EVE Search - Faction Battlecruisers?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Faction Battlecruisers?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ballistic Knight	Posted - 2011.08.06 13:02:00 - [1] Does anyone know why we do not have faction battlecruisers? I would think they would definitely be an interesting addition to the line-up.
Revanean	Posted - 2011.08.06 13:42:00 - [2] That would be pretty awesome, but right now CCP are busy manufacturing crampons and icepicks to mountaineer their way out of the hole they dug themselves to worry about faction BCs. Navy Issue Harbinger, anyone? :D
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.06 17:04:00 - [3] Edited by: Aamrr on 06/08/2011 17:06:22 Wraith (Sansha Battlecruiser) ~450 million isk 7 high slots, 5x turrets 6 medium slots 4 low slots 3 rig slots, 350 calibration Special Ability: +100% bonus to medium energy turret damage Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: +5% bonus to medium laser turret damage per level +7.5% bonus to medium laser turret tracking per level Prerequisites: Caldari Cruiser 5, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruisers 1
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.06 17:17:00 - [4] Edited by: Aamrr on 06/08/2011 17:26:12 Thantiel (Angel Battlecruiser) ~450 million isk 8 high slots, 7x turrets 6 medium slots 5 low slots 3 rig slots, 350 calibration Special Ability: +25% bonus to medium projectile turret rate of fire Absurdly low mass, as is standard for all Angel ships Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: +5% bonus to medium projectile turret damage per level +10% bonus to medium projectile turret falloff per level Prerequisites: Minmatar Cruiser 5, Gallente Cruiser 5, Battlecruisers 1
Th0rG0d Terminal Pharmaceuticals Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.06 18:42:00 - [5] I think Tier 2 BCs need to be balanced first. They completely outclass everything below it, and are more versatile the most BSs. I would like to see faction battlecruisers though. Maybe they should be what Tier 2 are now?
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide.	Posted - 2011.08.06 19:35:00 - [6] Originally by: Th0rG0d I think Tier 2 BCs need to be balanced first. They completely outclass everything below it, and are more versatile the most BSs. I would like to see faction battlecruisers though. Maybe they should be what Tier 2 are now? Precisely. I for one would love to fly current Bingers etc. should they be balanced and cost like 200 mil. --- Originally by: CCP Greyscale Is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.06 20:50:00 - [7] Not that I don't agree with you, but I'm not exactly comfortable with there being no competent T1 laserboats smaller than battleships. The punisher, maller, and/or prophecy would need some pretty massive overhauls before I'd be willing to see the harbinger removed from entry level players.
Mfume Apocal Minmatar Origin. Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.08.06 21:04:00 - [8] Originally by: Aamrr The punisher, maller, and/or prophecy would need some pretty massive overhauls before I'd be willing to see the harbinger removed from entry level players. The same could be said about Caldari and the Drake.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.06 21:11:00 - [9] Prior to the rocket buff, I would agree with you -- but the Kestrel and the Merlin are both very competent missile boats at the frigate level, and the assault missile caracal is well known for its anti-frigate prowess. I wouldn't mind seeing the caracal being a little more nano-capable, though.
Th0rG0d Terminal Pharmaceuticals Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.06 22:44:00 - [10] Originally by: Aamrr Not that I don't agree with you, but I'm not exactly comfortable with there being no competent T1 laserboats smaller than battleships. The punisher, maller, and/or prophecy would need some pretty massive overhauls before I'd be willing to see the harbinger removed from entry level players. I don't think the Harbinger, or any Tier 2 BCs should be balanced with isk. I think either the Tier 1 ships brought up a bit, or slightly lessen the performance of the Tier 2s. But, since the T2 BCs are all Tier 1 hulls, the faction BCs should be based on the Tier 2 hulls. Definately like to see a sup'ed up Ashimmu-like Harb or web bonused Myrm.

Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.06 23:18:00 - [11] The problem with doing that is that it leaves the tech-1 cruisers literally in the dust. There would be no reason to ever fly them.
Th0rG0d Terminal Pharmaceuticals Inc.	Posted - 2011.08.06 23:36:00 - [12] The only reason now to fly cruisers is cost. Why choose the Ruppie over the Cane? Because it's cheaper. Why fly a Omen over a Harb? You don't now anyway. The Caracal is flown instead of a Drake pretty much only for one role, frig swatting. Vexor or Myrm, well, Myrm is all around better generally, though the Vexor is still a great hull, and cheaper. If you lower the Tier 2 BC hulls in performance, that would even up the playing field just fine. But the faction hulls would have to be similar to their current performance, and with their corresponding bonuses. Probably ideally priced in the mid 300M- low 400M isk price range, but I must confess that market stuff is way out of my scope. I'm the guy who sells to buy orders, and buys sell orders ;)
Akiba Penrose The Praxis Initiative	Posted - 2011.08.07 00:21:00 - [13] One cause may be that the battlecruiser skill is non-racial. So they would have to redo the skills to make them in-line with other faction ships.
Diomidis Pod Liberation Authority	Posted - 2011.08.07 02:00:00 - [14] Originally by: Th0rG0d The only reason now to fly cruisers is cost. Why choose the Ruppie over the Cane? Because it's cheaper. Why fly a Omen over a Harb? You don't now anyway. The Caracal is flown instead of a Drake pretty much only for one role, frig swatting. Vexor or Myrm, well, Myrm is all around better generally, though the Vexor is still a great hull, and cheaper. If you lower the Tier 2 BC hulls in performance, that would even up the playing field just fine. But the faction hulls would have to be similar to their current performance, and with their corresponding bonuses. Probably ideally priced in the mid 300M- low 400M isk price range, but I must confess that market stuff is way out of my scope. I'm the guy who sells to buy orders, and buys sell orders ;) Posted that before, so I won't elaborate, but... T1 Cruisers are not that cheaper than BCs...for similar fits require only a few less modules of similar cost. For spec fits, it's more likely you will use a meta 3/4 module for a cruiser than for a BC for fitting purposes. After insurance the cost boils down to insurance cost and those 2-3 extra modules, while the performance gains you get out of BCs over cruisers is simply priceless.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.07 02:28:00 - [15] Originally by: Diomidis Posted that before, so I won't elaborate, but... T1 Cruisers are not that cheaper than BCs...for similar fits require only a few less modules of similar cost. For spec fits, it's more likely you will use a meta 3/4 module for a cruiser than for a BC for fitting purposes. Quoted for truth. As often as not, T1 cruisers end up costing MORE than battlecruisers because of reliance on meta-4 modules for fitting considerations. The difference in their performance is staggering, and battlecruisers will often end up being more agile than their cruiser counterparts simply because they can add nanofibers in their extra slots. Even more absurd, battlecruisers are also LESS skill intensive, because you can just train a single battlecruiser skill and qualify for 8 different ships. They're also much easier on fitting requirements, which makes things like advanced weapon upgrades and or launcher rigging unnecessary.
Akara Ito Amarr Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation	Posted - 2011.08.07 02:56:00 - [16] Edited by: Akara Ito on 07/08/2011 02:57:44 Originally by: Aamrr Originally by: Diomidis Posted that before, so I won't elaborate, but... T1 Cruisers are not that cheaper than BCs...for similar fits require only a few less modules of similar cost. For spec fits, it's more likely you will use a meta 3/4 module for a cruiser than for a BC for fitting purposes. Quoted for truth. As often as not, T1 cruisers end up costing MORE than battlecruisers because of reliance on meta-4 modules for fitting considerations. The difference in their performance is staggering, and battlecruisers will often end up being more agile than their cruiser counterparts simply because they can add nanofibers in their extra slots. Even more absurd, battlecruisers are also LESS skill intensive, because you can just train a single battlecruiser skill and qualify for 8 different ships. They're also much easier on fitting requirements, which makes things like advanced weapon upgrades and or launcher rigging unnecessary. The last part is simply not true, a really good Drake fit needs AWU 4, Electronics, Engineering 5 and several other skills like Shield Upgrades 4 or better 5 as well. Flying a decent Drake without Electronics and Weapon Upgrade both at V almost impossible. The other BCs are pretty much the same, I'm currently training Shield Upgrades 5 to get a decent fit on my Harbinger working Faction BCs in general would be nice, Imperial Navy Harb with a little more Cap/Shield/Armor/Hull/Grid/CPU and 1 more low slot or an increased dronebay for a total price of maybe 200 Million. Navy Factions BCs would still be in line with the Field Command ships as they lack the T2 Resists the dual damage bonus. 7 mids Drake would be a bit imbalanced tho. Pirate Factions BCs would be way to overpowered tho, I dont think we need an Angel BC with the agility of a fast cruiser and 1k DPS
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.07 03:21:00 - [17] You're crying because a drake needs electronics and engineering 5. Those are rank one skills. Shield upgrades 4 is required to use T2 extenders. There is literally no excuse for a drake pilot not to have it. It takes less time than either of the previous skills do. Try fitting an omen some time and then we can talk about unreasonable powergrid and CPU demands. (And then compare to an autocannon Hurricane.)
Mfume Apocal Minmatar Origin. Black Legion.	Posted - 2011.08.07 06:30:00 - [18] canes have much easier fitting than other bcs, i dont know why you people are talking about the drake
Headerman Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.08.07 07:46:00 - [19] Why the **** are people saying the Drake needs to be buffed when it is already the most flown BC in the game?
Exploited Engineer	Posted - 2011.08.07 11:18:00 - [20] Originally by: Akiba Penrose One cause may be that the battlecruiser skill is non-racial. So they would have to redo the skills to make them in-line with other faction ships. They could fix that fairly easily by making one of the BCs hull bonuses dependent on the racial cruiser skill. That way, you'd need both BC and the racial cruiser skill at a certain level to fly a BC of that faction effectively.

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2011.08.07 12:29:00 - [21] When/If tiers are aver done away with .. until then there is simply no "room" between tier2 BC and tier1 BS for a faction BC. Originally by: Headerman Why the **** are people saying the Drake needs to be buffed when it is already the most flown BC in the game? Say What!? Now add the little known fact ('lol') that Hurricanes are generally not used for PvE at all ......
Nomad Vherokic Minmatar	Posted - 2011.08.07 12:41:00 - [22] Originally by: Exploited Engineer Originally by: Akiba Penrose One cause may be that the battlecruiser skill is non-racial. So they would have to redo the skills to make them in-line with other faction ships. They could fix that fairly easily by making one of the BCs hull bonuses dependent on the racial cruiser skill. That way, you'd need both BC and the racial cruiser skill at a certain level to fly a BC of that faction effectively. I vaguely remember a lot of shouting for this when we got BCs in the game with the Exodus (?can't remember exactly?) expansion. I strongly support this as all we have at the moment is a low cruiser pre-req to get in the ship and nothing else. How about lowering the base agility of BCs by 25% and then adding a 5% bonus to agility per level of racial cruiser skill? This doesn't preclude a low-skilled player from getting in the ship, but rewards those who have spent time to get other skills maxed out. -- Why do people sign their name at the bottom of a post? We know who you are already...
Ray Parez	Posted - 2011.08.07 13:31:00 - [23] It seems to me that we should put them at the level of CS, and before you complain about that, let's look at gurista and cartel ships. Guristas pirates: The worm is roughly equivalent to the ishkur In terms of power and functionality, however one doesn't require tech 2 training, in exchange for a much higher cost. The gila is almost exactly the same, although it does put out a noticeably weaker shield tank than the Ishtar, which is famous for being able to passive shield tank lvl five missions. The rattlesnake is equal with the dominix in my eyes, which breaks the general trend, however in my opinion it is the only one to do so. Angel cartel: The cranial is roughly equivalent to the combat interceptor for the minmatar, though obviously more used than the claw, in my experience. The cynical is a vaga clone, with similar stats and play styles, if you are good at flying one, do almost exactly the same thing for the other and you should be golden. The machariel is tied in pve with the carhur as far as I am concerned. Both clear missions extraordinarily fast, with the only real difference being that the vargur completes slightly slower, but also salvages as it runs, making up for lost isk. As you can see, in every case, faction ships are almost perfectly matched up to a tech two ship of the same class, and faction battlecruisers should be no exception. I personally think that using the tier 2 hulls would look better, as a pirate is more likely to adapt the most powerful ships in each class, rather than trying to bring the weaker one up to their level, as happened with CS.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.07 13:32:00 - [24] Battlecruisers have two bonuses already. I don't see why one of them couldn't be dependent on the prerequisite cruiser skill. Drake Caldari Cruiser: 5% kinetic damage per level Battlecruiser: 5% shield resists per level And so on.
Because Of Door	Posted - 2011.08.07 14:09:00 - [25] Originally by: Ray Parez The gila is almost exactly the same, although it does put out a noticeably weaker shield tank than the Ishtar, which is famous for being able to passive shield tank lvl five missions. Assuming perfect skills, the Gila is better against Em/Therm (Sansha/Bloods) damage due to higher starting resists and 1 more mid slot, and 1 more rig slot. Against Angels, again the Gila is better. Against Guristas/Serps, the Ishtar by far outclasses the Gila because of higher native resists against Kin/Therm, it's in this case you can easily tank the top complexes due to getting something like a ~2.9k DPS tank with Pithum-A type resist mods and T2 rigs.
Lili Lu	Posted - 2011.08.07 15:07:00 - [26] No no faction drakes no tech II drakes no more **ing drakes ffs. Plenty of existing things in the game to fix, or balance (including the **ing drake)
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.07 15:25:00 - [27] You know, I recently had an idea to name my ships after fonts. Rifters are standard can't-go-wrong ships, so it'd be Times New Roman, the Minmatar supercarrier would be Helvetica...you get the idea. I just wasn't sure what to name the Drake. Now I know. (Comic Sans)
Diesel47	Posted - 2011.08.07 22:51:00 - [28] Faction ferox and brutixs plz. Faction cane and drake are just too OP to imagine :/
Drykor Minmatar Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2011.08.07 23:09:00 - [29] Edited by: Drykor on 07/08/2011 23:13:03 Originally by: Aamrr Wraith (Sansha Battlecruiser) ~400 million isk 7 high slots, 5x turrets 6 medium slots 4 low slots 3 rig slots, 350 calibration Special Ability: +100% bonus to medium energy turret damage Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: +5% bonus to medium laser turret damage per level +7.5% bonus to medium laser turret tracking per level Prerequisites: Caldari Cruiser 5, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruisers 1 Seems to me you didn't really think this through, this is the equivalent of 12.5 guns PLUS utility highs, awesome tracking and lots of room for damage mods AND an awesome tank. Not sure how this would ever be considered to not be overpowered. This is often what's happening when players design new ships, they just make them something that is really awesome. Personally I don't think there is any room for another upgraded variant of a battlecruiser/hac. --- Drykor - AHARM
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.07 23:21:00 - [30] I was quite aware when I designed it. The Tengu has 12 effective hardpoints, numerous subsystem bonuses, a far superior tank, and better signature radius and mobility. This costs almost as much as a T3 cruiser. It needs to be competitive with it.

Dorian Tormak	Posted - 2011.08.08 00:40:00 - [31] Ammrr, your idea is sound as a pound! :D anyone who thinks otherwise is f00l!!!
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.08 01:31:00 - [32] Originally by: Dorian Tormak Ammrr, your idea is sound as a pound! :D anyone who thinks otherwise is f00l!!! You realize that even I think it's a bad idea, since there's not really any niche for these ships to occupy, right? I mean, hell, look at the Angel version. It completely overlaps the Sleipnir's niche. I had fun spec'ing out the theoretical ships, but their introduction would not be a good idea. =P
Pod Salesman	Posted - 2011.08.08 07:30:00 - [33] personally, I wonder why there is such a large gap in quality of ships between the "tier 1" and "tier 2" versions of BCs. perhaps the notion of "tiers" be removed completely from battlecruisers; have them respec'd to successfully fit the niche they were obviously intended for. For instance, let's look at the drake and ferox. Obviously, the first question that comes to mind for many of you right now is, "Ferox who?" The drake, while only needing 1 more measly level of battlecruisers compared to the ferox, soundly outclasses it in terms of ability to take a beating. There is no 1v1 pvp situation that can be easily thought of where a decently-fit drake is taken out by even a "perfectly-fit" ferox. Now, to the notion of niches, (and to state the obvious) the drake is a missile boat and the ferox is a rail(blaster) boat. How about having the skill requirement difference reflect the difference in capabilities of the ship? The "Battlecruisers" skill requirement could be reduced to 1 for the drake, but have a few levels in heavy assault missiles and heavy missiles be required. Likewise, for the ferox, maybe make a few levels in medium hybrid turret a necessity (along with perfect engineering-related skills, since its PG is so underpowered!) Ferox vs. Drake is the only comparison I'm familiar with that seems so ridiculously imbalanced, but I know the cyclone vs. hurricane is a similar story, although the ships seem to fight over the same niche (we know which one wins). Along with nearly any change, re-balancing needs to take place, which I'm not going to speculate as to how to do without assigning bonuses typically attributed to a different race's ships. Only after re-engineering the current BC balance do I think they should add faction BCs. Other ship types also need some looking-into (frigates...ahem rifter, dramiel ahem).
Isan'na Malicious Destruction	Posted - 2011.08.08 09:39:00 - [34] Originally by: Aamrr You know, I recently had an idea to name my ships after fonts. Rifters are standard can't-go-wrong ships, so it'd be Times New Roman, the Minmatar supercarrier would be Helvetica...you get the idea. I just wasn't sure what to name the Drake. Now I know. (Comic Sans) Now I'm interested to know if your basi is going to be Wingdings - because logi pilots are a special kind of insane. On topic, +1 for the "very bad idea" crowd. <Isan> MALD Incursion Store
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.08 12:03:00 - [35] Nah. I think that'd be the procurer -- everyone knows about it, but nobody actually uses it and it's ultimately become nothing but a bad joke.
Jack Tronic	Posted - 2011.08.08 12:10:00 - [36] Originally by: Th0rG0d I think Tier 2 BCs need to be balanced first. They completely outclass everything below it, and are more versatile the most BSs. I would like to see faction battlecruisers though. Maybe they should be what Tier 2 are now? No, tier 1 just needs a fix to their LOL intended setups, be it boosting Cyclones, blaster Feroxes or other fits that will ALWAYS do poorly just by "design". Also all the t1 cruiser need their horrid secondary bonuses removed for mining and other random crap.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.08 12:37:00 - [37] ...And yet those Tier-1 BCs STILL outperform their cruiser counterparts in every respect but signature radius, including speed and agility. It's far easier to nerf four ships into line with the other four BCs and 20 cruisers below them than buff 24 ships into balance with the tier-2's...
Drykor Minmatar Aperture Harmonics K162	Posted - 2011.08.09 08:03:00 - [38] I agree with nerfing the tier2 bc's, this is all that needs to be done to have a place for T1 cruisers and HACs again in regular combat. --- Drykor - AHARM
Liza Stone Caldari Advanced War Technologies	Posted - 2011.08.09 12:37:00 - [39] Originally by: Aamrr Wraith (Sansha Battlecruiser) ~400 million isk 7 high slots, 5x turrets 6 medium slots 4 low slots 3 rig slots, 350 calibration Special Ability: +100% bonus to medium energy turret damage Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: +5% bonus to medium laser turret damage per level +7.5% bonus to medium laser turret tracking per level Prerequisites: Caldari Cruiser 5, Amarr Cruiser 5, Battlecruisers 1[/quote 5 Turrets, 100% dmg bonus thats 10 Turrets. +25% dmg bonus per level 12.5 Turrets. Now if that wouldn't kill off Commandships... nothing will ! <Space for rent>
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.08.09 17:13:00 - [40] Edited by: Aamrr on 09/08/2011 17:19:16 You'll notice that I also suggested a rather significant buff for those exact same ships when I made my "submission." And priced the faction battlecruisers at about 80% more than the T2 counterparts. I built them to compete more with T3s than the T2 battlecruisers, honestly. Edit: If the tier-2 battlecruisers were nerfed properly, then these would obviously need to be scaled back.



Pages: 1 2 :: [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.