them real pocket bs's, and dangerous as they should be. My 2 Ç cents :)
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:30:00 - [19] Edited by: Arleonenis on 07/10/2004 10:32:52 i think battleCRUISER should use med guns not large, if you want small number of guns buy typhoon or scorpion but i agree that pg and cpu on battlecruisers is to low, and bonuses should be to increase power of single salvo when rate of fire should bo quite long, so basically all bonuses to dmg, tracking no bonuses to rof and bigger cap is needed to
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:30:00 - [20] Edited by: Arleonenis on 07/10/2004 10:32:52 i think battleCRUISER should use med guns not large, if you want small number of guns buy typhoon or scorpion but i agree that pg and cpu on battlecruisers is to low, and bonuses should be to increase power of single salvo when rate of fire should bo quite long, so basically all bonuses to dmg, tracking no bonuses to rof and bigger cap is needed to
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:45:00 - [21] Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 10:54:16 Originally by: Arleonenis Edited by: Arleonenis on 07/10/2004 10:32:52 i think battleCRUISER should use med guns not large, if you want small number of guns buy typhoon or scorpion How about: BATTLEcruiser? ;) EDIT: Unless, unless... S weapons: frigates & destroyers M weapons: cruisers & battlecruiser L weapons: battleships & ?
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.10.07 10:45:00 - [22] Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 10:54:16 Originally by: Arleonenis Edited by: Arleonenis on 07/10/2004 10:32:52 i think battleCRUISER should use med guns not large, if you want small number of guns buy typhoon or scorpion How about: BATTLEcruiser? ;) EDIT: Unless, unless... S weapons: frigates & destroyers M weapons: cruisers & battlecruiser L weapons: battleships & ?
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:05:00 - [23] Quote: L weapons: battleships & ? DREADNOUGHTS
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:05:00 - [24] Quote: L weapons: battleships & ? DREADNOUGHTS
Devineflid	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:32:00 - [25] i hate to bring in real life matters, but i am REALLY bored so why not. "pocket battleships" as they are called, were an invention of ******s navy during the buildup to the second world war, they were made to circumvent one of the rules to stop them re-arming, this said they were not allowed to build ships over a certain mass, so to get round this, ships that were below the mass of a battleship, with exactly the same firepower as one were invented. so maybe the cruisers should get a "90% less powergrid and 60% less cpu on L (raceial) weapons" bonus, to allow for this? comments please ============================================== Have you ever wondered who was responsible for the "do not attempt to stop chain with hand or genitals" type notes on things? well it was me, or at le
Devineflid	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:32:00 - [26] i hate to bring in real life matters, but i am REALLY bored so why not. "pocket battleships" as they are called, were an invention of ******s navy during the buildup to the second world war, they were made to circumvent one of the rules to stop them re-arming, this said they were not allowed to build ships over a certain mass, so to get round this, ships that were below the mass of a battleship, with exactly the same firepower as one were invented. so maybe the cruisers should get a "90% less powergrid and 60% less cpu on L (raceial) weapons" bonus, to allow for this? comments please ============================================== Have you ever wondered who was responsible for the "do not attempt to stop chain with hand or genitals" type notes on things? well it was me, or at le
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:49:00 - [27] Originally by: Devineflid so maybe the cruisers should get a "90% less powergrid and 60% less cpu on L (raceial) weapons" bonus, to allow for this? comments please That would certainly be a great idea for elite version of battlecruisers (same as covert ops-covert cloak pair). So the original idea of allowing L weapons on battlecruisers would be postponed to the birth of their elite versions... why not? :)
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:49:00 - [28] Originally by: Devineflid so maybe the cruisers should get a "90% less powergrid and 60% less cpu on L (raceial) weapons" bonus, to allow for this? comments please That would certainly be a great idea for elite version of battlecruisers (same as covert ops-covert cloak pair). So the original idea of allowing L weapons on battlecruisers would be postponed to the birth of their elite versions... why not? :)
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:57:00 - [29] simply becouse large weapons isnt as powerfull to outdamage 2-3 medium guns, and with those tracking issue med guns could easily destroy cruisers and do massive dmg to bss... and if we are in reality let one cruise missle destroy everything up to the cruiser as those missles are really pretty big and one hit from large guns should destroy same targets as those shells are really massive... this is real but this is game so dont do it
Arleonenis	Posted - 2004.10.07 11:57:00 - [30] simply becouse large weapons isnt as powerfull to outdamage 2-3 medium guns, and with those tracking issue med guns could easily destroy cruisers and do massive dmg to bss... and if we are in reality let one cruise missle destroy everything up to the cruiser as those missles are really pretty big and one hit from large guns should destroy same targets as those shells are really massive... this is real but this is game so dont do it

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: 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.