Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
8954
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 18:40:00 -
[541] - Quote
Rammix wrote:This BS's are absurd. Have you ever heard of Ockham's razor?
If they are meant for pvp, they're too expensive for regular use. There are much better solutions tested by time. T3s are also expensive and are used widely but T3s are modular and can easily be "rebuilt" for very different purposes.
If they are meant for PvE, they're too expensive again and for the cases where you need such spider tank, carriers are a much better (and cheaper!!) solution. Damn, even 1.5b golem (same price niche) can have enough tank for the cases where a BS can be usable. Why new stupid BS?
If they're meant for exploration, mmm, woot? They're not agile enough, they can't use covert cloak. There are much better ships for that, after all.
Ockham's razor, damn it, "cut" (chop!) such stupid ideas with Ockham's razor!
That's why I said earlier that you generate ideas being high. Seriously.
Price means nothing. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rammix
TheMurk
175
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 18:41:00 -
[542] - Quote
Onictus wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Onictus wrote:
Its quite vulnerable a plated PvP hull wth trimarks and a 14sec align time to start with?
You have all day to catch it.
yahh vulnerable with a mjd that goes off in 9secs and puts him 100km away. especially with spare highs capable of housing heavy neuts, able to shut down scrams + loads of mids for webs and scrams to pin down any tackle and more effectively apply DPS. stop wasting peoples time. and then what, not its uncloaked and locked and a ceptor can easily get in range to re-tackle. .....or just beat it to its align, remember that 30 second recloak timer, yeah that. Don't forget about scrams. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
Rammix
TheMurk
175
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 18:45:00 -
[543] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rammix wrote:This BS's are absurd. Have you ever heard of Ockham's razor?
If they are meant for pvp, they're too expensive for regular use. There are much better solutions tested by time. T3s are also expensive and are used widely but T3s are modular and can easily be "rebuilt" for very different purposes.
If they are meant for PvE, they're too expensive again and for the cases where you need such spider tank, carriers are a much better (and cheaper!!) solution. Damn, even 1.5b golem (same price niche) can have enough tank for the cases where a BS can be usable. Why new stupid BS?
If they're meant for exploration, mmm, woot? They're not agile enough, they can't use covert cloak. There are much better ships for that, after all.
Ockham's razor, damn it, "cut" (chop!) such stupid ideas with Ockham's razor!
That's why I said earlier that you generate ideas being high. Seriously. Price means nothing. Can't agree. If the same goal can be achieved with ships which cost 3b in total, then using 15b gang is stupid and unpractical. Everything must be economically efficient. Unless you duplicate the isk without limits somehow. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
8954
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 18:50:00 -
[544] - Quote
Rammix wrote:Can't agree. If the same goal can be achieved with ships which cost 3b in total, then using 15b gang is stupid and unpractical. Everything must be economically efficient. Unless you duplicate the isk without limits somehow.
We use suicide dreadnoughts...
Price really isn't an issue to us and things should never be balanced with cost in mind. Thats how we got titan DD blobs. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
CCP Manifest
C C P C C P Alliance
874
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 18:55:00 -
[545] - Quote
I stealth edited the high res concept art to the OP. You can find it here: http://bit.ly/1izOFm4 ======== o7 CCP Manifest | Public Relations and Social Media | @ccp_manifest |
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
118
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 18:55:00 -
[546] - Quote
Of course price is a factor in balance. Don't be so ignorant. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
118
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 18:59:00 -
[547] - Quote
So it's a ridiculous looking ship with ridiculous bonuses... At least you're consistent CCP
Take the fins off the back, widen the fins on the side, move the ring a little closer to the middle. Job done! |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
8954
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:00:00 -
[548] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Of course price is a factor in balance. Don't be so ignorant.
When has price ever stopped us from blobbing the ever living hell out of something overpowered?
If price was no obstacle from massing titan fleets why would it be an issue on a billion isk BS hull? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
118
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:02:00 -
[549] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Of course price is a factor in balance. Don't be so ignorant. When has price ever stopped us from blobbing the ever living hell out of something overpowered? If price was no obstacle from massing titan fleets why would it be an issue on a billion isk BS hull?
Oh I get it... You're Intentionally being an idiot. |
Athena Damocles
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:03:00 -
[550] - Quote
Holy Amarr this thing is FUGLY ... put the circle thingy at the back and it's alright. But nice stats. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
8954
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:07:00 -
[551] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Oh I get it... You're Intentionally being an idiot.
What exactly makes you think these 1 bil battleships are unaffordable for pvp when we are throwing away 4.5 bil dreadnoughts and blobbing 100 billion isk titans? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Herpp Derpp
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:10:00 -
[552] - Quote
I like it! It looks pretty badass! |
sabastyian
Death By Design
13
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:18:00 -
[553] - Quote
Don't give this ship a ship maintenance bay or a fleet hangar as suggested unless you intend on removing the guns ( people want a mini-carrier and carriers cant use guns. ) Give it a 400% Energy Transfer Array and Remote Armor Repair system range bonus ( that's less then a guardian and more then a logi frig ) allowing it to rep to around 33km and be able to give and receive capacitor. Maybe give it a 55% reduction in Energy Transfer Array costs and Remote Armor Repair Systems ( requires more cap then a guardian. ) Give it a jump drive similar to Black ops ( there is currently no real covert ops logistics ships in eve making black ops fleets kind of a "gank it or die" scenario. ) Amarr Battleship: 4% resistances per level. gallente Battleship 10% drone damage and hitpoints per level. The cloak bonuses black ops receive could also be implemented to keep it in line with its counterparts. Remove the gun bonus entirely. Those stats give you a logistics ship that tanks less then a T3, costs more then a Triage carrier, but allows it ( when in pairs ) to effectively be a black ops logistics boat while adding a small amount of damage. The 50% amount bonus could be kept, but if it is the high slots should be 6, med slots should be 4, and low slots should be 7 as most armor battleships in eve have 7-8 low slots. With 6 high slots and 1 cloak, you would have 2 cap transfers and 3 50% bonused reps, giving it more repping power then a guardian at 4.5 reps. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
407
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:19:00 -
[554] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Onictus wrote:
Its quite vulnerable a plated PvP hull wth trimarks and a 14sec align time to start with?
You have all day to catch it.
yahh vulnerable with a mjd that goes off in 9secs and puts him 100km away. especially with spare highs capable of housing heavy neuts, able to shut down scrams + loads of mids for webs and scrams to pin down any tackle and more effectively apply DPS. stop wasting peoples time. So are you saying that all battleships should be banned or that if a ship can escape from one guy camping a gate, that ship is overpowered?
Im saying that currently BS's have to fit to be slippery when it comes to being tackled, especially with the warp speed changes in Rubicon. if you put a cov ops cloak on a BS then he only really needs to be able to break from initial tackle and then he's gone.
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote: The issue with a BS having a covert ops cloak is its ability to deal very high degrees of DPS out of the black void of space in an instant without significant sacrifices (eg tank).
this is especially the case with an armor BS, having the mids and utility highs to achieve a high degree of target control. |
sXyphos
The Scope Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:21:00 -
[555] - Quote
The ships looks solid overall, but seriously, consider moving that ring to the back of it, it just looks plain wrong with it in the front and it feels like the ship should be backwards |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
610
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:21:00 -
[556] - Quote
wouldn't it make more sense if you did what you do with T2 ships for skills?
amarr bonuses 10% bonus to large energy turret optimal range 4% Armor resistances per level
Gallente 10% drone damage and hitpoints per level 20% large remote armour repair range
role bonuses 50% increased strength for scan probes +10 virus strength for relic and data analyzers Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1003
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:22:00 -
[557] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:
Oh I get it... You're Intentionally being an idiot.
What exactly makes you think these 1 bil battleships are unaffordable for pvp when we are throwing away 4.5 bil dreadnoughts and blobbing 100 billion isk titans?
As you discovered with techfleet, sourcing faction bs hulls can be difficult. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
370
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:23:00 -
[558] - Quote
sabastyian wrote:Don't give this ship a ship maintenance bay or a fleet hangar as suggested unless you intend on removing the guns ( people want a mini-carrier and carriers cant use guns. ) Give it a 400% Energy Transfer Array and Remote Armor Repair system range bonus ( that's less then a guardian and more then a logi frig ) allowing it to rep to around 33km and be able to give and receive capacitor. Maybe give it a 55% reduction in Energy Transfer Array costs and Remote Armor Repair Systems ( requires more cap then a guardian. ) Give it a jump drive similar to Black ops ( there is currently no real covert ops logistics ships in eve making black ops fleets kind of a "gank it or die" scenario. ) Amarr Battleship: 4% resistances per level. gallente Battleship 10% drone damage and hitpoints per level. The cloak bonuses black ops receive could also be implemented to keep it in line with its counterparts. Remove the gun bonus entirely. Those stats give you a logistics ship that tanks less then a T3, costs more then a Triage carrier, but allows it ( when in pairs ) to effectively be a black ops logistics boat while adding a small amount of damage. The 50% amount bonus could be kept, but if it is the high slots should be 6, med slots should be 4, and low slots should be 7 as most armor battleships in eve have 7-8 low slots. With 6 high slots and 1 cloak, you would have 2 cap transfers and 3 50% bonused reps, giving it more repping power then a guardian at 4.5 reps.
I'd rather see it getting a moderate bonus (I'd say closer to 200-300% than 400%) to armor RR and energy xfer range than a 50% amount bonus as that amount bonus + its resists makes for some outlandish spider tanking (not that I'm against that as such but it would be a little bit game breaking). Also fits in with the nature of the other bonuses which are more range based.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
8954
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:29:00 -
[559] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:baltec1 wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:
Oh I get it... You're Intentionally being an idiot.
What exactly makes you think these 1 bil battleships are unaffordable for pvp when we are throwing away 4.5 bil dreadnoughts and blobbing 100 billion isk titans? As you discovered with techfleet, sourcing faction bs hulls can be difficult.
It was retired because it was easily countered.
Simple fact is no matter the cost people can afford it. This is why any balance based upon cost is a terrible way to do things. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
628
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:31:00 -
[560] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:
Oh I get it... You're Intentionally being an idiot.
What exactly makes you think these 1 bil battleships are unaffordable for pvp when we are throwing away 4.5 bil dreadnoughts and blobbing 100 billion isk titans?
These will run in the 2-2.2 bill range for a naked hull.
For what it is I'll take an insured dread any day of the week. |
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
27
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:32:00 -
[561] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:baltec1 wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:
Oh I get it... You're Intentionally being an idiot.
What exactly makes you think these 1 bil battleships are unaffordable for pvp when we are throwing away 4.5 bil dreadnoughts and blobbing 100 billion isk titans? As you discovered with techfleet, sourcing faction bs hulls can be difficult.
TBH, I think that's his point, actually. The problem with techfleet wasn't really that the CFC couldn't afford them. It was that it literally couldn't replace them. Incidentally, the nullsec SoE station is deep in CFC space. :tinfoil:
Actually, the biggest pricing and sourcing problem I can see with these, in a general sense, is that, unlike the regular pirate factions, there aren't SoE combat exploration sites. The price of pirate battleship hulls is actually massively depressed by these sites, since they drop pirate ship BPCs: you can get upwards of 2k ISK/LP out of pirate frigate and cruiser BPCs, but the battleship ones tend to be closer to 1k ISK/LP in price. The Nestor isn't going to have that downward pressure being exerted on it, so its price is actually going to be linked to the prices of the smaller hulls. |
sabastyian
Death By Design
14
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:32:00 -
[562] - Quote
Rroff wrote:sabastyian wrote:Don't give this ship a ship maintenance bay or a fleet hangar as suggested unless you intend on removing the guns ( people want a mini-carrier and carriers cant use guns. ) Give it a 400% Energy Transfer Array and Remote Armor Repair system range bonus ( that's less then a guardian and more then a logi frig ) allowing it to rep to around 33km and be able to give and receive capacitor. Maybe give it a 55% reduction in Energy Transfer Array costs and Remote Armor Repair Systems ( requires more cap then a guardian. ) Give it a jump drive similar to Black ops ( there is currently no real covert ops logistics ships in eve making black ops fleets kind of a "gank it or die" scenario. ) Amarr Battleship: 4% resistances per level. gallente Battleship 10% drone damage and hitpoints per level. The cloak bonuses black ops receive could also be implemented to keep it in line with its counterparts. Remove the gun bonus entirely. Those stats give you a logistics ship that tanks less then a T3, costs more then a Triage carrier, but allows it ( when in pairs ) to effectively be a black ops logistics boat while adding a small amount of damage. The 50% amount bonus could be kept, but if it is the high slots should be 6, med slots should be 4, and low slots should be 7 as most armor battleships in eve have 7-8 low slots. With 6 high slots and 1 cloak, you would have 2 cap transfers and 3 50% bonused reps, giving it more repping power then a guardian at 4.5 reps. I'd rather see it getting a moderate bonus (I'd say closer to 200-300% than 400%) to armor RR and energy xfer range than a 50% amount bonus as that amount bonus + its resists makes for some outlandish spider tanking (not that I'm against that as such but it would be a little bit game breaking). Also fits in with the nature of the other bonuses which are more range based. 400% range is still only 30km range for the reps, which is frigate logi range |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
134
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:34:00 -
[563] - Quote
I think it should be adjusted to look like this http://i.imgur.com/tTJXrN8.jpg or it be like this http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/58132818?view_mode=2#/art/SOE-Urania-178744191?_sid=53bdca9f with a few adjustments to it.
|
C Klinchock
0ne Percent. Wild Nights.
112
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:34:00 -
[564] - Quote
This ship is nothing but a glorified WH rolling BS. OH WAIT!!! Its mass is reduced it'll suck at that too. Give it a drone tracking bonus on top of the RR and it'll be worth the HUGE amount of isk... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
628
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:38:00 -
[565] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Michael Harari wrote:baltec1 wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:
Oh I get it... You're Intentionally being an idiot.
What exactly makes you think these 1 bil battleships are unaffordable for pvp when we are throwing away 4.5 bil dreadnoughts and blobbing 100 billion isk titans? As you discovered with techfleet, sourcing faction bs hulls can be difficult. TBH, I think that's his point, actually. The problem with techfleet wasn't really that the CFC couldn't afford them. It was that it literally couldn't replace them. Incidentally, the nullsec SoE station is deep in CFC space. :tinfoil: Actually, the biggest pricing and sourcing problem I can see with these, in a general sense, is that, unlike the regular pirate factions, there aren't SoE combat exploration sites. The price of pirate battleship hulls is actually massively depressed by these sites, since they drop pirate ship BPCs: you can get upwards of 2k ISK/LP out of pirate frigate and cruiser BPCs, but the battleship ones tend to be closer to 1k ISK/LP in price. The Nestor isn't going to have that downward pressure being exerted on it, so its price is actually going to be linked to the prices of the smaller hulls.
Dead on, and like I said I pulling between 3 and 3.5lL isk per LP for srtrat BPCs, if the price of Nestor drops below that rate, I won't bother buying it......even at 2k/lp you are looking at a 1.2 bil BPC, that isn't a hull, that is the blueprint. (at high sec exchange, Sancturay doesnt contribute enough to the overall numbers to matter I would wager)
So yes, they are going to be ...pricey, don't look at the other pirate ships, their sources aren't analogous, to my knowledge there are now SOE 8/10 sites out there. |
Atkins Friendly
NightWatch Ind
31
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:42:00 -
[566] - Quote
I fear this thing is going to be so cap hungry in battles.
In the heat of battle, when you're running Energy Turrets, a tank AND remote reps, only having 6200 cap with a 1044 recharge is terrible. You'll last less than 2 minutes unless you flood your mids with cap rechargers or boosters. If you do boosters, you are wasting your cargo hold for batteries instead of what it's suppose to be for; loot.
I'd much rather see a 10-15% decrease in capacity need for energy turrets than the Optimal range.. especially since you'll be fitting large turrets that have a decent range already. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1541
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:43:00 -
[567] - Quote
Not that I am against the idea rise. Just does not make sense.
The picture linked clearly shows a shuttle leaving a sma and there is a medical bay highlighted.
Personally this ship should be an escort carrier... I am thinking like a mini mom of old but uses drone instead of fighters There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Kesi Raae
Anatidae Rising
21
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:45:00 -
[568] - Quote
Has any consideration been given to increasing the range of the remote repair modules themselves and reducing the logistics bonuses for them to compensate?
Would hopefully make RR doctrines more viable across the board. |
Rammix
TheMurk
175
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:46:00 -
[569] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Of course price is a factor in balance. Don't be so ignorant. When has price ever stopped us from blobbing the ever living hell out of something overpowered? If price was no obstacle from massing titan fleets why would it be an issue on a billion isk BS hull? Eve is not only powerblock blobs. OpenSUSE 12.2, wine 1.5 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
134
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 19:47:00 -
[570] - Quote
You don't think 6 meds will give this ship good enough drone tracking? Even with 5 meds you could get drone tracking AND range up pretty damn good.
The issue isn't that, the issue is that this Is doesn't need a repair bonus. It be better of will a bonuse like blackops have for cloak speed and being able to jump through convert cynos and regular cynos.
I do think it be better with either 7H, 5M, 7L OR 6H, 6M, 7L but I doubt CCP cares much what I think |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 81 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |