| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Slithereen
   |
Posted - 2005.02.13 09:26:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Slithereen on 13/02/2005 09:40:56
Before we even brought up Elite Battleships, Dreadnaughts, Carriers and Titans, should we fill up some imbalances first? The Battleship class is likely to remain the most popular and most used class in the entire EVE. The workhorse of EVE if you will. Despite such a status, it only has 8 ships, compared to let's say the numbers of cruiser and frigate designs available.
These are ideas I have for "plugging" up the current lines with new speciality battleships.
Caldari---
The proposed battleship is mainly a gunship optimized for a high number of turrets, range and rail usage, with matching power grid. One can take it as a much larger version of the Ferox. Up to 6 turrets can be used from 8 hi slots and up to four missile launchers are available. Bonus is Ferox like, with a 5% increase of all shield damage resistances per level. Six midslots, five low slots.
Purpose: To introduce a Caldari railgunship in the tradition of the Moa and Ferox.
Gallente---
The proposed battleship differs from the Megathron and the Dominix in that it has less drone space (1500m3). The ship however has powerful grid to support neutron blasters. Its high number of med slots also enable it to be used an EW support ship. Up to 7 turrets can be used with its eight hi slots, with one missile launcher.
It has a fairly high speed, agility, and a Thorax like MWD cap reduction as a bonus. Also has a Brutix like armor boost bonus. Five mid slots, six low slots.
Purpose: To introduce a more streamlined blastership that can double as an EW ship.
Minmatar---
The proposed battleship enables up to 6 turrets from 8 hi slots, with up to three missile launchers as an option.
1500m3 Drone space. Sacrifices low slot for increased midslots, about six, which is more than a Tempest. Shield tank and EW ship with shield boost as bonux. Better CPU to support EW operations but weaker grid than the Typhoon. Five low slots.
Purpose: To introduce a "truer" more dedicated projectile gunship than the Typhoon but can double for EW support.
Amarr---
The proposed battleship has more midslots than the Apocalypse, but has less low slots in turn. Up to seven turrets and Up to three missile launchers can be used for 8 hi slots. It has a Proph like bonus on armor damage resistances per level. Has good CPU intended for EW support, superior to both Apoc and Geddon, but has weaker grid than both. 1500m3 for drone space. The storyline for the design was that it is meant as a new Khanid battleship, has Caldari like influences and is intended for battleship EW support.
Five midslots, six low slots.
Purpose: To introduce an EW and missile support ship for the Amarr.
_______________________________________________
"Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies,
"Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.
"Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
|
Meehan
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 09:39:00 -
[2]
I agree with your proposal in whole, as to add more battleships - and even though I like your particular examples as well I'd just like to add that any additions would be welcome, not just the ones you posted here.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 09:44:00 -
[3]
The amarr one would be an even better tank than the apoc already is with prophecy-like resistances. And the minmatar one using guns, but having poor powergrid? That's kind of screwy.
I put my thumbs down for the general idea, since it would mean another whole round of having to balance them all out.
|
Slithereen
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 09:51:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Slithereen on 13/02/2005 09:54:04
The Minmatar one is meant more as an EW ship, not an artillery ship. So lower power grid is countered by a higher CPU. The ship is intended to use more autocannons. Let the Tempest play artillery.
The Amarr one is also meant as an EW ship. It may have higher resistances, but it does not have the damage output of the other Amarr battleships.
The whole idea of trying to balance the 8 current ships is not achievable without adding new ships that support specialization. We are currently trying to make only 8 designs do too much work. Conmpare this with frigates and cruisers, where greater speciality of design offered by increased number of designs have achieved a better sense of balance.
_______________________________________________
"Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies,
"Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.
"Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
|
Chee
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 09:54:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Slithereen
Minmatar
The proposed battleship enables up to 6 turrets from 8 hi slots, with up to three missile launchers as an option.
1500m3 Drone space. Sacrifices low slot for increased midslots, about six, which is more than a Tempest. Shield tank and EW ship with shield boost as bonux. Better CPU to support EW operations but weaker grid than the Typhoon. Five low slots.
Purpose: To introduce a "truer" more dedicated projectile gunship than the Typhoon but can double for EW support.
I dont see that as a usefull addition, less powergrid then a phoon but equal turret slots as a tempest? thats not gonna do much good, it would lack serious firepower (current projectiles pose enough of an issue already). And with 6 med slots its not much of an EW ship, would rather grab a BB for that. to me this sounds more like a battlecruiser idea
Its not enough to succeed. Others must fail. |
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 10:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Slithereen
Minmatar
The proposed battleship enables up to 6 turrets from 8 hi slots, with up to three missile launchers as an option.
1500m3 Drone space. Sacrifices low slot for increased midslots, about six, which is more than a Tempest. Shield tank and EW ship with shield boost as bonux. Better CPU to support EW operations but weaker grid than the Typhoon. Five low slots.
Purpose: To introduce a "truer" more dedicated projectile gunship than the Typhoon but can double for EW support.
less gunslots, more missile slots and a bonus to missiles instead.
-------------------
Quote:
Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
|
Angelus X
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 11:11:00 -
[7]
I like the idea very much, great suggestion pal
|
Kaeten
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 11:33:00 -
[8]
Nice Idea.
___________________________________
Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante
Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante
Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante |
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 12:49:00 -
[9]
I'm all for it as long as the new models don't look like toilet plungers on rollerskates. 
www.hadean.org
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 13:46:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 13/02/2005 13:47:08
new tier 3 bs's would be nice (that need lvl 3 'race' bs skill).
They could be different from the normal racial philosophy (perhaps a dark amarr(khanid) bs that relies on shield  ) or such weird things like a caldari gunship ( ).
[EDIT] Oh and I agree tottally with Gungankllr . I don't really want another trashcan bs
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr. |
Robberts
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 13:50:00 -
[11]
I like your idea, but not the designs.
Why should the gall tier 1 BS be better in every way to the tier 2 bs?
stupid.
Why should only the amarr and gall BS be designed towards tanking?
again, stupid.
I would like a nice, dedicated minmatar tank, as we have **** for that.
Probably our best tank by class is the rupture. The cyclone, even with its spiffy bonus is a push-over due to a meak 4 mid slots. |
Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 14:26:00 -
[12]
I agree with your idea.
It seems inconceivable to me, from a purely logic perspective, that whoever is in charge of the Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar navies have failed to grasp the need for MEDIUM SLOTS for electronic warfare.
Are these people truly stupid? I'm guessing so.
Basically, it seems like all of your proposals entail adding a 6 medium slot ship to the Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar, while making a pure gunship for the Caldari. Of course, various stat compromises would have to be made in the name of "balance".
But all in all, I think it's a fine idea. It's time those Admirals in charge of Naval Procurement actually got off their high horses and pulled their heads out of whatever dark place it is right now.
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 14:48:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Robberts
I like your idea, but not the designs.
what he said
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 15:06:00 -
[14]
well Caldari could need a long range Sniper Ship
but something with a 7/5/6 layout would be nice
enough for shield tanking at a normal level, but defenitly a long range ship
and give it 6 turret slots and 1 launcher
amarr could need a more missle orientated ship like sarcilege, maybe some more EW
6/6/6, or something like that, would give it 3 missle and 3 gun hardpoints
gallente need a ship which is designed for 425er
8/3/8 maybe, with 8 gun hardpoints, but awfull low speed,
3 midslots should stop it form beeing used as blastership
Minmatars need a gunship aswell
something like
8/4/7
with 8 gun slots
Wanna fly with me?
|
Lallante
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 15:18:00 -
[15]
SO Caldari Get more versatility,
Minamatar and Gallente simply get a BETTER version of their current best BS
And Amarr get a Pile of cRap with armor tank bonus's made useless by less low slots. "missle support" with 3 launchers and "Ew" with 5 mids... LOL.
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 15:20:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Nafri
snip
Why are you giving the Gallente and Minmatar proposed ships more slots then the Amarr and Caldari? Both in slot numbers, and in turret / launcher slots?
Furthermore, giving each ship just enough turret / launcher hardpoints to fill the highslots is boring. Everyone will have one setup. For example, the Amarr BS would be 7/6/6, with 4 launchers 4 turrets. But uhm yea, i was just gonna point out the inequality.
/Elve
New Video out! Watch me!
|
Sphalerite
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 15:41:00 -
[17]
If you're going to design more battleships, why not just use the cruisers as a template?
Caldari already have a missile and EW cruiser, so give them a rail platform. Amarr have a gank and a tank, so give them a wierdo drone and missile thing. The Minmatar have a gunship and a hybrid mix thing with drones, so maybe give them something with crazy tracking and tons of speed. Gallente have a drone and a hybrid platform, so erm, give them... whatever the celestis is supposed to be good at.
Not that any of these will happen.
|
Torvus Jay
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 15:44:00 -
[18]
like the idea mostly, however being able to do effective EW and armor tank at the same time is overpowered.
______________
Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye. |
HatePeace LoveWar
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 16:22:00 -
[19]
The Proposal is nice although i think the roles would need looking at.
But let me say again, good idea, always like the idea of more content.
Former Member of Omega Corp |
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 16:34:00 -
[20]
new bs-s would be nice... but with some suggestions:
-if you want to armor tank, you need low slots... ok you can use only tanking modules on low & use med slots for recharge, but this is kinnda expensive
- gallente blastership is just fixed mt, so fixing mt & adding rail platform would be nice
- caldari need rail bs, but with armor tank!!!, else we will see another EW platform
- minmater: no idea, i rarely meet em & i don't know em...
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 16:38:00 -
[21]
Please YES! MORE SHIPS, ESPECIALLY BATTLESHIPS, IS A VERY GOOD THING.
As for the specific ideas, they are interesting but could use some tweaking. But then again, what ships could'nt? But the basic premise is fantastic.
I want to see as many BS designs as there are Frig designs. The game has matured, a LOT of people fly battleships. One of the fun things about being new was all the different ships you can fly. Why cant older players have that fun too. I am tired of seeing the same 4 battleships over and over no matter who I fight. :/
MORE SHIPS = MORE FUN. Period.
|
MachineMk2
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 17:34:00 -
[22]
Edited by: MachineMk2 on 13/02/2005 17:39:51
<signed>
Absolutely. T2 can wait. Gimme a Caldari rail armed BS. :D
Or a Gallente on...of course, they'd need to un-nerf some of the cap maybe.
|
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 17:57:00 -
[23]
problem is, no other bs will serve as EW platform when there is scorpion in game. Not unless you are talking about 8 mid slot ship.
--
2004.12.29 23:33:40combatMining Pollution Cloud hits you, doing 140.0 damage. |
Hakera
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 18:11:00 -
[24]
i'll be honest - i think the ship balance ingame should be somehow enforced. There was a natural ship balance in the beginning simply because bs bp's/mining rates were not high enough to have such a market we see today and incomes were much lower.
I would like to see the cruiser as the mainstay of the ships in eve and bs only for the rich or elite but i guess it is too late for that smore ships I guess is always good as long as they have some use.
I said CCP of should have nerfed mining into a can :)
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 18:27:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
Originally by: Nafri
snip
Why are you giving the Gallente and Minmatar proposed ships more slots then the Amarr and Caldari? Both in slot numbers, and in turret / launcher slots?
Furthermore, giving each ship just enough turret / launcher hardpoints to fill the highslots is boring. Everyone will have one setup. For example, the Amarr BS would be 7/6/6, with 4 launchers 4 turrets. But uhm yea, i was just gonna point out the inequality.
Gallente and Matari needs no brainer ships like Apoc or Raven too
and more slots to compensate for their inferior weapons 
Wanna fly with me?
|
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 18:39:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Elve Sorrow on 13/02/2005 18:39:17
Edited by: Elve Sorrow on 13/02/2005 18:38:57
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
Originally by: Nafri
snip
Why are you giving the Gallente and Minmatar proposed ships more slots then the Amarr and Caldari? Both in slot numbers, and in turret / launcher slots?
Furthermore, giving each ship just enough turret / launcher hardpoints to fill the highslots is boring. Everyone will have one setup. For example, the Amarr BS would be 7/6/6, with 4 launchers 4 turrets. But uhm yea, i was just gonna point out the inequality.
Gallente and Matari needs no brainer ships like Apoc or Raven too
and more slots to compensate for their inferior weapons
Trust me, no you don't. It's boring.
To be honest, the pure fact that Ravens and Apocs are so predictable now its not funny anymore makes them crap. Guess what, i fly an Apoc. Guess which ships i fear when engaging 1v1? Thats right, Mega, Dom, Typhoon and Tempest.
ECIT: Spelling.
EDIT2: Stay off the booze.
/Elve
New Video out! Watch me!
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 20:33:00 -
[27]
I've been saying this for a while.
I just want to see the ships do something that the race doesn't usually do so that large swings of the nerf bat will be less painfull.
Like -
Minmater - EW
Gallente - Long range (or Missilles)
Amarr - Drones
Caldari - Short range
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Sky Hunter
|
Posted - 2005.02.13 22:04:00 -
[28]
MWD cap bonus on BS?
Well, ill see you when you get attacked by BS moving 1200m/s and firing torps at you :) youll get downed in seconds. Even wil not able to jam/damp him
-=-
|
DarK
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 00:09:00 -
[29]
And while you're at it chuck in a few new Battlecruisers.
|
Drunken Claptrap
|
Posted - 2005.02.14 00:48:00 -
[30]
Definitely......Even if ships were the same fittings it would be nice to have different looks. Afterall there are heaps of 2 litre cars out there, and they don't all look the same do they?
Draft Beer Not People |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |