These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Battleships and ammo bays
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Otto Schultzky
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2016-11-24 23:30:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Otto Schultzky
Typical cargo capacity of a Battleship is rather dismal, excluding Marauders, considering the size of Large Ammo and Cap Boosters 800 and1600.

So instead of buffing cargo capacity, give all Battleship sized hulls a "dedicated ammo bay" 400~500 m^3. Similar in function to the one on the Hoarder, just a lot smaller.

Any possible problems? May be a slight buff to Active Tanking, or more like people don't have to fit cargo expansion rigs and / or do cargo container voodoo to cram that extra one set of Cap Boosters 800~1600.
Iain Cariaba
#2 - 2016-11-24 23:44:04 UTC
Ever stopped to consider that cargo bay sizes and the size of some things, like cap booster charges, is made that way for a reason?

Here's a hint. It's called balance. Perhaps you should use the conveniently provided forum search tool, found in the upper right corner of the page, to search your idea and read the already given reasons why.
Otto Schultzky
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2016-11-24 23:57:07 UTC
Sorry my bad.

When searching for "Battleship ammo bays", i got no results.

When searching for "Ammo bays" on the other hand points to the previous Battleship ammo bay topic.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2016-11-25 01:40:38 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Ever stopped to consider that cargo bay sizes and the size of some things, like cap booster charges, is made that way for a reason?

Here's a hint. It's called balance. Perhaps you should use the conveniently provided forum search tool, found in the upper right corner of the page, to search your idea and read the already given reasons why.

Yet we have large sub caps languishing in a dismal place in the meta for the most part. Maybe larger base cargo holds might be a way to actually help them out a little without changing the core of EHP/DPS/Tank.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2016-11-25 07:47:21 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Ever stopped to consider that cargo bay sizes and the size of some things, like cap booster charges, is made that way for a reason?

Here's a hint. It's called balance. Perhaps you should use the conveniently provided forum search tool, found in the upper right corner of the page, to search your idea and read the already given reasons why.

Yet we have large sub caps languishing in a dismal place in the meta for the most part. Maybe larger base cargo holds might be a way to actually help them out a little without changing the core of EHP/DPS/Tank.



they are just used less because bigger ships take more to use fall into narrower niches and require more planning to properly utilize.

when used properly they are powerful ships keep buffing them and your going to be sorry

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-11-25 08:13:41 UTC
Buff Machariels

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#7 - 2016-11-25 17:57:32 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Ever stopped to consider that cargo bay sizes and the size of some things, like cap booster charges, is made that way for a reason?

Here's a hint. It's called balance. Perhaps you should use the conveniently provided forum search tool, found in the upper right corner of the page, to search your idea and read the already given reasons why.



Yet things like the svipul or hecate have cargoholds only 50-100m3 less than a battleship. Even some cruisers have cargoholds bigger than battleships. Marauders finally broke this with the golem having 1200m3 of space. Not that i think all BS need 1200m3, but a 20-25% buff in capacity for most BS would be a good start.

Also, torp or cruise missile BS are hilariously short on cargo and CB space since missiles use much more space than other ammo types. Plus if you want to take advantage of missiles and having selectable damage you need at least 4 stacks of missiles, plus t2 (another 4 stack) and t2 precision or javelin (another 4 stack). Oh plus a mobile depot and mods if you want to rep up while on a roam, nanite paste, boosters and exotic dancers. Normally why i dont run active tanks on missile ships, unless its a golem.

Where as, gallente just use drones, or only need 2-3 ammo types (faction AM, null, void). Projectiles are similar but use less space than missiles and lasers use barely any space. A general BS capacity buff wouldnt suddenly make them OP.

Having an extra 25% m3 of cargo wont make BS OP, you can still drop a dread or nyx and 2 shot them like always.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#8 - 2016-11-25 18:50:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
How about making Torpedo BS's viable as well.

The OP's original argument is valid, a BS should have a corresponding BS sized cargo whether its balanced or not.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#9 - 2016-11-25 19:17:40 UTC
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
How about making Torpedo BS's viable as well.

The OP's original argument is valid, a BS should have a corresponding BS sized cargo whether its balanced or not.


They can be viable. Id like to see some fitting and range adjustments, but currently there are a few good torpedo BS (typhoon, navy raven, golem, Scorp navy).

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!