EVE Search - My (Tier 2) T2 Battlecruiser Idea

All Channels

Ships and Modules

My (Tier 2) T2 Battlecruiser Idea - Artillery Ships

» 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)
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:30:00 - [1] I was thinking about how the Tier 2 Battlecruisers could be utilized for T2 versions and what role they could play. CCP has been utilizing some offensive weapon systems to try and break up blobs - the Doomsday Device is one example, Bombs are another. Unfortunately, bombs kind of suck right now due partially to the lack of survivability of its only platform. I would like to change this with the introduction of Artillery Ships. Artillery ships are built around two principles - Survivability in fleet combat and Bomb usage. The base battlecruiser bonuses are the same for all four races - one bonus to increase the damage of bombs and another to increase shield/armor HP. Both of these bonuses are required for these ships to be effective on the battlefield. They also share a third bonus that I felt was important in a ship that fires bombs - a reduction in signature radius. This, in addition to helping their overall survivability a bit, acts as a 25% reduction in damage done to them by bombs. I thought this was a good idea considering that it's a safe bet that this ship will get caught in it's own explosions at some point or other. There are two different sub-categories of Artillery Ships, Mobile Artillery and Heavy Artillery. Mobile artillery focuses more on a hit-and-run style of combat where it would enter the battle, fire it's bomb launcher, and GTFO before it's primaried and melted. Heavy artillery sacrifices this extra survivability for improving bomb effectiveness in different ways. My primary concern at this point is whether the Caldari Artillery Ships will end up with OMGWTFBBQ passive tanks and that the Shield/Armor percentage bonus in general is too powerful on a battlecruiser that already has T2 resistances. If you guys generally agree, I may come up with another bonus for the Mobile/Heavy Artillery skill and replace the HP bonus with the signature radius bonus. I didn't want these things to be super-HACs, which is why I tried to avoid armor resistance bonuses and non-bomb bonuses. Mobile Artillery Artillery ships are designed to counter the increasing threat of large, tightly grouped fleets. Improving upon the first-generation bomb technology utilized by Stealth Bombers, these ships combine the heavy firepower of bombs with additional defensive measures. Mobile Artillery ships aim to increase their survivability through the ability to attack and then disengage before focused retaliation is possible. Heavy Artillery Artillery ships are designed to counter the increasing threat of large, tightly grouped fleets. Improving upon the first-generation bomb technology utilized by Stealth Bombers, these ships combine the heavy firepower of bombs with additional defensive measures. Heavy Artillery ships sacrifice some survivability in order to bring down heavier firepower on their opponents. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:30:00 - [2] Edited by: Tarminic on 27/03/2008 17:38:30 Edited by: Tarminic on 27/03/2008 17:37:38 Edited by: Tarminic on 27/03/2008 17:32:16 Gallente Name: Apollo Hull: Myrmidon Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Roden Shipyards Fitting: 5 High Slots (2 Turrets, 5 Missiles) 5 Medium Slots 7 Low Slots Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: +10% Armor HP per level +20% Bomb damage per level Mobile Artillery Skill Bonus: 5% Reduction in MWD capacitor penalty per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Name: Zeus Hull: Myrmidon Role: Heavy Artillery Developer: Duvolle Labs Fitting: 6 High Slots (5 Turrets) 5 Medium Slots 6 Low Slots Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: +10% Shield HP per level +20% Bomb damage per level Heavy Artillery Skill Bonus: 5% Reduction in bomb Signature Resolution per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Caldari Name: Nephilim Hull: Drake Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Ishukone Fitting: 7 High Slots (4 Turrets, 6 Missiles) 5 Medium Slots 5 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Shield HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: +5% Agility per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Name: Rephaim Hull: Drake Role: Heavy Artillery Developer: Kaalakiota Fitting: 8 High Slots (8 Missiles) 5 Medium Slots 4 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Shield HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: 5% Reduction in signature radius per level +10% Bomb Flight Time per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:31:00 - [3] Edited by: Tarminic on 27/03/2008 17:32:48 Amarr Name: Reverent Hull: Harbinger Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Carthum Conglomerate Fitting: 6 High Slots (4 Missile, 2 Turrets) 4 Medium Slots 7 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: 5% Mass reduction per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Name: Consecration Hull: Harbinger Role: Heavy Artillery Developer: Carthum Conglomerate Fitting: 8 High Slots (6 Turrets, 4 Missile) 3 Medium Slots 6 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Heavy Artillery Bonus: 10% Effectiveness to Energy Neutralizer bombs per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Name: Reverent Hull: Harbinger Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Carthum Conglomerate Fitting: 5 High Slots (4 Missile, 2 Turrets) 5 Medium Slots 7 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Resistances per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Minmatar Name: Gale Hull: Hurricane Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Core Complexion Fitting: 5 High Slots (2 Turrets, 4 Missile) 6 Medium Slots 6 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: 5% Reduction in signature radius per level 5% Bonus to Maximum Velocity per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Name: Squall Hull: Hurricane Role: Heavy Artillery Developer: Boundless Creation Fitting: 7 High Slots (4 Turrets, 4 Missile) 5 Medium Slots 5 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: 5% Reduction in signature radius per level 10% Bonus to Bomb Velocity per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:32:00 - [4] (Reserved for additional comments, responses, etc.) ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
William Darkk Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:36:00 - [5] You forgot one of the bonuses on the Gallente Mobile Artillery ship. ------------------------------------------------- Mac Graphics Performance Guide <3 my Drones
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:40:00 - [6] Originally by: William Darkk You forgot one of the bonuses on the Gallente Mobile Artillery ship. Fixed. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
Derek Sigres Eternal Guardians Corp. The Covenant Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:40:00 - [7] Edited by: Derek Sigres on 27/03/2008 17:44:22 The only problem I see is the fact that the bombs are far to effective to put on a platform like the heavy atrtillery ship. IF there was an option for a 15km radius explosion that only did medium/heavy smartbomb level damage THEN perhaps we could talk. As it stands one or two artillery ships would annihilate a blob in just a few shots. Reducing the damage back to smartbomb levels and maybe even the burst radius would give the blobbing force an opportunity to target the artillery ships and silence them before being utterly destroyed. If there was enough artillery or the artillery was well protected, they could wreak havoc on an opposing fleet given a few minutes. EDIT: Also, your Drake there could be fitted with a near impenetrable passive tank - combined with the brutal levels of bomb damage you have yourself a solopwnmobile. The "artillery" bomb launchers would be MUCH lower powered in terms of damage but would have a reasonable mid range (100 - 150km or so, allowing a blob fleet to actually fight back). I feel the smartbomb is a good starting place to look for damage and whatnot. Then, supposing you limit the number of "guns" per ship to something reasonable (say three) a single ship could deter blobbing but not stop it. It would indeed take several such ships to break up a blob before being targeted and wiped out. Alternately, if you make the bombs terribly powerful, fit them on a battlecruiser without any tank bonuses - just targeting range and whatnot. That way your death canon can be popped by a handful of sniper fitted battleships.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 17:59:00 - [8] Originally by: Derek Sigres your Drake there could be fitted with a near impenetrable passive tank - combined with the brutal levels of bomb damage you have yourself a solopwnmobile. Indeed. I tried to deter that by making sure that the Caldari variations didn't have a lot of mid and low slots to work with, but I was worried that it wouldn't be enough to prevent people from using it to create an overpowered. Quote: The "artillery" bomb launchers would be MUCH lower powered in terms of damage but would have a reasonable mid range (100 - 150km or so, allowing a blob fleet to actually fight back). I feel the smartbomb is a good starting place to look for damage and whatnot. Then, supposing you limit the number of "guns" per ship to something reasonable (say three) a single ship could deter blobbing but not stop it. It would indeed take several such ships to break up a blob before being targeted and wiped out. One of the things I wanted to do with these ships is to not require any new modules, and I still hope to do that. I'll probably reduce damage (maybe a static penalty) and increase range. Quote: Alternately, if you make the bombs terribly powerful, fit them on a battlecruiser without any tank bonuses - just targeting range and whatnot. That way your death canon can be popped by a handful of sniper fitted battleships. Yeah, it seems that I may rework things a bit to reduce their tanking ability - I was worried from the start that the 50% shield/armor bonus was a bit too much, but at the same time I don't want them to be complete glass cannons - I would rather reduce their bomb damage. Perhaps replace the 20% damage bonus with a 20% bomb flight time bonus? That they they can engage without having to get within 20KM of their targets but don't have as much firepower. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
J Ryan Under Heavy Fire	Posted - 2008.03.27 18:07:00 - [9] Originally by: Tarminic Edited by: Tarminic on 27/03/2008 17:32:48 Amarr Name: Reverent Hull: Harbinger Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Carthum Conglomerate Fitting: 6 High Slots (4 Missile, 2 Turrets) 4 Medium Slots 7 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: 5% Mass reduction per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Name: Consecration Hull: Harbinger Role: Heavy Artillery Developer: Carthum Conglomerate Fitting: 8 High Slots (6 Turrets, 4 Missile) 3 Medium Slots 6 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Heavy Artillery Bonus: 10% Effectiveness to Energy Neutralizer bombs per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Name: Reverent Hull: Harbinger Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Carthum Conglomerate Fitting: 5 High Slots (4 Missile, 2 Turrets) 5 Medium Slots 7 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: +10% Armor HP Per level +20% Bomb Damage Per level Mobile Artillery Bonus: 5% Bonus to Armor Resistances per level 5% Reduction in signature radius per level Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU Use Amarr get 3? Stealth Amarr Boost
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 18:12:00 - [10] Originally by: J Ryan Amarr get 3? Stealth Amarr Boost Whoops! Hit paste one too many times. Will correct. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.27 19:02:00 - [11] I really don't like weapons like this. First of all, they are very difficult to balance. They end up either way overpowered (Titan DDD) and able to wipe out entire fleets with little recourse, or not particularly useful (Stealth Bomber bombs). I'm not sure it's at all possible to end up in the middle there, but at least it seems very, very difficult. Secondly, they are very harsh on small ships unless they work like the Stealth Bomber's bombs. They move the balance even further in the favor of the heavies, and reduce the need for balanced combined arms fleets. Thirdly, weapons like this don't actually do what they're intended to do (for example, Titans just make everyone bring capitals and super-tanked battleships to the fight, in greater numbers, and fighting in the same concentrated way), but even if they did, I haven't seen anyone really explain how forcing ships to spread out within the same grid is going to change anything when it comes to "the blob". The lag situation is the same as long as everyone is on the same grid. And, unless you're giving the bomb effect a 250 km range or something, the focused fire issue is also the same when people fit for 135-200+ km ranges. They can spread out the fleet and still be able to all hit the same target with their battleships just like now.
Derek Sigres Eternal Guardians Corp. The Covenant Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.27 19:23:00 - [12] Originally by: Reem Fairchild I really don't like weapons like this. First of all, they are very difficult to balance. They end up either way overpowered (Titan DDD) and able to wipe out entire fleets with little recourse, or not particularly useful (Stealth Bomber bombs). I'm not sure it's at all possible to end up in the middle there, but at least it seems very, very difficult. Secondly, they are very harsh on small ships unless they work like the Stealth Bomber's bombs. They move the balance even further in the favor of the heavies, and reduce the need for balanced combined arms fleets. Thirdly, weapons like this don't actually do what they're intended to do (for example, Titans just make everyone bring capitals and super-tanked battleships to the fight, in greater numbers, and fighting in the same concentrated way), but even if they did, I haven't seen anyone really explain how forcing ships to spread out within the same grid is going to change anything when it comes to "the blob". The lag situation is the same as long as everyone is on the same grid. And, unless you're giving the bomb effect a 250 km range or something, the focused fire issue is also the same when people fit for 135-200+ km ranges. They can spread out the fleet and still be able to all hit the same target with their battleships just like now. Actually, forcing ships to spread out along a grid does help blobbing. Ships stick next to one another for LOTS of reasons - overlapping fields of fire, guppy reflex and of course, remote repairing. In a fleet fight even the tankiest ship can do little to stand against the sheer firepower that can be leveled on you when you get called primary. The only way to keep ships alive for any reasonable lenght of time is to have MANY people repairing it. As such, an aritllery weapon that discourages blobbing actually reduces the effectivness of the blob. If one blob has no artillery support to deny the benfits of the blob with artillery, then all else being equal the artillery fitted blob will win the day. But I agree when it comes to balance. AOE attacks are always difficult to balance in any game because it's INCREDIBLY easy to make them death cannons (afterall, 5,000 damage with a 15K radius can potentially deal tens of thousands of damage in a single shot) or make them fairly useless (the current bomb isn't useless, it just takes a very specific set of circumstances, careful planning and expert execution, and given the costs it's pretty difficult to "practice" with the things since they cost as much as a fitted cruiser)
Reem Fairchild Shadow Forces Inc.	Posted - 2008.03.27 19:50:00 - [13] Originally by: Derek Sigres Actually, forcing ships to spread out along a grid does help blobbing. Ships stick next to one another for LOTS of reasons - overlapping fields of fire, With the ranges people fit fleet battleships for that's possible even while spread out unless the bombs have an enormous range. Quote: remote repairing. In a fleet fight even the tankiest ship can do little to stand against the sheer firepower that can be leveled on you when you get called primary. The only way to keep ships alive for any reasonable lenght of time is to have MANY people repairing it. Remote repairing battleship fleets aren't that common, in my experience. I only know of Goons actually doing it on a regular basis, and then only for taking on cyno jammers and other heavily defended POSs. Quote: As such, an aritllery weapon that discourages blobbing actually reduces the effectivness of the blob. If one blob has no artillery support to deny the benfits of the blob with artillery, then all else being equal the artillery fitted blob will win the day. They don't do this. Weapons like this, even when they are very much effective, they still don't do this. The Titan has done absolutely nothing to reduce the size of fleets or make people spread out their fleet/fleets on any level. All it has done is make for boring game play for everyone involved. And it's very much an either/or. Either they are effective and relatively cheap and easy to use, and then people will just bring a bunch of them and fry anything that shows up, or they are not effective and then very few people will use them.
MalVortex Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.27 21:51:00 - [14] Edited by: MalVortex on 27/03/2008 21:52:25 The Zeus is far and away the best. One of the (many) problems with bombs is their terrible explosion radius and explosion velocity. Reducing the explosion radius is a much higher real DPS increase for most targets than +damage will be (and then it has a +dmg bonus anyways.). What is the point of bomb flight time? All your doing is increasing the distance from the target you need to be, from 15km to 30km. That strikes me as more annoying than anything else; you lack the range to properly be artillery, and 15km distance is easier to achieve in standard combat than 30km is. This gets even worse for the Rephaim. Your hull bonuses seem espically random. +agility on caldari ships? +armor hp on Minmatar? with a 5/6/6 layout on the Gale, along with Matari T2 resists, why would you not passive shield tank it?? 1EM, 2 Inulns, 3LGE, 6SPR. It would be a tank of monstrous proportions (the Drake hulls seem to get screwed in this regard). Overall, their bonuses make no sense, and I don't see how this will make bombs more useful. I think we'd see the few hulls with sensible layouts used more as uber field command ships than anything else.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 22:18:00 - [15] Edited by: Tarminic on 27/03/2008 22:20:21 Originally by: MalVortex Edited by: MalVortex on 27/03/2008 21:52:25 The Zeus is far and away the best. One of the (many) problems with bombs is their terrible explosion radius and explosion velocity. Reducing the explosion radius is a much higher real DPS increase for most targets than +damage will be (and then it has a +dmg bonus anyways.). I figured that the damage increase wouldn't be that impressive considering how common battleships are (and it wouldn't increase damage against them at all). I could see it being a very powerful counter to drones, ironically. Perhaps it's a bit too powerful. Quote: What is the point of bomb flight time? All your doing is increasing the distance from the target you need to be, from 15km to 30km. That strikes me as more annoying than anything else; you lack the range to properly be artillery, and 15km distance is easier to achieve in standard combat than 30km is. This gets even worse for the Rephaim. Honestly, I wasn't sure what to use for this bonus - a 20% damage bonus seems a bit overpowered, so I figured that extra range might make them more viable. I see what you mean though - the 30KM range puts them at that zone where no one really fights. Do you think that a different bonus entirely should be used or I should increase the range bonus so that bombs can be fired from sniper-ish distances? Quote: Your hull bonuses seem espically random. +agility on caldari ships? +armor hp on Minmatar? with a 5/6/6 layout on the Gale, along with Matari T2 resists, why would you not passive shield tank it?? 1EM, 2 Inulns, 3LGE, 6SPR. It would be a tank of monstrous proportions (the Drake hulls seem to get screwed in this regard). The HP bonus is actually a typo, I've changed it to the reduction in signature radius. The reason for the slot layout on the drake hulls is to keep the them from fitting an overpowered passive tank, but I may have been overzealous in this regard. They'd probably be better off with taking a few high slots off and put them in mids. As for the agility bonus, the idea behind it was to give it something that would allow it to disengage from combat that was different from the other three races - I honestly couldn't think of what else to put there. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
Lyria Skydancer Home 0f Bored Occultists	Posted - 2008.03.27 22:21:00 - [16] Hey Tarminic this is a great idea. Eve definately needs something that splits up the gate hugging blob. /signed -------------------------------------- [Video]Skirmish Warfare II
Thu'ak Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2008.03.27 22:28:00 - [17] I think the reason for stheal bomber bombs are useless, they cost alot and really alot, yet I cans see any reason to bombcamp(?) a gate
MalVortex Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.27 23:05:00 - [18] I like the concept of heavy artillery battlecruisers Tarminic, I just think bombs are far too broken for them to ever work. If the bomb is set to detonate at sniper ranges (100km+), somebody will lock onto it and blow it up well before it detonates. Its a pity bombs don't have a remote detonation command. At the risk of derailing your thread, Tarminic, I have a counter-proposal to bombs. At least until CCP gives bombs 1) a Role and 2) the attributes to utilize that role, I don't see a reason to build ships based around them. If we accept bombs are broken, but want a heavy artillery sort of BC, then why not pull a page from ages past? Give weapons splash Differentiate Mobile Artillery and Heavy Artillery in their role. Mobile is counter ship operations, but lack a tank. Heavy Artillery is Anti-Capitol/Anti-POS, but is very slow. So, looking at a Drake, Something like this: Payload Enhancer: High Slot, 10,000CPU 100PG All Weapons in this vessel will do 65% weapon damage to targets within 2km optimal of the point of impact. Additional Weapon Enhancers add 500m optimal, 1km falloff to this figure per module. Name: Nephilim Hull: Drake Role: Mobile Artillery Developer: Ishukone Fitting: 8 High Slots (8 Missiles) 5 Medium Slots 5 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus to Ship Agility Per level +10% Bonus to Missile Velocity Per Level Mobile Artillery Bonus: +10% Bonus to Missile Flight Time Per Level +5% Effectiveness of Payload Enhancers Per Level. Role Bonus: 99.9% Reduction in CPU need of Payload Enhancers Role Penalty: Unable to Fit Propulsion Jamming Equipment Name: Rephaim Hull: Drake Role: Heavy Artillery Developer: Kaalakiota Fitting: 8 High Slots (8 Rail Guns, 3 missiles) 6 Medium Slots 4 Low Slots Battlecruiser Bonus: 5% Bonus To Shield Resistance Per Level 10% Bonus To Medium Railgun Optimal Range Per Level Mobile Artillery Bonus: +10% Bonus to Medium Railgun Optimal Range Per Level +5% Effectiveness of Payload Enhancers Per Level Role Bonus: 99.9% Reduction in Payload Enhancers Per level +500% Damage to Hybrid Turrets Role Penalty: Unable to fit Propulsion Modules Unable to fit Propulsion Jamming Equipment 400% Decrease in Hybrid Turret Tracking 400% Increase in Hybrid Turret Resolution I really don't mean to derail your thread, but a design based around this principle solves several problems. First, it gives the ships a role (Bombs, DDD, etc. don't break blobs). Second, it gives them the ability to utilize that role (bombs suck due to their terrible attributes. Giving bonuses to these attributes removes the point of a bomber having bombs). Finally, it makes a clear differentiation between the two variants: One shoots fleets, the other blows the living hell out of POS modules and Capitol ships. Finally, the ability to gain this splash damage comes at the cost of their damage. Each PE module comes at the cost of a weapon slot. To insure neither ship becomes a solopwn mobile, they can't equip Webbers or Jammers.
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.27 23:18:00 - [19] MalVortex, you and I think alike. I also really like the name "Mobile Artillery" it would appear. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
MalVortex Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.28 01:06:00 - [20] Originally by: Tarminic MalVortex, you and I think alike. I also really like the name "Mobile Artillery" it would appear. Served in an artillery regiment in a past life, perhaps?
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.03.28 12:31:00 - [21] Originally by: MalVortex Originally by: Tarminic MalVortex, you and I think alike. I also really like the name "Mobile Artillery" it would appear. Served in an artillery regiment in a past life, perhaps? Apparently. Either way, I think that there really is a role for a hardened ship utilizing area of effect weapons in large battles. Hopefully CCP thinks this as well. ---------------- Tarminic - 34 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.3 (Updated 3/24)
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.28 12:45:00 - [22] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: MalVortex Originally by: Tarminic MalVortex, you and I think alike. I also really like the name "Mobile Artillery" it would appear. Served in an artillery regiment in a past life, perhaps? Apparently. Either way, I think that there really is a role for a hardened ship utilizing area of effect weapons in large battles. Hopefully CCP thinks this as well. I don't really think so. The possibilities of overpowering use are too many. Take missions, go in, aggro everything in a tank-only ship untill everything comes close into blast radius. Warp out, switch ship, warp back in, deploy bomb, profit ! Or, fit cloaks to a few artillery ships and a max tanked hic. Wait for target gang to jump in, deploy hic, wait for aggro, deploy bombs, profit ! Any ship that deploys bombs or suchlike must have serious drawbacks. The bombers are paperthin and will probably die with their first launch. Titans are hideously expensive and provide an insane morale boost to the enemy that catches and kills one. Putting a ship in between requires a serious drawback to match it. Since BC's are already both fairly mobile, inexpensive, adding extra survivability is a definite no-no, unless you up the manufacturing cost to a billion or two. [center] Old blog
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.03.28 12:52:00 - [23] while the idea is quite nice from an RP view, I still don't like the bomb think at all. I thinks a smartbomb focusing script would be great. and these BCs could have a range bonus and racial damage bonus to them. Imagine you can focus a smartbomb around a target. The smarty explosion happens on the target with all the consequencies: 1. NO damage to the target 2. AoE damage on the surounding ships/entities. Waiting for the patch that patches the last patch ...
Darth Felin Free Space Pilots aka Banderlogs Red Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.28 13:24:00 - [24] Very Very Bad idea imho. AoE weapons require a huge number of calculation so it will be just a way to make node crush more easily of destroy jumping in through gates fleets.
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.28 13:57:00 - [25] Edited by: Goumindong on 28/03/2008 13:57:32 Large tightly grouped fleets are already sub-optimal. They are because it makes it easier to focus fire, and move in support. The only reason they exist is because you are tightly grouped when you jump into a system and when you land from a gang warp. I don't think there needs to be another mechanic to do that. Especially since AOE weapons of this sort will end up being very similar in practice to nuclear war. I.E. they serve as a deterrent because no matter the size of the force, everyone just gets bombed. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Ayanami Nova	Posted - 2008.03.28 14:16:00 - [26] Stealth bombers alledged purpose is to break up blobs - fix stealth bombers and then we wont need to introduce a new class of ship to replace them.
DogSlime Caldari Wilde Cards	Posted - 2008.04.12 04:19:00 - [27] I just read this post (linked from a more recent thread). This idea looks really good. It would take some fine-tuning, but if implemented properly I think it would add an interesting component to battles. Just my opinion, of course, and I am still a beginner at Eve.
Lord JoeBlack	Posted - 2008.04.12 05:08:00 - [28] Edited by: Lord JoeBlack on 12/04/2008 05:08:42 Why all this talk of breaking up blobs with new weapons? Why not give more ship/fleet control options? Like giving players the ability to plot a course to a set of coordinates, or to designate fleet formations which autopilot then tries to maintain. Right now blobbing occurs, not only because of the benefits of being in range of other friendlies, but because there is no other option unless you have the time to have tons of covt ops pilots setting up positions before a battle. I don't mean to derail your topic, but I just dont think a new ship type or weapon is the answer.
ThaDollaGenerale Endless Destruction Total Eclipse Syndicate	Posted - 2008.04.12 09:36:00 - [29] Now what would be cool is to have an artillery ship that has to deploy itself like a siege module for a dread. It sits off grid and has to have fired directed in. Let's say it has to be within 1m km of the engagement. hmm.
B0rn2KiLL DEATHFUNK R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.04.12 09:46:00 - [30] these ships have too many bonuses, and too many high\med\low slots. --- Originally by: Oveur It's important to understand that EVE is a "PvP" focused game

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

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