EVE Search - I'm all for New ships, but...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I'm all for New ships, but...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Budrick3 Quantum Wolves 140	Posted - 2015.11.13 08:23:26 - [1] - Quote So the new destroyers are cool, (bit disappointed that you can run links on them, whatever). But I am disappointed that ccp keeps giving us new frigates and destroyers, but never any larger ships. I live in fw space which I enjoy quite a bit, but it seems that the meta keeps favoring smaller ships, and there are fewer and fewer reasons to fly larger ones. Can ccp give us something larger than a destroyer in future releases? How about a new battle cruise or battle ship that specializes in tracking to help negate the small ship cancer that grows daily. You are doing this for capitals, why not battleships?
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40782	Posted - 2015.11.13 08:29:21 - [2] - Quote Budrick3 wrote: But I am disappointed that ccp keeps giving us new frigates and destroyers, but never any larger ships... Can ccp give us something larger than a destroyer in future releases?... FAX Machines are larger ships aren't they? Also in recent times: Barghest Stratios Bowhead It hasn't all been small ships. Combat BCs just rebalanced and the Barghest receiving a buff in December. I'd be happy with a balance pass on Battleships, but what's missing in terms of capabilities? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 88	Posted - 2015.11.13 09:11:40 - [3] - Quote The battleship lineup is pretty narrow compared with cruisers and frigates. I for one would not object to more tech 2 battleships, perhaps one specialised in down-fighting at a trade-off, or they could just copy-paste the roles from cruisers to new BB hulls and see how things play out with t2 ewar BBs or logi boats. A case for more AoE in EvE
Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 439	Posted - 2015.11.13 10:19:47 - [4] - Quote Battleships are like this. The kind that do damage and take damage. The kind that do damage and dont take damage. The kind that take damage and get jammed. The kind that bridge and get called as primary. In the world of T3, it's fairly clear that T3 ships pretty much automatically win against anything their own size and have a fairly realistic shot at killing anything above them. So where would this leave T3 Battleships? They are going to be too slow to disengage from smaller ships, so when they get primaried they would die just the same as any other battleship, but with a bigger pricetag than a carrier most likely. If they are intended to just sit there and take tons of damage and deal tons of damage, well, that's pretty much the same thing as a dread or marauder but better because it can hit smaller targets too. So it would make other things redundant. What is left? You can make it so it can kill capital ships. But now you've got a cap-killing monstrosity that isn't hindered by gates, and if such a vessel is capable of killing caps surely it can also kill anything smaller than it as well. You create a monster vessel that dominates the meta. No matter what you do with a T3 battleship it will either be useless or OP as balls. Right now, caps pretty much are the T3 battleship and introducing something inbetween them is just going to create vast levels of butthurt all around. In terms of just adding more T2, what role is really left for a vessel of that size? I guess they could implement a ship with really big and slow guns that deal random damage to turrets/modules on an enemy ship. That could be fairly trollish.
Martin Corwin Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 43	Posted - 2015.11.13 10:49:14 - [5] - Quote Kuronaga wrote: that isn't hindered by gates Just like any other ship in the game.
Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 439	Posted - 2015.11.13 10:55:27 - [6] - Quote Martin Corwin wrote: Kuronaga wrote: that isn't hindered by gates Just like any other ship in the game. Caps would disagree with you there.
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 88	Posted - 2015.11.13 11:26:55 - [7] - Quote Kuronaga wrote: Martin Corwin wrote: Kuronaga wrote: that isn't hindered by gates Just like any other ship in the game. Caps would disagree with you there. And patch notes would disagree with you there, caps have been able to take gates since phoebe. A case for more AoE in EvE
Arthur Aihaken CODE.d 4733	Posted - 2015.11.13 14:14:24 - [8] - Quote T3 Flagships (battleships). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kharaxus Ninja Pixels 87	Posted - 2015.11.13 15:18:06 - [9] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: I'd be happy with a balance pass on Battleships, but what's missing in terms of capabilities? What he said. ^^ Budrick3 wrote: Can ccp give us something larger than a destroyer in future releases? How about a new battle cruise or battle ship that specializes in tracking to help negate the small ship cancer that grows daily. You are doing this for capitals, why not battleships? Theoretically CCP wants us to be friends and fly in groups. A scout, a tackle, a big ship, a small ship, several fast and agile attack ships, etc... Its all pretty spontaneous and easy to lose focus. That's why we have FC's. If the FC is calling primary, secondary, etc., there wouldn't be a problem with all those annoying smaller ships - the hammer would simply drop and say goodbye to the enemy ships/fleet, etc. Not a lot of demand for a ship designed/built for "tracking" in an organized fleet - the fleet is likely designed and built to counter a need for tracking. I can see your point when looking at PVP using BS's. If a BS had better tracking, applying DPS would be easier - so you can apply that flyswatter to that killer bumblebee.... That's why we have modules for improving the tracking, or to improve the BS agility, or whatever we need the BS to do. Keep in mind the BS is designed to launch BIG bullets and cause big damage - that's the strength of a BS just like a smaller ships strength is agility and speed due to size. Meanwhile destroyers and smaller ships are cheap. Easy to throw away. That's why there's so many of them. A guy with 4 billion ISK in ships he destroyed, may have 100 of each frigate in his inventory on a regular basis and 95% of the time strategizing a better way to apply DPS regardless of what changes take place next. He already knows how to kill a BS with an excellent tracking speed (using a frigate). You're basically asking CCP to give THAT guy a "different" ship to kill - because he is going to do it anyway. So seriously, what IS missing in terms of capabilities?
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 316	Posted - 2015.11.13 15:24:40 - [10] - Quote The problem isn't that we need a battleship specialised towards fighting small ships, but they need more tricks to allow them to survive or hit small gangs. The MJD for instance was a big addition to battleship PvP, unfortunately this is being nerfed in the meta with the proposed 37.5km HIC scram range. But yes more stuff like the MJD, battleship (and perhaps battlecruiser) specific modules that allow them to negate or hurt smaller ships are needed. And then release new hulls after that. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading

Otso Bakarti Filial Pariahs 459	Posted - 2015.11.13 16:01:13 - [11] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Budrick3 wrote: But I am disappointed that ccp keeps giving us new frigates and destroyers, but never any larger ships... Can ccp give us something larger than a destroyer in future releases?... FAX Machines are larger ships aren't they? Also in recent times: Barghest Stratios Nestor Bowhead It hasn't all been small ships. Combat BCs just rebalanced and the Barghest receiving a buff in December. I'd be happy with a balance pass on Battleships, but what's missing in terms of capabilities? Aw. You know what he's saying. "Rebalance"? Battlecruisers are the red-headed stepchild of EVE. Buff a Barghest...radical, man. Making BSs viable in the mix again, meaning can't be soloed by a heavy cruiser? Not bloody likely. Paranoia strikes deep....
Tanthos Minmatar Death Squad 95	Posted - 2015.11.13 16:30:56 - [12] - Quote I much prefer flying smaller ships, so I'm happy that CCP keeps giving them love.
Krevnos Back Door Burglars The Otherworld 31	Posted - 2015.11.13 16:35:51 - [13] - Quote One of the major issues we're increasingly encountering is that small ships can do everything that big ships can, and in many cases they do it quicker and better. Battleships, in particular, have fallen entirely by the wayside because they're slow, clunky, have poor damage application, no special abilities other than MJD (which is now shared by battle-cruisers) and black ops portals, poor variety and highly susceptible to all forms of damage from ships smaller than dreadnoughts. To further impair the battleships' ability to shine, almost all unique roles in the game are possessed only by smaller ship types, including logistics (no that heap called the Nestor doesn't count), mobile warp disruption fields (destroyers and cruisers), command modules (destroyers through to battlecruisers), mobile jump fields (destroyers). In addition, it is not difficult for smaller ships to match battleships for real DPS application thanks to the poor tracking of guns and explosion radius of missiles. In fact, many battleships will be completely unable to deal DPS to these smaller ships without very substantial compromise to their fitting.
Nick Bete The Scope Gallente Federation 371	Posted - 2015.11.13 16:41:05 - [14] - Quote New ships are all well and good but how many new roles can be found for them? The problem is that Eve, like most other combat MMOs use the tried and true "holy trinity" formula of tanks, damage dealers and healers. All of those bases are already covered by the well over 100 different ships currently in game. By continuing to create more ships that do more or less the same things all CCP is doing is causing overlap in roles and obsoleting older ships with new ones. Doesn't seem very efficient to me. Maybe better to go back and evaluate what we have currently and try to more sharply define roles for them and try to balance out their capabilities than chasing the grail of "new and improved" ships?
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 748	Posted - 2015.11.13 16:43:58 - [15] - Quote The problem isnt the hulls, but the modules. Look seriously at the weaponry. If fitting, people go for biggest unless they absolutely cannot fit them. Duals never get used for roles... Well, extremely rarely. Of late, The rapid fire is the craze to counter. I think wrong direction in turrets and launchers. First step, balance fittings. Make fitting attribute less pertinent for turret selection. Second step, make target resolution have more weight. This way biggest not best on smaller target. Third step, vary tracking and damage to differentiate even more. Result? We dont need new ships to diverse gameplay, we can now tune ships more for role. Enhance mid and low modifiers to account for these changes. High damage weapons have hit troubles, but will pound larger hulls. Vital for destroying the next size up. Example, 250s and neutron cruisers would beat electron battleships, D250 bs would have trouble vs another battleship but wreck cruisers. Suddenly fleets are tactical because defence combat require along with offense. More variability in fitting better than more one role hulls. As for missiles. Remove the rapid fires, as much as I like em and instead make T2 missiles T1. T2 missiles become tactical ewar style missiles instead. Giving more role to pvp missile ships without a confusing and poorly executed 35 sec reload. Why does a larger turret with less ammo take longer to load? Focus on damage application mechanics instead of peak DPS will make for vibrant combat. To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 633	Posted - 2015.11.13 21:31:01 - [16] - Quote Id say lowering sig resolution on BS sized turrets would be a good starting point. Or make the lowest tier gun have lower sig resolution. Like dual 425s for example. They are technically x2 medium sized guns on one turret. Why the huge increase in resolution? Current sig resolution on large turrets = 425 Medium turret resolution = 125 Dropping it down to 300-325 would be easy to apply and allow turret BS to compete with things like RHML ships and drone boats. Which arent as limited by application. Would still prevent them from getting really crazy with tracking but isnt quite as big a barrier.as a 425 sig resolution. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7198	Posted - 2015.11.13 23:21:52 - [17] - Quote if there is a most neglected ship size, it's the battlecruiser. When was the last time we seen a new one since the introduction, of the Talos, Nado, etc.? SoE has added a frigate, a cruiser, and a battleship. No battlecruisers. Why this is, I don't know. But I would bet that this could have something to do with the BC being in long need of a tweak and balance and also that situation regarding command ships has to be addressed. That the T2 variants are role-ships and the faction hulls slake any thirst for good BCs, the BC may be harder to revisit and add to. Were it up to me, command ships would be in a class all their own and we would have several roles of battlecruiser along with a "vanilla" BC without any special roles. BCs can be great again. And drakes. Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Aiwha Infinite Point DARKNESS. 898	Posted - 2015.11.13 23:41:52 - [18] - Quote Because expensive stuff is fun but not fun to lose. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Paul Pohl blue media poetry 27	Posted - 2015.11.14 00:58:42 - [19] - Quote Budrick3 wrote: So the new destroyers are cool, (bit disappointed that you can run links on them, whatever). But I am disappointed that ccp keeps giving us new frigates and destroyers, but never any larger ships. I live in fw space which I enjoy quite a bit, but it seems that the meta keeps favoring smaller ships, and there are fewer and fewer reasons to fly larger ones. Can ccp give us something larger than a destroyer in future releases? How about a new battle cruise or battle ship that specializes in tracking to help negate the small ship cancer that grows daily. You are doing this for capitals, why not battleships? yeah... CCP.... give us bigger destroyers
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 231	Posted - 2015.11.14 03:27:34 - [20] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Budrick3 wrote: But I am disappointed that ccp keeps giving us new frigates and destroyers, but never any larger ships... Can ccp give us something larger than a destroyer in future releases?... FAX Machines are larger ships aren't they? Also in recent times: Barghest Stratios Nestor Bowhead It hasn't all been small ships. Combat BCs just rebalanced and the Barghest receiving a buff in December. I'd be happy with a balance pass on Battleships, but what's missing in terms of capabilities? What Barghest buff??

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 40787	Posted - 2015.11.14 03:32:43 - [21] - Quote Daniela Doran wrote: What Barghest buff?? From CCP: Barghest: The Barghest is underperforming a tad in our eyes, so this change provides a slight DPS buff at high skill levels (9 effective launchers vs the previous 8.75) while providing a second utility high. -1 Launcher (second utility high) Change damage bonus to 10% per level Reference: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=451065&find=unread Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Markus Reese Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 750	Posted - 2015.11.14 04:48:47 - [22] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: if there is a most neglected ship size, it's the battlecruiser. When was the last time we seen a new one since the introduction, of the Talos, Nado, etc.? SoE has added a frigate, a cruiser, and a battleship. No battlecruisers. Why this is, I don't know. But I would bet that this could have something to do with the BC being in long need of a tweak and balance and also that situation regarding command ships has to be addressed. That the T2 variants are role-ships and the faction hulls slake any thirst for good BCs, the BC may be harder to revisit and add to. Were it up to me, command ships would be in a class all their own and we would have several roles of battlecruiser along with a "vanilla" BC without any special roles. BCs can be great again. And drakes. Well, battlecruisers are a tricky ship. This kinda goes back to what I said earlier of modules vs hulls. The advantage of a bc is simply output of weaponfire with a tank. Command ships tankier. More damage output is ? So is back to the improve modules. A prime role for battlecruisers should be heavy defensive fire, def missile storms and anti battleship combat. All well suited to the mlcrojump. So what is needed from my perspective is to increase the tools that the battlecruisers need. To quote Lfod Shi The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Daniela Doran Ministry of War Amarr Empire 231	Posted - 2015.11.14 05:06:50 - [23] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: Daniela Doran wrote: What Barghest buff?? From CCP: Barghest: The Barghest is underperforming a tad in our eyes, so this change provides a slight DPS buff at high skill levels (9 effective launchers vs the previous 8.75) while providing a second utility high. -1 Launcher (second utility high) Change damage bonus to 10% per level Reference: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=451065&find=unread Thank you Scipio, I'm getting too lazy to check for new Devblogs these days. Need to get rid of my stash of Gilas and Worms now!!
Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 447	Posted - 2015.11.15 12:07:15 - [24] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: Kuronaga wrote: Martin Corwin wrote: Kuronaga wrote: that isn't hindered by gates Just like any other ship in the game. Caps would disagree with you there. And patch notes would disagree with you there, caps have been able to take gates since phoebe. Ooooh, really? That IS news to me, thanks. I never flew the things because of that very reason.
Dirk Magnum KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 515	Posted - 2015.11.15 18:55:15 - [25] - Quote Powercreeping Toward Oblivion II: The Revengeance We don't need big ships that are better at fighting down, we need small ships that aren't as good at fighting up. The navy ships already in game need to have trade-offs like the new navy ewar frigs, and the T3Ds were obviously implemented badly (focus group.) We've actually had a couple of focus groups organized by CCP, and a balance pass that was just announced to deal with a bit of this issue. More and better ships makes the rest of the ships obsolete. T2 and to some extent T3 were all good additions and aren't all hopelessly unbalanced yet, but we're starting to reach critical mass here. The only reason anyone flies a standard T1 ship at all now is because of tiericide (the most needed balance change since [insert any reason.]) Balance, balance, balance. Then balance some more. -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á "LIVE FAST DIE." - traditional Minmatar ethos [citation needed]
Daerrol Death By Design Did he say Jump 255	Posted - 2015.11.15 23:51:50 - [26] - Quote Last releases were: Navy BC's ABC's (8 total new battlecruisers!) Mordus ships (all classes) SOE ships (all classes) Bowhead (Capital) Venture (Frigate/Industrial) TD3's (Destroyer) New unreleased Frigates New unreleased Destoryer Seems like we got a pretty wide cross section of ships. Also small ships are used a LOT more than bigger ships. It's literally been that last 2 releases that were small focused, the rest were all over. And don't forget the next release (Force Auxililary Ships) are capitals. Really what I see is we need a new Battleship.
aldhura Bartledannians 16	Posted - 2015.11.16 01:05:48 - [27] - Quote I (because its all about me) need a spiky BC Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6150832#post6150832
Elyia Suze Nagala Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 33	Posted - 2015.11.16 14:53:23 - [28] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: T3 Flagships (battleships). Whatever happened to the Actoritas, the Amarr Navy Issue Abbaddon?
Terranid Meester Tactical Assault and Recon Unit 315	Posted - 2015.11.22 19:13:50 - [29] - Quote The problem with the larger ships is that they are in a way force multipliers despite their slow speed, with their firepower, hp and larger fittings.Cruisers cannot fit battleship class weaponry but battleships can fit cruiser class weaponry [an exception are the combat battlecruisers that can fit bs weapons but they still have the lower powergrid and hp etc]. In regards to battlecruisers there are still plenty of factions that lack them like Sansha's and Sisters of EVE. Other than that, battlecruisers and battleships should get T3 ships eventually but there is a point where you can oversaturate a game with a lot of overlapping ships that all have to be balanced. I would rather see CCP develop new gameplay and iterations on existing gameplay where all ships can be used because that is what really makes the difference in eve. Imagine if mining was decent, then all existing mining ships could be used in new meaningful ways. If WIS is ever finished and Planetary Interaction iterated on, then those are the kind of things I would rather see CCP work on in the near future like the incoming citadels. In fact I would say it should be CCP's number one consideration across all its departments, iteration of existing gameplay and new gameplay. Too many ships spoil the broth.
Merovee Gorthaur Legion Imperium Mordor 167	Posted - 2015.11.22 23:24:58 - [30] - Quote IMHO we don't need more space ships. What we need is ships we can use on a planet. Jeewiz com'on Empire, the next new world order.



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

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