These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work?

First post
Author
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-08-24 18:33:54 UTC
I'm just curious how you guys think faction battlecruisers would fit in to the current lineup of ships? Tier 1 and 2 ones in peticular.

I'm personally thinking they could fill a nice niche allowing newer players to access to high powered medium/high pricetag ships working well for low-SP pilots. And their price tag and lack of GTFO ability and speed deterring widespread use in PVP.
Gibbo3771
AQUILA INC
#2 - 2012-08-24 18:41:20 UTC
They would most likely be just like faction cruisers.

They would have improved fitting, better base ehp and a slight slot difference. Basically just a slightly improved version of its standard counterpart.

Maybe give a Caldari Navy Ferox 1 extra turret slot, some more pg/cpu and a little more base hp.
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-08-24 18:45:42 UTC
Gibbo3771 wrote:
They would most likely be just like faction cruisers.

They would have improved fitting, better base ehp and a slight slot difference. Basically just a slightly improved version of its standard counterpart.

Maybe give a Caldari Navy Ferox 1 extra turret slot, some more pg/cpu and a little more base hp.


Yeah, pretty much, but for new pilots in need of a "Go-to" ship they could be pretty awesome. Unlike a T2 Cruiser you could likely step in to a faction meta 4 fit Brutix, Cane or Drake with about a week or two worth of training, go out and rock the world. Without directly competing with more skill intensive ships like T2-T3 cruisers / battlecruisers.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#4 - 2012-08-24 18:47:30 UTC
You'd be very, very hard pressed to make a worthwhile ship that slots between BCs (already the most popular hulls in the game) and CSs (already overwhelmed by T3s and to a certain extent tier 2 BCs).

And trust me, if they are worthwhile for low SP pilots they're going to be gangbusters in high SP pilots' hands. See Malcanis' Law.
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-08-24 19:08:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabrielle Lamb
Zhilia Mann wrote:

And trust me, if they are worthwhile for low SP pilots they're going to be gangbusters in high SP pilots' hands. See Malcanis' Law.


This is what I'm wondering about though, using the Drake as an example, imagining that you added a Caldari Navy Drake with one extra mid and low. Possibly one extra launcher but I think that would be a bad idea.

Given the Battlecruisers beeing somewhat slow by design, and having less defense / offense then a battleship but with better damage projection vs different sizes of targets. Would an experienced pilot use this over a Tengu or a Raven / CNR?

Then take the Myrmidion, add 25 MB Drone Bandwidth, 50 m3 Drone Capacity and a low slot. It would still be a relatively low ship, it would have less Drone Bandwidth then an Ishtar or Domi, and lower defenses then a Proteus. Thereby providing an alternative without directly competing with either.

Take the Cane, add an extra Turret Hardpoint (goes at the expense of a Neut or Missile launcher so this should be okey), and add a low or mid slot. Would an experienced pilot fly one over a Sleipnir or Loki?

Amarr I don't really know so can't speak about it, but as far as I can see, faction Battlecruisers could be an exception to Malcanis' Law because they're designed to be a part of a numbers game. Adding a faction variant would increase performance, but you'd still have better alternatives if you were a high-SP experienced pilot, so it wouldn't nessecarily screw anyone over. And their role as Cannon fodder wouldn't really change.

PS: CS's is a story for themselves, they're generally in need of a buff or two. But a 2 week or 2 month pilot won't be able to use one anyhow so even if you place the faction BC's below them in power it wouldn't really be a problem as long as it allows that pilot to be in a ship closer to the T2 counterparts performance.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#6 - 2012-08-24 19:30:42 UTC
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
This is what I'm wondering about though, using the Drake as an example, imagining that you added a Caldari Navy Drake with one extra mid and low. Possibly one extra launcher but I think that would be a bad idea.

Given the Battlecruisers beeing somewhat slow by design, and having less defense / offense then a battleship but with better damage projection vs different sizes of targets. Would an experienced pilot use this over a Tengu or a Raven / CNR?


Yes. Add a mid and a low and you're looking at an insane nanoDrake with extra tank and extra speed/agility. Either slot alone would be pushing it but both together is definitely not sane.

Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Then take the Myrmidion, add 25 MB Drone Bandwidth, 50 m3 Drone Capacity and a low slot. It would still be a relatively low ship, it would have less Drone Bandwidth then an Ishtar or Domi, and lower defenses then a Proteus. Thereby providing an alternative without directly competing with either.


Extra low plus bandwidth means more room for a DDA to support an ASB fit or more resists to support a dual/triple rep fit. It isn't inherently overpowered, but that has more to do with the current odd scaling of drone ships in the first place. But no, it wouldn't impinge on Ishtar territory. It would see heavy duty use in small gangs though.

Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Take the Cane, add an extra Turret Hardpoint (goes at the expense of a Neut or Missile launcher so this should be okey), and add a low or mid slot. Would an experienced pilot fly one over a Sleipnir or Loki?


Good god yes. Adding a turret slot to a Hurricane translates to giving it 11.7 effective turrets (up from 10). If it costs less than a Sleipnir it will see use.

Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Amarr I don't really know so can't speak about it, but as far as I can see, faction Battlecruisers could be an exception to Malcanis' Law because they're designed to be a part of a numbers game. Adding a faction variant would increase performance, but you'd still have better alternatives if you were a high-SP experienced pilot, so it wouldn't nessecarily screw anyone over.


No, it won't work out that way. Either 1) these faction variants are comparable to CSs but cheaper, in which case they'll see heavy use, 2) faction variants are comparable to CSs but more expensive, in which case no one will really want anything to do with them including new players, 3) they are more powerful to CSs but cheaper, in which case they are directly competitive with T3s for a lower cost, or 4) they are more powerful than CSs but more expensive, in which case T3s are a better train anyhow.

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of new ships to fill new roles, including roles that will help newer players play more meaningful roles in both PvE and PvP, but building improved versions of the most popular class of ships in the game is just asking for trouble.
Le'Mon Tichim
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2012-08-24 20:52:53 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
This is what I'm wondering about though, using the Drake as an example, imagining that you added a Caldari Navy Drake with one extra mid and low. Possibly one extra launcher but I think that would be a bad idea.

Given the Battlecruisers beeing somewhat slow by design, and having less defense / offense then a battleship but with better damage projection vs different sizes of targets. Would an experienced pilot use this over a Tengu or a Raven / CNR?


Yes. Add a mid and a low and you're looking at an insane nanoDrake with extra tank and extra speed/agility. Either slot alone would be pushing it but both together is definitely not sane.

Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Then take the Myrmidion, add 25 MB Drone Bandwidth, 50 m3 Drone Capacity and a low slot. It would still be a relatively low ship, it would have less Drone Bandwidth then an Ishtar or Domi, and lower defenses then a Proteus. Thereby providing an alternative without directly competing with either.


Extra low plus bandwidth means more room for a DDA to support an ASB fit or more resists to support a dual/triple rep fit. It isn't inherently overpowered, but that has more to do with the current odd scaling of drone ships in the first place. But no, it wouldn't impinge on Ishtar territory. It would see heavy duty use in small gangs though.

Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Take the Cane, add an extra Turret Hardpoint (goes at the expense of a Neut or Missile launcher so this should be okey), and add a low or mid slot. Would an experienced pilot fly one over a Sleipnir or Loki?


Good god yes. Adding a turret slot to a Hurricane translates to giving it 11.7 effective turrets (up from 10). If it costs less than a Sleipnir it will see use.

Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Amarr I don't really know so can't speak about it, but as far as I can see, faction Battlecruisers could be an exception to Malcanis' Law because they're designed to be a part of a numbers game. Adding a faction variant would increase performance, but you'd still have better alternatives if you were a high-SP experienced pilot, so it wouldn't nessecarily screw anyone over.


No, it won't work out that way. Either 1) these faction variants are comparable to CSs but cheaper, in which case they'll see heavy use, 2) faction variants are comparable to CSs but more expensive, in which case no one will really want anything to do with them including new players, 3) they are more powerful to CSs but cheaper, in which case they are directly competitive with T3s for a lower cost, or 4) they are more powerful than CSs but more expensive, in which case T3s are a better train anyhow.

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea of new ships to fill new roles, including roles that will help newer players play more meaningful roles in both PvE and PvP, but building improved versions of the most popular class of ships in the game is just asking for trouble.


What about keeping the layout the same, but give them better powerfgrid, cpu, and slightly better hp? Perhaps I'm a bit short sighted, but the only battlecruiser I see this being an issue with would be the Drake.

Can you hear them? They are calling to us. It is beautiful. http://thegreattichim.wordpress.com/

Airto TLA
Acorn's Wonder Bars
#8 - 2012-08-24 21:02:49 UTC
The only way you could have faction BCs would be, nerf the tier 2s to a little better then tier 1 and put the faction in basically at this level (and fix the Amar/Gal whil your at it). Yes in general tier 2 is that good and a faction "buff" to teir 1 would basically give you an overpriced teir 2. (except for maybe the XL ASB faction cyclone, that may be worth it)
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-08-25 02:14:19 UTC
Gibbo3771 wrote:
They would most likely be just like faction cruisers.

They would have improved fitting, better base ehp and a slight slot difference. Basically just a slightly improved version of its standard counterpart.

Maybe give a Caldari Navy Ferox 1 extra turret slot, some more pg/cpu and a little more base hp.


If there were to be another bunch of BC's introduced it would probably be better to use the models that don't already have advanced varients.

ie Myrm, Drake etc.

Not just Navy Faction versions, but Pirate Faction versions of those hulls would be nice to see in game aswell.
Equus
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2012-08-25 03:52:05 UTC
I would prefer to see HACs looked at rather than introducing another ship.
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
#11 - 2012-08-25 08:26:31 UTC
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
I'm personally thinking they could fill a nice niche allowing newer players to access to high powered medium/high pricetag ships working well for low-SP pilots. And their price tag and lack of GTFO ability and speed deterring widespread use in PVP.


Regular BCs are already pretty high-powered. If you want even higher powered, higher price tag, just add bling. Can't put T2 HMLs on your Drake? Use CN HMLs. (Reminds me of when I lost a Drake fitted this way by taking a shortcut through lowsec ... luckily, I was only a day away from T2 launchers).
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#12 - 2012-08-25 08:56:23 UTC
With the bonus to the turret damage that the Ashimmu, Phantasm and Vigilant get, I almost think of them as battlecruisers instead of cruisers. Bhaalgorn and Nightmare seem more like faction marauders to me as well.
Abannan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-08-25 10:23:24 UTC
The thought of a faction brutix makes seriously moist
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#14 - 2012-08-25 11:16:49 UTC
Problem remains that there is not room in the line-ups for faction BCs if they were to be modelled after the current cruisers. With the faction EHP/DPS increase they would be placed somewhere near tier2 BS which is just plain wrong.

That said, if/when off-grid gang links are axed one could conceivably make faction BCs into a mobile HQ sort of thing, with a fitting service and ability to field more than one link .. essentially sidestepping the above issue of room in the line-ups by applying "soft" bonuses.
Alternative is to ask the question again when the Tiericide process has run its course and we know where everything stands power wise, although CCP has stated that they are not planning on doing much of anything to the BS lines as they are pretty well placed as is, which I mostly agree with.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-08-25 11:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Branko
I mean, I would love another Hurricane hull, because it is the best looking hull in game (and on par with T2 Rifter hulls for pure style), and even if it were overpriced, cost-ineffective or even utterly rubbish I'd own and occasionally fly one.

That said: Adding (expensive) power level +1 ships which outclass their T1 counterparts is really only to the benefit of old and wealthy players, and further robbing the new and poor of competitive options. Which is bad; if competitive PVP (by which I mean, flying something in which you can fight a good amount of the ships you see in space with, with a decent hope of success) requires a Tier 2 BC which costs to lose maybe 50-ish million but drops about 15 million on death, it's something which is largely attainable for a pilot which is reasonably new and entices PVP and actual :good fights:.

On the other hand, if high-grade implants*, 1B ships and loki booster alts** are required for competitive PVP, then it is not conductive to actual interesting PVP at all and is very "closed" to newcomers, but is largely conductive to ganking (for which we have better tools now then we used to, for some reason), and people shy away from actual reasonable fights under such a system. This is something which is flat out overlooked by the proponents of shiny "new toys", but undock and compare and contrast to say two years ago, you'll find a lot less people willing to actually fight unless they have or think they have an overwhelming (not some - which is to be expected - but overwhelming) advantage.

I don't expect CCP to understand that, however - they're thinking about how to fix this or that minor imbalance without thinking about how will the players adapt to it, and finally, is the way the players will adapt to it in the "right" direction for the game. Everyone is excited about Tiericide, of course, because if done right, a good number of T1 ships might actually have a reason to exist which they previously didn't - and that is a good thing.

In the last few years, the introduction of badly-thought out and ill-advised T3s, then the (overdone) Tier 3s, boosting warfare links, introducing ASBs - the general direction of the changes, ever since (and including) the nano-nerfs, isn't in the direction of "more fun and attainable PVP".

* Which I have and are largely too damn good.
** Even a normal covops alt - which I didn't bother to resubscribe because I hate dual-boxing nonsense - gives you 10% to some very important stats which you could not have otherwise. Having a cloaking probing boosting loki alt (which used to be unprobeable, to make things better) is just... sick. And that particular evil was brought to us by T3s.
Lili Lu
#16 - 2012-08-25 13:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Threads like this get shat out onto the forums at a steady pace. Basically they are just slobbering over the thought of a tech II or III or faction Drake or Hurricane.

These ships are already due for a trim. When they get that trim let's talk about whether the game really needs new ships that would quite possibly only resurrect our current problems. Those being the rush to tier 2 BC and the isk/utility/power imbalance with them as compared to tech II or faction Cruisers.

Look at it this way. We are getting new ships. Tiericide has begun. And there is talk of a new Destroyer for each race where there is currently only one. Recently we got tier 3 BCs. So, there are your new ships. And frankly they are more exciting than another drake. Roll
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-08-25 13:32:32 UTC
I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.

Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2012-08-25 14:02:15 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Threads like this get shat out onto the forums at a steady pace. Basically they are just slobbering over the thought of a tech II or III or faction Drake or Hurricane.

These ships are already due for a trim. When they get that trim let's talk about whether the game really needs new ships that would quite possibly only resurrect our current problems. Those being the rush to tier 2 BC and the isk/utility/power imbalance with them as compared to tech II or faction Cruisers.

Look at it this way. We are getting new ships. Tiericide has begun. And there is talk of a new Destroyer for each race where there is currently only one. Recently we got tier 3 BCs. So, there are your new ships. And frankly they are more exciting than another drake. Roll



Haha, I agree. A fix to how income scales with ship size would be a lot more interesting.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-08-25 17:03:53 UTC
faction talos please :D

some how get 9 guns on it, thanks

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#20 - 2012-08-25 17:08:33 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
faction talos please :D

some how get 9 guns on it, thanks


I'd rather have 4 guns and 100% damage bonus. Same damage output, longer overheat. Twisted

-Liang

Ed: And potentially room for a small neut or two!

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

123Next pageLast page