EVE Search - Underpowered Battlecruisers

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Underpowered 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)
0CISCOKID0	Posted - 2005.11.27 13:11:00 - [1] Since the naming protocol for classes of ships seems to follow that of most earth- based navies, it's my opinion that the Battlecruiser class is underpowered. Originally a German naval design (I think), battlecruisers had armament nearly as powerful as that of a battleship and the speed and armor of a cruiser. In battle, it was designed to take on a battleship but use its speed to escape. CCP's concept of a BC is to give it much more armor than a cruiser and one additional cruiser size turret - essentially a heavy cruiser. These ships have no hope of dueling with and beating a battleship. IMHO this should be changed. Battlecruisers should be able to mount battleship-sized weaponry, just less of it, and have armor and speed much like it has now. The effect would help change the face of PvP battle tactics - instead of huge BS vs BS furballs you would begin to see the development of tactical maneuver elements in a fleet. Fast moving ships out on a flank capable of taking out a BS could no longer be ignored. Economically speaking, they would be cheaper than BS's (but more costly than cruisers), thus allowing smaller corps to develop a credible threat more quickly. Let the flames begin.
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2005.11.27 13:26:00 - [2] If you expect them to compare to their RL counterparts then make them float in water too
TuRtLe HeAd	Posted - 2005.11.27 15:09:00 - [3] Originally by: Deja Thoris If you expect them to compare to their RL counterparts then make them float in water too LMFAO ! Personally I think the Battlecruiser is fine as it is. It strikes the perfect balance between BS and Cruiser. But then that is in my own opinion.
Alissandra	Posted - 2005.11.27 17:37:00 - [4] Originally by: Deja Thoris If you expect them to compare to their RL counterparts then make them float in water too well, the weigth <-> mass ratio on ships seem to be close to 1:10, so I guess our ships would float perfectly fine ;)
NattyDreadlock	Posted - 2005.11.27 20:28:00 - [5] I have to agree with the poster. Though I have recently bought a battle-cruiser I dont really see it as a true battle-cruiser. No disrespect Deja bought your reasonings for justifying the Devs inconsistency in nomenclature is a cop out. It doesnt matter if it floats or flies in space the class designation for warships arent arbitray, they do follow a basic(though flexiable) model. If you are going to use the designations for long-standing class descriptions, their should be some consistency. It would not be bad thing for the Devs to actually research warships and their classifications in-depth. The increased knowledge and attention to detail this knowledge would bring could only improve their attempts to makes this game better. So in closing, there needs to be either a class of weapons made specifically for the battle-cruiser class ships that sits somewhere between cruiser and battleship class weapons. And/Or the battle cruiser needs to have enough cap and power to accept battleship class weapons but with fewer high slots than a battleship. _____________________________ You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage.
Strikeclone	Posted - 2005.11.27 23:02:00 - [6] Battlecruiser is not a german designation but it doesnt really matter, Eve ships drawn insperation for class names from real world ship class names but thats all. The sizes, jobs, armament scales are nothing in relation to their RL namesakes. the ship class names are simply that just names, if they were indicitive of RL ship classes, then where are my secondary and even tertiary batteries of missiles/guns for my Raven? Why do destroyers in Eve have no torpedoe launchers? and completely suck outside off low lvl missions. Where is my 6 inche of belt armour that renders small gunfire useless? I could go on but I think you get my point. Strikeclone "Peace through the procurement and application of superior firepower" http://executiveaction.proboards79.com/
NattyDreadlock	Posted - 2005.11.28 00:17:00 - [7] EVE has totally negelected any true secondary(though placing smaller class guns on a large ship sort of applies), or tertiary guns in game. I personally feel all ships should have small caliber, high rate of fire batteries similar to AAA to combat drones and large, lower velocity missiles. Destroyers are supposed to be low-powered combatants. They are barely warships, unarmored, low caliber main guns...though the use of torpedos would be nice to see in game(or atleast heavy or cruise missiles). I'd like to see them modeled as specialized covert ops hunters. Regardless, I think if the devs are going to use the nomenclature, they should maintain some level of relative consistency amoungst classes. _____________________________ You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage.
Strikeclone	Posted - 2005.11.28 02:08:00 - [8] how do keep any relation between real life wet navy ships and far future space ships? rofl...... for a start the combat system would never support it, just on the topic of missiles alone this idea would fail. your frigate is in fact like a fighter, assault frigates are more like heavey fighters. cruisers are like medium bombers and battleships are like heavy bombers. it would have been nice to see ccp come up with more orignial class designations, i have some ideas, but im saving them for my own mmorpg game entitled "strike knows best epic space opera" jking btw on the mmorpg bit Strikeclone "Peace through the procurement and application of superior firepower" http://executiveaction.proboards79.com/
NattyDreadlock	Posted - 2005.11.28 04:50:00 - [9] Actually drones are like fighters, interceptros are like motor-patrol/torpedo boats everything else still applies. The nomenclature for missile types in game is really shot to hell...but I can accept that much easier than tossing vessel classes out the window. The concept of a cruise missile in space is a bit silly, the use of the name torpedo isnt so bad though its used to imply size/relative explosive yield instead of propulsion and transport medium. The move from liquid medium to near-vaccuum medium will force some changes/adaptions, but as much as people seem to be willing to accept in. People make the mistake of thinking Sci-Fi means anything goes and allowing more and more deviation from realism is ok...its not. The more you deviate the more you go from Sci-Fi to Science Fantasy...there is a big difference. Sci-Fiction just means its based on things not available now, but its rooted in modern science and theory. So its typically making use of things believed to be theoritically possible in the future, whats deemed possible is that which is rooted in modern theory, models, classifications, etc. The future brings a lot less change then you'd think. The basis for things tend to stay the same, its just the means that tends to to require adaption. So a battleship will still be a battleship in most ways, though the means in which it battles may change. _____________________________ You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage.
Lygos	Posted - 2005.11.28 06:10:00 - [10] It would be better if we had a class of t1 tanker battleships with only 3-5 highs. Things would be far more symmetric then. Of course, if we get too much absorbed with symmetry, it seems we fail to understand the design of EVE. Targetting Sig Variance -- "Everything I love is combustible."
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.11.28 08:00:00 - [11] CHECK SISI k? [Now with MIND BULLETS!]
Russo	Posted - 2005.11.28 08:29:00 - [12] Wouldnt it be cool if they had a WW2 era game like eve? So we could just captain real ships. Imagine having massive battleships like the yamato...the big japanese one. Im pretty sure thats its name. The idea of a massive ship with 18inch guns and 5inchers and dozens of 20mm and 50caliber guns as well. Putting up a curtain of lead against incoming torpedo planes or fighters....would be awesome. But I dont see how you could implement that as an online game too well. But yeah I thought battlecruisers in eve sucked when they 1st came out. I was expecting something slightly bigger than cruisers with BS weapons. This way they would be threats to BS, but couldnt hit cruisers or smaller. So they would be pretty vulnerable to medium and small ships, but very effective against large ships. The current BC are balanced in game, but compared to what a rl BC role would have, its not where it should be. But its a game, and it isnt too bad as is, pretty decent... On homeworld 2 they have regular gunships for fighter vs fighter and then pulsar gunships that cant hit fighters for crap, but do good damage against large ships. I think eve needs such a ship type. It would be balanced since normal ships of their class would be able to take them out. Russo - CEO Amarria Auxilia XL pod for an XL personality 'Russo, what exactly do you feed your ego to keep it that big?.'
Elfaen Ethenwe	Posted - 2005.11.28 10:23:00 - [13] I think the roles are accurate... Frigate Frigate is a name which has been used for several distinct types of warships at different times. It has referred to a variety of ship roles and sizes. In the age of sail, it referred to a ship smaller and faster than a battleship, used for patrolling and escort work rather than fighting fleet actions. In modern military terminology, the definition of a frigate is a warship intended to protect other warships and merchant marine ships and as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups, and merchant convoys. However, many ships known as frigates have bordered on, or entirely been more similar to a different class of ship including everything ranging from a destroyer to a cruiser or even a battleship. The variation coming from a number of sources such as the era, the particulars of battlefield roles, and the standards of a given country. Destroyer In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet or battle group and defend them against smaller, short-range attackers (originally torpedo boats, later submarines and aircraft). At the beginning of the 21st century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatants in general use, with only two nations (the United States and Russia) operating cruisers and none operating battleships or battlecruisers. Cruiser In military terminology, a cruiser is a large warship capable of engaging multiple targets simultaneously. Historically they were generally considered the smallest ships capable of independent operations ù destroyers usually requiring outside support such as tenders ù but in modern parlance this difference has disappeared Battlecruiser Battlecruisers were large warships of the first half of the 20th century. They evolved from armored cruisers and in terms of ship classification they occupy a grey area between cruisers and battleships. Different nations built to widely different designs. Some battlecruisers were smaller than battleships while others were larger than contemporaneous battleships. The chief similarity was the role specification. They were designed to hunt down and outgun smaller warships (or merchant ships in the case of the pocket battleships), and outrun larger warships that they could not outgun. Originally, to achieve this, they deviated from the standard practice of providing a ship with sufficient armour to protect against its own guns. The weight saving from the reduced armour allowed more powerful engines to be fitted. This idea was mainly conceived by British Admiral Jackie Fisher who believed "speed is the best protection". Fisher's idea centred on battlecruisers operating with the fleet, the intention being that they would hunt down enemy cruiser squadrons and evade the battleships. However, as technology developed design philosophy changed and led to the (upgrade or) creation of a more heavily armoured class with less powerful guns. They were given different labels, but essentially performed the same task.
Elfaen Ethenwe	Posted - 2005.11.28 10:23:00 - [14] Battleship In naval warfare, the name battleship ù until the mid-20th century ù meant the most powerfully armed, most heavily armored and most effective class of warship at any particular time. The name has therefore been applied to a wide range of quite different vessels, from 15th century wooden galleons, to the massive, modern Yamato-class battleships built by Japan during World War II. Battleships are designed to engage enemy warships with direct or indirect fire from an arsenal of main guns. As a secondary role, they are capable of bombarding targets on and near an enemy coast to support infantry assaults. During World War II, battleships became largely obsolete because of the greater range and striking power of the aircraft carrier, although some continued to be used for shore bombardment and as missile platforms until the late 1990s. The word battleship originated with the development of the line of battle tactic in the mid 17th century. Ships expected to form part of this line were called ships-of-the line-of-battle or line-of-battle ships. This was eventually abberviated to "battleship". These were divided into first-, second- and third-rates. Fourth and fifth-rates were frigates, and sixth-rates were sloops (strictly "sloops-of-war"). These vessels were used for communications and reconnaissance and did not usually fight in fleet encounters. Although this classification worked well in the 18th Century, from the middle of the 19th Century, the terminology became confused by the introduction of large steam-powered armoured single-deck ships with a small number of very powerful guns. These were technically frigates because they had a single gundeck, but they were designed to fight as ships of the line, and were the most potent warships of their time.
NattyDreadlock	Posted - 2005.11.28 10:55:00 - [15] Considering the above texts implication that the Battle-cruiser in particular is a dynamic model, I'd like to see the tier2 version geared toward being a cheaper answer to battle-ships...basically up-gunned to allow it to reasonably attack battleships while not having the armor to effectivly endure and sustain itself one-on-one with a battleship. This battle-cruiser wouldnt be a lone hunter but more a fleet vessel designed to supplement the fire power of the fleet's battleship against oppossing battleships. I conceed that the current battle-cruiser in game seems to mirror the role stated in the post above. _____________________________ You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.11.28 10:56:00 - [16] please play on sisi, altho atm the rmr build is gone, battlecruisers are in for a whole new life on there. underpowered ? hardly. oh, and p.s., real life anaologies don't make your argument any better tbh, they almost never do. _______________________________________________ Power to the players !
Leandro Salazar	Posted - 2005.11.28 11:19:00 - [17] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 28/11/2005 11:20:05 Oh they are not underpowered. But they are not Battlecruisers either. More like backwards-Battlecruiser. A BC combined the speed and armor of a CA with the firepower of a BB. The things in eve combine the speed and armor of a BB with the firepower of a CA. And that just does not sit too well with people who take more interest in traditional bluewater navies than CCP does (so more than zero lol). The closest thing to a real Battlecruiser I see in eve is the Typhoon. A fast but otherwise underpowered Battleship. I would very much like to see REAL BCs in eve.
StOrM ViPeR	Posted - 2005.11.28 12:44:00 - [18] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 28/11/2005 11:20:05 Oh they are not underpowered. But they are not Battlecruisers either. More like backwards-Battlecruiser. A BC combined the speed and armor of a CA with the firepower of a BB. The things in eve combine the speed and armor of a BB with the firepower of a CA. And that just does not sit too well with people who take more interest in traditional bluewater navies than CCP does (so more than zero lol). The closest thing to a real Battlecruiser I see in eve is the Typhoon. A fast but otherwise underpowered Battleship. I would very much like to see REAL BCs in eve. All I got from that was Blackbird and Caracal. How can you say its not a battlecruiser? Have you ever been into space and seen a brutix in the flesh ? No didn't think so. If you actually check through history you will find that theres a different variation on the size of every class in every nation. In some countries a Frigate is the largest of vessels. So the conclusion is, that this is a game And BS = Battleship, Not BB.
Leandro Salazar	Posted - 2005.11.28 13:39:00 - [19] Nope. BS = something I am prolly not allowed to type here. BB = Battleship. Maybe CCP and many players chose to ignore naval traditions, but I will keep on fighting for them. They should either do it right or not at all From what some people write here, I get the impression that they want to turn the Caldari Navy into the Caldari Airforce or something.
Dhejay Centrix	Posted - 2005.11.28 13:54:00 - [20] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Nope. BS = something I am prolly not allowed to type here. BB = Battleship. Maybe CCP and many players chose to ignore naval traditions, but I will keep on fighting for them. They should either do it right or not at all From what some people write here, I get the impression that they want to turn the Caldari Navy into the Caldari Airforce or something. Hang on, this is EvE we're talking about isn't it? The same game with a guide to eve terminology that says BB = Blackbird and BS = Battleship? RL naval ships have nothing to do with eve. They are simply used to denote different sizes not actual roles since that is up to the player. On the subject of the original post, BC is not underpowered in EvE I can kill a BS in my Ferox with little difficulty since I fitted t2 guns and launchers. Why BB for Battleship anyway? BS makes so much more sense. Besides, one abbreviation can mean many things rude or otherwise. FA = Fountain Alliance FA = Something I'm definately not allowed to type here Peace out
Vladimir Ilych	Posted - 2005.11.28 14:18:00 - [21] This thread has been raised many times before. I raised it once. IMO no matter what you call the ships it would be nice to have a ship class that has 3-5 hi slots fitting large turrets to bridge the gap between the current BC's and BS's. I really cannot see why this would be such a problem. Give the current BC's another 50m/s and their you go.
NattyDreadlock	Posted - 2005.11.28 23:18:00 - [22] Though the specifc specs for a class of vessels changes over the time, the relation between the classes remain. Though a nation may have a frigate as their largest and main combat vessel, it doenst change the fact that its a frigate class vessel based on the current standards for weight/displacment, armament, etc. relative to other vessels built in its time. Though there are no more battleships built today, if a nation was to build one there wouldnt be any problem identifing it as one. My assumption is there was a basic standard applied to each class as late as the ending of WWI where there was an international limits placed on specific nation's navies. Japan could only have like 9 battleships, Im sure the US and Britian would not have allowed Japan to build 12 or 20 battleship class vessels just because Japan could have decided to call them battle-cruisers instead. Can a battleship be more related to a battle-cruiser than a battleship? Yes. The HMS Hood, the Texas class Battleships of the US during the beginning of WWII. But these were Battleship class ships of their time when designed and construction began. At some point they are obsolete and have specs more consistent with a newer battle-cruiser...but its still a battle-ship, just old and obsolete. _____________________________ You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage.
Strikeclone	Posted - 2005.11.28 23:56:00 - [23] Originally by: Russo Wouldnt it be cool if they had a WW2 era game like eve? So we could just captain real ships. Imagine having massive battleships like the yamato...the big japanese one. etc etc. www.navyfield.com An excellent ww2 naval 2d isometric massive multiplayer game, currently live in asia and under europ/usa beta which goes live in december. downloadable from that site. frigates, destroyers, cruisers, heavy cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, carriers. german/japanese/british/american fleets atm although there is talk of french/italian/russian fleets in the future. Strikeclone "Peace through the procurement and application of superior firepower" http://executiveaction.proboards79.com/
NattyDreadlock	Posted - 2005.11.29 09:33:00 - [24] Sorry to go off subject, but that Navyfield.com looks fun. My only concern is that at a quick glance there is no fog or war, which means there likly isnt any comms/signal interception and HF/DF to determine enemy line of bearing....and no subs :( But I may check it out though. _____________________________ You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage.
dacia	Posted - 2005.11.29 12:12:00 - [25] http://www.german-navy.de/ only german ship of WWI and WWII but very good infos on ship type
Strikeclone	Posted - 2005.11.29 17:55:00 - [26] Edited by: Strikeclone on 29/11/2005 17:55:53 Originally by: NattyDreadlock Sorry to go off subject, but that Navyfield.com looks fun. My only concern is that at a quick glance there is no fog or war, which means there likly isnt any comms/signal interception and HF/DF to determine enemy line of bearing....and no subs :( But I may check it out though. there is fog of war but only in a RTS style, thre is no comms interception or anything like that, there are some interesting features not in the beta that are planned for retail like harbour assault missions :P currently the game is a series of one of battles where you line up ur fleets and pwn each other, gaining XP and cash as you kill ships, its a blast and like Eve its a million times better when done as a team. sry to go off topic btw but its a fun game to play specially during DT :P p.s. try this link for an independent resource site for Navyfield www.trainworld.us Its a silly name for a link to naval ships but its an awesome site Strikeclone "Peace through the procurement and application of superior firepower" http://executiveaction.proboards79.com/
Xeon Veldar	Posted - 2005.11.30 11:48:00 - [27] Battle Cruisers are not the only ship not staying true to it's designation. The Dreadnaughts in eve are also about as far from real Dreadnoughts as you can get. They have been drafted into a incorrect role. The dreadnought was developed as a counter to the increasing range of torpedo's that smaller ships were capable of firing. It is essentialy a battleship that sacrifices it's secondary armament and armour for speed and as many large caliber guns as it can possibly mount. It was designed to engage other warships at extreme range by launching massive salvo's. It was not supposed to destroy installations and be insanely tough and slow as it is in Eve
Red Raider	Posted - 2005.12.01 06:17:00 - [28] I think battlecruisers are OK, but there is a lot of room for that class of ship to be altered into an entire branch of ships like all the other classes(destroyer excluded). First is the role of a standard fleet escort, capable of being a good ship in all situtations but never a great ship in any situation. Second a pocket battleship of sorts, take the high slots down by half and give it the cpu and power core to fire battleship guns, leaving the armor and shielding right where its at. Third a support ship, yes and effective logistics ship not some freak of nature like the 4 you have already given us. Lets try for a ship that has an actuall purpose and can stand in on a battle for more than 30 seconds. Make a ship that is limited in high slots but has more medium slots for linking. How useful is a logistic ship when all it can do is repair armor? Try a ship with enough med slots to actually link 3 battleships, or run a sensor booster and target paint multiple ships.
Russo	Posted - 2005.12.01 07:01:00 - [29] French navy special ability, scuttle battleships 5% faster per level :) Russo - CEO Amarria Auxilia XL pod for an XL personality 'Russo, what exactly do you feed your ego to keep it that big?.'
TotensBurntCorpse	Posted - 2005.12.01 19:45:00 - [30] Frigates are done well Destroyers are done well Cruisers are done well Battlecruisers should have 3-4 hi slots fitting L guns not Cruiser M guns, other than that they are done well. Battleships are done well Dreadnoughts are implimented for a different purpose than from the wet navy (in eve they are really being used as monitors). For the naming designations if you go with the ship types then CCP does use the names correctly... Battleships predated the 1906 HMS Dread Nought. Anything built AFTER 1906 following the upgunning that DN showed were actually DNs. Carrying on with the designation of Battle Ship was common but techincally wrong as the DN set the new class and was thus named for some time this class. Battleships comming after the HMS DN were typically named under the BB class to differentiate from BS classes (US). First Sea Lord John Fisher was the brains behind the BC and his vision is thus "A battlecruiser if not strong enough to destroy a battleship, it would always be fast enough to escape". Key points here... the battleships he referred to were PRE 1906 - ie PRE HMS DN. in practice the BCs made prior and during WW1 were for the most part the ones used in WW2 and had to contend with NOT BSs but actually with DNs/BBs, a class they were not intended to fight. BCs actually carried limited amounts of BS guns to support Adm Fisher's vision. So to be a true BC from the vision CCP needs to change the high slots to handle L turrents (but not launchers) with only 3-4 slots. The DN should be an upgunned BS as everyone expected. CCP changed this to be a seige platform for attacking POS. In this respect they use a DN as a Monitor. TotensBurntCorpse Likes EVE, Starfleet Command Series, Earth & Beyond, Anything Battlefield, MOHAA, Call of Duty. Dislikes Not much.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.