These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Battleship Tiericide Proposal
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-01-08 21:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: TheFace Asano
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:

CCP is moving away somewhat from the turrets + missiles. Some hulls they do it on, some they don't. Not sure what path they will take, but I see both the hurricane and the tempest following the same path as the rupture. I don't think they like the ACs + 2 big nuets. It isn't the problem with the BS line as it is in the BC line though, and the hurricane already was gimped a tad.

Why would you fly a Maelstrom over a Tempest after the change? Superior active shield tank. Why would you fly a tempest? better ship for shield buffer nano or armor and general flexibility. Can we live without the second utility high? Yes. Can you still drop a gun and fit 2 utility highs? Yes. Again why I have suggested to add a turret and not drop the high.


you may be right about ccp reducing the amount of minmatar ships with double utility (neut and missile are sooo uncreative uses ^^) but i only see tempests with seven turrets at the price of loosing the ability to shield tanking effectively or loosing the double bonus on projectile turrets. doing otherwise would be just crazy ^^



Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-01-08 21:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Griffin Omanid wrote:
From this picture shipbalancing in your thread. I would assume that ccp will also add further BS, especially a Caldari Attack BS and a Disruptor BS for Amarr Gallente and Minmatar. Also I am quit afraid of a Gallente Disruptor BS, assuming some Serpentis missions where my Raven was damped down to 10 km sensor range.

But i think the difference between Attack and Combat line is that Attack stays for fast and strong assaults like "Hit-and-Run" tactics, while the Combat line stays more for constant longer lasting fights. At least this would explain why the Raven and Dominx are both Combat ships, cause the Raven is a strong Cruise missile sniper, and the Dominix is a Drone and Blaster boat. But both of them get defense or longlivity only by modules or a good tactic.



Never be afraid of damps, not only those are bad ships using them are bad and unlike vs ECM you still have more options.
ECM cycles when applied will determinate the end of the fight because there's nothing you can do in between+targeting time if you're pinned, damps no.

Edit: I really think Battleships should be a lot more tougher then they are, much more dps and ways to turn the tide of a fight. 1km + space ship you want less than a frigate in a fight looks quite ridiculous, but you tell me it's Eve and then hope is lost.
I don't need an "I win" button in all situations but a battleship should be far more than the lol'ish multitask cap injector/F1/launch drones and OH hardeners that is right now, you should not even think take the risk going close to one all alone.

Such giant ships caring wheelbarrow sensor electronics, scanners I have to admit this is the part of Eve that disappointed me the most, same for higher class ships requiring more skills, and I'm already waiting for the frustrated comments like "bigger not better".

Taking down a single battleship with a frigate should require more than a tight orbit and F1, should require real group effort and organization. As it stands BS sized class vessels are way awful and have by no means the progression role they should have for a player.
Can't wait for CCP plans for this specific ship class, their vision in the grand scheme of things. BS was my first goal when I've started and could care less of Carriers SC's or Titans, get all skills on top but got quickly disappointed when I've figured out those are just good for structures and fleet fights.

Frigates are awesome, cruisers got awesome, bc's already far too good, BS's are still sub capital ships but so dam disappointing. Leave alone T2 versions, it's even worst.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Sigras
Conglomo
#23 - 2013-01-08 22:22:59 UTC
TheFace Asano wrote:
Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.

Im not sure why you think the tempest does so much less DPS than a maelstrom

a triple gyro tempest does 961 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads
a triple gyro maelstrom does 1014 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads (yeah you can put 4 heavies but really who does that?)

thats a difference of 6.56% and the tempest gets two neuts . . . if you think the tempest is DPS deficient youre crazy.
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-01-08 23:25:26 UTC
Sigras wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:
Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.

Im not sure why you think the tempest does so much less DPS than a maelstrom

a triple gyro tempest does 961 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads
a triple gyro maelstrom does 1014 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads (yeah you can put 4 heavies but really who does that?)

thats a difference of 6.56% and the tempest gets two neuts . . . if you think the tempest is DPS deficient youre crazy.


well in my skill pool with 5x medium drones I am getting about 100 more dps out of my Maelstrom with about 10-15 km more falloff. That means more applied dps as well. That is a active shield pve fit (maelstrom) vs. an active armor pve fit (tempest fleet) both with 3x gyros. A regular Tempest is going to be further off on tank.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#25 - 2013-01-08 23:57:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Nagarythe Tinurandir
TheFace Asano wrote:


Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.


what i ment with not able to shield buffer: ccp may take away the possibility (e.g. reducing cpu and or grid to achieve that) in trade for the 7th turret.
just think about it. it has 5% dmg and rate of fire bonuses and does nearly the same dps as the mealstrom (which does like 30-40 dps more.. big deal) with 2 turrets less. adding a 7th turret will push the tempest way past the maelstrom.
it would make the tempest a more attack role like battleship, but ccp seems to be set on giving the attack role to the typhoon.

your problem is, that you do not want to train missiles. thats ok.
but, at least in my opinion, no reason to change something that works and is actually quite balanced.

TheFace Asano wrote:

well in my skill pool with 5x medium drones I am getting about 100 more dps out of my Maelstrom with about 10-15 km more falloff. That means more applied dps as well. That is a active shield pve fit (maelstrom) vs. an active armor pve fit (tempest fleet) both with 3x gyros. A regular Tempest is going to be further off on tank.


first of all, your personal skill pool is maybe not the right foundation to discuss balance related things ^^
secondly an armor fit always comes at the price of dps. when discussing the balance between two ships they should be fitted rather similar, eg. both shield or both armor tank.
i get similar numbers as Sigras and can confirm, that the potential dmg of tempest and maelstrom is rather similar and even falloff and tracking is the same aslong as you use the same amount of tranking computers and - enhancers.
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-01-09 00:46:06 UTC  |  Edited by: TheFace Asano
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:


Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.


what i ment with not able to shield buffer: ccp may take away the possibility (e.g. reducing cpu and or grid to achieve that) in trade for the 7th turret.
just think about it. it has 5% dmg and rate of fire bonuses and does nearly the same dps as the mealstrom (which does like 30-40 dps more.. big deal) with 2 turrets less. adding a 7th turret will push the tempest way past the maelstrom.
it would make the tempest a more attack role like battleship, but ccp seems to be set on giving the attack role to the typhoon.

your problem is, that you do not want to train missiles. thats ok.
but, at least in my opinion, no reason to change something that works and is actually quite balanced.

TheFace Asano wrote:

well in my skill pool with 5x medium drones I am getting about 100 more dps out of my Maelstrom with about 10-15 km more falloff. That means more applied dps as well. That is a active shield pve fit (maelstrom) vs. an active armor pve fit (tempest fleet) both with 3x gyros. A regular Tempest is going to be further off on tank.


first of all, your personal skill pool is maybe not the right foundation to discuss balance related things ^^
secondly an armor fit always comes at the price of dps. when discussing the balance between two ships they should be fitted rather similar, eg. both shield or both armor tank.
i get similar numbers as Sigras and can confirm, that the potential dmg of tempest and maelstrom is rather similar and even falloff and tracking is the same aslong as you use the same amount of tranking computers and - enhancers.


skills on my minnie toon are level 4-5 in all gunnery for tech 2 AC, and the fitting had the same gyros. Active shield is a bit of a stretch on a Tempest, at least whilst being cap efficient. I had a dps rig in one slot on the maelstrom that was on it when I purchased from a corp mate. I logged in to check the difference and to double check so there was the difference. Falloff range on the Tempest is going to be less unless you sacrifice tank putting it quite a bit below, meaning less applied dps. Buffer shield is going to be the only place that a Tempest will have similar falloff.

Check this thread bc revamp. -1 high for the hurricane. Tempest will probably be next and gain a mid or low in exchange or nothing...
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2013-01-09 02:33:15 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:


Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.


what i ment with not able to shield buffer: ccp may take away the possibility (e.g. reducing cpu and or grid to achieve that) in trade for the 7th turret.
just think about it. it has 5% dmg and rate of fire bonuses and does nearly the same dps as the mealstrom (which does like 30-40 dps more.. big deal) with 2 turrets less. adding a 7th turret will push the tempest way past the maelstrom.
it would make the tempest a more attack role like battleship, but ccp seems to be set on giving the attack role to the typhoon.

your problem is, that you do not want to train missiles. thats ok.
but, at least in my opinion, no reason to change something that works and is actually quite balanced.

TheFace Asano wrote:

well in my skill pool with 5x medium drones I am getting about 100 more dps out of my Maelstrom with about 10-15 km more falloff. That means more applied dps as well. That is a active shield pve fit (maelstrom) vs. an active armor pve fit (tempest fleet) both with 3x gyros. A regular Tempest is going to be further off on tank.


first of all, your personal skill pool is maybe not the right foundation to discuss balance related things ^^
secondly an armor fit always comes at the price of dps. when discussing the balance between two ships they should be fitted rather similar, eg. both shield or both armor tank.
i get similar numbers as Sigras and can confirm, that the potential dmg of tempest and maelstrom is rather similar and even falloff and tracking is the same aslong as you use the same amount of tranking computers and - enhancers.


2x tracking comps on the Tempest VS 2x Tracking Enhancers on the Mael. Mael still has about 12km more falloff. Better tracking though =P
Sigras
Conglomo
#28 - 2013-01-10 03:44:10 UTC
TheFace Asano wrote:
Sigras wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:
Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.

Im not sure why you think the tempest does so much less DPS than a maelstrom

a triple gyro tempest does 961 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads
a triple gyro maelstrom does 1014 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads (yeah you can put 4 heavies but really who does that?)

thats a difference of 6.56% and the tempest gets two neuts . . . if you think the tempest is DPS deficient youre crazy.


well in my skill pool with 5x medium drones I am getting about 100 more dps out of my Maelstrom with about 10-15 km more falloff. That means more applied dps as well. That is a active shield pve fit (maelstrom) vs. an active armor pve fit (tempest fleet) both with 3x gyros. A regular Tempest is going to be further off on tank.

which means that you dont have battleship 5 . . . train skills then test fits . . .

Ships have to be balanced around max skills otherwise they'd be totally overpowered when people finally reached the max skill . . .
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#29 - 2013-01-10 11:50:51 UTC
TheFace Asano wrote:


2x tracking comps on the Tempest VS 2x Tracking Enhancers on the Mael. Mael still has about 12km more falloff. Better tracking though =P


why would you compare tracking computes on the tempest to tracking enhancers on the mael?
so which scripts did you use for the computers? optimal range script gives the same bonuses on optimal range and falloff as a tracking enhancer does, but no tracking speed, while tracking script is the other way around.
but never mind, we'll see how they change this two ships soon enough...

and yeah, wouldn't shield tank my tempest actively either but passive shield vs active shield is still a better comparison then armor vs shield. at least when talking about dps potential.
in the end 30 dps is nothing. especially when talking about pve and two different hulls which have to be flown in different ways.
of course you could consider using artillery on your maelstrom and really make it shine ;)


TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-01-11 20:05:41 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:


2x tracking comps on the Tempest VS 2x Tracking Enhancers on the Mael. Mael still has about 12km more falloff. Better tracking though =P


why would you compare tracking computes on the tempest to tracking enhancers on the mael?
so which scripts did you use for the computers? optimal range script gives the same bonuses on optimal range and falloff as a tracking enhancer does, but no tracking speed, while tracking script is the other way around.
but never mind, we'll see how they change this two ships soon enough...

and yeah, wouldn't shield tank my tempest actively either but passive shield vs active shield is still a better comparison then armor vs shield. at least when talking about dps potential.
in the end 30 dps is nothing. especially when talking about pve and two different hulls which have to be flown in different ways.
of course you could consider using artillery on your maelstrom and really make it shine ;)




not a big fan of the tracking on artillery for my use, but i was taking 2 ship setups that function in the same role for nullsec ratting anoms.
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-01-11 20:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: TheFace Asano
Sigras wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:
Sigras wrote:
TheFace Asano wrote:
Not sure about crazy, but it would bump the dps onto the tempest a tad higher. Add some drone bandwidth (100-125) to the maelstrom and leave the tempest drone bay alone and then it would balance out. Not sure how the extra turret would make the tempest not be able to shield buffer. Just like the old hurricane it has extra powergrid.

Another option would be to up the drone bandwith on the tempest to 125 for a full rack of sentry or heavies. Give the flexible ship more flexibility and dps potential in the same sweep.

I just personally don't like having to train missiles, drones, and turrets for maximum effectiveness in one hull, so I would rather see the missile dps potential disappear.

Im not sure why you think the tempest does so much less DPS than a maelstrom

a triple gyro tempest does 961 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads
a triple gyro maelstrom does 1014 DPS with RF EMP and 5 hammerheads (yeah you can put 4 heavies but really who does that?)

thats a difference of 6.56% and the tempest gets two neuts . . . if you think the tempest is DPS deficient youre crazy.


well in my skill pool with 5x medium drones I am getting about 100 more dps out of my Maelstrom with about 10-15 km more falloff. That means more applied dps as well. That is a active shield pve fit (maelstrom) vs. an active armor pve fit (tempest fleet) both with 3x gyros. A regular Tempest is going to be further off on tank.

which means that you dont have battleship 5 . . . train skills then test fits . . .

Ships have to be balanced around max skills otherwise they'd be totally overpowered when people finally reached the max skill . . .


Battleship V is about 5 days off on that toon...

The other thing to take into consideration is using both fits in a situation and see how they perform. The Maelstrom makes more isk / hour end of story no matter how the Tempest is fit. Also remember I am talking about a Tempest Fleet and not the standard one. Less isk invested for more isk potential. The standard tempest loses a low slot and fitting space and a few other minor things which means gap is wider there. If you talk pvp and fits that work there your talking about different fittings and most likely the Maelstroms second bonus goes unused. I think alot of people use the Maelstrom with arties for the high Alpha that the 8 turrets provide.

When I get around to skilling out missiles on that toon the Tempest would have the added missile dps to match. I would then have to carry more ammo, less cap booster charges, spend more on ammo (most likely).

Looking at the Hurricane changes make me think we will see one less utility high for the Tempest. Rupture>Hurricane>Tempest. I think +1 turret sounds pretty good instead of -1 high.
Sigras
Conglomo
#32 - 2013-01-12 00:35:10 UTC
if youre using it for PvE there are two problems:

#1 basically the only ships worth PvEing in are the tengu, vargur and the machariel; the nightmare does ok, but its non selectable damage type makes it sub par

#2 ships should never be balanced around PvE unless it makes PvE too easy to do . . .

This is like saying the proteus isnt as good as the tengu because it doesnt PvE as well . . .
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#33 - 2013-01-12 10:57:15 UTC
Some other ideas for future battleships that u may want to read or add input to:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=180769

i like my dampening hyp...buffed hyps remain the same, but snipe hyps can use damps Bear

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-01-15 04:05:54 UTC
Sigras wrote:
if youre using it for PvE there are two problems:

#1 basically the only ships worth PvEing in are the tengu, vargur and the machariel; the nightmare does ok, but its non selectable damage type makes it sub par

#2 ships should never be balanced around PvE unless it makes PvE too easy to do . . .

This is like saying the proteus isnt as good as the tengu because it doesnt PvE as well . . .


How do you afford getting into the vargur or the machariel? Thats right making isk in some way or another in missions, ratting, trading, etc. How many toons can afford a Machariel right away plus have at least BS 4 in 2 seperate races and tech 2 skills needed to fit and fly the ship properly, or the several billion isk to fit it right? The Vargur takes quite a while to train for. What ships are they most likely going to use to get there? Probably a tech 1 BS.

Personally I am not all that impressed with the tengu, some people who rat in null with us use them, and they cannot keep up dps wise with any of our battleships. In a fight requiring more mobility, maybe.
Sigras
Conglomo
#35 - 2013-01-16 08:50:51 UTC
well i understand that it takes time to train for and afford the better ships, but until one reaches that point they should just use the next best ship available for their purposes. They should not, however review any other ship being inferior because it doesnt PvE as well because the ship they currently fly is also inferior.

Also my second point stands, ships have never been balanced around PvE and never should be unless they make PvE too easy; that would be like balancing units in starcraft around the single player campaign . . .

Lastly, the tengu is amazing, but not for its raw DPS but for the fact that it can apply that DPS to every target on the field. Heavys hit ships small and big alike (or they used to) for close to full damage, and they fire very far away (even after the nerf)

Your tengu pilots should try HAMs with an AB and the fuel catalyst; theyre amazing
Hakan MacTrew
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-01-16 10:50:15 UTC
Sigras wrote:
well i understand that it takes time to train for and afford the better ships, but until one reaches that point they should just use the next best ship available for their purposes. They should not, however review any other ship being inferior because it doesnt PvE as well because the ship they currently fly is also inferior.

Also my second point stands, ships have never been balanced around PvE and never should be unless they make PvE too easy; that would be like balancing units in starcraft around the single player campaign . . .

Lastly, the tengu is amazing, but not for its raw DPS but for the fact that it can apply that DPS to every target on the field. Heavys hit ships small and big alike (or they used to) for close to full damage, and they fire very far away (even after the nerf)

Your tengu pilots should try HAMs with an AB and the fuel catalyst; theyre amazing

800+ dps is pretty easy to get on a HAMgu and it will apply it the same as it would with HMLs.

Friends
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#37 - 2013-01-16 11:18:01 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Never be afraid of damps, not only those are bad ships using them are bad and unlike vs ECM you still have more options.
ECM cycles when applied will determinate the end of the fight because there's nothing you can do in between+targeting time if you're pinned, damps no.


Even your ECM is shut off when damped by an Arazu, which is tbh anything but bad, and the T1 versions damp even more now. When you are range damped, you can't do anything until you either get to lock range or outside damper range.

.
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#38 - 2013-01-16 11:39:41 UTC
i am thinking as well as the BS changes that there may be room for an extra 4 BS's to fill the missing dissruption of the amarr gallente and minmatar BS's and one to fill the missing attack BS for the caldari ( i know... a fast attack caldari BS right :-P)

but i feel there is a place here for them and i think most folks would agree.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#39 - 2013-01-16 12:19:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nagarythe Tinurandir
ITTigerClawIK wrote:

but i feel there is a place here for them and i think most folks would agree.


i do :)
because there is actually a role for those. still not sure about tier 3 BCs though. ccp should have stick (edit: stuck ?) with the original plan to make them battleships. there are exactly the 4 hulls needed.
TheFace Asano
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-01-16 15:13:02 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:

but i feel there is a place here for them and i think most folks would agree.


i do :)
because there is actually a role for those. still not sure about tier 3 BCs though. ccp should have stick (edit: stuck ?) with the original plan to make them battleships. there are exactly the 4 hulls needed.


Will the attack battleships replace the t3 BC line especially with an incoming nerf to the talos and nado most likely? When you need more tank and less mobility. In a small gang your probably still going to take the t3, but larger fleets with BS you would take the attack BS.
Previous page123Next page