These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Request Concerning the New BC. *Spoiler Alert*
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Christine Cagney
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2011-10-25 21:14:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Christine Cagney
As everyone is by now aware, with the Winter Expansion CCP has plans to introduce 4 new Battle-cruisers to the game. Battle-cruisers that will have slightly less tank than normal BC, but which will be able to fit Battleship sized weapons.

Also, as every HULK pilot is also painfully aware these new Battle-cruisers are being called “Gank-Mobiles” and “Gifts to Suicide-Gankers” here on the forums.

Therefore, I humbly request … No! I beseech CCP that they make the price of the New Battlecruisers the same as the price of a HULK.

There is precedent enough for this in the HULK itself. The HULK is nothing more than a Covetor with a little more cargo space and a slight improvement in cycle time. Yet, the HULK costs nearly 8 times as much as a Covetor.
The proposed Battlecruisers would allow a BC to fit BS sized weapons, which is a huge, tremendous, gigantic advantage over existing Battlecruisers. Therefore, by the precedent established between the Covetor and HULK, the proposed Battlecruisers ought to cost 10 times as much as existing BC.

In closing, I can only hope that my post has spoiled the day of Suicide-Gankers everywhere!
P
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#2 - 2011-10-25 21:16:40 UTC
Christine Cagney wrote:
I can only hope that my post has spoiled the day of Suicide-Gankers everywhere!


quite the opposite I think

your pre-tears are the first!
congrats you win eve
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#3 - 2011-10-25 21:19:07 UTC
Christine Cagney wrote:
As everyone is by now aware, with the Winter Expansion CCP has plans to introduce 4 new Battle-cruisers to the game. Battle-cruisers that will have slightly less tank than normal BC, but which will be able to fit Battleship sized weapons.

Also, as every HULK pilot is also painfully aware these new Battle-cruisers are being called “Gank-Mobiles” and “Gifts to Suicide-Gankers” here on the forums.

Therefore, I humbly request … No! I beseech CCP that they make the price of the New Battlecruisers the same as the price of a HULK.

There is precedent enough for this in the HULK itself. The HULK is nothing more than a Covetor with a little more cargo space and a slight improvement in cycle time. Yet, the HULK costs nearly 8 times as much as a Covetor.
The proposed Battlecruisers would allow a BC to fit BS sized weapons, which is a huge, tremendous, gigantic advantage over existing Battlecruisers. Therefore, by the precedent established between the Covetor and HULK, the proposed Battlecruisers ought to cost 10 times as much as existing BC.

In closing, I can only hope that my post has spoiled the day of Suicide-Gankers everywhere!
P


A hulk is t2 while the new BC are only teir 3.
Nyreanya
Serenity Labs
#4 - 2011-10-25 21:20:10 UTC
Yes, tech 2 versions cost several times their tech 1 counterparts. No, tier 2 or 3 versions do not cost several times their tier 1 counterparts. CCP's stated reason for making the new ships BC's is because they want them to be widely used, something they would not be if they cost 200 mil. That being said, they most likely will cost more than the tier 1 and 2 BC's. It's their insurance pay-out that will determine whether they'll be popular ganking platforms, not their market value.

[/sarcasm]
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2011-10-25 21:20:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae
there is one more problem...
suicide gankers used destroyers to kill miners too... and now destroyers are going to be buffed (25% because no rof penalty + they have buffed dmg) and price the same... as a piece of paper...

so... 2 new gank toys... one better and one new...

Vote Issler Dainze for CSM7! http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=470 
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#6 - 2011-10-25 21:23:01 UTC
Spoiler alert - in EvE Online, players determine the price of everything.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Guillaume Adoulin
Overclocker.
Neon Nightmares
#7 - 2011-10-25 21:24:02 UTC
Christine Cagney wrote:
. Therefore, by the precedent established between the Covetor and HULK, the proposed Battlecruisers ought to cost 10 times as much as existing BC.
P


Not a chance. that would put the new hulls in at around 300-400M isk for the hull. One of the points of adding the new tier is to add a new ship that is not ridiculously skill intensive or expensive for newish players to jump into and pew pew.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2011-10-25 21:29:07 UTC
Crucis Cassiopeiae wrote:
there is one more problem...
suicide gankers used destroyers to kill miners too... and now destroyers are going to be buffed (25% because no rof penalty + they have buffed dmg) and price the same... as a piece of paper...

so... 2 new gank toys... one better and one new...


No need to panic. This will be negligible for suicide attacks, because sustained DPS isn't used. You'll still pop your alpha for the same damage, and no matter what the tank buff is it wont save you from the concordokken that will be unleashed on you after your first shot.

For everyday PvP though, these will make these the frig killers they should have been all along.... Every gang will want one along as anti-tackle!


If you're worried about suicide ganks, do what everyone else does when engaging in a hazardous activity (which highsec mining now is as well) - stay aligned, and use your D-scan. If you're in a barge, aligned, and some brutixes or a thrasher gang are warping in on you, just warp out. If you dont, and allow them to attack you, thats your fault. No need to whine to CCP to fix the so-called "gank problem".

Everyone has all the tools they need to defend themselves against these attacks - but most are too lazy to use them on a regular basis.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#9 - 2011-10-25 21:33:46 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
If you're worried about suicide ganks, do what everyone else does when engaging in a hazardous activity (which highsec mining now is as well) - stay aligned, and use your D-scan. If you're in a barge, aligned, and some brutixes or a thrasher gang are warping in on you, just warp out. If you dont, and allow them to attack you, thats your fault. No need to whine to CCP to fix the so-called "gank problem".

Everyone has all the tools they need to defend themselves against these attacks - but most are too lazy to use them on a regular basis.

Hey what's this?! Isn't mining supposed to be an AFK activity?
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#10 - 2011-10-25 21:35:51 UTC
-1 to the OP's Request.

However, a strong +1 to the common requests that Ships Lost to Concord do not qualify for Insurance Payout.

Ganks free to gank whomever and wherever they like, their Cost is the cost of their gankship & mods.
Kalmanaka
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-10-25 21:36:04 UTC
Christine Cagney wrote:
Battle-cruisers that will have slightly less tank than normal BC


It's actually significantly less, not slightly. They're about half way between cruisers and tier 1 BC's. Fitting large guns will gimp the tank even further as well. It's possible that a plated thorax will have a better tank than some of them.
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
#12 - 2011-10-25 21:38:19 UTC
You should have been around when hulks cost 500m. That being said, only fools are going to throw isk away when much cheaper ships can do the job.

The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.

One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#13 - 2011-10-25 21:42:57 UTC
Jennifer Starling wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
If you're worried about suicide ganks, do what everyone else does when engaging in a hazardous activity (which highsec mining now is as well) - stay aligned, and use your D-scan. If you're in a barge, aligned, and some brutixes or a thrasher gang are warping in on you, just warp out. If you dont, and allow them to attack you, thats your fault. No need to whine to CCP to fix the so-called "gank problem".

Everyone has all the tools they need to defend themselves against these attacks - but most are too lazy to use them on a regular basis.

Hey what's this?! Isn't mining supposed to be an AFK activity?


I should start a rage thread because I cant accumulate killmails while I'm doing other things like homework.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2011-10-25 21:45:43 UTC
in addition to all of the reasons this is moronic, the reason these are perfect for suicide ganking is they do exactly what a bs does in ganking, but cheaper

you make it 200m and we'll just keep using BS and brutixes

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Tashanaka
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2011-10-25 23:13:18 UTC
Christine Cagney wrote:
... There is precedent enough for this in the HULK itself. The HULK is nothing more than a Covetor with a little more cargo space and a slight improvement in cycle time. Yet, the HULK costs nearly 8 times as much as a Covetor...


The gankers aren't going to go away. So you need to adapt. Use a Covetor to lessen your losses instead of a Hulk. Sure you loose a little mining/hour but you lower your risk 8-times. Move to safer places to mine. Watch directional & local.



Alistair Cononach wrote:
-1 to the OP's Request.

However, a strong +1 to the common requests that Ships Lost to Concord do not qualify for Insurance Payout.

Ganks free to gank whomever and wherever they like, their Cost is the cost of their gankship & mods.


Agreed, removing the insurance payout is the only thing that should happen.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#16 - 2011-10-25 23:20:17 UTC
Kalmanaka wrote:
Christine Cagney wrote:
Battle-cruisers that will have slightly less tank than normal BC


It's actually significantly less, not slightly. They're about half way between cruisers and tier 1 BC's. Fitting large guns will gimp the tank even further as well. It's possible that a plated thorax will have a better tank than some of them.



Hmmmm make me think.


So they are making a "PT Boat" BC and buffing destroyers. Is CCP providing a new tool and the potential counter to it?

How hard would it be for a Tier 3 BC to hit a Destroyer?

Destroyers might actually have a role based on the new ships. They'll still get peeled like onions from smaller ships though.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Grog Barrel
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-10-26 00:22:49 UTC
a bit offtopic: where can i find the models of these ships again?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#18 - 2011-10-26 00:27:49 UTC
A hammer costs a few dollars. A stained glass window costs hundreds, possibly thousands. God? I'd like to file a petition.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Kitty McKitty
In Praise Of Shadows
#19 - 2011-10-26 00:31:29 UTC
So much dumb in the OP. Also learn to mine in a battleship, greed is not good despite what CCP like to think.

♥ Haviing your portrait painted here helps INTAKI Disabled Children ♥
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2011-10-26 00:32:27 UTC
Fly a Covetor instead

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
123Next page