EVE Search - New T2 Battlecruisers to propose

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

New T2 Battlecruisers to propose

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
EvisRaptor	Posted - 2010.11.12 01:18:00 - [1] Ok so here we go with a proposal for T2 versions of the Huricaine, Harbinger, Myrmidon and Drake. Class Name Fast Battleship Now this new class should be able to fit 4 BS sized weapons with 2 utility high slots, with a drop in speed from the base BC of 10-15% and a tank boost of 20-35%. Thats as far as I have gotten with my idea so any comments you have would be great.
Marcus Grim	Posted - 2010.11.12 01:24:00 - [2] Originally by: EvisRaptor Ok so here we go with a proposal for T2 versions of the Huricaine, Harbinger, Myrmidon and Drake. Class Name Fast Battleship Now this new class should be able to fit 4 BS sized weapons with 2 utility high slots, with a drop in speed from the base BC of 10-15% and a tank boost of 20-35%. Thats as far as I have gotten with my idea so any comments you have would be great. So, my T2 Harbi would do less DPS than my T1 Harbi, and go slower as well ..... no thanks.
Niclas Solo Amarr Love n Peace Snatch Victory	Posted - 2010.11.12 01:31:00 - [3] Originally by: Marcus Grim Originally by: EvisRaptor Ok so here we go with a proposal for T2 versions of the Huricaine, Harbinger, Myrmidon and Drake. Class Name Fast Battleship Now this new class should be able to fit 4 BS sized weapons with 2 utility high slots, with a drop in speed from the base BC of 10-15% and a tank boost of 20-35%. Thats as far as I have gotten with my idea so any comments you have would be great. So, my T2 Harbi would do less DPS than my T1 Harbi, and go slower as well ..... no thanks. +1 lose 30% dps and lose 15% speed just to get 30k more ehp? no thanks :p give it logistic bonus and i would buy one. Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn I build my own rigs so they are free.
EvisRaptor	Posted - 2010.11.12 01:51:00 - [4] Ok so what about adding a +10% per level to shield and armour RR modules.
Alara IonStorm Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.11.12 01:58:00 - [5] I had an idea for a Tech 2 Battlecruiser. It was basically the same ship with another bonus and a jump drive. More of a Convoy Escort or Forward Assault Ship. You can find the post in the Features and Idea's section of the forum.
Skippermonkey Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2010.11.12 11:05:00 - [6] Edited by: Skippermonkey on 12/11/2010 11:06:45 Just one thing that jumps to my attention. How can it be a T2 BATTLECRUISER, and yet you call is a fast BATTLESHIP!? anyway, large things arent meant to go fast... did you never watch Clear Skies? Originally by: CCP Capslock OH GOD THE TESTING
Petrov Kreigt Caldari Project Nemesis	Posted - 2010.11.12 11:49:00 - [7] 0/10
DarkXeRoX Reverse Psychology. BAT PHONE	Posted - 2010.11.12 11:54:00 - [8] Black ops Command ship \0/ :P
Kraschyn Thek'athor	Posted - 2010.11.12 12:42:00 - [9] Skippermonkey I guess you get confused 'cause your not familiar with naval terminology. The terms Battlecruiser and fast Battleship are intermixed. Different to EVE, real Battlecruisers were not smaller then Battleships. Contrary, HMS Hood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hms_hood) was the biggest ship in the Royal Navy. Historically the Royal Navy and the German Imperial Navy in World War I. had the most numerous Battlecruiser flottila. British/Japanese Battlecruisers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_class_battlecruiser Arnament: BC = BS Armor: BC < BS Speed: BC > BS German Battlecruisers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moltke_class_battlecruiser Arnament: BC < BS Armor: BC = BS Speed: BC > BS (Very simplified) Main point, Battlecruiser had guns similar or close to Battleships, often the number of guns was smaller. Primary strongpoint was allways speed. German battelcruiser were much sturdier then their british counterparts. So this proporsal is just the way of the classcial british battlecruiser concept. EVE Battlecruiser (and HACs) are more similiar to the German Pocketbattleships of World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_battleship
Dayfox Caldari	Posted - 2010.11.12 13:00:00 - [10] T2 ships Just an idea of what they could look like. Also have a pic of a Navy issue drake but im not on the same computer as I rendered it on at the moment so can't upload

Stygian Knight Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.11.12 13:18:00 - [11] you already have them, they are called command ships.
Buzz Killingdon	Posted - 2010.11.12 15:52:00 - [12] "fast battleship"? Why didn't you call it a T2 Battlecruiser?
Ebisu Kami	Posted - 2010.11.12 16:07:00 - [13] Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 12/11/2010 16:11:03 Originally by: Buzz Killingdon Anyways, I think a T2 battlecruiser should do battleship sized dmg with cruiser speed, with less tank than T1 battlecruisers. So basically a fast BC-sized destroyer? I have a bad feeling about where that will lead to... Originally by: Buzz Killingdon maybe 8 high slots, 4 mid, and 4 low. With 5 or 6 weapon hardpoints of 1 type or another, or maybe 4 missile hp, 2 turret hardpoints for Caldari and Minmatarr, and 4 turret hardpoints, 2 missile hardpoints for Amarr and Gallente? Or maybe no missile hardpoints for Gallente and just a bigger drone bay to fit medium or even heavy drones. With only 4 mid and 4 low, you couldn't make much of a tank if you want anything else. You are not going to reach a BB-equivalent damage potential without enabling the ships to either use 7-8 BB-sized guns or giving massive damage-bonuses with using medium or large guns and I am really hesitant about creating a BC-sized destroyer, which lacks three of the weak-points of our current destroyers, namely beeing slower then the class below (cruisers in that case), having a high volley with relatively low DPS (to not chew on too much on BB's potential) and sig size. You really would have to run detailed numbers to make it plausible, because you're really close to recreating pre nano-nerf quasi-battleships here.
Buzz Killingdon	Posted - 2010.11.12 16:21:00 - [14] Originally by: Ebisu Kami Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 12/11/2010 16:11:03 Originally by: Buzz Killingdon bs So basically a fast BC-sized destroyer? I have a bad feeling about where that will lead to... Originally by: Buzz Killingdon more bs Well, noone uses Destroyers as it is, why would anyone use a Battlecruiser variant? Obviously there would be some balancing to do. But basically, yeah, a battlecruiser with battleship dmg, cruiser speed, but no tankability. Cruiser speed is not THAT good. Not fast enough to be your main tank. And with 4 lows for shield-tanking race ships, and 4 mids for armour tanking races, I think it could work. Like I said though, some balancing would need to be done.
Vorekk Gallente LowBall Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.11.12 16:33:00 - [15] Originally by: EvisRaptor Class Name Fast Battleship Stopped right thurrr. --- Join Lowball Heavy Industries. Small, focused fleets - lots of high intensity action, the EVE way.
Ebisu Kami	Posted - 2010.11.12 16:54:00 - [16] Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 12/11/2010 17:05:37 Originally by: Buzz Killingdon Well, noone uses Destroyers as it is, why would anyone use a Battlecruiser variant? It would need a viable role and be designed around that role. Originally by: Buzz Killingdon Obviously there would be some balancing to do. But basically, yeah, a battlecruiser with battleship dmg, cruiser speed, but no tankability. Cruiser speed is not THAT good. Not fast enough to be your main tank. And with 4 lows for shield-tanking race ships, and 4 mids for armour tanking races, I think it could work. Like I said though, some balancing would need to be done. So, let's see what we currently have (I'm going to use some more or less average numbers here, no equipment in lows and med, so forgive me for beeing not too exact for each of the four races): Cruisers (tier 3) - 5 weapon slots - 220m/s - 8 lows+meds (either 3/5 or 5/3 or something along the line) - 240 DPS - 8000 eHP - 125m sig BCs (tier 2) - 7 weapon slots - 185m/s - 10 lows+meds (either 4/6 or 6/4 or something along the line) - 300 DPS - 22,000 eHP - 265m sig BBs (tier 3) - 8 weapon slots - 100m/s - 11 lows+meds (4/7 or 7/4 or something along the line) - 500 DPS - 40,000 eHP - 470m sig The proposed ships, I'll call it Heavy Destroyer DH - equivalent of 8 BB-sized weapons - 220m/s - 8 lows+meds (4/4 or somethign along the line) - 500 DPS - 8000 eHP - 125m sig (?) or 265m sig You see, what you did there? Assuming these CDs use medium guns, then you just completely obsoleted cruisers at all, while still beeing somewhat viable versus BCs (would need to run detailed numbers to actually figure in the DPS increase, but you may have just as well obsoleted BCs) and having pretty much exactly the same survivability as cruisers have today. Why is that so? Easy to answer: Cruisers have to use some of their slots to increase their damage-appliance, while the CDs have that already built-in, hence not compromising the lows and meds for tank at all, effectively leaving you with with the exact same setup as cruisers have minus 2 to 3 damage mods. Shield users have the most fun: They loose tankability, but get a ****ton of DPS increase, because they could use their already enhanced 500DPS + lows for damage mods and easily achieve DPS-numbers of fully fit battleships. I'm notn quite certain if that is good or bad. In both cases you just completely obsobleted BBs, too. Assuming you use large guns, then cruisers and to some extend BCs are superior in a 1v1, because you're hitting right into the problem of large guns: Tracking. You move faster yourself and your targets have a lower sig size then your guns' resolution, hence mitigating a lot of potential damage. But what have you created now? A quasi-BB, that moves a lot faster then BBs do, to be precise by double speed. BBs will inevitably have problems hitting you, while you'll have not a lot of problems to apply your damage to them. Ok, BBs still will have more slots for weapon upgrades, but that still leaves them with BB-guns trying to hit a cruiser and hence you just created another counter to BBs, which is definitly not needed at all.
Aessoroz	Posted - 2010.11.12 17:00:00 - [17] Just make them slightly easier to get into command ships, like Squad Command Ships or something.
Buzz Killingdon	Posted - 2010.11.12 18:03:00 - [18] Edited by: Buzz Killingdon on 12/11/2010 18:04:30 So here: 5 med/low slots (Either 4-1 or 1-4) Can only fit cruiser sized weapons (So heavy missiles, hams, medium turrets). No bonus to damage No bonus for tanks Bonus to damage modifiers (Ballistic Control, tracking speed, etc) Also, adjust the PG and CPU so that someone who takes full advantage of all the weapons slots would only be able to fit an Afterburner. Basically, a PURE dps ship. I guess you almost end up with a slow HAC with a larger sig radius. Anyways, a ship like that would not obsolete cruisers, BCs, or Battleships (What's a BBs?). You wouldn't be able to use it for missions due to lack of tank. They should be set in price accordingly to a T2 variant, so since a T1 cruiser is 4 mil and a T2 cruiser is 90 mil, I would assume since a T1 battlecruiser is 20 mil, a T2 battlecruiser would be upwards of 200mil. (Actually, using that scale, they would be alot more, but let's not do that) I think it could work, but I guess there's enough ships in EVE. There certainly is enough ships for me. Just thought I would throw out some random ideas.
Ebisu Kami	Posted - 2010.11.13 00:57:00 - [19] Edited by: Ebisu Kami on 13/11/2010 01:05:39 Originally by: Buzz Killingdon So here: 5 med/low slots (Either 4-1 or 1-4) Can only fit cruiser sized weapons (So heavy missiles, hams, medium turrets). No bonus to damage No bonus for tanks Bonus to damage modifiers (Ballistic Control, tracking speed, etc) Also, adjust the PG and CPU so that someone who takes full advantage of all the weapons slots would only be able to fit an Afterburner. Basically, a PURE dps ship. I guess you almost end up with a slow HAC with a larger sig radius. Sorry, I'm still not impressed at all. Now you just created a cruiser-equivalent to the 1 med slot frigates and destroyers, which's usability is highly questionable beyond anything but flying in groups, but in those you'll need at least some tankability, due to alpha-strikes and enemy group's DPS, hence you'd use your meds or lows at least partially for tank, not primarily weapon upgrades, lowering the actual advantage of the ship. A failship through and through. Also rediciulously hilarous: The Calamari-variant. While I can see a med 1 - low 4 variant actually having a use as a DPS-platform, a 4-1 variant will just be completely failing at it's intended role. 8 unbonused Heavy (Assault) launchers or 8 unbonused hybrids with a somewhat below average tank for it's size (1 for AB or MWD, 3 for tank)? Not really something I'd dare to confront the Cal PvP-folks with. They'd rip the person apart, who created that... alive... :P Originally by: Buzz Killingdon I think it could work, but I guess there's enough ships in EVE. There certainly is enough ships for me. Just thought I would throw out some random ideas. Yeah, no hard feelings there, sorry if I come along a bit bullyish. And yes, there are most likely enough types of ships in EVE and the number of useable ships would easily increase by a huge margin, if EVE gets rid of the tier-system and those low-tier variants are better balanced along their intended use. Not completely opposing the idea of additional ships, always adds more flavour and choice, but additional oversized destroyers? Hmno, thanks. Funnily enough, if you think along the line of a balanced cruiser-destroyer, you'd end up with something that is really close to the current BCs. BCs slaughter classes below them, can sustain and/or evade fire from classes "above" to some extend, but are more vulnerable to both larger and similar sized ships (albeit they better be in packs for that job) by beeing slower and having a larger sig (although eventually having a tad too much tank). All in all, BCs are as close to an equilibirum between cruisers and BBs as possible. Destroyers should be rebalanced along that line as a matter of fact, but that's a different theme.
Veronica Kerrigan	Posted - 2010.11.13 01:19:00 - [20] Perhaps we could turn the T2 tier 2 BC's into something like either a heavy bomber, which would be able to drop heavy bombs, which are more damage, but only to larger targets, so that you can't insta-pop 'ceptors and the like. It could warp in, do it's damage, but it wouldn't be able to get away quite as fast. launching a heavy bomb would stop your ship, again, so that you can't get out instantly. just a thought.

Nylint	Posted - 2010.11.13 04:41:00 - [21] why not just give them 10-15% bonuses on rate of fire and damage and make them a little faster?
Project Sigma	Posted - 2010.11.13 05:55:00 - [22] I've said it before. It's easy - Psychological Operations (Psy Ops) class vessels. Psy Ops ships would be diametrically opposed to the current Command Ships. While they have similar prereqs, instead of gang boosting they would debuff by having a bonus which allows them to use Psychological Warfare Links. These links would create a HIC like bubble centered around the Psy Ops ship - similar bubble size increases per ship skill level - which would diminish some balanced aspect of any non-fleeted (i.e. "enemy") ships. For example, the T2 Harbinger would have a Psy Warfare Link which would decrease armor resistances by an equal amount as the Passive Defense gang link increases armor resists. To differentiate among the races, the Psy Warfare modules could diminish sensor strength, shield resistances, make remote reps require more cap, lengthen cycle times, etc... If done correctly, it could actually become quite an effective counter-blob weapon. Balancing is necessary, which is why they must have a similar magnitude of effect per skill level as the boost from command ships - even lesser so, maybe. Only one link should be active on a Psy Ops vessel at any given time, and the effects shouldn't stack, even if there are multiple ships with the same Psy Warfare Link. It could even be RP'd easily - Just say the races were able to study and recreate the effect of the pulsar style wormholes or whatever.

CCP Spitfire	Posted - 2010.11.13 08:12:00 - [23] Moved from 'Ships & Modules'. Spitfire Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online

Knawt Ongrid	Posted - 2010.11.13 15:18:00 - [24] No you can't have a T2 Drake. Give it up already. FFS these stupid threads get pooped out on a regular basis. CCP must need to install a sewer line for this **** by now.
Shin Dari	Posted - 2010.11.13 15:51:00 - [25] Originally by: EvisRaptor Ok so here we go with a proposal for T2 versions of the Huricaine, Harbinger, Myrmidon and Drake. Class Name Fast Battleship Now this new class should be able to fit 4 BS sized weapons with 2 utility high slots, with a drop in speed from the base BC of 10-15% and a tank boost of 20-35%. Thats as far as I have gotten with my idea so any comments you have would be great. Well that sounds kind of worthless. I would prefer the T2 version of Tier 2 BCs to be Assault/Escort Battlecruisers. With the role of protecting capitals from frigates-sized targets.
Slade Hoo Amarr Retired Gunslingers	Posted - 2010.11.13 17:27:00 - [26] Originally by: Knawt Ongrid No you can't have a T2 Drake. Give it up already. FFS these stupid threads get pooped out on a regular basis. CCP must need to install a sewer line for this **** by now. Most don't know they already have a t2 drake (Nighthawk)


Pages: [1] :: 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.