These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship-troduction: The Minmatar Tornado

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Draahk Chimera
Supervillains
#321 - 2011-10-22 10:02:47 UTC
The Tornado, while massively cool, will mean the definitive end for battleships in 0.0 fleet warfare. Burn out of enemy range and spew 1400mm Howitzer II -love on the enemy.

404 - Image not found
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#322 - 2011-10-22 10:05:39 UTC
So... Wait, what?!?

Rather than sliding it neatly into the Battleship line-up as a second Tier 3 with E-War effects or making it a Minmatar/Caldari Faction ship along the Pirate faction ship lines it's going into a class which is already perceived as containing several redundant ships...

Not only that but it's going to fit BS sized weapons (which IIRC was one of the more frequently raised arguments for nerfing the Myrmidon down to 75Mb of Bandwidth and therefore damage roughly equivalent to a Vexor) which will allow Alpha strike doctrines (already the most boring type of combat) for significantly lower cost and with significantly higher agility.

It's not like Tier 3 BS are inaccessible or rare, so exposure wouldn't be an issue...
bldyannoyed
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#323 - 2011-10-22 10:30:27 UTC
Can't wait.

Lets be realistic though, as long as CCp aren't going completely bonkers mental these things AREN'T going to be the BC obsoleting solo pwnmachines every seems to be scared of.
Their tank and DPS output isn't even really the issue.

As long as these things have zero drone bay (meaning the Gallente one will ofc have to be hybrid based) and zero utility high slots the ships will, moreso than any other sub capital in the game, be entirely reliant on a support fleet. With no drones or utilities they would have next to no hope against cruisers and smaller.

In this context they can have the same tank as a current BC and the same dps output of a BS and still not be solo boats. I don't think for a moment they will have either of those things but it doesn't matter as long as CCP make sure they cannot defend themselves against smaller (cruiser sized) vessels.
Tiger's Spirit
Templars of the Shadows
#324 - 2011-10-22 11:15:07 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Jarin Arenos wrote:
I know the similarity has been pointed out, but putting them side by side...

Well, let's just say that the MInmatar seem to have a new trade agreement with the Gallente.

Tornado design comparison



Nice comparison....brings to mind:

"Minmatar, flying them backwards since forever"


He wrong here is the other designs from design contest.

http://news.deviantart.com/article/133951/
KFenn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#325 - 2011-10-22 11:18:50 UTC
**** YES I TRAINED BC5 NOT LONG AGO.

+1 for finally putting this in game.

Commanding Officer of the Treacle Tart Brigade
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#326 - 2011-10-22 11:29:15 UTC
Ugleb wrote:
While cool, doesn't a BC dealing BS-level damage kind of make BS more irrelevant? You get the damage output without the price tag on a faster more manoeuvrable ship. Ok its not as tough, there is going to be more of these on the field to do the melting, right?

Conceptually it seems to be a step towards further cementing BC dominance on the field. Bit bothered by that.

Please do not give these large weapon BC's any sort of tracking bonus. 'Glass cannons' might be a good design principle here.

These ships will be vulnerable to frigates, destroyers (dictors) and cruisers (hacs and recons).
KFenn
State War Academy
Caldari State
#327 - 2011-10-22 11:33:51 UTC
Bomberlocks wrote:
Ugleb wrote:
While cool, doesn't a BC dealing BS-level damage kind of make BS more irrelevant? You get the damage output without the price tag on a faster more manoeuvrable ship. Ok its not as tough, there is going to be more of these on the field to do the melting, right?

Conceptually it seems to be a step towards further cementing BC dominance on the field. Bit bothered by that.

Please do not give these large weapon BC's any sort of tracking bonus. 'Glass cannons' might be a good design principle here.

These ships will be vulnerable to frigates, destroyers (dictors) and cruisers (hacs and recons).


This. AHAC gangs will be more effective against these than they are against BS gangs.

Commanding Officer of the Treacle Tart Brigade
RLCHANCE
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#328 - 2011-10-22 11:36:31 UTC
Lord Meriak wrote:
I can see alot of cap issue's with 2 races..

thow gal really really on drones. amarr need a buff and soon


Dont forget 'Caldari' there in more need of an buffing than amarr lol i know i fly amarr and there just about right :)
Salvia Olima
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#329 - 2011-10-22 11:38:38 UTC
It is a Tornado, a minmatar T3 battlecruiser.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#330 - 2011-10-22 11:49:52 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
That's a bullcrap to be honest.

To begin with, the very need in such a ship can only arise if the game is OVERTANKED. You were boosting HPs several times back in 2006 and later introduced current fubar rig scheme which clearly promotes tank over anything else (50 calibration per EHP rig which aren't even stacking penalized; 200 calibration per damage rig which is stacking penalized and is a lot harder to cram in due to increased PG usage - LOL?)

Quote:
The concept is; violent, fast and fun.

So now you ******* admit the game was spoilt back then. And instead of addressing the CORE ISSUE (overtank) you decide to 'mask' it with a new ship, which

Quote:
[10:32:15 AM] CCP Guard: The Tornado will nerf the drake
[10:32:16 AM] CCP Guard: In the face


most likely will become a new FOTY and overpowered to the brim?

Instead of rebalancing existing stuff (like tier2 BCs; tech3; CS) you decide to widen the gap in popularity between proper ships and dirt-cheap OP crap even further? How cute.


Pretty good post Fon, you highlight one thing: does CCP have a vision/clear view of development, or are they still just producing :toys: with no real thought behind?

One thing tho, regarding the 'overpowered', and other peoples comment about 'why fly other bc'. Well, for one, bc's of today have cruiser sized weapons and hit frigates/cruisers quite well. Will these new ships do? If CCP's blog comment about these new ship producing battleship dps, then we can assume they can fit the largest weapons too. A torp-bc, or 1400mm bc, or tachyon/megapulse bc, or lolblastersheh bc - either hitting frigates/cruisers?

There'll be scenarios where these new ships will be damn powerful, but a roaming gang of these will still die to a bunch of frigs, or a well armed POS, or a blob with tackle support, etc. It won't take long before we see fleets of 40-50 of these dying to ten frigs, a single dictor and scimitar..

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Vyktor Abyss
Abyss Research
#331 - 2011-10-22 11:52:47 UTC
I forsee a lot of explosions!

With be so much loot around with these new tier 3 BCs \o/
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#332 - 2011-10-22 11:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
@ CCP

I've got some questions for you guys.

Has we can easily see BC's are the powerhouse's of Eve, way overpowered to the point they obsolete BS's in many situations sending BS's at "shoot pve rats" or alpha doctrines with only half of the existent ones can do the job, not even trying to bring BO's, let's keep it Tech 1

Why didn't you guys kept the design of "big guns to shoot ya face" and give it to Tiers 3 BS's instead?

Pretty sure BS's full racks of capital guns would make the cleanup of all those supers/titans around with no need to nerf super in the process, but you've chosen to go for battle cruisers.
Those will be expensive to fit, to produce=buy, at least almost that much than BS's just more mobile and with less tank, witch can already be done by nano/shield tank almost every BS.

Do you really think those will counter the "tanky glass canon" blob/fleets or on the contrary they will bring new blobs setups? (hi sign radius, shoot range and more logistics)

Thx

Also: In behalf of my self Lol -how do you expect Gallente counterpart to be on pair with his new friends when it uses the shortest range weapon system, shortest for about 250% at least than any other, or will gallente stick with: sucks even shooting nuclear warheads because can't get in range or shoot far enough to scratch paint?
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#333 - 2011-10-22 12:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Tyme Xandr wrote:
So after reading through page after page of either rejoice or tears/horror I decided maybe it was time for an intelligent post that can maybe spark some intelligent conversation.

Facts:
Tier 3 BC
Large Weapon Systems
Low Ability to Tank

Intelligent Assumptions (if those things exist)

Due to this ship being able to fit Large Weapons it could naturally be assumed that since they are not a battleship they wont be able to fit a whole rack. Lets presume 4-5 weapon slots with 2-3 maybe 4 utility slots. This would keep the need for Battleship's as they can hold full racks of large weapons. Ex: Tornado can fit 4 or 5 800's, use the utilities for neuts. Caldaris can fit 4-5 torps, the rest can be neuts or spider shield mods.

Their bonus will be towards fitting, much like Stealth Bombers have bonuses to allow Torps to be equipped despite their fitting ability. Example: 69.65% reduction in Large Projectile Weapon systems powergrid needs. (I made that number from thin air as I dont assume itll be like SB's 99.65% reduction.

Low tank ability makes me think they will have reduced low/mid slots. This will diminish the ability of Armor tankers to fit tracking/dmg mods and shield tankers diminished ability to shield tank/tackle. They will pick one or the other or try to even out between the two making them only somewhat average in both respects.

So this appears to sound like a pretty balanced ship that wont be the WTF pwnmobile. Theyre still large weapons which means smaller sig ships/faster ships can outrun siege missiles and waver away from tracking of large guns. The ships wont be overtanked as they will have lowered tanking ability (RP element of using more space/systems/power for large weapons).


Why would you use some ship with less tank than regular BC, with half guns rack one BS can fit when all you have to do is shield nano fit your BS, rig it for dps, FULL FIT YOUR RACK OF GUNS, and still have decent tank?
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#334 - 2011-10-22 12:35:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Misanth wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
That's a bullcrap to be honest.

To begin with, the very need in such a ship can only arise if the game is OVERTANKED. You were boosting HPs several times back in 2006 and later introduced current fubar rig scheme which clearly promotes tank over anything else (50 calibration per EHP rig which aren't even stacking penalized; 200 calibration per damage rig which is stacking penalized and is a lot harder to cram in due to increased PG usage - LOL?)

Quote:
The concept is; violent, fast and fun.

So now you ******* admit the game was spoilt back then. And instead of addressing the CORE ISSUE (overtank) you decide to 'mask' it with a new ship, which

Quote:
[10:32:15 AM] CCP Guard: The Tornado will nerf the drake
[10:32:16 AM] CCP Guard: In the face


most likely will become a new FOTY and overpowered to the brim?

Instead of rebalancing existing stuff (like tier2 BCs; tech3; CS) you decide to widen the gap in popularity between proper ships and dirt-cheap OP crap even further? How cute.


Pretty good post Fon, you highlight one thing: does CCP have a vision/clear view of development, or are they still just producing :toys: with no real thought behind?

One thing tho, regarding the 'overpowered', and other peoples comment about 'why fly other bc'. Well, for one, bc's of today have cruiser sized weapons and hit frigates/cruisers quite well. Will these new ships do? If CCP's blog comment about these new ship producing battleship dps, then we can assume they can fit the largest weapons too. A torp-bc, or 1400mm bc, or tachyon/megapulse bc, or lolblastersheh bc - either hitting frigates/cruisers?

There'll be scenarios where these new ships will be damn powerful, but a roaming gang of these will still die to a bunch of frigs, or a well armed POS, or a blob with tackle support, etc. It won't take long before we see fleets of 40-50 of these dying to ten frigs, a single dictor and scimitar..


I'm pretty sure they don't have any clear vision on what they're doing. I mean, come on, you guys could have easily redifined TIER 1 (!) battlecruisers to fit this newly invented role and NO ONE would have noticed their absence in their own class of complete fail. Alright, Cyclone is somewhat different, but the remaining 3 are utterly pointless. Brutix? Come on, get a Cane instead.

I surely might be mistaken and they may indeed be doing some hidden work to rebalance current broken stuff, but somehow I'm sceptical about it. Dramiel and Logistics changes were announced like 5 (?) months ago and what exactly have we got so far? Nothing. And these are merely 2 minor issues.

It's only few months left prior to next expansion and even if they do release some balancing plans we're unlikely to get them properly tested.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Kalot Sakaar
CragCO
#335 - 2011-10-22 13:25:48 UTC
I can almost already guess at the description and bonuses to the Gallente Ship:

"Another in a long line of great looking ships that absolutely fails to perform. This is no exception to a long line of ships that are exceptionally slow, unable to control range, and general fails to meet up to expectations.

5% bonus to slowness per level and a 7.5% armor repair bonus per level.

Role Bonus: Can use oversized guns giving a whopping 5km of optimal range."

ya, that looks about right....
Vanakov Mek'lanavar
The Disgraceful Knave
#336 - 2011-10-22 13:45:23 UTC
This devblog made me log in today.

for two minutes.
Slighet
Siempre Muerto
#337 - 2011-10-22 13:49:52 UTC
As someone who mostly flies drakes, I'd just like to say, please nerf drakes a little rather than just introducing new uber-drakes. We need existing ships to be competitive more than we need new ships.

Having said that, as long as they don't just introduce a new drake-style FOTM, I like the idea of the new tier 3 BCs a lot.
Brazero
#338 - 2011-10-22 13:51:14 UTC
They should introduce a new BC class of turrets.
Narjack
CragCO
#339 - 2011-10-22 14:29:01 UTC
Kalot Sakaar wrote:
I can almost already guess at the description and bonuses to the Gallente Ship:

"Another in a long line of great looking ships that absolutely fails to perform. This is no exception to a long line of ships that are exceptionally slow, unable to control range, and general fails to meet up to expectations.

5% bonus to slowness per level and a 7.5% armor repair bonus per level.

Role Bonus: Can use oversized guns giving a whopping 5km of optimal range."

ya, that looks about right....



I just about spit my coffee out reading this one. Pretty funny, mostly because its so accurate. Can't wait to see yet another Gal ship with that awesome 7.5% armor repair bonus. Lol.

CCP, will these ship be able to mount command mods?
Bhaal Chinnian
#340 - 2011-10-22 14:39:16 UTC
ty CCP for introducing a new flavor of ships which should freshen up the game a bit, and provide yet more diversity of fleet composition. My guess, in regards to the BS turrets, is that these new BCs won't be able to fit more than 3 or 4 of them so their dps will stay in line with current BCs which can field ~6. The advantage ,in the end, would only be range.

/2cents

'A Good Plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed next week'-- George Patton