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)
MADDOGzors THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.05.25 13:13:00 - [1] I see that so much time and effort has been put into faction cruisers, but why not for T2 battleships. Also, I'd hope the T2 version of tier3 bs's would be for pvp unlike the marauders which was quite disappointing since ECM hinders them so badly. Is this even in the works yet?
Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.05.25 15:30:00 - [2] Edited by: Ambien Torca on 25/05/2008 15:30:47 My understand was that real WTFBBQ pwnmobiles with increased resists and such are not going to be introduced in EVE ever. Battleships already beat everything smaller than them anyway.
ian666 Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN	Posted - 2008.05.25 16:57:00 - [3] signed more ships t2
MADDOGzors THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.05.25 19:00:00 - [4] I know there's a lot of pilots out there that have been waiting for their T2 pvp battleship. I'm not going to get into specs on them that's pointless. I'm just wondering if CCP is even working on this or at least considering it for the near future. I'll use the caldari for this example: Raven -> Navy Raven Scorpion -> Widow Rokh -> ?Nothing As of right now if you're a caldari pilot and you want a turret battleship besides the Rokh capable of solo pvp, you have to crosstrain Amarr and fly a Nightmare. The Navy Raven is a carebear ship, not used anywhere near as much as the Navy Mega for pvp. There's too much wrong with Black Ops right now which isn't a solo ship in the first place. I think CCP needs to give a little love to the small gang/solo pvpers by adding T2 versions of tier 3 bs's. A T2 battleship that's actually meant for pvp and doesn't get perma-jammed by light ECM drones. There's thousands of pilots that would love for this to happen.

CCP Atropos C C P	Posted - 2008.05.25 19:53:00 - [5] Originally by: MADDOGzors I think CCP needs to give a little love to the small gang/solo pvpers by adding T2 versions of tier 3 bs's. A T2 battleship that's actually meant for pvp and doesn't get perma-jammed by light ECM drones. There's thousands of pilots that would love for this to happen. Yes, and just as many that would emoragequit because we've created the solopwnmobile that has been missing all this time... I can't speak for the Game Design group and Tier 3 Tech II battleships, but the reason that Marauders have such low sensor strength was to limit their capabilities for PVP, not make them nonexistent. You can fit ECCM or a copilot can use an ECCM caster (on you) to increase your sensor strength. I can however state that the solopwnmobile you want, won't be made.

Vim Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.05.25 19:56:00 - [6] Would be nothing wrong with a navy rokh/abaddon/hyperion/maelstrom as pure 'I got riches', already existing navy versions isnt to much of a oomph difference compared to their t1 hull and definetly not worth it iskwise, unless you like to wave epeen and hearing oyur name followed by 'is primary' or prefaced with 'primary' alot =)
MADDOGzors THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.05.25 20:06:00 - [7] Originally by: CCP Atropos I can't speak for the Game Design group and Tier 3 Tech II battleships, but the reason that Marauders have such low sensor strength was to limit their capabilities for PVP, not make them nonexistent. You can fit ECCM or a copilot can use an ECCM caster (on you) to increase your sensor strength. I can however state that the solopwnmobile you want, won't be made. I really don't buy into the solopwnmobile statement. That's already possible with a T1 battleship, you just faction or deadspace fit it. I never said create something overpowered, only T2. There's no reason the tier 3 battleships should be ignored for having a T2 counterpart.
Kil'Roy The Rat Patrol	Posted - 2008.05.25 20:37:00 - [8] I'm sure a Tier III T2 BS will come out in the future, just not as you would like it.
Constantinee Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams	Posted - 2008.05.25 20:42:00 - [9] Originally by: CCP Atropos Originally by: MADDOGzors I think CCP needs to give a little love to the small gang/solo pvpers by adding T2 versions of tier 3 bs's. A T2 battleship that's actually meant for pvp and doesn't get perma-jammed by light ECM drones. There's thousands of pilots that would love for this to happen. Yes, and just as many that would emoragequit because we've created the solopwnmobile that has been missing all this time... isent that the titan? --------------------
MADDOGzors THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.05.25 21:12:00 - [10] Originally by: Kil'Roy I'm sure a Tier III T2 BS will come out in the future, just not as you would like it. I never actually specified how I would want it to be. I am simply asking for one period.
CrestoftheStars Recreation Of The World	Posted - 2008.05.26 00:42:00 - [11] i would like to see that heavy attack bs :P ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Kil'Roy The Rat Patrol	Posted - 2008.05.26 01:12:00 - [12] Originally by: MADDOGzors Originally by: Kil'Roy I'm sure a Tier III T2 BS will come out in the future, just not as you would like it. I never actually specified how I would want it to be. I am simply asking for one period. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I was reading too much into this. My bad. Originally by: MADDOGzors I see that so much time and effort has been put into faction cruisers, but why not for T2 battleships. Also, I'd hope the T2 version of tier3 bs's would be for pvp unlike the marauders which was quite disappointing since ECM hinders them so badly. Is this even in the works yet?
MADDOGzors THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.05.26 02:35:00 - [13] Ya it's a battleship for pvp, I thought that was common sense. Guess I was wrong. What did you think I meant, a battleship for mowing the yard, or one that makes you coffee in the morning?
ghosttr Explora Empire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.05.26 04:26:00 - [14] Originally by: CCP Atropos Originally by: MADDOGzors I think CCP needs to give a little love to the small gang/solo pvpers by adding T2 versions of tier 3 bs's. A T2 battleship that's actually meant for pvp and doesn't get perma-jammed by light ECM drones. There's thousands of pilots that would love for this to happen. Yes, and just as many that would emoragequit because we've created the solopwnmobile that has been missing all this time... I can't speak for the Game Design group and Tier 3 Tech II battleships, but the reason that Marauders have such low sensor strength was to limit their capabilities for PVP, not make them nonexistent. You can fit ECCM or a copilot can use an ECCM caster (on you) to increase your sensor strength. I can however state that the solopwnmobile you want, won't be made. I dont know about a t2 tier3 bs, but i would like to see additional t1 bs. I know that caldari should have a cheaper railbost, and that it would be nice if amarr, and gallente had some kind of ewar based ships My Blog
Kil'Roy The Rat Patrol	Posted - 2008.05.26 04:47:00 - [15] Originally by: MADDOGzors Ya it's a battleship for pvp, I thought that was common sense. Guess I was wrong. What did you think I meant, a battleship for mowing the yard, or one that makes you coffee in the morning? Well, that is what I thought you meant. In order to make any T2 BS that is good at pvp, they would have to make it better than the T1 version in most things, similar to how they made the HACs and Command Ships better than their T1 versions. Otherwise, you would end up with another Maurader type ship. They have already said they weren't going to do this and CCP Atropos seemed to reflect this. That's why I still stand by what I said. They will most likely come out with a Tier III T2 BS, but I really doubt it will be the PVP T2 BS you seem to be looking for. They have said it many times, they are not planning on releasing a HAC style T2 BS, which is what it would need to be in order to be considered designed for PVP.
AstroPhobic	Posted - 2008.05.26 04:56:00 - [16] Originally by: Kil'Roy Originally by: MADDOGzors Ya it's a battleship for pvp, I thought that was common sense. Guess I was wrong. What did you think I meant, a battleship for mowing the yard, or one that makes you coffee in the morning? Well, that is what I thought you meant. In order to make any T2 BS that is good at pvp, they would have to make it better than the T1 version in most things, similar to how they made the HACs and Command Ships better than their T1 versions. Otherwise, you would end up with another Maurader type ship. They have already said they weren't going to do this and CCP Atropos seemed to reflect this. That's why I still stand by what I said. They will most likely come out with a Tier III T2 BS, but I really doubt it will be the PVP T2 BS you seem to be looking for. They have said it many times, they are not planning on releasing a HAC style T2 BS, which is what it would need to be in order to be considered designed for PVP. Wouldn't see the harm in a big, bad tanked t2 BS with limited damage output, but slight gang/ewar? capabilities. Basically a big command ship, but without the DPS increase. Give them 4 gun/launcher HPs, t2 resists and lots of meds/lows. Maybe bonuses to cap or tanking...
MADDOGzors THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.05.26 05:03:00 - [17] Well I didn't really want to get into specs on the ship, I'm sure CCP can figure out a way not to make it overpowered. I'm really against the thought of them being solopwnmobiles which was stated above. Any ship can be like that if you spend the isk on it. The T2 bs would obviously cost more. A lot of pilots like to have an expensive ship to solo in or use in small gangs. And honestly, I'm not going to fly a ship that costs around 700mil and use a tank/tackle slot for ECCM or rely on a projected ECCM. A T2 bs was made for missioning, why not for pvp. HACs and CS's are not made strictly for missioning or ratting and they're T2. I see no negative result for implementing a T2 bs in the game meant for pvp.
Pirokobo Orion Academy THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.05.29 17:31:00 - [18] Edited by: Pirokobo on 29/05/2008 17:32:55 T2 Tier 3 combat battleship is unnecessary. However, I do think there could be some use for a T2 Tier 3 battleship as a siege weapon. Essentially a non-capital version of the dread that has siege mode. The next general combat ship should be the T2 Juggernaught, with extra capital ship batteries and bonuses to make it effective at swatting battleships as well as other capitals.
Xaxch Kuge	Posted - 2008.05.29 20:16:00 - [19] Originally by: MADDOGzors I really don't buy into the solopwnmobile statement. That's already possible with a T1 battleship, you just faction or deadspace fit it. I never said create something overpowered, only T2. There's no reason the tier 3 battleships should be ignored for having a T2 counterpart. Dude, just look at what ur asking for and tell me its not different than a multi billion dollar battleship: Current solopwnmobiles = multi billion dollar ships that are rare as hell. Also can still be owned by a few decent fit 1/10 cost bs's what ur asking for = t2 rohk that already has 25% resists and range... what else are u gonna give it? damage mods? more resists? then with someone that puts faction/officer fits on it it can now tank fleets and still come out on-top....... How would that be fair? think about what you say before you say it. Otherwise you look silly asking for basically the end game ship. If they make t2 tier 3... they would be nothing like a pvp ship currently. they'd do to them what they did to the marauders or black ops.... then ud just cry again that they weren't good for solo pvp....... Oh btw, if u want to fight with guns you shouldn't be a Caldari... railguns or for fleet style sniping no soloing
Cry5t4l New Millennium Knights	Posted - 2008.05.29 23:38:00 - [20] I'd enjoy seeing a t2 tier 2 Battlecruiser, even if it simply becomes the field/fleet command ship hull. Variety makes this game so much better.
Christari Zuborov Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.05.30 03:00:00 - [21] Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 30/05/2008 03:01:05 I was thinking about this earlier on the way home, and something that's always struck me odd is that our BSs don't have tertiary guns. All naval vessels carry tertiary guns. So a T3 BS could get the bonuses of their races cruiser bonuses, making it a utility fit rather than raw dps. The utility fit would prove useful vs. smaller, nimble, ships that are close range. You'd trade raw dps by fitting smaller guns, but it would allow you to fit for more situations. The bonuses shouldn't be anywhere near the same as their HAC counterparts. That would be my ideal T2 BS.
BugxEarl Izanagi Orbital Fleet Izanagi Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.30 04:14:00 - [22] EVE doesn't need anymore features until the problems at hand are fixed, and there are TONS of problem that need fixing/balancing.
Doddy Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.05.30 15:22:00 - [23] Originally by: ghosttr I dont know about a t2 tier3 bs, but i would like to see additional t1 bs. I know that caldari should have a cheaper railbost, and that it would be nice if amarr, and gallente had some kind of ewar based ships This sounds good to me. A solopwnmobile heavy attack battleship would be pure fail but it wouldnt be as unbalancing as people think as it would probably have similar build costs to a dread. If they do add a 3rd type of t2 battleship it should be aimed towards a support role i.e. command, logistics or e-war.
Pirokobo Orion Academy THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.05.30 16:28:00 - [24] Originally by: Doddy If they do add a 3rd type of t2 battleship it should be aimed towards a support role i.e. command, logistics or e-war. Or sieges. A subcapital with siege mode and a single capital cannon would have uses.
Adelorae24 Black Podding	Posted - 2008.05.31 19:53:00 - [25] I think what this an other similar threads boil down to are just a desire for more ships. I love it when ships are added to the game. I had to train for the Kitsune right away even though it's ugly as sin and I never fly it. I just love jumping in that shiny new pimp-mobile for the first time. Those who say that T2 Attack BS would be overkill are correct. You can already do stupid things with the current battleships and enough isk. What if we had another completely new class of ships though, or perhaps jovian ships like the slick little shuttle we got recently. I just want more stuff to fly. I don't care if it's a pwnmobile or not. Alien (1979): "Before we dock, I think we ought to discuss the bonus situation."
GeneralNukeEm Free Collective The OSS	Posted - 2008.06.01 05:09:00 - [26] t2 mining bs gogogo. They all have 8 turrets.
Ecky X Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.06.01 10:17:00 - [27] Some ideas: Battleship-hull shuttle; Give it slightly better agility than current BS, no highslots, and +2 warp strength. Battleship-class POS-repper; Make it easy to jam, and fill the same role as a logistics ship - only you can fit a superfluous tank on it. Nano-Battleship; Good agility, high speeds, but take away dronebay and give it a tracking penalty. Suicide-ship; Make it cost a billion to build, no insurance. Give it a mini-doomsday and wait for the fireworks. Honestly, what are we lacking? Giving current battleships more combat ability without some major penalty (IE Marauders) would just make them better than current battleships. Black Ops cant warp cloaked, but a BS has no business doing that anyway - and they fill the ewar niche. Granted, not as well as they could. Fleet sniper? Expensive lossmail in the making. Maybe give every race a droneboat... but then Caldari-spec'd would complain about having to train drones, Gallente would complain the Dominix is now redundant. It would be like giving the Amarr an ECM-BS. While I love new ships, I think there are plenty in the game already. You just have to Crosstrain.
San Rintu Asshats and Alcoholics	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:00:00 - [28] Edited by: San Rintu on 02/06/2008 20:02:30 Ok all of the current Tier 3 BS's can hit easily over 1000 dps and can tank the same whilst having very few fitting problems, don't go trolling either, I cry when trying to fit T2 Tachyons too. Why on earth is it viable that the resists are increased upon them and they get more bonuses. At current I find all 4 some of the most fun ships to fly in the game as they pose some of the most catastrophic damage dealing available sub capital ship. T2 ships should not be thrown in just for the sake of it. I would love a T2 Hurricane or a Drake in the future by how do you improve upon a working formula without making the game ridiculous? The Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom and Abaddon are some of the most effectively balanced ships in the game and they all look fantastic. The Marauders only seem to be a disappointment to those that want this be all and end all ship that they can fly around, tank a fleet here, destroy a fleet there. They are still nonetheless ridiculous damage dealers while still having slots for cap warfare, x tanking or tea making facilities. Fit an ECCM and suddenly it's all gravy. However much I want a Rokh with Camoflauge or a black Abaddon, please do not make it T2 CCP
Ephemeron Anti-BoB	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:08:00 - [29] 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?
Haldir Ravenclaw PezCo - Ice Services	Posted - 2008.06.03 02:03:00 - [30] I really can't think of a decent role for a tier 3 T2 battleship as much as I'd like to see one myself. One of the most common one that crops up is the "Flagship" one, but I'm pretty sure a dev mentioned that they possibly wanted to make a Flagship capital size (so guessing T2 carrier?) instead. I know for a fact a HAC-style damage/resist T2 BS probably won't ever exist (Duvolle Hyperion with double-damage bonus like Deimos/Astarte? Sure, but we won't see one!) but as I mentioned, I can't really think of a unique role for them. Marauders were a bit of a let down, but they are pretty useful! So, if we can't get a T2 version of tier 3 BS's, what about making the other battleships into Navy versions in the LP store? We already have the benchmark Navy BS's at 600k LP (the ones that require original tier 2 BS and a nexus chip, 500k for bpc and stuff), so how about 400-500k LP for a tier 1 Navy BS (Domi, Scorp etc) and 800-900k LP for a tier 3 Navy BS (Hyperion, Rokh etc). Seeing as how Factional Warfare is coming out Soon Ö and the factions want us to help blow their enemies up it could be a good excuse to bring them in . Some Navy Frigates would be quite nice as well, other than the "unique" frigates you get. But that's just me. --- We want T2/Faction drone modules!
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]

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.