These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Navy issue battlecruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#61 - 2011-12-23 03:47:52 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:

Sounds about right. Point I was making; do we really need Navy BC's, especially in the face of other changes that would be more welcome?

Yes, it would probably be nice but I could pimp a drake to about 300 mil and it'd probably fill the role.


[Brutix Navy Issue, Active T2]
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Warp Disruptor II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I


Hammerhead II x5
Hammerhead II x5

Yes, I need this. I needs my fix, baby

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2011-12-23 05:17:09 UTC
TrueGrits Chris wrote:
Who else thinks this would be a good add on to the game faction battlecruiser.

I love to see a fleet issue hurricane or navy issue drakeBig smile



Fleet issue cyclone and fleet issue ferox and brutix and prophecy maybe.

Drake and cane are already too good to need a navy version.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **
Capital T
Doomheim
#63 - 2011-12-23 06:05:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Capital T
RougeOperator wrote:
TrueGrits Chris wrote:
Who else thinks this would be a good add on to the game faction battlecruiser.

I love to see a fleet issue hurricane or navy issue drakeBig smile



Fleet issue cyclone and fleet issue ferox and brutix and prophecy maybe.

Drake and cane are already too good to need a navy version.




IMO, there already exists an enhanced version of the Cyclone, Ferox, Prophecy and Brutix.... The command ships.

A navy issue cane, drake, myrm, and harbinger would be more logical imo. Maybe the command ships need a boost... lol
ElCholo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2011-12-23 06:16:51 UTC
Capital T wrote:

IMO, there already exists an enhanced version of the Cyclone, Ferox, Prophecy and Brutix.... The command ships.

A navy issue cane, drake, myrm, and harbinger would be more logical imo. Maybe the command ships need a boost... lol


Since when has that stopped them from anything?

Scorpion, Navy Scorpion, Widow.
Raven, Navy Raven, Golem.
Rokh….

Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Panther.
Tempest, Fleet Tempest, Vargur.
Maelstrom…

Etc...
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#65 - 2011-12-23 06:46:17 UTC
Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.

Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed.
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2011-12-23 07:55:29 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.

Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed.



Command ships use Command links.

navy ships would not step on the toes of their role. Tech 3 cruisers already did that.

making navy BCs would be no different then what we have now in terms of Navy cruisers vs HACs etc.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#67 - 2011-12-23 08:43:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rel'k Bloodlor
There is also the problem of the skill for fling BC.
Its an omni skill and the hulls right now only need frig4+cru3 to fly. So they will have to be very alike or every one will just spend the 5 days crossing in to the "best one"(realy bad if its brutix/ferox). This also makes pie one's almost impossible to do.







"You do realize... that the logi skills lead you into triage carrier skills..... right? I mean... that's not really a dead end there."

Cheshire Katt



I do but still feel that logi is a shallow tree, If taken to its fullest is just like you stated is good for carriers. Now look at that with "noob" eyes, see it?

every other T2 type go's in trees, usually starting at frigg and going up, skills, style of play, use, doctrine all overlapping. It makes them "seem" better because there is less of a time gap, logi's take a bit of time to get to, and carriers take longer. now compare it so some thing that also takes time to make it worth wile, cov op to recon to black op.

Almost as skill intensive, but has a flow the new player can start flying "sneaky" ships early and take it through a big chunk of play time.

And this in a nut shell is part of the problem with BC's ez to get, use what you needed to get there, and a big leap over what you had before. And that's why I feel "if" they do navy BC's they should help fill a play experience hole not just give us dream boats.

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#68 - 2011-12-23 11:45:26 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.

Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed.


False. Assuming you gave a harbinger the standard navy buffs of +50% HP and +50% sensor strength, it would still do less dps and have less tank than a comparably fit absolution. The raw EHP difference wouldn't be that big, but the resistance difference would be every bit as massive as it is compared to the base harbinger. That resistance makes a big difference the instant you start using any sort of RR. The real advantage of field CS's over ordinary BC's is not dps or EHP (although they have both), it's the shield/armor resistances. That advantage won't be infringed on with navy BC's assuming everything keeps the same bonuses.

That said, I wouldn't mind a minor CS buff. Fleet CS's should have 5% per lvl bonus to ganglinks (or nerf t3's to 3%) while field CS's should gain a slot or two and a little fitting resources to use them. In the case of my abso, a 4th mid and enough grid/CPU to fit a medium t2 cap booster would be nice. For the slep, an extra midslot would also be very welcome. Not sure on nighthawk and astarte, never messed with them.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#69 - 2011-12-24 02:09:52 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:

Sounds about right. Point I was making; do we really need Navy BC's, especially in the face of other changes that would be more welcome?

Yes, it would probably be nice but I could pimp a drake to about 300 mil and it'd probably fill the role.


[Brutix Navy Issue, Active T2]
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Warp Disruptor II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I


Hammerhead II x5
Hammerhead II x5

Yes, I need this. I needs my fix, baby

-Liang


Lol I want that too now.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#70 - 2011-12-24 14:13:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Alara IonStorm wrote:

Nerfing them could make it easier to balance Cruisers. [...]


No, it wouldn't, and why should it?
They are two.
Distinct.
Classes.
Of ships.

Alara Ionstorm wrote:
I am not of course saying nerf everyone the same but bonus adjustments to make some more useful and others more in line with a Battlecruiser baseline if you would. You don't have to bring them all in line with the best but you don't need to bring them in line with the worst ether.


Yes, you are. Your picking of BCs as some kind of baseline--for a chassis that costs 1/4 as much and takes little time to train into, vs. a chassis that costs 4x more and needs high skills to get the most out of is proof of this. Your "baseline" is completely arbitrary. Why nerf-bat BCs to cruiser levels when,

A) That many cruisers are useless pieces of shite isn't any of the BCs' fault--nerfing BCs will not change or improve this, only improving the cruisers will.

B) The--arguably only--Tech I cruiser that really works is the one that is most focussed around an explicit role, and that's the Caldari Blackbird, with its' Tech II variants expanding on this, at much greater cost. Why can't this be done for all cruisers?

And more to the point, again, what the f does nerfing a whole separate ship-class have to do with this? Especially as regards the EWAR example--no BC has this ability, beyond the nominal sense, IE you can fit an EWAR mod in any ship that has a free mid and use it (un-bonussed targetted ECM is usually not that great--ECM burst is stronger, but also begging to get CONCORD'ed outside of null/losec, but I'm digressing...)

Alara Ionstorm wrote:
Decide exactly how useful you want them to be then buff Cruisers accordingly.


Yes, indeed: But deciding how cruisers should be buffed, and then doing it has nothing to do with BCs.

Read it slowly, once again:

They.
Are.
Distinct.
From
Each other.

FFS...RollUgh

Ni.
Alara IonStorm
#71 - 2011-12-24 14:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Lyrrashae wrote:

No, it wouldn't, and why should it? They are two. Distinct.Classes. Of ships.

That interact with each other using the same types of weapons and modules. Roll

Lyrrashae wrote:

Yes, you are. Your picking of BCs as some kind of baseline--for a chassis that costs 1/4 as much and takes little time to train into, vs. a chassis that costs 4x more and needs high skills to get the most out of is proof of this. Your "baseline" is completely arbitrary. Why nerf-bat BCs to cruiser levels when,

Cost is not a factor in balance of Tier 1 Hulls. Roles are a the major factor. No they do not take high skill they take a few days longer more or equal skill. All Weapons are the same, Tank Modules are the same and the skill itself is only 2 ranks higher.

No ship should be considered better just different.
Lyrrashae wrote:

A) That many cruisers are useless pieces of shite isn't any of the BCs' fault--nerfing BCs will not change or improve this, only improving the cruisers will.
B) The--arguably only--Tech I cruiser that really works is the one that is most focussed around an explicit role, and that's the Caldari Blackbird, with its' Tech II variants expanding on this, at much greater cost. Why can't this be done for all cruisers?

You keep saying Nerfing battlecruisers when I continually refer to Drake and Cane.

I would prefer Battlecruisers were balanced around the other Battlecruisers not the most OP two.

Lyrrashae wrote:

Yes, indeed: But deciding how cruisers should be buffed, and then doing it has nothing to do with BCs.

Absolutely it does because they are the main reason for the majorities disappearance from small gangs and fleets. Any Cruiser Rebalance has to look into how they scale against there main competition.
Versuvius Marii
Browncoats of Persephone
Ironworks Coalition
#72 - 2011-12-24 20:08:51 UTC
ElCholo wrote:
I would rather see the tier 1 BCs as faction issues. It would be fun to have a Fleet Cyclone. Maybe make them a little more viable since the tier 2 BCs usually make the tier 1 BCs obsolete.

Clearly sir, you've never fought a properly fitted Cyclone. Or fought against one for that matter.

The Gaming MoD - retro to modern, console to MMO, I blog about it if it's a game and I'm interested in it. Yes, I play games other than Eve and I don't care if you think I'm wrong.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#73 - 2011-12-24 20:23:48 UTC
Versuvius Marii wrote:
ElCholo wrote:
I would rather see the tier 1 BCs as faction issues. It would be fun to have a Fleet Cyclone. Maybe make them a little more viable since the tier 2 BCs usually make the tier 1 BCs obsolete.

Clearly sir, you've never fought a properly fitted Cyclone. Or fought against one for that matter.


Does a "properly fitted Cyclone" include a faction fit, blue pill, crystal set, and tengu+loki booster?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
King Rothgar
Deadly Solutions
#74 - 2011-12-24 22:03:27 UTC
That's my conclusion on the cyclone. Even with all that it still isn't terribly impressive. And believe me, I've tried. How I wish I could do with a cyclone what I can do with a maelstrom. But it just isn't happening with only 5 mids.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#75 - 2011-12-25 01:00:55 UTC
I would favor the absolution getting another turret or another mid along with extra fitting.

The sleipnir has 7 turrets with double damage bonus along with a 40m3 drone bay.

The Absolution has only 6 turrets with double damage bonus with a 25 m3 drone bay.

It needs another one.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2011-12-25 02:58:22 UTC
+1 for Tier 1's, maybe a Myrm, maybe a Harby.
No navy issue drakes or canes please.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#77 - 2011-12-25 03:14:54 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
+1 for Tier 1's, maybe a Myrm, maybe a Harby.
No navy issue drakes or canes please.


Does this mean I can't have my fleet issue stark white/stark black Hurricane? It would make my SWTOR PVP videos work oh so much better.... :(

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#78 - 2011-12-25 05:40:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
RougeOperator wrote:
Soon Shin wrote:
Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.

Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed.



Command ships use Command links.

navy ships would not step on the toes of their role.


Are you saying the role of (field) Command ships is to fit the gang-links for the whopping 22.5% bonus at a cost of gimping their (already mediocre) performance?

You must be fitting a gank-link onto your Titan, too. Otherwise, behave yourself and cut the crap.

Insisting on field CS having a gang-link is like asking a tachyon apoc to have tackling gear. It might work here and there, but in general it's pretty moronic as you have cheaper ships to do that for the same effect.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
BringerMC
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2011-12-25 05:56:11 UTC
How about we make T2 versions of the Tier 2 BC but they are glorified capital killers.

Make it so they can fit Capital Citadel Torpedos but no cloaky action like the stealth bombers. They can also not fit bomb launchers. They will be designed to be heavy tanked and designed to murder Capital Ships.

Just a thought. Really need a niche subcap that is designed for killings caps.

Join **The Ghost Division **Today! Because Pac-man ghosts driving Panzers can't be beat.
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2011-12-25 13:01:33 UTC
If anything the Harbinger, Drake and Hurricane should be nerfed (loosing a slot at least). They are way too popular atm and obsolete too many other ships. If these three were brought inline, there would be more diversity in space than can be achieved by adding better hulls of these ships.