EVE Search - Concern about tech III frigates regarding Battleships

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Concern about tech III frigates regarding Battleships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Baudolino Gallente Royal Crimson Lancers	Posted - 2010.12.16 11:28:00 - [1] 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?
Lutz Major Austriae Est Imperare Orbi Universo	Posted - 2010.12.16 11:36:00 - [2] Deploy heavy drones and bye, bye frigate. And I wouldn't count on T3 frigs soon. Anyhow I wouldn't spent 300 mils for one just to 'tackle' battleships
ACE81 Caldari	Posted - 2010.12.16 11:40:00 - [3] Edited by: ACE81 on 16/12/2010 11:41:06 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 "I want a Secure can thats as big as my Jet can for solo mining :P 27k m3"
Arthur Frayn Dafoen Industries	Posted - 2010.12.16 11:44:00 - [4] 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. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Carniflex StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.12.16 11:47:00 - [5] 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. 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 .
carbomb Super Team Munkey	Posted - 2010.12.16 11:51:00 - [6] Originally by: Baudolino 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. a t2 frig can kill a bs so whats the problem?
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.12.16 12:35:00 - [7] Originally by: Carniflex 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. 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 . or proteus vs deimos
Diesel47	Posted - 2010.12.16 13:28:00 - [8] Battleships are already screwed up so why does it matter?
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2010.12.16 14:08:00 - [9] 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.
Recreational Abuser	Posted - 2010.12.16 14:19:00 - [10] Edited by: Recreational Abuser on 16/12/2010 14:22:34 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. blah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..... Sorry, not done yet. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Baudolino Gallente Royal Crimson Lancers	Posted - 2010.12.16 14:33:00 - [11] 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.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2010.12.16 14:33:00 - [12] Originally by: Recreational Abuser Edited by: Recreational Abuser on 16/12/2010 14:22:34 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. blah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..... Sorry, not done yet. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH My advice, ask your mother why she did heavy illegal drugs while she was pregnant with you.
Mr Dilkington	Posted - 2010.12.16 14:46:00 - [13] Originally by: Nian Banks 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. PMSL One ac to deter a tackler ? haha Try fitting a web and small drones.
heheheh Phoenix Club	Posted - 2010.12.16 14:48:00 - [14] If my dedicated tackler, was detered by a single small a/c, he would not be my dedicated tackler ever again.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:01:00 - [15] They need to fix assault frigates, electronic attack frigates, destroyers, and hybrids before they even think about adding T3 frigates.
Sigaar	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:03:00 - [16] 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. I hope this is a joke. Tengu is doing stuff that no t2 cruiser was EVER close to. Not even three t2 cruisers combined.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:04:00 - [17] Very clever to use the potential T3 frigates as leverage for the BS boost agenda T3 frigates will be able to kill BS just as easily as T1/T2 frigates currently can. Abusing tracking and signature is not exactly rocket science. Question is if a BS should be able to kill a frigate if alone or whether that should be the destroyer/cruiser/BC department. Personally think that the ability of lights to completely evade BS counters is a good thing as it empathizes the necessity of "mixing it up". If one ship-class was able to kill every other then why fly anything else (ex. pre web nerf BS, very few other hulls used)?
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:06:00 - [18] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Very clever to use the potential T3 frigates as leverage for the BS boost agenda T3 frigates will be able to kill BS just as easily as T1/T2 frigates currently can. Abusing tracking and signature is not exactly rocket science. Question is if a BS should be able to kill a frigate if alone or whether that should be the destroyer/cruiser/BC department. Personally think that the ability of lights to completely evade BS counters is a good thing as it empathizes the necessity of "mixing it up". If one ship-class was able to kill every other then why fly anything else (ex. pre web nerf BS, very few other hulls used)? if you are soloing in a BS and you cant kill a solo frig you are doing it wrong
Mavnas	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:15:00 - [19] I would imagine a couple of heavy neuts would take care of any frigate's tank. Web + drones = win?
Galen Silas Gallente Black Aces Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:43:00 - [20] 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. No offense but are you sure your playing EVE??? Yes, i love stating my opinion... because people don't like it!
Herping yourDerp	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:44:00 - [21] Nerf T3 add T3 frigate and battleship i think people forget that the T2 battleships are worthless PVP boats (combat) so when a t2 frig kills a battleship, remmeber it is T2, and battleships are supposed to be vulnerable to small frigs
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2010.12.16 15:55:00 - [22] Originally by: Baudolino 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. Nah, they have a perfectly realistic battleship feel to them. They're mostly useless unless pounding a large, relatively immobile object, and are vulnerable to smaller ships and ordinance. Furthermore, they're being obsoleted by carriers. I'd say that's as realistic and battleship-like as you can get. Art can't help but imitate life, it seems... ùùùùù Originally by: CCP Big Dumb Object When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed.
Indeterminacy THORN Syndicate Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.12.16 16:22:00 - [23] From what I hear, we shouldn't expect any of these changes (whatever form they come in T3, BS Buff or fix all the stuff that's borken) for at least 18 months.
Killstealing	Posted - 2010.12.16 17:36:00 - [24] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Very clever to use the potential T3 frigates as leverage for the BS boost agenda T3 frigates will be able to kill BS just as easily as T1/T2 frigates currently can. Abusing tracking and signature is not exactly rocket science. Question is if a BS should be able to kill a frigate if alone or whether that should be the destroyer/cruiser/BC department. Personally think that the ability of lights to completely evade BS counters is a good thing as it empathizes the necessity of "mixing it up". If one ship-class was able to kill every other then why fly anything else (ex. pre web nerf BS, very few other hulls used)? how do you kill a BS as a solo t1 frig I mean, you can not die but kill? Really?
Magnus Orin Minmatar United Systems Navy Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.12.16 18:04:00 - [25] Hi, I'm a Large Energy Neutralizer II. Sarcasm - Because i'm too far away to strangle you.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2010.12.16 18:27:00 - [26] 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. ùùùùù Originally by: CCP Big Dumb Object When I nerf something, it takes 2-3 months for your dreams to be crushed.
fkingfurious	Posted - 2010.12.16 20:49:00 - [27] Edited by: fkingfurious on 16/12/2010 20:49:07 Or they could just change the way neuts cycle A Heavy Unstable neut kills 600 cap every 24 seconds, or 25 cap/sec. Bringing the cycle times of ALL neuts and nos into line with eachother, for example 3 secs for a nos and 6 secs for a neut (what small size are already) would go a long way to giving BS legitimate defense vs. frigs. A Heavy Unstable would now neutralize 150 cap every 6 secs (still 25/sec) meaning that single small nos that frigs invariably carry will not be sufficient to indefinitley fend off the drain of a heavy neut. All of a sudden BS are no longer defenceless.
oldmanst4r Minmatar oldmanst4r's Corporation	Posted - 2010.12.16 20:52:00 - [28] 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. Have you ever flown a t3 in PvP? Well, let me tell you, it feels like FKING CHEATING. I would make the argument that certain t3s outclass their racial HACs so much, they are actually more isk efficient to fly. Originally by:** CCP Shadow snip Castration successful. Shadow.
William Cooly Sol Enterprises	Posted - 2010.12.16 20:54:00 - [29] 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. - I troll stupid people.
Salpad Caldari Carebears with Attitude	Posted - 2010.12.16 21:08:00 - [30] Originally by: Nian Banks 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. More generally, there ought to be drones and gnns that are analogous to Assault Missile Launchers, and similar for battleship-fitted anti-cruiser systems. 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. -- Salpad
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 ~~abusive~~logical 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
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]

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.