EVE Search - Are battlecruisers going to become the powerhorses of pvp?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Are battlecruisers going to become the powerhorses of pvp?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shadowsword Gallente COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:20:00 - [1] Considering that: - The new battleships aren't all that hot. - Tuxford dislike 180km sniping fests. - Those new battlecruisers have a superb mix of firepower, resilience, aren't flying bricks anymore and are easily replaceable. In short almost everyone want to have sex with them. - Close range is more fun anyway. Are battlecruisers going to replace battleships as "The Ship" for those that want both to tank and dish out the love? Discuss (and no, I don't think battleships will simply disappear) ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy.
Blind Man Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:22:00 - [2] they need to be balanced, the drake atm is most likely better than the raven It's great flying Amarr, ain't it?
Gierling Gallente Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:22:00 - [3] I hope so, its a lot easier to deal with a handful of Battlecruisers with Cruisers and destroyers then it is to deal with a handfull of Battleships. More people flying Battlecruisers = More people flying cruisers.
DarK STK Scientific	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:25:00 - [4] One can only hope. As far as I know it wasn't really intended for people to be in battleships 2-3 months after going live. I am inclined to think that they were made as sexable as they are to alleviate the HAC problem without having to seed more BPO's.
DeathBunny Minmatar Sturmgrenadier Inc	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:30:00 - [5] Yeah whos gonna drop 250 mill on a cerb when u can jump in a drake for a fraction of the cost AND get a real insurance payout when you loose it. *Fear The Bunny*
Master OlavPancrazio Einherjar Rising Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:31:00 - [6] Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 25/10/2006 15:31:41 How is the drake better than the raven? Less dps. Small drone bay. No heavy nos. Lesser tank. Where is your logic?
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:39:00 - [7] I've always thought that cruisers and heavy cruisers _should_ be the workhorse of PvP. They're 'nicely in range' of the other ship classes to make it less of a 'gnats vs elephants' fight. I'm ignoring capitals entirely, because IMO they're strategic weapons, no tactical. If the 'good' option was cruisers and BCs in PvP, for a 'good mix' of speed and firepower (like it says in the description) you don't have the lone (or small group) frigate pilot just having to give up and go home, because there's just no way it can beat that tank. You might have a disadvantage to going up against a cruiser, but it's still more than possible for one to have a good fight with the other. Of course, I also think if they nerf instas, this will happen too. You will see battleships, but much more often you'll see the small/midrange ships, simply for mobility reasons. Battleships are nice, and I like them, but they're just too much the 'standard option' for combat.
keepiru Supernova Security Systems	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:40:00 - [8] It depends very much on the size of the gang, tbh - as gang size gets bigger, BCs sig radius becomes a more acute disadvantage. There are also tactical/logistical issues, having to do with gang mobility (advantage BC) flexibility of setup/encounter range (advantage BS) ammo consumption (advantage BS) accessibility (a BC needs less SP to be flown "competently") as well as ofc cost of replacement. I think what you'll see for the first time is that a BS for small gang work will become the arena of the highly-skilled, specialized and experienced pilot, as it should be. This is not to say that a well-flown BC with a skilled pilot isn't deadly, far from it, but the fact that there are now ships which are very close to the dps/tank/versatility zone where BSes operate will finally drive into people's heads that if you fly a BS without the skills, you will be caught with your pants down by smaller ships and thoroughly humiliated. Apologies if this is slightly rambly, sleep deprivation ftl :) ---------------- Please fix BC Sig/Agility!
Scordite	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:43:00 - [9] Originally by: Shadowsword Are battlecruisers going to become the powerhorses of pvp? I've heard of powerhouses.. I've heard of workhorses.. But I'm still trying to figure out what a powerhorse is ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Lucian Corvinus Gallente Expert Systems	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:43:00 - [10] Originally by: Master OlavPancrazio Edited by: Master OlavPancrazio on 25/10/2006 15:31:41 How is the drake better than the raven? Less dps. Small drone bay. No heavy nos. Lesser tank. Where is your logic? It's because the javelins got hit with the nerfbat so hard that it flew out the ballpark...
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:53:00 - [11] Originally by: Scordite Originally by: Shadowsword Are battlecruisers going to become the powerhorses of pvp? I've heard of powerhouses.. I've heard of workhorses.. But I'm still trying to figure out what a powerhorse is It's -1 horse power. It's what makes your car go when it's in reverse.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.25 15:59:00 - [12] Battleships win battles, full stop. Cruisers are good for supporting battleships as battlecruisers are good for supporting cruisers. I see battlecruisers will be the powerhouse of fast cruiser and frigate raid gangs. --------- Cruelty is God's way of showing kindness and God is kind. Pax Caldaria.
Commander Nikolas Gallente Arcana Imperii Ltd.	Posted - 2006.10.25 16:12:00 - [13] The new battle cruisers rock. I think they will become a major part of the PvP enviorment.
Shadowsword Gallente COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.10.25 16:20:00 - [14] Originally by: Scordite Originally by: Shadowsword Are battlecruisers going to become the powerhorses of pvp? I've heard of powerhouses.. I've heard of workhorses.. But I'm still trying to figure out what a powerhorse is Well, my bad, english isn't my native language. ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy.
Stormhold FinFleet Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.25 16:30:00 - [15] Edited by: Stormhold on 25/10/2006 16:30:46 Drake is awesome. Mini-Raven is a very good description, but I have to say, it might be overpowered, because it's actually rather close to a Raven. I also heard though, that an inertia stabbed hurricane can reach over 3km/s.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.10.25 16:30:00 - [16] BS's will always be the powerhouse of PvP (major nerfs forgiving). But I would like to see Cruisers and BCs becoming more of the workhorses, and these BCs might help that. -----------------------------------------------
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.10.25 16:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Shadowsword Are battlecruisers going to replace battleships as "The Ship" for those that want both to tank and dish out the love? I sure as hell hope so. I date back to the time when battleships were described as something that required 'maintenance' and only large corporations can afford a battleship yet now everyone and their dog can get one. Alot of things would have to change before things change with battleships. Nerfing instas would be a good start like a previous poster stated. Travel would take alot longer then. If they were jump drive ships that would effectively make them have the 'maintenance cost' described about 4 years ago but that likely will not happen now. Maybe sig radius could be played with a bit more so the large guns have an even harder time hitting things smaller than another battleship we won't see so many large fleets of them.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.25 16:53:00 - [18] They change the face of battle. Keepiru said it the best. As for it becomeing the center of frig raids like Jenny said? Meh... gang warps default to the slowest ship. Not everyone has bookmarks to self warp in hostile territory. As it stands now, as a proud drunkenswarm member, we don't let cruisers in our frig gangs. Only interdictors are allowed in our frig gangs but that is because it brings something to the table. Usually mobility of 6AU warps are what a good swarm is all about. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:06:00 - [19] Originally by: Kaylana Syi They change the face of battle. Keepiru said it the best. As for it becomeing the center of frig raids like Jenny said? Meh... gang warps default to the slowest ship. Not everyone has bookmarks to self warp in hostile territory. As it stands now, as a proud drunkenswarm member, we don't let cruisers in our frig gangs. Only interdictors are allowed in our frig gangs but that is because it brings something to the table. Usually mobility of 6AU warps are what a good swarm is all about. These better battlecruisers would target the HAC/Recon gang types, not the frigate (inty/af) based gangs. When many people say "frigate raids" they generally mean fast countervalue raids, of which the HAC is generally a core component. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Native Brutor tribe	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:15:00 - [20] Originally by: Kaylana Syi They change the face of battle. Keepiru said it the best. As for it becomeing the center of frig raids like Jenny said? Meh... gang warps default to the slowest ship. Not everyone has bookmarks to self warp in hostile territory. As it stands now, as a proud drunkenswarm member, we don't let cruisers in our frig gangs. Only interdictors are allowed in our frig gangs but that is because it brings something to the table. Usually mobility of 6AU warps are what a good swarm is all about. There are rigs that increase warp speed
K1K1R1K1	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:15:00 - [21] Originally by: Kaylana Syi They change the face of battle. Keepiru said it the best. As for it becomeing the center of frig raids like Jenny said? Meh... gang warps default to the slowest ship. Not everyone has bookmarks to self warp in hostile territory. As it stands now, as a proud drunkenswarm member, we don't let cruisers in our frig gangs. Only interdictors are allowed in our frig gangs but that is because it brings something to the table. Usually mobility of 6AU warps are what a good swarm is all about. What kinda tactics are you using where warp speed is a critical factor? Even a lone BC can shred frigs unless you're well coordinated and setup. As for the OP's question. Considering BC's cost effectiveness, I think they'll become more common in gangs (where-as now they're few and far between). Still, the cruiser gets you best bang for your buck while putting up a good fight vs a BC while BS's still make quick work of BC's. ____________________________________________ Don't worry aboutit
DubanFP Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:28:00 - [22] Edited by: DubanFP on 25/10/2006 17:29:21 I would rate the new Drake as god in eve. I mean why does it have that 5% resistance bonus? There are 2 lines in eve, Rail/missile Mixed Tankers and Missile damage dealers Tankers: merlin-> Moa -> Ferox -> Rokh line not the Damage dealers: Kestrel-> Caracal-> Drake -> Raven line. I mean it has all best of the merlin line "5% resists, an extra mid-slot for even more tankage. With a PG that doesn't make it hard to fit oversized Extenders "seriously underestimated btw". People say Comparing ferox to Drake is like comparing Apples to oranges, i say why choose the drake has both "except the instahit at long ranges", but close range is more importaint anyways. The missile line are usually balanced out by lack of tanking abilities, which is obviously not the case with the drake.
Deathbarrage	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:29:00 - [23] I can already see scenario's where the new BC's will rip some of the current BS a new one
Raxxius Maelstrom	Posted - 2006.10.25 17:41:00 - [24] I think battleships are still the cornerstone of major fleet ops. For small scale I can see Battlecruisers filling in raiding partys/pirating roles nicely.
Nicocat Caldari New Age Solutions	Posted - 2006.10.25 18:37:00 - [25] In PvP, I already fly a Cyclone almost exclusively. I fly a ruppy when saving money, and a Typhoon when something just absolutely has to die, but I love my Cyclone with all my cold, black heart. I'm happy to see that others are beginning to see the value of Battlecruisers, even if it did take a (potentially broken) group of new BCs to do that. As for role, I use mine mostly as a cruiser stomper, with gangmate cruisers supporting ME, not the other way around. That's what a BC should be, much like a dessy nukes frigates. ---------------------------- Please don't try to troll in your signature -Eldo([email protected]) I tried?
Slash Harnet Minmatar Industrial Services INC	Posted - 2006.10.25 18:38:00 - [26] I'm really excited to give my BS a rest for a little and start flying a BC again. Though I think for most non-raiding groups the BS will still reign supreme.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.10.25 18:56:00 - [27] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Battleships win battles, full stop. Cruisers are good for supporting battleships as battlecruisers are good for supporting cruisers. I see battlecruisers will be the powerhouse of fast cruiser and frigate raid gangs. well with sniping being nerfed the battleships wont be at a full stop anymore they might have to move!
Benjamin Olson	Posted - 2006.10.25 19:11:00 - [28] Drake + Amarr Tier 2 BC = zomgbbqpwnage Im still learning the Amarr's name, Harbinger? I guess
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.25 20:51:00 - [29] Originally by: Deathbarrage I can already see scenario's where the new BC's will rip some of the current BS a new one Drake + heavy assault launchers + T2 rage heavy assault missiles = BS wins new *****s in the hull. ------- Originally by:** Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
Keta Min Pre-nerfed Tactics	Posted - 2006.10.25 22:01:00 - [30] they will get nerfed, don't worry.
Octavio Santillian	Posted - 2006.10.25 22:14:00 - [31] Yes. These are some of the best designed ships I've seen in a long time. The do verge on overpowered, but that's because a lot of ships are underpowered unless they play a very specific role in a larger gang. These ships are obviously pure combat machines that will excel at solo, small gang, and fleet support. I've been very critical of the Devs of late, but these ships are home runs, though they may need a little tweaking to balance them against each other. ôWeÆre not doing for ISK...........WeÆre doing it for a ****load of ISK!ö
Blind Man Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.25 22:16:00 - [32] just need command ship versions so i dont feel like a nub flying a t1 BC It's great flying Amarr, ain't it?
Succoros Caldari Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.25 22:29:00 - [33] Originally by: Blind Man just need command ship versions so i dont feel like a nub flying a t1 BC Update the skins on the field command ships and we have a winner ----------------------------------- Death is more eternal than life. Everyone dies but not everyone lives.
2SecondsTilMidnight	Posted - 2006.10.25 22:34:00 - [34] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Deathbarrage I can already see scenario's where the new BC's will rip some of the current BS a new one Drake + heavy assault launchers + T2 rage heavy assault missiles = BS wins new *******s in the hull. If the drake the is right on top of the BS, lol
Still Hart Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels	Posted - 2006.10.25 22:45:00 - [35] Originally by: Succoros Originally by: Blind Man just need command ship versions so i dont feel like a nub flying a t1 BC Update the skins on the field command ships and we have a winner That is a spectacular idea. _____________________
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.26 00:00:00 - [36] I still think the myrmidon needs a 6th turret HP, even the model has 6 turret slots..
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 00:29:00 - [37] Originally by: 2SecondsTilMidnight Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Deathbarrage I can already see scenario's where the new BC's will rip some of the current BS a new one Drake + heavy assault launchers + T2 rage heavy assault missiles = BS wins new *****s in the hull. If the drake the is right on top of the BS, lol never said it didn't had any drawbacks ------- Originally by:** Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.10.26 01:24:00 - [38] Originally by: 2SecondsTilMidnight Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Deathbarrage I can already see scenario's where the new BC's will rip some of the current BS a new one Drake + heavy assault launchers + T2 rage heavy assault missiles = BS wins new *******s in the hull. If the drake the is right on top of the BS, lol thats what the covert ops is for, gang warp a small wing of Drakes onto the BS with the HAL IIs and T2 Rage HAMs
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.26 01:28:00 - [39] Originally by: Succoros Originally by: Blind Man just need command ship versions so i dont feel like a nub flying a t1 BC Update the skins on the field command ships and we have a winner Where does the Eos's 7th turret go on the Myrmidon model? --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 01:28:00 - [40] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker HAL IIs and T2 Rage HAMs I just pictured some sort of supercomputers called "HAL II"'s throwing enraged tech 2 hams against a BS. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.10.26 01:51:00 - [41] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker HAL IIs and T2 Rage HAMs I just pictured some sort of supercomputers called "HAL II"'s throwing enraged tech 2 hams against a BS. the HAL IIs prevent the Pod Bay Doors from opening whent he enemy BS blows up saving you ammo as the pod wont eject......
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.26 02:25:00 - [42] Originally by: DeathBunny Yeah whos gonna drop 250 mill on a cerb when u can jump in a drake for a fraction of the cost AND get a real insurance payout when you loose it. Plus the Drake will probably end up better in every way except range. Wait, do I hear the sounds of HAC prices crashing? Let me weep for T2 producers. Honestly, I like the new BCs, altho the resists and ROF combo for the Drake is a tad on the omgpwn side. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.10.26 02:30:00 - [43] Originally by: Scordite Originally by: Shadowsword Are battlecruisers going to become the powerhorses of pvp? I've heard of powerhouses.. I've heard of workhorses.. But I'm still trying to figure out what a powerhorse is Gank CBC. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Logan Xerxes Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.10.26 05:56:00 - [44] As far as I am concerned, the (battle)cruisers will becoe the new centerpices for heavy skirmishing, while hte battleships will still be king for large pre-arranged ops. Frigates will of course still do what they have been doing for a long time, fast moving packs of phiranas that'll chew up unprepared enemies. The cruiser range will be doing the above, but move a litle slower and will be able to stick around and take on the enemy hunting pack that will be going after them. Battleships will still reign as kings of the big fleet op. As said before, cap ships are strategic weapons, not tactical and I won't include them in this comparision. Mind you the above three categories are not set in stone and there will undoubtedly be mixes between them. And that's what makes EVE PVP so good "Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." -Sun Tzu
Murukan Minmatar The Priory Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.10.26 06:17:00 - [45] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia Originally by: DeathBunny Yeah whos gonna drop 250 mill on a cerb when u can jump in a drake for a fraction of the cost AND get a real insurance payout when you loose it. Plus the Drake will probably end up better in every way except range. Wait, do I hear the sounds of HAC prices crashing? Let me weep for T2 producers. Honestly, I like the new BCs, altho the resists and ROF combo for the Drake is a tad on the omgpwn side. you know the drake is too powerful if even die hard caldaris are saying it's too powerful. I think to fix the drake they just need to reduce it's ability to fit such a fat tank on top of the general ownage damage it can do with heavey assaults. The damage is fine because the new bcs seem to be on the crazy dps side, but ** me that drake can mount a mean tank too. In rust we trust!!!**
Akkarin Pagan Minmatar Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2006.10.26 06:40:00 - [46] I don't know about making HAC prices crash, but it will be nice to see them fall somewhat. Personally I've been looking forward to the Hurricane, and it looks better than I dared hope it would. As for pvp combat. I think we'll see more BCs in rapid attacking gangs, but I feel that in defence the BS is still king. No other ship (outside of capital) can sit and take as much damage while dealing it out as well as a BS. That said I have only ever willingly taken a BS out of the hanger for PVP when it is absoluteley neccesary, and prefer to rely on T2 frigates, T1 cruisers, or the Cyclone when I have a well setup one, and the funds to replace it if it goes pop. I'm looking forward to flying the Hurricane, and using it in PVP, and I also happen to be qualified to fly the Myrmidao and the Drake. I'm intrigued by the Drake, and will probably buy one of those too. The Myrmidon doesn't interest me as much. As for T2 versions, changing the skin on one of the command ships will only work so far, as in the case of the Minmatar, the Cyclone is a shield tanking arty boat (as are it's variants) while the Hurricane is an armour tanking AC pwnage mobile with no tank bonus, so I don't feel that the idea would work. et's hope that by Kali 3, CCP will have sorted us out some funky new Command Ships (or even created a new T2 class for these as they also don't get gang mod bonus like the tier 1 BC. Maybe SHAC (Super Heavy Assault Ship, which will cost more money than God has to buy and kit out if current HAC prices are anything to go by!)) Akkarin Akkarin Linkage <3 - Immy
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.10.26 06:50:00 - [47] No. Battleships will still beat the Battlecruiser because of it's huge sig and still slow speed. The HACs will still out fly the BCs with speed and speed is the death of the Drake's DPS. But, if the new Battlecruisers are that uber and are not nerfed, then they will reach HAC prices soon enough. Then we can all afford the HACs no one is buying, lol. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes
keepiru Supernova Security Systems	Posted - 2006.10.26 06:57:00 - [48] Originally by: Hayabusa Fury Battleships will still beat the Battlecruiser because of it's huge sig and still slow speed. The HACs will still out fly the BCs with speed and speed is the death of the Drake's DPS. There are very, very few HACs I run from in my brutix, and the harbinger/hurricane/drake a fair chunk better... ---------------- Please fix BC Sig/Agility!
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 06:59:00 - [49] Originally by: Hayabusa Fury But, if the new Battlecruisers are that uber and are not nerfed, then they will reach HAC prices soon enough. how if they are T1 ships made from blueprints that anyone can buy out from the market? ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
keepiru Supernova Security Systems	Posted - 2006.10.26 07:11:00 - [50] I don't care anymore, I sold my soul to the Hurricane the moment I hopped into one ---------------- Please fix BC Sig/Agility!
Noriath	Posted - 2006.10.26 07:48:00 - [51] I think the one crucial element eve is still missing for Cruisers to be really viable as a PvP workhorse is for ship speed to acctually matter. Right now it doesn't at all, you're either an MWD ship that does at least 1000m/s or you're warp aligned and not moving at all... Nobody that intends to move their ship on the battlefield shows up without an MWD anymore...
Waut 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 08:02:00 - [52] I take a battlecruiser/command ship over an overpriced HAC any day Outbreak! F* Yeah! Coming again to save the motherf*ing day yeah! In Soviet EVE, roids pop YOU
Mr Bright untaught THE H0RDE	Posted - 2006.10.26 09:01:00 - [53] MM anyone that know/have tested the hurricanes speed with MWD? plate/nano stats welcome as well Thx in advance
Fon Revedhort Tion Astronautics	Posted - 2006.10.26 09:10:00 - [54] Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 26/10/2006 09:12:22 Originally by: Succoros Originally by: Blind Man just need command ship versions so i dont feel like a nub flying a t1 BC Update the skins on the field command ships and we have a winner Hands off my Absolution, I like it very much as it is with the Prophecy hull. Well, exept that paper thin gun, of course
Crumplecorn Gallente Aerial Boundaries Inc. Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.26 09:11:00 - [55] Originally by: James Lyrus I've always thought that cruisers and heavy cruisers _should_ be the workhorse of PvP. They're 'nicely in range' of the other ship classes to make it less of a 'gnats vs elephants' fight. [...] If the 'good' option was cruisers and BCs in PvP, for a 'good mix' of speed and firepower (like it says in the description) you don't have the lone (or small group) frigate pilot just having to give up and go home, because there's just no way it can beat that tank. You might have a disadvantage to going up against a cruiser, but it's still more than possible for one to have a good fight with the other. [...]Battleships are nice, and I like them, but they're just too much the 'standard option' for combat. Phrases like 'exactly', 'precisely' and 'marry me plz' simply do not effectively communicate how much I agree with this post. ---------- IBTL \o/
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.26 09:15:00 - [56] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 26/10/2006 09:16:10 I think they are designed perfectly. The whole term battlecruiser should mean cruisers designed for heavy battle. Every one of these babies looks to be alot of fun to fly, and the 25M battlecruisers fit right in between the 7M cruisers and the 55M battleships in terms of power. Alot of pvp'ers didnt like battlecruisers before, but now that these ones are so powerful, and also get a agility boost (20%), I think alot of us will finally like the experience of flying them instead of cruisers. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Old Geeza The Retirement Home	Posted - 2006.10.26 09:19:00 - [57] They will be the workhorse of skirmish warfare (thank you CCP for not nerfing it completely) and will provide excellent support for a fleet of battleships. However, battleship gang > battlecruiser gang. It's just that one costs 1/3 the price and is more fun to fly. _______________________________________ Sign the petition against jump queues!
Jurskjeld Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2006.10.26 09:21:00 - [58] Will BC prices go up now, or just the general "others" be going down? Cos, I just got myself one, and a lot of others should invest in some if a price change is expected. -- Amarr scum be pushing gas, Caldari dogs are kissing their ***. Gallente and Minmatar together stand forever as the holy band.
Lord WarATron Amarr Out Siders Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 09:31:00 - [59] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 26/10/2006 09:33:07 Originally by: Jurskjeld Will BC prices go up now, or just the general "others" be going down? Cos, I just got myself one, and a lot of others should invest in some if a price change is expected. In the long term, t1 ship prices will be around mineral cost + 10%, and perhaps a bit more depending on location. In the short term, perhaps people will pay over the odds over the first day or two while people produce these things due to limited supply. Far too many people have saved up multi billions, some even planning to buy 2 of every teir2 BC and tier3 BS, so that one set can manufacture right away, and the other set can be put in research. --- Slot 10 Akemons Modified 'Noble'Zet 5000 implant +8% Armour FREE
MrRookie Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2006.10.26 10:34:00 - [60] Personally I think if the NOS is nerfed people might bring more cruisers and battlecruisers into pvp which will make battlecruisers fill a role as anti CR/HAC. This is a good thing and opens for more variation in gangs. Maybe even alitle tweak on the tracking scaling and we'll see alot more BC/CR sized shipss. But in the end battleships win wars as Jenny said, and if battlecruisers become that succesfull in pvp battleships will be their best counter anyway. The good thing about these ships is they will be good and cheap alternatives for pvp, solid and powerfull and if we're lucky they might even make the hac prices fall. guy being attacked by a pirat in a complex Originally by:* Noluck Ned Notify Concord is on their way to help you, just hang in there, they are waiting for the gatekeeper to respawn
Crumplecorn Gallente Aerial Boundaries Inc. Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.26 10:40:00 - [61] Originally by: Polinus A simple example is the RN hood versus Kriegsmarine Bismarck. Where the german BB obliterated the LARGER, but far less armored BC Hood in a single volley (in fact several volleys, but on the first one that hit hard) That was a lucky shot. ---------- IBTL \o/
MrRookie Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2006.10.26 10:42:00 - [62] Originally by: Polinus A history lesson. In fact The term Battlecruiser is not a cruiser made to battle. Any cruiser is made to battle. Historically there were cruisers and Heavy cruisers, whose role was raiding comerce and form up the positioning of two fleets fighting. In other words they prevented destroiers and small boats from entering close to BB (battleships). BB were far more powerful and imune to all Cruiser calass weaponry (while cruiser relied on speed to avoid BB and superior firepower to own smaller ships). BB were meant to be positioned in lines (the term battleship comes from "Ship of the Battle line" facing each other and taking an delivering blows. BB would not rely on speed for defense but in pure imunity to weapons. In fact a single BB could fight 5 or 10 cruisers with no probelms since it was imune to cruiser weapons. But BB were hellish expensive and was very hard to make them go fast. So the BC was invented as a ship overall BB size, with same weapon range as a BB but with FAR FAR less armor, traded for speed. So it could own heavy cruisers and help dishing damage on BB with lower cost. But historically the concept proved to be a piece of crap. A BC was completely owned by a BB since its armor was not impervious to BB guns and was not fast enough to avoid being hit neither fast enough to catch cruisers. BC were the most disaterous cconcept of war ship ever made. Non was really successfull. A simple example is the RN hood versus Kriegsmarine Bismarck. Where the german BB obliterated the LARGER, but far less armored BC Hood in a single volley (in fact several volleys, but on the first one that hit hard) The 2 german BC, the Sharhost and Gineseau were quite good comerce raiders but were always beaten by RN combat ships (except on e ocasion when one of them found in mid of fog a RN carrier). And they wer always forced to retreat. This is not Eve ralated, just historical lesson of BC role :) I would love if EVE had ship roles closer to real life historical roles. BB being imune to any weapon other tehir own class of wepons and weapons made exactly against them (torpedoes). But also on real life there are much more misses than hits in combat and eve is not like that so this is not exactly possible. Back to game... I would Love to see MWD removal form game. It completely expoils the speed roles of every ship. Since the ship speed is irrelevant.. relevant is if you have or not an MWD. And if you have a MWD size is irrelevant. Please,, remove this damm device and increase the speed difference between classes of ships. I'm usually not a fan of RL comparisons in EVE but thanks for a litle peace of history. However, unless my uncles dinghy is introduces as a frigate sized boat in EVE it's not much relevant though Oh and why do you want to remove MWDs? You did concider that these are completely nesessry for close range ships? guy being attacked by a pirat in a complex Originally by:* Noluck Ned Notify Concord is on their way to help you, just hang in there, they are waiting for the gatekeeper to respawn
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.26 10:44:00 - [63] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Polinus A simple example is the RN hood versus Kriegsmarine Bismarck. Where the german BB obliterated the LARGER, but far less armored BC Hood in a single volley (in fact several volleys, but on the first one that hit hard) That was a lucky shot. Would nto matter. HOOD armor was not able to stop Bismarck shells. At best option for hood it would take a few more volleys until something equaly important was hit. On the other side the hood was trying to get close to the bismarck.. at a range where all projectiles would hit BM in an angle were it was COMPLETELY imune to Hood weapons. So... even 3 Hoods would have no chance against BM. Later it took 88 minutes of 2 RN BB to sink bismarck with more than thousand large caliber hits. Hood would have resisted a dozen at most.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.26 10:53:00 - [64] Originally by: MrRookie Originally by: Polinus A history lesson. In fact The term Battlecruiser is not a cruiser made to battle. Any cruiser is made to battle. Historically there were cruisers and Heavy cruisers, whose role was raiding comerce and form up the positioning of two fleets fighting. In other words they prevented destroiers and small boats from entering close to BB (battleships). BB were far more powerful and imune to all Cruiser calass weaponry (while cruiser relied on speed to avoid BB and superior firepower to own smaller ships). BB were meant to be positioned in lines (the term battleship comes from "Ship of the Battle line" facing each other and taking an delivering blows. BB would not rely on speed for defense but in pure imunity to weapons. In fact a single BB could fight 5 or 10 cruisers with no probelms since it was imune to cruiser weapons. But BB were hellish expensive and was very hard to make them go fast. So the BC was invented as a ship overall BB size, with same weapon range as a BB but with FAR FAR less armor, traded for speed. So it could own heavy cruisers and help dishing damage on BB with lower cost. But historically the concept proved to be a piece of crap. A BC was completely owned by a BB since its armor was not impervious to BB guns and was not fast enough to avoid being hit neither fast enough to catch cruisers. BC were the most disaterous cconcept of war ship ever made. Non was really successfull. A simple example is the RN hood versus Kriegsmarine Bismarck. Where the german BB obliterated the LARGER, but far less armored BC Hood in a single volley (in fact several volleys, but on the first one that hit hard) The 2 german BC, the Sharhost and Gineseau were quite good comerce raiders but were always beaten by RN combat ships (except on e ocasion when one of them found in mid of fog a RN carrier). And they wer always forced to retreat. This is not Eve ralated, just historical lesson of BC role :) I would love if EVE had ship roles closer to real life historical roles. BB being imune to any weapon other tehir own class of wepons and weapons made exactly against them (torpedoes). But also on real life there are much more misses than hits in combat and eve is not like that so this is not exactly possible. Back to game... I would Love to see MWD removal form game. It completely expoils the speed roles of every ship. Since the ship speed is irrelevant.. relevant is if you have or not an MWD. And if you have a MWD size is irrelevant. Please,, remove this damm device and increase the speed difference between classes of ships. I'm usually not a fan of RL comparisons in EVE but thanks for a litle peace of history. However, unless my uncles dinghy is introduces as a frigate sized boat in EVE it's not much relevant though Oh and why do you want to remove MWDs? You did concider that these are completely nesessry for close range ships? I understand how they are used. But they make originall speed completely uninportant. I think that long range fighting should be nerfed so that targets far away and harder to hit (today they are easier since speed matters nothing when the target is far away). The close range ship approach should be a far longer journey, but safer. The combat would become much more tatical and take more time. Currently the issue is, what is the advantage of being a cruiser against a BC? if you dont use MWD you are too slow and loose your speed advantage. If you use it you beome larger than BC weapon signature and you loose your size advantage. On the other side larger ships like BC already have big signatures so no problem using the MWD anyway... An option would be that MWD signature increase (and all signatures) beyond the weapon resolution. So the MWD would have a penalty for big ship as well (currently it affects only smaller ships). Thta is just my tough of how this could geratly imrpove both short range combat and improve tatic
Miri Tirzan Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.26 11:50:00 - [65] Edited by: Miri Tirzan on 26/10/2006 11:51:27 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Polinus A simple example is the RN hood versus Kriegsmarine Bismarck. Where the german BB obliterated the LARGER, but far less armored BC Hood in a single volley (in fact several volleys, but on the first one that hit hard) That was a lucky shot. No it was not. The Hood had very little deck armor which was its doom. The long range gun fire from the Bismark came in at a steep plunging angle which ment that the deck was hit and not the much more armored sides. The Bismark, being a full up BB, had both belt (side) and deck armor. So while they both carried BB class weapons, the Bismarks 15-inch ones were more powerful and a BC does not carry the armor to fight a BB. Basically, in that fight it was a fully armored BB vs an unarmored ship since all gun fire at long range is plunging fire. The Hood never had a chance. Part of this was that the designers built the Hood for WWI fire control, which lowered the range of the battles. Shorter range ment that belt armor was hit and rarely deck armor. With the improved optics the range extended and deck armor mattered, alot! But so much for RL. In Eve the BC is completely reversed in concept. A BC is a large cruiser that mounts BB class weapons but not so in Eve, here a BC is a small BB that mounts cruiser class weapons. svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.10.26 14:11:00 - [66] the new BCs will become the main fleet ships i think, but they will still support the battleships. the Drake for example can fill many rolls in a fleet, from point defense to head on assault where as the Ferox just put out gang bonuses. the nerfs to T2 ammo will also bring combat ranges down into BC realms.
Deathbarrage	Posted - 2006.10.26 15:05:00 - [67] Originally by: Blind Man just need command ship versions so i dont feel like a nub flying a t1 BC you can only change the skins tho, not the bonus' cuz you'll get issues with double bonus' and lack of tanking which I kind of like on the current command ships And an astarte with a myrmidon skin would be lame leave the command ships as they are ;)
MOS DEF E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.10.26 15:29:00 - [68] Originally by: Hllaxiu Originally by: Succoros Originally by: Blind Man just need command ship versions so i dont feel like a nub flying a t1 BC Update the skins on the field command ships and we have a winner Where does the Eos's 7th turret go on the Myrmidon model? Guys GUYS! Stop it! I allready know Tux's idea of fixing that. Just cut the 7th turret.
Katabrok First Caldari Asguard Security Service Alektorophobia	Posted - 2006.10.26 15:49:00 - [69] I agree that with the new BC's, and the agility bonus, the BC's will appear a lot more on pvp. But what i ask is: The old BC's will be left to rsut if these new ones are so good. Why cant they receive some love? The ferox need 2 more turret slots, and the brutix and the ferox need more PG, at least to fit a full rack of theur biggest guns. I haven't fly any of the others BC's, but by the looks, they need some love too. Tks, Katabrok, the space barbarian. I want the The Correct DreadÖ!!!!
Rafein Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.10.26 15:59:00 - [70] BS will still be highly useful, mainly for range and damage. Drake is great, sure, but it's range maxes at what, 65 KM? Even if BS get nerfed, they will still be abel to outrange BC's. Personally, if they make ganglinks only shared through squads, not wings or fleets, we will see a lot of BC's about.
Greyshadow Yesodic Nomads Corp Triumvirate.	Posted - 2006.10.26 16:18:00 - [71] For all that are saying BC are as good as the BS and its not right, well you ever looked up what a battlecruiser is... Generally, battlecruisers were similar in layout and armament to battleships but with significantly less armour allowing for gains in speed. So basically a small BS that can go fast, so CCP have it spot on, gimme one
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 16:19:00 - [72] Edited by: 6Bagheera9 on 26/10/2006 16:20:28 First a shout out to Nicocat, "I hear you my BC flying brother and you are not alone." Seriously, a Cyclone is freaking evil if you know how to fly it and tech II it. I once took a full EM Javelin volly from a raven and repped all the damage before he could shoot again. And with 5x 720mm IIs it is possible to insta pop some cruisers. Anyway, onward to further discussions. Historically BCs have rather had to define, especially given how one generation of BBs would often fall under the BC class in the next round of larger ship designs. The only certain thing is that a BC is a ship somewhere between a cruiser and a battleship in firepower, armor, and speed. In RL BCs, heavy crusiers, armored cruisers, and light/fast BBs were more or less the same thing. I also want to point out that RL cruisers could sink battleships by using torpedoes. The Bismarck was actually sunk by cruisers and destroyers firing topedoes at close range. A pair of Royal Navy BBs had disabled her with surface gunfire, but it took torpedoes below the waterline to finally sink her. Lastly a few people have pointed out how cruisers aren't quite fast enough to avoid a BBs big gun as a moderately effective defense and that a MWD is required reach these speeds. I tend to agree with this as cruisers aren't a whole lot faster than BBs, a small boost to speed and perhaps a rehash of the gunfire mechanics may be in order. But I suspect the real problem are the effects of Nos and webbers (and possibly heavy drones), which restrict a cruiser to using its speed only at ranges where a BBs guns have sufficent tracking to murder it. Cruisers should be able to get under a BBs guns, and while not be able to last there indefinetly or sink the BB (would need support), at least dodge a fair bit of the incoming fire and chew up the BBs tank a little. Anti-cruiser systems on BBs should definetly shorten a cruiser's lifespan, but unless the BB has the cruiser webbed, nosed, and under drone fire it should not kill it so fast that the cruiser's efforts are pointless.
Mortuus Minmatar Oblivion's Gate	Posted - 2006.10.26 16:47:00 - [73] Just wondering where the idea that base speed is unimportant with a MWD came from, as you know, its the multiplier for the MWD's top speed. BC's have just become fast and agile enough to be used in raiding groups, but they are still not a Battleship, no long range gun battles for these babies. Hell, even a close range BS with a web should be able to rip one apart. They will be support ships in fleets and gate camps, and the damage dealer in small gangs where a battleships lack of speed and agility is a drawback. Also considering the cost of insurance and tech2 gear on each, the initial investment and the difference in insurance costs will be the only differing factors. Tech2 mods on each will still be in the 40-80mil range. ex-Occassus Republica <3
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.26 17:15:00 - [74] Originally by: Mortuus Just wondering where the idea that base speed is unimportant with a MWD came from, as you know, its the multiplier for the MWD's top speed. BC's have just become fast and agile enough to be used in raiding groups, but they are still not a Battleship, no long range gun battles for these babies. Hell, even a close range BS with a web should be able to rip one apart. They will be support ships in fleets and gate camps, and the damage dealer in small gangs where a battleships lack of speed and agility is a drawback. Also considering the cost of insurance and tech2 gear on each, the initial investment and the difference in insurance costs will be the only differing factors. Tech2 mods on each will still be in the 40-80mil range. its uninmportant because if you don't have a MWD you are slower much slowert no matter what your natural advantage (on averagely same size of ships). And on on MWD speed everything goes too fast. And by forcing anyone that want speed to relly EXCLUSIVELY on MWD you force a large sig radius that gimpse completely any advantage that a ship might have in signature (since with MWD for sue your sig wil be bigger than the weapon class just above yours. So If your signature is 110 od 130 will mean nothing when faced by a 400 m sig gun.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.26 17:23:00 - [75] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 Edited by: 6Bagheera9 on 26/10/2006 16:20:28 First a shout out to Nicocat, "I hear you my BC flying brother and you are not alone." Seriously, a Cyclone is freaking evil if you know how to fly it and tech II it. I once took a full EM Javelin volly from a raven and repped all the damage before he could shoot again. And with 5x 720mm IIs it is possible to insta pop some cruisers. Anyway, onward to further discussions. Historically BCs have rather had to define, especially given how one generation of BBs would often fall under the BC class in the next round of larger ship designs. The only certain thing is that a BC is a ship somewhere between a cruiser and a battleship in firepower, armor, and speed. In RL BCs, heavy crusiers, armored cruisers, and light/fast BBs were more or less the same thing. I also want to point out that RL cruisers could sink battleships by using torpedoes. The Bismarck was actually sunk by cruisers and destroyers firing topedoes at close range. A pair of Royal Navy BBs had disabled her with surface gunfire, but it took torpedoes below the waterline to finally sink her. Lastly a few people have pointed out how cruisers aren't quite fast enough to avoid a BBs big gun as a moderately effective defense and that a MWD is required reach these speeds. I tend to agree with this as cruisers aren't a whole lot faster than BBs, a small boost to speed and perhaps a rehash of the gunfire mechanics may be in order. But I suspect the real problem are the effects of Nos and webbers (and possibly heavy drones), which restrict a cruiser to using its speed only at ranges where a BBs guns have sufficent tracking to murder it. Cruisers should be able to get under a BBs guns, and while not be able to last there indefinetly or sink the BB (would need support), at least dodge a fair bit of the incoming fire and chew up the BBs tank a little. Anti-cruiser systems on BBs should definetly shorten a cruiser's lifespan, but unless the BB has the cruiser webbed, nosed, and under drone fire it should not kill it so fast that the cruiser's efforts are pointless. Nope.. in RL BC were same class as firepower as a BB but same class of armor as a heavy cruiser. Not a mid between them on anything but speed Light cruisers and heavy cruisers were merely scale difference. BC had a completely different role that at end proved to be a tremendous mistake. Fast BB were a completely different class also. Fast BB were the Iwoa class. Huge and full fledged powerfull BB even bigger than traditional BB, with even more firepower, but equiped with ridiculously powerfull engines that alloed them to reach very high speed. They were supreme, as resilent as a strong BB ad damaging as a Strong BB and as fast as a cruiser. No country except US ever made a true Fast BB. In Eve this class of ship would be called Uber and unbalanced. On the bismarck sinking. Recent discovery of its wreckages and annalisys proved that the torpedoes did no damage to bismack hull. It was sunk by its own crew. But on general yes, any ship could kill a BB wiht a torpedo (the bismarck was an exception as a very hard target for torpedoes since it had a torpedo protection several times stronger than any other BB of its time at everywhere but its rudder) I think eve needs that natual speed difference be used far more and become far more important. I say rework the MWD concept.
Polinus	Posted - 2006.10.26 17:28:00 - [76] Originally by: Greyshadow For all that are saying BC are as good as the BS and its not right, well you ever looked up what a battlecruiser is... Generally, battlecruisers were similar in layout and armament to battleships but with significantly less armour allowing for gains in speed. So basically a small BS that can go fast, so CCP have it spot on, gimme one In fact by the concept of the word they borrowed to name these ships.. they are still weak. A BC should be able to sink (kill) a BB at same tiem a BB would do. But asw soon as targeted by a BB it would become dust in a fraction of time than a BB would do (so they should not tank.. only gank in MMO term).
DrakeStone Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 18:19:00 - [77] Where are the stats/specs on the Drake posted, please?
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 18:54:00 - [78] Originally by: Polinus Originally by: 6Bagheera9 Edited by: 6Bagheera9 on 26/10/2006 16:20:28 First a shout out to Nicocat, "I hear you my BC flying brother and you are not alone." Seriously, a Cyclone is freaking evil if you know how to fly it and tech II it. I once took a full EM Javelin volly from a raven and repped all the damage before he could shoot again. And with 5x 720mm IIs it is possible to insta pop some cruisers. Anyway, onward to further discussions. Historically BCs have rather had to define, especially given how one generation of BBs would often fall under the BC class in the next round of larger ship designs. The only certain thing is that a BC is a ship somewhere between a cruiser and a battleship in firepower, armor, and speed. In RL BCs, heavy crusiers, armored cruisers, and light/fast BBs were more or less the same thing. I also want to point out that RL cruisers could sink battleships by using torpedoes. The Bismarck was actually sunk by cruisers and destroyers firing topedoes at close range. A pair of Royal Navy BBs had disabled her with surface gunfire, but it took torpedoes below the waterline to finally sink her. Lastly a few people have pointed out how cruisers aren't quite fast enough to avoid a BBs big gun as a moderately effective defense and that a MWD is required reach these speeds. I tend to agree with this as cruisers aren't a whole lot faster than BBs, a small boost to speed and perhaps a rehash of the gunfire mechanics may be in order. But I suspect the real problem are the effects of Nos and webbers (and possibly heavy drones), which restrict a cruiser to using its speed only at ranges where a BBs guns have sufficent tracking to murder it. Cruisers should be able to get under a BBs guns, and while not be able to last there indefinetly or sink the BB (would need support), at least dodge a fair bit of the incoming fire and chew up the BBs tank a little. Anti-cruiser systems on BBs should definetly shorten a cruiser's lifespan, but unless the BB has the cruiser webbed, nosed, and under drone fire it should not kill it so fast that the cruiser's efforts are pointless. Nope.. in RL BC were same class as firepower as a BB but same class of armor as a heavy cruiser. Not a mid between them on anything but speed Light cruisers and heavy cruisers were merely scale difference. BC had a completely different role that at end proved to be a tremendous mistake. Fast BB were a completely different class also. Fast BB were the Iwoa class. Huge and full fledged powerfull BB even bigger than traditional BB, with even more firepower, but equiped with ridiculously powerfull engines that alloed them to reach very high speed. They were supreme, as resilent as a strong BB ad damaging as a Strong BB and as fast as a cruiser. No country except US ever made a true Fast BB. In Eve this class of ship would be called Uber and unbalanced. On the bismarck sinking. Recent discovery of its wreckages and annalisys proved that the torpedoes did no damage to bismack hull. It was sunk by its own crew. But on general yes, any ship could kill a BB wiht a torpedo (the bismarck was an exception as a very hard target for torpedoes since it had a torpedo protection several times stronger than any other BB of its time at everywhere but its rudder) I think eve needs that natual speed difference be used far more and become far more important. I say rework the MWD concept. I conceed that the traditional definition of a BC is a heavy cruiser with BB caliber guns and I'll also give you the fast battleship (though the Japanese did build them and the Mach is an EVE fast BB). But did BC's mount as many main guns and secondary guns as a full fledged BB? We also need to take into account the muzzle velocity of the shells as that is another factor in a ship's raw firepower. And given the rapid increase in naval gun size during the world wars, it becomes tricky to say what is a BB class gun?
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:03:00 - [79] Countinued... (no more quoting in full me thinks) For these reasons its hard deferentiate between some of the bigger heavy armored cruisers and a "true" BC. In regard to the Bismarck, I checked and you were right about it being scuttled. The Germans were really good about modular design in regard to damage control. I agree with you that a ship's base speed needs to be a more important part of the game. I'm thinking a MWD nerf and a boost to base speed. I also have a sig. radius rehash in mind, but I'm late for class.
VekkTor Legionari Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:04:00 - [80] err, in their very short life, english BCes had BS class calibers and cruiser class armors, germans went in the opposite direction, BS class armors and cruiser class calibers. about that speed thingie, the differences are made by the sig.radius and the weaponry. mwd is an option dependant on the operating range imho, and mwd ships will get some nerf from the improved hp due to the -25%cap, and btw, who fires running at too high speeds for your guns and so high sig.radius on your ship? this tool is made to get close, every else usage of it gimps your ship i like the eve Bc concept, medium weapons to hit cruisers, large sig. radius to get hit by BSes, improved tanks to survive cruisers or incredible firepower to outdamage them, imho there's nothing wrong with that.
Slan Traveller SteelVipers YouWhat	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:04:00 - [81] Originally by: Polinus Fast BB were a completely different class also. Fast BB were the Iwoa class. Huge and full fledged powerfull BB even bigger than traditional BB, with even more firepower, but equiped with ridiculously powerfull engines that alloed them to reach very high speed. They were supreme, as resilent as a strong BB ad damaging as a Strong BB and as fast as a cruiser. No country except US ever made a true Fast BB. In Eve this class of ship would be called Uber and unbalanced. As we are OT amongst nerds, here are my 2c: There are allegations, that the entire Iowa class are in fact BC. They were built when carriers already ruled the seas and direct engagements between BB were becoming rare. There is reason to believe, that the listed armor allocations on those ships are not correct, as in that the numbers for displacement, armor and speed do not add up. The new class of BC in EVE is going to offer more variety, but in no way they're going to replace BS as the core of a fleet. They do not offer an FC the range of a BS, nor will they stand when faced with short range armed BS. They are heavy cruisers performing cruiser roles. Sic parvis magna
Shalia Ripper Caldari Prizm Ventures Ltd.	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:09:00 - [82] Edited by: Shalia Ripper on 26/10/2006 19:11:24 Originally by: DrakeStone Where are the stats/specs on the Drake posted, please? Check this thread - Linkage to new BS and BC thread
goodby4u	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:20:00 - [83] Originally by: Shadowsword Edited by: Shadowsword on 25/10/2006 16:26:24 Considering that: - The new battleships aren't all that hot. - Tuxford dislike 180km sniping fests. - Those new battlecruisers have a superb mix of firepower, resilience, aren't flying bricks anymore and are easily replaceable. In short almost everyone want to have sex with them. - Close range is more fun anyway. Are battlecruisers going to replace battleships as "The Ship" for those that want both to tank and dish out the love? Discuss (and no, I don't think battleships will simply disappear) 1)yes they are,huge amounts of hp. 2)why not?So do i. 3)yes but even though they have more firepower they dont have large weapons nor large reps,but they will last longer then the tier 1 bcs on the battlefield anytime. 4)uhhcoughtempest megathron armageddoncoughall of which can be closerange. 5)yes they will be seen much,much more but battleships will still be the thing to have.
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:27:00 - [84] I suppose I should respond to the original post. I think that BCs are gonna replace BBs in smaller, faster, cruiser centric gangs, but for gangs bigger than 6-7 pilots BBs are still gonna be the mainstay. BCs are great, but they simply cannot compete with BBs in terms of dps, tanking, and range. They are designed for what RL BCs eventually proved best at, leading small fast moving squadrons of cruisers/destroyers in selective raids on vunerable targets (ie. haulers, miners, frigs, cruisers, and lone BBs).
Garnet Tribal	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:35:00 - [85] The drake is gunna smoosh everything
VekkTor Legionari Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:39:00 - [86] oh well, talking about the real OP, i think that more options will be available in skirmishes. something will change for sure, and i think that the "old" BCes will have their part too, cos maybe some ppl will notice that they got an useful tank bonus, comparing them to the pure dps bces btw bses will still be bses and that's right cos they need far more money and skills, let's keep our feet on the ground
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:42:00 - [87] Originally by: VekkTor oh well, talking about the real OP, i think that more options will be available in skirmishes. something will change for sure, and i think that the "old" BCes will have their part too, cos maybe some ppl will notice that they got an useful tank bonus, comparing them to the pure dps bces btw bses will still be bses and that's right cos they need far more money and skills, let's keep our feet on the ground The tier 1 BCs are by no means obsolete, most people just never played around with them enough to see how awesome they can be beyond mission running/ratting. The new agility boost is only going to make them better.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.