EVE Search - A proposal for Battlecruisers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

A proposal for Battlecruisers

» 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)
Katabrok First Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.05.05 11:28:00 - [1] In real life, battlecruisers differ from battleships by the ammount of armor (less) and speed/manouverability (more) that they have. But the guns are almost always on the same league. What if we added this bonus to the BC ships? 40% reduction in CPU and 90% reduction in powergrid use for large racial guns/missiles With this change, taking for example the heavy neutron blaster t2 versus neutron blaster cannon t2 we would have: 35tf vs 36.6tf 212pg vs 236.3pg What do you think? Kata Uma vez flamengo, sempre flamengo.
Fille Balle TachyonTubbies Dark Taboo	Posted - 2009.05.05 15:53:00 - [2] I love it! This would make Battlecruisers more like large destroyers. And the added cost of the large guns + slower tracking + no more than 7 turret hardpoints (Brutix) would offset their pwnage factor. I support this!
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.05 15:57:00 - [3] That would definitely fit with the Prophecies backstory, at least. Supposedly, it was originally designed to be a battleship. I'm not sure how I would take it, though. This would mean that these ships would have a lot more skill requirements to fly well. But it would help separate the use of the HAC from the BC I guess. The BC's would still have the use of medium gear, right? Reppers, MWD's/AB's, etc? Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze
ShadowDraqon The Quantum Company	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:01:00 - [4] Indeed, IRL the term battlecruiser came to be when someone though up the brilliant idea to take a regular cruiser and strap battleship cannons on it. Sure it slowed them down and made them more "Battleship minus armor" than "cruiser plus firepower" but... Sounds interesting yeah. Maybe a new tier 3 BC for it? ~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious
Daedalus II	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:20:00 - [5] The tanking power of a Drake combined with the firepower of a Navy Raven
Anubis Xian Reavers	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:28:00 - [6] Actually both interpretations of what a Battlecruiser is are correct. The Germans built heavily armored, but relatively lightly armed ships that could go faster. The British built a floating house of cards, but would sink anything provided it got lucky. CCP has always chosen tanky over ganky when it comes to design trends. Even the socalled ganky ships can have a massive EHP barrier. I think the tier 2 BCs should have been more like the oversized guns, undersized armor battlecruiser. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:36:00 - [7] Changing the current BC's might be an ill decision. Either adding a new class, or a new T2 variant, or simply a tier 3 with this new focus. Heavy Battlecruisers, T2 models off of the tier 2 BC's, capable of fitting large turrets with lighter armor than normal BC's. That might be conceivable. Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze
Katabrok First Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:39:00 - [8] Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon That would definitely fit with the Prophecies backstory, at least. Supposedly, it was originally designed to be a battleship. I'm not sure how I would take it, though. This would mean that these ships would have a lot more skill requirements to fly well. But it would help separate the use of the HAC from the BC I guess. The BC's would still have the use of medium gear, right? Reppers, MWD's/AB's, etc? The idea is that you can fly the ships with medium or large guns, thus negating the necessity of HAVING to learn large guns, and giving you the option to use medium guns for their better tracking and cap use. If you are coming from a cruiser, as normally you do, you can use the mediuns until you skill up the large guns. Then you can choose to go after the battleships. And all the other modules would still need to be used as they are now, because you won't have a reduction of pg or cpu for 100mn MWD's, for example. Kata Uma vez flamengo, sempre flamengo.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.05 16:55:00 - [9] Originally by: Katabrok First Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon That would definitely fit with the Prophecies backstory, at least. Supposedly, it was originally designed to be a battleship. I'm not sure how I would take it, though. This would mean that these ships would have a lot more skill requirements to fly well. But it would help separate the use of the HAC from the BC I guess. The BC's would still have the use of medium gear, right? Reppers, MWD's/AB's, etc? The idea is that you can fly the ships with medium or large guns, thus negating the necessity of HAVING to learn large guns, and giving you the option to use medium guns for their better tracking and cap use. If you are coming from a cruiser, as normally you do, you can use the mediuns until you skill up the large guns. Then you can choose to go after the battleships. And all the other modules would still need to be used as they are now, because you won't have a reduction of pg or cpu for 100mn MWD's, for example. Two things come to my mind: How do you adjust for the difference in capacitor between battleships and battlecruisers, and the corresponding 'activation cost' (cap use per shot) difference between medium and large weaponry? Secondly, do those ships with a damage bonus/range/cap use to medium weapons receive a similar bonus to large weapons? Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:01:00 - [10] Edited by: RedSplat on 05/05/2009 17:02:34 Just make a T2 BC based off the tier 2 BC hull and let it fit a siege mod- or have a comparable variant of such. Medium guns performing the same way as Large guns but with increased tracking issues. EDIT: Tweaking the numbers of/c. Currently a high skilled gank Hurricane can top 800dps, it would be fun to have a t2 variant that does 1200 with appropriate disadvantages. Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.

Sanctus Maleficus Lambent Enterprises	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:04:00 - [11] I'm not sure how I feel about this being the role of current BC's, but what about it being the role of T2 Tier2 BC's? Harbinger with Tach's anyone? (On a related note, I have an old corp mate that has a kill mail with him killing someone with a Harb that had one tach fitted, lmao)
Katabrok First Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:38:00 - [12] Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Two things come to my mind: How do you adjust for the difference in capacitor between battleships and battlecruisers, and the corresponding 'activation cost' (cap use per shot) difference between medium and large weaponry? Secondly, do those ships with a damage bonus/range/cap use to medium weapons receive a similar bonus to large weapons? We could have another bonus, 50% less cap use. This way the cap use would still be bigger than their medium counterparts, making the setup with with large guns a little more all or nothing. About the ship bonuses, I think they should be applicable to the large guns as well. Imagine a Ferox with 6 425 rails? Sniper for fleet fights on the cheap? Kata Uma vez flamengo, sempre flamengo.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:42:00 - [13] Originally by: Katabrok First Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Two things come to my mind: How do you adjust for the difference in capacitor between battleships and battlecruisers, and the corresponding 'activation cost' (cap use per shot) difference between medium and large weaponry? Secondly, do those ships with a damage bonus/range/cap use to medium weapons receive a similar bonus to large weapons? We could have another bonus, 50% less cap use. This way the cap use would still be bigger than their medium counterparts, making the setup with with large guns a little more all or nothing. About the ship bonuses, I think they should be applicable to the large guns as well. Imagine a Ferox with 6 425 rails? Sniper for fleet fights on the cheap? Not sure if that would work, considering that BC's have a far more limited range than BS's. Your talking, what, 70km 'sniper'? Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze
Hariya	Posted - 2009.05.05 17:56:00 - [14] Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Not sure if that would work, considering that BC's have a far more limited range than BS's. Your talking, what, 70km 'sniper'? Consider large pulses. Killing one of those and noticing it just dropped you 6 nice large T2 pewpews - ahh. Risk vs reward, to fit or not to fit overlarge pewpews. It could work just fine. Also, modules can be used to be able to target and pewpew further, making the platform even weaker. Again just good.
Kel Nissa	Posted - 2009.05.05 18:12:00 - [15] You talk about firepower of a BS but limited armor because its a cruiser .. But actually in EVE a bc is able to out-tank a BS. So i think when you modify the firepower you need to reduce the tankability while doing that ;)
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.05 18:14:00 - [16] Originally by: Kel Nissa You talk about firepower of a BS but limited armor because its a cruiser .. But actually in EVE a bc is able to out-tank a BS. So i think when you modify the firepower you need to reduce the tankability while doing that ;) I'm confused. Please explain how a BC can outtank a BS? Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze
ShadowDraqon The Quantum Company	Posted - 2009.05.05 18:37:00 - [17] Edited by: ShadowDraqon on 05/05/2009 18:37:30 Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Originally by: Kel Nissa You talk about firepower of a BS but limited armor because its a cruiser .. But actually in EVE a bc is able to out-tank a BS. So i think when you modify the firepower you need to reduce the tankability while doing that ;) I'm confused. Please explain how a BC can outtank a BS? Probably by sacrificing every ounce of potential damage for tanking mods... ... nothing a 8-tach abby won't fix ~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious
Morikai Acler Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.05.05 18:39:00 - [18] Actually, the problem would be that was the original intention of BC's. When they were originally testing them before the Shiva patch back in the day BC's were using large racial weapons, granted in a reduced amount due to PG. Back then you'd have a ferox with 425 rails and cruise launchers. Only problem was the PG for the large weapons made it possible to have sick tanks.
Hariya	Posted - 2009.05.05 18:48:00 - [19] Originally by: Morikai Acler Actually, the problem would be that was the original intention of BC's. When they were originally testing them before the Shiva patch back in the day BC's were using large racial weapons, granted in a reduced amount due to PG. Back then you'd have a ferox with 425 rails and cruise launchers. Only problem was the PG for the large weapons made it possible to have sick tanks. Thanks for the information. How about then doing it like "-90% bonus to Large pewpew powergrid requirement" just like many other special ships do...
Tarron Sarek Gallente Biotronics Inc. Alternative Realities	Posted - 2009.05.05 18:53:00 - [20] Well.. EVE is not real life. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"

Morikai Acler Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:00:00 - [21] Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Morikai Acler Actually, the problem would be that was the original intention of BC's. When they were originally testing them before the Shiva patch back in the day BC's were using large racial weapons, granted in a reduced amount due to PG. Back then you'd have a ferox with 425 rails and cruise launchers. Only problem was the PG for the large weapons made it possible to have sick tanks. Thanks for the information. How about then doing it like "-90% bonus to Large pewpew powergrid requirement" just like many other special ships do... Destroyers were a bit different too. For example, the cormorant use to be able to fit 7 or 8 light missile launchers when they were testing it, but due to missile mechanics back then they went against that. So instead we get stuck with a destroyer and but extension interdictor with nowhere near enough grid to fit it's weapons, and not enough low slots to compensate.
Fille Balle TachyonTubbies Dark Taboo	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:10:00 - [22] Originally by: Morikai Acler Actually, the problem would be that was the original intention of BC's. When they were originally testing them before the Shiva patch back in the day BC's were using large racial weapons, granted in a reduced amount due to PG. Back then you'd have a ferox with 425 rails and cruise launchers. Only problem was the PG for the large weapons made it possible to have sick tanks. You might wanna read the op. Nobody said anything about boosting the grid/cpu. Just giving it a bonus to the requirements of large guns, much like logistics cruisers have a bonus that allows them to fit large rr's. No sick tank here.
ShadowDraqon The Quantum Company	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:14:00 - [23] Originally by: Fille Balle Originally by: Morikai Acler Actually, the problem would be that was the original intention of BC's. When they were originally testing them before the Shiva patch back in the day BC's were using large racial weapons, granted in a reduced amount due to PG. Back then you'd have a ferox with 425 rails and cruise launchers. Only problem was the PG for the large weapons made it possible to have sick tanks. You might wanna read the op. Nobody said anything about boosting the grid/cpu. Just giving it a bonus to the requirements of large guns, much like logistics cruisers have a bonus that allows them to fit large rr's. No sick tank here. Yeah, give a new tier 3 BC with bonus to large racial weapon PG/CPU use instead of a damage mod. ~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious
Katabrok First Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:14:00 - [24] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Well.. EVE is not real life. I know it. I used the rl comparison to help get my point across. You'll see that I didn't say we SHOULD do it because in real life that is how battlecruisers were. I said that it would be cool if we could do something like it. Kata Uma vez flamengo, sempre flamengo.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Biotronics Inc. Alternative Realities	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:19:00 - [25] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 05/05/2009 19:21:33 Meh.. thread's moving fast. Might just as well post a new reply ^^ There you go: I'm not sure what BCs would gain, or would be supposed to gain, from this change, other than range. So at least for me, the question is: do they need more range? Or is there something wrong with BCs that would be fixed by this change? I don't really see any big problems with BCs in general. The only rather often debated issue is the discrepancy between tier1 and tier2 battlecruisers, and I don't see this fixed by giving them large guns. Apart from that it would make BCs a lot weaker against smaller targets, due to worse tracking and signature resolution. And it would make BCs harder to train for, since medium weapons require fewer SP. For me, a battlecruiser is the answer for new players who think they 'can't catch up' or need at least a year to be competetive. It's the ideal mid-range solution for someone who wants to see quick results. Some of this would get lost by switching to large guns. Therefore I'm sceptical and not convinced that it would be a good change. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"
Kel Nissa	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:52:00 - [26] Quote: I'm confused. Please explain how a BC can outtank a BS? How about: Try to explain me, why a BS has significant more tank than a BC. Do this also while looking on extreme examples like the tankability of command ships which are based on BC hulls.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.05 19:57:00 - [27] Originally by: Kel Nissa Quote: I'm confused. Please explain how a BC can outtank a BS? How about: Try to explain me, why a BS has significant more tank than a BC. Do this also while looking on extreme examples like the tankability of command ships which are based on BC hulls. Let's take the extreme tankability of, say, a command ship. And then, lets put it up against, say, a marauder. What, it's wrong to compare a T2 BC to a T2 BS? Surely you jest. IF, you compare a tank BC versus a gank BS, you can show and prove that 'BCs can out tank a BS'. If you compare a gank BC versus a tank BS, you can prove that the BC can't even come close to a BS. But if you compare a BC with tank bonuses (say, a prophecy) versus a BS with similar bonuses (say, an Abaddon), you show that the tank sufficiently scales. But while that Abaddon has moderately better tank than that Prophecy, it's got significantly more firepower. Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.05 20:00:00 - [28] Edited by: Ruze Ahkor''Murkon on 05/05/2009 20:01:17 On a side note, Kel raises an interesting point. One of the biggest 'balancing' factors of a supertank BC (read, command ship), is it's limited, medium-sized turrets. This is apparently the reason why the devs have yet to introduce a T2 battleship that is the extension of the HAC/Command line. If you give battlecruisers the ability to fit medium and large weaponry, will this cause the command ships to become overpowered? Or do you limit the command ships abilities to heavy weapons? Personally, in light of that, I think the better move might be to simply add a new class of battlecruisers, as myself and other's have mentioned, which are specifically built and designed to run heavy weapons. Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.05.05 20:32:00 - [29] Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon I'm confused. Please explain how a BC can outtank a BS? XL booster crystal set Cyclone. Hurricane with 2 1600mm plates a full trimarks and slaves. 180's. On an aside: [Augoror Navy Issue, New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Armor Explosive Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II Damage Control II [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Trimark Armor Pump II Trimark Armor Pump II Trimark Armor Pump II 152k EHP and 36.330 k Armor. Without Slaves. Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
ShadowDraqon The Quantum Company	Posted - 2009.05.05 21:06:00 - [30] Edited by: ShadowDraqon on 05/05/2009 21:06:47 Originally by: RedSplat XL booster crystal set Cyclone. Hurricane with 2 1600mm plates a full trimarks and slaves.... Ah, you mean a freighter's worth of implants/T2 stuff. You don't do that, in case there is a second battleship... ~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious



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.