EVE Search - Tech 2 Battleships, Future or Dangling carrot?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tech 2 Battleships, Future or Dangling carrot?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ti anna	Posted - 2006.04.30 09:55:00 - [1] First of all, I left EVE for about a year and a half. I came back just prior to the cold-war patch because there were OFFICIAL posts saying Tech 2 battleships would be in the next comtent patch (after CW). Well, RMR came and went without them being integrated into the game. At the time, many of us posted asking why. We were told that they had to be pushed off due to time constraints. When asked if they would be in Kali, we were told officially that they would be. We had a many page post that had many gold border replies and we talked about many things, but the Tech 2 Battleships were specifically addressed (unfortunately I did not bookmark it and can not find it. When I use the spiffy new search function to try, it times out on every attempt). Now Kali has no mention whatsoever of them. In fact, the general consensus seems to be that they will never actually be released. Please, let us know. Tech 2 BS's are the main reason I came back. Sure carriers are intriguing, dreadnaughts are useless for most occasions, and HAC's could be fun, but, I want my Tech 2 Battleship. P.S. I know there are those that do not want Tech 2 BS's to ever be released, I have read their reasons and find their logic flawed. If you are one of these people, please do not flame in this thread, it is a genuine plea for information, nothing more. This is not a demand that they be included or I will quit post.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.04.30 10:02:00 - [2] too many people complained that they would be omfg uber ***** game destroying ships which is not even close to the truth what they did was look at a t1 kitted sub skilled thorax pilot and compair the damage to a t2 kitted high sp deimos pilot and deduce that if a t2 BS was ever released it would do 200-300% more dmaage which is retarded, its only gona do 25% more dmaage max the only thing t2 BS will have that t1 dont: 25% more damage one more non damage bonous like tracking/falloff/speed ect 3 built in hardenrs [and today killing a BS in sub 30sec, those 3 hardeners is just gona raise that to 60sec, big deal also they will not get many more slots. too many people with no brains cried so ccp for some reason thought its best not to release them -------------------Sig----------------------- Nerf the Blasterthron its too dam powerfull :/
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.04.30 10:06:00 - [3] I want my Tech2 BS...I dont care if it has insane sp requirements that would make a Command Ship look like light training. Sov 2.1 T3 BS
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.04.30 10:15:00 - [4] they weren't realise because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in.
Ti anna	Posted - 2006.04.30 20:54:00 - [5] So, this still does not answer if they will ever be released. I would really like to know. Frankly, I could care less if they had any more damage, I just would like them to be more resistant than the current BS's in the game. The main problem I see with EVE is that battles are way too short. If the Tech 2 BS's has the resists comparable to HAC's and maybe one more slot I would be very happy. You know there is a big disparity in power currently between the Tech 2 Frigs, Cruisers and the Tech 1 BS's. I can do most of the Level 4 agent missions in an Assault frigate easier than I can in a BS (raven excluded). This I feel is not as it should be. When I can take an AF into a deadspace with 8+ BS's and many cruisers all attacking me and not have to worry about dying if I am careful to maintain traverse speed, there is obviously an imbalance.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.30 20:58:00 - [6] Originally by: HippoKing Edited by: HippoKing on 30/04/2006 10:16:12 they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. ---------------- May 1st - We love Khatred day. RecruitMe@NOINT!
LWMaverick	Posted - 2006.04.30 21:10:00 - [7] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing Edited by: HippoKing on 30/04/2006 10:16:12 they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. /me thumbs up Spirits in the night! Allll Niiight!!
JasonH2	Posted - 2006.04.30 21:12:00 - [8] Dev's are too small minded for that, it'd be too much work.
Tenchu Migoto	Posted - 2006.04.30 21:12:00 - [9] Originally by: LWMaverick Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing Edited by: HippoKing on 30/04/2006 10:16:12 they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. /me thumbs up I'd say this is the exact reason they were put off As I recall, the Devs want T2 BSes in a logistics and fleet command role, not a Battlefield "omgwtfpwn" button of doom role...
Mr Cleann	Posted - 2006.04.30 21:13:00 - [10] In my opinon (atm anyways lol) T2 battleships have already been introduced in the form of faction ships that you can only buy in escrow or obtain by completing complexes. They are more powerful that the majority of bs's that are available in the marketplace and cost about 3x as much as a tech 1 bs......
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.04.30 21:15:00 - [11] give them: interceptor t2 resists no extra damage mods built-in jump-drive skills to increase the range and reduce the fuel needed for jump drives and I'll be happy. they have a proper role (mobile strike force that can jump in from anywhere), no omfg damage and no omfg resistances. ______________________________________________________ Account Reactivated
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.04.30 21:42:00 - [12] Ballancing Tech 2 Battleships is going to take allot work and testing. If they simply make them battle ship sized hacs then yes, they will be overpowerd however I think you can avoid that issue easily. I personally think that they need to have less resists than a Field Command ship and only a small amount more hp than thier tech 1 cousin. As for the bonusses, I think one should be group orietned, and I think one should make it a more specialized version of its parent tech 1 ship. I personally don't think any of the ships should get a 5% damge or 5% rof per level. If the ship is going to get a second damage bonuss I think 3% would be more than enough.
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.04.30 21:58:00 - [13] If BS Sized HACs would be overpowered, what are HACs? Sov 2.1 T3 BS
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:00:00 - [14] Originally by: Eximius Josari If BS Sized HACs would be overpowered, what are HACs? Overpriced Nos victims.
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:03:00 - [15] Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Originally by: Eximius Josari If BS Sized HACs would be overpowered, what are HACs? Overpriced Nos victims. They are one of the most popular ship types ingame. So I'm reluctant to believe they are so powerless. Sov 2.1 T3 BS
Copine Callmeknau	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:31:00 - [16] At the current T2 prices (vagas, Deimos etc.) you can assume the price of a T2 raven or T2 Tempest to be around 6-7.5 billion ISK. Please bring these ships into game, so that we may zerg them up and laugh ------- With five million sheep in this army I seem to be the only one fit to command
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:32:00 - [17] Originally by: Eximius Josari If BS Sized HACs would be overpowered, what are HACs? beatable by BSs
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:33:00 - [18] Originally by: Copine Callmeknau At the current T2 prices (vagas, Deimos etc.) you can assume the price of a T2 raven or T2 Tempest to be around 6-7.5 billion ISK. Please bring these ships into game, so that we may zerg them up and laugh Tech 2 BCs arent very pricey, and if the T2 BSes are even more skill intensive, they won't be overly pricey either. I figure something around 1-1.5 BN after the 'OMGWTFBBQ its a Tech 2 BS!' hype wears off. Sov 2.1 T3 BS
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:34:00 - [19] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. requires skill "power rangers"?
Nafri	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:34:00 - [20] thy will probably follow the field command line Summertime - Campingtime!
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:35:00 - [21] Originally by: HippoKing Originally by: Eximius Josari If BS Sized HACs would be overpowered, what are HACs? beatable by BSs So are Command Ships Are you saying nothing could beat a SHABS (Super Heavy Assault BS)? How would that change much from the way BSes are now? And just so its known, I wouldnt mind if the dmg wasnt much different from t1 to t2, I just want the other good parts. Sov 2.1 T3 BS
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:35:00 - [22] Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Originally by: Eximius Josari If BS Sized HACs would be overpowered, what are HACs? Overpriced Nos victims. They are one of the most popular ship types ingame. So I'm reluctant to believe they are so powerless. besides the vagabond, every hac has a battleship equivilant. it's just hacs are far more fun to fly ______________________________________________________ Account Reactivated
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:36:00 - [23] Originally by: HippoKing Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. requires skill "power rangers"? ---------------- May 1st - We love Khatred day. RecruitMe@NOINT!
Tenchu Migoto	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:37:00 - [24] Originally by: HippoKing Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. requires skill "power rangers"? pfft!!! VOLTRON!!!
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:38:00 - [25] Originally by: Tenchu Migoto Originally by: HippoKing Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. requires skill "power rangers"? pfft!!! VOLTRON!!! Robots in disguise. ---------------- May 1st - We love Khatred day. RecruitMe@NOINT!
ParMizaN	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:44:00 - [26] Think battleships with jump drives. Phenomena of ironies, cast the litany aside How intelligible, blessed be the forgetful
Tenchu Migoto	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:46:00 - [27] Edited by: Tenchu Migoto on 30/04/2006 22:47:22 Originally by: ParMizaN Think battleships with jump drives. I'd think it a waste of time... can you even make Cynosural fields in secure space? ...WAIT A MINUTE!!! Robots in disguise?!?! BURN!! FIRES!!
Nafri	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:52:00 - [28] But more I would like the following ships: Tech2 Scorpion: Seagull 6/8/5 Caldari BS boni: 20% EW range/5% EW strenght Apperatus boni: 5% EW strenght/10% Hybrid range 5 Guns/4 Launchers A Ship Designed for the fleet Tech2 Raven: canard 8/7/5 Caldari BS boni:10% Missle Speed/5% Rof Apperatus boni:7.5% Rage Torpedo Sig Resolution & Explosion Radius/5% Reduction on Range Torpedo Cap penalty 6 Launchers/4 Guns A Ship designed to perform with those Rage Torpedos. With Max skills you should get something like 750 Sig Resoltion und 135 m/s explosion velocity on those Rage. Your cap penalty should be only about 10% or so then. Tech2 Typhoon: Favonian 8/5/7 Matari BS boni: 5% Missle ROF/5% Projectile ROF Apperatus boni: 5% Speed/projectile damage 5 guns/4 Turrets A bigger vagabond Tech2 Tempest: Foehn 8/6/6 Matari BS boni: 5% proj ROF/5% proj damage Apperatus boni: 5% Tracking/10% proj Range 7 Guns/4 Missles Summertime - Campingtime!
Cinnander	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:55:00 - [29] Couldn't find a role for them? How about a scaled up version of the logistics cruisers, with a bit more bite? 8 high slots, 5 weapon hardpoints. Remote Armor/shield/cap/tracking/sensor bonii. Improved resists. There, that's one side of the coin. (Don't ask me about the "fighty" version, I don't have a clue, but I don't think "HABS" is a good idea, fights are over quick enough as it is, and if any more range is added we'll need CCP to implement code to allow fighting across different nodes.)
Tenchu Migoto	Posted - 2006.04.30 22:59:00 - [30] Originally by: Cinnander Couldn't find a role for them? How about a scaled up version of the logistics cruisers, with a bit more bite? 8 high slots, 5 weapon hardpoints. Remote Armor/shield/cap/tracking/sensor bonii. Improved resists. There, that's one side of the coin. (Don't ask me about the "fighty" version, I don't have a clue, but I don't think "HABS" is a good idea, fights are over quick enough as it is, and if any more range is added we'll need CCP to implement code to allow fighting across different nodes.) Well, that's just it, I believe they were sort of aiming for a bigger version of the Command Ships... something that can run Warfare modules and by being on the battlefield, other ships inherently get bonuses... "Flagships" was the name that was being toyed around with way back when, if I'm not mistaken...
Lienzo	Posted - 2006.04.30 23:09:00 - [31] They're like t2 ammo. Once it's in, it's generally useless to try and use anything else. Assault Missile Launcher Improvement
Hydrian Alante	Posted - 2006.04.30 23:35:00 - [32] Actually there wasn¦t any announcement for the Tech II BS. Not for Red Moon Rising and not for Kali. Pre Red Moon Rising they were on the drawingboard but that¦s all. The drawingboard is no official announcement. I hope that there will never be Tech II BS. But who wants a tech II BS if the third tier of BS are coming out? Who needs a pimped Megathron or a upgraded Raven if you can get a completly new ship with a new layout, other oni and so on to play with. I think Tier III BS are much cooler than Tech II ones. And Ti anna: If you want a really strong BS, go out for the faction ones.
Kelgen Thann	Posted - 2006.04.30 23:37:00 - [33] Quote: too many people with no brains cried so ccp for some reason thought its best not to release them The other reason they scrapped their ideas was because they wanted to explore specilized ships, like BS sized Recon ships, anti-capital ship Battleships etc. I don't have the link, but I read a post that they wanted to explore making T2 Battleships something significantly different than a Cerrebrus to a Caracle or a Thorax to a Demios.
Ti anna	Posted - 2006.05.01 03:15:00 - [34] Hydrian, yes there was. There was also a large thread just prior to the release of RMR that also explored the Tech 2 BS issue. It this thread, again Tech 2 Battleships were SPECIFICALLY addressed, including when they would be introduced to the game. I will keedp trying, and hopefully the new search function will not keep timing out forever when I search for it.
Ti anna	Posted - 2006.05.01 03:21:00 - [35] I am going to say this once and once only. For all you nay-sayers out there, has the HAC made it so that the only cruisers ever flown are HAC's? Have Assault Frigates made it so that nothing else except assault frigates are flown for frigate sized ships? I rest my case, AF's, HAC's and even BC Command ships did not make all their predecessors obsolete, Neither will Tech 2 Battleships. I am also exploring getting the Navy version of a Mega, as well as faction versions. This does not preclude my desire for a tech 2 version of my favorite ship.
Huzza Amaa	Posted - 2006.05.01 03:57:00 - [36] I think if t2 bships are released they will suffer the same problems as most t2 ships (i.e. they are difficult to build and thus are very expensive). Picture this: the lucky player Joe Blogs recieves a blueprint for a newly-released tech 2 bs out of the lottery. He realizes he has stumbled apon a gold mine because the ships are brand new and not many blueprints will be seeded. He begins producing his tech 2 bships and selling them on the market. Those who can afford these ships jump at the chance to buy all the ships Joe Blogs can produce and resell them for twice the price. Within 3 months there are countless posts on the forums asking why the price is so high. And we could do without those. I don't think it would be possible to stop tech 2 BSes from becoming bigger, pricier HACs-marketv wise. They would be too overpriced to compete against normal BSes and such. Even now, I think 30 Omens could kill 1 Zealot-and the 30 Omens are cheaper.
The Praetor	Posted - 2006.05.01 04:03:00 - [37] I think that Tech 1 Battleships have proven to be very robust. I would definately like to see more variety in Battleships available, and I think using the faction/navy issue/Tier 3 Battleship route is a much better way to do it rather than T2. As for the comment about a T2 Battleship not replacing T1, I think that's incorrect. Yes people do fly T1 frigates and cruisers, but I generally only fly them when I am broke. T2 Battleships would be the "I win" button, there is really no other thing they could be if they followed the AF/HAC route. I think the devs should simply add a larger array of T1 and faction battleships. Lots of firepower is great, but you have to draw the line at the Galactic Annihilation Ship.
eLLioTT wave	Posted - 2006.05.01 05:24:00 - [38] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing Edited by: HippoKing on 30/04/2006 10:16:12 they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. \o/
Phaese	Posted - 2006.05.01 05:59:00 - [39] The typical Assault Frigate completely spanks the typical t1 frigate. They are countered by webs, nos, and sheer damage from other and bigger ship types. The typical Heavy Assault Cruiser wrecks the typical t1 cruiser. They are countered by nos and sheer damage from other and bigger ship types. Super-Heavy Assault Battleships would totally spank all but specific-setup t1 battleships. The only things to bring them in line would be blobbing and insane costs. Overall I think it's a stupid idea, a fleet of "SHABSs" would be, without doubt, the 'I win' button. The best route for t2 BSs to take, it seems to me, are to be made "escorts"; give them the jump drive and some fuel bonuses, maybe give them cyno bonuses, I dunno... It's a start.
Waragha	Posted - 2006.05.01 06:02:00 - [40] If all you're playing for is one single ship you really should quit... Can i have your stuff?
Waragha	Posted - 2006.05.01 06:09:00 - [41] Originally by: Ti anna I am going to say this once and once only. For all you nay-sayers out there, has the HAC made it so that the only cruisers ever flown are HAC's? Have Assault Frigates made it so that nothing else except assault frigates are flown for frigate sized ships? I rest my case, AF's, HAC's and even BC Command ships did not make all their predecessors obsolete, Neither will Tech 2 Battleships. I am also exploring getting the Navy version of a Mega, as well as faction versions. This does not preclude my desire for a tech 2 version of my favorite ship. Nobody would fly cruisers if HACS where normally priced. AFs lack a role, but generally everyone flies inties or af (in pvp atleast, which is what these should be balanced by). The command ships are really really really great, the reason they arent flown that much is that only 1% of the EVE population can fly them. I would HATE for CCP to introduce new poorly designed stuff so that a minority of players that just NEED new stuffzomg can buy more toys. I suggest that if you really want it think out some good and balanced roles and put it on the ideas forum ;)
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.05.01 11:53:00 - [42] Originally by: Ti anna I am going to say this once and once only. For all you nay-sayers out there, has the HAC made it so that the only cruisers ever flown are HAC's? Have Assault Frigates made it so that nothing else except assault frigates are flown for frigate sized ships? Honestly, bad example for one simple reason. There are no general purpose ships that outclass battle ships. On the otherhand there are two ship classes that outlcass cruisers, BCs and BSs. A tech 2 HABS would indeed become the wtf solo pwnmobile for the simple reason that it does not have the same vulnerability to NOS that the the HACs or even Field Commands have. Atm one of the biggest problem with this game is that it is there is a very VERY steep climb for new players untill they can become competative. What we absolutaly don't need is ships introduced that can completely dominate a number of BSs. Battleships are already powerfull enough in many cases, taking them on with a limited number of smaller ships takes some fancy tactics and some good piloting(or ECM cheese). Boosting the raw power of the tech 2 BS is imo not the best idea, granted they should of course see a small number of stat increases. As many have said they need some sort of logistic or group oriented secondary bonusses, resists also must not be anywhere near HAC level.
neraline raikon	Posted - 2006.05.01 11:58:00 - [43] aye but she is right about one thing .. nowadays bs-s are too fragile. i just jump with joy everytime there's a large fleet battle .. when i know that sheer numbers and the brilliance of just the fleet comanders will make any difference instead of experience and skill of all the pilots. primary secundary F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 primary secundary etc etc etc. oh the joy. oh it's over? oh .. ok .. well i guess it's back to countless hours of joyfull camping again. reaaly cheerfull isn't it?
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.01 12:09:00 - [44] Originally by: Sarmaul give them: interceptor t2 resists no extra damage mods built-in jump-drive skills to increase the range and reduce the fuel needed for jump drives and I'll be happy. they have a proper role (mobile strike force that can jump in from anywhere), no omfg damage and no omfg resistances. This is more or less exactly what the devs have hinted at, with the possibility of having secondary skills related to warfare modules. Jump Drive range would be something like titan or mothership ranged (i.e. SHORT). The only extra form of damage is maybe an extra hardpoint or module slot. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.05.01 12:11:00 - [45] Fleets fights are always going to be like that as assisting is the fastest and safest way to dispatch an enemy fleet. If you boost BS hp then the small scale pvp is going to suffer.
Lord Wimbishi	Posted - 2006.05.01 12:39:00 - [46] quite opposite. 4-5 frigs can kill a battleship 60% of the time. that is 200mil vs hmm 5 mil at most in cost. Battleship pilots fear frigates and they shouldn't. all because the can get trapped indefinantly most of the time with little to no chance to kill the frigate by normal means. It is an old rant and to many nubs cried wolf when each tried to one vs one a battleship pilot just to get owned a second later and call it unfair. hmm 100mil vs 100k in price normally would mean yes that ship has every right to destroy a puny threat not close to its base cost. So now then they nerfed just about everything on a battleship so the frigate cry babies can finally feel good about themselves. This comes from a age where a few battleships could dominate a system unlike now days where everyone can easily pilot a BS leaving it to skill now to take on another. Do you think a heavy cruiser squadron in real life would approach or even think about engaging a full class battleship head on? or even a few frigate squadrons on the seas? Not bloody likely. if t2 battleships come out it will be a skill and tactics thing to bring them down; as it should be with same size class vs same size class. Yeah they would be able to tank anything smaller then it but I surely doubt many would be flying around freely because they will get scrambled and then raped like any other ship. Just might take a little time to do so. Those that have little to no understanding about real warfare out in 0.0 need to shut up.
Ti anna	Posted - 2006.05.01 13:25:00 - [47] I still don't see any official comment on if they will ever be introduced. If and when is foremost in my mind.
Liisa	Posted - 2006.05.01 13:44:00 - [48] Originally by: Lord Wimbishi Do you think a heavy cruiser squadron in real life would approach or even think about engaging a full class battleship head on? or even a few frigate squadrons on the seas? Not bloody likely. Why do you think the battlehship class of ship has been pretty much abandoned these days? Because they can be sunk by the new long range, armour piercing anti-ship missiles carried by ships as small as costal fast attack craft, and because their role has been reduced to shore bombardment. The newer generations of anti-ship missiles simply outrange their guns. On the other hand: What does naval ship construction have to do with science-fiction spaceship construction? ---------------------------------- I am free \o/ Sadly your sig is also slightly above the required limits of 400 x 120, total size not exceeding 24000 kbs - Cortes
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.05.01 13:52:00 - [49] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing Edited by: HippoKing on 30/04/2006 10:16:12 they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. theres an idea T2 BS have no defense at all but are the EVE equal to Germany's WW2 Railroad Guns or the Paris gun. they arrive at an area, Anchor down really far away and then get targeting from a forward observer.
Caldorous	Posted - 2006.05.01 13:56:00 - [50] I remember that some time ago, some ppl started to whine about the logistic ships because the bs could do the same role, repairing more and being less skill intensitive. Well, it could be nice to have a heavy logistics ships, hardened to survive the rigors of a fleet battle and with nice bonus to large repairers. What do you think? (They are support ships and DO NOT are solo pwnmobiles ) -----------------------------
Fistme	Posted - 2006.05.01 16:10:00 - [51] Edited by: Fistme on 01/05/2006 16:13:08 Say no to tech 2 battleships!
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.05.01 16:15:00 - [52] Originally by: Lord Wimbishi quite opposite. 4-5 frigs can kill a battleship 60% of the time. that is 200mil vs hmm 5 mil at most in cost. Battleship pilots fear frigates and they shouldn't. all because the can get trapped indefinantly most of the time with little to no chance to kill the frigate by normal means. It is an old rant and to many nubs cried wolf when each tried to one vs one a battleship pilot just to get owned a second later and call it unfair. hmm 100mil vs 100k in price normally would mean yes that ship has every right to destroy a puny threat not close to its base cost. So now then they nerfed just about everything on a battleship so the frigate cry babies can finally feel good about themselves. This comes from a age where a few battleships could dominate a system unlike now days where everyone can easily pilot a BS leaving it to skill now to take on another. About that whole "Battleships costs 200m so they should wtf pwn 25 frigs" argument. The game is not simply about how much money you can toss into a battle compared to how much money the other person tossed into the battle. 5 Frigs are played by 5 people against your one. There is a teamwork aspect that they are using that you are ignoring, no single ship should ever be a wtfpwnmobile. You also did not take into account that you could kill several cruisers with your battleship, those 5 frigs would die horribly to those cruisers. Not going to say that the game is as simple as rock paper scisors, however every class of ship has an advantage and a disadvantage. Frigates are smallenough to avoid BS guns, however they have very little deffense against anything smaller. They also have very small amounts of firepower and small amounts of cap allowing you to easily nos them. You are comparng apples to oranges, if you don't want to get spanked by a wolf pack of frigs, bring a few escort ships along with you, problem solved. This is a heavly teamwork oriented MMO thus the people using teamwork should have the advantage, nuf said. What you want is what we had, and did not work. Once you could fly and afford a Battle Ship you flew one, there was little to no reason to fly anything smaller. Cost of such ships did limit the number of of people flying battleships way back when but with inssurance payouts and the massive increase of isk in the market such a change was needed.
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.05.01 16:18:00 - [53] My take on tech 2 battleships.. You have a few problems which have prevented, and will continue to prevent their release. 1. Main one in my opinion is the way research and BPO distrobution works. No matter what the ship does, even if its marginally better than a tech 1 battleship the BPOs will create an extremely bad situation. The bad situation is that someone will have obtained a huge boost to pvp effectiveness out of sheer luck. You don't see the same things happening with HAC and Command Ship BPO owners because they are not the mainstay of battle. Battleships are still the primary tool of war, and no matter how close other smaller tech 2 ships come.. they still can't match a battleship one for one in all stats. Or in other words, there needs to be a fairer way of distributing something so powerful, or else you create something along the lines of Techell's miner II monopoly. 2. Role is the second biggest problem. You can't introduce a HAC version of the battleship because the damage output would be so obscene that fights literally come down to who can field more of them. Currently the case with tech 1 battleships, just less obvious as the performance gap is smaller. Nobody wants to see an oversized logistics ship because they'd be slow to move, slow to run, and slow to lock. It would also create unstoppable amounts of remote rep circlejerking, which stops being a tactical option when everyone is doing it. Mini capital ships is an incredibly stupid idea, because they won't be doing something unique - or even better. What else is there? My serious hope is that tech 2 battleships are all Flagships (gang bonuses) with half tech 2 resists (similar to Field Command Ships). There was an image which somebody photoshopped (completely fake) of a tech 2 Raven called the Albatross.. lost the link but it was a good example of where CCP should go. A very good example at that. In essence you'd have a built in gang bonus, 3% per level lets say (from Flagships skill) which would boost different things, unique to that ship and race automatically. For example: Amarr Arma - laser bonus (cap use, tracking) Apoc - cap bonus (recharge, size) tier 3 - armor bonus (hp, repair) Caldari Scorpion - ew bonus (range, strength) Raven - missile bonus (velocity, hp) tier 3 - shield bonus (hp, boost) Gallente Dominix - drone bonus (hp, velocity) Megathron - blaster bonus (tracking, cap use) tier 3 - erm.. Minmatar Typhoon - stealth bonus (sig size, ab speed) Tempest - ac bonus (falloff, tracking) tier 3 - arty bonus (falloff, tracking) 3. But then you get to the third problem..gang revisions. You don't want a situation where these bonuses work for the entire gang, no matter how big it is. You want it to work for small squads or wings or something so in larger gangs there is an incentive to use more than one, which means more risky fights. But it would take a major expansion like Kali to provide this.. and by then people have already trained up a good deal of skills. 4. Which brings me to the last problem, skills. People are going to get these ships even if they don't have second damage bonuses, just for the resists. Considering all the delays, a lot of people are already reaching the limit of what they can train for a specific ship, and you want these things to be limited for some time at least. A few unreleased skills will help, like Wing Command V (prereq - Squadron Command V) to delay it, and maybe make charisma somewhat useful for combat. Another thing to consider with skills is specialization. You want people to go for one type or at most one race. That can be done with specialization skills at 5. Like for the tech 2 scorp you would have maxed EW and electronics skills. For tech 2 dom, you'd have gallente drone spec V or something. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Ti anna	Posted - 2006.05.01 18:56:00 - [54] Originally by: Fistme Edited by: Fistme on 01/05/2006 16:13:08 Say no to tech 2 battleships! Nice, no reasoning, no justification, just pure spam. Nice name by the way... Please can we have an official stance on this issue? Will they or won't they be introduced, and if they will, can we get an estimate of approximately when?
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.05.01 19:18:00 - [55] If CCP really does plan on eventually getting to Tech 5, there will have to be tech 2 BSes. Of course, with Capital ships, they might have trumped themselves. I can't imagine a Tech 2 Titan being reasonable. Sov 2.1 T2 BS
Lord Slater	Posted - 2006.05.01 19:33:00 - [56] I think it would be nice to have tech 2 battleships but i understand ccp's dilema. This is the dilema, Every ship has a role is not overpowered [in theory] and yet can be overpowering in the right cercomstances. Now consider adding a Tech 2 equivelent battleship this is what you should consider. 1. It should not be overpowering [compared to itsequivelent tech 2 equivelent say against a certain number of tech 2 equiped Hacs] 2. Should be overpowering against Tech 2 equivelents in the right cercomstances [for example having a better module set up and used by someone who knows how to use it to its best]. 3. Should have a logical place in eve For example Covert ops ships are light fast ships so are made scouts]. Now design a ship thats VERY powerfull yet can be beaten by virtually any ship class, And has a logical role in eve that Preferably hasnot been filed yet. And be honest. Its not that easy the last one is hardest for me [Its in bold]. From what ive read ccp has the same dificulty i encourage people to post ideas tho to help them. YARRR HAHAHA im the happy pirate YARRRR
Vyllana	Posted - 2006.05.01 19:33:00 - [57] Hmm, I think there's a lot of problems with all the anti tech 2 battleship arguments here. For example... saying AFs are outclassed by cruisers and battleships, and HACs are outclassed by battleships, but tech 2 battleships wouldn't be outclassed by anything, isn't true at all. There are, of course, ships that are much larger than battleships and can easily destroy battleships. Carriers, for example, make short work of battleships (unless it's an entire fleet of battleships). Next, tech 2 battleships don't necessarily have to do any more damage than tech 1 battleships. In fleet battles, one of the crappy things about flying a battleship is if you get called primary, you pretty much get instantly destroyed. More damage dealing certainly is not needed in cases such as these. What wouldn't hurt however, is battleships with increased tanking capability, that could sustain being hit by a fleet of other battleships for a while, instead of being instantly destroyed. Thus, new tech 2 "heavy assault" battleships could focus on improved tanking instead of damage. To this end, they could get extra bonuses to shield and/or armor resists, to shield and/or armor hp, shield boosting and/or armor repairing. This would make them superior combat ships to normal battleships, able to take much more of a beating and thus be worth the high pricetag for some PvPers, but would not be any more offensively powerful than current battleships. For example, tech 2 raven: battleship skill: 5% bonus to cruise/siege RoF per lvl, 5% bonus to shield resists per lvl tech 2 battleship skill: 10% bonus to shield hp per lvl, 10% (or 5% if 10% is too much) reduced cap use of shield boosters per lvl tech 2 apoc: battleship skill: 10% bonus to large energy turret cap use per lvl, 5% bonus to capacitor per lvl tech 2 battleship skill: 10% bonus to armor hp per lvl, 5% bonus to armor resists per lvl etc, with similar extra bonuses for other race ships. They could also have higher base resists like HACs and increased base shield/armor hp. Maybe 1 more low or med slot each as well, but not extra turret or launcher hardpoints. These ships would be a lot better at tanking than their tech 1 counterparts, but they wouldn't be better for anything else besides that. The reason I'm suggesting something like this is I think there really should be combat oriented ships that you can take into a fleet battle that won't be destroyed the instant the enemy decides that you're the next target. Hopefully, these ships would fill that role, and be able to continue fighting for a reasonable amount of time before being destroyed or forced to warp away.
Moonlife	Posted - 2006.05.01 20:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Sarmaul give them: interceptor t2 resists no extra damage mods built-in jump-drive skills to increase the range and reduce the fuel needed for jump drives and I'll be happy. they have a proper role (mobile strike force that can jump in from anywhere), no omfg damage and no omfg resistances. This is more or less exactly what the devs have hinted at, with the possibility of having secondary skills related to warfare modules. Jump Drive range would be something like titan or mothership ranged (i.e. SHORT). The only extra form of damage is maybe an extra hardpoint or module slot. I think the idea is just plain stupid. Then again I think the whole cynosural field thing is stupid.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.05.01 23:05:00 - [59] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 01/05/2006 23:10:23 Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Sarmaul give them: interceptor t2 resists no extra damage mods built-in jump-drive skills to increase the range and reduce the fuel needed for jump drives and I'll be happy. they have a proper role (mobile strike force that can jump in from anywhere), no omfg damage and no omfg resistances. This is more or less exactly what the devs have hinted at, with the possibility of having secondary skills related to warfare modules. Jump Drive range would be something like titan or mothership ranged (i.e. SHORT). The only extra form of damage is maybe an extra hardpoint or module slot. If they had a JD capable Typhoon... I'd cream soda. Edit : After reading DC's post... I'd pretty much have to agree with every point he made. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Seleene	Posted - 2006.05.03 10:25:00 - [60] The big carrot for T2 battleships will be a short range jump drive. The rest is secondary. - History of the MC movie!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.03 10:31:00 - [61] Originally by: Seleene The big carrot for T2 battleships will be a short range jump drive. The rest is secondary. No... The BIGGEST carrot will be how good-looking the Gallente T2 Megathron will be. Hopefully it'll be CreoDron Pale-Green and Green-gray (Eos colours). Roden Shipyards colours will be swell, too, but I think I'll have to assassinate their ship designers and steal their missile hardpoint BPOs. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.03 10:32:00 - [62] Originally by: Sarmaul give them: interceptor t2 resists no extra damage mods built-in jump-drive skills to increase the range and reduce the fuel needed for jump drives and I'll be happy. they have a proper role (mobile strike force that can jump in from anywhere), no omfg damage and no omfg resistances. FFS sarm give me an example how a t2 BS is gona do OMG dmg ill give u a example why its perfectly fine! assume t2 megathron bonous: 5% tracking 5% dmg with bs skill :: 5% dmg 7.5% MWD 10% more PG :: 10% more CPU :: 1 more mid slot t1 mega setup: ions t2 nos mwd:20km:injecter:web 2dmg mods: 3 energized adaptives: 1 large, 1 med t2 mega setup: still requires ions t2 mwd: 20km:20km:injecter:webber 2x exp: 1large 1 med: 2 dmg mods: 1x energized adaptive! t1 vs t2:: t2 does TWENTY FIVE PERCENT more damage, not 34038257% more. t2 has higher exp,kin resistance, same thermal, and LOWER EM: it tanks better but not a uber amount better! people have in mind a t1 frig vs t2 frig or t1 crusier vs a hac but its not the same with BS they already got plenty of slots thus tank and gank at the same time well -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Seleene	Posted - 2006.05.03 10:32:00 - [63] Damn... okay, Ith... you might have a point there... - History of the MC movie!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.03 10:44:00 - [64] Edited by: Ithildin on 03/05/2006 10:45:08 Gronsak, the ships describe by you does: 1. ...not have a very good resistance plating setup. (Drop one of the EXP hardeners and add a Damage Control or an EANII) 2. ...approximatly (no true calculation here, just a hunch. Might be more) 70% more damage than T1 due to the extra dmg mods 3. ...scramble a lot better 4. ...not take into account that it could probably fit 2x Large instead of 1x Large and 1x Medium repairers So: It does a lot more damage, tanks a lot better, and also has a lot better chance of making people stick around through scramblers inspite of WCS. So, in effect, you have a big f***** HAC, but with no larger ship to pwn it. The key will be to keep the T2 damage at approximatly the same level as currently T1 are and then, possibly, add some more tanking bonuses. We don't need: 1. More damage (shorter fights) 2. More resistance or boosting (risk of infinitely long fights) What we need is ships with specialized purpose, tactical advantages, and longer survivability (survivability translates DIRECTLY into more hit points, and nothing else) P.S. How very naughty of you to edit your post away when people are responding to it. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Leandro Salazar	Posted - 2006.05.03 11:36:00 - [65] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 03/05/2006 11:37:05 The big issue I see with high resistance tech2 BBs is that they cannot be countered one for one by easily attainable T1 ships. AFs can be countered by T1 cruisers, HACs can be countered by T1 Battleships. But what would be there to counter HABs? Dreads and carriers are pretty much like T2 ships themselves where skill reqs are concerned. So a high resist tech2 BB would indeed end up as a solopwnmobile in small scale combat, with the vast majority of newish players unable to do anything about it without overwhelming numbers. And that is a big no imho. I do see the problem in fleet combat, but there is more to EVE than just fleets. A possible solution I can see would be to make a resitant T2 BB that can only mount long range turrets, so it could serve as a hard fleet ship but would be relatively useless in the usually close combat of small scale engagements. But I guess that isn't really a possibility, if only because we all would drown in the tears that the countless caldari missile ****s would cry because they get no candy... ___________________________________ Evacuate? In our moment of triumph?*
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.05.03 11:41:00 - [66] Originally by: Copine Callmeknau At the current T2 prices (vagas, Deimos etc.) you can assume the price of a T2 raven or T2 Tempest to be around 6-7.5 billion ISK. Please bring these ships into game, so that we may zerg them up and laugh Err...no. Taking extreme prices: Stabber=4mil Vaga=200mil =50x multiplier. Tempest = 95mil T2 Minmatar BS = 4.75bil I know your entire post is to make a point, but there's exaggerating, and then there's what you just did. Testy's Eve Blog!
Boonaki	Posted - 2006.05.03 11:41:00 - [67] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 03/05/2006 11:37:05 The big issue I see with high resistance tech2 BBs is that they cannot be countered one for one by easily attainable T1 ships. Quote: They can be countered by a carrier, it's a T1 ship. Fear the Ibis of doom!
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.03 11:41:00 - [68] Originally by: Ithildin Edited by: Ithildin on 03/05/2006 10:45:08 Gronsak, the ships describe by you does: 1. ...not have a very good resistance plating setup. (Drop one of the EXP hardeners and add a Damage Control or an EANII) 2. ...approximatly (no true calculation here, just a hunch. Might be more) 70% more damage than T1 due to the extra dmg mods 3. ...scramble a lot better 4. ...not take into account that it could probably fit 2x Large instead of 1x Large and 1x Medium repairers So: It does a lot more damage, tanks a lot better, and also has a lot better chance of making people stick around through scramblers inspite of WCS. So, in effect, you have a big f***** HAC, but with no larger ship to pwn it. The key will be to keep the T2 damage at approximatly the same level as currently T1 are and then, possibly, add some more tanking bonuses. We don't need: 1. More damage (shorter fights) 2. More resistance or boosting (risk of infinitely long fights) What we need is ships with specialized purpose, tactical advantages, and longer survivability (survivability translates DIRECTLY into more hit points, and nothing else) P.S. How very naughty of you to edit your post away when people are responding to it. it would tank better for sure! but thats got to be a good thing, atm you can SINGLE handedly gank a BS in under 30sec or 75sec if its tanked! it will not do anyhting close to 70% more damage, how did u come by this figure? a 5% more dmg bonous and 1 more dmg mod? 3rd one adds 10% roughly iirc making it less than 38% more damage! also i had edited it before u replyed as u can see by the time stamp -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.03 11:45:00 - [69] Originally by: Boonaki Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 03/05/2006 11:37:05 The big issue I see with high resistance tech2 BBs is that they cannot be countered one for one by easily attainable T1 ships. Quote: They can be countered by a carrier, it's a T1 ship. they can be countered by a T1 BS: they will be weak to NOS:ECM:DAMPS:TRACKING DESRUPTERS: on top of that a single blackbird will jam them constantly, a single malus frig will put their lock range down under 7km. so its not gona take more than 2 people to kill one of these things -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Shayla Sh'inlux	Posted - 2006.05.03 11:47:00 - [70] As long as I get the BPO for the t2 Raven or t2 Mega I agree with anything
Lord Wimbishi	Posted - 2006.05.03 12:56:00 - [71] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: Copine Callmeknau At the current T2 prices (vagas, Deimos etc.) you can assume the price of a T2 raven or T2 Tempest to be around 6-7.5 billion ISK. Please bring these ships into game, so that we may zerg them up and laugh Err...no. Taking extreme prices: Stabber=4mil Vaga=200mil =50x multiplier. Tempest = 95mil T2 Minmatar BS = 4.75bil I know your entire post is to make a point, but there's exaggerating, and then there's what you just did. You forget the current prices are very exagerated. try around 80mil about what they are worth and will no doubt go down to again in a few months. Same as the commandships which are super hacs in their own right. If they come out yeah their intial cost will be high due to greedy monopolists but it will drop quickly in a month or two. Stable price would probably be between 400mil to a bil in estimates. Command ships are going as low as a 100mil to 125mil for the tier 2 classes, just got to look to find em. It is supply and demand as anything market wise. In my opinion there should be some sense that the best thing to oppose a ship class is another ship of the same class till proper tactics are worked out to bring the beasts down. Take real life tanks for example. At first they seemed awesome and unstoppable when they first was imployed but as time moved on tactics was improved to take them out with 'lesser' forces. Even to this day the best effecitive unit to take out a tank is another tank on the field of battle and it is the main unit in most armies to provide combat prowess and power in modern combat.
MrFu	Posted - 2006.05.03 13:36:00 - [72] erm Im confused,are they going to release Tier 2 AND TII BS,or is the OP misspelling the terms? And if its a TII BS I dont want to know what it will cost,probably yet another semi useless ship for teh rich I need a sig
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.03 14:04:00 - [73] Originally by: MrFu erm Im confused,are they going to release Tier 2 AND TII BS,or is the OP misspelling the terms? And if its a TII BS I dont want to know what it will cost,probably yet another semi useless ship for teh rich Tier 3 = new BS, thy are called so cause thy will probably need BS lvl3 to be flown. i.e. Scorpion = Tier 1, needs BS lvl 1 Raven = Tier 2, needs BS lvl 2 Tech2 BS are completly different, and arent announced yet, thy will need BS lvl5 and tons of other fancy skills Summertime - Campingtime!
MrFu	Posted - 2006.05.03 14:21:00 - [74] er yeah I meant tier 3,Im almost asleep Thanks for the input Nafri I need a sig
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.05.03 18:11:00 - [75] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: Copine Callmeknau At the current T2 prices (vagas, Deimos etc.) you can assume the price of a T2 raven or T2 Tempest to be around 6-7.5 billion ISK. Please bring these ships into game, so that we may zerg them up and laugh Err...no. Taking extreme prices: Stabber=4mil Vaga=200mil =50x multiplier. Tempest = 95mil T2 Minmatar BS = 4.75bil I know your entire post is to make a point, but there's exaggerating, and then there's what you just did. Yet Command Ships are going for 200 mil and their tech 1 counterpart is 1/10 that. After the initial wow factor tech 2 BS will be around 1 BN assuming they require enough skills to make them not attractive for the lazy player. Sov 2.1 T2 BS
Lord Slater	Posted - 2006.05.03 18:15:00 - [76] As to what someone posted earlier here i see no reason why ccp cant make a tech 2 titan not that many people will ever fly one but at least its there for the odd alliance or 2 to get one. Status symbole YARRR HAHAHA im the happy pirate YARRRR
SengH	Posted - 2006.05.03 18:17:00 - [77] hmm how about just slapping a jump drive on the BS and just calling it a t2 BS? Dont give it T2 resists, being able to move it along with a dread fleet and bypass gatecamps would be more than enough justification for the added production costs.
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.05.03 18:42:00 - [78] Originally by: SengH hmm how about just slapping a jump drive on the BS and just calling it a t2 BS? Dont give it T2 resists, being able to move it along with a dread fleet and bypass gatecamps would be more than enough justification for the added production costs. The link in my sig that points to my t2 geddon topic indicated most people thought the Jump Drive ability was stupid. Sov 2.1 T2 BS
Andreask14	Posted - 2006.05.03 18:55:00 - [79] Tech 2 BS should be in for the sake of completing the tech 2 tech-tree. Of course they would not have a jumpdrive, only capital ships have these. It would be neat of they would become a hybrid of fleet command and logistics ship. Have one bonus for the fighting ability, the second for a logistics ability and a gang-module compatibility bonus on top. Then you stick on the 3 hardeners as with all the t2 ships, and make sure they cost a few billions at the disgression of the producers to boot. Voila, awesome FC-Ship for ppl that wasted the last 3 years in EvE and have too much money now. Nothing wrong with that i say. ________________________________________________ Just a quick reminder that "Local" and "Instas" will always be what they are.
SengH	Posted - 2006.05.03 18:57:00 - [80] Edited by: SengH on 03/05/2006 18:58:44 Edited by: SengH on 03/05/2006 18:57:56 Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: SengH hmm how about just slapping a jump drive on the BS and just calling it a t2 BS? Dont give it T2 resists, being able to move it along with a dread fleet and bypass gatecamps would be more than enough justification for the added production costs. The link in my sig that points to my t2 geddon topic indicated most people thought the Jump Drive ability was stupid. Except when you can just stop caring about whether the 0.0 entrance you want to get through is camped and you can just jump straight there.... or that you can move your whole fleet about with your dreads rather than having to do a leapfrog. T2 logistics ships arent liked much by people either but their there and have their uses. Thats the most resonable use for a t2 ship. Edit: Gang modules mean you just sit in a safe and listen in on TS. At no point should you be flying a gang mod ship anywhere NEAR the fight. If your jumping in, you align and stay on the battlefield as long as possible. When your primaried you gtfo to a safe and keep the mods running.
goodby4u	Posted - 2006.05.03 19:19:00 - [81] Edited by: goodby4u on 03/05/2006 19:20:52 I dont have anything against t2 battleships,and for you that say it would be much more powerfull like a t2 cruiser vs a normal cruiser i have something to say. The main reason why HACs are so effective is not infact their upgrades,but the pilots...Most pilots with a HAC will have the experience to know what works,plus the skills to use it is much harder to obtain then a normal cruiser. Therefore with those skills alone they provail. But,t2 battleships would be useless in most cases because alot of people the t2 battleships would fight would,infact,have those skills themselves,although the t2 battleship will have an edge... But in short,im all for the t2 battleships in that they arent so much more powerfull that they could kill titans and such alone. Thank you.
SengH	Posted - 2006.05.03 19:22:00 - [82] Originally by: goodby4u Edited by: goodby4u on 03/05/2006 19:20:52 I dont have anything against t2 battleships,and for you that say it would be much more powerfull like a t2 cruiser vs a normal cruiser i have something to say. The main reason why HACs are so effective is not infact their upgrades,but the pilots...Most pilots with a HAC will have the experience to know what works,plus the skills to use it is much harder to obtain then a normal cruiser. Therefore with those skills alone they provail. But,t2 battleships would be useless in most cases because alot of people the t2 battleships would fight would,infact,have those skills themselves,although the t2 battleship will have an edge... But in short,im all for the t2 battleships in that they arent so much more powerfull that they could kill titans and such alone. Thank you. uh no.... the resists are a major factor in their power. just compare them to T1 resists.
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.05.03 19:51:00 - [83] Originally by: Gronsak it will not do anyhting close to 70% more damage, how did u come by this figure? a 5% more dmg bonous and 1 more dmg mod? 3rd one adds 10% roughly iirc making it less than 38% more damage! If they have hac level resists then you will not need to use as many hardeners opening up low slots for more damage mods. Take a megathron that uses 1 damage mod atm. Increase resist to open up a couple more lows along with the increased cpu and grid the ship could probably have you will be allowed to mount larger weapons w/o fitting modules opening up more low slots for damage mods. Stack this with a 5% damage bonuss and you are easily looking at a 50%+ damage increase. That is what I think he was getting at.
S'Jet	Posted - 2006.05.03 21:55:00 - [84] Ship designing is not a samll job. You have to have a role for it first. You have to take into account that we are still missing one more tech 2 cruiser. if i remember correctly it call the patrol cruiser. All am trying to say here is we have to be patient if we went the best stuff. *"Here's everything I know about war: Somebody wins, somebody loses, and nothing is ever the same again."*
SengH	Posted - 2006.05.03 22:30:00 - [85] Originally by: S'Jet Ship designing is not a samll job. You have to have a role for it first. You have to take into account that we are still missing one more tech 2 cruiser. if i remember correctly it call the patrol cruiser. All am trying to say here is we have to be patient if we went the best stuff. actually were missing the point defense cruiser... check the old dev blogs. It was promised but never showed up.
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.05.03 23:24:00 - [86] what would a tech 2 BS offer that tech 1 doesnt? also a risk of T2 being totally overpowered against T1 ships.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.03 23:35:00 - [87] Originally by: Lienzo They're like t2 ammo. Once it's in, it's generally useless to try and use anything else. So get with *****ing about T2 amo allready "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
B0rn2KiLL	Posted - 2006.05.04 01:20:00 - [88] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing Edited by: HippoKing on 30/04/2006 10:16:12 they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. omfg- deathray FTW! /signed --- new sig, Hijack it and ill eat u. *Imaran hands B0rn2KiLL a fork - Come get some!11
Morrigan Starlover	Posted - 2006.05.04 01:33:00 - [89] Imagine a tech 2 dominix. Higher resists, even more drone upgrades, more cap/grid/cpu. Scary.
Faith Rose	Posted - 2006.05.04 03:44:00 - [90] ((OOC) Good Bad what ever t2 battleships are a reward to die hard players with a lot of SP's. The skill requirements should be treated as a capital ship should be.)) Tech2 battleships i do need to remind a lot of you would be a strong deturrent for dreads or have a lot of you forgotten about them thus far??? =============================================== It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
Troubadour	Posted - 2006.05.04 05:13:00 - [91] Have you guys ever thought that there are MORE T2 ships then HACs? they could be t2 EW(recon) or logistic BSes for all you guys know. Even if they were sort of a super heavy assault ship, they would probably more oriented towards tanking as CCP is not stupid enough to put a ship in the size and agility of the BS that could put out like 100-200% more dmg then a current t2 fitted BS with same fitting.
Antwon Stylez	Posted - 2006.05.04 05:19:00 - [92] Originally by: Copine Callmeknau At the current T2 prices (vagas, Deimos etc.) you can assume the price of a T2 raven or T2 Tempest to be around 6-7.5 billion ISK. Please bring these ships into game, so that we may zerg them up and laugh if a t2 Battleship was 6-7 billion isk, i honestly dont think anybody would buy them (especially if the uberpwnzor1337zorness from Gronsak is released) ^^^^ like he says , hed be able to kill a t2 BS in a minute... thats an easy 6 billion lost with no insurance. i know the price is irrelivent to the topic of the thread so ill stop talkin now
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.05.04 05:40:00 - [93] T2 Bs will only be that expensive if everyone on their Slave could fly it within a year. ~Shadowlord Don't miss your chance to buy Sobe
Lucian Alucard	Posted - 2006.05.04 07:09:00 - [94] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: HippoKing Edited by: HippoKing on 30/04/2006 10:16:12 they weren't released because the devs couldn't find a role which they were happy with them in. Here is a thought. Maybe give them the role of battlefield artilleries. Need 5 T2 BSes in gang to merge so one powerful weapon can be fired. Our powers combined form Captain Planet? Them as big hacs is good because Dreads easily annihilate BS in fights and I have seen carriers insta pop bs so pls do put these in, people are freaked out by them but they don't seem to realise that when released they would cost as much if not more then a DREAD with the current T2 market! Sig file must be no larger than 24000 bytes. Mail [email protected] for info - Cathath
NoDachi Q	Posted - 2006.05.04 09:16:00 - [95] Edited by: NoDachi Q on 04/05/2006 09:16:26 How about making the t2 BS unique in their own race-oriented way? Like... Annihilation Flagship (Ammar T2 Battleship- armageddon chasis) 4/3/7 3 turrets Able to equip siege mod (or new, smaller version). -A mini dread that can target instalations, but not a solo pwn machine without support/not in siege mode. Not as effective in anti-pos as a dread but more menuverable. Think "get that POS of my lawn!" Pheonix Flagship (Caldari T2 Battleship, Scorpion chassis) 5/7/2 (3 missle, 2 turret) Can equip Interdictor Sphere Launcher Bonus to command mods -A true flagship, the center of attention for a fleet and a bastard of a camper/gank toy. Little concerned on the cost/skills-to-fit being lower than the others... Tsunami Flagship (Mimitar T2 Battleship, Tempest Chasis) 7/4/4 (3 missle, 3 turret) Can use jump drive Can use Covert Ops Cloak -Weekest defensivly of the Flagships, the Tsunami is more of a deep penetration raider and leader of a wolfpack of covert ops and recon cruisers than a stand-up fighter. Conquestor Flagship, (T2 Galliente Battleship, Dominix Chasis) 5/5/5 (2 turrets 1 missle) Bonus to fighter space taken up (so it can deploy 5 fighters max) -Im kinda stumped on this one frankly. If not fighters, perhaps an ability to fit drone control units instead? Give it a bonus for non-combat drones (ewar/logistics)? lots of flexibility with the drone angle. The common thread in these designs is that THEY CANNOT WORK ALONE!!! They are not solo pwn mobiles, but have a niche they fill in various situations where a normal BB might not be able to compete. These are just rough suggestions, so they are not perfect.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 09:22:00 - [96] Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Originally by: Gronsak it will not do anyhting close to 70% more damage, how did u come by this figure? a 5% more dmg bonous and 1 more dmg mod? 3rd one adds 10% roughly iirc making it less than 38% more damage! If they have hac level resists then you will not need to use as many hardeners opening up low slots for more damage mods. Take a megathron that uses 1 damage mod atm. Increase resist to open up a couple more lows along with the increased cpu and grid the ship could probably have you will be allowed to mount larger weapons w/o fitting modules opening up more low slots for damage mods. Stack this with a 5% damage bonuss and you are easily looking at a 50%+ damage increase. That is what I think he was getting at. errr no. look at a megathron with 2 dmg mods [close range] or 3 dmg mods [sniper] the close range setup you can probably add 1 moer dmg mod giving u aobut 10% more DPS. the sniper if you wish you could add a 4th giving you 2%more DPS add taht to the 25% dmg bonous and it becomes less than 33% for close range, and about 27% for sniper. the only thing it would do better is tank, it could tank a LOT better but at the moment with ships dieing in seconds is that such a bad thing? -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Prometheus Wrong	Posted - 2006.05.04 09:51:00 - [97] Originally by: Cinnander Edited by: Cinnander on 30/04/2006 23:02:58 Couldn't find a role for them? How about a scaled up version of the logistics cruisers, with a bit more bite?) This has been suggested before. I'm afraid someone would have to be subjected to extensive torturings were anything of the kind to come into being. Carriers are IT for remote support. I think it's reasonable to assume at least one Field-Command-like ship with 2 damage bonuses and some nifty extra function...which leaves a minimum of 2 other hulls. I'd kinda like to see a mega-weapon type ship with the ability to fit a new class of high-damage, low RoF weapons heavily influenced by sig radius: your "main gun" type ships. Rather than a mount, perhaps have them exist as part of the hull (built around the weapon) with a grid/slot layout for frig weapons as secondaries. Best for use against capital-sized targets, only out-DOTing your standard fleet-setup with heavy painting/webbing support. The Caldari one would be easy: a citadel launcher with a 10x velocity bonus.
PeopleDamager	Posted - 2006.05.04 10:01:00 - [98] Originally by: Sarmaul give them: interceptor t2 resists no extra damage mods built-in jump-drive skills to increase the range and reduce the fuel needed for jump drives and I'll be happy. they have a proper role (mobile strike force that can jump in from anywhere), no omfg damage and no omfg resistances. wow, thats like the best idea i ever heard. just normal t1 bsses but with jump drives /SIGNED!!!!
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 10:20:00 - [99] Edited by: Gronsak on 04/05/2006 10:20:29 Originally by: PeopleDamager Originally by: Sarmaul give them: interceptor t2 resists no extra damage mods built-in jump-drive skills to increase the range and reduce the fuel needed for jump drives and I'll be happy. they have a proper role (mobile strike force that can jump in from anywhere), no omfg damage and no omfg resistances. wow, thats like the best idea i ever heard. just normal t1 bsses but with jump drives /SIGNED!!!! basicly take away the only really decent reason for an allaince to build a titan? which is the ability to jump a non capital pvp fleet insted id get 300 of those t2 BS insted of 1 titan! -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
PeopleDamager	Posted - 2006.05.04 11:20:00 - [100] I think an alliance would still like a titan tho, since it can help jumping through freighters, and smaller ship types. I like the idea. although it was just a suggestion tho. Another idea is ofcource the roles like cruisers have. For each cruiser there is a t2 counterpart. HAC, Logistic, Recon ship. There are going to be 3 tier's of battleships. I suppose the tier1 and the tier2 are going to function more as a support ship, like logostic and recon, and the tier3 more like a hac. But ofcrourse this is just all speculation. I suggest we all stop talking about it, and let CCP do their job, in which they have proven time and time again to be very good at. Personally, I dont think that tech 2 battleships are ever going to be needed in the game. I think the game is more going to a point of 0.0 colonization, rather than having a t2 version of every ship. In the future, more players will go capital. I dont think battleships are too weak, a battleship doesnt really have any counterpart, besides other battleships, which is fine to me. The future does not lie with better ships, but rather more in more created situations where combat appears, so that there is more variety in combat. Final word of me is that we should just stop these discussions, it's so pointless and they look pretty ugly on the forums. It keeps usefull posts from being seen and feedbacked. PD
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.05.04 11:26:00 - [101] Originally by: Gronsak basicly take away the only really decent reason for an allaince to build a titan? which is the ability to jump a non capital pvp fleet insted id get 300 of those t2 BS insted of 1 titan! Yea, because everyone in the alliance is going to have the skills to fly the tech 2 BS Anyhoo, I don't like the idea of the jumpdrive anyway. As has been stated so many times in this thread, just give them built in gang bonusses with a mild resistance increase and overall stat increase.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 11:40:00 - [102] Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe Originally by: Gronsak basicly take away the only really decent reason for an allaince to build a titan? which is the ability to jump a non capital pvp fleet insted id get 300 of those t2 BS insted of 1 titan! Yea, because everyone in the alliance is going to have the skills to fly the tech 2 BS Anyhoo, I don't like the idea of the jumpdrive anyway. As has been stated so many times in this thread, just give them built in gang bonusses with a mild resistance increase and overall stat increase. within a year most of the pvp alliances members will be 35+mil sp so it wount be uncommon! -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Ti anna	Posted - 2006.05.04 12:02:00 - [103] Still nothing :( Can we please have an official response, will they or won't they? I see no problem at all making their resistances as HAC's resists and (if you think this will make them overpowered) reducing their turret/missile hardpoints by one. Thus less damage, but more durability. I see the major problem with EVE right now in that ships are not nearly as hearty as they should be. Fights are way too short, and ganksquads just amplify this inequity.
Jerick Ludhowe	Posted - 2006.05.04 12:21:00 - [104] Originally by: Gronsak within a year most of the pvp alliances members will be 35+mil sp so it wount be uncommon! Well if that is the case then I can only agree with you more, tech 2 battleships should not get jump drives.
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2006.05.04 12:32:00 - [105] tanking is fubared this is the reason why we wont see tech 2 BS for quite a long time and without changes to tanking "HABS" just aint possible Greetings Grim
Leandro Salazar	Posted - 2006.05.04 13:29:00 - [106] Originally by: Ti anna Still nothing :( Can we please have an official response, will they or won't they? I see no problem at all making their resistances as HAC's resists and (if you think this will make them overpowered) reducing their turret/missile hardpoints by one. Thus less damage, but more durability. I see the major problem with EVE right now in that ships are not nearly as hearty as they should be. Fights are way too short, and ganksquads just amplify this inequity. So fights being to short in general should be fixed by introducing an elite ship type for a few elite players? Meaning that YOU with your 30 mil skillpoints can enjoy unprecedented durability and all the minor players be damned? Yeah, right. Sounds just a tiny bit selfish. This HAB would be very unbalancing in small scale PvP, not to mention mission running (and please get off your collective fleet high horse, there is more to eve than fleet battles) and thus probably won't happen anytime soon. I think the jump drive is a much better idea for T2 BBs, of course most people don't like it as most people want uber rather than balance. Another thing I would not mind seeing on them is EW immunity, but I am probably biased here as I hate the very concept of EW (totally taking away the fun in combat for the receiving side). ___________________________________ Evacuate? In our moment of triumph?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [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.