These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Black Ops battleships - a proposal

First post
Author
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#1 - 2012-07-21 07:41:55 UTC
Ok this is a feeler to see what people think of an idea i had for rebalancing black ops.

First off a general thing
- Increased jump distance - 6 ly would be nice but i guess you could leave it at 5ly if you wanted.

now the idea itself
Simply put, split the class into two - bridgers and combat vessels

Bridgers
- vastly increased fuel bay size
- role bonus reducing fuel consumption for ships using the bridge
- reduced weapon hardpoints to leave more slots for utility items
- can fit a covert cloaking device
- bonus to remote repair/remote cap transfer

combat vessels
- cannot fit covert jump portal generators
- tech 2 resist profiles
- increased grid and cpu
- more weapon hardpoints
- role bonus reducing capacitor level required to intiate jump drive (im not sure about this one, its intended to encourage a 'get in, kill, get out' style of combat but im open to suggestions here)

Anyway there it is, Im interested to see what people think.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Ruareve
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-07-21 08:23:16 UTC
I like the idea. Something for Logi players to look at getting as well as combat pilots. I'd make sure the bridge version as T2 resists as well since it could be used as a logi platform and would need to be defensible.

+1

Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#3 - 2012-07-21 16:12:38 UTC
I deliberately shyed away from giving the bridgers t2 resists - if you want a mid battle repair platform just rr fit a combat black ops or covert tech 3.
I went more for the role of post battle top ups - repping damaged ships and recharging cap before jumping out. I just think it fits the whole 'get in, kill fast, get out' schtick of the black ops much better

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Ruareve
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-07-21 16:37:35 UTC
I figured that was what you were going for, but why would anyone pay the cost of a black ops ship just to bridge people to a fight and then sit hidden somewhere until the fight is over?

What I was thinking of, since it is a T2 BS and has a high cost, was have a pure utility ship worth the cost. Cloak, reps, cyno, heavy defense, and the ability to project fleets around. Maybe have logi 5 as a prereq. Then you'd have a ship that could stay in the fight tossing out reps, able to take some fire, and worth the cost. This would also give a tiered progression to logistics from T1 cruiser, T2 cruiser, BS, then Carrier.

Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/

Kieron VonDeux
#5 - 2012-07-21 22:08:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kieron VonDeux
IIRC, CCP didn't want a cloaky BS sized T2 pvp aimed ship because it could be quite unbalancing. Especially something that could be considered a cloaky jump capable HAC.

In a counter proposal, I suggest they remove the Black Ops skill bounus "multiples the cloaked velocity" and add a "increases the jump/bridge range by 25% per level" .

With JDC V and Blaok Ops V, the max jump range would be 7 ly. That would take the max jump range of the Black Ops from 4.5 ly to 7 ly.
This would be still less than a Titan with JDC V of little over 7.8 ly.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-07-21 22:57:34 UTC
Or they could just add a +jump range per level bonus, because the cloaked velocity bonus owns bones.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#7 - 2012-07-22 21:00:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Darek Castigatus
Ruareve wrote:
I figured that was what you were going for, but why would anyone pay the cost of a black ops ship just to bridge people to a fight and then sit hidden somewhere until the fight is over?

What I was thinking of, since it is a T2 BS and has a high cost, was have a pure utility ship worth the cost. Cloak, reps, cyno, heavy defense, and the ability to project fleets around. Maybe have logi 5 as a prereq. Then you'd have a ship that could stay in the fight tossing out reps, able to take some fire, and worth the cost. This would also give a tiered progression to logistics from T1 cruiser, T2 cruiser, BS, then Carrier.


You mean like anyone who has to cargo fit their black ops because its the only way to carry enough fuel to bridge a gang without can related shenanigans?

i just dont think its needed for what the ship is intended to do, even if you do want to jump it in people have been RR fitting black ops with their current resist profile and EHP for quite a while anyway. I also think its the easiest way to differentiate the roles of the two ships without resorting to extra role bonuses.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

killroy v2
Fractured Dominions
Pandemic Horde
#8 - 2012-07-22 22:46:13 UTC
+1 for you good sir
Sigras
Conglomo
#9 - 2012-07-25 02:50:54 UTC
What about adding a small (about 75,000 m^3) Ship Maintenance Bay and a small corp hanger to the bridging ship. This would allow it to be a mobile refitting platform and allow it to bring some frigates into combat with it as some additional utility.

That being said, if the combat ship cant use the bridge, then the bridging ship doenst need to have a role bonus to bridging fuel cost, you could just lower the cost for the BOPS bridge.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#10 - 2012-07-25 16:38:57 UTC
Sigras wrote:
What about adding a small (about 75,000 m^3) Ship Maintenance Bay and a small corp hanger to the bridging ship. This would allow it to be a mobile refitting platform and allow it to bring some frigates into combat with it as some additional utility.

That being said, if the combat ship cant use the bridge, then the bridging ship doenst need to have a role bonus to bridging fuel cost, you could just lower the cost for the BOPS bridge.


The idea is not to make it into a refit platform, just to make it more of a pre bridge and post battle support ship. Dont get me wrong I like the idea a lot but i think it gives it a little too much utility.

As for the second idea I honestly didnt think of that, good catch. Ill have to think of a new role bonus for the bridger, watch this space.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#11 - 2012-07-25 20:19:22 UTC
I like the idea of a bridging version and a direct combat version. I'd make a few minor changes though. I think the bridging version should get a small maintenance bay, possibly only able to hold a frigate or two. The main reason for it is to act as a refitting service deep in enemy space. With this ability, RR bonuses and such could be skipped. So I'd move the various bonuses to impact range and fuel usage. It should be a ship about rapid mobility and off grid support of stealthy forces. RR bonuses don't really fit in with that.

The combat version could go two ways, EW or gank and tank. Either way, they should be roughly even with navy versions of the ship. I would consider a redeemer being nothing more than a navy geddon with a jump drive as balanced. I would strip the combat versions of their cloaking bonuses however. This would be replaced with a jump range bonus instead. Like AF's, HAC's and CS's, I'd like to see them have similar EHP to the navy version but achieve this through higher resistances rather than raw HP. The sole advantage you get for paying 2-4x the cost of a navy ship should be the added mobility. If it's done that way, it's pretty well balanced. If they start roflstomping other BS's, pricing can't be used to balance them.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

Lombax
#12 - 2012-08-26 05:22:58 UTC
CCP should really look into this idea… have more variety of T2 BS…. just like cruisers… there are the force recon and combat recon vessels
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-08-26 06:44:07 UTC
Blackops can already be fit for bridging or combat, I don't know what you guys are complaining about. A blops with a fuel bay big enough to bridge gangs multiple times without fuel truck support would make running blops drop gangs stupidly easy. Additionally, most of the blops can already do strong combat fits-- blops with T2 resists and even more offensive bonuses would be really overpowered.

If anything CCP should make them more sneaky by giving them covops cloaks and bumping jump range / decreasing jump drive (not bridge) fuel consumption a bit. Making them even better for combat than they already are would be dumb.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-08-26 07:31:23 UTC
OP +1

I have been pondering the same idea's and ironically was in the middle of a huge write up involving this very idea. Splitting the covert and the combat roles like the Recons makes complete sense. I was leaning more towards an evolution of the combat recon with my thoughts.

Have the Combat Black-Ops be powerful Ewar platforms with jump drives, instead of creating new capital ships to act as Ewar for Cap Fleets operate the combat Black-Ops as heavily tanked Ewar support for Capital fleets.
- They should not have a Cloak bonus
- They should have the jump range of about a dreadnaught
- They should have a module similar to a Triage or a Siege module that uses Stront to have their EWAR bypass EWAR immunity on Supers and Sieged/Triaged Capitals;
--the module should provide a massive bonus to EWAR used on Cap/Supers and drop the number of target down to 1, forcing the ship to focus it's EWAR on one opponent
--the Ewar Siege module should provide the effects on the targeted ship, all other conventional forms of EWAR would be disabled while in effect
--the Ewar Siege module acts as Siege/Triage modules in negative effects, cannot recieve RR, immune to conventional Ewar, inability to move/jump, 5 minute timer, etc...
- They should not have weapon damage bonuses
- They need to have T2 resists to better operate in the midst of Capitals and Supers

As for Bridging Black-Ops this ship would act as a lifeline to Black-Ops fleets, I agree with adding a small SMA but not Corp Hanger, switching bonuses to fuel used and jump range, and having the ability to fit a covops cloak. Remove 1/2 of the weapons hardpoints and add a small rep amount role bonus to the ship for after battle repairs.

A special note to CCP Santa; please can we have covops cloaked ships removed from local, I'll be a good boy! >:-)

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Kitt JT
True North.
#15 - 2012-08-26 08:22:48 UTC
We really don't need ANOTHER black ops BS.

Honestly, the ones we have are already pretty great.

What do they actually need?

A) Increased fuel bay, or a reduction in 'topes used to bridge. Seriously. This sucks.

B) maybe an increased jump range. The range is a little short. 4.5 LY? 6LY would be nice. Ballanced as well I think. Perhaps I'm biased though.
CaleAdaire
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#16 - 2012-08-26 13:41:45 UTC  |  Edited by: CaleAdaire
I like this Idea, like Ruareve said, it's a really good Logistics growth plan. Maybe make some of the skills that are not a prerequisite for T2 logi cruisers but necessary to be a good pilot (multitasking for one) as the prereq's for the logistics BS.

Trust in God, Have Faith in Fusion.

Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#17 - 2012-08-29 18:20:32 UTC
Ok so adding a Ship Maintenance Array to the bridger black ops seems like a popular choice. It gives the gang the option to customise for a target without having to compromise security by relying on stations for refits and you can carry back up/alternatively fit ships. One suggestion i would make if this is to be the way to take it would be to increase the BOs cargo bay the same way as its fuel bay, allowing it to carry the refit modules for the rest of its gang. It then becomes kinda like a mini carrier supporting and transporting the rest of the gang.

Second question, if it does get one how big should it be? I saw 75,000m3 suggested upthread, enough for three bombers and change, which seems fairly sensible however i was wondering about recons. Now what would people think as to a sensible size if we take recons into account? For reference heres the recon sizes.

Rapier - 85k
falcon - 96k
arazu - 116k
pilgrim - 120k

Personally I'm leaning more towards bombers only simply because to incorporate all the recons you get a bit silly in terms of bay size and even then you can only carry one.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Tempelman N
Biomass Transit
Seven Four Five
#18 - 2012-10-29 17:37:35 UTC
I love all the ideas being thrown around here and I'll be frank, Black ops need longer jump range period. Tanks on Black ops are fine, nobody's going to commit a 1 billion ISK ship if they know there going to lose. For DPS there also fine, I get 1200 DPS from my torp Widow and 600 with cruise so the DPS aint the problem. The problem is the range, its a puddle jumper, its not sneaky at all and is that not the roll she plays? I say a covert ops cloak would be a super awesome + for the black ops because now people would be alot more "Clokay" with them and that would bring them out more. The fact of the matter is, Black ops are not supposed to be able to stand toe too toe with a T1 fleet. If they were then you would see Alliances like -A- and goons Spamming Black ops BS's like its going out of style. Your supposed to have the true element of surprise, except you relly dont because of local channel. Space is dangerous, SO MAKE IT ******* DANGEROUS! GIVE BLACK OPS MORE RANGE AND SCRAP LOCAL!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#19 - 2012-10-29 19:27:11 UTC
only capitals have hangars....
The combat one could instead be given bomb bonus
The Recon option should be the more cloaky jump bridge bonused version rr bonus is probably out of the question more wishful thinking along with more ewar i think ewar is out of place with battleships i think the name explains why.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

ISD Cyberdyne
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#20 - 2012-10-29 20:38:21 UTC
Some great discussion on Black Ops. It would be very nice to see the Black Ops become better as CCP continues to revamp the roles and abilities of our ships.



Very much like the idea of role assignment to Black Ops. Please continue this productive discourse, these ideas are great!

ISD Cyberdyne

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

12Next page