EVE Search - T2 version of tier 3 battleships

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

T2 version of tier 3 battleships

» 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 - 1 post(s)
Grarr Dexx Naval Protection Corp Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.06.03 08:31:00 - [31] Edited by: Grarr Dexx on 03/06/2008 08:31:05 Originally by: CrestoftheStars i would like to see that heavy attack bs :P REDUNDANCY ALERT
Ketarin Vengar	Posted - 2008.06.03 08:56:00 - [32] Basically.. T2 battleships would mean... isk sink. Which imo is a good thing. Still 1 T2 combat battleship would be permajammed by 1 falcon, or die to 1 nanocurse. Saying that they dont want to add a solopwnmobile on one side, but recently intoducing carriers/motherships/titans is a void argument. Currently the game is about "who can bring more cap ships"..., what is the difference if you add T2 battleships to the mix? Not having them in makes 0 sense in the roleplaying perspective..., battleships are the pinnicale of technology, T2 is the improvment... The chances the 4 races would not invest significant time & effort into T2 combat battleships is remote. Im totally in favour of a ship that follows the standard trend, ppl aint gonna be going around in T2 batleships all day. Im highsec they will get suicide ganked. In lowsec they will get pirated In 0.0 they can get wtfpwned. So no chance of them being that overpowered. Paying 1billion isk for a ship that performs 25% better than a T1 battleship is a good thing.
Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.06.03 09:28:00 - [33] Originally by: Ketarin Vengar Basically.. T2 battleships would mean... isk sink. Which imo is a good thing. Still 1 T2 combat battleship would be permajammed by 1 falcon, or die to 1 nanocurse. Saying that they dont want to add a solopwnmobile on one side, but recently intoducing carriers/motherships/titans is a void argument. Currently the game is about "who can bring more cap ships"..., what is the difference if you add T2 battleships to the mix? Not having them in makes 0 sense in the roleplaying perspective..., battleships are the pinnicale of technology, T2 is the improvment... The chances the 4 races would not invest significant time & effort into T2 combat battleships is remote. Im totally in favour of a ship that follows the standard trend, ppl aint gonna be going around in T2 batleships all day. Im highsec they will get suicide ganked. In lowsec they will get pirated In 0.0 they can get wtfpwned. So no chance of them being that overpowered. Paying 1billion isk for a ship that performs 25% better than a T1 battleship is a good thing. That¦s not really isk sink as far as economy is considered. It¦s just expensive, useless toy and CCP has many other places where they could spend their time making something useful/new instead.
Ecky X Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.06.03 10:43:00 - [34] Originally by: Ephemeron Edited by: Ephemeron on 02/06/2008 20:08:55 As I see it, a tier3 t2 bs will never be more of a solopwnmobile than a mothership. Currently, the mothership got all the pwnmobile qualities - and even then it can be killed. Existence of blobs make any ship killable. And if t3 bs costs 1/5 of a mothership, if its tank is much weaker than a mothership, if its dps is weaker than a mothership - I don't see what the problem is. If CCP really believes that such super strong ships shouldn't exist, why do they allow the Nyx? Absolutely right. So let's make it so T2 battleships cant dock or use stargates, and use drones that cost as much to lose (each) as an insured battleship. Originally by: Ketarin Vengar Basically.. Blah blah blah I'd rather have more T1 cruisers tbh. There is nothing better than taking a ship out you can replace in 60 seconds of belt-ratting. If you're rich enough that you feel you need more expensive toys, you spend too much time making isk, and not enough time losing it.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2008.06.03 12:01:00 - [35] Originally by: Ecky X Absolutely right. So let's make it so T2 battleships cant dock or use stargates, and use drones that cost as much to lose (each) as an insured battleship. Those penalties don't impact the solopwnmobile aspect of it. If it had penalties like: can't fit web and scramble. Then you could say that is really is poorly designed for solo pwning
Midday Toker	Posted - 2008.06.03 14:52:00 - [36] BS Dictor anyone?
Wu Jiun State War Academy	Posted - 2008.06.03 17:55:00 - [37] Edited by: Wu Jiun on 03/06/2008 17:55:45 Edited by: Wu Jiun on 03/06/2008 17:55:25 Of course a battleship will never be a solopwnmobile. You could in this very moment just give marauders +150% ecm strength and they wouldn't be solopwnmobiles either. Would they be hard to beat 1v1 in a weaker bs? Yes. Guess what today solo killing a decent hyperion or maelstrom or even dominix (some of the best 1v1 bs) won't work if you aren't in "the right setup bs" either. So are those solopwnmobiles? No they aren't because backup is around every corner and the natural drawbacks of bs (high locking time, slow speed, bad agility) make it very easy for anything but another bs to get away. Now if i can't solo a hype in a pest than apparently hype is a solopwnmobile, right? If not what exactly would be different with a t2 bs other that it would hurt even more to get owned by 2 tier1 tech1 bs just as it happens with a hype nowadays? This whole solopwnmobile crap is laughable. There is no single solopwnmobile in eve. I remember they used to compare it to hacs. What a crap. Hacs are among the least cost efficient ships in game and they are all far far away from "solopwn". arrgh this word alone. But hey its okay. We have carebear bs now with tractor beam bonus, a useless pseudo pvp bs that no one uses because its utter crap. Maybe just make tier3 t2 bs some 600m fleet bs? Or no wait please make them exploration vessels with bonus to hacking, salvaging and archeology. Because i mean thats what bs are about right? Making money in pve.
Randolf Sightblinder Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.06.03 17:59:00 - [38] Why not make the tier 3 tech 2 BS a "mini dread" no jump drive but it can siege and use gates? The siege module bonuses might need adjusted but remember you're bonusing a BS not a dread and in siege it probably would be hard to hit anything not at least a dread in size with them? with the advent of cynojammers combined with bridges and cap blobs, particularly the explosive increase in titans we need something that can "quickly" incap pos modules, and to a lesser extent make high sec towers reasonable to attack. Or maybe a "first through the gate ship"? This might fit the solo pwn mobile a bit to closely but make a ship that can use a gate while sieged or that can be configured to turn on the siege mode when it gates...(but no cloak in this case) and instead of a boost to active tanks, make it a boost to a passive tank very high resistance boost, unstacked, and maybe a boost to total HP instead of a damage bonus, but they still should be able to do enough damage to be a threat to a fleet so they are forced to be engaged not "a no dps brick". If this is done though maybe they can only go into siege on grid with a gate. Randolf
Straight Chillen Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.06.03 19:01:00 - [39] Edited by: Straight Chillen on 03/06/2008 19:02:21 The BS dictor comment is actually kinda interesting, even if it was ment as a joke. I dont think the game needs another super tanekd dictor, but mabye something else. I for one have always thought it would be cool if there was a ship that had some kind of stasis webification field, same idea as a interdiction field, xcept webs obviously. Another interesting idea a friend and i were tossing around, was the idea of a cyno inhibitor generator, that would prevent cynos from opening with in a certain range of the ship. Would be quite interesting. For example, Alliance A is attacking Alliance B's tower in a cyno jammed system. this ship would prevent alliance B from hot dropping their cap's right ontop of A's fleet. B would then have to either cyno in from a differnt POS if they have one, or risk caps by jumping in at a random location. Depending on the range of the module, it could reduce lag by forcing carriers and moms to jump off grid, thus minimizing the, "hot drop carriers, launch fighters, and lag everything to hell" tactics used by many.
Pirokobo Orion Academy THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.06.03 20:35:00 - [40] Edited by: Pirokobo on 03/06/2008 20:42:13 Originally by: Straight Chillen Another interesting idea a friend and i were tossing around, was the idea of a cyno inhibitor generator, that would prevent cynos from opening with in a certain range of the ship. Would be quite interesting. For example, Alliance A is attacking Alliance B's tower in a cyno jammed system. this ship would prevent alliance B from hot dropping their cap's right ontop of A's fleet. B would then have to either cyno in from a differnt POS if they have one, or risk caps by jumping in at a random location. This could make assaults on cyno jammed systems, less of a suicide march of lemmings, and more tactical/strategic in nature. I also think it would help foster the great BS fleet battles that people love, but caps seems to always ruin. Depending on the range of the module, it could reduce lag by forcing carriers and moms to jump off grid, thus minimizing the, "hot drop carriers, launch fighters, and lag everything to hell" tactics used by many. A potentially good idea if done right. To be balanced, it would definitely have to consume fuel to maintain; increasing signature radius or reducing velocity doesn't really hurt battleships enough to be balanced, and cap is troublesome to balance as well due to the ways to sustain cap. So, a fuel-consuming area weapon that disrupts inbound cynos in that grid but could only be sustained for a few minutes without refueling.
Ephemeron Anti-BoB	Posted - 2008.06.03 21:31:00 - [41] I'll pitch in my idea for specialized tier3 t2 bs: It would be something of a mini-dread / heavy battleship. Its mass would be such that 100MN MWD would not provide more than 100% speed increase. - This is a major draw back in real PvP. Other than that, it would look like a buffed up battleship, better resists, good damage and tank. Very slow tho. As its role bonus, it would have 99% CPU reduction for a new unique weapon type: "CapKiller Torpedo" The CapKiller Torpedo would be similar to a Bomb, but it would work like this: It does not require target lock to fire. It fires in direction the camera drone is facing. It is the size of a frigate. It travels at 3000 m/s It can be targeted by any other ship - as if it were an MWDing frigate. It would have HP of an interceptor, if destroyed by other player, it doesn't explode. It would always travel in strait line for maximum duration of 2 minutes. It would detonate no sooner than 20 seconds from lunch. It would detonate if it passes within 30 km of any space ship whose mass is more than 90,000,000 kg (non-nano battleships). But it would perform range checks only once per 10 seconds, not continuously. (this is to reduce lag and to allow multiple volleys to explode on target without destroying each other) It would do 40k damage within 30km radius of explosion to any target that has sig radius of 3000 or greater. Damage would be reduced significantly for any ships with smaller sig radius. A typical battleship should take 10k damage. A frigate should take about 1000 hp damage. This is the gist of it. How I imagine it would be used: A small (expensive) fleet of heavy t2 battleships firing volleys of 5-15 of these CapKiller torps at large enemy fleet blob or sieged caps. The opposing fleet rapidly locking and firing upon the incoming torpedoes. Most of the torpedoes would be destroyed by opposing fleet, but occassionally some would get thru and deal massive damage. 2 successful hits could destroy a typical battleship. Sieged caps can't warp out, they must keep light support ships in the area to destroy incoming torps. Epic!
ian666 Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN	Posted - 2008.06.03 22:06:00 - [42] Originally by: CCP Atropos Yes, and just as many that would emoragequit because we've created the solopwnmobile that has been missing all this time... You joking right? How many solo ganking marauders you saw in lowsec/0.0? How many players will go solo in a ship wnich cost around 700m without rigs and fittings? (Even if that ships were a solo pwn its still around 1b isk solo pwn mobile (including fittings). And really not many players will spend >1b isk for non capital ship to make pvp (even if - then anyone in neighbourhood will be hunting for that 1b isk boat). Marauders are a crap and you know it. You made ships with t1 battleship dps and slight better tank but low sensor streinght which places them in pve boats not pvp (specialy since you boost ecm ships and maked them pwn mobile).
Straight Chillen Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.06.03 23:10:00 - [43] Originally by: Ephemeron ....As its role bonus, it would have 99% CPU reduction for a new unique weapon type: "CapKiller Torpedo"... This sounds like a horrible idea TBH, i would much rather see CCP take the time to improve the current bombing system then add something like this. On top of that the dmg your suggesting is pretty crazy, have u ever seen the kind of damage current bombs do against frigs, its laughable at best. Adding variety to bombers would be awesome, but is a totally differnt topic. TBH, what your suggesting is the wtfpwnmobile that everyone is trying to avoid, and some is impossible. Personally i think any idea of a battle ship using some kind of capital weapon system is ludicrous. Thats what capital ships are for, and any kind of expansion on it should be done within that class. I would like to see T2 version of the tier3 battleships for same reason id like to see the same in tier2 battle cruisers; they are simply some of the sexiest ships in game. Im sure CCP would agree. They simply have to find the right niche for these ships to fill, and hopefully its not that wtfpwnmobile niche
Ephemeron Anti-BoB	Posted - 2008.06.04 02:08:00 - [44] note how I said it only detonates when a ship of 90,000,000 kg or more is in range. That means it would never detonate on frig/cruiser gangs. Which can lock and shoot it down pretty fast. Also, 10k damage for battleship is not that bad. And if you count the costs of the torpedo shot, and the 1 bil cost of the ship itself, you won't see these things being abused too much.
Pirokobo Orion Academy THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.06.04 16:02:00 - [45] Edited by: Pirokobo on 04/06/2008 16:08:17 I just want to pitch in that the anti-cap torpedo idea is probably the dumbest thing I've read in some time. The problem with capship blobs isn't that caps are hard to kill. Comparatively speaking, for the cost of their construction, they're not. Moms maybe. But dreads and titans die far too easily relative to the investment needed for construction. So EVE doesn't need some battleship scale "david vs goliath" device because 5 or so davids with the right support ships can consistently bring down goliath anyway. Cyno jamming... is a reasonable proposal. It would, of course, radically alter the dynamic of alliance warfare by forcing the defenders to actually plan instead of just drop a hundred carriers in and spam fighters till the grid crashes. Logistical ships, like a super pos-repper, are reasonable proposals. They might not be glamorous roles, but the fact that we use capitals to do this today speaks to the necessity of the job. But giving battleships some super-cap-killer doesn't fix anything. I will continue to say we need a Juggernought class... a leaner, meaner dread designed to go toe to toe with a wing of battleships and win by guns alone. Especially if CCP ever introduces Level 6 missions. But that's a capital. Not a battleship.
Ephemeron Anti-BoB	Posted - 2008.06.04 17:54:00 - [46] I still think my idea can work well with proper tune ups. It's not just a cap-killer weapon, it's a blob disperser. It creates disadvantage for killing all the ships in single blob.
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.04 18:40:00 - [47] threads like this drown the productive treads. you could at least have posted it in Features and Ideas ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it.
Straight Chillen Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.06.04 19:18:00 - [48] Originally by: Chi Quan threads like this drown the productive treads. you could at least have posted it in Features and Ideas Actually if you cared to read through the thread you would see that there was several reasonable ideas posted, not everyone is clamoring for a wtfpwnmobile, post like yours drown the contructive ones. You could've at least posted in CAOD
Pirokobo Orion Academy THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.06.04 19:58:00 - [49] Originally by: Ephemeron I still think my idea can work well with proper tune ups. No, it wouldn't. You want a DD without all the problems of a titan (namely that they suck and tend to die in their first battle).
Ephemeron Anti-BoB	Posted - 2008.06.04 22:30:00 - [50] Titan DDD cannot be stopped, DDD is more powerful - always destroys frigs/cruisers. My torp idea provides an easy way of stopping the attack - you just have to snipe down a frigate - which represents the torp. If it is flying strait at you, you can do it in a regular sniper bs. Your tackler frigs can web it and it won't even detonate when they get near cause of the minimum mass requirement. Lots of opportunities to stop the attack or get out of the way.
Pirokobo Orion Academy THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.06.05 03:12:00 - [51] Edited by: Pirokobo on 05/06/2008 03:13:15 Originally by: Ephemeron Lots of opportunities to stop the attack or get out of the way. That's not the point. The point is you want a f*ing "my ship kills your fleet" weapon without tht titan pricetag and obvious titan pitfalls (like with the being doomed the second it goes into battle). It's not going to fing happen. Ever. F*ing whiny carebear can't handle getting caught in a gatecamp so he wants to blow the whole f* grid up... as if.*

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.