EVE Search - [VOTE] For Faction Battlecruiser

All Channels

Ships and Modules

[VOTE] For Faction Battlecruiser

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
JonnyRandom	Posted - 2010.07.29 17:38:00 - [91] [Vote against] BCs are popular for being relatively cheap for the great mid-level utility they are able to bring. Not only would it be a colossal waste of time creating new ships when we've still got to wait 18months before they come around to polishing existing eve "features", but they would also be overpriced toys that rarely see any light outside of hangar lights. I think the popularity of BCs in pvp right now are a testament to how well they are designed. No need to do anything further with them. They are fine as they are. Don't fix what isn't broken. Go fix what is broken first.
Zhilia Mann Tide Way Out Productions	Posted - 2010.07.29 17:47:00 - [92] Originally by: JonnyRandom I think the popularity of BCs in pvp right now are a testament to how well they are designed. No need to do anything further with them. They are fine as they are. Don't fix what isn't broken. Go fix what is broken first. Unless... You bring out faction tier 1 BCs that somehow slightly outperform normal tier 2 BCs? Would still require changes to CSs, but it might well be less OP than faction tier 2s. But meh. I'd still rather that the tier distinction were done away with and each race's BCs be balanced so at least we have 8 workable ships before introducing faction variants. Pirate BCs on the other hand would be pure awesomesauce and would prevent the UberLoLDrakeofDeathbyTank. And would surely be as imbalanced as the rest of the pirate ships.
Kendon Riddick	Posted - 2010.07.29 18:29:00 - [93] Originally by: Zhilia Mann UberLoLDrakeofDeathbyTank give it rail range boonus
Arrador	Posted - 2010.07.29 19:27:00 - [94] Edited by: Arrador on 29/07/2010 19:28:15 Originally by: "1600 rt" ferox navy issue 7 highs (7 turrets) 6 meds 5 lows (TE are better for sniping than TC) 10% to hybrid optimal range 5% to hybrid damage 25mb of dronebay enough fitting for 7 250mm rails + mwd Oh God, yes please.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide.	Posted - 2010.07.29 20:02:00 - [95] Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 29/07/2010 20:04:06 This thread shows us yet another failure in realising that tier2 BC already perform exactly like faction BC would in comparison to tier1. I mean, ok, let's assume you indeed make some new ships, but what are their stats gonna look like? You surely can't make them better than current command ships, but this effectively means... tier2 level of perfomance at max. At first you'd need to fix tier2 BC by bringing them down to tier1 level, then you can probably add faction ones, which will perform like current drakes etc. And this is the only fair solution. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Altaica Amur The Elliance	Posted - 2010.07.29 20:47:00 - [96] Quote: This thread shows us yet another failure in realising that tier2 BC already perform exactly like faction BC would in comparison to tier1. I mean, ok, let's assume you indeed make some new ships, but what are their stats gonna look like? You surely can't make them better than current command ships, but this effectively means... tier2 level of perfomance at max. At first you'd need to fix tier2 BC by bringing them down to tier1 level, then you can probably add faction ones, which will perform like current drakes etc. And this is the only fair solution. Actually I realize that and my ideas on this would be exclusively based on tier 1 hulls and upgraded from there, slots wise ending up en-par with the tier 2 ships but getting bonuses in their role and/or bonus brought from their pirate faction. For the navy variants it's a bit more complicated since finding appropriate space between a brutix and 1000 dps for a serpentis BC and a navy brutix is challanging, largely coming down to having to focus on different aspects. Where the serpentis brutix would be an uncompromising commitment to melt-your-face dps the navy brutix, in the same manner as the navy mega would build a credible tank on an already heavy damaging ship. Maybe consider changing the active tank bonus to a resist or armor HP bonus Navy Brutix Highs: 7 Mids: 4 Lows: 7 Turrets: 7 (8.75 effective) Maybe consider changing the active tank bonus to a resist or armor HP bonus Navy Ferox was easier since as an underpowered ship there's lot of room to improve it without making it too good, adding another turret or two, along with the fittings to manage it would give the Caldari a higher damage turret ship then they currently have by a long shot. Navy Ferox Highs: 8 Mids: 6 Lows: 4 Turrets: 7/8 Launchers: 6 I don't know as much about the Cyclone or minmatar to know how this would work out but here's my best guess. Fiddling with the bonuses here would probably be good, maybe a missile and projectile RoF bonus as well as another bonus to replace the rep bonus one. Navy Cyclone Highs: 8 Mids: 6 Lows: 5 Turrets: 6 Launchers: 4 The Prophecy obviously needed some work to make it particularily viable but changing the cap use bonus to a damage bonus, perhaps a 7.5% one even would bring it close to Harb damage with a much better tank Navy Prophecy Highs: 7 Mids: 4 Lows: 7 Turrets: 6(7.5-8.25 effective) These changes along with the standard expansion of fitting, armor and shield HP and capacitor, the last particularily key in the ferox and prophecy, should make appreciably better then tier 2 battlecruisers without doing too much to displace battleships.
n0thing Gallente Executive Intervention The Spire Collective	Posted - 2010.07.29 21:08:00 - [97] Originally by: Altaica Amur should make appreciably better then tier 2 battlecruisers without doing too much to displace battleships. BS price drop by 40mil in past year I think. They are already displaced, I cant remember when I last flew one. Oh and btw, BSes are at least capable of using large guns. The faction BC will displace Command Ships, since said Command Ships are already almost displaced by some of Tier 2 BC`s. ---
Altaica Amur The Elliance	Posted - 2010.07.29 22:51:00 - [98] Everything's gone down in price due to the insurance changes, not related to the utility or lack of utility in BSs
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.07.29 22:58:00 - [99] Can I troll in here and add my vote for a pirate/faction destroyers? Guristas Cormorant with drones and good tank? Serpentis Catalyst with insane damage, 90% webs andspeed? Blood Coercer with web range and neut cap bonus and more than one mid? Angel Thrasher with inty speed, wicked tracking and huge falloff? All that being said, don't count on CCP ever doing anything creative for BCs or destroyers (well maaaybe tier 2 destroyers one day), because Dessies and BCs are the only ships that need no racial training, and CCP really does like you to spend as much time as possible on skillz.
Valiermox Gallente	Posted - 2010.07.30 00:32:00 - [100] I agree to this idea! I wish to see a Faction type Hurricane! my god that ship is already sexy, but Faction type? Wow, I think my pants just got sticky...
BuckStrider Fleem Co	Posted - 2010.07.30 02:34:00 - [101] How about CCP fixes the game first then we can talk about faction BC....Say...I dunno...In about 18 months
Mr LaForge	Posted - 2010.07.30 02:35:00 - [102] Navy Issue Drake please.
Cosmic Jaloga	Posted - 2010.07.31 06:02:00 - [103] I vote instead of using existing hulls make some faction Bc's, make new hulls, something as demonic looking as a dramiel or steamlined as the ashimmu. And while you're at it CCP, remove the primae from the game.
Odvian	Posted - 2010.07.31 13:06:00 - [104] Originally by: Kim Zhi Edited by: Kim Zhi on 12/06/2010 13:18:27 I wanna Shadow serpentis Hyperion /me goes off for the tissues.. that would be a sick ship i wouldnt care about the fitting but the looks wuld be killer
Kisan Tisaro	Posted - 2010.08.01 03:09:00 - [105] Tier 2 faction bc only gets my vote I would love a faction hurricane maybe painted silver or bright red . Would also be nice if CCP fixed the lag
hturt	Posted - 2010.08.07 20:28:00 - [106] pirate faction bcs right now plzzzzzz
Zilberfrid	Posted - 2010.08.07 22:39:00 - [107] I vote against. Tier 2 BC's already are close to overshadowing HAC's and stepping on BS toes while obsoleting tier 1 BC's, and the field CS already has a tough time finding a niche. I'd say nerf tier 2 BC first, and then look into making an upgrade. ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
piecakes's brother	Posted - 2010.08.08 05:02:00 - [108] [Vote FOR] would like to see faction...as well as navy.... Would also suggest tech 3...maybe more of a mini carrier for high sec yeilding 10 drones of medium badnwith with drone bonuses......something of that nature...would also like to see more tech 3 ships as well as more faction BS I can fly ever races 3 of which are tech 2 and 3 would also like to see tech 3 moduals... I get bored with most of the ships in game need more!!!!!!!! dictated but not read...
Salvia Olima The All-Seeing Eye Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.08.08 16:56:00 - [109] [Vote FOR] Anyway, fix the lag first, thx.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: 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.