EVE Search - Tier 2 Battlecruisers: What do the players want?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tier 2 Battlecruisers: What do the players want?

» 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 - 1 post(s)
Player 2 Minmatar Xenobytes Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2006.08.07 04:19:00 - [31] 5% rof 5% dmg for minmatar! And fix bc agility. or, if it overpowered - 5% rof 10% faloff. With 99% penalty for armor repairer and shield booster effectiveness maybe for ALL new bc ;)
Estan Drake	Posted - 2006.08.07 04:23:00 - [32] as long as someone in their design department reads this and thinks "gee a slower, Battlecruiser with a larger sig that is also less survivable does seem kinda lame... they are already almost as slow as a battleship" Then I will be happy. By the way to whoever is pushing the 7 missile slots on the caldari Battlecruiser...god i hope not. Would be way too overpowered. Missiles still outclass turrets in damage and range without the issue of tracking. Theres a reason the night hawk and raven only have 6 slots and still kick butt. Though... make it explode alot faster and I guess it would be somewhat balanced
Kombikiller	Posted - 2006.08.07 04:34:00 - [33] Edited by: Kombikiller on 07/08/2006 04:35:56 I was wondering how much more gank should this T2 battlecruiser have than the T1?? It shouldnt be on par with any battleship punch,.. although as said earlier.. if it goes pop easily then by all means.. However, a tanked ferox with Tech II launchers and fury missiles fully trained, certainly can throw a decent punch.... Does this mean the T2 BC is going to be able to dish out more??
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.08.07 04:42:00 - [34] Edited by: Ghoest on 07/08/2006 04:44:18 Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: Ghoest All I want is for my Ferox to remain unchanged. I am more afraid of the ending up with a worse missile ship than I am looking foward to a new one. ARRRRRRGH!!! NOOOOO!!! beats Ghoest over the head with a baseball bat The Ferox IS NOT A MISSILE SHIP! Why the hell do you need TWO missile ships anyway? The Ferox needs to be changed from 5/5 to 6/3 with a powergrid boost. You dont get it. They are going to make a new ship that over all is worse for missile users than the Ferox - why would I want that? Personally I would be happy if they just made a new better rail boat and left the Ferox as is - maybe give it some nominal bonus like 5% flight time so people wont whine. Wherever you went - here you are.
Nikolai Nuvolari Caldari Gilead's Bullet Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.07 05:08:00 - [35] Originally by: Estan Drake By the way to whoever is pushing the 7 missile slots on the caldari Battlecruiser...god i hope not. Would be way too overpowered. Missiles still outclass turrets in damage and range without the issue of tracking. Theres a reason the night hawk and raven only have 6 slots and still kick butt. Though... make it explode alot faster and I guess it would be somewhat balanced EVERYTHING about that is incorrect. Overpowered? The Minmatar and Amarr ones I designed have EIGHT turrets with RoF bonuses compared to the Caldari BC's SEVEN launchers, and lasers have FAR more damage than missiles. The Nighthawk in NO WAY kicks ass, in fact nearly everybody agrees that it's the worst of all eight command ships. As far as the Raven, its advantage is that it can "tank and gank"...that is, its launchers use no capacitor, and its tank is in the medslots, and hence doesn't interfere with weapons mods in the lowslots. To compare it to these battlecruisers I've designed, the Armageddon and the Raven both have RoF bonuses, and the Armageddon has one more weapon than the Raven. The Armageddon completely outdamages the Raven, much as my Amarr BC would outdamage the Caldari one. Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.07 05:20:00 - [36] Originally by: Ghoest All I want is for my Ferox to remain unchanged. I am more afraid of the ending up with a worse missile ship than I am looking foward to a new one. They just need to give the Drake a 5% rof and 10% missile velocity bonus set. They should probably consider cutting base flight time for missiles by 25%, excluding rockets maybe.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.07 05:25:00 - [37] Originally by: Estan Drake as long as someone in their design department reads this and thinks "gee a slower, Battlecruiser with a larger sig that is also less survivable does seem kinda lame... they are already almost as slow as a battleship" Then I will be happy. By the way to whoever is pushing the 7 missile slots on the caldari Battlecruiser...god i hope not. Would be way too overpowered. Missiles still outclass turrets in damage and range without the issue of tracking. Theres a reason the night hawk and raven only have 6 slots and still kick butt. Though... make it explode alot faster and I guess it would be somewhat balanced Oh yes, fear that Nighthawk. I hear it can break the tanks of most t1 cruisers.
Ujio Noki Puppets on Steroids Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.07 08:05:00 - [38] Edited by: Ujio Noki on 07/08/2006 08:05:19 if the drake has no tanking bonus, it will almost undoubtedly be used as an armour tank and ecm boat (something i do not want)this is of course disregarding the fact that ecm may soon be fixed. so, here's my take on it: slots: 8/6/4 6 launchers, 2 turrets bonuses: 5% rof to missiles 7.5% to shield rep per level this way it would be a little lacking in power, but able to fit damage mods and have a tougher tank than the other tier 2 bc's
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.07 08:21:00 - [39] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Edited by: Nikolai Nuvolari on 07/08/2006 02:55:52 Amarr: 8/3/6 with an 8/0 turret/launcher split 5% medium energy turret RoF 10% reduction in medium energy turret cap use This is the ship the Omen always should have been. Caldari: 7/6/4 with a 2/7 turret/launcher split 5% missile RoF (NOT KINETIC DAMAGE GODDAMNIT!) 10% missile velocity Nice missile ganker, but it really needs those assault missiles to make it work. Gallente: 6/5/6 with a 6/0 turret/launcher split 10% drone damage 5% sensor dampener effectiveness A 100m^3 drone bay should allow the option of heavy drones, and the sensor dampeners allow the ship to get in range. Minmatar: 8/6/4 with an 8/4 turret/launcher split 5% medium projectile turret RoF 5% maximum velocity With a base velocity of 200 m/s and a high shield recharge rate, this ship should make the perfect high-speed, passive tanking autocannon boat. EDIT: Fixed the drone damage bonus I like it, though I have a few concerns, though. Gallente One is that the Myrmiddon dampener bonus in conjunction with a lack of tanking bonus is going to make it go down a lot faster than any other BC in game. However, what can you do? I'm torn whether I'd like to see a dampener bonus or a hybrid bonus as secondary bonus, but I fairly like your suggestion. I would give it at least six mid slots, though, since dampeners really must be coupled by the threes to be anywhere near effective enough. Dampeners aren't like ECM where one module can do all the work needed, they are a lot more slot demanding. Although, should be said that compared to the other BCs suggested, the Myrmiddon deserves a larger drone bay (in class of around 200). 100 is not enough to allow for heavy drones, and a full rack of heavy drones along with un-bonused hybrids, this ship is still going to be on the lower end of the damage scale. Caldari Concerns? None. The seven launchers and the rate of fire bonus is not overpowered. At least not on paper. Amarr I know a pilot who'd love this ship. No concerns what so ever. Minmatar This one has one more total slot than the others. Thought I'd point that out. I also think it's fair to point out that the extra slot is needed since 8 projectiles and just a rate of fire bonus deals too low damage to be really comparable. I know how the setups for this one is going to be like, though, and they're not going to be passive shield tanked - they're going to be shield buffer tanked (the difference is that a buffer tank doesn't care about recharge rate). All of them. Agility IS getting boosted. Hooraah! P.S. The way they look like here, I think I might even see a few more TC pilots than just the two BC pilots we have in these BCs. Dark skies torn apart Heavens open before me I, the light of death
Helmut 314 Amarr J.H.E.N.R Pure.	Posted - 2006.08.07 08:51:00 - [40] The Minmatar one should have 5% tracking or ROF for projectiles and 5% ROF for assault launchers, be armortanked and very fast. 200M base speed, 8 hi (6/6 launcher/turret), 3 mid, 6 low. ________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.07 08:54:00 - [41] Originally by: Helmut 314 The Minmatar one should have 5% tracking or ROF for projectiles and 5% ROF for assault launchers, be armortanked and very fast. 200M base speed, 8 hi (6/6 launcher/turret), 3 mid, 6 low. I think Team Minmatar just put a bounty on your hand with Guiding Hand Social Club Dark skies torn apart Heavens open before me I, the light of death
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:28:00 - [42] I'd _like_ the Caldari BC to have 5% ROF and 5% shield resists, although I think that's actually fairly unlikely. I'd be satisfied with 5% rof 10% missile velocity, 6 or 7 launchers. (And of course, a slot layout at least comparable to the ferox, which IIRC is 7/6/5). And on a vaguely related note, I keep seeing people saying how 'kinetic bonus sucks, but 10% kin 5% others is ok on the kestrel'. Are they perhaps forgetting that kestrels _used_ to have 5% kin, 5% RoF, which gives more or less the same effect.
Matsuo Masato Minmatar Hybrid Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:30:00 - [43] armor tanked(or passive shield) auto cannon speed freak for minmatar bc plzkthx
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:32:00 - [44] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Helmut 314 The Minmatar one should have 5% tracking or ROF for projectiles and 5% ROF for assault launchers, be armortanked and very fast. 200M base speed, 8 hi (6/6 launcher/turret), 3 mid, 6 low. I think Team Minmatar just put a bounty on your hand with Guiding Hand Social Club You still believe it will be a shield tanker I see. Shield tankers suck for solo pvp and I would hate to see the minmatar bc become one. Anyway, it will take ages for ccp to release the stats on these things, so we might as well show some patience. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Eximius Josari Shadow Reavers	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:47:00 - [45] Edited by: Eximius Josari on 07/08/2006 09:47:05 Minnie Tier 2 BC: 8/4/6 (6 turrets, 2 launchers) 5% RoF and 7.5% Tracking Bonus Hurricane vs (Cyclone) 180 m/s (165 m/s) 12,000,000 kg (12,500,000 kg) 500 m3 cargo bay (475 m3) 25 m3 drone bay (40 m3) 1250 grid (1210) 400 CPU (425) 3000 Armor (2500) 2500 Shield (2813) 1600 Capacitor (1750) 18 Ladar (16) 30 km targeting range (45 km) 260 mm scan resolution (220 mm) 200 m sig radius (240 m) Victory is the weakness of the enemy.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:49:00 - [46] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 07/08/2006 09:49:07 Eximius: Your personal wish list? :) --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Eximius Josari Shadow Reavers	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:50:00 - [47] Originally by: Jim McGregor Eximius: Several months old and Tux has said the stats are outdated. However, im hoping the final version will be along those lines. Those stats are not based on anything but what I want. A close range relatively high speed AC boat with missile secondary damage and slightly more cargo that can armor tank. As much as I love shield tanking, we just seem to get shafted on the mids too often. Victory is the weakness of the enemy.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:51:00 - [48] Yep, noticed that it wasnt the stats from the test server after i posted that. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Eximius Josari Shadow Reavers	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:52:00 - [49] It happens. If CCP is willing to give us an 8/7/3 on the Hurricane, I'd be more than happy with it being a shield tanker. Victory is the weakness of the enemy.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:57:00 - [50] More speed, more agility, less HP, less high-slots, cpu & grid reductions to large turrets/launchers, more interesting bonuses (ecm / nos / neut / web / scram / drone bay size / etc) The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:01:00 - [51] Ive actually lost abit of interest in the whole thing. At first I was excited and felt it would be lots of fun to get new ships. Finally the amazing tier 3 battleships would surface after 3 years (tier 1/2 was ready when eve started in 2003). After getting a hold on some stats, me and others discussed the stats frequently for a day or two. Then Tuxford decided to show up and tell us the stats were very outdated and old and that we should attempt to discuss how to balance the new ships instead of whining about the old stats. People did and got mostly ignored, probably because he is on and off vacation right now. Or maybe he prefers to just read the suggestions and dont give feedback, because every time he posts in a thread, people go crazy and hijack it with their whine about other things (Amarr?). So for now, Im going to wait and see if we will even see the real stats before release. Otherwise, why waste time discussing it. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Anasur	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:35:00 - [52] I think the Drake would do well with 5% RoF and 10% missile velocity bonus. If you only give it kinetic its damage will be lower(25% dps boost at lvl 5 compared to 33%) and will be unable to compete with the other races tier 1 BCs, many of which get 5% to damage and the tanking bonus. And 7 missile launchers seems about right too. On a side note, I think all the tier 2 BCs should have somewhat lower sigs than the tier 1s. Since they lack the tanking equipment, their sig is lower or something (for an in game reason). Otherwise they will just pop any time a BB sees them, lol.
Shadowsword Gallente COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:48:00 - [53] Originally by: Player 2 5% rof 5% dmg for minmatar! And fix bc agility. or, if it overpowered - 5% rof 10% faloff. With 99% penalty for armor repairer and shield booster effectiveness maybe for ALL new bc ;) I'm against any 10% falloff bonus for projectiles weapons, for any ship, because that gives some insane results with the already high base falloff and T2 AC ammos. 22.5km falloff for Vagabonds autocanons? Give me a break, it's not a short range weapon anymore... ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy.
Jerick Ludhowe Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:52:00 - [54] I too like many others worry about how powerfull the Drake will be with the new assault launchers, 7 missle hardpoints, and a rof bonus. I think combining all these things will result in a ship that can do amazing amounts of damage w/o having to worry about cap and tracking. For the drake to be ballanced I think that the assault launchers should require at least 150 grid to prevent the ship from being able to run a large tank while fielding 7 of these launchers.
Estan Drake	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:09:00 - [55] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari EVERYTHING about that is incorrect. Overpowered? The Minmatar and Amarr ones I designed have EIGHT turrets with RoF bonuses compared to the Caldari BC's SEVEN launchers, and lasers have FAR more damage than missiles. The Nighthawk in NO WAY kicks ass, in fact nearly everybody agrees that it's the worst of all eight command ships. As far as the Raven, its advantage is that it can "tank and gank"...that is, its launchers use no capacitor, and its tank is in the medslots, and hence doesn't interfere with weapons mods in the lowslots. To compare it to these battlecruisers I've designed, the Armageddon and the Raven both have RoF bonuses, and the Armageddon has one more weapon than the Raven. The Armageddon completely outdamages the Raven, much as my Amarr BC would outdamage the Caldari one. The fundamental, and incorrect, assumption you are making here is that missiles are equvalent to turrets. they are not. Look at any of the numerous Damage per second or damage over time charts people do with the damage tester programs and you will see that with missiles you A) control 100% of the damage type B) Do not have to worry about your own speed while firing C) do not have to worry about the damage reducing effect of falloff and D) Have the same damage potential at 1km as they do at their max range Which is frequesntly farther most turrets (unless the turreted ship has a bunch of tracking mods but its not like anything could possibly fit better in those medium and low slots they use up huh?) E) Don't have to worry about cap expendature like the Amarr and Gallente. A rate of fire bonus for amarr ships especially means their cap will drain much faster. I've flown with a nighthawk and it can kill cruiers in the time it takes the sleipnir to fire off a single artillery volley and wait for its next one. It already completely outclasses medium artillery at least. even with the Sleipnirs 2 damage mods and 10% falloff bonus. Witht he changes to assault launcher we begin to see how 7 launcher slots with a RoF bonus and a damage bonus could be an issue note i don't have either tech 2 heavy missile or tech 2 medium guns yet so I won't even get into the t2 ammo. Now thats what Tux said these new ships would be- Frigate and cruiser killers but with a light tank (oh and that crap he mentioned about them being slower and larger targets)
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:23:00 - [56] Meh. Its like usual... the caldari will be overpowered with gallente second. And there is nothing you can do about it. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Estan Drake	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:25:00 - [57] Originally by: Shadowsword I'm against any 10% falloff bonus for projectiles weapons, for any ship, because that gives some insane results with the already high base falloff and T2 AC ammos. 22.5km falloff for Vagabonds autocanons? Give me a break, it's not a short range weapon anymore... Ok so the vagabond has a falloff of 15km and a max optimal of 4.5km with long range ammo, more likely only between 1.5km and 2km with higher damage ammo. HAC and gunnery skills at level 5: HAC5= 1.5 Trajectory analysis= 1.25 1.5 * 1.25 = 1.875 (87.5% to the 8km falloff = 15km) Optimal + Falloff = 50% chance to hit at 16.5 - 19.5km depending on ammo used. How this equals "insane results" at 22.5km is beyond me since over 60% of the shots will miss outright due to falloff even if the target is stationary with a sig radius larger than 125 meters. To me, it seems entirely fair for the only decent 'Damage over time' option the Minmatar get.
Fon Revedhort RUS Academy Red Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:51:00 - [58] Just give an amarrian one a 4th med slot! And a nice model of a real war vessel instead of that ugly transport we saw in a concept.
Dred 'Morte Minmatar Sammael's Legion	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:06:00 - [59] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Edited by: Nikolai Nuvolari on 07/08/2006 02:55:52 Amarr: 8/3/6 with an 8/0 turret/launcher split 5% medium energy turret RoF 10% reduction in medium energy turret cap use This is the ship the Omen always should have been. Caldari: 7/6/4 with a 2/7 turret/launcher split 5% missile RoF (NOT KINETIC DAMAGE GODDAMNIT!) 10% missile velocity Nice missile ganker, but it really needs those assault missiles to make it work. Gallente: 6/5/6 with a 6/0 turret/launcher split 10% drone damage 5% sensor dampener effectiveness A 100m^3 drone bay should allow the option of heavy drones, and the sensor dampeners allow the ship to get in range. Minmatar: 8/6/4 with an 8/4 turret/launcher split 5% medium projectile turret RoF 5% maximum velocity With a base velocity of 200 m/s and a high shield recharge rate, this ship should make the perfect high-speed, passive tanking autocannon boat. EDIT: Fixed the drone damage bonus I love all this too much. Just two things though: gallente bc needs 125m^3 dronebay. Either you choose 5 heavy drones or 5 medium drones and 5 light drones. Amarr BC needs a lot of powergrid and enough cpu too (maller ftl) to fit at least 8 heavy pulse. Oh dear that would be ebil lol! Signature made by Mr Floppykickners
Shadowsword Gallente COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:24:00 - [60] Originally by: Estan Drake Edited by: Estan Drake on 07/08/2006 15:18:01 Originally by: Shadowsword I'm against any 10% falloff bonus for projectiles weapons, for any ship, because that gives some insane results with the already high base falloff and T2 AC ammos. 22.5km falloff for Vagabonds autocanons? Give me a break, it's not a short range weapon anymore... Ok so the vagabond has a falloff of 15km and a max optimal of 4.5km with long range ammo, more likely only between 1.5km and 2km with higher damage ammo. HAC and gunnery skills at level 5: HAC5= 1.5 Trajectory analysis= 1.25 1.5 * 1.25 = 1.875 (87.5% to the 8km falloff = 15km) Optimal + Falloff = 50% chance to hit at 16.5 - 19.5km depending on ammo used. How this equals "insane results" at 22.5km is beyond me since over 60% of the shots will miss outright due to falloff even if the target is stationary with a sig radius larger than 125 meters. To me, it seems entirely fair for the only decent 'Damage over time' option the Minmatar get. edit ah, I misread it, He's talking about long range t2 autocannon ammo so 22.5km is the right number. But you are still talking about a 50% chance to miss your target at that range, which is still pretty significant. First, I NEVER stated that you'd hit everytime at 22km. But with that kind of faloff, you'll hit 75-80% of the time while orbiting just out of webbifier/med nos range, while a Deimos, another HAS supposed to use short range guns, won't. Base faloff=8km. With skills=10km With ship bonus=15km With barrage ammos=22.5km ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.