EVE Search - close range defences for larger ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

close range defences for larger ships - currently not so good

» 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)
Sarah Aubry Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.11.21 02:52:00 - [1] Edited by: Sarah Aubry on 21/11/2007 02:51:55 I recently watched the Battlestar Galactica Razor movie, so please forgive the comparisons, I know eve is not trying to be BSG but these ideas still apply. In eve we have many giant ships which are really quite useless at defending themselves. Consider this, a ship which is a few km long and has 8 giant turrets capable of inflicting major damage against other large ships, is completely vulnerable to small ships. Let's not compare to an aircraft carrier or battlestar, as these are more like our motherships and that's a seperate issue. Let's look at our battleships and cruisers. In the ambulation video recently you saw the size of a cruiser (the Zealot). That sucker was HUGE! I find it hard to believe that a ship that size would not have effective close range defences. checkout the armament of a US cruiser So i propose the following, limited number of small only highslots, these would be slots that can ONLY have a small turret/launcher fitted or nothing at all (eg no other high slot modules) Exmaple of a Zealot with this might be: 4x heavy beam laser II 3x dual light pulse laser II (maybe not even able to fit small beams here) A battleship should be a lot more capable, maybe 5-8 small turrets for close range defence. I think all capitals should have room for 8 but more would be interesting too. I would like to see something like this experimented with on sisi, so a carrier might have 8-16 close range small defences, maybe even cruiser sized weapons. The next part is whether these should be manual or auto control, or perhaps have the option for both. So you could leave them on automatic defence but they wouldn't focus fire, or take manual control if you want to manage them yourselves. I think we can all agree that a carrier being tackled by an rifter and having only its fighters/drones for defence is pretty lame. Comments?
Katashi Ishizuka	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:23:00 - [2] You can have it when my frigates get anti-battleship torpedoes.
Linavin Mercurialis Inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:30:00 - [3] Edited by: Linavin on 21/11/2007 03:33:40 Rules of Internet Spaceship Dicussion Forums 1. Never use real life comparisons to justify potential changes. 2. Consider why the Dev's maintain the current balance style of the game at the moment and consider how and why your suggestion could disrupt such balance if it does. 3. Consider the technical feasability of your suggestion, aside from the balance perspective, does the engine/interface/combat system support such an idea? And in Response- Drones, Webs, EW, Tank, & (most of all) gangmates ---
Kurogauna	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Kurogauna on 21/11/2007 03:35:18 Quote: 1. Never use real life comparisons to justify potential changes. 2. Consider why the Dev's maintain the current balance style of the game at the moment and consider how and why your suggestion could disrupt such balance if it does. 3. Consider the technical feasability of your suggestion, aside from the balance perspective, does the engine/interface/combat system support such an idea? I want anti missile Gatling "Phalanx"
Cha Jeng Zenith of Things	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:42:00 - [5] Clearly you are missing the point of the game. If the bigger ships were better in every way to the smaller ships what would the point be to fly the smaller ships?
Jennai Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:49:00 - [6] obviously you didn't play before the missile changes, when torps/cruiser did full damage to everything and the lifespan of the average fleet tackler was measured in seconds. uber kill-everything battleships are not compatible with interesting group pvp.
Caffeine Junkie Caldari Veni Vidi Vici. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:52:00 - [7] Originally by: Katashi I**uka You can have it when my frigates get anti-battleship torpedoes. Ummmm....so whats a stealth bomber then? Click here -> Unbalance EVE
Caffeine Junkie Caldari Veni Vidi Vici. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:55:00 - [8] I can see the OP's point, however it would be overpowered to fit them on standard battleships. However a variant of battleship (or even BC) that was solely designed for point-blank defence would be good, allowing it to defend other battleships in the fleet. But then again, thats what interceptors are for. Click here -> Unbalance EVE
Linavin Mercurialis Inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.21 03:56:00 - [9] Originally by: Jennai obviously you didn't play before the turret trackign/quote] Even worse, frigates were easily trackable even by long range battleship guns. ---
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.21 04:42:00 - [10] Originally by: Caffeine Junkie Originally by: Katashi I**uka You can have it when my frigates get anti-battleship torpedoes. Ummmm....so whats a stealth bomber then? A ship with anti frigate cruise missles.

Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.21 04:46:00 - [11] I was covering this topic in another thread. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=640184 It seems everytime this idea is brought up it is instantly smashed or debated until both sides are blue. The only way it could work while maintaing balance would be to give frigates or assault frig the ability to carry A LIMITED NUMBER of anti BS torps. that way there couldnt be a solo BS ganker in a wolf. At the same time a BS point defence or gun crews or whatever would hae to be nerfed as well. There is a way to accomplish adding these types of features in the game while maintaining balance but until both the big ship guys and the littel ship guys meet and work it out civily then bring the idea to CCP it will only be an idea.
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2007.11.21 04:50:00 - [12] Originally by: Andrew Olaffsen I was covering this topic in another thread. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=640184 It seems everytime this idea is brought up it is instantly smashed or debated until both sides are blue. The only way it could work while maintaing balance would be to give frigates or assault frig the ability to carry A LIMITED NUMBER of anti BS torps. that way there couldnt be a solo BS ganker in a wolf. At the same time a BS point defence or gun crews or whatever would hae to be nerfed as well. There is a way to accomplish adding these types of features in the game while maintaining balance but until both the big ship guys and the littel ship guys meet and work it out civily then bring the idea to CCP it will only be an idea. Or, instead of adding an insane ammount of balance issues to the game, the lone BS can fit a single large NEUT and carry 5 small drones. Problem solved.
Neon Genesis The Landed Gentry	Posted - 2007.11.21 05:14:00 - [13] Edited by: Neon Genesis on 21/11/2007 05:15:12 The major problem with this concept is that it's really easy to get into a battleship. Smaller ship classes only survive in the presence on these ships because they can avoid the fire using speed tanking. If you take that away they have nothing, are shot down instantly like back in the old days of no tracking. I can assure you that at that time having a battleship was seriously a prequisite to pvp. _
Ulstan	Posted - 2007.11.21 05:24:00 - [14] You know, there is nothing stopping you from using a couple of those 8 turret slots for weapons which can track and kill frigates. Nothing whatsoever.
Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.21 06:10:00 - [15] If a rifter did go agaisnt a carrier and could just orbit and fire it would take weeks to die. besides the stealth bomber is there any other fast little bugger than can carry heavy ordinance enough to get the attention of a capital ship? a-la dive bomber style? that would be neat. what about a trade off? ill give you my maelstroms drone bay in favor of 4 or 5 point defence guns? no?
Shiken Kan	Posted - 2007.11.21 06:30:00 - [16] if a carrier gets tackled by a lone rifter and doesn't manage to get out of that situation the ship should implode and the character deleted.
Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.21 06:34:00 - [17] LOL or permanetly demoted to mammoth pilot carrying garbage between jita and rens...FOREVER!!!!!!
Dangerously Cheesey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.21 06:36:00 - [18] Theres a whole host of options. -Energy Neutralizers and Nos -Small drones -Webs -Fitting small guns -Smaller escort ships designed for taking the smallest ships out (Anti-support snipers like eagle/muninn/zealot, extra web range ships like rapier/huginn/hyena, other small fast ships like destroyers/dictors and other interceptors) -Remote Repairing
Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.21 06:38:00 - [19] you know what works sometimes for PvE anyay? hiring decent noobs in frigs as basicaly large better AI drones and theyll be happy when you pay them with loot or salvage.
Acoco Osiris Gallente Sublime.	Posted - 2007.11.21 11:42:00 - [20] Originally by: Dangerously Cheesey Theres a whole host of options. -Energy Neutralizers and Nos -Small drones -Webs -Fitting small guns -Smaller escort ships designed for taking the smallest ships out (Anti-support snipers like eagle/muninn/zealot, extra web range ships like rapier/huginn/hyena, other small fast ships like destroyers/dictors and other interceptors) -Remote Repairing I'm also going to add smartbombs, EW (frigates have low sensor attributes), tanks which will last forever, tracking modules, and target painters. But mostly just 5 Warrior IIs and webs.

Sarah Aubry Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:20:00 - [21] I think you posters so far are largely missing the point. These ships are GIANTS and yet only have at most 8 guns? At the VERY LEAST the capitals should have automatic close range defence (inside 10km) this gives assault frigates a role at last (tackling big ships) as really, a rifter holding down a turret battleship is so rediculous when you consider RP. Show me a chronicle where a t1 frigate held down a battleship while support came to kill it. IMHO it should be like this: - Frigs for tackling other frigs, destroyers (if they dare) and cruisers. - AF's and above (above being cruisers) for tackling battlecruisers, battleships, dreads, carriers - Hactors (Heavy dictors) for tackling super capitals (already on their way) Not to say that a smaller ship couldn't try, but if they got in too close I think they should be screwed pretty quickly unless they have an awesome tank. Auto defences at best would be 10km range on bc/bs and 20km range on capitals. Also these auto defences should continue firing even when the ship is jammed/damped but against a tanked ship they would do wet paper towel damage. Against t1 frigs they would melt them pretty quick.
Saietor Blackgreen	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:39:00 - [22] FFS guys why do you get on this topic again? I think the word "point-defence" should be censored-out on these forums already. Point defence for battleships is other players in small ships. And everything else (drones, neuts, smarties).
Sarah Aubry Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:42:00 - [23] Because we want our ships to be like the ones in the chronicles.
Shiken Kan	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:44:00 - [24] The problem is that this would make any ship smaller than a bs not worthy to fly it unless you need it for a very specific role, eg scanning or running commandmodules yawns RP wise it is also not particulary great when 99% of every combatship belongs to the largest shipclass btw.
arbalesttom Caldari Glauxian Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:00:00 - [25] Originally by: Sarah Aubry Let's not compare to an aircraft carrier or battlestar ... checkout the armament of a US cruiser Comments? Yes, dont fool yourself..? * * ♣♣♣Phear my sig!♣♣♣ Nice hamster! - Mindstar Sorry, that hamster ate your sig - Cortes
Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:12:00 - [26] As you say, It is a huge ship, and there should be something like gun crews or point defence. Unfortunately, I dont think it will happen. The whole concept is based on depth and RP. Its cool to think about but right now the balance of this game is maintianed only by having every ship basically a frigate. Got from a frig to a destroyer, and your in a frig with more guns. Cruisers: frigates with drone bays. BS: frigates with big guns and more drone space. "But dane, it fires the big guns and missles!" Yeah granted,but still flies and is fitted just like a bigger slower frigate. "But it can pop cruisers easily!" just like a frigate should pop drones easily. "What about battelship and fleet fights?" Two battelships going at it fight each other just like two friagte or cruisers would. Approach, orbit, activate tank or electronic gadgetry, fire all guns and missles, repeat. Id like nothing more than to see more depth and options in the game especially when it comes to the RP aspect and scale. But CCP would have to sit down and actually have to rebalance everything then put it into effect and they are busy trying to make the game prettier. (and doing a damn fine job from what ive seen) Lets just let this topic go to sleep for a while and save ourselves the flamage.
Cha Jeng Zenith of Things	Posted - 2007.11.22 03:15:00 - [27] replace that "we" to an "I" and the statement is correct. It is a terrible idea. I don't like flying a BS, and it would suck if you forced me to by making all smaller ships not viable
Kal Shakai Dominus Imperium	Posted - 2007.11.22 03:25:00 - [28] There are already so many defenses against small ships that CCP has seen fit to buff inties. Few people fly AF's anymore either. Many people have pointed those defenses out so I won't be redundant.
Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.22 03:29:00 - [29] What about giving the AFs the ability to actually do damage to larger ships. Say 4 Torps or something? It would be really effective if you had a gang of 5 AFs all with some Torps and dive bombing
Shiken Kan	Posted - 2007.11.22 05:48:00 - [30] Originally by: Andrew Olaffsen As you say, It is a huge ship, and there should be something like gun crews or point defence. Unfortunately, I dont think it will happen. The whole concept is based on depth and RP. Its cool to think about but right now the balance of this game is maintianed only by having every ship basically a frigate. Got from a frig to a destroyer, and your in a frig with more guns. Cruisers: frigates with drone bays. BS: frigates with big guns and more drone space. "But dane, it fires the big guns and missles!" Yeah granted,but still flies and is fitted just like a bigger slower frigate. "But it can pop cruisers easily!" just like a frigate should pop drones easily. "What about battelship and fleet fights?" Two battelships going at it fight each other just like two friagte or cruisers would. Approach, orbit, activate tank or electronic gadgetry, fire all guns and missles, repeat. Id like nothing more than to see more depth and options in the game especially when it comes to the RP aspect and scale. But CCP would have to sit down and actually have to rebalance everything then put it into effect and they are busy trying to make the game prettier. (and doing a damn fine job from what ive seen) Lets just let this topic go to sleep for a while and save ourselves the flamage. i have yet to see a fleet fight where the bs orbit anything have any noticeable active tank or use electronic gadgetry apart from sensor boosters or tracking computers.

Leon 026 Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.11.22 06:23:00 - [31] Edited by: Leon 026 on 22/11/2007 06:41:31 In response, I would like my interceptors to have the option of carrying anti-battleship bombs. That said, point defense already exists in EVE... ...its called bringing one of the bellow as wingman: * destroyer * interdictor * assault frigate * cruiser with frig weapons * Recon cruiser * Eagle/Muninn * EAF * stealthbomber(lol) * interceptor Originally by: Sarah Aubry I think you posters so far are largely missing the point. snip IMHO it should be like this: - Frigs for tackling other frigs, destroyers (if they dare) and cruisers. - AF's and above (above being cruisers) for tackling battlecruisers, battleships, dreads, carriers - Hactors (Heavy dictors) for tackling super capitals (already on their way) snip This, irks me. A lot. You want your battleship to be a multi-role pwnmobile, waltzing into the middle of a battle guns blazing and point-defense weapons swatting down the poor one-trick tackle frigates left and right. I really do appreciate the pidgeon-holing of frigates as nothing more than "tacklers" for your battleship so that your BS can pwn more, no really. Nevermind that ever since the hp buff and the fad of fitting plates to a battleship to increase its hitpoints to 40,000+ has nerfed frigate PvP, you want BSes to kill inties without effort too. If you're worried about small ships, then you probably shouldnt be flying a battleship solo without an escort. ------- Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings
Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.22 06:35:00 - [32] which are better in the absence of and escort? med or heavy drones against frigs and interceptors
Shiken Kan	Posted - 2007.11.22 06:40:00 - [33] the faster the better, so lights>meds>heavies even lights won't catch fast inties though.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.11.22 07:24:00 - [34] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 22/11/2007 07:25:01 Originally by: Shiken Kan even lights won't catch fast inties though. It seems CCP have deliberately (after the new patch) put T2 interceptor distruptor range on the 'tackling' inties higher then heavy neut range. Or, in translation, they said: if an interceptor holds you down until downtime because you're flying your BS solo, it's your problem for flying your BS solo. Frankly, large ships have plenty of counters to anything small, the first and obvious being webs - battleship guns track frigates moving at 50m/s just fine, and MWD battleships are for some odd reason faster then AB-ing frigates, as a rule, making it completely trivial to kill anything in webrange. I really don't understand why anyone would need more. Oh, yes, and you get the 'deactivate frigate' module in the form of a heavy neutraliser with 24km range. What more do you need? Anyone saying anti-frigate defences on a BS are bad should really contract their BS to me.
Shiken Kan	Posted - 2007.11.22 08:11:00 - [35] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 22/11/2007 07:25:01 Originally by: Shiken Kan even lights won't catch fast inties though. It seems CCP have deliberately (after the new patch) put T2 interceptor distruptor range on the 'tackling' inties higher then heavy neut range. Or, in translation, they said: if an interceptor holds you down until downtime because you're flying your BS solo, it's your problem for flying your BS solo. Frankly, large ships have plenty of counters to anything small, the first and obvious being webs - battleship guns track frigates moving at 50m/s just fine, and MWD battleships are for some odd reason faster then AB-ing frigates, as a rule, making it completely trivial to kill anything in webrange. I really don't understand why anyone would need more. Oh, yes, and you get the 'deactivate frigate' module in the form of a heavy neutraliser with 24km range. What more do you need? Anyone saying anti-frigate defences on a BS are bad should really contract their BS to me. i was merely answering the question right above my post, i don't believe that bs should get an antifrig boost.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.11.22 08:28:00 - [36] Originally by: Shiken Kan i was merely answering the question right above my post, i don't believe that bs should get an antifrig boost. Yes, I realise that - I was just saying they made so heavy neuts can't stop the 'tackling' inty variants, probably not by accident either. I was hoping for some contracted BS, but nobody seems to comply
Andrew Olaffsen	Posted - 2007.11.22 10:30:00 - [37] Like all the other times this idea has been brought up...(even by myself) we just need to let the idea die and go away just like makeing carriers worth a damn and nerfing the nerf monster
ILove Moas	Posted - 2007.11.22 12:59:00 - [38] Anyone ever think that the Destroyer class ships are designed from the bottom up as point defense escort for a battleship? Give me a commorant fit right with t2 150mm rails and i'll blast af's sb's dictors, other destroyers, and any other frigate sized ship out of space in just a couple vollies from 90k out at that. even the high and mighty 7kms interceptors can be tracked and brought down by the commorant. im not sure of the other destroyers, but im sure they can do it too. The next point defense, the longer ranged defense, Stealth bombers fitted with cruise missles. Ever knotice how they all have the explosion velocity bonuses? a toon with good cruise missle skills can land hits on frigate class hulls for 300-400 a missle. that=instapop to almost any ship. i've personally hit a jaguar with 1 salvo from my manticore and watched his shields and armor melt off, leave half his hull. afew seconds later the 2nd volly fnished him... and the 3rd finished his pod. Soo, you've got point defense designed ships, and long range frigate killers. Oh and don't forget your drones, or the fact that any cruiser sized drone ship can sit point too with 5 smalls, a web, and a mwd. Duhh pull your head out of your *** and look at what you have. Your point defense weapon idea fails. Delete yourself and goodbye.
SoftRevolution	Posted - 2007.11.22 13:26:00 - [39] Quote: I recently watched the Battlestar Galactica Razor movie, so please forgive the comparisons, I know eve is not trying to be BSG but these ideas still apply. Whenever I watch Battlestar Galactica I'm always struck by how the whole thing is pretty much a design brief for destroyers. You've got all these big slow ships getting spanked by nippy little ships. "So yes... we need a specialised anti nippy little ship platform. Something to destroy them before they get near the big slow ship. A destroyer of nippy small ships you might say..." Destroyers were originally "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" and were designed specifically to protect Battleships from smaller vessels. By the way, that ship you linked carries a specialised anti-aircraft weapons and sensor system. The EVE equivalent would probably be a Destroyer or an Interdictor. Also. Carriers IRL are accompanied by lots of ships to keep smaller nippier ships (and subs) away. EVE RELATED CONTENT
Jikx Everproud Caldari Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 13:34:00 - [40] Well.. I suppose one way is to extend BS bonuses to all weapon sizes. So if a bonus now says "5% ROF bonus to large artillery", this changes to "5% ROF bonus to all artillery" - so it applies even to small cannons. Increased versatility would be cool, and make combat that much more unpredictable. --- My Youtube Eve Videos

Maeltstome Minmatar D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.22 17:37:00 - [41] Edited by: Maeltstome on 22/11/2007 17:40:34 IMO, OP is a noob in a raven who died to an Ibis. EDIT* Scratch that, further searching has revealed it to be someone who is incapable of posting with thier main. ------- [12:07] w33Daz: a trained 1 skill fur 24 mins n it took 2 days aff drones lvl 5 [12:07] w33Daz: A WIS LIKE WTF
Aurael Drakewing Legio Immortalis Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.11.22 18:06:00 - [42] How about a compromise idea that hits 2 issues at once? Introduce a high-slot module, the "CIWS." Just like a damage control, you can only have a single one on active at a time. Absolute max range (any skills/other mods/etc) would be 5km at most. Uses small ammo of the appropriate racial type (hybrid for Gal/Cald, crystals for Amarr, and proj for Minny) and a very small amount of cap (Amarr uses slightly more than other race's). High refire rate (1-2 seconds tops), extremely high tracking, but very low damage per shot (should be completely tankable by a modicum of a tank, but enough to kill a heavy missile in 1 shot). Active mod (like a hardener/damage control). The CIWS will engage anything that gets within that 5km envelope while it's active unless it's in your gang/corp/alliance including drones, frigates, and missiles. This will put the max range well inside web range, which a frigate would have to be suicidal to get that close anyway. I don't think drones orbit that close either, so for ships it would really only be useful if the pilot doesn't know what he/she's doing. The big advantage is that it does add some point-defense for frigates, if the pilot gets too close, and gives a viable anti-missile defense (which has been clamored about for ages)....thoughts?
Linden Dixon	Posted - 2007.11.22 18:24:00 - [43] Think STAR WARS!!! The Death Star could blow up a planet, but got weaseled by an X-Wing. Mr Death Star is good at blowing big stuff up, but has to reply upon Mr Darth Vader and his friends to keep the small fighters away. Mr Battleship doesn't have Mr Darth Vader, but he does have Drones. When I'm in a battleship, I blast all the big stuff first, leaving the frigs till last (as other than EW they can't harm me much). Then I launch the drones at them and watch them all die. Easy. In REAL life, battleships and carriers have to be protected by anti-sub frigates, and anti-air cruisers. I think EVE is fairly realistic in this regard, and most of all, the current set-up makes it FAIR and FUN
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2007.11.22 21:17:00 - [44] Quote: Introduce a high-slot module, the "CIWS." Just like a damage control, you can only have a single one on active at a time. Absolute max range (any skills/other mods/etc) would be 5km at most. Uses small ammo of the appropriate racial type (hybrid for Gal/Cald, crystals for Amarr, and proj for Minny) and a very small amount of cap (Amarr uses slightly more than other race's). High refire rate (1-2 seconds tops), extremely high tracking, but very low damage per shot (should be completely tankable by a modicum of a tank, but enough to kill a heavy missile in 1 shot). Active mod (like a hardener/damage control). The CIWS will engage anything that gets within that 5km envelope while it's active unless it's in your gang/corp/alliance including drones, frigates, and missiles. I can think of a better name for those... smartbombs. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
Dristra Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 21:47:00 - [45] Originally by: ILove Moas Anyone ever think that the Destroyer class ships are designed from the bottom up as point defense escort for a battleship? Give me a commorant fit right with t2 150mm rails and i'll blast af's sb's dictors, other destroyers, and any other frigate sized ship out of space in just a couple vollies from 90k out at that. even the high and mighty 7kms interceptors can be tracked and brought down by the commorant. im not sure of the other destroyers, but im sure they can do it too. The next point defense, the longer ranged defense, Stealth bombers fitted with cruise missles. Ever knotice how they all have the explosion velocity bonuses? a toon with good cruise missle skills can land hits on frigate class hulls for 300-400 a missle. that=instapop to almost any ship. i've personally hit a jaguar with 1 salvo from my manticore and watched his shields and armor melt off, leave half his hull. afew seconds later the 2nd volly fnished him... and the 3rd finished his pod. Soo, you've got point defense designed ships, and long range frigate killers. Oh and don't forget your drones, or the fact that any cruiser sized drone ship can sit point too with 5 smalls, a web, and a mwd. Duhh pull your head out of your *** and look at what you have. Your point defense weapon idea fails. Delete yourself and goodbye. Destroyers are okay, and not much use outside of the role of killing dumb small ships, stealth bobmbers are lolled by ceptors, as missiles have a speed, and if you go faster, bye bye missile damage, mate of mine soloed a nemesis in his crow last week actually... It's great being Amarr isn't it. Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr!
Mortuus Minmatar Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.22 21:50:00 - [46] Its called fit a smaller gun. I swat down ceptors and frigs without using a web with a 425mm AC t2 (yes in PvP) all day. Its not really that difficult. So sacrifice a little DPS for security vs smaller ships, nobody is forcing you to use all available weapon hardpoints for large weapons after all. Also note that you do in fact carry small little ships to hit small little ships, we call these drones. Drones work. You could also carry 1 Damp and 1 Heavy Neut, force the small ship to get within neut range to tackle, nuke his cap, close and kill. Perhaps people just need to learn how to play the game? ex-Occassus Republica <3
Aurael Drakewing Legio Immortalis Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.11.23 07:12:00 - [47] Originally by: Kadoes Khan I can think of a better name for those... smartbombs. Quite a few problems with using smartbombs for the task I've described and what this thread is about...here's a small list to get you started: 1) Fitting. To get to a 5km range, you haveto fit large T1 smartbombs. T2 mediums top out at 4km. This comes at a very high fitting cost...80 CPU and a whopping 1000 grid base. This limits their use to battleships and bigger generally...which is acceptable, but a mod that can fit on any class ship would be better. 2) Cycle time. A smartbomb has a 10 sec. cycle...much to slow to act as a missile defense. Even with Energy Pulse Weapons 5, it's still a cycle time of 7.5 sec. 3) Cap usage. A large smartbomb sucks down 200 cap per activation. This is 40 more cap than a large Shield Booster 2 (160 cap), and more than twice the cost of a Tachyon Beam Laser 2 (95 cap)...they are the 2nd highest cap-using high slot module that I know of, right behind heavy neuts. 4) Ease of use. Using smartbombs against missiles takes a pretty good amount of skill, and more than a little luck to activate them at the right time. Some good points for smartbombs: Omnidirectional...and that's about it. There's a reason you don't see many non-cap ships with just a single smartbomb fitted...it just costs too much, in fittings and cap, to use as a defensive module. If you can't tell, I'd prefer this to be primarily a missile defense...adding in anti-drone and anti-frigate capability is icing on the cake (and fits, at least functionality wise)
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.11.23 17:04:00 - [48] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 23/11/2007 17:04:53 I really really don't understand why we're talking about smartbombs and junk of that sort. Any short range BATTLESHIP-sized gun can hit a frigate which has a 90% web on it VERY reliably, and in fact, close to 100% reliability if you fit a MWD to MWD away from the frigate. THe frigate is either using an afterburner and hence slower, meaning transversal is going to 0 and it is going to pop witin 10 seconds, or it's using a MWD, killing its cap and has the sig radius which makes you track just fine, and it is going to pop within 10 seconds. Assault frigates are slower, but take a whopping 15-20s to pop. Interceptors? Same, although they might actually, with a AB on, require you to use some light drones in addition to guns to hit properly. Anything staying out of web range and frigate sized, well, until the new interceptor changes get here (tackle interceptors being able to distrupt from a bit outside heavy neut range if they're really well piloted), one heavy neut (which will ALSO help you in bs vs bs fights) will cap drain them, making them unable to keep a point on or a MWD on, or both. With these two (or three) modules, you've preety much got a solo-pwn-all-smallship mobile, and, no, you don't need anything else in the world. If you don't use a MWD and a web, then you're a bloody noob and deserve to die horribly. Heavy neut is also very nice if you ever want to go soloing. Plus, it's not an exclusively anti-frig weapon, it's very nice vs nanoships and basically everything trying to keep out of your range. After the inty changes, you'll need a damp to force the interceptor within heavy neutraliser range, probably.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.11.23 18:10:00 - [49] Originally by: Sarah Aubry Edited by: Sarah Aubry on 21/11/2007 02:51:55 I recently watched the Battlestar Galactica Razor movie, so please forgive the comparisons, I know eve is not trying to be BSG but these ideas still apply. Oh gosh, you've surpassed "EVE = RL" fail with "EVE = BSG" fail. Quote: Comments? Neuts, drones, EW, and SUPPORT, like most other people have said. The system is intentionally designed so that a large ship's best defence against smaller ships is other smaller ships. And the game is headed further in that direction with the changes to TCs and SBs. Which is a good thing for game play, even if it doesn't exactly parallel RL or Battlestar Galactica. The boost to Intys may be taking things a little too far, I'm not sure. But if so, the solution isn't to introduce point defence mechanics that affect all small ships, but rather to tweak Intys. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.