These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Navy Battlecruisers

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#461 - 2013-05-09 09:50:57 UTC
Antimatter Launcher wrote:
"Do we really need this speed ships more into the game?"

why not ? will you remove all BC,s because they are similar to BS ? would be boring.

i like eve for every ship more and more. it becomes more complexity.
more complexity = more fun.


BS hulls will become utterly useless due to their cost, and that there are better choices available. Thats why not.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#462 - 2013-05-09 10:49:20 UTC
Antimatter Launcher wrote:
"Do we really need this speed ships more into the game?"

why not ? will you remove all BC,s because they are similar to BS ? would be boring.

i like eve for every ship more and more. it becomes more complexity.
more complexity = more fun.

Amazing that one can still run into indiscriminate consumers in this day and age, the only thing it has going for it is that it is easier to spell than conscientious.
When next you go to the supermarket and see row upon row of white bread loaves with varying shapes and prices, take a look at the ingredient lists and where-who made them .. quite the epiphany for most people. The fact that there are more to choose from does not mean that there are more choices .. think about it .. and then apply it to Eve.

We pushed for (and got) CCP to perpetrate tiericide to get rid of all the false choices that we had lived for years and years. Yes we had 20 odd frigates to choose from, but only 2-3 was ever actually used .. yes we had .. see where I am going with this?
Adding (or modifying existing) ships without taking into account how they slot into the existing line-ups will inevitably result in the quagmire we and CCP have fought to get rid off .. lots of stuff that does nothing apart from take up database space.
Theia Matova wrote:
...Anyway NBCs are simply 'fast' BSes and EVE really does not need more ship hulls that compete with BS.

Look at the bonuses, they are not fast BS but more like heavy cruisers (semantics are FUN! Big smile) .. EHP might need to be toned down a bit, but then again they will be more expensive than BS so as long as we can make sure they have natural predators that won't break much.

BS position in Eve is hurt far more by the ABC's (formerly known as tier3's) as they are cheaper, faster, nimbler and have same projection, application and damage as BS .. as long as they exist BS will not .. hit them with the bat (I suggested a flat -50% tracking) or add something to BS to give them value that cannot be had elsewhere.
Antimatter Launcher
ELVE Industries
#463 - 2013-05-09 12:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Antimatter Launcher
Theia Matova wrote:
Antimatter Launcher wrote:
"Do we really need this speed ships more into the game?"

why not ? will you remove all BC,s because they are similar to BS ? would be boring.

i like eve for every ship more and more. it becomes more complexity.
more complexity = more fun.


BS hulls will become utterly useless due to their cost, and that there are better choices available. Thats why not.


na i dont want to put you into a bad light but i think your mind thinks not about all the data,s

BS has more firing range, more dps, more EHP, more Cap for Rep & Neuts.

most BS has more droneybay too, and some BS has tracking bonus and hits a BC easy.

compare a blaster megathron with default tracking 0.089 with the biggest blaster, with a medium railgun. medium railgun has 0.03 tracking. the hyperion without tracking bonus got 0.051 tracking. the blaster has more dps, more tracking, and with Null L a Huge Range. or compare the smallest Large Railguns with the medium railguns. your tracking argument want work then.

or better compare Pulse Lasers because they got such a Large range, that they can be compared to medium railguns.

Apoc tracking wiht pulse lasers are 0.058 and the apoc outranges the medium railguns.

so more dps, more tracking, more range, more ehp, more cap. and you say BS are utterly useless ? i dont think so.


BC,s and Navy BC,s are allmost the same. in fact a normal BC has a better Power for its Price(compare to Navy Version). navy BC,s are overpriced in compare.

a BC has less EHP, less dps, less firing range, less cap, and often less dronebay in compare to a normal battleship.
the BC,s got more speed and smaller signature for this trade. thats all.

BC,s are no match. or did you see Test and goons raiding with Harbinger Fleets instead of Apoc/Abaddon fleets in the Past ? Navy BC,s are even less a match because of the small price difference to a Battleship. the more range and EHP and firepowepower will allways be needed in big fleet fights. Navy BC,s and BC,s are just a nice Option for small scale fights.

and i guess even Tier 3 BC,s will be better then Navy BC,s in Future. Tier 3 BC,s needs less then half of the Price, so you can get allmost 2 Times more ships for the same isk.


@ Veshta Yoshida

i dont think so. i think that are more then 3 frigattes in use in the last years.

your arguments are invalid so or so because ccp changed the ship balance of frigates and cruisers in last months, and now the BS balance too. so we need to take a new look.
Antimatter Launcher
ELVE Industries
#464 - 2013-05-09 13:05:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Antimatter Launcher
argh how can i delete double posts :D ?
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#465 - 2013-05-09 14:50:04 UTC
Antimatter Launcher wrote:
you dont know the design philosophy of Battle Cruisers hu ?

A battlecruiser, or battle cruiser, was a large capital ship built in the first half of the 20th century. They were similar in size and cost to a battleship, and typically carried the same kind of heavy guns, but battlecruisers generally carried less armour and were faster.

By the end of the war, capital ship design had developed with battleships becoming faster and battlecruisers becoming more and more heavily armoured, blurring the distinction between a battlecruiser and a fast battleship

Battlecruisers served in the navies of Britain, Germany, Australia and Japan during World War I, most notably at the Battle of the Falkland Islands and in the several raids and skirmishes in the North Sea.
British battlecruisers in particular suffered heavy losses, where their light armour made them very vulnerable to battleship shells.

In the early years of the World War 2 various German ships had a measure of success hunting merchant ships in the Atlantic.The one stand-up fight occurred when the battleship Bismarck was sent out as a raider and was intercepted by HMS Hood and the battleship Prince of Wales in May 1941. The elderly British battlecruiser was no match for the modern German battleship: within minutes, the Bismarck's 15-inch shells caused a magazine explosion in Hood reminiscent of the Battle of Jutland. Only three men survived.

so its okay that the navy BC,s are not significant faster then the originals. in fact, the Original Harbinger has the same max velocity like the navy harbinger, and so the original harbinger feels like a Poket BS too.

it seems you forgot the slowlyness of the original harbinger.

the navy battlecruisers are an heavy Improvment from the Original battlecruisers, and follows the philosophy of world war 2.

its nice that ccp bring them in. more armor, more firepower, but still no match for a Battleship.


Superb post, when CCP was asked a question along these lines some time back they responded that New Eden ship lines didn't exactly parallel present day earth's floating navies. However if the above is broadly true then it highlights the ABC's (Naga/Oracle/Talos etc) as the correct form of Battlecruiser as they mount battleship sized weaponry, have less armour and shields to tank with and are faster. What we consider to be normal or standard Battlecruisers like the Drake/Ferox/Myrm arer in actual fact heavy cruisers as they have enhanced tanks but fit cruiser sized weaponry.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#466 - 2013-05-10 13:23:21 UTC
Antimatter Launcher wrote:


na i dont want to put you into a bad light but i think your mind thinks not about all the data,s

BS has more firing range, more dps, more EHP, more Cap for Rep & Neuts.


I do not believe you understand what I mean. Speed and EHP of NBCs are very similar to BS. The new apocalypse has base speed of ~113m/s NBCs are all around ~150m/s. When you fly NBC even its faster than BS they feel exactly as sluggish (at least the Harbinger). Navy Harbinger has 7500 armor Apocalypse has only 7000.

So I would say that NBCs are able to fit about same EHP as BSes with more speed. Less damage yes and less repair power. I haven't done the math or tried it out but I do suspect that NBCes can speed tank BSes. So in duel NBC should win BS.

Antimatter Launcher wrote:

most BS has more droneybay too, and some BS has tracking bonus and hits a BC easy.


Navy Harbinger and Apocalypse have exact the same drone bandwidth Apocalypse wins with +25 capacity in the drone bay.

Antimatter Launcher wrote:

compare a blaster megathron with default tracking 0.089 with the biggest blaster, with a medium railgun. medium railgun has 0.03 tracking. the hyperion without tracking bonus got 0.051 tracking. the blaster has more dps, more tracking, and with Null L a Huge Range. or compare the smallest Large Railguns with the medium railguns. your tracking argument want work then.

or better compare Pulse Lasers because they got such a Large range, that they can be compared to medium railguns.

Apoc tracking wiht pulse lasers are 0.058 and the apoc outranges the medium railguns.

so more dps, more tracking, more range, more ehp, more cap. and you say BS are utterly useless ? i dont think so.


BC,s and Navy BC,s are allmost the same. in fact a normal BC has a better Power for its Price(compare to Navy Version). navy BC,s are overpriced in compare.

a BC has less EHP, less dps, less firing range, less cap, and often less dronebay in compare to a normal battleship.
the BC,s got more speed and smaller signature for this trade. thats all.

BC,s are no match. or did you see Test and goons raiding with Harbinger Fleets instead of Apoc/Abaddon fleets in the Past ? Navy BC,s are even less a match because of the small price difference to a Battleship. the more range and EHP and firepowepower will allways be needed in big fleet fights. Navy BC,s and BC,s are just a nice Option for small scale fights.

and i guess even Tier 3 BC,s will be better then Navy BC,s in Future. Tier 3 BC,s needs less then half of the Price, so you can get allmost 2 Times more ships for the same isk.


a) you should not cross compare difference race hulls in this case because different races have different speed / EHP. Weapon systems are also different.
b) NBC are able to get roughly the same buffer tank as BSes. BSes do not have tracking as you claim. Cap they do have yes but it balances out with use of medium gun systems, repairers so you can't really compare cap.
c) Since Harbinger gains same armor buffer as Apocalypse more speed, hell lot more agility, lot smaller sig. It makes their durability / evasion superior to BS.

NBCs should be able to bring down BS. When you have tough luck or play bad no but generally yes.

BSes sniping role is already taken over. We do not need superior close range fighters as well that obsolete BS hulls!

Thanks to NBCs BS hulls are again more vulnerable and bigger death traps as they already are. Yes they are still good for meta game but they are far too crappy for low sec and soon also highsec play. Also for meta game BS hulls are soon not enough cost effective due to build cost change.
Antimatter Launcher
ELVE Industries
#467 - 2013-05-10 15:31:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Antimatter Launcher
Theia Matova wrote:

So in duel NBC should win BS.


Theia Matova wrote:

NBCs should be able to bring down BS. When you have tough luck or play bad no but generally yes.



Roll

i argument with mathematics, and you with nothing then empty words

you say im wrong, but the numbers dont lie
if i use a Apoc, i have far more then enough tracking and dps to own your navy habringer with easy. just pressing fire and repping myself, you will never win a duell. you need to outtrack me if you want to stand a chance, but here is a problem for you.
here some more math for you.

37,5% bonus tracking hull (apoc hull) fitted with tracking computer and 2 heat sinks:
Targets at 10km in perfect orbit with - frigate 0 dps; cruiser 34 dps; battlecruiser 421 dps; battleship 520 dps;

so i allmost will hit your navy harbinger like an abaddon even if you are 10km in orbit with afterburner. no chance for you. dont matter if you fly a navy harbinger or normal harbinger.

and i do not argument with webbers yet. i dont even need a webber to kill you. and if i use a webber, you will be ****ed even harder.

and i sayed "most" bs has more dronebay. you make many mistakes with your post. you dont watch the full context of my words.

i guess i am wasting my time with a person like you.

if you are a newbie, you are a newbie. go learn and dont waste your energie for non sense postings. you dont have the requirement knownledge.
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#468 - 2013-05-12 10:12:17 UTC
in before they nerf the navy drake
Saerni
Confederation Navy Research
#469 - 2013-05-12 15:04:56 UTC
Just a quick run down of my thoughts on appearance and effectiveness.

Duplicated a fit I used to use for wh sites.

EHP 38k -> 50k
Tracking 0.1 -> 0.1475 (multi) ...scorch were now 0.1 from 0.07ish
DPS a little higher

Still cap stable with a 10mn ab and all the other mids as cap rechargers. (Both fits use T2 cap rigs)

Overall a solid ship that improves over the t1 without much issue of being op (tracking is deadly though).

Appearance wise I like the black, but the black with tan is just...not as pretty with this hull. A more gold hull texture might be more sexy...but do what you have time to do I suppose.
arbalesttom
State War Academy
Caldari State
#470 - 2013-05-12 23:02:07 UTC
i am dissapoint :(
Luscius Uta
#471 - 2013-05-13 09:31:12 UTC
Sadly, Navy Myrmidon would be the only one of the former Tier 2 BCs I have a real desire to fly and CCP decides to give us a middle finger Navy Brutix instead.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Perihelion Olenard
#472 - 2013-05-13 11:11:28 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Sadly, Navy Myrmidon would be the only one of the former Tier 2 BCs I have a real desire to fly and CCP decides to give us a middle finger Navy Brutix instead.

The problem is it wouldn't offer much. It would already have five heavy drones like the navy Vexor. The only thing the navy Myrmidon could have over the navy Vexor would be more turrets for damage. I can't say I see the point.
Anja Suorsa
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#473 - 2013-05-13 11:55:10 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Sadly, Navy Myrmidon would be the only one of the former Tier 2 BCs I have a real desire to fly and CCP decides to give us a middle finger Navy Brutix instead.

The problem is it wouldn't offer much. It would already have five heavy drones like the navy Vexor. The only thing the navy Myrmidon could have over the navy Vexor would be more turrets for damage. I can't say I see the point.


Missing the point. It is perfectly possible to simply swap the models around, giving a Navy Myrm with the currently proposed stats from the Brutix.
Luscius Uta
#474 - 2013-05-13 19:21:57 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:

The problem is it wouldn't offer much. It would already have five heavy drones like the navy Vexor. The only thing the navy Myrmidon could have over the navy Vexor would be more turrets for damage. I can't say I see the point.


How to improve Navy Myrmidon over the standard one? You can give it an extra low slot (or extra high), +25 m^3 drone bandwidth and 300 m^3 drone bay, for example. But, as the poster below you stated, that's not my point - I am more annoyed by the fact that Myrmidon will be the only Combat Battlecruiser without a T2 or Faction variant.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Perihelion Olenard
#475 - 2013-05-13 21:09:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Luscius Uta wrote:
Perihelion Olenard wrote:

The problem is it wouldn't offer much. It would already have five heavy drones like the navy Vexor. The only thing the navy Myrmidon could have over the navy Vexor would be more turrets for damage. I can't say I see the point.


How to improve Navy Myrmidon over the standard one? You can give it an extra low slot (or extra high), +25 m^3 drone bandwidth and 300 m^3 drone bay, for example. But, as the poster below you stated, that's not my point - I am more annoyed by the fact that Myrmidon will be the only Combat Battlecruiser without a T2 or Faction variant.

While it may not have the same model as the Myrmidon, the Eos will be a drone command ship once command ships are updated. Amarr won't have a drone command ship even though they have a tech 1 drone BC. For some odd reason it gets missiles.
Alkyria Decile
Delstar Corp
#476 - 2013-05-14 06:16:20 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Perihelion Olenard wrote:

The problem is it wouldn't offer much. It would already have five heavy drones like the navy Vexor. The only thing the navy Myrmidon could have over the navy Vexor would be more turrets for damage. I can't say I see the point.


How to improve Navy Myrmidon over the standard one? You can give it an extra low slot (or extra high), +25 m^3 drone bandwidth and 300 m^3 drone bay, for example. But, as the poster below you stated, that's not my point - I am more annoyed by the fact that Myrmidon will be the only Combat Battlecruiser without a T2 or Faction variant.

While it may not have the same model as the Myrmidon, the Eos will be a drone command ship once command ships are updated. Amarr won't have a drone command ship even though they have a tech 1 drone BC. For some odd reason it gets missiles.



I don't think people are complaining because they want another drone boat... Its because the myrm model is one of the best models in the game IMO. Paint it navy and give it any stats you want and people would preffer it over another brutix flying around Blink
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#477 - 2013-05-14 13:16:25 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:

While it may not have the same model as the Myrmidon, the Eos will be a drone command ship once command ships are updated. Amarr won't have a drone command ship even though they have a tech 1 drone BC. For some odd reason it gets missiles.


I'd put money on that the eos will be utilizing the myrmidon model once command ship changes go live shortly after summer xpack.
Arajo Taranian
Holding Corp 118
#478 - 2013-05-15 05:51:45 UTC
How it stands right now, the price of the Navy faction BC will cost way to much for the bonus it will provide. I can find canes now for what like 44mil?

I could see if you were doubling the price for a navy issue (like most other navy issue variants)

And you want me to pay 200M+ for the prenerf cane.

Come on now.
Seleucus Ontuas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#479 - 2013-05-15 08:37:44 UTC
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#480 - 2013-05-15 10:01:38 UTC
Arajo Taranian wrote:
How it stands right now, the price of the Navy faction BC will cost way to much for the bonus it will provide. I can find canes now for what like 44mil?

I could see if you were doubling the price for a navy issue (like most other navy issue variants)

And you want me to pay 200M+ for the prenerf cane.

Come on now.


Technically it's a prefer cane with a stack of extra hp, but yes I agree.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016