These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Ship-troduction: The Minmatar Tornado

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nopsa
Lithium Flower.
#181 - 2011-10-21 16:29:54 UTC
I hail the torp drake!
Your day shall be soon.
Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#182 - 2011-10-21 16:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ugleb
While cool, doesn't a BC dealing BS-level damage kind of make BS more irrelevant? You get the damage output without the price tag on a faster more manoeuvrable ship. Ok its not as tough, there is going to be more of these on the field to do the melting, right?

Conceptually it seems to be a step towards further cementing BC dominance on the field. Bit bothered by that.

Please do not give these large weapon BC's any sort of tracking bonus. 'Glass cannons' might be a good design principle here.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!
Toshiko Kin
Material Reclamation Services
#183 - 2011-10-21 16:30:48 UTC
Sa-weet!
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#184 - 2011-10-21 16:30:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Digital Gaidin
Tippia wrote:
Laktos wrote:
What on earth are you on about? A standard tanked bc has 70-80k ehp. 40k is half that. If they can reach 40k at max, then that is a reduced tanking ability compared to a standard battlecruiser.
I'm on about how you put up normally fitted BCs as an example of how they will be somehow at a disadvantage. There is a reason why people shield-tank their Hurricanes and Brutixes, and that reason remains even with these new ships. So, if these ships achieve the same tank with the same fits, then they are not paying for their additional firepower.

But sure, if you insist: I retract my previous retraction: they should tank like shield-tanked thoraxes and ruptures — gunsize+1 → tanksize-1.

I disagree... there is an interesting historical precedent for this type of ship dating back to WW2 (google Pocket Battleships if you want to learn more). If anything, they should tank along the lines of a Cruiser/Battlecruiser class but carry a Battleships armament. Their advantages include near Battleship firepower (we don't know how many turrets/launchers though - maybe 6?), and the speed and agility of a Cruiser. Their disadvantage is that they cannot take the hits like a Battleship, meaning they effectively have a nasty glass jaw that'll be their achilles heal.

I'd like to see these ships land in the 35-40mil price range on the market, have probably 6 launchers/turrets, and a tank just slightly higher than a T2 Battlecruiser (think Harbinger/Hurricane, not Drake/Myrmidon). If possible, avoiding an uber-tanking option like the Drake would be preferred else a new "one size fits all" fleet doctrine will be shoehorned into EVE.

Due to tracking issues, these ships will likely be far better against larger ships and/or long range engagements, as they will have the same tracking issues Battleships do in a knife fight and likely lack the longetivity on grid and/or the larger drone bays of Tier 1 Battleships to fend off smaller/faster/agile foes.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#185 - 2011-10-21 16:31:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Laktos wrote:
CCP have said they will not tank like battleships. That does not mean they will tank like battlecruisers, the dev blog did not put a limit on how little they will tank, only on how much they can tank.
Yes, but the wording is indicative of a rather flawed thinking: they get the benefit of BS guns, and the supposed price for this is “not a BS tank” which is not a price at all.

The price would be the reduced tracking compared to tank. These tier 3 BCs should be easy prey for HACs and recons.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#186 - 2011-10-21 16:33:04 UTC
Ugleb wrote:
While cool, doesn't a BC dealing BS-level damage kind of make BS more irrelevant? You get the damage output without the price tag on a faster more manoeuvrable ship. Ok its not as tough, there is going to be more of these on the field to do the melting, right?

Conceptually it seems to be a step towards further cementing BC dominance on the field. Bit bothered by that.


Hard to say... I imagine the sig radius will be large enough that a BS can severely threaten them while tanking what they dish out, more likely a ship best suited to choice targets. Also, it'll promote fleets bringing smaller ships that the BS sized weapons can't hit effectively to eat them up.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#187 - 2011-10-21 16:33:23 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Told you winter is going to own if you like spaceships.



/Me tips hat.

But, yes, the Caldari one must be a missile boat.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Laktos
Perkone
Caldari State
#188 - 2011-10-21 16:34:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Laktos
Tippia wrote:
Laktos wrote:
What on earth are you on about? A standard tanked bc has 70-80k ehp. 40k is half that. If they can reach 40k at max, then that is a reduced tanking ability compared to a standard battlecruiser.
I'm on about how you put up normally fitted BCs as an example of how they will be somehow at a disadvantage. There is a reason why people shield-tank their Hurricanes and Brutixes, and that reason remains even with these new ships. So, if these ships achieve the same tank with the same fits, then they are not paying for their additional firepower.

But sure, if you insist: I retract my previous retraction: they should tank like shield-tanked thoraxes and ruptures — gunsize+1 → tanksize-1.


A shield tanked brutix/hurricane is not a normal battlecruiser. For the brutix perhaps its more normal, but a cane especially is a natural armor tanker. It gets twice the ehp armor tanked, nearly as much damage (more if you consider it fights up close more than a shield cane which is likely to be at range), and proper tackle in its midslots. And it still gets dual med neuts.

These ships are natural armor tankers that have had shield tanks forced onto them for a particular purpose. I am saying that a shield tanked hurricane has a sub-standard tank, which it makes up for in range control.

The tornado will almost certainly have a sub-standard tank from the get-go. It'll be powerful sure, it should be, it is after all a tier 3 ship. But I highly doubt it will have the tank of a standard battlecruiser. Shield tanked hurricanes might seem standard because of their popularity, but I do not believe they are. The hurricane was meant to be armor tanked and properly tanked battlecruisers have 70k+ehp. Not 40k.

In essence we are in agreement, we only differ in the details of how low the tornado's tank should be.

Edit: And as Jack Dant said. These ships will also suffer the penalty of bs tracking. They will not be nearly as OP as you seem to think.

Latest PVP Video: Perseverance

Sard Caid does not endorse this message.
Katabrok First
Apukaray Security
#189 - 2011-10-21 16:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Katabrok First
Great!

I would like to be remembered as one of the guys who had this idea about putting big guns on a battlecruiser. CCP liked my idea? That's wonderful. Now give credit where credit is due Cool:

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1065355-0/page/1

Kata

PS.: How much time until the winter expansion?
Maul555
Xen Investments
#190 - 2011-10-21 16:35:04 UTC
Harotak wrote:
Ydnari wrote:
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide.



No escape from reality
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#191 - 2011-10-21 16:36:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Digital Gaidin wrote:
I disagree... there is an interesting historical precedent for this type of ship dating back to WW2
I know, but real world is not a suitable argument for making older ships obsolete — hell, it's hardly even relevant to begin with.

The problem I'm seeing here is that there doesn't seem to be any disadvantage to having those big guns that provides any real decision between the tier-3 and tier-2 BCs. If the former tank as well as the latter and do more damage, then they've just repeated the mistake they made with the tier-2 BCs (which, as you might have noticed, made the tier-1 BCs relatively pointless).
Jack Dant wrote:
The price would be the reduced tracking compared to tank.
Fair enough, but I'm not sure that's sufficient to make them a not-obvious choice over tier-2s. In fact I'm pretty darn certain that it's not sufficient.
Laktos wrote:
A shield tanked brutix/hurricane is not a normal battlecruiser.
It is, because that's how they end up being fitted. Yes, both of them can get a better tank if you slap armour plates onto them, but if you do that, they become horrid and lose their main advantages: speed and/or massive DPS. So I consider shield tank to be the natural state for a 'Cane, just like I predict shields will be the natural state for the Myrmatar.
Quote:
The tornado will almost certainly have a sub-standard tank from the get-go.
…and that's what I fear we won't see, because of the wording of that statement: they are paying the price for BS guns by having not-BS tanks, which they will have even with standard BC tanks.

Unless the shield-Myrmatar ends up having 25-30k EHP compared to the shield-cane's 40k, it will have far too much tank, and I'm afraid that it will have those 40k… which would be bad.
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2011-10-21 16:36:31 UTC
Mekhana wrote:
CCP please make the Gallente ship of this new BC line worth flying. We really need some love.


Not emptyquoting, just bringing this back up. Please, for the love of pete, make the Gallente one not suck. Our standard BC is worse in literally every way to the Minmatar BC.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#193 - 2011-10-21 16:36:51 UTC
Ugleb wrote:
While cool, doesn't a BC dealing BS-level damage kind of make BS more irrelevant? You get the damage output without the price tag on a faster more manoeuvrable ship. Ok its not as tough, there is going to be more of these on the field to do the melting, right?

Conceptually it seems to be a step towards further cementing BC dominance on the field. Bit bothered by that.


I was actually just thinking the opposite. If anything, I think it will fast-track people to BS. Here's why: Tier 3 BC = BS damage, BC speed, BC tank, Almost BS fit cost. Difference between the new BC and a BS (I'm of course guessing here) is only the exchange of tank for speed and maybe 30-40 mil for T2 fit + hull, tops. It narrows the difference between the two... in fact it looks like a really well balanced split between say a drake and a raven for caldari. I think when the newer pilots start loosing enough of these things they will start taking a harder look at BS.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#194 - 2011-10-21 16:37:16 UTC
My. God. CCP. Everything we've ever hoped for or wished. Coming soon. How are you guys accomplishing all of this? We've been hearing "no time" "too much work for one release" for so long... now everything is being released at once. I feel overwhelmed.
Schnoo
The Schnoo
#195 - 2011-10-21 16:37:37 UTC
well, what most people have failed to bring up in this thread is, these ships will also have the "penalties" of large guns, i.e their tracking or missile signature will make them have a hard time hitting small ships.

in fact, this whole thing, along with the AF buff (it is going to be a buff, right?) might revitalize frigates in fleets, and the new tier 3 battlecruisers really feel like the "heavy bombers" many have proposed - smaller ships able to destroy caps, but weak in subcap engagements

while having a rock, paper, scissor kind of balance isn't the best of the world, this may bring up the following:
supercaps > caps
caps > BS
tier 3 BC > BC, caps, supercaps
hac/cruiser > tier 3 BC, BS
BS > BC, tier 3 included
normal BC > hac/cruiser
AF > hac, BC (tier 3 especially) (this the hac part isn't true yet)

hmm, maybe we need to make AFs able to kill HACs, and add destroyers (real t2 ones) there to kill frigates, and the destroyers themselves killable by hacs
Mors Magne
Terra Incognita
#196 - 2011-10-21 16:38:01 UTC
I'm really looking forward to this! Big smile
Rong Targets
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#197 - 2011-10-21 16:38:38 UTC
Thank you ccp, it is about time
Draca Maru
Clandestine Capsuleer Operations
#198 - 2011-10-21 16:46:39 UTC
Sounds nice.
Keep the good news rolling in!
Anvil44
Avedis Corporation
The Vanguard Syndicate
#199 - 2011-10-21 16:47:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Anvil44
deleted
Too late for reality

I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#200 - 2011-10-21 16:49:05 UTC
Interesting idea, but I think they have the potential to be a balancing nightmare if badly handled. Agree with those who say they should be significantly undertanked relative to current BCs; not much more than 30k EHP or so.