Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1282
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 15:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Give us a 'tier-4' Battleship that can fit capital weaponry in the highs
Im sure you could do this in the future when you get past balancing and tiericiding the frigs/dessys/cruisers/battlecruisers (lol) and work on the Battleships.
There is certainly a role to be filled in the form of structure bashing, (as you seem to love making us EVE players bash mountains of EHP), somewhere between a hisec battleship and a fully blown dreadnought.
The capital weaponry on a battleship will obviously have trouble hitting a moving target, so i dont see it being terribly overpowered, and you certainly didnt think it was overpowered to put BS weaponry on a BC, so i dont see any major obstacles in that regard.
Oversized weapony is awesum!
Key points of the new ships -
- No jump drive, normal travel by gates only
- No drones
- Possibly an inbuilt tracking nerf, to avoid overly OP blap fits against other ships
- Reduced hislot layout that leaves room for a small amount of guns/launchers (i.e. just one or two)
- Possible hislot layout that leaves room for one utility slot, possibly for a siege module
- Low and Med Slot layout and ship stats in such a way that it is possible to fit a 'normal' battleship tank for around 100k ehp
- FOUR NEW SHIP MODELS! \o/
My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
King Rothgar
Operation Neo-Tokyo Hashashin Cartel
282
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 15:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Workable idea, amarr one should look something like this:
4 high slots(3 turrets, 1 siege mod) 3 mid slots (mwd + TC's/sebo's) 7 low slots (standard BS armor tank + 2 or 3 HS's) 3 rig slots
5000m3 fuel bay (stront is really big)
Amarr BS bonus: 5% capital energy turret damage and 5% armor resistance per level Role bonus: can fit siege module, reduced fitting cost for capital energy turrets and siege mod
These would end up with similar dps to a full fledged dread but without anywhere near the EHP or active tank ability (no capital armor reps). Standard siege rules would apply. The Troll is trolling. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
1085
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 15:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Key points of the new ships -
- No jump drive, normal travel by gates only
- No drones
- Possibly an inbuilt tracking nerf, to avoid overly OP blap fits against other ships
- Reduced hislot layout that leaves room for a small amount of guns/launchers (i.e. just one or two)
- Possible hislot layout that leaves room for one utility slot, possibly for a siege module
- Low and Med Slot layout and ship stats in such a way that it is possible to fit a 'normal' battleship tank for around 100k ehp
- FOUR NEW SHIP MODELS! \o/
1. Agreed on this. 2. Can't the Gallente at least get them? 3. Uh, no ... use a siege mod, rather than an in-built penalty. Just have some technobabble that because of the size, XL guns cannot be fired outside of siege. 4. Yep. Say 1 gun, plus siege module. Edit -- actually, I like rothgar's idea with the guns better than mine... 5. See 3 & 4 6. nah, make them glass cannons by themselves. give them enough EHP that a POS gun or two won't blap them, but they ABSOLUTELY NEED a fleet to bash the tower effectively. 7. \o/
Think that to make these, you should also need some cap parts (e.g. turret/launcher hardpoints, siege arrays, and const parts for starters) rather than just raw minerals... To everyone poasting the escort carriers --> this is how you propose an idea. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1282
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 15:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
If they are to be using a siege mod, personally i'd only want them to use one turret, (or two turrets witha 100% RoF penalty like the old dessys)
I dont want them to have attainable dps to that of a Dread. Half the dps or even a third.
This ship isnt meant in any way to be a viable alternative to a dread, more of a stepping stone with hisec capability My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1282
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 15:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:6. nah, make them glass cannons by themselves. give them enough EHP that a POS gun or two won't blap them, but they ABSOLUTELY NEED a fleet to bash the tower effectively. While in siege they will not be able to recieve remote assistance, so they need to be able to withstand a certain amount of dps by way of local active tank. What 'certain amount of dps' this is, i'm not sure. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1282
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 16:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
@Velicitia
We arent creating new modules here, just a new ship class/'role' within the Battleships. The less complicated the better, so no 'half-siege' mods.
If it is going to get siege mods, they will work like siege mods do on a dread, else theres no point in the new ship design.
Its a siege-battleship, in that you park it somewhere, practically immobile, pumping out dps, unable to recieve support, unable to fly away, until your siege cycle is over.
At which point, you might need logi to top up your capacitor so that you can enter siege again if you wanted
One thing to note, is that a normal dread when NOT in siege mode, does comparable dps to a battleship. Therefore, when this 'siege-battleship' isnt in siege mode, its dps will probably be comparable to a BC. THATS why the siege module is important in this ship.
Another thing to note is, this is a REALLY specialised ship. It is quite possible that it can be introduced as a 3rd T2 range of Battleship, as we already have a line of battleships that currently have no T2 version.
Introducing it as a T2 ship makes it much easier on the manufacture side of things to introduce the capital components My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1282
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 16:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
regarding the 'more than one turret' idea.
Dreadnoughts mostly only have room on their hull to fit TWO guns/launchers
So, to propose a battleship design that can accomodate MORE than that is pure folly. Following that thought, this ship isnt supposed to be as powerful as a Dread, so it should probably have the less turrets/launchers. This is as much a visual thing as a stats thing.
NOT HAPPY WITH ONLY ONE GUN ON YOUR SIEGE BATTLESHIP?
the answer to this then is obviously, keep battleship sized weaponry on the battleship, but allow the siege module to do its work. The main problem here is battleship tracking, which would have to be altered.
This will detract from the 'oversized weaponry' idea though My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Velicitia
Open Designs
1085
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 16:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:@Velicitia
We arent creating new modules here, just a new ship class/'role' within the Battleships. The less complicated the better, so no 'half-siege' mods.
If it is going to get siege mods, they will work like siege mods do on a dread, else theres no point in the new ship design.
Its a siege-battleship, in that you park it somewhere, practically immobile, pumping out dps, unable to recieve support, unable to fly away, until your siege cycle is over.
At which point, you might need logi to top up your capacitor so that you can enter siege again if you wanted
One thing to note, is that a normal dread when NOT in siege mode, does comparable dps to a battleship. Therefore, when this 'siege-battleship' isnt in siege mode, its dps will probably be comparable to a BC. THATS why the siege module is important in this ship.
Another thing to note is, this is a REALLY specialised ship. It is quite possible that it can be introduced as a 3rd T2 range of Battleship, as we already have a line of battleships that currently have no T2 version.
Introducing it as a T2 ship makes it much easier on the manufacture side of things to introduce the capital components
OK, fair enough ...
I should really stop poasting in F&I before I've had at least 2 cups of coffee... |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
65
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 17:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
No if you want a Dread get a Dread. Stop trying to make up ship that you can fly in Hi Sec cause people are to risk adverse to fly in low or null. This ship serves no purpose that is not already covered by another ship. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1284
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 09:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
MIrple wrote:No if you want a Dread get a Dread. Stop trying to make up ship that you can fly in Hi Sec cause people are to risk adverse to fly in low or null. This ship serves no purpose that is not already covered by another ship. ever bashed a hisec dickstar?
Ever bashed a POCO in a wormhole?
Saying this ship serves no purpose is simply wrong.
This whole risk averse 'fly in losec' rubbish that you spout just makes you look as unimaginitive as the rest of the nulsec herd that all say the same thing. Nulsec, contrary to what you may tell us all, is one of the safest places to be.
This ship has many applications in all areas of space, hisec, losec, nulsec and wormholes.
It is, of course, not as powerful as a dread, but certainly a stepping stone towards one. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
254
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 13:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
This is idiotic. Get a dread. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1284
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 13:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:This is idiotic. Get a dread. I love it how you balance the sentence with reasoning... My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Liaria Cullen
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
12
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 14:17:00 -
[13] - Quote
MIrple wrote:No if you want a Dread get a Dread. Stop trying to make up ship that you can fly in Hi Sec cause people are to risk adverse to fly in low or null. This ship serves no purpose that is not already covered by another ship.
Pretty much what he said, This is a terrible idea, you would be making dreads pointless. Props for trying to come up with a new ship class, but this certainly isnt the way to go about it. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1284
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 14:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
Liaria Cullen wrote:MIrple wrote:No if you want a Dread get a Dread. Stop trying to make up ship that you can fly in Hi Sec cause people are to risk adverse to fly in low or null. This ship serves no purpose that is not already covered by another ship. Pretty much what he said, This is a terrible idea, you would be making dreads pointless. Props for trying to come up with a new ship class, but this certainly isnt the way to go about it.
I'd like you to argue WHY a ship with probably similar isk values (if it was a T2 invention - my preference) that does half to a third the dps of a sieged dread, that has no jump drive, would make a dread 'pointless'
I seriously think this is a valid candidate for a third T2 battleship, especially give the way 'roles' are being bandied about as the future
Stealth bombers and then tier-3 BC set the prescedent that oversized weaponry on ships can work well
There are places that a dread could be used to great effect that a dread isnt allowed to go.
There is certainly a niche for this ship, and in all likelyhood , will see more action than the current Blops lineup My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Freundliches Feuer
A Hulk Kill A Day Keeps The Doctor Away Double Tap.
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 14:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
Won't happen. Move on. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1284
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 14:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Freundliches Feuer wrote:Won't happen. Move on. Well, if i see a decent reason as to WHY this shouldnt happen, i might move on.
I'm still waiting for one My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 15:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
These sound awesome if only for freighter ganking |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
83
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 15:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
Not supported. Tier 3 battlecruisers utterly broke game balance, whether people want to admit it or not. They're incredibly poorly balanced in regards to smaller ships.
HACs are useless now, because T3 BCs do pretty much the same thing but with more punch and for less cash. Don't give me that "HACs are more mobile" bullshit because they aren't. And they also help point out some of the glaring issues with some of the existing HACs (Focusing on Caldari as an example).
The Eagle's base speed is 164m/s. The Naga's is just a shade under 200. My EFTwarriored fits for a sniper Eagle have never gotten more than 250 DPS at about 150 kilometers, whereas the Naga can be hitting you for like 500, at max lock range. The only thing that the Eagle can possibly boast over the Naga is T2 resists and having a ****-ugly paintjob (Seriously; I'm still confused as to why Ishukone has to have one of the strangest color schemes in the game). And maybe also tracking, but that's hardly enough pros to make the Eagle even considerable as a ship anymore. Also the Cerberus, but I really don't know if I have to say anything about this one. The Naga is just flat out better than it. Damage is instant. Damage isn't just kinetic. (I know you can switch damage types on the Cerberus, but again, that 'kinetic damage only' handicap that Caldari missile ships are slapped with. It needs to go.) The Naga is STILL faster by default than the Cerberus, and I'm almost positive that the Naga can and does field a better tank than this underpowered sack of scrap.
Even if you do take effort to balance these things, what's to say they won't become exactly like T3 BCs in the long run once people figure out how to build gangs around them that'll let them mow down practically everything? I know it sounds horrendously boring, but if you want to take down a hisec structure, bring like fifteen torp Ravens. They have loads of DPS, and since structures are both very large and very stationary, you get the added delight in knowing that no poorly implemented malus is going to be subtracting much damage from your missiles. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1286
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 15:39:00 -
[19] - Quote
@Aglais
Not sure how to reply to you here. You managed to use some of the worst designed ships in the game to complain that a battlecruiser does a better job than a cruiser? Please take into consideration that all cruisers are getting their day in the sun soon, and some will be rebalanced and re-purposed
I am confident that many ways of balancing the ships capabilites can be done without stepping on the toes or overshadowing other in-game ships.
@ Aprudena Gist
:( My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1660
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 15:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
Screw this. We have enough sub cap hulls cross breeding as it is.
Give me T2 Capitals. |
|
Liaria Cullen
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 16:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Liaria Cullen wrote:MIrple wrote:No if you want a Dread get a Dread. Stop trying to make up ship that you can fly in Hi Sec cause people are to risk adverse to fly in low or null. This ship serves no purpose that is not already covered by another ship. Pretty much what he said, This is a terrible idea, you would be making dreads pointless. Props for trying to come up with a new ship class, but this certainly isnt the way to go about it. I'd like you to argue WHY a ship with probably similar isk values (if it was a T2 invention - my preference) that does half to a third the dps of a sieged dread, that has no jump drive, would make a dread 'pointless' I seriously think this is a valid candidate for a third T2 battleship, especially give the way 'roles' are being bandied about as the future Stealth bombers and then tier-3 BC set the prescedent that oversized weaponry on ships can work well There are places that a dread could be used to great effect that a dread isnt allowed to go. There is certainly a niche for this ship, and in all likelyhood , will see more action than the current Blops lineup
Giving a subcap ship a mixed role with another subcap ship is one thing, giving the ability for subcab ships to use capital mods is something totally diffrent, you're saying they could be used in highsec, but there are reasons capital ships arent allowed in hisec, giving this ability to subcaps will just have fleets of dread fit ships flying through hisec, it's silly and the fact you need someone to point out how silly this is astounds me. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1287
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 16:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
Liaria Cullen wrote:it's silly and the fact you need someone to point out how silly this is astounds me. Indulge me. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Astroniomix
Thorn Project Black Thorne Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 16:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Not supported. Tier 3 battlecruisers utterly broke game balance, whether people want to admit it or not. They're incredibly poorly balanced in regards to smaller ships.
HACs are useless now, because T3 BCs do pretty much the same thing but with more punch and for less cash. Don't give me that "HACs are more mobile" bullshit because they aren't. And they also help point out some of the glaring issues with some of the existing HACs (Focusing on Caldari as an example).
The Eagle's base speed is 164m/s. The Naga's is just a shade under 200. My EFTwarriored fits for a sniper Eagle have never gotten more than 250 DPS at about 150 kilometers, whereas the Naga can be hitting you for like 500, at max lock range. The only thing that the Eagle can possibly boast over the Naga is T2 resists and having a ****-ugly paintjob (Seriously; I'm still confused as to why Ishukone has to have one of the strangest color schemes in the game). And maybe also tracking, but that's hardly enough pros to make the Eagle even considerable as a ship anymore. Also the Cerberus, but I really don't know if I have to say anything about this one. The Naga is just flat out better than it. Damage is instant. Damage isn't just kinetic. (I know you can switch damage types on the Cerberus, but again, that 'kinetic damage only' handicap that Caldari missile ships are slapped with. It needs to go.) The Naga is STILL faster by default than the Cerberus, and I'm almost positive that the Naga can and does field a better tank than this underpowered sack of scrap.
Even if you do take effort to balance these things, what's to say they won't become exactly like T3 BCs in the long run once people figure out how to build gangs around them that'll let them mow down practically everything? I know it sounds horrendously boring, but if you want to take down a hisec structure, bring like fifteen torp Ravens. They have loads of DPS, and since structures are both very large and very stationary, you get the added delight in knowing that no poorly implemented malus is going to be subtracting much damage from your missiles. Let me tell you about losing an entire t3 fleet to a trio of stealth bombers. And then I'll tell you the story of an AHAC gang surviving the same atack.
|
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
83
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 17:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote:Let me tell you about losing an entire t3 fleet to a trio of stealth bombers. And then I'll tell you the story of an AHAC gang surviving the same atack.
You see, the thing about AHACs is that they are/were actually ok ships. The Caldari HACs have always been subpar, and the introduction of T3 BCs really just shines a light on WHY they're worse. Your point is only tangentially relevant to my initial argument, which I think it'd be worth my time to go back and edit. The problem isn't necessarily with HACs in general because again, AHACs had a role, and likely still do. But the Eagle and Cerberus don't. This is incredibly poor balancing, and requires MUCH higher priority than giving us four more new ships.
I guess I overcomplicated my argument. So the tl;dr of what I mean, is that balancing the currently existing set of ships is a far better route than just adding more and letting the broken ones remain broken for the rest of time. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1287
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 17:09:00 -
[25] - Quote
Aglais wrote:This is incredibly poor balancing, and requires MUCH higher priority than giving us four more new ships. I dont disagree with you there, and if you read the OP again, you will find i say as much. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
83
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 17:23:00 -
[26] - Quote
Hm. Well, in that case it seems that my argument is entirely out of place. Rather than denounce everyone else in the thread I will concede that I was a moron who didn't read your post right.
If you can figure out some way to keep these ships from overshadowing something else then I can't say I'm particularly against the idea, but at the same time I don't really support it either. I mean, I guess it kind of makes sense to have a 'lead in' to dreadnoughts and other large gun-based capital ships. |
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
657
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 18:39:00 -
[27] - Quote
would make highsec poses easier targets, no. go idea though. the problem is it would be EVEN easier to gank freighters and orcas and such, and Poses in highsec would be even more at risk |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1287
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 18:57:00 -
[28] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:would make highsec poses easier targets, no. go idea though. the problem is it would be EVEN easier to gank freighters and orcas and such, and Poses in highsec would be even more at risk Well, thats kind of the point, hisec POSes are too safe
Ganking freighters i must admit i didnt think of when typing the OP My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Velicitia
Open Designs
1090
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 19:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Herping yourDerp wrote:would make highsec poses easier targets, no. go idea though. the problem is it would be EVEN easier to gank freighters and orcas and such, and Poses in highsec would be even more at risk Well, thats kind of the point, hisec POSes are too safe Ganking freighters i must admit i didnt think of when typing the OP
Lessee... mini - dread will probably be a few hundred million for the hull (let's say 500). Fittings will be another 50m or so.
Seems the 1b ISK Tank of a freighter still holds up pretty well. And if you're worried about it
1. scouts 2. friends with webs
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
107
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 20:44:00 -
[30] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:MIrple wrote:No if you want a Dread get a Dread. Stop trying to make up ship that you can fly in Hi Sec cause people are to risk adverse to fly in low or null. This ship serves no purpose that is not already covered by another ship. ever bashed a hisec dickstar? Ever bashed a POCO in a wormhole? Saying this ship serves no purpose is simply wrong. This whole risk averse 'fly in losec' rubbish that you spout just makes you look as unimaginitive as the rest of the nulsec herd that all say the same thing. Nulsec, contrary to what you may tell us all, is one of the safest places to be. This ship has many applications in all areas of space, hisec, losec, nulsec and wormholes. It is, of course, not as powerful as a dread, but certainly a stepping stone towards one.
How about just prohibiting people from anchoring anything larger than small POS in highsec and using hacking or something to allow people to remove unpowered basically AFK POS? It solves the issue and doesn't warrant balancing or new ship design. If we're going to get new BS I'd rather them be cooler than structure shooters. Structure shooting is boring and unfun don't encourage it. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |