| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jim Raynor
   |
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:25:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jim Raynor on 24/02/2004 08:29:40
The shiva patch didn't work at balancing ship classes, people still use nothing but battleships for PvP.
What if these ships were more durable? I think that might help, 50% isn't a lot really, they still would be far inferior to battleships in defenses and hi/mid/low slots and firepower, but they will atleast have some more staying power in combat.
Right now frigates have speed, but a lucky shot from a battleship is game over for them and cruisers lack speed and firepower to even think about hanging with battleships, only the blackbird is of any use, as a pure support ship.
What do you guys think?
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:38:00 -
[2]
 Quote:
Why should most people use anything less then the biggest stick around for fighting?
Execptions: special purpose ships like krestals, caracals and blackbirds. And these are something like the "biggest stick" in special capabilities or cost effetivity.
No one will voluntier to face a assault rifle armed guy with a old musket
Why does the army use infantry? Why not just put everyone in tanks? Infantry can do things a tank obviously can't.
It's reasoning such as yours that has turned PVP in EVE into a huge battleship slugfest. I would like to see more tactics and diversity, to be honest.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 08:45:00 -
[3]
Quote:
yes and what part of the army has the highest loss rate?
armies use infantry also because they are cheap to maintain and fast to get.
as soon as a state has money it will upgrade this foot guys to special trained guys, motorised, airmobile or mechanised infantry.
Only the poorest states use pure plain leg infantry and these poor guys will not survive long on a battlefield.
So what you are saying is that frigates and cruisers should have no tactical relevence what so ever in combat, even though todays navys obviously use submarines, frigates, destroyers, and cruisers in support of aircraft carriers (naval battleships are more or less obsolete).
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:26:00 -
[4]
Quote:
Quote:
I think its stupid balancing when I kill a cruiser before I can activate my 6Šth turret at 60km range.
Cruisers should be upped in HP.
Or lower battleship weapons - this would archive the same.
Anyway this will lead only to a endless circle of lowering/highering values of arms/ships/classes.
What you want is to make battleships less powerful or convert them to level 4/5 crusiers in the end. next step is to complain why a moa can kill a osprey fast. Or why a cruiser can kill a frigate so fast.
As long as you have different sizes the bigger side has more punch. The only realy balance would be that we all sit in the same "default" ship. Somehow i dont think this would be a lot of fun.
Battleships already have enough difficulty taking down other battleships, it's quite balanced atm.. 1v1 a battleship vs a battleship the fight can go on for quite a while.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:28:00 -
[5]
Quote:
so.. now Cruiser will last 4 shot more then before?
grate idea 
What would you suggest, troll?
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.24 09:34:00 -
[6]
Quote:
he is right about the net effect.
better than nothing, it would effectively increase say a Moa's shields from 1200 to 1800 + skills, well you get much better defense, enough defenses perhaps to warrant some degree of shield tanking, which I do believe most cruiser pilots ignore because if a bship locks them they are dead anyways.
frigates/cruisers would still be downright cheap
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.02.26 19:52:00 -
[7]
Quote:
In most Sci-Novels and movies Battleships can only shoot from the bow, though smaller weapons may be placed on the sides and rear. This makes their crappy turining radius really count against them. I don't think this is a solution, but at least it will ofer something to think about.
Anyone notice flanking has no use in this game? The weapons can shoot anywhere in 360 degrees. That really takes tactics outta the game.
Yes the way weapons work in Eve kind of sucks.
I would much prefer large, spine mounted guns used for taking out other battleship, and smaller turrets as anti-frigate fire, ect.
But honestly Eve isn't signed in that way at all, so why bother discussing it, it is how it is.
I WOULD like to see hardpoints for launchers though, so they act sort of like turrets, I'm kind of tired of missiles magically appearing infront of my Raven. ^^
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 20:57:00 -
[8]
I think the problem is people feel that frigates are somehow one man fighters, such as the X Wing from Star Wars, they aren't.
Frigates are actually much larger, by todays terms a frigate is actually larger than a destroyer.
I really think frigates and cruisers should be beefed up in their shields/armor/structure, this might promote more use for them.
Battleships should be the "best", but they should be slow and VERY vulnerable to the smaller ships of EVE in numbers. (and no not 50 frigates vs 1 battleship, more like 4 vs 1).
Battleships should be a premium ship for the wealthy, not the PVP standard, imo..
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.03.04 21:22:00 -
[9]
Quote:
So what's wrong with this system?
Frigates (many) are good against BS
Cruisers are good against frigates
BS are good against cruisers and other BS.
This creates a triangle relationship which meakes all ships useful.
Do you honestly think that frigates/cruisers have any tactical role what so ever in EVE? they dont.
The current system is:
Battleship > *
Battleships have no weakness.
Problem with frigates? Deploy your heavy drones.
Problem with Blackbirds jamming you? Deploy your heavy drones and fire your FOF.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
| |
|