Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
bornaa
|
Posted - 2010.12.16 21:16:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Magnus Orin Hi, I'm a Large Energy Neutralizer II.
Hi, I'm a Small Diminishing Power System Drain I. Let's gamble.
using a small nos will make you acquainted with sir scram, along side his good friend, mr. web.
are we talking about how PVE fitted battleships dont have any frig defense here or...?
|
Elaries
|
Posted - 2010.12.16 22:38:00 -
[32]
Remind me, why did BS need to counter frigs again?
O right, they DON'T.
kk,thx bye
|
Proxyyyy
Caldari draketrain
|
Posted - 2010.12.16 23:06:00 -
[33]
**** battleships (cost to much to lose)! Also, you dont even need a nos to hold tackle on any ship that uses med and heavy neuts. Nos is more important for those ships that have active tanks or weapons that use cap.
CANT WAIT TO FLY A RR T3 FRIGATE! Imagin fleets of RR t3 frigates, with LAZOR BEAMS (30k optimal) or STANDARD MISSILE LAUNCHERS (killer missile spamage).
-Discard females. Smoke trees. Win battles, Acquire ISK
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2010.12.17 00:39:00 -
[34]
Ok so I was exaggerating the usefulness of a single small turret, but lets be honest, if your solo and a frig tackles you, calls his mates and keeps you tackles for a couple of minutes or so. How many tacklers or frigs for that matter use active tanks? Better to be hitting the sod than missing with all your battleship weapons.
Still the best option is as I say, a quad small turret battleship weapon. Find me a modern or even sci-fi battleship that doesn't have a hell of allot of small turrets to defend itself.
|
Lusian
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 06:29:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Baudolino
Originally by: Diesel47 Battleships are already screwed up so why does it matter?
Indeed - it`s a problem that battleships really don`t have much of a battleship feel to them. They are currently facing a number of issues making overly difficult to field.
Originally by: Nian Banks Perhaps its time for battleships to be given bonuses that affect large, medium and small weapons from their bonus. (Sleep soon, I hope this makes sense)
Basically, if you have a bonus to large projectile weapons, then it should be a bonus to small, medium and large projectile weapons, for battleships.
Then if you want to, you can allocate one turret slow for a small AC. One single AC should be enough to make a frig reconsider a perma tackle till friends come.
The other option is to introduce a quad small turret module or a flack cannon that uses enough cpu and pg to be for battleships or above only and deals the equivalent damage of a t1 frigate.
Missile defence and gatling systems have been suggested many times. Maybe it`s time CCP revisit This.
As far as quad fire guns go CCP have already implemented the mechanics for that several years ago. Evey bay and turret has a salvo number to them so quad fire systems to easilly be implemented by manipulating this value.
The current design of ships within the game ensure that all sub capitals have very little difference between them. Alot of the time frigates, cruisers, BCs and battleships all have the same fittings- it`s just the stats that vary (i.e - armor hitpoints, speed, agility etc). Very little really set the classes apart.
capitals have siege mods, tactical reconfiguration, doomsday, clone vat etc..
Battleships should be about half the size of a full carrier and have more onboard assets than any other ship. Battleships need something that sets them apart from the rest of the pack. Like interceptors massive speed and agility are a defining characteristic of frigates there is really nothing defining about battleships in eve.
They have more guns than cruisers and bigger cap than battlecruisers, but there is really nothing unique about them. As eve progresses and lower ship classes keep getting updated, rebalanced and receive tech III alternatives, battleships risk becoming the poor-player-platform because you can quickly attain a tank and dps you need alot of skills to acquire with cruisers and battlecruisers. That shouldn`t be what battleships are about.
Battleships should be something players aspire to fly- vulnerable solo for sure, but something different from the rest. Not just bigger cap and HP.
Battleships used to have a range of 400km or more. The fac tha they were imped probably took away the last true defineing charecter about them. I haven't had a need to fly a bs in quite a while. A bc is much cheaper to fly and replace and can do as much damage of lets say 3 bc's to 1 bs. I would have liked to snipe a drama from 400km befor the nerf. But the bs class is not matched in dps by the other lower classes. So the last dfineing charecter for themreally does hang in the balance. Even he tech II Bs class doesn't have any true battleship charecteristics oher then haveing web bonuses or what ever it might be.
I would like to see eve focus on rebalanceing for a year then adding new content to the game. It needs so much more focus. What did you mean about the quad fireing guns?
|
Lusian
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 06:36:00 -
[36]
Originally by: William Cooly So much derping in this thread.
Originally by: Lutz Major Deploy heavy drones and bye, bye frigate.
Even decently fitted T1 frigs laugh at heavy drones.
Originally by: ACE81
Hmm T3 frigs probably going to be about 50 mil not 300 and lay dps clost to a t1 cruiser with out dmg mods tank unkown would be my guess so probably not a threat to BS's
For spontaneous theorycrafting I find it odd that your price is reasonable but everything else makes no sense at all. Current T2 AF's and certain other frigates pose a danger to BS's already, and with the customization of T3's, I would say the tank, dps, and threat to battleships is going to be whatever the creator feels like putting on it.
Originally by: Nian Banks turret theorycrafting
Are you the guy with that stupid thread? And fitting a small weapon to any battleship is already laughable, just field drones.
Back in the day like 2005, you could use smaller guns on lets say a thorax and get more dps. Then there was a patch to cancle that i guess you could call an advantage. Just wanted to throw that in there caue at one time it was used quite a bit at hat time.
|
Artemis Rose
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 09:44:00 -
[37]
Unless it get bonuses to reduce the effectiveness of hostile neutralizers, webs or light drones, they will die the same.
Here is to hoping they don't, because I want to collect some T3 frigate killmails in T1 cruisers
*** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
Grace Wing
Gallente Duane Barry Fan Club
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 10:37:00 -
[38]
A PVP fitted battleship and especially one for solo PVP should have no trouble killing a T1 or T2 frig safe for a well flown interceptor. T3 should be no different.
A PVE fitted battleship should die to any other PVP fitted ship that can break its tank.
|
Merbusent
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 11:02:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Merbusent on 06/02/2011 11:03:05 Its like they are taking the **** of my life releasing t3 frigates and not battleships!
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 11:07:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Grace Wing A PVP fitted battleship and especially one for solo PVP should have no trouble killing a T1 or T2 frig safe for a well flown interceptor. T3 should be no different.
A PVE fitted battleship should die to any other PVP fitted ship that can break its tank.
Why? Why should the entire relation between pvp and pve be defined by: If you are tackled you die, if you arent tackled you live.
|
|
Clementina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 11:50:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Nian Banks Perhaps its time for battleships to be given bonuses that affect large, medium and small weapons from their bonus. (Sleep soon, I hope this makes sense)
Basically, if you have a bonus to large projectile weapons, then it should be a bonus to small, medium and large projectile weapons, for battleships.
Then if you want to, you can allocate one turret slow for a small AC. One single AC should be enough to make a frig reconsider a perma tackle till friends come.
The other option is to introduce a quad small turret module or a flack cannon that uses enough cpu and pg to be for battleships or above only and deals the equivalent damage of a t1 frigate.
CCP shouldn't bother. You would be a fool to do this for your anti-frigate defense on your battleship. A 200mm AutoCannon II with Republic Fleet EMP does 48 damage per second on a Rifter, We can assume it would do 48 damage if it was on a bonused battleship. But a Merlin can be made to passively tank 48 dps. So you are going to want to go the traditional route and use neuts, webs, and drones.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 13:11:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Lutz Major
And I wouldn't count on T3 frigs soon. Anyhow I wouldn't spent 300 mils for one just to 'tackle' battleships
^^ This. And it's precisely the reason we won't see T3 frigs any time soon (if ever): a cruiser-sized Tengu can boost enough to do lv 4's; a T3 frigate, however, could not (unless things got severely out of whack). So, you could basically just use a T3 frig as an extremely expensive PvP tackler -- and who's willing to do that? --
|
Jokus Balim
Minmatar Capital Destruction R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 13:27:00 -
[43]
Dear OP,
get a frigate. You choose the tech level and race. Go into 0.0 or lowsec. Try to solo battleships. I'm pretty sure, you'll never open such a thread again. Battleships already have quite a number of choices to counter frigates. They are just not spewing tracer ammo through space.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 13:40:00 -
[44]
While I don't expect to see T3 frigs any time soon, solo battleships like the neut domi are not going to be an issue. The issue will be vast threadnoughts about the new nano age.
If we look at T3 cruisers the ship they have most obsoleted is the command ship, assuming T3 frigs followed the cruiser pattern the ships they would most obsolete are hacs. I can see a lot of balancing issues with having the firepower and tank of a hac combined with the speed and sig of a frigate, mostly issues that I'd have a lot of fun exploiting.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 13:56:00 -
[45]
I foresee precisely one role for T3 ships: grinding faction warfare LP.
...you know what? I'm okay with that. Bring it on!
|
Grace Wing
Gallente Duane Barry Fan Club
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 14:11:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Furb Killer Why? Why should the entire relation between pvp and pve be defined by: If you are tackled you die, if you arent tackled you live.
It isn't but generally PVE fits don't fit points and PVP fits that go after mission runners are prepared in terms of neuting, dodging bullets & high dps. And usually there's backup on the way.
There's always special cases where jamming & jamming drones come into play for example. Or a neut in the leftover highslot.
Specifically on the topic of frigates vs battleships, a simple point on a poorly tanked BS can mean his doom if he aggresses while there's still plenty NPC dps to be had.
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 16:12:00 -
[47]
Edited by: stoicfaux on 06/02/2011 16:12:43
Originally by: Salpad
IIRC, EVE already has 2x150mm Railgnns, as the smallest possible cruiser-fit railgnn system, so it would make perfect sense to modify that into an anti-frigate weapon, then create analogous weapons for blasters, artillery, drones and so forth.
Nah, it would be more abusivelogical to create "flak" anti-frigate ammo. The logistics of lugging around different sized launchers/turrets would just be a pain and is just clumsy. We already carry different types of ammo to match certain situations, so why not just add anti-frigate ammo to the mix?
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 17:46:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Lutz Major Deploy heavy drones and bye, bye frigate.
Perhaps he will have a heart attack due to laughing so hard, but those drones ain't going to do anything to that frig. Let alone anything that's actually T2 or T3. Even T1's with skill and fitting will laugh at them. Throw out light ones and the T1's are toast. T2...depends.
Originally by: CCP Shadow Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 18:19:00 -
[49]
Was there a dev blog about T3 frigs I missed?
|
Radcjk
Failed Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 18:31:00 -
[50]
Battleships have ALWAYS been vulnerable to smaller vessels, especially packs of them. Even in the time of infinite nos and the multispec ecm craze of 2006 a single battleship was prey to a small pack of frigates.
As to one frigate vs one battleship, it already happens now. The EHP buffer tank rage typically makes it more possible, though it does take the frigate longer.
|
|
Stuart Price
Caldari FLA5HY RED The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 18:32:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Was there a dev blog about T3 frigs I missed?
No, I think the magic 8-ball has been doing the rounds again. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate' |
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2011.02.06 19:17:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Stuart Price
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Was there a dev blog about T3 frigs I missed?
No, I think the magic 8-ball has been doing the rounds again.
Folks need to lay off the 8-balls.
|
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 04:00:00 -
[53]
Hi slots should be differentiated in more ways than just turret or launcher. There should be small, medium, large, and x-large hi slots. Ships should be reworked to allow a larger ship class to field a 50% effective number of lower class weapons. The class weapon systems would be boosted with a 100% dmg bonus, the lower class would only receive the ship's actual skill bonus. Sort of like this:
FF/DD - Unchanged 4 Weapon CA - 2 Medium 2 Small 5 Weapon CA - 3 Medium 2 Small 6 Weapon BC - 3 Medium 3 Small 7 Weapon BC - 4 Medium 3 Small 8 Weapon BC - 4 Medium 4 Small 6 Weapon BB - 3 Large 3 Medium 7 Weapon BB - 4 Large 3 Medium 8 Weapon BB - 4 Large 4 Medium
Capitals excluded.
Only an idiot ship designer would design a battleship to field only battleship class weapons.
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~ |
Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 08:55:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Val'Dore
Only an idiot ship designer would design a battleship to field only battleship class weapons.
True. I think in the sense of playability you can't really have BS shoot those frigs down easily, but they should be able to shoot the drones. Perhaps make it that BS can shoot down drones with smaller weaponry, but making frigs still effective.
I mean nobody would use frigs anymore if they knew the survivability would only come from "he didn't target me".
What we need is the possibility to target weapon systems! Take out those small guns and frigs could roam free around the BS.
Originally by: CCP Shadow Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
|
ChromeStriker
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 09:11:00 -
[55]
battleship.... worried about frigates.... however unlikely this is, smartbomb for the win
|
Soldarius
Caldari Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 10:36:00 -
[56]
Last I checked, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from fitting small weapons on a large hull. Anything with lots of highs would do nicely.
Anti-frigate Drake anybody?
7 AMLs + neut. web, point, LSEII, EM hardener, Invulnerability Fld II, and prop mod. BCSII x3, DCII some rigs (exp vel, exp radius, something else) 5x Warrior II
Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.
|
Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 12:38:00 -
[57]
Originally by: ChromeStriker battleship.... worried about frigates.... however unlikely this is, smartbomb for the win
Smile for incursion SB's. I have no problem in attacking a BS with a frigate and surviving, but the problem comes with use of time. When you get through his buffer they have had enough time to wake up friends and when they have had enough time to brush their teeth on do twenty odd jumps and instapop you.
Originally by: CCP Shadow Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
|
Lola D'Ixe
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 15:40:00 -
[58]
I'm confused, did they simultaneously remove warrior II's, Heavy neutralizers, and stasis webifiers from the game?
If not, I'm not sure why this thread exists, because I assure you if I fly a battleship solo I will be fielding some combination of 2 out of 3 of those to ensure that frigates won't be soloing me anything soon.
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 17:00:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Val'Dore
Only an idiot ship designer would design a battleship to field only battleship class weapons.
By that logic, there's no reason that missile launchers should require PG and no reason in terms of even the fictional science used in the game that every frigate couldn't have 6 launch tubes of torpedoes.
Game balance decision is for game balance, if you start drawing analogies to actual warfare and such you rapidly run into the same problem real-world naval combat has: firepower is so overwhelmingly more powerful than defenses (you can fit a self-powered, self-guided nuke on a catamaran if you want) that whoever gets the first shot off wins automatically, meaning that stealth boats with no targeting delay kill everything instantly and move on to the next target.
The idea of ships having HP pools that allow them to take multiple volleys and firepower versus other ships being dependent on ship size is a much, much bigger flight of fancy than the whole "pirates in space" thing. (Firepower vs. stationary targets/stations/moons is obviously a different matter, but in ship v. ship combat defenses are entirely predicated on shooting the other guy first, you don't get to soak anything.) ---
If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous |
Caretaking Sunofabitcch Quigglywobbl
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 17:20:00 -
[60]
wouldn't they make interceptors and faction frigates redundant if they cost 50mil??
even @ 150mil they would
or they'd be for incursions and have new stupid bonuses with advance math and logical programming to fully equate into something normal and understandable
or they'd be over powered
let's make all T2 ships redundant why don't we? ^^
let's play "get all the T3's, get to level 70 then realize uve been duped by vast number of ships into thinking they are and have some sort of use.
why not just make tier 3 T2 frigates
cruisers are the games bruisers
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |