EVE Search - Expanding on the logic of CCP weapons

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Expanding on the logic of CCP weapons

» 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)
Phasics	Posted - 2005.06.01 01:38:00 - [1] Currently Large turrets ineffective vs Frigs (missles too, soon) Small Turrets max effectiveness vs larger target (low dmg) CCP Logic. Real Life Battleship has no chance of hittin a speedboat with the long guns. 100 speed boats can carry enough firepower to take down a battleship. Flaw in the logic is fairly clear. 100 speed boats cant take down a Battleship because the thick armour plating makes small weapons fire ineffective at doing any damage. Translation Fix to EVE Large turrets should not be able to compelte destoy a frigate before it has ample chance to escape Small Turrets regualrless of how many should never havea chance of taking down a battleship. Thus Fleet of Frigs vs Fleet (Large turret no drones)) BS should end in a stalemate with no ships destoyed. Making medium turrets the only wepon able to damage both BS and Frigate with any real effectivness. Now I know some of you are saying. "Stick a few torpeods on a speed boat and watch that Battleship sink like a stone. Well you know what your right. and EVE now has them , stelth bombers can carry medium/large missles and thus would fill the role of crusier/BS killing frigate. Itself vunverable to frigates and unable to damage them. If all weapons had a very low size threshold it would make combat far more interesting
Naverin	Posted - 2005.06.01 01:41:00 - [2] Gonna have to agree. Frigate size weapons tech 2 or not.. Should not do anywhere near full damage against Bships. Impair frigate VS bs... as you have impaired BS vs frigates... that is all
Claude Leon	Posted - 2005.06.01 01:46:00 - [3] Originally by: Phasics Currently Large turrets ineffective vs Frigs (missles too, soon) Small Turrets max effectiveness vs larger target (low dmg) CCP Logic. Real Life Battleship has no chance of hittin a speedboat with the long guns. 100 speed boats can carry enough firepower to take down a battleship. Flaw in the logic is fairly clear. 100 speed boats cant take down a Battleship because the thick armour plating makes small weapons fire ineffective at doing any damage. Translation Fix to EVE Large turrets should not be able to compelte destoy a frigate before it has ample chance to escape Small Turrets regualrless of how many should never havea chance of taking down a battleship. Thus Fleet of Frigs vs Fleet (Large turret no drones)) BS should end in a stalemate with no ships destoyed. Making medium turrets the only wepon able to damage both BS and Frigate with any real effectivness. Now I know some of you are saying. "Stick a few torpeods on a speed boat and watch that Battleship sink like a stone. Well you know what your right. and EVE now has them , stelth bombers can carry medium/large missles and thus would fill the role of crusier/BS killing frigate. Itself vunverable to frigates and unable to damage them. If all weapons had a very low size threshold it would make combat far more interesting Your joking right? Clearly a frigate is more powerful then a speedboat. Hell, 100 PT boats could take down a battleship. ===================================================
Phasics	Posted - 2005.06.01 01:55:00 - [4] Another way of looking what I'm saying is that I personally think A crusier should be as hard to kill for a BS as frigates are from them now. and frigates should be as hard to kill for crusiers as they are for battleships to kill. Conversly Frigates killing crusiers and crusiers killing battlehsips should be much more difficult comapred to now. and let destoyer and battlecruisers fill the new gaps created
MutationZ	Posted - 2005.06.01 01:56:00 - [5] Ships and modules section has a lot of threads on this.
Noriath	Posted - 2005.06.01 02:14:00 - [6] The real flaw in the logic is that real life battleships have weapons against speedboats as well, but manning one battleship takes just about as many people as manning 100 speedboats. In Eve it takes 100 times more people to man the speedboats(frigs) then the battleship, because of this the battleship can't be so much more powerful.
Phasics	Posted - 2005.06.01 02:21:00 - [7] Originally by: Noriath The real flaw in the logic is that real life battleships have weapons against speedboats as well, but manning one battleship takes just about as many people as manning 100 speedboats. In Eve it takes 100 times more people to man the speedboats(frigs) then the battleship, because of this the battleship can't be so much more powerful. I agree battleships can't be that much more powerful due to balence issues, whta I'm suggesting is that Frigate and Battleship should not be able to any damage to each other, giving the 3 ship classes in between a function in combat
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.06.01 02:21:00 - [8] All that will change is BS drivers will fit smaller guns with their larger guns... But wait, that would make sense ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss What is your Radical Dream?
Nirat	Posted - 2005.06.01 02:26:00 - [9] Edited by: Nirat on 01/06/2005 02:28:50 RL battleships also carry large amounts of small rapid fire turrets. So if in eve they plan to make missiles, and turrets like this in game. They need to overhauul the fitting of ships. Instead of allowing 7 slots, allow BS's 340m3 space for turrets to be fitted. Large turrets weighing 50m3 Medium 20m3 and Small 10m3 and . In this overhaul you'd be able to fit 6 Large turrets, and then 1 medium turret and 3 small turrets. Edit: Oh and btw that was just if they are planning on doing that nerf i dunno anything about it i was just saying. But I dont see wtf they would for. In MODERN day yes, battleships with large turrets have a bit of trouble hitting small targets. But eve is NOT modern day. It is wayy into the future. Even now battleship large turrets have a great accuracy even on small targets. So im pretty sure by the time eve's time comes we'll be able to with perfect accuracy. targetting systems, lasers, etc. -Nirat
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.06.01 02:43:00 - [10] My original solution was to change the way hi slots worked. Keep the Turret/Launcher specs, but add in Large/Medium/Small Example: Take the Typhoon with it's 4 guns and 4 launchers in its 8 hi slots. those 8 hi slots would be say 6 Large, 4 Medium, 2 Small. So you could have 4 1400s, and 2 Siege, but not 4 Siege. Or you could have 2 280mm and 2 720mm, and 2 Heavy Launchers, and 2 Siege Launchers. bonuses would apply to all size turrets that are applicable... its a rough idea in need of some refinement. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss What is your Radical Dream?
Noriath	Posted - 2005.06.01 02:52:00 - [11] It would help to drive down those insane gank setups, but at the same time it would completly screw up any notion of ship fitting. If I can't fit all highslots with large weapons the ones I can fit can automatically always be of the best type without running out of grid since all ships are balanced in a way that makes fitting all the best weapons tough.
Phasics	Posted - 2005.06.01 02:52:00 - [12] Another take on the same Idea Frig/Destoyers can only fit small turrets so Crusiers/BCrusiers can only fit Medium turrets Battsleship can only fit Large turrets. In addition new Medium and large turrets designed to hit samller target are intorduced that use same grid as regualr guns. E.g. 150mm Quad Rail Large turret 1000 grid but has the tracking to be effective vs frigs, downside instead of costing 10grid it costs 1000 grid but only does a similar job. Thus frigate defense now costs a BS grid not just hi slots. Similiar for crusiers. so current guns like the Dual 150mm and Dual 250mm (mabe some new higher tracking ones) are the only choice for crusiers and battleships to hit smaller targets. And this would take almost no effort to implement as it would only take a siple code change to restict modules to a class of ship.
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2005.06.01 03:25:00 - [13] Originally by: Phasics 100 speed boats can carry enough firepower to take down a battleship. Far fewer speed boats are needed to kill a BS. In fact, just one lucky speed boat can do it. All it has to do is to shoot the anchor so that it drops down on the bulbous underwater nose of the big ship. That will cause the bulbous thingy to break off and so the BS will scoop up large amounts of water while going forward and then it will sink. Heh.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.06.01 03:44:00 - [14] Edited by: Hllaxiu on 01/06/2005 03:48:54 Seeing what ONE speedboat can do to a ship like say, the USS Cole, what do you think 100 could do to a battleship? Hell, what can ONE PT boat do to a battleship? ONE Submarine? Theres a reason the destroyer escort was developed... While WWII era battleships did have some smaller weapons - they couldn't do much if they had a few subs or PT boats after them. (A pod piloted frigate has a crew of 1 or 2 - it could be conjectured that a non pod piloted frigate would have a crew of around a dozen - that would put it in the PT boat range of ship.)
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.06.01 04:08:00 - [15] USS Cole is a destroyer, not a capital ship like the Missouri. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss What is your Radical Dream?
Snaps	Posted - 2005.06.01 04:12:00 - [16] Edited by: Snaps on 01/06/2005 04:16:33 well what do you guys expect.. we got icelandic people here playing war gods and dont got a clue about how a real navy works, or war tactics. i dont think they even see the history off how weaker armies can over come stronger ones. if they did, they wouldn't be making this game so that smaller corps and newer players can't stand up for themselfs in a real meaningful way anymore. (ie) taking away the jamming abilities of weaker players! making missiles act like turrets. since when is missiles like turrets in life. what cruiser/frig cant carry a cruise or harpoon missiles this day and age. i dont think iceland has a single fortress on the hole island. most icelanders i meet in life are happy go luck people who dont have a mean boone in them. im not even shoure they have ever been at war with anyone ever or even have a prison. they should find somone who has been in a real navy for a long time and let him work this out. i realy dont think tomb is up for the job!
Thomas Corbett	Posted - 2005.06.01 04:31:00 - [17] Originally by: Snaps Edited by: Snaps on 01/06/2005 04:16:33 well what do you guys expect.. we got icelandic people here playing war gods and dont got a clue about how a real navy works, or war tactics. i dont think they even see the history off how weaker armies can over come stronger ones. if they did, they wouldn't be making this game so that smaller corps and newer players can't stand up for themselfs in a real meaningful way anymore. (ie) taking away the jamming abilities of weaker players! making missiles act like turrets. since when is missiles like turrets in life. what cruiser/frig cant carry a cruise or harpoon missiles this day and age. i dont think iceland has a single fortress on the hole island. most icelanders i meet in life are happy go luck people who dont have a mean boone in them. im not even shoure they have ever been at war with anyone ever or even have a prison. they should find somone who has been in a real navy for a long time and let him work this out. i realy dont think tomb is up for the job! Umm what? O.o
Gamer4liff	Posted - 2005.06.01 04:38:00 - [18] heh, realism aside sue to the fact that this is in space, i agree with you. What could balence all this out is makeing a larger drone class avalible for battleship, to take on the frigs with frig esque firepower. Lets all renember those sweet fights in freespace where it was capship vs capship with fighters belonging to both swarming all around shooting down torps and disableing subsystems.(that would be sweet to be able to command drones that well) Basically i think the drones should be given more power on battleship, but thats just me. Or of course there is allways the target painer option. this here's mah sig': My Quote: "You can call me a carebear all you want, but your still an arrogant slimeball"
Phasics	Posted - 2005.06.01 04:43:00 - [19] Originally by: Gamer4liff heh, realism aside sue to the fact that this is in space, i agree with you. What could balence all this out is makeing a larger drone class avalible for battleship, to take on the frigs with frig esque firepower. Lets all renember those sweet fights in freespace where it was capship vs capship with fighters belonging to both swarming all around shooting down torps and disableing subsystems.(that would be sweet to be able to command drones that well) Basically i think the drones should be given more power on battleship, but thats just me. Or of course there is allways the target painer option. CARRIERS hers' hoping X-Large Drones = small friagtes
Gamer4liff	Posted - 2005.06.01 04:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Phasics Originally by: Gamer4liff heh, realism aside sue to the fact that this is in space, i agree with you. What could balence all this out is makeing a larger drone class avalible for battleship, to take on the frigs with frig esque firepower. Lets all renember those sweet fights in freespace where it was capship vs capship with fighters belonging to both swarming all around shooting down torps and disableing subsystems.(that would be sweet to be able to command drones that well) Basically i think the drones should be given more power on battleship, but thats just me. Or of course there is allways the target painer option. CARRIERS hers' hoping X-Large Drones = small friagtes I KNOW, lol i mean something inbetween X-large and heavy for regular BS, god only knows when carriers are comeing out. this here's mah sig': My Quote: "You can call me a carebear all you want, but your still an arrogant slimeball"
Fred Meyer	Posted - 2005.06.01 04:55:00 - [21] Gahhh, I wanna play Freespace 2 again!!!! But my darn CD is scratched!!! That would be awesome to have those kind of battles in EVE. But I wouldn't necessarily equate Frigates to fighters however, they're a little big for that. Thus I think it's fine that they do damage to BS. Those are still quite large weapons! 280mm Howitzers? That shouldn't just bounce off a BS. They have great shields/armor and the ability to tank for a reason!
Crunch Freeman	Posted - 2005.06.01 05:14:00 - [22] Originally by: Hllaxiu Edited by: Hllaxiu on 01/06/2005 03:48:54 Seeing what ONE speedboat can do to a ship like say, the USS Cole, what do you think 100 could do to a battleship? Hell, what can ONE PT boat do to a battleship? ONE Submarine? Theres a reason the destroyer escort was developed... While WWII era battleships did have some smaller weapons - they couldn't do much if they had a few subs or PT boats after them. (A pod piloted frigate has a crew of 1 or 2 - it could be conjectured that a non pod piloted frigate would have a crew of around a dozen - that would put it in the PT boat range of ship.) Not even a close comparison. The USS Cole was in port refueling and not in the middle of a battle. The crew were not expecting a suicide attack. If they had been at battle stations or in the middle of a battle that speedboat would have been vaporized before it even got close. Modern warships have weapon systems to take care of small craft theats and incoming missles along with their larger weapons. To think that battleships several hundred or thousand years in the future cannot accomplish what a modern day navy can is ludicrous.
Khrapht	Posted - 2005.06.01 05:39:00 - [23] Edited by: Khrapht on 01/06/2005 05:39:49 N/T
Bubba Fett	Posted - 2005.06.01 06:11:00 - [24] So you want to be battleships to be totally invulnerable to frigates, but still able to kill frigates if they don't run away? If they did do that, I'd suggest another change. I REAL battleship would take FAR more training than a cruiser or ANY type of frigate. I suggest that except for battleship guns, missle launcher and sheild/armour repairs any modules you want to use on a battleship require skill level 5. Want to mount frigate guns on a BS you need level5 of the skill. Want to mount cruiser guns? Same thing. Web, warp scrambling, nosferatu, AB, or MWD? Level 5 of the appropriate skills. This would make it possible to fly a BS, but would VASTLY increase the skills required to use it solo.
Crunch Freeman	Posted - 2005.06.01 07:36:00 - [25] Originally by: Bubba Fett So you want to be battleships to be totally invulnerable to frigates, but still able to kill frigates if they don't run away? If they did do that, I'd suggest another change. I REAL battleship would take FAR more training than a cruiser or ANY type of frigate. I suggest that except for battleship guns, missle launcher and sheild/armour repairs any modules you want to use on a battleship require skill level 5. Want to mount frigate guns on a BS you need level5 of the skill. Want to mount cruiser guns? Same thing. Web, warp scrambling, nosferatu, AB, or MWD? Level 5 of the appropriate skills. This would make it possible to fly a BS, but would VASTLY increase the skills required to use it solo. Since you are the only one I have seen suggesting that a battleship be totally invulnerable to frigates I would have to say you are being absurd. Why would you have to train something to level 5 that you already learned on the way to getting a battleship? A weapon is exactly the same weapon no matter if it is mounted on a frigate, a cruiser or a battleship. It doesnÆt get harder to use just because it is placed on a different class of ship, you donÆt forget how to use it and have to retrain in its use just because you moved to a larger ship. Your post does have some merit though, I think that getting into a battleship is far too easy as it is. Anyone can get into a battleship within a month of starting to play the game but getting into one and using one effectively are two different things. There should be some extra training along the way to piloting the largest warships in the game at the moment, maybe something along the lines of a large ship tactics skill or some other skill or combination of skills. Also I am not suggesting that a proper sized fleet of smaller craft cannot overwhelm the defenses of a battleship just that a battleship should be able to defend itself more effectively than the current models allow. If you must give up a battleship sized weapon to fit smaller weapons allow several smaller weapons to be places in the larger turret hard point. Say something like a module that would allow you to fit 2 cruiser sized or 4 frigate sized weapons in one battleship sized hard point. But make that a level 5 skill. But most of all I was pointing out that the comparison on what a smaller craft can do to a ship while docked in port, not in a battle, is a poor comparison.
Gariuys	Posted - 2005.06.01 09:00:00 - [26] Originally by: Phasics 100 speed boats cant take down a Battleship because the thick armour plating makes small weapons fire ineffective at doing any damage. Flaw in your logic, compairing EVE frigates to speedboats with machineguns, a 150mm railgun ain't small weapons fire. Not too mention the tiny detail, that's eve ships are protected by shields, which is just a energy barrier that soaks a certain amount of energy being thrown at it. Have too technobabble the armor a little, but that's cause people wanted armor tanking to be possible. And while there are gameplay reasons to perhaps reduce frigate damage against battleships a little, using those flawed RL examples is getting old. ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.06.01 09:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Gariuys Originally by: Phasics 100 speed boats cant take down a Battleship because the thick armour plating makes small weapons fire ineffective at doing any damage. Flaw in your logic, compairing EVE frigates to speedboats with machineguns, a 150mm railgun ain't small weapons fire. Not too mention the tiny detail, that's eve ships are protected by shields, which is just a energy barrier that soaks a certain amount of energy being thrown at it. Have too technobabble the armor a little, but that's cause people wanted armor tanking to be possible. And while there are gameplay reasons to perhaps reduce frigate damage against battleships a little, using those flawed RL examples is getting old. No point looking at it at all because ship HP's are destined to be changed in the future...... LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Rodge	Posted - 2005.06.01 09:31:00 - [28] Large turrets ineffective vs frigs??? Have you ever shot at a frig with a 1400/Megabeam/425 at range? I assure you that you can still instakill frigs very easily. I'm assuming that people who are arguing that BS should be immune to frigates didn't play around a year ago or before. Back then, Battleships WERE immune to frigates. Large guns hit frigates at most ranges. But you didn't even bother targetting frigates, you just launched your drones. As soon as a frig came near, the heavy drones hit the frigate for full damage with every shot and could hit them at infinite range. A BS was all but invincible to anything except another BS. Even though frigates fired cruise missiles back then, a BS usually didn't have any problems against frigate packs. The result - no-one with any sense flew frigates. PvP fleets consisted totally of Battleships, with a few EW cruisers. PvP at any level was practically impossible for anyone in their first few months in the game. CCP looked at the situation and agreed with the playerbase that battleships were overpowered. They shouldn't be the equivalent of the "I win" button. Frigates lost their cruise missiles (I remember people talking about quitting when that happened), but gun tracking was introduced (the large gun nerf), drones had tracking/range/speed modifiers applied and soon missiles will not instakill frigates either. All changes (very correct in my opinion) to stop Battleships being the "I win" option. You're trying to use real life analogies here, the argument between a speedboat and a RL Battleship is fundamentally flawed. But consider this, how many navies in the world send their capital ships roaming around the sea unescorted? The answer is none, because a single capital ship has always been vulnerable to attack from smaller vessels to which it has no defense. [ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2005.06.01 09:33:00 - [29] Thats why battleships aren't used in naval combat anymore. The frigates and interceptors (bombers/fighters/PT boats) can take down a battleship piecemeal with minor losses. -- The best description of alliances, ever:
Ssoraszh Tzarszh	Posted - 2005.06.01 09:33:00 - [30] Originally by: Gariuys Originally by: Phasics 100 speed boats cant take down a Battleship because the thick armour plating makes small weapons fire ineffective at doing any damage. Flaw in your logic, compairing EVE frigates to speedboats with machineguns, a 150mm railgun ain't small weapons fire. Not too mention the tiny detail, that's eve ships are protected by shields, which is just a energy barrier that soaks a certain amount of energy being thrown at it. Have too technobabble the armor a little, but that's cause people wanted armor tanking to be possible. And while there are gameplay reasons to perhaps reduce frigate damage against battleships a little, using those flawed RL examples is getting old. I agree, Eve is fiction, Eve is not like real life does not have any connection with it except that you are in it playing Eve. CCP has changed / added features to Eve because its good for the gameplay, not because it was likewise in WWII or some other war. Its a game, its fiction, and thats where any corelation to real life goes down the drain.
Marc Wiatt	Posted - 2005.06.01 09:37:00 - [31] Edited by: Marc Wiatt on 01/06/2005 09:38:37 Hm - if I had to redesign the game I would stay with the 3-slot layout but change it in the following way: There are surface slots, structure slots and engine slots. The surface slots (the current High-Slots) hold Guns, Armor, Shieldboosters etc. Structure Slots hold EW, Cargo modules, Dronebay modules etc. Engine Slots hold Afterburners, Powergrid Modules and so on. These slots would be more numerous that the mere 8 we have now and different modules would use a different number of slots. Using that system you could setup your ship with lots of armor in addition to large turrets or you could leave out a little armor and add a couple of small guns instead. So you could make an heavy amour Raven or a anti-Frig Geddon. The result would probably be more flexibility in the fitting of your ship. Different races and shiptypes would still have a different number and layout of slots but you could customize more and could stick to the race you like when choosing a ship without having to look after the race bonus so much.
Lucre	Posted - 2005.06.01 11:40:00 - [32] Historical discussions about torpedoes etc rather miss the point - as soon as torps were introduced, BS were living on borrowed time. Eve OTOH and IMHO needs to be a universe where the classes are balanced and each have their place - which effectively rules out equivalents of the PT boat or aircraft torpedo. Discussions about fitting smaller guns also miss the point - real-life BS weren't limited to 8 high slots! So they could fit enough big guns to be effective against other BS and some smaller guns too. Eve BS can't. (So this idea wouldn't work unless you halved BS grid and defences, rebalancing so 4 large turrets was a practical armament. Woo, big rebalancing job!) Sudden amusing notion - back in the 19th century, battleships could usually hit and sink frigates with ease. So the idea arose that unless the frigates did something silly like shoot at them first, that battleships wouldn't engage frigates. And this was a fairly commonly accepted code of battle. Eve could do something like that - make BS able to hit frigates again, but be unable to lock onto them unless the frigate aggresses them first. No idea if or how it would work out, but it's historically intriguing!
Lucre	Posted - 2005.06.01 11:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Rodge The answer is none, because a single capital ship has always been vulnerable to attack from smaller vessels to which it has no defense. For values of 'always' of less than 100 years or so... With the possible exception of fireships or in very exceptional circumstances (e.g. Droit de l'Homme) capital ships before this time had precious little to fear from smaller vessels.
Vlad Karamazov	Posted - 2005.06.01 12:54:00 - [34] Its been said here once but phaps it needs repeating. What we need is a gun that has good tracking and hits frigs. To balance it a bit we need to make it less powerful then normal large guns. For a bit of nerf lets make it have shorter range. Not realy a nerf since frigs operate at that range. Next we will add 2 bonusses. First very low fitting requiments and second ammo that takes less space. Now just to name it. hmmm...? How about Small Guns. Using guns designed to kill frigs to kill frigs. Ne... Stupid idea.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.06.01 13:00:00 - [35] In reaction to the original post: no. Eve gameplay balance > out of ass begotten real life analogies. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Sam Trip	Posted - 2005.06.01 13:43:00 - [36] shield tech would require energy to repel a weapon, now that would mean that me with my lil 125mm will always be causing some form of damage now me with my M16 with DU ammo will probs cause a few dents in a navy ships armor...now have 100 M16s with DU ammo all focused on a single point firing ALOT faster than that big ol cannon on that battleship will probably make some nice holes here and there. Anyways thats still a moot point. What your talking about is resistances not actual armor. Now those PT boats with their machine guns will take awhile to take out that BS however i can bet you that an A10 with its forward nose cannon i think its called an Avenger gauss gun. Its explosive covered and that will definately punch a few holes into a battleship. My dual kinetic resisted deimos WILL have those bloodclaws bouncing as if they weren't there, but there is obviously some form of degradation as there would be in real life, just non existent form. Oh and if your comparing navy combat lets shove in the planes too. Aerial craft manned by one or 2 personal will cause SERIOUS problems for those 300 manned battleships. In which case your not gonna pop an aircraft with a big anti ship cannon, your gonna use a rapid fire machine gun against it (which they do, nick-named the R2-D2s). So the theory is still sound. Numerous small armed craft will damage a single heavily armed craft with the exception of small arms counters.
Ikvar	Posted - 2005.06.01 15:15:00 - [37] CCP Logic = Game logic. They could have BS doing 2000km/s base and frigs doing 50ms base and you'd have to love it. EVE is not real life. _________________
Desecrater	Posted - 2005.06.01 15:57:00 - [38] Originally by: Phasics Currently Flaw in the logic is fairly clear. 100 speed boats cant take down a Battleship because the thick armour plating makes small weapons fire ineffective at doing any damage. I dont think frigate mounted weapons are anything like small weapons fire. 150mm Rail gun doesnt sound like it to me...In fact if you google "Small Weapons" it points to things such as hand guns, machine guns etc.. I highly doubt frigate pilots are reaching out the side window with an AK-47 bearing down on the BS. Originally by: Claude Your joking right? Clearly a frigate is more powerful then a speedboat. Hell, 100 PT boats could take down a battleship. Absolutley right, the PT boat was a small WWII era vessel made of wood (yes wood) capable of sinking vessels many times it's size. In fact the PT boat was pound for pound the most heavily armed ship on the seas. It carried an array of high caliber mounted cannons and torpedoes. Originally by: Noriath The real flaw in the logic is that real life battleships have weapons against speedboats as well, but manning one battleship takes just about as many people as manning 100 speedboats. In Eve it takes 100 times more people to man the speedboats(frigs) then the battleship, because of this the battleship can't be so much more powerful. I think this proves a good point, Battleships lacking support craft are supposed to use some hardpoints to fit a smaller faster tracking weapon. The solutions here is simple, if a BS could not hit as fast moving small target with big huge planet destroying guns of doom...rather them whine and face certin peril..perhaps the astute BS Captain would fit some smaller weapons to his behemoth to prevent certin death. If you need small guns to kill small ships, then you have your answer...Mount them. So what if that only leaves you with 5 instead of 7 planet destroying guns of doom.
Lartfor	Posted - 2005.06.01 17:41:00 - [39] Edited by: Lartfor on 01/06/2005 17:52:50 Originally by: Dark Shikari Thats why battleships aren't used in naval combat anymore. The frigates and interceptors (bombers/fighters/PT boats) can take down a battleship piecemeal with minor losses. Wrong, battleships are not used in naval combat because Direct/Indirect weapons such as 16" guns are not as effective as harpoon or other types of surface to surface cruise missles. You also do not need a large platform to fire missles, you do need a large platform to fire large amounts of 16"+ guns. In EVE almost everything is dirrect fire, there is no gravitational pull of the earth to change the trajectory of your cannons thus there is a use for large gun totting naval vessles. Small surface craft do not pose much of a danger for modern naval battlegroups. There are special 20mm and 30mm rotary cannons designed to destroy both small craft and cruise missles from up to 2 miles away. Comparing eve in anyway to RL is silly, space is very different from modern naval combat for as simple a reason as you are playing on a full 360 degree battlefields. Imo ship classes need a defined roll. Frigates imo should be the close in EW ships of the game, yes some frigates should be specialized in destroying other frigates but overall I do think they should be used primarily for tackling larger ships. Destroyers imo should fill two rolls, to act as close range antifrigate and antidrone batteries, and to act as close range damage aimed twards cruisers and slighly battleships/BCs. Cruisers should be the jack of all trades ships, capable of dealing with destroyers to battleships, however thier primary roll should be close to medium ranged firepower against BCs and Battleships. Battle Cruisers Imo should be a realativly mobile damage deal platform, lots of firepower (not quite a battleship) and the mobility to give it some protection when moving in very close to battleships. Battleships should act much as they do now, however they should not be able to harm a moving destroyer or frigate with thier guns, Thier weaponry would be mainly geared at destroyer other battleships and to a lesser desgree Battlecruisers and Cruisers. Putting small weapons on a cruiser imo is silly and fitting medium on a Battleship is equally silly. A Battleship should not be able to make itself a anti frigate gun platform by simply putting on small turrets, this makes destroyers and to a lesser degress cruisers pointless. Weapon classes need to be restricted to thier asigned ships. Smalls for frigates, Mediums for cruisers, and Large for battleships. I do think that a new destroyer for each race should be implemented that can use 4 medium weapons, and a Battlecruiser for each race that can use 5-6 Large weapons. Imo this would give destroyer and BS pilots more flexibility for these ship classes to truly fill the gaps between thier more defined counterparts. One other thing I wanted to adress was the use for Bomber type ships such as the stealth bombers. Imo these ships should be able to use trops but only at a close range, under 12500k. This would allow for some tactics in fleet engagements, knock out the enemy destroyers and friggates that provide defense vrs bomber type ships and you can now atack battleships and cruisers with ease. Sorry for spelling errors :/
Vlad Karamazov	Posted - 2005.06.01 18:10:00 - [40] Originally by: Lartfor Putting small weapons on a cruiser imo is silly and fitting medium on a Battleship is equally silly. Very quick answer to this. Not much conected to the main point. Puting small guns on cruisers especially T1 cruiser is one of the most valid ways to make a sensible setup. Thorax with full of small neutron blaster II has nice firepower against any class of ship in game. Additionally has PG and cap left so you can tank a little. Smaller guns on larger ships rock sometimes.
Lartfor	Posted - 2005.06.01 18:15:00 - [41] Edited by: Lartfor on 01/06/2005 18:16:33 Originally by: Vlad Karamazov Originally by: Lartfor Putting small weapons on a cruiser imo is silly and fitting medium on a Battleship is equally silly. Very quick answer to this. Not much conected to the main point. Puting small guns on cruisers especially T1 cruiser is one of the most valid ways to make a sensible setup. Thorax with full of small neutron blaster II has nice firepower against any class of ship in game. Additionally has PG and cap left so you can tank a little. Smaller guns on larger ships rock sometimes. My point was not that it is not effective to do so, my point is that it does not belong, it allows ships to perform roles that imo they should not. For example a cruiser being a antifragte battery with small weapons. That is a destroyers job imo. I do agree with you though, small nuets on a thorax is killer :D.
General Murder	Posted - 2005.06.01 18:57:00 - [42] After the NWO CCP should focus on balacing out the combat and the ship class system. The aim should be a system that gives every class a role in the battlefield. The individual ship classes should or must be limited in their fitting possibilites to a certain amount. Like Lartfor mention, BS should be spezialies in the big guns. Destroyers and frigs in the light guns, cruisers med. guns. The tracking should be reworked and/or some new mechanics should be introduce that make it very hard to hit smaller ships with big weapons. So if a fleet need good anti frig, drones capabilities they must use frigs, drones and/or have some destroyers. BS should not be able to perform very well agianst frigs etc. but they can tank the damage very well (keep in mind the possible hitpoint increase, which result in a tanking boost esp. for BS). CCP will and should change the combat system in future to nerf ganking, so let use this possibility to rework the fitting and ship class system to give every ship class their strength and weak point besides the costs (which experince shows are a no limiting factor in MMORP) The possible BM nerf is one point in the right direction as one major drawback of BS, slowness, is completely canceled out through BM. CCP should really rework their combat systems to encourage combine weapon tactis and to reduce ganking. P.S. In the real word a neavy had not the possibility to insure their BS. I imagine the third reich gets 90% back of the cost of the Bismark from the "world bank"
Demarcus	Posted - 2005.06.01 20:18:00 - [43] BSs don't have nearly enough high slots. A US BS has 9 main guns and hundreds of medium and small guns. My Scorpion only has 1 more weapon than my Caracal which only has 1 more than my Kestrel and that makes no sense. ------------------------------------- You are all worthless, and weak.

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.