EVE Search - New Ship Idea

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

New Ship Idea

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.08.18 00:06:00 - [451] The important thing is to make sure that the Tech 2 ships are better then their base ships, but due to cost or other factors, they are not overshadowing them. Thats the hard part about the designs.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.08.22 17:41:00 - [452] bump
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2008.09.03 18:34:00 - [453] Have you possibly thought about dearming these ships and cranking them more twoards the fleet support role? New Ship Idea: Tender Supply Ship, The Logistics Sister
Dapanman1 Amarr Beets and Gravy Syndicate The InterBus Initiative	Posted - 2008.09.03 19:31:00 - [454] Started reading the proposals, recording points I would address in my response, after Amarr and Caldari I closed notepad. Too much wrong in my opinion. Do not want. Sig removed for inappropriate content.~~~Applebabe
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.03 20:36:00 - [455] Flagships are not intended for the fleet support role in the same way a Logistics ship dose it. They are more geared to be used for giving bonuses to the entire fleet. They operate much like Command Ships, Carriers, Mother Ships, and most like a Titan. Motherships and Carriers can do the logistics job because they are designed to have a small punch relative to their size. Command Ships and Titans are more geared, the command ship more so then the titan, toward giving the bonuses and being able to dish out punishment. Thrying to make a ship that can do all 3 fleet operations, namely give bonuses provide logistics and fire at targets, makes the ship either poor in its bonuses or makes it have far too many bonuses to make up for that. Doing a Logistics style ship should be another class of ship all together.
Yokko Kanno	Posted - 2008.09.05 16:08:00 - [456] Balor, The Flagships are a marvelous fit in bridging the gap between battleships and capitals. The breakdown for the "Frontline Command Ship" and "Theatre Command Ship" roles are a natural for EVE. The tactical advantages would be awesome and a great conclusion/reward to the skills tree. Imagine the pride in flying one these outstanding creations into battle with your corp/alliance shipmates, you and they knowing their survivability has made a quantum jump. I wish to thank Balor for his creative ideas and his courageous efforts (just read all 16 pages...can I have a drink please) in the face of criticism be it constructive, or less than. <applaud here> I'd like to go on and thank everyone who has thoughtfully added their time and effort in helping Balors Flagships mature and hopefully get into play (Pay attention here CCP). I can't wait to to park a Requiem in my hangar.
Thomas Prinivil	Posted - 2008.09.06 06:06:00 - [457] Balor as stated before skill balancing will be key. They should be just under capital skill points requirements (skill levels) with a major leanings to leadership. The stacking penalty vs bonus I think are fine. Only testing will reveal what the best mix should be. A Balancing option could be a stat bump as fleet flagship/wing commander. It would make the ship most effective in its intended role. Not sure how that might be implemented. The weapons mixes are fine I like the lower potential dps to help guide them more into a command role. With the mid and low slot additions you may find some very tough tanks but again offset by lower dps. I was going to suggest maybe adding a point of warp stability as in blockade runners. It would force the use of dedicated tacklers. It could be a bit much and not sure how to offset that advantage skill point wise or offsetting drawback.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.06 19:37:00 - [458] Putting a point of warp stabilization on the ship might be a bit too much. Not that I'm saying that I would not love a ship that could fly free even if a Crow or some other interceptor managed to tag me. There really is no good justification for putting a point on the ship that you can not apply to other ships and ship classes. As far as skills, I'm trying to come up with a list that is good for getting a good majority of the skills needed for flying either a dreadnought or carrier. But also keeping the list short enough to prevent people from simply skipping the ships and going straight for the dreadnought or carrier.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.06 20:42:00 - [459] Alternative to tanking the flagship I don't see CCP ever introducing a massively tanked BS. If you look at typical active tanks, they can never perform much better than the damage output of ships at their tier. Sure an officer rigged Nighthawk with a Vulture in gang can blah blah blah, but that's far from the norm. What you're looking at is ending up with a ship that tanks massively for its tier and can tank three BS's... Damage reduction through other means is a far better rout to go for this ship. Any viable flagship needs to dodge most BS fire and up while having enough EHP to not insta-pop. You've got the second part, but need the first to have a meaningful ship. Otherwise it's going to be nothing more than a fireworks display on a busy overview as it gets trashed by 100 BS's. Straight tanking alone won't scale well with fleet battles. My 2￥ --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.07 00:12:00 - [460] Making battleships that speed tank, which as far as I can tell is what you are proposing, will only lead to more problems than its worth. Battleships are not meant to be fast an speedy ships. If they were then there would be a lot more to worry about then a nanod vagabond or some such. The devs killed the nanophoon for a reason, no one could catch it and it was practicly imune to all incomming fire. The ships do have serious tanks on them but are no slouches in the damage department either. Lets face it, if a group of pilots really wants to kill you, there is little you can do to stop your ship from turning into scrap. Making the flagship go faster will reduce the incomming damage, that much is certain. But the opposite is true, so all outgoing damage will be reduced as well. There is one huge exception to this and thats missile throwing boats. They will be able to engage no matter the speed they are moving. And what that ends up doing is making some very powerful ships and the rest are crap because they are not capable of doing full damage at speed. Battleships and their base ships are fine at their movement speed. Speed is not going to solve tanking, it is only going to generate more problems then its worth. If one of these ships is caught out without a supporting fleet, I'm more then willing to say it deserves to die.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.07 01:47:00 - [461] Originally by: Balor Haliquin The ships do have serious tanks on them but are no slouches in the damage department either. Have to ask you if you're really proposing anything except a heavy assault BS You're overlooking a huge difference between AB speed tanking and MWD speed tanking. MWD is not by nature a speed tanking module against turrets. Period. You get some bonus, but that's because of acceleration control skill, not the base speed bonus of the module. Damage curves with MWD on or off are almost identical. Everything else comes from either having a small sig radius (smaller hull) or extra speed mods (nano's, overdrives, snakes, claymore etc) AB is a speed tanking module. You go much slower than with a MWD, but gain much more damage mitigation. Sacrifice absolute speed for relative speed as far as turrets are concerned. An AB based speed tanking BS will not be achieving even MWD BS speed, but will be achieving it's speed without signature increase, and will thereby have a huge capability to mitigate damage from its own tier of weaponry. Calling a ship with stellar AB performance a potential nano-menace is far exaggerated considering that it will get outrun by a MWD BS. It can surely be caught by any nano-HAC. It has not the tactical freedom afforded by a MWD. How much DPS of a tank is your latest revision shooting for btw? --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.07 15:56:00 - [462] I'm just curios to see what version of the Flagships, that I have proposed, you have seen. And if their is any doubt about these ships being for fleet command rather than super hacks I would lik4e to point out that all the ships have at least 2 fleet bonuses. These are either directly for fleet use or through the use of Warfare Links. And when I said that they were 'no slouch in the DPS department' I was making sure that you understood that these thing were not just a brick wall with no guns. First of all you never mentioned strictly afterburners as the tank. Even then this is a discussion about the designs here, I am wore then willing to place my opinions on your Flagship designs, but please do not take offence when I would like to keep my ship designs on my thread and yours on yours. At least for now. My expected tank for these ships should be in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 2,000. This is of course depending heavily on mods fit and the skill levels of the pilots. But that is for an active tank. Effective HP for the ships should be in the range of 170,000 to 200,000. That is a lot of HP for a battleship size ship to be running around with. You assert that MWD are not tanking modules. I would like to point out that if this were true then their would be no nanoing. The huge problem with MWDs today is that though they were never intended to be a tanking module. Pilots are now using them to remain nearly immune to all incoming fire. Afterburners on the other hand can not get you up to the speed nessessary to dodge fire. To clarify I am talking about current settings for MWDs and ABs. I'm not going to go speculate on what they might do in a patch that has no release date or even finalized changes.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.07 18:26:00 - [463] Can't say these are separate conversations. We're both talking about designs that give fleet bonuses and have every reason to be primaried. Speed/sig tanking them is the way to go. They don't need to be able to dodge every HAC, Command Ship, and Sniper at optimal. No ship in Eve performs stellar at a sniper's optimal. No ship of a larger hull class can dodge fire from lower tier weaponry all that well. After the nano-nerf, there will be almost no exceptions. Originally by: Balor Haliquin You assert that MWD are not tanking modules. I would like to point out that if this were true then their would be no nanoing. The huge problem with MWDs today is that though they were never intended to be a tanking module. Pilots are now using them to remain nearly immune to all incoming fire. Afterburners on the other hand can not get you up to the speed nessessary to dodge fire. To clarify I am talking about current settings for MWDs and ABs. I'm not going to go speculate on what they might do in a patch that has no release date or even finalized changes. Look at damage curves. They'll make you a believer. An AB Stiletto could theoretically tank half of Eve, but then it's not going 10km/s, which is what it needs to be catching other ships for the rest of the gang. Speed ships use MWD's so they can fulfill tactical roles like tackling and getting away, not so they can mitigate damage. The fast base speed of HAC's and independent speed bonuses from all their other speed mods is what made them have fast speed relative to their sig radius. Takes 5s to become a believer. Rig up a Vagabond in EFT and set accel control to untrained. Set up a DPS graph against a BS, HAC, etc. Turn the MWD on. Vagabond will be taking little damage at most ranges at 100% transverse. Turn MWD off. Exact same damage curve. Now compare that damage curve to a vagabond with accel control V. The gains will be minimal. Now set up the same vagabond with a 10MN AB. It will tank Jove. AB's are fa superior tanking modules than MWD's, they just don't go fast enough to get away or to catch people, and in PVP, most people prefer the tactical advantage of MWD's for their role over the better damage mitigation of AB's. Back to the whole issue of sig radius, look at sig radii of Logistics. Tiny. About the size of a ceptor with MWD on. This was done to keep Logistics from getting flattened all the time. Looking at damage curves against logistics, you can quickly see how effective this sig reduction becomes. Untrained sig radius of a MWD using Cruiser: ~1000m2 Untrained sig radius of an AB using BS: ~400m2 See what's going on? A BS doesn't actually need the same transverse as a cruiser using a MWD. Compare even a regular unbonused BS using an AB to a MWD using BS. The AB user will out-perform at all ranges. Anyway, I believe you'll have a lot of success with an AB bonus. Yes, it's still impossible to tank cruiser guns in a BS, but twenty support ships and interceptors aren't the ones instapopping you before logistics can come into play. It's the BS's with 6k alphas on long range guns. Mitigate that (excepting optimal, which they don't have the option to warp in at all the time) and you'll have a BS tank in a Cruiser world. --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.08 17:49:00 - [464] Okay, here is the issue that you are not seeming to understand. MWDs do increase the signature radius of the ship by a fair amount, and afterburners do not. On paper or on EFT this makes the AB look potential like a more viable PvP speed booster then the MWD. But the reality is that the MWD can do something that an AB never could. MWDs get a ship moving so fast that, at a rather long range, nothing can possibly hit the ship using them. Despite the fact that the ship has the signature radius of a small moon. If that moon is orbiting you at 4,000 m/s there is no hope of your guns tracking to it and little chance of you missiles catching the ship either with their speed or the explosion velocity. And Nano ships can use weapon systems that do not care about transversal velocity, like missiles and drones. An ABed ship is moving faster then normal but it is still getting hit a lot. Thats why most AB fit ships will have an active tank on them. They can not run like a Nanoed ship and use their speed to basicly make them invulnerable. You propose on you designs that an AB with a 100% speed bonus could tank far better then just a straight tank buff. This is completely wrong. Remeber that in order to keep this speed tank up you would have to orbit the target as fast as possible. But in order to do that you have to be very far out from the target and thus effectively nullifying your speed tank. Why so far out? Because of the ships mass it can not turn very well thus it has to slow down its speed the closer it gets to the target. At the range where its transversal is optimal for tanking so are many guns and missiles for tracking. The guns may not be at optimal range but they sure can start doing a lot of damage. So what would you need to do to make the speed tanked battleship work? Well you would have to reduce the mass for one so it can turn and move in less time. That way you can close the orbital distance and make the speed tank slightly effective. Then you would need to increase the base movement of the ship to about 150m/s so the AB bonus is not a waste of time. And finally you would have to fit the ship out for nanoing. The you would have a battleship that, with an AB, could provide a good enough amount of damage mitigation to warrent the bonus to ABs. But at that point, why not Nano it and run it like a nanophoon? Here is the point. In order to make a ship class with the kind of damage mitigation that you would need to survive a fleet action, you would have to basicly turn it into a solo gank machine. A battlship that moves so fast that no ship can track it or catch it. And those that can, can't break its massive tank. You have to make a choice speed, tank, or gank? You can not have all 3. EFT is exactly that, an EVE Fitting Tool. It dose a really good job of telling you whats going to fit on the ship, and thats about it. As far as it telling you align times and speed. I have noticed so many inconsitancies between the game and EFT. Not to mention the fact that the DPS and Volly damage are based of best case situations. Those numbers are a good referance for comparing other ships to each other in EFT. But they have little to do with what actually happens in EVE as a whole. If you have not flown against or in a Nano fleet, then belive me when i tell you this. It is the one thing in eve that desperately needs fixing for a reason. And making ships that basicly fly like nano ships defeats the purpose of the PROPOSED changes.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.08 18:40:00 - [465] Damage Curves: AB vs MWD Case in point. Top curve is vs MWD. Middle curve is AB. No speed mods on either ship. Max skills. Last curve is an AB Domi with a few speed mods. Apoc is setup for fairly general fleet sniping. Using T2 long range ammo. Radio produces much tighter curves with its lack of a tracking penalty, but usually less DPS at sniping range. A BS with 100% AB bonus can run transverse to a Sniper blob at 20km and tank them probably indefinitely unless they're setup for tracking. Basically it's up to support to pop the ship unless they can pin it and then warp in a sniper blob at 100km+ Would require good coordination to take down. AB is a better speed tanking mod. --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.08 19:29:00 - [466] Once again you have proven that sniper battleships are good only for snipping. Your argument about the use of ABs and MWDs is not part of this design nor is it even part of this forum board. There are some massive problems with your argument, one of which is testing AB and MWD transversals on a single ship and then relating them to blob warfare. As you have pointed out its very hard for a sniper ship to warp in at its optimal. but it is very easy for nano ships to warp in at their best orbiting range and grind someone to dust. Lets face it, one on one PvP battles are becoming more and more rare as the days go on. So to try and point out how a single ABed battleship could avoid a single sniper ships makes your argument look really good on paper. But remember eve has a random number generator making sure that there is a chance of hitting something outside your range or faster then your transversal. If this is a bonus that you would like on your ships designs then go ahead and do so. But as far as my experience and understanding of the game goes, I have not intention of putting a bonus like that on my ships at this point. I am more then willing to talk with you about it on your designs but please keep the discussion here to the ships featured here.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.08 21:52:00 - [467] Originally by: Balor Haliquin Once again you have proven that sniper battleships are good only for sniping. Your argument about the use of ABs and MWDs is not part of this design nor is it even part of this forum board. There are some massive problems with your argument, one of which is testing AB and MWD transversals on a single ship and then relating them to blob warfare. As you have pointed out its very hard for a sniper ship to warp in at its optimal. but it is very easy for nano ships to warp in at their best orbiting range and grind someone to dust. Lets face it, one on one PvP battles are becoming more and more rare as the days go on. So to try and point out how a single ABed battleship could avoid a single sniper ships makes your argument look really good on paper. But remember eve has a random number generator making sure that there is a chance of hitting something outside your range or faster then your transversal. azn face If one setup does zero damage on a ship, 100 ships at the same warp in will also be doing zero damage. Look at most gang warps. All ships end up mostly clumped together. Also, the point is only to dodge BS fire, thus placing the BS tank in a cruiser world, where the alphas and DPS aren't as large. No instapopping. Time to heal wounds with carriers etc. That's a perfectly viable strategy to tie up the enemy. Your argument about the nano's shredding it (if there are enough of them and not enough logistics/carriers on the tank) is quite correct, but you're proving another point: A nice little speed edge on your BS would take the snipers out of the picture when it comes time to dealing with it, placing the load on support, who aren't as well equipped to do the job. What it means for my gang? My support is free to chew on their support while they try to catch my flagship. I'm talking specifically about blob warfare. Not 1vs1. Put 50 snipers in a 30km ball and watch them all struggle to hit the ship at a lot of ranges. Carrier/logistics support would completely nullify the efforts of those snipers. That's a huge waste of resources you can force on an opponent. In that case, the ship does its job even if it does eventually goes pop. My Fleet Marshall originally started out on this forum, and like I said, I think it's a good idea for any new T2 BS to have good survivability, especially if it has a good reason to be shot aka a useful T2 role. 100% relevant to this topic. It seems like you're applying nano-theory whereas I'm talking about basic speed tanking. Nano-theory attempts to take ~0 damage in most cases. This is about damage mitigation from the bulk of fleet damage dealing. The residual damage is much easier to tank. BC's and down will still be hitting for full damage, but that kind of is the point when you're talking about cruiser weapons against a BS. --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Zero Invention	Posted - 2008.09.08 23:01:00 - [468] Dont tech 2 ships have a base resistance to there enemy... so amarr would have a decent explosive say 68 and Kinetic 60... but if u look at all other tech 2 ships they have racial damage assists... so ye.. :)
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.08 23:09:00 - [469] Okay, in blob warfare, at least as far as i have experienced it, the blobs thend to fall into one another to the point where no ships is going to have transversal to all ships in the fleet. At best you are going to hope for 10% of the fleet with good transversal. Someone on that blob is going to have optimal firing position on you. Even so, if a pile of people are firing at you in the Flagship and you don't go down in the first 3 vollies, then a good fleet commander will change out the targets. I find little point in trying to make a sub capital ships that can survive a blob encounter. Too many of the factors depend on items and events that are far outside the control of the pilot in the Flagship. And in many cases, there are more then just battleships trying to take you down. Not to mention that turrets are not the only thing that are coming at the ship at any given time. The Flagship will simply wither under the firepower. As for putting support ships on it. Why would the fleet commander simply to go for the support ships first? And a second issue is that there is a very real possibility of these ships flying without capital support on them. Such as high sec or null sec that have cyno field inhibitors. These are first strike ships and thus would need to have a good tank to make sure they can survive for more then 30 seconds. That I'm sure we can both agree on. But an AB is not they way to go, its not the right tool for the job. It just dose not get the BS moving fast enough even with the 100% to it that you propose. Honestly the best speed I could see them going, considering my designs are heavier, would be about 800m/s. Thats not enough to dodge much of anything. Maybe a sniper ship with no tracking mods or scripts at about 30kms. And even then you are not far enough away from the other sniper ship to dodge his fire. Its just not meant to be. I understand what you are saying but there is no practical way that a Battleship class ship can move fast enough to dodge battleship fire. Battleships are meant to tank other battleships, thats why the have the pile of tanking slots.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.08 23:11:00 - [470] Ironey among ironies; when I was doing the research for these ships I found that that is in fact not true. Its strange how its done but the best way to see is if you go an look at the difference between the base cruisers and something like the HACs you will see that two resitances are way higher then the others. Those are the race specific resistance.
Zero Invention	Posted - 2008.09.08 23:14:00 - [471] they are on AS to... and Command ships... soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo racial resists shhould apply
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.09 00:04:00 - [472] Edited by: Balor Haliquin on 09/09/2008 00:05:23 Ohh you are talking about their overall strength. The reason they are not as high as the Assault Ships and Heavy Assault Ships is because of a good deal of prenerfing by me. This is to prevent them from becoming solo machines because small fleets can not break their tanks. This is also intended to make the the designs a bit more eatable for the Devs and other CCP people. But that is completely up to them about weather or not they put these ships in. The resistances are there but they are much less then what you woul normaly see on T2 ships. They are more along the lines of the other T2 battleships.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.09 02:28:00 - [473] Seems like you're talking more about dodging completely and I'm only shooting to mitigate incoming damage for the vast majority of cases. Don't believe it's mathematically possible to have an average transverse of 50% to all hostiles in any kind of distribution. Using a really theoretically bad case, where you're surrounded on all sides with a uniformly dispersed blob, you're on average at 50% transverse. For a lot of cases, where there are two major blobs, there exists a solution to be at 100% transverse to both blobs. A good pilot can easily spot the most major distributions and fly tangential to them to complicate sniping. In the majority of small gang fights, there's a primary damage dealer or group of damage dealers to be concerned with. Running tangential to them while performing duties doesn't require a large stretch of the imagination. Using a few neuts and drones on the most pressing support ships and avoiding getting tackled by random short range BS's is also not a huge issue. Any good pilot will avoid those situations sufficiently to get out of them. Of course, all said and done, nothing can stop the pilots of Flagships from strapping AB's on themselves. However small the unbonused speed increase may be, anything will help a ship that needs to stay alive to do its job In my case, I see them having some decent tools for staying out of trouble in a lot of cases and just enough for a crafty pilot to avoid certain doom when he see's it coming. Warp out. Live to WTZ again I'm panning around the idea of the whole active stealth thing as a high-slot for either desperate clinging to dear life or for when the ship needs to fly at a low transverse to do its job. Balance by limiting weapon activation. You might look at that as well. Imagine a blob trying to shoot a Scimitar, or better yet put it into EFT and check out the damage curves, and you'll quickly see what I mean. We're both in agreement that no straight tank in the game will save an insta-primary BS. I would seriously consider giving a fleet booster ship more tools to stay alive. --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.09 23:59:00 - [474] If you are talking about the module that reduced a ships signature radius by something like 500% that was being shown around in trinity. That device alone would account for a large portion of the incoming DPS mitigation. Im not convinced by any means that a bonus to one module would provide a significant enough DPS mitigation to warrent it being put on the ships. And as you have said, what prevents any pilot from slapping a 100mn Afterburner onto any battkleship and buzzing around in it. Yes, according to EFT you can get some rather significant DPS reduction from one ship. But again the issue is not one ship but 5 or more opening up on you. Why waste a bonus on afterburners when you can use it for making the ship a more effective command ship or having have a batter base tank? As it is i don't like the ships having 6 bonuses (2 Racial Battleship, 2 Flagship, 2 Role). Giving the ships a 100% bonus to ABs would make them tank better in blobs potentialy but in everything els they will still suffer from being a battleship. Getting them with armor and shielding bonuses makes them a lot more versitile.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.10 00:14:00 - [475] Originally by: Balor Haliquin If you are talking about the module that reduced a ships signature radius by something like 500% that was being shown around in trinity. That device alone would account for a large portion of the incoming DPS mitigation. Im not convinced by any means that a bonus to one module would provide a significant enough DPS mitigation to warrent it being put on the ships. And as you have said, what prevents any pilot from slapping a 100mn Afterburner onto any battkleship and buzzing around in it. Yes, according to EFT you can get some rather significant DPS reduction from one ship. But again the issue is not one ship but 5 or more opening up on you. Why waste a bonus on afterburners when you can use it for making the ship a more effective command ship or having have a batter base tank? As it is i don't like the ships having 6 bonuses (2 Racial Battleship, 2 Flagship, 2 Role). Giving the ships a 100% bonus to ABs would make them tank better in blobs potentialy but in everything els they will still suffer from being a battleship. Getting them with armor and shielding bonuses makes them a lot more versitile. I know I'm being unsupportive, but I'm just going to have to argue with you on that one. --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Davik Rendar	Posted - 2008.09.10 00:25:00 - [476] NanDe: What happens if one of your ships jumps into a close range gatecamp?
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2008.09.10 00:51:00 - [477] I've stayed away from this topic, but I just now noticed it was stickied so maybe I'll poke at it a bit. I seem to recall the devs saying they didn't want the T2 battleships to be bigger Heavy Assault Ships (no such thing as a HAC). Sounds to me like that's what you all want here. Granted you want a command ship to survive, but at the moment damage reduction is a moot point. You can park a bonus giving ship anywhere in system and then active it's modules. I'd think you'd want it to have more agility so you could bounce safe spots easier. Just a refresher on the non commital responce from CCP. And for the record, I'd say any admiral worth his salt would pick a titan as his "flag ship". Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Balor Haliquin As far as CCP not yet responding to the thread, they will get to it in their own time. Quite right. Thanks for the work you've put into this thread and we'll certainly consider some of these ideas when it's time to implement the Tier 3 T2 battleships. That's not to say that this concept will be what they end up being, but nothing is being ruled out. As for the 'Flagship' moniker, it's been tossed around for a while and is not currently locked into a particular class of ship. Personally, I think battleships are a bit... small for such a name.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.10 01:45:00 - [478] These ships are far from super HACs, the latest versions tank better then the standard version of the battleship but don't do nearly the DPS. And even then their tanks do not make them invulnerable. Please no that the current versions of the ships are linked on the first entry of this thread. You have every right to disagree about the effects of a module on ships, NanDe YaNen.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.09.10 05:19:00 - [479] Originally by: Davik Rendar NanDe: What happens if one of your ships jumps into a close range gatecamp? Design is thus far aimed at aiding short range BS's in dealing with tactical disadvantages to snipers. Against an RR close range camp, that's already a pretty favorable situation for the campers, and besides the "should have had a scout" argument, it's not particularly adept at doing the work of the gang it's designed to work with, so it shouldn't be found solo very often except for niche combo tag-team work. While a BS has tools for dealing with smaller support pretty handily (neuts etc) getting tackled by a BS is much more problematic. In the case of short range BS's like the blaster Mega, they have full PvP slots, good tracking, especially when webbing, and lots of DPS. How to survive jumping into them? Don't. Not without lots of tools for dealing with them, which basically boils down to trying to jam/tackle enough of them while kiting to warp disruptor range unless set up for the same situation. Any gang is in trouble in that situation without the right tools. While the ship has tools for staying out of trouble beyond a typical BS, nothing can save a pilot who jumps right into it. Thinking of bumping my thread on this forum and then making some final changes on the assembly hall thread depending on response. Mainly pandering the idea of a high-slot active stealth mod that turns off weapons. A sort of extra tool available for when the ship especially needs to cut its damage intake drastically. Sorry for the ongoing thread-jack. --------------------------------------- Originally by: Red Raider A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Balor Haliquin Amarr	Posted - 2008.09.10 05:47:00 - [480] Honestly man no problem. You have answered the question a bit better then i could. And despite our debate you are cool about it. therefore I have no issues with you. All I can say about the bonus you propose is this. When and if the speed nerf comes out it may look totally different then what either you or I could imagine. So lets wait till they come up with a better idea of what the nerf is going to look like in the form of actual patch notes. By then it may change the face of battle significatly, and then lets hit the topic of a possible AB boost. There are just too many thing that could change how combat works in the patch to warrent a look in that direction. I say stick with what is rather basic tanking philosophy. And if you want any input on your forum threads I would be happy to comment and help keep ideas alive.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: 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.