These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Idea: t2 Heavy Command battleships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lugh Crow-Slave
#21 - 2015-01-24 23:37:38 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Hellfire, you've mentioned 3 types of missile sizes which is strange.

Next thing is dual armor bonuses (resists & hitpoints), which simply make it overetanked.




where have you been m8 BS have 3 missile types now Cruise Rapid heavy and torps go look at the raven, scorp, widow


I know that, and it's not a Caldari BS.



Ok and the typhoon its not a caldari only thing

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2015-01-25 00:28:03 UTC
Oh c'mon stop baiting words.

A fire from he'll which is a hellfire is more associated with lasors than rockets.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Lugh Crow-Slave
#23 - 2015-01-25 00:47:33 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Oh c'mon stop baiting words.

A fire from he'll which is a hellfire is more associated with lasors than rockets.


hell fire missiles?

i think it's fitting

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2015-01-25 01:03:20 UTC
lol I ruined my own concept of heaven and hell


"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-01-25 03:43:01 UTC
I am enjoying the comment thread here so far immensely.

Ok so good points were brought up about the drone boosts, and the ewar boost stepping on information warfare links' toes. So let's set aside ewar boosts off the table for a bit, and try some different ideas.

What about missiles? I can see the drone one being useful for sub-cap drones to a certain degree without making sentries any stronger, so how about setting it up so it gives out bonuses to missile velocity and explosion velocity?
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#26 - 2015-01-25 03:46:19 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Hellfire, you've mentioned 3 types of missile sizes which is strange.

Next thing is dual armor bonuses (resists & hitpoints), which simply make it overetanked.




The missile velocity for heavies is so it can use rapid heavy launchers. The dual tanking bonus is from it being the Damnation's larger sibling, and the fact that I absolutely adore khanid ships. Big smile
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#27 - 2015-01-25 04:30:06 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Hellfire, you've mentioned 3 types of missile sizes which is strange.

Next thing is dual armor bonuses (resists & hitpoints), which simply make it overetanked.




The missile velocity for heavies is so it can use rapid heavy launchers. The dual tanking bonus is from it being the Damnation's larger sibling, and the fact that I absolutely adore khanid ships. Big smile


I would love to see a khanid missile hull based on the badon.

I like what you did with the command bonuses, they're a little more balanced than they were before. However I think on a fundamental level though I'm still a little unsure about another boosting ship adding fleet bonuses. It's a role that's already filled well, even if the different kinds of bonuses that you've proposed, on the larger ship end of the spectrum. I'm not opposed to fleet boosts as a concept, but I think expanding the mechanic too much begins to add meaningless layers to optimization that won't add new game-play.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-01-25 04:59:44 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Hellfire, you've mentioned 3 types of missile sizes which is strange.

Next thing is dual armor bonuses (resists & hitpoints), which simply make it overetanked.




The missile velocity for heavies is so it can use rapid heavy launchers. The dual tanking bonus is from it being the Damnation's larger sibling, and the fact that I absolutely adore khanid ships. Big smile


U should take one armor bonus off, which is armor hitpoints. Khanid has only provides resists one. Otherwise with couple of bank's and pair of 1600mm dcu reactive armor hardener it's gonna be a hardest ship ever to crack.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#29 - 2015-01-25 05:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Hellfire, you've mentioned 3 types of missile sizes which is strange.

Next thing is dual armor bonuses (resists & hitpoints), which simply make it overetanked.




The missile velocity for heavies is so it can use rapid heavy launchers. The dual tanking bonus is from it being the Damnation's larger sibling, and the fact that I absolutely adore khanid ships. Big smile


U should take one armor bonus off, which is armor hitpoints. Khanid has only provides resists one. Otherwise with couple of bank's and pair of 1600mm dcu reactive armor hardener it's gonna be a hardest ship ever to crack.

The damnation already has the same tanking bonuses, but unlike it the Hellfire has lower resists, and gigantic sig radius that makes it more vulnerable to capital weapons.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#30 - 2015-01-25 05:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Hellfire, you've mentioned 3 types of missile sizes which is strange.

Next thing is dual armor bonuses (resists & hitpoints), which simply make it overetanked.




The missile velocity for heavies is so it can use rapid heavy launchers. The dual tanking bonus is from it being the Damnation's larger sibling, and the fact that I absolutely adore khanid ships. Big smile


I would love to see a khanid missile hull based on the badon.

I like what you did with the command bonuses, they're a little more balanced than they were before. However I think on a fundamental level though I'm still a little unsure about another boosting ship adding fleet bonuses. It's a role that's already filled well, even if the different kinds of bonuses that you've proposed, on the larger ship end of the spectrum. I'm not opposed to fleet boosts as a concept, but I think expanding the mechanic too much begins to add meaningless layers to optimization that won't add new game-play.


Well the idea is that you offer one as an alternate to the other; these battleships are a bit more combat capable and provide decent passive boosts that don't rely on fitted links with all the related link skills to train.
So while command ships are harder to get into, they boost fleets more effectively and are generally more affordable. These give a different set of bonuses, are significantly more resilient, and are easier to spec into, despite being quite a bit more expensive.

The general idea is that they complement each other, without being too overpowered or redundant, and that they're sort of a halfway between command ships and titans in terms of a fleet command boat.

That aside, I would like you to imagine a broadside of missiles coming out one side of the Hellfire; the abby has that nice broadside of lasers with little portholes, and they'd look perfect for launching missiles.

That, and you can play this when you take one out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3NoDEu7kpg
Jenshae Chiroptera
#31 - 2015-01-25 05:27:31 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd rather not have as many bonuses to individual ships for flying in a fleet. Small gangs are already at a disadvantage for being small.
I'd be in support if these ships were like regular command ships, having to fit the same ganglink modules. That way you couldn't stack the effects from these battleships on top of other command bonuses.
This makes sense.
ShahFluffers wrote:
Until warfare links apply only on grid... I'm going to have to say "no" to this idea.
As does this.

At a glance the OP is making a solid post and not going too far into "I wish land." I applaud the effort and will be keeping an eye on how this thread refines itself with interest.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#32 - 2015-01-25 08:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:

I updated the OP with new bonuses for them; Gallente one might be adding some fuel to the fire for drones, but I think it would be useful for bigger fights involving fighters and such.


the problem with the gal one is fighters are already able to apply damage to well to sub caps even as small as cruisers as well the last thing we need is Ishtars with better tracking than they had b4 the nerf


and the caldari one would get over ridden if some one was using the same warfare link on a T3 or BC thats why i had it as cycle time rather than strength or people would just oped to use the stronger smaller (and no doubt cheaper) one on a command ship

However the problem with cycle time is it would force all E-war to use more cap however can change scripts more offten

it could could be useful on nuets if you have the cap for it(blood ships would be scary and it may need to not affect nuet/nos for this reason)

with ECM you are now in a situation where you get more roles to see if you jam but your jams don't last as long


You made a pretty decent point with the bonuses for the Dragon stepping on the toes of information warfare links; I'm going to replace it a bonus to turret and missile range, which should benefit all sorts of fleet comps quite a bit, comparable to the bonus from the Warhammer.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#33 - 2015-01-25 09:16:39 UTC
lol again drone tracking 15% on top of the Ishtars base tracking bonus will make it a nightmare

on the dragon a 15% optimal to weapons will be useless on most caldari battle ships as they can already hit past the games hard limit and will make things like the kestrel crow and hawk a nightmare if fit with missiles and forget about hitting a SB if its got this boost and a few damps



there is probably a reason no boosts thus far have given offensive bonuses to things other than E-war

another thing to look at with the dragon is maybe a shield recharge rate it's a state that a lot of people over look in PvP but can give that little boost you need.


(still surprised how well this thread is goingShocked)

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#34 - 2015-01-25 10:03:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
lol again drone tracking 15% on top of the Ishtars base tracking bonus will make it a nightmare

on the dragon a 15% optimal to weapons will be useless on most caldari battle ships as they can already hit past the games hard limit and will make things like the kestrel crow and hawk a nightmare if fit with missiles and forget about hitting a SB if its got this boost and a few damps



there is probably a reason no boosts thus far have given offensive bonuses to things other than E-war

another thing to look at with the dragon is maybe a shield recharge rate it's a state that a lot of people over look in PvP but can give that little boost you need.


(still surprised how well this thread is goingShocked)

Yeah I've done a lot of lolwut posts in the past over ships that I wanted to see, so I've learned to calm down when I actually want to make a point or talk about something important I want to see.

I get your point about the range, but generally I view the long ranges on rails as an opportunity to fit higher-damage ammo at longer ranges, rather than to hit out to absurdly long range, even though having that as an option is very nice. The line I'm attempting to tread hear for these are unique bonuses that aren't too unbalanced or redundant in relation to warfare links or titan boosts.

Another way to look at their 'place' in relation to command ships would be that command boats are best as squad boosters, these are best for wing boosts, and titans are best for fleet boosts. You can have any of them boosting at any level, but having a neat conceptual progression that goes from small to large like that should both work nicely and *feel* nice for how they're plugged into a fleet. The hellfire's tank and bonuses would make it very popular for armor fleets, with the damnation's options for links, as well as its size and mobility make it more ideal as a flexible squad booster.

The Zeus has a good place with the drone bonuses I think; keeping it to speed and tracking benefits larger drones without unbalancing things too terribly with sentries (15% tracking speed bonus at max for a weapon system designed around sniping shouldn't be too game-breaking). The Hellfire and Warhammer look like they have good bonuses since they're fairly unique, but I'm still scratching my head over what the heck I can use for the Dragon. Your idea with passive regen is interesting and unique, but not at all applicable to PVP settings which these are centered around.

I'm going to sleep on it for a bit, but before I do I'll throw a few ideas for you and everyone else to consider for the Dragon's bonuses specifically:
-Reduce turret and missile sig radius
-Increase scan resolution
-Increase sensor strength
-Increase local repair amount

Any of those look good to you?
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#35 - 2015-02-26 02:07:04 UTC
Question here: Does anyone think that the command bonuses for the Zeus should apply to fighters and bombers as well, or just subcap drones?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#36 - 2015-02-26 02:25:48 UTC
+1 Keep going, still intrigued.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#37 - 2015-02-26 02:25:59 UTC
I'm a little iffy about the having reduced damage, tanky, probably ignored at the outset of a fight ship being a gang-link bonus ship. They're big and slow, and they don't mesh well with the kinds of ships that benefit from skirmish links, especially in an on grid context.

The ships that I see as the support vessels are those that make fights possible, even if they don't have any direct combat bonuses. In the frigate canon, these would be the exploration ships. Even though they get neither damage nor tanking bonuses, the do have drone bays, and they are essential for probing down hostile squads. (Half of them can also fit a decent hull tank.) In a gang context, they can sport a remote sensor booster, ECCM or tracking computer as easily as a long point since no ships get bonuses to these modules. A helper ship really makes it possible for an insta-locker inty to produce that content.

We wouldn't have any need of off-grid boosters if gang links were a more common module to fit. They would be a great alternative to some of the other utility highslots on many ships with similar fitting requirements. I'd like to see simpler gang-links intended only to boost 10 ships on grid with that pilot, or an even smaller effect that is shared amongst squad members with stacking penalties. Making them more of a common fit component would get more people training leadership skills up to IV at least.

How about instead we divvy up the links based on hull class? Tanking or damage links can go to the slow and lumbering fleet members, while speed and locking related links can go to the more nimble squads. It would make for an interesting new T2 destroyer class, especially if it was bundled in some kind of anti-bomber picket type of ship.

BC class command ships could be divvied up further into those which give resist bonuses and those which bonus remote and local rep links.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#38 - 2015-02-26 02:38:45 UTC
Lienzo wrote:
I'm a little iffy about the having reduced damage, tanky, probably ignored at the outset of a fight ship being a gang-link bonus ship. They're big and slow, and they don't mesh well with the kinds of ships that benefit from skirmish links, especially in an on grid context.

The ships that I see as the support vessels are those that make fights possible, even if they don't have any direct combat bonuses. In the frigate canon, these would be the exploration ships. Even though they get neither damage nor tanking bonuses, the do have drone bays, and they are essential for probing down hostile squads. (Half of them can also fit a decent hull tank.) In a gang context, they can sport a remote sensor booster, ECCM or tracking computer as easily as a long point since no ships get bonuses to these modules. A helper ship really makes it possible for an insta-locker inty to produce that content.

We wouldn't have any need of off-grid boosters if gang links were a more common module to fit. They would be a great alternative to some of the other utility highslots on many ships with similar fitting requirements. I'd like to see simpler gang-links intended only to boost 10 ships on grid with that pilot, or an even smaller effect that is shared amongst squad members with stacking penalties. Making them more of a common fit component would get more people training leadership skills up to IV at least.

How about instead we divvy up the links based on hull class? Tanking or damage links can go to the slow and lumbering fleet members, while speed and locking related links can go to the more nimble squads. It would make for an interesting new T2 destroyer class, especially if it was bundled in some kind of anti-bomber picket type of ship.

BC class command ships could be divvied up further into those which give resist bonuses and those which bonus remote and local rep links.

The idea of changing up what class of ships give out what kind of links tickles me. You make an excellent point with having link bonuses apply to and more importantly, FROM ships that are relevant to the types of links being given out. I can see faster ships being in charge of skirmish and information warfare links, and tankier ships like these being in charge of siege and armored warfare links. It also explains the difficulty I have in coming up with appropriate combat links.

That being said, this thread is about boosting t2 tier 3 battlecruisers. Perhaps you could make your own thread about the idea you've raised? Also, what would you think about the idea of these being anti-link ships? I.e. they would lessen the effectiveness of enemy warfare links within a certain radius?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#39 - 2015-02-26 02:39:41 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Question here: Does anyone think that the command bonuses for the Zeus should apply to fighters and bombers as well, or just subcap drones?


fighters the 15% shouldn't be a problem but again this will make sentries even more of a problem when used with already bonused ships

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#40 - 2015-02-26 03:12:05 UTC
Change the caldari one to missiles and the amarr one to projectiles that way all systems are represented and all of them are using their races main weapons.


then i would change the caldari fleet bonus to missile application

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Previous page123Next page