These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Muad 'dib
Death by Design.
#21 - 2012-08-25 17:24:13 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
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!


like it, perhaps 5 guns with 100% bonus, some 50% falloff role bonus too.

oh and at least 2 ultil slots, 5 mids, and enough drone space for 2 sets of lights.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#22 - 2012-08-25 17:31:43 UTC
I hope they make some faction BCs or T2 BCs with more varied functions. Waiting to train the skills to fly BSes is extremely tedious. It would be nice to have the option to focus your training on more powerful BCs instead of being forced into a bigger ship before you're ready, just because you want the bigger rewards.

Oh god.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#23 - 2012-08-25 17:33:21 UTC
Diesel47 wrote:
I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.



Also, this would be amazing.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Muad 'dib
Death by Design.
#24 - 2012-08-25 17:35:12 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.



Also, this would be amazing.

-Liang


dual ASB fan boi detected

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#25 - 2012-08-25 17:42:24 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Diesel47 wrote:
I'd rather have something like a sansha battlecrusier. One that doesn't suck like the succ and phantasm.



Also, this would be amazing.

-Liang


dual ASB fan boi detected


Dual oversized ASB fan boi... get it right!

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#26 - 2012-08-25 19:16:39 UTC
i would like pirate faction bc's to be honnest... but only tier 1.. like a serp brutix would be boss. or a guristas ferox... though that would be odd cuss it would be a drone boat... but tbh there needs to be more bc drone boats...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Vadeim Rizen
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-09-05 22:04:56 UTC
I too would like to see pirate BC. I dream of this actually.

Would love to see an angel BC to compete with long range tier 3 bc, would love to see a Blood neuting BC, would love to see a Guristas drone boat as well.

Cynabals as they are aren't anywhere near as awesome as they used to be as most people have evolved and know how to battle them. Also with the introduction of tier 3 bc, nano fleets are much more common and cynabals just die. Machs are a bit big and op and tend to scare away fights, so I think if you introduce an Angel BC somewhere in between the mach and cyna, I would fly it pretty much all the time :) Imagine a nano cane with a bit of a damage bonus. ~ 500 mil cost, ~2500 m/s, ~ 700 dps.... would be a ton of fun and with the speed/neuts a nice counter to tech 3's in general.

Navy BC would be a bit tougher, where as you can already fit a BS-sized tank on BC and adding more base HP would just increase this. (Imagine a Myrmidon with 200k ehp) Would be fun and I wouldn't mind seeing this, but could get a bit ridiculous. That being said, Tier 3 BC's have pretty much made tier 1 and tier 2 bc's obsolete, maybe this could sort of balance the field.

TL;DR Version

I WANT PIRATE BC'S RIGHT MEOW!!!
Arbiter Reformed
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#28 - 2012-09-05 22:32:15 UTC
the problem lies in the undereffectiveness of cruisers, the fact cs are terrible and that the bc hulls they would be based of of are already overpowered
Songbird
#29 - 2012-09-06 16:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Songbird
pirate BC's is an old idea and quite popular - they won't be necessarily more damaging than say existing tier 2 but they could have bonuses , i.e. 90% webs for serpentis , drones and missiles for guristas , falloff and speed for angel, tracking and marauder like turrets to the sansha and the bloody raiders guys get neuts + web range. If a pirate cruiser is 2-300 mil and a bs is around a bil I'd think a BC will be around 4-600 mil. Their effectiveness offset by the price tag - dps and range less than tengu - it's perrrrrfect .


Also - it's about time we got Khanid BS (amarr torp ship) and EOM faction ships (missiles + hybrids).
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#30 - 2012-09-06 17:12:40 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
This come once in a while. As some people mentioned before:


  • Tier 2 Battlecruisers already are extremely versatile and popular. Introducing yet improved hulls based on them without looking at tech1 battlecruisers first is in direct contradiction with the tiericide initiative.

  • We already have troubles having diverse, interesting hulls roles on this particular level. HACs, tech3 cruisers, battlecruisers and command ships currently are very close of each other on that field. Introducing a Navy Battlecruiser would aggravate the issue even further.

    • What needs to be done before having Navy Battlecruisers, in no particular order:

  • Have a look at tech1 cruisers and bring tiericide to their sorry little sad faces.
  • Fix tech1 battlecruisers as a whole. Most tier1 BCs are not good enough, some tier2 are just too good. You know we know you know which ones we are talking about Twisted
  • Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example). Look at gang links. Eos. Eos. Eoseoseoseoseos.
  • HACs, they need love too.
  • Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose.


When that's done, and if the need for it is true, righteous in the divine gospel of the ship balancing light, then let's have Navy Battlecruisers, maybe. Pirate and new tech2 battlecruisers though are less of a problem if the roles aren't overlapping. Hmmmm spiky bikini Sansha battlecruiser with lazors pewpewnomnomnomnom. But errrr drifting out of topic here, we'd need to make sure current Sansha ships are tiericidead before that happens - we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#31 - 2012-09-06 17:15:26 UTC
I will love you long time if you fix the Sansha ships. Seriously.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Aaron Greil
Heresy Incorporated
#32 - 2012-09-06 17:30:22 UTC
yeah, sansha love would be very nice. I have a phantasm. I use it for exactly one thing: that one mission where you race to the accel gate while the poison gas cloud attacks you. Yep.

Still, I think a big part of this is that tier 2 and 3 BCs are some of the best looking ships in the game. It would be really cool to have some different paint jobs.
Cephelange du'Krevviq
Aegis Reforged
Already Replaced.
#33 - 2012-09-06 17:32:01 UTC
Throwing my 0.02 ISK in the mix.

First, thanks for the dev perspective, CCP Ytterbium.

Secondly, I'd prefer there be pirate faction BCs only. Drake, even after the proposed changes, will still be the hull of choice over he Ferox (my poor, poor, Ferox). We don't really need a CN Drake, and Drake fanbois will pitch a fit if we get a CN Ferox instead of a Drake.

Seondly, part two - aside from the endless arguments that would ensue over why we got a CN This instead of That, or a RF Other versus RF Another, pirate faction ships add a bit more flavor and variety in their bonuses and functions.

"I am a leaf on the...ah, frak it!"
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
#34 - 2012-09-06 17:41:01 UTC
I've expected a strategic cruiser nerf for a while and have refused to train for them for that reason. I didn't expect it to take 3+ years though... P
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
#35 - 2012-09-06 17:56:44 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I've expected a strategic cruiser nerf for a while and have refused to train for them for that reason. I didn't expect it to take 3+ years though... P


I trained them for the purpose of stealing them from wormhole POSes.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Serena Serene
Heretic University
#36 - 2012-09-06 18:03:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I've expected a strategic cruiser nerf for a while and have refused to train for them for that reason. I didn't expect it to take 3+ years though... P


I trained them for the purpose of stealing them from wormhole POSes.

-Liang


Hehe.. that made me chuckle. Best reason ever Cool
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
#37 - 2012-09-06 18:03:50 UTC
Oh! I was wondering about that when I saw your skill set for them. Lol
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#38 - 2012-09-06 18:39:06 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
we've heard horror stories about the Succubus and Phantasm being left to rot for all eternity in station hangars. That is not right.


Worm.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#39 - 2012-09-06 18:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • Make sure Command Ships have a viable role next to Battlecruisers (Nighthawk versus drake for example).
    • http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1508537&page=1#29

    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    NH balance - is the Nighthawk actually underpowered? I see people saying that there's things that they'd like to be able to do but can't due to grid issues, but is this driven by "the NH is really underpowered/under-used compared to other ships in its class because of this grid issue"?


    http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=905941&page=2#41

    CCP Zulupark wrote:

    Field Command Ships:
    I think they're pretty fine as-is.


    Since Command Ships and Drake haven't been changed in the slightest for all these years, I guess we should treat your confession as a sign of sudden increase in PvP compherension within CCP? Big smile

    Plus a MEGALOL quote:
    http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=905941&page=1#20

    CCP Zulupark wrote:
    Fleet command ships:
    We want to make command bonuses grid wide only, but there are some technical restraints we have to figure out first.

    Check out the date Blink

    "Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
    Liang Nuren
    No Salvation
    #40 - 2012-09-06 18:55:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
    Fon Revedhort wrote:

    Since Command Ships and Drake haven't been changed in the slightest for all these years, I guess we should treat your confession as a sign of sudden increase in PvP compherension within CCP? Big smile


    Not that Ytterbium doesn't have his head on straight, but ... dude, they hired Raivi and the Top Dawg (Unifex) also solo PVPs. Yeah, they've got some PVPers up there.

    -Liang

    Ed: Or, at least, Unifex *did* solo PVP and seemed quite competent. I haven't talked to him recently.

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