EVE Search - Heavy Defense Support T2 BS

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Heavy Defense Support T2 BS

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 07:46:15 - [1] - Quote The Sentry/Guardian T2 BS Tech T2 PVP defense BS These ships would have a single primary focus - Allowing players to redirect hostile target locks to their own ship from other friendly vessels within a set range. These ships have bonuses for tank and the "Target Redirection Module" Target Redirection Module: - Redirects target locks outside of the affected space to the BS - Has a 5 to 7.5km AOE bubble where ships inside are safe from outside locks. - Prevents the BS from moving. Disables prop-modules and has a warp disruption effect for ships inside the safe zone. - Only one such module can be in use within 50-100km. - Counters are nuets and Command Destroyers MMJD. Nuets to shut down the module, or MMJD to jump the ships from inside the safe zone out, excluding the BS. - 60-120 sec cycle time, and repeatable. If disabled by the player or from lack of fuel/capacitor it has a 180 cool down before it can be reactivated. - No bonuses for combat, just defense and limited combat abilities (lack of hard points/bandwidth) for self-defense in travel. - Maybe limit it to local tank reps or limited incoming reps (maybe make it so reps directed at it from inside the AOE are only 10% effective, but work at full strength out side the safe zone.) Lore: Durning a number of salvage runs and research operations into Drifter space, a group of (NPC) scientist found what appeared to be a Target Spectrum Breaker. Upon closer review and weeks of reverse engineering they learned that the module didn't break target locks but redirected them to the ship using said module. The research and prototypes where leaked to eiach empire which hurriedly developed high-end defensive ships to use the modules, for capsular use. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Anize Oramara The Arch Dashing Dashers 719	Posted - 2016.01.04 07:51:36 - [2] - Quote Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.04
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 07:59:15 - [3] - Quote Anize Oramara wrote: Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. Didn't really think of capitals vs these ships - then again, as I wasn't thinking about them I didn't try to balance them for capitals, plus the fact that all the times I have seen PVP fleets I hardly ever see dreads involved. Unless the fleet is tower bashing or attacking another capital ship. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Helios Panala 60	Posted - 2016.01.04 09:39:22 - [4] - Quote I'd prefer a special type of 5 to 7.5km POS shield instead of weird sensor tech. Seems more straightforward. This is essentially a standard MMO tank, make the enemy hit you rather than your party, if something like that was ever introduced I'd want to stop my team getting in hit a way that at least looks a bit cool. Big shield is better than invisible sensor magic. A few years ago I'd have confidently said 'no way this will happen' but CCP seem to be experimenting a bit more these days, so who knows.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 10:49:09 - [5] - Quote Yes, they are doing some cool things. And yes, this is basically just a "aggro" control ship. I would leave the visual graphic to CCP. But as I am not trying to prevent damage to ships in the safe target zone, but rather divert the target locks to the BS. Having a "safety bubble" that prevents damage or sends all damage toward the "tank" doesn't seem to fit the sci-fi nature of EVE. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Helios Panala 60	Posted - 2016.01.04 10:55:32 - [6] - Quote "Safety bubble" already has a precedent in the Eve Universe though. I suppose the only real difference would be whether the proposed Battleship protects against bombs or not.
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 600	Posted - 2016.01.04 11:52:56 - [7] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Anize Oramara wrote: Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. Didn't really think of capitals vs these ships This is EVE... Everything that happens in this game has something to do with Capitals.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2842	Posted - 2016.01.04 11:58:49 - [8] - Quote Anize Oramara wrote: Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. Maybe it'll be the first battleship to be able to tank a dreadnought. There are three defensive skill bonuses and T2 ships get 4 bonuses, so it could have all three defensive skill bonuses, with its race defense duplicated once. Example: Amarr Battleship Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor hit points per level Amarr HDSBS Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor repair amount per level Combine with T2 resists, the EHP buff that battleships need in general, slightly higher base HP on these than marauders after the buff, and new shield extenders and armor plates for battleships, and you might have a really strong tank. Also, these would have a better slot layout for strong tank: Amarr: 7/4/8 Caldari: 7/8/4 Gallente: 7/5/7 Minmatar: 7/7/5 FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post." Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Alexhandr Shkarov Swamphole Inc. Swamphole 24	Posted - 2016.01.04 12:13:45 - [9] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: I'd prefer a special type of 5 to 7.5km POS shield instead of weird sensor tech. Seems more straightforward. This is essentially a standard MMO tank, make the enemy hit you rather than your party, if something like that was ever introduced I'd want to stop my team getting in hit a way that at least looks a bit cool. Big shield is better than invisible sensor magic. A few years ago I'd have confidently said 'no way this will happen' but CCP seem to be experimenting a bit more these days, so who knows. I am not sure if this is a good thing though. Fleets already rely on anchors a lot, and now you're going to allow a brick tanked battleship be an even better anchor? All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.
Iain Cariaba 2276	Posted - 2016.01.04 12:27:33 - [10] - Quote Looks at the list of penalties for using this ship. Here's a thought. If you have to pile that many penalties onto a ship in order to balance out the opness, it's probably not a good idea to start with. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Anize Oramara The Arch Dashing Dashers 721	Posted - 2016.01.04 12:43:02 - [11] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: Anize Oramara wrote: Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. Didn't really think of capitals vs these ships - then again, as I wasn't thinking about them I didn't try to balance them for capitals, plus the fact that all the times I have seen PVP fleets I hardly ever see dreads involved. Unless the fleet is tower bashing or attacking another capital ship. Actually I'm thinking way too big even though I am 100% correct regardless. I hear phoenixes are quite popular for blapping sub caps. But seriously a modest sized fleet of arty Machs that are quite common these days in Low and Null will alpha it off the field. Heck a Tach nightmare fleet should be able to do it as well. Arty nados if on a budget or you know, Cane's for real cheap. If it's sitting still it's dead. Well more dead. A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.04
Helios Panala 60	Posted - 2016.01.04 12:52:56 - [12] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: - Prevents the BS from moving. Disables prop-modules and has a warp disruption effect for ships inside the safe zone. Wait... can I drop it on enemy fleets to turn off their prop mods and prevent escape?
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 15:18:43 - [13] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Anize Oramara wrote: Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. Maybe it'll be the first battleship to be able to tank a dreadnought. There are three defensive skill bonuses and T2 ships get 4 bonuses, so it could have all three defensive skill bonuses, with its race defense duplicated once. Example: Amarr Battleship Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor hit points per level Amarr HDSBS Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor repair amount per level Combine with T2 resists, the EHP buff that battleships need in general, slightly higher base HP on these than marauders after the buff, and new shield extenders and armor plates for battleships, and you might have a really strong tank. Also, these would have a better slot layout for strong tank: Amarr: 7/4/8 Caldari: 7/8/4 Gallente: 7/5/7 Minmatar: 7/7/5 Thank you. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 15:23:23 - [14] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: Amarisen Gream wrote: - Prevents the BS from moving. Disables prop-modules and has a warp disruption effect for ships inside the safe zone. If I drop it on top of enemy fleets will it turn off their prop mods and prevent escape? When it came to thinking up the small prop/warp drive shut down bubble, it was more for the fact that. If an enemy fleet gets within the bubble. everyone inside of it is effected. using something like a command destroyer to land your brawling cruisers in on your foe is a possible option this just makes it so everyone can't warp out (with out a warp stab) or use prop modes to burn through it. Ether Fleet with the BS holds their spot, or they get killed. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2451	Posted - 2016.01.04 15:28:20 - [15] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Anize Oramara wrote: Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. Maybe it'll be the first battleship to be able to tank a dreadnought. There are three defensive skill bonuses and T2 ships get 4 bonuses, so it could have all three defensive skill bonuses, with its race defense duplicated once. Example: Amarr Battleship Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor hit points per level Amarr HDSBS Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor repair amount per level Combine with T2 resists, the EHP buff that battleships need in general, slightly higher base HP on these than marauders after the buff, and new shield extenders and armor plates for battleships, and you might have a really strong tank. Also, these would have a better slot layout for strong tank: Amarr: 7/4/8 Caldari: 7/8/4 Gallente: 7/5/7 Minmatar: 7/7/5 So like, 2 dreads instead of one? Remember, it's also taking the enemy fleet's worth of DPS over what the dread is bringing. It adds up fast. @OP, if I brawl inside the bubble, I can freely target?
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 15:35:18 - [16] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Anize Oramara wrote: Has the same problem as Marauders. A BS that's not moving will be insta blapped by a dread. Maybe it'll be the first battleship to be able to tank a dreadnought. There are three defensive skill bonuses and T2 ships get 4 bonuses, so it could have all three defensive skill bonuses, with its race defense duplicated once. Example: Amarr Battleship Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor hit points per level Amarr HDSBS Skill 4% improved armor resistances per level 7.5% increased armor repair amount per level Combine with T2 resists, the EHP buff that battleships need in general, slightly higher base HP on these than marauders after the buff, and new shield extenders and armor plates for battleships, and you might have a really strong tank. Also, these would have a better slot layout for strong tank: Amarr: 7/4/8 Caldari: 7/8/4 Gallente: 7/5/7 Minmatar: 7/7/5 So like, 2 dreads instead of one? Remember, it's also taking the enemy fleet's worth of DPS over what the dread is bringing. It adds up fast. @OP, if I brawl inside the bubble, I can freely target? yes. free targeting inside the bubble. out side the bubble redirects target locks to the BS if the the target is inside the bubble/aoe "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2452	Posted - 2016.01.04 16:06:27 - [17] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: yes. free targeting inside the bubble. out side the bubble redirects target locks to the BS if the the target is inside the bubble/aoe my awesome skills at putting shapes together. http://prntscr.com/9lzvkr If it could move, it could be used as an anti-logi but there is an anchor attached to the redirect...
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 16:33:16 - [18] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Amarisen Gream wrote: yes. free targeting inside the bubble. out side the bubble redirects target locks to the BS if the the target is inside the bubble/aoe my awesome skills at putting shapes together. http://prntscr.com/9lzvkr If it could move, it could be used as an anti-logi but there is an anchor attached to the redirect... I am not a balance master - so if the ship was allowed to move. it would be very slow going... But, i'm mostly just for a T2 BS that can redirect the targeting from outside the AOE against ships inside the AOE. if the ship is anchored or movable doesn't really matter, as long as it gets balanced accordingly... maybe CCP could get creative and have different effects for in motion and out of motion. like say a smaller AOE while moving, bigger when still. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2153	Posted - 2016.01.04 17:59:34 - [19] - Quote This idea is just bad. It won't make the game more fun or more interesting. If it takes a Dreadnought to break it, then it is OP for small scale fights. At the large scale it will just be a useless HP wall that will have to get killed. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
FT Diomedes The Graduates 2153	Posted - 2016.01.04 18:01:38 - [20] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Looks at the list of penalties for using this ship. Here's a thought. If you have to pile that many penalties onto a ship in order to balance out the opness, it's probably not a good idea to start with. This is a tried and true rule for Eve ship design. CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3921	Posted - 2016.01.04 19:04:44 - [21] - Quote So it forces all ships to have a maximum of 1 locked target? And then I just warp into C5, let my BS tank all rats and gankers while my alt nukes everything with full damage mods on lows and mids. Sweet... Oh god.
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 19:19:51 - [22] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: This idea is just bad. It won't make the game more fun or more interesting. If it takes a Dreadnought to break it, then it is OP for small scale fights. At the large scale it will just be a useless HP wall that will have to get killed. Or force the fleet up against one to move in on top of it and take out his allies. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 19:24:23 - [23] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: So it forces all ships to have a maximum of 1 locked target? And then I just warp into C5, let my BS tank all rats and gankers while my alt nukes everything with full damage mods on lows and mids. Sweet... Not really - it prevents any target locks on ships with in the AOE by ships out side it; and redirects the lock to the BS. Command destroyers could jump in and then jump out taking all this pretty over DPS ships with no tank out of their little salty net. Or they could jump in and fight at near point blank. Or use Neuts to drain his cap Or disengage and wait for them on another field of battle. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 19:47:12 - [24] - Quote Helios Panala wrote: "Safety bubble" already has a precedent in the Eve Universe though. I suppose the only real difference would be whether the proposed Battleship protects against bombs or not. Didn't see this post - bombs are uneffected, as they don't require target locks. Just think how fun bombing wings would be vs these things. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Amarisen Gream Divine Demise Apocalypse Now. 180	Posted - 2016.01.04 19:51:52 - [25] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: This idea is just bad. It won't make the game more fun or more interesting. If it takes a Dreadnought to break it, then it is OP for small scale fights. At the large scale it will just be a useless HP wall that will have to get killed. Small gangs would just blue ball it, and large fleets would have the counters. Ether neut it like every other ship in game, drop in on top of it and fight or jump in and jump out via Command Destroyers, taking every ship but the BS along for a death ride. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 DIDE- is open to new members
Alexhandr Shkarov Swamphole Inc. Swamphole 24	Posted - 2016.01.04 20:32:58 - [26] - Quote Amarisen Gream wrote: FT Diomedes wrote: This idea is just bad. It won't make the game more fun or more interesting. If it takes a Dreadnought to break it, then it is OP for small scale fights. At the large scale it will just be a useless HP wall that will have to get killed. Small gangs would just blue ball it, and large fleets would have the counters. Ether neut it like every other ship in game, drop in on top of it and fight or jump in and jump out via Command Destroyers, taking every ship but the BS along for a death ride. Not only that, but it directly contradicts the goal of CCP to reduce the idea of anchoring and such in favour of pilot-skill. All my posts are on my personal title and should not be confused as me speaking for anyone else.
Helios Panala 60	Posted - 2016.01.04 22:12:29 - [27] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Iain Cariaba wrote: Looks at the list of penalties for using this ship. Here's a thought. If you have to pile that many penalties onto a ship in order to balance out the opness, it's probably not a good idea to start with. This is a tried and true rule for Eve ship design. It currently has one penalty... Even the original proposal only had 2 definite penalties.


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

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20250210/1214
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.