| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lucre
   |
Posted - 2004.10.07 12:26:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Devineflid
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.
Er, no. Not at all. Pocket battleships were designed as cruisers with a limited number of (just about) battleship sized weapons, purely for propaganda purposes.
A Pocket Battleship had 6 x 11" guns (a gun not fitted to any battleship since before WW1!); a typical WW2 battleship had 8-9 x 15-16" guns. Hardly "exactly the same firepower"!
In terms of combat effectiveness, they would have been far better ships with a larger battery of slightly smaller guns. But as propaganda ships there were very effective.
I do however very much like the idea of an Eve battlecruiser as a ship which has the grid to mount a near-BS armament with cruiser defences (battlecruiser), a cruiser armament with near-BS defences (armoured cruiser) or balanced to have heavy cruiser armament with heavy cruiser defences (heavy cruiser).
|
Lucre
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 12:26:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Devineflid
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.
Er, no. Not at all. Pocket battleships were designed as cruisers with a limited number of (just about) battleship sized weapons, purely for propaganda purposes.
A Pocket Battleship had 6 x 11" guns (a gun not fitted to any battleship since before WW1!); a typical WW2 battleship had 8-9 x 15-16" guns. Hardly "exactly the same firepower"!
In terms of combat effectiveness, they would have been far better ships with a larger battery of slightly smaller guns. But as propaganda ships there were very effective.
I do however very much like the idea of an Eve battlecruiser as a ship which has the grid to mount a near-BS armament with cruiser defences (battlecruiser), a cruiser armament with near-BS defences (armoured cruiser) or balanced to have heavy cruiser armament with heavy cruiser defences (heavy cruiser).
|
Number SixtyNine
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 12:58:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Number SixtyNine on 07/10/2004 13:57:07
"Er, no. Not at all. Pocket battleships were designed as cruisers with a limited number of (just about) battleship sized weapons, purely for propaganda purposes.
A Pocket Battleship had 6 x 11" guns (a gun not fitted to any battleship since before WW1!); a typical WW2 battleship had 8-9 x 15-16" guns. Hardly "exactly the same firepower"!"
Uhmm, battlecruiser is a vessel with battleship-class weaponry but with less armour than the battleship, resulting in cruiser-like speed (and vulnerability)
Best example of 'modern' battlecruiser would be HMS Hood which was armed with 8x15 inch guns... but was sunk thanks to the lighter armour much like her WW1 ancestors in the battle at Jutland.
Here is some nice read about where the battlecruisers come from and why they aren't such a good idea when used badly. ;s
edit so, could probably take the battlecruiser design two ways, really. #1 (the british way) would be to give them enough high slots, powergrid and cpu to mount good number of large guns; give them armour slightly better than a cruiser and the weight somewhere in middle between cruiser and battleship. #2 (the german way) would be smaller number of high slots, but more armour and somewhat larger weight. The Minmatar would perhaps opt for #1, Amarr and Caldari would likely go for #2... Gallente would prefer #1 as well i guess.
|
Number SixtyNine
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 12:58:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Number SixtyNine on 07/10/2004 13:57:07
"Er, no. Not at all. Pocket battleships were designed as cruisers with a limited number of (just about) battleship sized weapons, purely for propaganda purposes.
A Pocket Battleship had 6 x 11" guns (a gun not fitted to any battleship since before WW1!); a typical WW2 battleship had 8-9 x 15-16" guns. Hardly "exactly the same firepower"!"
Uhmm, battlecruiser is a vessel with battleship-class weaponry but with less armour than the battleship, resulting in cruiser-like speed (and vulnerability)
Best example of 'modern' battlecruiser would be HMS Hood which was armed with 8x15 inch guns... but was sunk thanks to the lighter armour much like her WW1 ancestors in the battle at Jutland.
Here is some nice read about where the battlecruisers come from and why they aren't such a good idea when used badly. ;s
edit so, could probably take the battlecruiser design two ways, really. #1 (the british way) would be to give them enough high slots, powergrid and cpu to mount good number of large guns; give them armour slightly better than a cruiser and the weight somewhere in middle between cruiser and battleship. #2 (the german way) would be smaller number of high slots, but more armour and somewhat larger weight. The Minmatar would perhaps opt for #1, Amarr and Caldari would likely go for #2... Gallente would prefer #1 as well i guess.
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 13:26:00 -
[35]
I would rather have a large number of medium weapons, than a small number of large weapons.
Medium weapons actually hit things, and their damage output isn't bad compared to large weapons.
Their hitpoints should be like 1/2 of a battleship, and their pg around 1500 - 2000.
Destroyers like good as they are.
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 13:26:00 -
[36]
I would rather have a large number of medium weapons, than a small number of large weapons.
Medium weapons actually hit things, and their damage output isn't bad compared to large weapons.
Their hitpoints should be like 1/2 of a battleship, and their pg around 1500 - 2000.
Destroyers like good as they are.
|
JarmenKell
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:11:00 -
[37]
no body said ww1 and ww2 were balanced in term of navy.
i mean they had submarines,
there is no such thing on the eve side apart from coverops who cant take out a bs with one torpedo.
anyways i havent played eve this month, family stuff,
what are the battlecruiser requirments anyway
|
JarmenKell
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:11:00 -
[38]
no body said ww1 and ww2 were balanced in term of navy.
i mean they had submarines,
there is no such thing on the eve side apart from coverops who cant take out a bs with one torpedo.
anyways i havent played eve this month, family stuff,
what are the battlecruiser requirments anyway
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:39:00 -
[39]
Ok, my two cents about destroyers:
I tested the catalyst (gallente) and the cormorant (caldari) so far.
I'm somewhat satisfied with em, however i think they need one of the following:
- more base speed
- less mass
- more powergrid to fit 10MN stuff or some kind of bonus so they can use abs/mwds effectively
As they currently cannot use any speed modules effectively (i don't want em flying 1000 m/s, so i'm all for increasing their speed by 20-50 m/s).
They kill frigates in seconds and at distance which is fine. They also die in seconds to cruisers and BS, which is fine, too. I'd like their speed a bit increase (see above) and or their sig radius a big reduced to make them a bit worse target for big bad BS so that their main counter are cruisers. The cormorand seems to be fine though, it can fit 2-3 tracking disruptors to make it at least invulnerable to large turret fire.
No for balancing issues (might be a big early):
- Coercer (amarr) seems fine, might have a bit too high grid IMHO, i will try to balance all others around it.
- The Catalyst (gallente) seems good, i see two problems though - first being the coercer, it seems better in every catagory except drone space, it could use an additional turret, more speed or something. Second is that the 250% range bonus is only useful for rails, as small blaster have 1km range, it would only be increased to about 5km. So you are somewhat forced to use rails so it would be good if the catalyst would have some other advantage.
- Cormorant (caldari) is nice, especially as it has 4 meds. It has more damage potential than the other ships and up to 100km range with light missiles but their disadvantage is that they don't hit instantly, so it's ok. Additionally it's the only destroyer that can be both deadly in close combat as at range.
- The Thrasher (minmatar) seems to be somewhat gimped. It's a ranged ship (250% range bonus), however their 2 missile hardpoints are somewhat useless at that range. Additionally it has no drone space ...
I suggest to design it as a med range, not long-range ship as the other destroyers mainly are. So i'd change the bonus to "50% bonus to small projectile weapon tracking speed and 10% small projectile weapon falloff bonus per minmatar frigate skill level".
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:39:00 -
[40]
Ok, my two cents about destroyers:
I tested the catalyst (gallente) and the cormorant (caldari) so far.
I'm somewhat satisfied with em, however i think they need one of the following:
- more base speed
- less mass
- more powergrid to fit 10MN stuff or some kind of bonus so they can use abs/mwds effectively
As they currently cannot use any speed modules effectively (i don't want em flying 1000 m/s, so i'm all for increasing their speed by 20-50 m/s).
They kill frigates in seconds and at distance which is fine. They also die in seconds to cruisers and BS, which is fine, too. I'd like their speed a bit increase (see above) and or their sig radius a big reduced to make them a bit worse target for big bad BS so that their main counter are cruisers. The cormorand seems to be fine though, it can fit 2-3 tracking disruptors to make it at least invulnerable to large turret fire.
No for balancing issues (might be a big early):
- Coercer (amarr) seems fine, might have a bit too high grid IMHO, i will try to balance all others around it.
- The Catalyst (gallente) seems good, i see two problems though - first being the coercer, it seems better in every catagory except drone space, it could use an additional turret, more speed or something. Second is that the 250% range bonus is only useful for rails, as small blaster have 1km range, it would only be increased to about 5km. So you are somewhat forced to use rails so it would be good if the catalyst would have some other advantage.
- Cormorant (caldari) is nice, especially as it has 4 meds. It has more damage potential than the other ships and up to 100km range with light missiles but their disadvantage is that they don't hit instantly, so it's ok. Additionally it's the only destroyer that can be both deadly in close combat as at range.
- The Thrasher (minmatar) seems to be somewhat gimped. It's a ranged ship (250% range bonus), however their 2 missile hardpoints are somewhat useless at that range. Additionally it has no drone space ...
I suggest to design it as a med range, not long-range ship as the other destroyers mainly are. So i'd change the bonus to "50% bonus to small projectile weapon tracking speed and 10% small projectile weapon falloff bonus per minmatar frigate skill level".
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:50:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Zu Lu on 07/10/2004 15:54:49
Well my suggestion would be to look at the slot layout of the Cyclone and possibly change it as already it is falling short of the others.
Comparing Gallente cruisers with Minmatar :
Vexor has one more combined medium/low slot than stabber but stabber has two more weapon slots (not counting the vexor 'utility' slot).
Thorax has same combined medium/low slots as Rupture but Rupture has one more weapon slot.
So bascially the Minmatar have extra slots and current tech 1 gallante/Minmatar cruisers are pretty well balanced on the whole imo.
Now with the new ships - the gallente brutix has one more combined medium/low slot and one less weapon than the Minmatar cyclone.
So now the gallente and Minmatar have the same amount of slots, not only that - over the thorax the Brutix has gained one turret, one medium slot and one low slot. Over the Rupture the Cyclone has gained 1 missile slot (which is very low damaging on anything but caldari) and one low slot.
I suggest that one turret hardpoint is added to the Cyclone and either one medium or one low slot. Otherwise it is another of the new Minmatar ships losing out AGAIN.
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:50:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Zu Lu on 07/10/2004 15:54:49
Well my suggestion would be to look at the slot layout of the Cyclone and possibly change it as already it is falling short of the others.
Comparing Gallente cruisers with Minmatar :
Vexor has one more combined medium/low slot than stabber but stabber has two more weapon slots (not counting the vexor 'utility' slot).
Thorax has same combined medium/low slots as Rupture but Rupture has one more weapon slot.
So bascially the Minmatar have extra slots and current tech 1 gallante/Minmatar cruisers are pretty well balanced on the whole imo.
Now with the new ships - the gallente brutix has one more combined medium/low slot and one less weapon than the Minmatar cyclone.
So now the gallente and Minmatar have the same amount of slots, not only that - over the thorax the Brutix has gained one turret, one medium slot and one low slot. Over the Rupture the Cyclone has gained 1 missile slot (which is very low damaging on anything but caldari) and one low slot.
I suggest that one turret hardpoint is added to the Cyclone and either one medium or one low slot. Otherwise it is another of the new Minmatar ships losing out AGAIN.
|
jukriamrr
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:54:00 -
[43]
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 15:56:02
Originally by: Zu Lu
Otherwise it is another of the new Minmatar ships losing out AGAIN.
You find this surprising? 
|
jukriamrr
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:54:00 -
[44]
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 15:56:02
Originally by: Zu Lu
Otherwise it is another of the new Minmatar ships losing out AGAIN.
You find this surprising?
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:55:00 -
[45]
Edited by: JoCool on 07/10/2004 15:58:05
About Destroyers
Avoid giving Minmatar the short stick again or you'll have one hell of a mob in Yulai someday. 
Since they mix turrets and launchers, give them both the range boni for turrets and a 40% speed boni for light missiles on top of that. Noone would mind if they had one bonus more than the other ships, to bring them on par.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 15:55:00 -
[46]
Edited by: JoCool on 07/10/2004 15:58:05
About Destroyers
Avoid giving Minmatar the short stick again or you'll have one hell of a mob in Yulai someday.
Since they mix turrets and launchers, give them both the range boni for turrets and a 40% speed boni for light missiles on top of that. Noone would mind if they had one bonus more than the other ships, to bring them on par.
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 16:00:00 -
[47]
Originally by: jukriamrr
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 15:56:02
Originally by: Zu Lu
Otherwise it is another of the new Minmatar ships losing out AGAIN.
You find this surprising?
Nope i will be very suprised if any of the new Minmatar ships in the future are even on par with other races 
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 16:00:00 -
[48]
Originally by: jukriamrr
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 15:56:02
Originally by: Zu Lu
Otherwise it is another of the new Minmatar ships losing out AGAIN.
You find this surprising?
Nope i will be very suprised if any of the new Minmatar ships in the future are even on par with other races
|
jukriamrr
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 16:07:00 -
[49]
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 16:08:46
Originally by: Zu Lu
Nope i will be very suprised if any of the new Minmatar ships in the future are even on par with other races
Actually, it's not really the ships, it's the turrets
The laser-users-because-it-is-cheaper-to-spawn-pirates (from 5% reduced capa for lasers to 10% per skill level) is now entering its reduce-missiles-cost-because-i-can-spawn-them-faster-in-my-raven phase.
Beware!
|
jukriamrr
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 16:07:00 -
[50]
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 16:08:46
Originally by: Zu Lu
Nope i will be very suprised if any of the new Minmatar ships in the future are even on par with other races
Actually, it's not really the ships, it's the turrets
The laser-users-because-it-is-cheaper-to-spawn-pirates (from 5% reduced capa for lasers to 10% per skill level) is now entering its reduce-missiles-cost-because-i-can-spawn-them-faster-in-my-raven phase.
Beware!
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 16:14:00 -
[51]
Originally by: jukriamrr
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 16:08:46
Originally by: Zu Lu
Nope i will be very suprised if any of the new Minmatar ships in the future are even on par with other races
Actually, it's not really the ships, it's the turrets
The laser-users-because-it-is-cheaper-to-spawn-pirates (from 5% reduced capa for lasers to 10% per skill level) is now entering its reduce-missiles-cost-because-i-can-spawn-them-faster-in-my-raven phase.
Beware!
aye, actually though i don't have any real complaints about small/medium projectiles UNLESS they are not given higher DOT related bonuses over others to help compensate damage, especially vs gallante/hybrids. My problem with the Cyclone is the ships slot layout though...
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 16:14:00 -
[52]
Originally by: jukriamrr
Edited by: jukriamrr on 07/10/2004 16:08:46
Originally by: Zu Lu
Nope i will be very suprised if any of the new Minmatar ships in the future are even on par with other races
Actually, it's not really the ships, it's the turrets
The laser-users-because-it-is-cheaper-to-spawn-pirates (from 5% reduced capa for lasers to 10% per skill level) is now entering its reduce-missiles-cost-because-i-can-spawn-them-faster-in-my-raven phase.
Beware!
aye, actually though i don't have any real complaints about small/medium projectiles UNLESS they are not given higher DOT related bonuses over others to help compensate damage, especially vs gallante/hybrids. My problem with the Cyclone is the ships slot layout though...
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 17:06:00 -
[53]
If Destroyers die instantly to cruisers and battleships, then they are ineffective in fleet combat, no matter how quickly they kill frigates that wander to close.
If Destroyers cannot move faster than 1km/s then they are ineffective in fast moving operations, solo combat, and raiding ops.
Cruisers are currently quite effective at killing Frigates, if they are properly configured for the task, and in such configurations are highly survivable in both small and large scale engagements, making them considerably more effecient than current Destroyers at that task. Unless Destroyers can meet or exceed that level of effeciency, they will be relegated to Damage Control module status.
Though, honestly, all Destroyers really need is to have their mass cut down to around 2 to 3 Mtonns, so that they can use MWD and afterburners effectively. Aside from that, they are all but ready to go into Tranq. In that mass range, they can even co-exist with Cruisers for frigate killing, with Cruisers being somewhat heavier combat ships, and Destroyers being more frigate killing oriented.
Harry Voyager
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 17:06:00 -
[54]
If Destroyers die instantly to cruisers and battleships, then they are ineffective in fleet combat, no matter how quickly they kill frigates that wander to close.
If Destroyers cannot move faster than 1km/s then they are ineffective in fast moving operations, solo combat, and raiding ops.
Cruisers are currently quite effective at killing Frigates, if they are properly configured for the task, and in such configurations are highly survivable in both small and large scale engagements, making them considerably more effecient than current Destroyers at that task. Unless Destroyers can meet or exceed that level of effeciency, they will be relegated to Damage Control module status.
Though, honestly, all Destroyers really need is to have their mass cut down to around 2 to 3 Mtonns, so that they can use MWD and afterburners effectively. Aside from that, they are all but ready to go into Tranq. In that mass range, they can even co-exist with Cruisers for frigate killing, with Cruisers being somewhat heavier combat ships, and Destroyers being more frigate killing oriented.
Harry Voyager
|
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 18:22:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Grim Vandal on 07/10/2004 18:29:14
and exactly that is the reason why we need a missile change  !
a magic speed of missiles like 2400 m/s for cruise missiles on a raven or 3500 m/s for light missiles for teh caldari destroyer are ****.
(the caldari destroyer has a + 50% missile speed for each caldari frig lvl atm)
Well dont get me wrong the bonus is needed and good for the current missiles of course!!! ... but the way the missiles work on TQ and even with Shiva is plain simple lame.
Read this for more information.
This will help the minmatar destroyer since the missile slots are totally useless for it atm which makes it by far the worst destroyer of all races.
btw even the caldari destroyer is pretty useless .... targets which cant exceed 2400 m/s will get wrecked by a raven no matter if its a frig or cruiser. Now the only real foe which this destroyer would be usefull against is an interceptor ....
but you guys for sure have noticed that MOST interceptors easily sustain a speed of above 3500 m/s!!! And they will makes sure if they fly an interceptor that it should go at least 3600 m/s.
so what we have is a caldari destroyer which is ONLY another step up to a larger and all around better ship. It is good but no matter how you see it, IT HAS NO advantage over its larger brothers which imo sucks.
If you would read the post I linked above you will notice that this single change will even solve multiple problems!
Greetings Grim |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 18:22:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Grim Vandal on 07/10/2004 18:29:14
and exactly that is the reason why we need a missile change !
a magic speed of missiles like 2400 m/s for cruise missiles on a raven or 3500 m/s for light missiles for teh caldari destroyer are ****.
(the caldari destroyer has a + 50% missile speed for each caldari frig lvl atm)
Well dont get me wrong the bonus is needed and good for the current missiles of course!!! ... but the way the missiles work on TQ and even with Shiva is plain simple lame.
Read this for more information.
This will help the minmatar destroyer since the missile slots are totally useless for it atm which makes it by far the worst destroyer of all races.
btw even the caldari destroyer is pretty useless .... targets which cant exceed 2400 m/s will get wrecked by a raven no matter if its a frig or cruiser. Now the only real foe which this destroyer would be usefull against is an interceptor ....
but you guys for sure have noticed that MOST interceptors easily sustain a speed of above 3500 m/s!!! And they will makes sure if they fly an interceptor that it should go at least 3600 m/s.
so what we have is a caldari destroyer which is ONLY another step up to a larger and all around better ship. It is good but no matter how you see it, IT HAS NO advantage over its larger brothers which imo sucks.
If you would read the post I linked above you will notice that this single change will even solve multiple problems!
Greetings Grim |
Sevarian
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 18:52:00 -
[57]
grim... you are the most amazing thread jacker ever... nice work
|
Sevarian
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 18:52:00 -
[58]
grim... you are the most amazing thread jacker ever... nice work
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 19:00:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Grim Vandal
And they will makes sure if they fly an interceptor that it should go at least 3600 m/s.
I may be wrong but i think unless you're flying directly away from the missile, a 3500 m/s missile will still hit you even when you are flying 3600 m/s. For example if you orbit the missile shooting object.
|
Lurk
|
Posted - 2004.10.07 19:00:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Grim Vandal
And they will makes sure if they fly an interceptor that it should go at least 3600 m/s.
I may be wrong but i think unless you're flying directly away from the missile, a 3500 m/s missile will still hit you even when you are flying 3600 m/s. For example if you orbit the missile shooting object.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |