EVE Search - Battle cruisers for the win

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Battle cruisers for the win

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Trazis	Posted - 2009.08.29 08:06:00 - [1] We defiantly need a new battle cruiser maybe even two. Battle cruisers are some of the most versatile ships next to the dominix and T3 they're agile enough to be used in small gang wf not to expensive to really hurt your wallet while still doing a fair amount of damage Im not entirely sure what a new bc would specialize in. Lets get some ideas for each race along with names
Herzog Wolfhammer Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.08.29 08:10:00 - [2] I once managed to fit a torpedo launcher to a Cyclone. Yeah a lolfit for sure. I called it the "hide the salami" fit. It was the only weapon it could have because of the power requirements. I laughed my ass off testing it on belt rats.
Per Ole Anonymous Alcoholics Wrath.	Posted - 2009.08.29 08:15:00 - [3] Juggernaughts - Very dps heavy at the expense of very little ewar capabilities and less tanking, but more speed. -------------------------------- Screw you guys, I'm going home
La Asesina	Posted - 2009.08.29 08:33:00 - [4] i have been thinking the same TBH... and what i came up with was t2 wich we already have sooooo. BUT i really feel something is missing, like a ship between bc's and BS don't know what it should be called, mabey ''sub Battleship'' and what it would be used for i don't know but 1 ''Sub Batlleship'' for each race i'll have my eyes open and i'lltalk to a freind working in CCP
Grut Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.08.29 08:39:00 - [5] Battlecruiser in navy speak means cruiser with bs guns, the ones we have atm are more like heavy cruisers. A new one with -80% large weap grid needs (-1% extra per level) would be nice. That way you could fit a full rack of the small bs guns. More range at the expence of tracking. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
Alxea	Posted - 2009.08.29 08:39:00 - [6] Edited by: Alxea on 29/08/2009 08:42:21 Command ships already fit a DPS role when fit for gank they can do +1000 DPS mainly a gal command ship that can reach 1240 DPS with T2 fittings. The gank BS relm is between 1000 and 1700 DPS with T2 fittings.
FatFreddy	Posted - 2009.08.29 10:20:00 - [7] I want a T2 variant for the Hurricane.
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.08.29 10:25:00 - [8] Originally by: Alxea Edited by: Alxea on 29/08/2009 08:42:21 Command ships already fit a DPS role when fit for gank they can do +1000 DPS mainly a gal command ship that can reach 1240 DPS with T2 fittings. The gank BS relm is between 1000 and 1700 DPS with T2 fittings. Theres only one CMD that can reach 1000dps, the others are between 450-700. And the gank BS dps is about 1000-1300dps.
Korell Nova	Posted - 2009.08.29 10:34:00 - [9] i really do doubt that any more versions of the present t1 ships will be released now with the advent of t3 tbh im surprised that ccp hasnt released t3 versions of frigs and bs yet. Though im sure as soon as they have tweaked the drops a little more to bring the prices of the cruisers down to where they want them then these new ships will be brought in. that will be the advent of the juggernaught class heavy cruiser and bismark class bs im sure.
Alexander Det1989 Caldari Event.Horizon	Posted - 2009.08.29 10:48:00 - [10] Tier3 Battlecruisers maybe. But all they could be would be a better version of the tier2 BCs, afterall the point of a BC is to provide close to BS grade firepower on a more manouverable platform. A new Tech2 would probably be a bit pointless unless they come up with a new fleet role. As for Tech3... well that whole situation isn't affordable by enough people to make it a great answer either.
Verlokiraptor All Around Research Inc	Posted - 2009.08.29 10:50:00 - [11] Edited by: Verlokiraptor on 29/08/2009 10:49:51 I reckon a series of ewar battlecruisers would be awesome Except give the caldari one regular ECM of a blackbird or less and boost its ECM bursts. Because there's enough ECM already. I'd also fit them in between current tier 1 and 2 versions in terms of price, or perhaps even below tier 1 (celestis is cheaper than vexor and thorax etc). Tier 2s are close enough in price to tier 1 battleships anyway, but there's a huge gap between tier 1s and cruisers.
arbiter reborn	Posted - 2009.08.29 11:19:00 - [12] Edited by: arbiter reborn on 29/08/2009 11:20:07 confirming this is a bad idea, t2 tier 2 maybee but not more and tbh i cant see a role a tier 2 t2 would have that t3 and or another ship doesnt do better. really field cs just need a boost to make them more worthwhile, -nighthawk extragrid etc-
miss Hail	Posted - 2009.08.29 11:43:00 - [13] Originally by: Verlokiraptor Edited by: Verlokiraptor on 29/08/2009 10:49:51 I reckon a series of ewar battlecruisers would be awesome Except give the caldari one regular ECM of a blackbird or less and boost its ECM bursts. Because there's enough ECM already. I'd also fit them in between current tier 1 and 2 versions in terms of price, or perhaps even below tier 1 (celestis is cheaper than vexor and thorax etc). Tier 2s are close enough in price to tier 1 battleships anyway, but there's a huge gap between tier 1s and cruisers. cant wait for a target painter BC for minmatar
Alsyth Astromechanica Maxima	Posted - 2009.08.29 11:46:00 - [14] I'd like a T2 version of tier 2 BCs (Myrmidon, Drake...). Like Command ships, one focused towards combat, perhaps long range combat ? with optimal bonuses like sniper HACs ? Or as said above with BS-sized weapons and utility high slots ? Small bonus to remote rep ? So they would be a very nice addition to a sniper fleet ? And the other... Maybe really focused towards Ewar ? Now, the biggest Ewar-bonused ships are Recon Ships (except Scorpion and Pirate faction ships). Perhaps a Recon-like BC would be nice. And nice T2 resists like CS, but no resistance or tank added whith their skill, nor Gang link module bonuses, as it would be redundant.
Noisrevbus Caldari Breams Gone Wild	Posted - 2009.08.29 12:00:00 - [15] One problem with this in recent times is that the new T3 ships take up certain potential roles with their versatility. For example, one logical role for another T2 BC would be a cloaky link-provider so you get that feature in a cloaky gang concept. T3 can do that though, so there's no larger need for further development of BC in that direction. The only thing i can really think of that might suit the role of BC's (both techs) is perhaps some sort of electronic utility bonus. Some people have expressed a concern about the tracking link bonuses on some of the Logistics ships and how they are difficult to utilize. That's a role better adapt to BC's as gang boosting ships. Gallente = remote sensor booster Caldari = remote ECCM Minmatar = remote tracking Amarr = (can't remember any more such modules atm.) Then perhaps consider some sort of focused/bubble solution for them as with HIC's (since there would be an issue with slots to make them fully utilize their bonus otherwise). The only question is if something like that is actually needed. Might be worth to think about though and discuss. Both Command ships and Motherships (the whole gang link/boosting system) definately need an overhaul though. So this might be worth taking up in relation with that. I'm not sure, but it's an idea anyway.
wallenbergaren	Posted - 2009.08.29 12:18:00 - [16] Give me a T3 ship with something that can fix station / gate games. For example, a tractor beam that can lock onto piloted ships sucking them off the undock or w/e
Trustworthy Joe	Posted - 2009.08.29 12:18:00 - [17] Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer I once managed to fit a torpedo launcher to a Cyclone. Yeah a lolfit for sure. I called it the "hide the salami" fit. It was the only weapon it could have because of the power requirements. I laughed my ass off testing it on belt rats. i once fitted a capital AC to an abbadon. it was lulz. later that day, i fitted a citadel torp launcher. it was lulz. _______________________ Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist want a sig? thats great! post it in response to my posts!
foobarx	Posted - 2009.08.29 12:39:00 - [18] Quote: cant wait for a target painter BC for minmatar Funny, but at the same time kind of painful. Fortunately, battlecruisers isn't a racial skill.
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.08.29 13:09:00 - [19] There is very little variety in the BC cataegory, mostly because Tier 1 BCs are so inferior. I understand CCP does not want to reatroactively buff tier 1 BCs so they can reintroduce refined versions: Amarr - tanky Khanid ship: 6/4/7 slots, 6 missiles, 6 turrets, 5% missile and laser damage, 5% armor resist Caldari - ECM sniper: 7/7/3, 10% hybrid range, 10% ECM strength and range Gallente - Souped up Brutix: 7/4/6, 5% hybrid damage, 15% MWD cap consumption Minmatar - split weapons: 8/6/4, 4 missiles, 4 turrets, 50/75 drones, 5% projetile and missile ROF, 5% shield resist Nothing revolutionary, enough similiarities and yet enough differences from tier 1.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.29 13:32:00 - [20] Proph needs a 5% damage bonus, rather than the cap one Cyclone is fine, don't touch it Brutix needs some extra PG and if at all possible an extra low slot ferox could do with an extra mid All that needs changing.
Lili Lu Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships	Posted - 2009.08.29 13:49:00 - [21] Originally by: Mr Reason Proph needs a 5% damage bonus, rather than the cap one Cyclone is fine, don't touch it Brutix needs some extra PG and if at all possible an extra low slot ferox could do with an extra mid All that needs changing. You call that balanced? To have a Prophecy with one less mid+low slot than your Ferox? Have you flown them all? I have. They are what they are, which is tanky but not as good overall as their tier II counterparts, and in that they are balanced. What the tier I of each race needs is maybe a little more pg. If anything it is in tier II that changes need to be made. The Caldari and Gallente tier II should lose their tanking bonuses in favor of a second gank or meh bonus, and the Minmatar and Amarr tier II get a slight boost to the amount of their meh cap use and rof bonuses. Tier I would then be tank for each race and tier II would be gank for each race.
Forge Lag Jita Lag Preservation Fund	Posted - 2009.08.29 14:13:00 - [22] That is another reason why i said do not change tier 1 and instead introduce a remake as new ships. You will always have dumb people saying it is all fine because tier 1 is so cheap (insurance? fitting? higher mortality?) and they are opposed to any and all changes unless it is their mislead though. Hint: 10% cap use is there for reason, if you don't like it a) try Abaddon b) propose increasing laser cap use by 100% and make the bonus 15%. You cannot be serious proposing slight laser buff for everyone but newbies by removing the bonus. Harbi already does enough DPS and at the same time has enough troubles tanking missions even with the bonus in place. My souped up Khanid Prophecy above does not have cap use bonus but it only has 6 highs and lasers are secondary alternative to missiles on it for players that want to stay true to Amarr.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.29 14:29:00 - [23] Originally by: Lili Lu Originally by: Mr Reason Proph needs a 5% damage bonus, rather than the cap one Cyclone is fine, don't touch it Brutix needs some extra PG and if at all possible an extra low slot ferox could do with an extra mid All that needs changing. You call that balanced? To have a Prophecy with one less mid+low slot than your Ferox? Have you flown them all? I have. They are what they are, which is tanky but not as good overall as their tier II counterparts, and in that they are balanced. What the tier I of each race needs is maybe a little more pg. If anything it is in tier II that changes need to be made. The Caldari and Gallente tier II should lose their tanking bonuses in favor of a second gank or meh bonus, and the Minmatar and Amarr tier II get a slight boost to the amount of their meh cap use and rof bonuses. Tier I would then be tank for each race and tier II would be gank for each race. Proph is good tankingwise, it needs some damage but at the cost of cap, that either means you'll have to use mid/lows for cap chargers in pve or use a cap booster in pvp, leaving you only 2 midslots. That's a good tradeoff. Those changes would make it into a grab&spank type of ship but not overpowered as it's still a slow brick. Ferox is fine, a blaster ferox is better than most people realize but it suffers from not being able to tank while tackling. Add a midslot and it could compete while not being overpowered. With rails it would give the ferox more fitting options. If the Brutix gets enough PG to fit a medium armor rep, 1600 and ions you'd have a great ship. Would you add another low slot (but that would be on the verge of OP) you could add more tank or gank. The cyclone is a FANTASTIC ship, granted; to the "LULZ IT'S ALL ABOOT TEH EHP!!!!!" crowd it might suck but in reality it's great. It caters for a different type of playstyle and as there's not a whole lot of ships left that work well with that it shouldn't be changed at all, it's a little unknown gem. Also; 578 dps from a tier 1 BC isn't too shabby. Blance is looking at ALL the options, not just the ones that are the most obvious.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.29 14:31:00 - [24] Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 29/08/2009 14:26:08 That is another reason why i said do not change tier 1 and instead introduce a remake as new ships. You will always have dumb people saying it is all fine because tier 1 is so cheap (insurance? fitting? higher mortality?) and they are opposed to any and all changes unless it is their mislead though. Hint: 10% cap use is there for reason, if you don't like it a) try Abaddon b) propose increasing laser cap use by 100% and make the bonus 15%. You cannot be serious proposing slight laser buff for everyone but newbies by removing the bonus. Harbi already does enough DPS and at the same time has enough troubles tanking missions even with the bonus in place. My souped up Khanid Prophecy above does not have cap use bonus but it only has 6 highs and lasers are secondary alternative to missiles on it for players that want to stay true to Amarr (edit: the selling point is having 7 lows, large amarr cap and amarr pg with low pg no cap use weapons, leading to even better tank). That's the point; it's a slow ship but but tanks well, as it does no damage no one in his right mind will fly it (apart from looks, it's one of the best looking ships ingame). By losing the cap bonus you FORCE the pilot to make choices and at the same time you give it a role that actually makes some sense.
Aegis Osiris Gallente Failure Avoidance Insurance Limited	Posted - 2009.08.29 15:13:00 - [25] Edited by: Aegis Osiris on 29/08/2009 15:14:41 I won't argue stats, but as far as roles, how about a Black Ops BC? T2 tier 2, essentially filling a similar role to fleet commands now, but with the added bonuses of being able to either jump (unlikely) or use covert cyno bridge (better idea). Provides command bonuses to blackops groups and fills a role that is not currently being done by other ships (command links, bit more firepower). Its about the only thing I can see being somewhat useful. Not sure if it should get the covert ops cloak, or just the cloak bonus of BlackOps BS though. ps. by 'use' the covert bridge, I mean jump through one, not create one. I like violet more then pink.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2009.08.29 15:59:00 - [26] Pocket battleships with the ability to use L weapons. Say 3 or 4.
Pater Peccavi Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.08.29 16:06:00 - [27] I remember one idea for a T2 tier 2 bc that was interesting. It was Psychological Warfare. Whereas command ships fit warfare links, these would fit Psychological Warfare links that project basically the opposite effect on ships not in fleet. Would make for interesting strategies, and since the effects would be projected, these ships would have to stay in combat, not sitting at a SS. ______ Why has the number of players online dropped from 50k to 25k? BECAUSE OF SWINE FLU
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.29 16:40:00 - [28] Originally by: Max Hardcase Pocket battleships with the ability to use L weapons. Say 3 or 4. So they'd do half the dps of a BS... right now they do MORE than that with better tracking and signature resolution. The only advantage could be range, so a hit&run semi sniper (doubt if they'd ever make them they'd give a range bonus). Dunno if there's a need for that.
Aegis Osiris Gallente Failure Avoidance Insurance Limited	Posted - 2009.08.29 17:24:00 - [29] Originally by: Max Hardcase Pocket battleships with the ability to use L weapons. Say 3 or 4. As the poster above, this idea is poorly thought out. You do more damage in a BC now. Even if you fit 3 full size large guns, you'd need 2.5 of these to equal the volley from a single sniper fit BS. Of what possible use would that be? The ship has to have a roll, hence my suggestion. T2 Tier 2 BlackOps command ships. I like violet more then pink.
miss Hail	Posted - 2009.08.29 18:00:00 - [30] Originally by: Max Hardcase Pocket battleships with the ability to use L weapons. Say 3 or 4. 1 buy a BC 2 buy a L weapon (turret) 3 fit the L weapon on the BC 4 look at the model and understand why this will never happen the oversized weapon thing can only be done with missiles

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