These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Player Features and Ideas Discussion » Battlecruiser and Battleship Buff

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page5678Next page

Battlecruiser and Battleship Buff First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Infinity Ziona

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 2,796

#121 - 2014-02-20 11:21:50 UTC

Kagura Nikon wrote:

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Lol. Says the Minnie frig and cruiser pilot :) Please enlighten me with your own personal solo Mega fit... You might want to get some experience before you comment or criticize those who know through experience what works and doesn't work.

You even checked our own killboards? Stop posting builllshit.. any POH member knows more of PVP than you will ever know.

Knowing how something should be fitted is as important when killing that thing as when flying it.

You on other hand kills nothing with ANYTHING. Your efficiency is under 50% ! That means you are barely better than an NPC. Mine is OVER 99%. So You have ZERO argument on this. You prooved you have no clue several times. That is not an opinion, its a FACT.

Also I do not see you killing anythign with that MEga of yours.

Also.. Most ships I fly use blasters on the last 1 year.

I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest with you regarding who's the better pvp'r. You called my mega fit fail, didn't specify what was fail about it, didn't post a better fit when I asked for one for solo.

You're killboard shows no mega losses or kills in mega, let alone solo mega kills. Therefore I conclude you know nothing about soloing in the mega. Am I right? Do you solo in mega's?

I didn't think so.

Efficiency means nothing out of context. My style of play is pure solo. In fact other than the POS the other day every kill I have ever gotten in game has been pure solo, no links, boosts. The majority in megathrons and battleships until they were nerfed out of the solo game.

Every kill I have in game I had a personal relationship with the pilot. Either through war or otherwise. I don't randomly kill people because sitting in a blob or at a gate and randomly killing people requires no skill. My method is to target a person, corporation or alliance and kill them. Its significantly harder to kill this way since the person, corp or alliance know you're hunting them.

The last war I had was with a null sec alliance in their home alliance hub. I got 32 kills for 2 deaths. 32/2 is not terribly bad imo. While I'm not the best pvp'r I make up for that with patience and a good understanding of what is required to kill people when the odds are stacked 1000/1 in the other persons favor.

That's what I enjoy doing, not kill ratio's, isk efficiency or otherwise. Trying to compare your style of play vs mine is pretty futile.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Corraidhin Farsaidh

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,194

#122 - 2014-02-20 11:24:04 UTC

Arthur Aihaken wrote:

Warp speed is a mixed bag of snakes, and while I'd personally like to see it increased for larger ships I suspect this has to do with keeping power projection in-check. I do agree with the scan resolution and I'd like to add sensor strength to the list, as it should be a lot harder to apply EW to battlecruisers and battleships. As for drones, instead of seeing them become prevalent in every race I would rather see something like a secondary weapons array for light (battlecruiser) and medium (battleship) weapons along the lines of secondary array = (maximum launchers+turrets/2 rounded up), to a maximum of five slots - which coincidently is the number of slots available in the fitting window (so you'd get 3 light launchers on a Drake, 4 light launchers on a Navy Drake, 3 medium launchers on a Raven and 4 medium launchers on a Navy Raven, as an example). This would actually address both the DPS and tracking issues.

I like the secondary weapons array though your proposal looks better than the module based idea I usggested. Frigates should only be attacking BS as a desperation tactic, not for a tasty KM snack...

Perhaps if T3 cruisers get a review and rebalance on their effectiveness there may be room for T3 BC's/BS's that can mount a secondary weapons array subsystem. Either that or redefine BS's/BC's to use the T3 design system and build them from subsystems (Main battery subsystem, secondary battery subsystem, armour, prop, scanning etc...). This would actually be more in line with how BS were really built (usually the ship was designed around the main battery it would carry)

Corraidhin Farsaidh

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,194

#123 - 2014-02-20 11:37:37 UTC

Infinity Ziona wrote:

That's what I enjoy doing, not kill ratio's, isk efficiency or otherwise. Trying to compare your style of play vs mine is pretty futile.

Completely agree here, everybody's playstyle is purely their own and comparison is pointless. I often run through lowsec avoiding combat in a cheap crappy loot fitted nereus gathering stuff I need. PvP types often look down on this and say it takes no skill to avoid combat, or escape it when someone tries to tackle you. Since I have chosen the correct fit for the task I'm performing I fulfill my playstyle whilst frustrating others. No amount of people telling me that what I do takes little skill changes the fact I achieved my goals and evaded theirs whilst minimizing risk.

Everybody should play Eve how they choose to play, nobody can tell you how to play nor should they belittle it. If their way of playing is 'better' they would do more for the game by inviting people to join them to see for themselves and explain by example.

Mike Whiite

Deep Core Mining Inc.

Caldari State

Likes received: 398

#124 - 2014-02-20 11:42:37 UTC

Kagura Nikon wrote:

Mike Whiite wrote:

Still think that if you size Webs, scramblers and disrupters as Neutrilisers and nosies are sized, you make a good start at making use or larger ships. or you make Warp strength dependend on the size of the ship. and give interceptors and interdictor a bonus on their disrupt/scamble strenght.

that will make it harder to pin battleships down, which will make them more usefull in smaller groups

That coudl work a bit. But then all ships larger than frigates need to get a bit more fittign so they can keep their current intended fits, but it their respective sized tackle.

Probbably.

By adjusting E-war resistance, the buff to larger ships in and against smaller gangs would be signifficant, while the buff will be less signiicant to blob warfare. and it will encourage more fleets of diverse classes/sizes.

Corraidhin Farsaidh

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,194

#125 - 2014-02-20 12:03:07 UTC | Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh

Mike Whiite wrote:

Probbably.

By adjusting E-war resistance, the buff to larger ships in and against smaller gangs would be significant, while the buff will be less signiicant to blob warfare. and it will encourage more fleets of diverse classes/sizes.

I like this idea, considering the warp core on a BS would be pretty massive it should take more to destabilize it, same with targeting systems etc. For instance the power available to frigs sensors would be much lower than that available to BC?BS class ships and should require less than a BS/BC to disrupt the sensors/tracking/other ECM affected mechanism

Infinity Ziona

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 2,796

#126 - 2014-02-20 12:05:01 UTC

Ellendras Silver wrote:

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Gigan Amilupar wrote:

Arthur Aihaken wrote:

Gigan Amilupar wrote:

I'm sorry, are you implying you want to add 5 more slots, not bound high-med-low description, to faction battle ships, 4 of these to regular battleships and so on down to battlecruisers?

I'm throwing it out there for discussion, yes.

That would honestly be an insane, game breaking buff. Admittedly some good points have been raised in this thread, such as the gulf between cap ships and battleships in terms of tank and w/e else. But adding 5 more slots (that don't have restrictions on module type(!!!)) would be a horrible idea. Look, if battleships really need a buff to survivability then the easiest solution is to add 1 more size up of plate/SE. That would, by proxy, free up a med/low slot on all BS's currently using dual plates or extenders and thus be a buff specifically to battleships fit for tank (assuming PG reqs and w/e else scaled the same way they do for the existing mods) as well as a buff to battleships that presently have a large excess of PG in their fits. But imo adding free slots (especially such a high amount of them) to a large number of ships would completely throw off the existing balance of the game.

EHP won't do anything for battleships. If you look at the progression of EHP things are fine. Apart from some wierd anomalies (T3, Stratios) EHP goes up quite uniformly.

1. More EHP will mean you'll get to sit there longer while you're killed being unable to hit the ships orbiting you for any reasonable damage.

2. The issues are less obvious -

Warp speed - too slow - increase to pre-nerf levels
Agility - again too slow - increase to that of BC (9 seconds is plenty of time to lock a battleship)
Scan resolution - too slow - increase to 200mm minimum capped for all ships (excluding capitals and sensor damps)
Drone capacity - too small - battleships should be able to fit a minimum of 1 flight of lights, 1 med, 1 heavy
Tracking - terrible - slight increase to large turrets

1. totaly agree i posted something similar X pages back

2. i cant agree here, you basicly want to create a smaller gap between battleships and capitals and i really think that is bad. capitals need seriously a TON of training to fly it decently and are nerfed several times, the interceptor change is brutal for ratting carriers as they are cought way faster if sentries are used its almost impossible to get away and if you use fighters you loose fighters because you need to be aligned and get out of repping range fast and fighters are too far away to rep. so die at 20 to 30 mil a piece. now the change to omnidirectional links is also bad for sentry carriers and that combined with the 50 assist drone cap that is comming wil make slowcats crap with a capital C

I don't quite understand where you're saying I want battleships to be more like capitals. My suggestions move battleships further away from capitals.

Warp speed simply increases a battleships ability to keep up with a roaming gang. Even at BC levels no battleship will escape smaller ships.

Agility simply allows battleships to align like BC, meaning they're more able to warp with gangs. At 9 seconds average align they will still be caught by every tackler in game.

Scan resolution is very poor on battleships. Increasing them to 50mm under BC rather than 150mm under helps them a lot while still having them lock slower than a BC.

Ability to field one flight of small, medium and heavy doesn't put them into the same light as a carrier. They will still have one flight of each rather than the carriers 500 flights. It simply gives them the option of being able to adapt to changing battle conditions. Drone bandwidth is the limiting factor to balance out drone usage.

In a ship vs ship comparison a battleship should be able to at least do equal damage down to cruiser size ships. If a cruisers shooting at me for 500 dps and has a max 500 dps and I'm shooting at the cruiser for 200 dps and have a max dps of 1000, something is awefully wrong there.

A slight buff to tracking would help this scenario.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Ellendras Silver

CrashCat Corporation

Likes received: 218

#127 - 2014-02-20 12:29:49 UTC | Edited by: Ellendras Silver

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Ellendras Silver wrote:

Quote:

I don't quite understand where you're saying I want battleships to be more like capitals. My suggestions move battleships further away from capitals.

1. Warp speed simply increases a battleships ability to keep up with a roaming gang. Even at BC levels no battleship will escape smaller ships.

2. Agility simply allows battleships to align like BC, meaning they're more able to warp with gangs. At 9 seconds average align they will still be caught by every tackler in game.

3. Scan resolution is very poor on battleships. Increasing them to 50mm under BC rather than 150mm under helps them a lot while still having them lock slower than a BC.

4. Ability to field one flight of small, medium and heavy doesn't put them into the same light as a carrier. They will still have one flight of each rather than the carriers 500 flights. It simply gives them the option of being able to adapt to changing battle conditions. Drone bandwidth is the limiting factor to balance out drone usage.

5. In a ship vs ship comparison a battleship should be able to at least do equal damage down to cruiser size ships. If a cruisers shooting at me for 500 dps and has a max 500 dps and I'm shooting at the cruiser for 200 dps and have a max dps of 1000, something is awefully wrong there.

6. A slight buff to tracking would help this scenario.

1. you the advantage of this buff to be able to keep up with slower ships, but you dont see that this gives battleships an advantage over capitals?

2. see point 1

3. and for a reason, its even lower on capitals so again you wan something that will give it a greater edge against capitals who have been nerfed to the ground for years, and the end is not in sight.

4. i do not agree i think the minimum should be 75m3 so they can carry flight of small and mediums several battleships would be OP if they had so much drone bandwidth and drone bay.

5. again i do not agree it depends on the cruisers speed/signature/fit and what not, you do not seem to understand what the role of a battleship is. and by this logic a cruiser should do equal damage to a frigate and that's even worse!

6. a blowjob from Mila Kunis would help me feeling better but we cant have it all can we? to keep it more on topic battleships have huge guns they track worse because of that its simple actually and all those points make a battleship OP and capitals are bleeding more, and i say they bled enough.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Infinity Ziona

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 2,796

#128 - 2014-02-20 12:29:58 UTC | Edited by: Infinity Ziona

[Stratios, DPS]
Internal Force Field Array I
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Scrambler II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

Ogre II x4
Garde II x4
Hammerhead II x5
Warrior II x5
Vespa EC-600 x5
Valkyrie SW-600 x5

This is a good example of how messed up battleships are vs smaller ships.

* This ship does 1k dps.

* It has 2 flights of heavies. 1 flight of lights. 1 flight of medium ecm drones. 1 flight of medium combat drones. And for kicks 1 flight of medium useless stasis webbifier drones. Its still got drone bay space.

* Aligns 3 times quicker than a BS.

* Warps faster

* Has less than half the sig.

* 3 x the scan resolution.

* Exactly the same sensor strength

* Applies its entire DPS

* Is almost twice as fast.

A battleship has a lot more EHP but given its applies its dps so poorly against a ship of this size its largely irrelevant. Take a mega for example, at less then 2k it hits this ship for around 200 dps or less while this ship hits for the full 1k.

Edit:

Oh yeah and whats worse... this is a freaking covert ops :)

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Ellendras Silver

CrashCat Corporation

Likes received: 218

#129 - 2014-02-20 12:34:02 UTC

Infinity Ziona wrote:

yeah this is a really honest comparrison, please try again with T1 battleship and T1 cruiser

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Infinity Ziona

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 2,796

#130 - 2014-02-20 12:37:30 UTC

Ellendras Silver wrote:

Infinity Ziona wrote:

yeah this is a really honest comparrison, please try again with T1 battleship and T1 cruiser

This is exactly the same price as a fit battleship and soon will be dropping to below battleship prices. And why are you comparing capitals and battleships? Capitals are not subcaps...

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Ellendras Silver

CrashCat Corporation

Likes received: 218

#131 - 2014-02-20 12:43:44 UTC

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Ellendras Silver wrote:

Infinity Ziona wrote:

yeah this is a really honest comparrison, please try again with T1 battleship and T1 cruiser

This is exactly the same price as a fit battleship and soon will be dropping to below battleship prices. And why are you comparing capitals and battleships? Capitals are not subcaps...

i am not comparing them all i say is if battleships are buffed like you suggest the GAP between battleships and capitals gets even smaller and that is wrong.

and making a comparison on price is wrong too, compare T1 battleship to a T1 cruiser if you want to make a point because if we compare on price you can scrap half of the ships and modules at least

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Infinity Ziona

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 2,796

#132 - 2014-02-20 12:50:52 UTC

Ellendras Silver wrote:

You mean its gets bigger? Battleships are sub capitals. They're entirely different ships. Battleships are generation 1 ships, they were released at the beginning of the game before capitals were even considered.

They have no relation to capitals. They are completely separate and need to be compared to their fellow sub-capitals.

Price is a very important consideration when considering balance between different ships. If a ship such as the Stratios can do everything I suggested at the same or cheaper price than a T1 battleship then T1 battleships become completely obsolete in general day to day pvp.

Why would you choose a battleship over a Stratios when it outperforms the battleship in almost every way + can warp cloaked and you can get it at the same price. I could do the same thing with a heavy assault cruiser. Cheaper as well, outperforms the battleship again, can't warp cloaked but it'll still kill a battleship easily while the battleship sits there unable to do anything.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Ellendras Silver

CrashCat Corporation

Likes received: 218

#133 - 2014-02-20 13:12:25 UTC

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Ellendras Silver wrote:

1. You mean its gets bigger? Battleships are sub capitals. They're entirely different ships. Battleships are generation 1 ships, they were released at the beginning of the game before capitals were even considered.

2. They have no relation to capitals. They are completely separate and need to be compared to their fellow sub-capitals.

3. Price is a very important consideration when considering balance between different ships. If a ship such as the Stratios can do everything I suggested at the same or cheaper price than a T1 battleship then T1 battleships become completely obsolete in general day to day pvp.

4. Why would you choose a battleship over a Stratios when it outperforms the battleship in almost every way + can warp cloaked and you can get it at the same price. I could do the same thing with a heavy assault cruiser. Cheaper as well, outperforms the battleship again, can't warp cloaked but it'll still kill a battleship easily while the battleship sits there unable to do anything.

1. i know what what is, what i am saying is that battleships are bigger and therefor slower. you want to make them stronger and faster so they can keep up with fleets of smaller ships, that is unrealistic and dumb. i am not comparing sub caps with capitals but you cant ignore that in PVP they face each other and your changes would give battleships an unfair advantage. don't forget that the battleship is the biggest class ships, before going capital and making that class stronger while leaving the nerfed to the ground capitals behind is game breaking.

2. but they do you need to go to battleship before you can train into a capital so, saying there isnt a relationship between them is silly.

3. no its not if you compare on price i can make a 1 billion isk rifter should that rifter be able to kill your precious battleship solo?

4. nobody is stopping you from flying a stratios, but here it is if everybody would do that then what? i tell you stratios price would go trough the roof, that is exactly why you cant compare on price. and implying that a HAC outclasses a battleship like you put it is ridiculous and wrong.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Infinity Ziona

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 2,796

#134 - 2014-02-20 14:09:18 UTC | Edited by: Infinity Ziona

Ellendras Silver wrote:

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Ellendras Silver wrote:

Battleships are not capitals they are subcapitals. They should not be significantly slower than a BC because there is no reason for it.

Agility is a factor of balancing. By adjusting agility you get to align faster and warp faster. Its also used by smaller ships when engaged in fast combat. Bigger ships are more vulnerable to being tackled and scrambled. Smaller ships are not. That's good.

However when you consider that a battleship can be locked by any other sub-capital in under 9 seconds it makes no difference if it warps in 9 seconds or it warps in 11 seconds. The only difference would be that a non-covert cloaked ship uncloaking would be unable to target and lock a battleship before it warped which it likely wouldn't even at 11 seconds.

Therefore the 11 seconds alignment only contributes to making battleships slower and less able to keep up in gangs. Its not silly that a battleship can keep up in fleets since battleships were traditionally very fast ships. They were never slow ships.

Its not unrealistic and dumb and would contribute to more battleships being able to pvp in EVE which is a good thing imo, its not unrealistic and dumb because battleships were once like that and worked fine. You also are completely missing that T1 battleships have to use gates, they un-like capitals don't have jump drives which makes the agility / speed issues with caps irrelevent while it makes the speed agility issue with battleships completely relevant.

There is no relationships between capitals and subcapitals. This includes battleships. Capitals are jump drive capable anti POS anti-capital ships with millions of EHP, hangers, refitting ability, huge dps vs other capitals.

The difference between your rifter and the stratios is we're not putting faction / deadspace / officer mods on the stratios, just the standard T1 and T2 mods, and while your rifter won't beat the BS even with all that bling, my cruiser will beat the battleship with no bling.

Do you honestly think its reasonable that a cruiser is doing 1k dps (battleship dps) while carrying 400m3 of drones while the battleship is doing around 200 dps while carrying 75m3 of drones lol. Basically the cruiser is doing BS dps and carrying BS amounts of drones while the BS is doing cruiser dps and carrying around cruiser amounts of drones and cannot covert cloak.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Ellendras Silver

CrashCat Corporation

Likes received: 218

#135 - 2014-02-20 14:31:22 UTC | Edited by: Ellendras Silver

Infinity Ziona wrote:

1. Battleships are not capitals they are subcapitals. They should not be significantly slower than a BC because there is no reason for it.

2. Agility is a factor of balancing. By adjusting agility you get to align faster and warp faster. Its also used by smaller ships when engaged in fast combat. Bigger ships are more vulnerable to being tackled and scrambled. Smaller ships are not. That's good.

3. However when you consider that a battleship can be locked by any other sub-capital in under 9 seconds it makes no difference if it warps in 9 seconds or it warps in 11 seconds. The only difference would be that a non-covert cloaked ship uncloaking would be unable to target and lock a battleship before it warped which it likely wouldn't even at 11 seconds.

4. Therefore the 11 seconds alignment only contributes to making battleships slower and less able to keep up in gangs. Its not silly that a battleship can keep up in fleets since battleships were traditionally very fast ships. They were never slow ships.

5. Its not unrealistic and dumb and would contribute to more battleships being able to pvp in EVE which is a good thing imo, its not unrealistic and dumb because battleships were once like that and worked fine. You also are completely missing that T1 battleships have to use gates, they un-like capitals don't have jump drives which makes the agility / speed issues with caps irrelevent while it makes the speed agility issue with battleships completely relevant.

6. There is no relationships between capitals and subcapitals. This includes battleships. Capitals are jump drive capable anti POS anti-capital ships with millions of EHP, hangers, refitting ability, huge dps vs other capitals.

7. The difference between your rifter and the stratios is we're not putting faction / deadspace / officer mods on the stratios, just the standard T1 and T2 mods, and while your rifter won't beat the BS even with all that bling, my cruiser will beat the battleship with no bling.

8. Do you honestly think its reasonable that a cruiser is doing 1k dps (battleship dps) while carrying 400m3 of drones while the battleship is doing around 200 dps while carrying 75m3 of drones lol. Basically the cruiser is doing BS dps and carrying BS amounts of drones while the BS is doing cruiser dps and carrying around cruiser amounts of drones and cannot covert cloak.

1. i never said they where learn how to read, and there is a VERY good reason why they are significantly slower then battle-cruisers for the same reason a capital is slower then a battleship its BIGGER and therefor slower and less agile.

2. yes and changing that to how you like it would be unfair and make them simply too strong.

3. it doesnt matter they are big and slow deal with it.

4. they should not be able to keep up with fleets of smaller ships, its called balance

5. only for traveling this is true for anything else you sir need to think before you post. warp speed and agility are key in battles and or getting away before getting tackled.

6. ofc there is you just refuse to acknoledge it like i said you MUST train battleships of said race to be able to train the carrier, dread or titan of that race therefore there is a direct relation ship so direct as mother and son. it gets better as black ops a T2 battle ship can USE the same way of traveling as capitals the so called jump drive.

7. so? you said very clearly that

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Price is a very important consideration

why is this different? i admit my example is extreme but it shows how price is NOT a factor to balance. size and tech level is.

8. i never said that, i say you cant compare on price i do agree that the DPS the stratios puts out is too high and it will be changed in near future i am sure. also a good reason why price should not and cannot be a argument of balance as prices change due to several effects.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Corraidhin Farsaidh

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,194

#136 - 2014-02-20 15:14:46 UTC

The more this discussion progresses the more I like the idea of a secondary armament module (or some other means to carry one) that gives a BS/BC the 'dual purpose' guns capability RL BS had. These would be a number of mounts for guns with 2 fire modes, using medium ammo against ships with medium turret dmg (though not as good as dedicated medium guns) or small ammo with tracking bonus against whatever (again with less dmg than dedicated small turrets)

Mournful Conciousness

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 901

#137 - 2014-02-20 15:18:39 UTC

Infinity Ziona wrote:

Thanks for the epic fit dude. I was working on a covops gank doctrine. You've solved it.

+1

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Ellendras Silver

CrashCat Corporation

Likes received: 218

#138 - 2014-02-20 15:18:57 UTC

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

i don't hate the idea, but it is hard to balance i think.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Corraidhin Farsaidh

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 2,194

#139 - 2014-02-20 15:40:32 UTC

Ellendras Silver wrote:

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

i don't hate the idea, but it is hard to balance i think.

Now there would be the trick :)

The secondaries would need to have low enough range as to not be much use unless close to another BS (i.e. in increased danger), but strong enough that main and secondary batteries should maul any cruiser using medium ammo, but also strong enough to take on frigs with small ammo but not as well as a dessie/frig escort, and certainly not well enough to deter multiple frigs from attacking (though at great risk to themselves).

Maybe it should be a hi slot module (it's guns or some such after all) and each module provides a pair of guns. This would mean a Talos could mount 5 BS guns + 6 secondaries to act as anti cruiser escort for BS. The secondaries would be modelled as pairs of turrets firing in unison. T1 and T2 variants would be single barrel turrets (T2 with better trackin/dmg), higher meta variants would bonus dmg or tracking, and faction turrets would be twin barrel.

This would force the BS pilot to choose between all out firepower against bigger subcaps or mixed capabilities at the expense of top end dps output against larger opponents.

I do quite like the idea of modelling BS/BC with the T3 fitting style now, obviously not as T3 ships but building them from subsystems. Could bring something new to BS/BC and give them a broader role once more without making them OP.

unidenify

Deaf Armada

Likes received: 201

#140 - 2014-02-20 16:09:29 UTC

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

I do like idea that BS can equip limit number of small turret to counter against small target

other idea that pop out of my mind is built in Damage Control modules (or BS level DC by require high PG/CPU). they consume more cap than normal but give better resistance

so, built in damage control would have around 15% shield/20% armour/70% hull

First pagePrevious page5678Next page