| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
   |
Posted - 2011.02.07 18:35:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Dr Sheepbringer
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,
Right, well even just a couple medium weapons on a BS (without losing the BS level DPS) won't wholesale slaughter frigates, but it won't make the BS helpless against them either.
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~ |
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 18:45:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Lost Greybeard
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.
I'm not sure where you exactly are coming from with this, but I'm not apposed to ships being able to field a larger ship's weapons... I mean the SB fits BS weapons. But I wouldn't mind destroyers for example losing 3 Small Turrets in favor of a special ability to field 3 bonused medium turrets in their place.
Quote:
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.
Game balance is no excuse for bad game design. Homeworld 2 for example has battlecruisers with reasonable small weapon systems to fight things the main weapons just cannot deal with. There is no reason EvE can't have passively activated weapon systems of similar style or the less game changing route: being able to reasonably fit more than one class of weapon on large ships. Firepower doesn't have to be realistic, but even if it is, EvE is a game in the future, when defenses are not just bare armor plating.
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~ |
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 19:01:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn
A T3 frig won't be much better than a T2 frig, the same way the T3 cruisers aren't much better than T2 cruisers. They'll just be more customizable.
You should play EvE online, you know, the one WE play...
|
Zyress
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 19:53:00 -
[64]
Quote:
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.
Game balance is no excuse for bad game design. Homeworld 2 for example has battlecruisers with reasonable small weapon systems to fight things the main weapons just cannot deal with. There is no reason EvE can't have passively activated weapon systems of similar style or the less game changing route: being able to reasonably fit more than one class of weapon on large ships. Firepower doesn't have to be realistic, but even if it is, EvE is a game in the future, when defenses are not just bare armor plating.
I recall Homeworld being an incredibly laggy game when fleet sizes got to be of any good measure. It relied upon a mix of ships more than a mix of turret choices as I recall, kind of like Eve only your always FC. The Eve ships are fairly well balanced now as far as pwr cpu, slot layout etc. The best idea I have heard is frigate ammo, like shotgun shells for your autocannon, very short optimal and a much reduced falloff too but tracks much better The web and light drones thing is good, but a really fast frigate will kite you, speed tank your damage and kill your drones. That really only leaves a heavy nuet as your last line of defense against a fast frigate, as has been stated before a small nos can keep a frig running, but thats in scram/ web range and the frig ammo should eat you up in that range.
|
Swynet
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 21:25:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Diesel47
Battleships are already screwed up so why does it matter?
I can't figure out how a dam **** frigate with it's size compared with any battleship has better lock time/scan.
I mean can you ever figure IRL any Bombard for those who know what I'm talking about, having better defense capabitlities than a battleship...
Ok it's a game and al the usual blah blah, but what gets me slightly displeased is when dev's them selves choose irl examples to show their point of view but about this one just like by magic you don't see them anymore answering any post.
Funny sometimes 
|
Mithrasith
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 22:16:00 -
[66]
Link the post where CCP talks about launching Tech 3 Frigs or STFU with this thread.
|
Magnus Orin
Minmatar
United Systems Navy
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 22:37:00 -
[67]
Warrior IIs
Hornet EC-300s
Heavy Neutralizer II
Seriously, what else do battleships need?
Sarcasm - Because i'm too far away to strangle you. |
knentil
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 00:35:00 -
[68]
Screw T3 frigs lets get T3 battle cruisers or at least faction bcs..
|
Jonna Fortis
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 00:38:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Baudolino
Edited by: Baudolino on 16/12/2010 14:33:55
Currently Battleships have a very limited ability to stave of frigate-sized vessels.
When tech III frigates arrive, if they are anything like tech III cruisers, they will have massive HP making it impossible to kill with battleships.
Tech III might be in a position to tackle BS with no fear of loss and could even have the DPS to kill a BS.
Will there be any re-balancing to Battleships in order to keep them competitive and not have them so stupidly vulnerable to frigates-sized vessels?
My first response to posts
Don't expect anything ship related for a atleast year or so. Or anything space related. Everything will be just station ****.
|
Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 06:43:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Warrior IIs
Hornet EC-300s
Heavy Neutralizer II
Seriously, what else do battleships need?
I hate those neuts. *PPOOMMMMMM* "You son of a...."
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
|
Mithrasith
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 20:13:00 -
[71]
Originally by: knentil
Screw T3 frigs lets get T3 battle cruisers or at least faction bcs..
Right. Or just fix Command ships already FFS CCP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about we do that first?
CCP needs to spend the next year fixing broken and out of balance ships before adding more.
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 22:55:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Val'Dore
Game balance is no excuse for bad game design. Homeworld 2 for example has battlecruisers with reasonable small weapon systems to fight things the main weapons just cannot deal with.
I'm not familiar with the game, but wasn't it an RTS? The whole point of an MMORPG is to make working with other players highly advantageous, solopwnmobiles work directly coutner to the rock/paper/scissors balance that usually results form that requirement.
Quote:
There is no reason EvE can't have passively activated weapon systems of similar style or the less game changing route: being able to reasonably fit more than one class of weapon on large ships. Firepower doesn't have to be realistic, but even if it is, EvE is a game in the future, when defenses are not just bare armor plating.
Using my magical genie powers, I will now go back in time to grant your wish.
*poof*
OK, now battleships, BCs, and most cruisers can equip light drones, a secondary weapon system more than capable of dealing with T1 frigs without even trying, and t2 frigs if you're a better pilot than them (or equipped a web/scram).
---
If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous |
Dr Chau
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 03:41:00 -
[73]
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.
1
While I agree with other posters that the single AC would be almost completely ineffective at killing any competently fit/flown frigate, I think the idea of a flak cannon is excellent. I do see how the max 8/8/8 slot setup makes it pretty easy to balance game play in Eve, but I've often wondered why we don't see more large guns designed to kill small targets. No Battleship class combat ship would EVER be created without some form of defense against much smaller ships. The idea of a frigate being able to contemplate soloing a battleship is wrong, let alone being able to actually kill it.
Drones are great, but not great enough to nullify the need for battleship class anti-frigate weapons.
Only problem is, most of this is much too complicated to be implemented in many years, if ever.
Oh well, a man can dream.
|
Asuka Smith
Gallente
Noir.
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 04:37:00 -
[74]
Right now I feel the balance is fine between BS/Frigates and the real problem is that BS don't deal enough damage or tank enough to be worth it compared to T2 cruisers/battlecruisers. Basically, a T2 cruiser or a T1 battlecruiser can outdo any battleship at anything besides SUPER long range sniping or POS warfare.
|
Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 07:20:00 -
[75]
Now that I think of it. I think the real problem lies in BS and up. Cruisers and BC's are basically beefed up frigates that have more armor, more firepower and less agility. BS on the other hand aren't up to par with cruisers and BC's. I think with BS there should be some changes.
For example. Dominix and ishtar. They are both pretty equal when you put it on paper. They are different (pure armor tanking vs. speedtanking), but in the end the results are almost the same. I know one is T1 and other is T2, but it's cruiser vs. a BATTLEship. What i'm getting at is that you CAN fly a T2 cruiser and it's almost identical in terms of usability when compared to some ships.
A cruiser just isn't a same thing as a battleship.
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Dr. Sheepbringer -- It's not that kind of horn.
|
Imiarr Timshae
Caldari
Funny Men In Funny Hats
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 13:37:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Carniflex
Khm ... so they would compare roughly as .. well lets see ... Cerberus against Tengu ? It sure is more customizable. In addition to beating the living crap out of Cerberus ofc  .
That's because the cerberus sucks the sweat from a dead man's *******.
-----
Originally by: GM Horse
Remember kids, both meth and macro use are Really Quite Bad Things.
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Tragic smelting accidents.
|
Serena Wilde
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 17:45:00 -
[77]
Why not create a new type of gun that is essentially a grenade launcher on top of a shotgun? Ie. a Combined Artillery and Autocannon, that does less damage than both alone, but can shoot both short or long range as you choose, getting bonuses against smaller targets?
This way it still remains a fitting issue. You can have great alpha, great close range, or middle-of-the-road damage against both, weaker than your big guns against same class ships, but better against smaller class ships. Just an idea off the top of my head. The question is, would something like that work instead of giving passive bonuses to Battleships?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |