These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

t2 Attack Battlecruisers

Author
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#1 - 2014-07-19 01:13:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Alright, this is a pretty straightforward feature thread. Of the several new t2 ships we need, t2 Attack Battlecruisers I think would be the most interesting direct combat ships we've had introduced in quite awhile. Basically the final step after HACs, these vessels would be less defense-oriented than their cruiser counterparts, although they would definitely be tougher than their t1 variants.

All ships would receive full t2 resists, would have the same amount of HP total but have some ported from secondary defenses to augment the primary tank. Capacitor increase would be analogous to the increase from t1 cruisers to HACs, although I would be fine with leaving that off or keeping it only slightly better than the t1 variants. Doing the math, the overall ehp with these things would be similar to or slightly less than hictors of the same race, for the amarr and caldari ones anyway.

Alright, here we go:

OWL
T2 naga, Ishukone skin

8/6/4/ slot loadout, 8 turret hard points

Caldari Battlecruiser skill:
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range per level,
5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage per level

Heavy Attack Ship skill:
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range per level,
4% bonus to Shield Resists per level

25% hp from hull, and 25% hp from armor ported into the shield hp to augment primary defenses


SAGE
T2 Oracle, Viziam skin

8/3/7 slot loadout, 8 turret hard points

Amarr Battlecruiser skill:
10% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor usage per level,
5% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage per level

Heavy Attack Ship skill:
7.5% bonus to Large Energy Turret tracking speed per level,
4% bonus to Armor Resists per level

50% hp from shield ported to armor hp to augment primary defenses.


APOLLO
T2 Talos, Roden skin

8/4/6 slot loadout, 8 turret hard points

Gallente Battlecruiser skill:
5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret damage per level,
7.5% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret tracking speed per level

Heavy Attack Ship skill:
10% bonus to Large Hybrid Turret optimal range per level,
7.5% bonus to Armor Repair amount per level

25% shield hp ported over to armor to augment primary defenses


CUTLASS
T2 Tornado, Thukker skin

8/5/5 slot loadout, 8 turret slots

Minmatar Battlecruiser skill:
5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret RoF per level,
10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret falloff per level

Heavy Attack Ship skill:
7.5% bonus to Large Projectile turret tracking speed per level,
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster effectiveness per level

25% hull hp ported over to shields to augment primary defenses.


I thought about making the t2 oracle a khanid ship called the Bane, with bonuses to flight time, damage, armor resists and capacitor, and after looking it over I made the decision that it would be obscenely overpowered. Please let me know if you think otherwise.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#2 - 2014-07-19 01:34:24 UTC
ummm, if you want a tanker tier 3 its in game already....its called a BS. Or run the BC's that tank better.


the glass cannon aspect to tier 3 was their design trade off. Lots of damage potential but a few good body shots on them and they go boom.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#3 - 2014-07-19 02:11:11 UTC
ABC's are already kind of T2 ships unto themselves.

If u want beefy BC's, go command ship.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#4 - 2014-07-19 05:46:09 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
ABC's are already kind of T2 ships unto themselves.

If u want beefy BC's, go command ship.

Command ships would average twice or more the tank of these. The amarr and caldari ones would likely only have 60-80k ehp, and the gallente/minmatar ones would have less. They are not designed to have an excess of hp; mainly just to put t2 large weapons to full use, and be survivable enough in fleet, solo, or small gang that people would invest in them.

Certainly most HACs would out-tank them, but the general idea is that they're excellent fleet ships. You have a lot of offensive power already with the current attack battlecruisers, but the high resist profile, especially on the caldari and amarr variants, means they are ideal in fleets due to that and their high mobility coupled with their mastery of large weapons. They do not overlap with any of these, and have their own particular strengths and weaknesses apart from battleships and command ships.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#5 - 2014-07-19 07:01:11 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
...
Command ships would average twice or more the tank of these. The amarr and caldari ones would likely only have 60-80k ehp,


The Absolution might be in a weird place, what ehp is considered and man the Damnation is one of the least tanky command ships we have, only 450.000ehp possible.

And don't get me started on that Vulture. She can only have like 280.000ehp. Baaaad command ship, shame they cannot tank Blink

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#6 - 2014-07-19 08:27:45 UTC
I guess this thread is incited by the 'too many leadership skills for command ships' thread. But Sure, suggest some.

I personally do not see the need for more T2 or combat BC hulls. The normal T1 hulls are already quite good, and then we got the Attack Battle Cruisers that can fit battleship weapons, which are the weak tank, offensive weapon platform BCs. And don't forget T3 cruiser hulls they already fill part of that role too - and the step to what Battleships do is quite small in that area of operation.

I am not sure, why people are so hung up on labels like 'T2' or a titles like 'Heavy', I look at the stats and the role/function a ship offers me, the color ribbon does not matter (price does in a way). I don't feel the need to fill up lists and equalize everything.

Cov ops Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Battleship, ....
Logistic Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Battleship, ...
Command Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Battleship, ....
Why can't Gallente xxx, like Amarr ...

Always comes up every other day. We do not want a homogenous mash - it makes no sense. I believe we talked about having the same stats for every hull and race, and what you are left with is choosing size and skin. Sure, not really what you are suggesting, but it moves into the category of filling up perceived gaps instead of creating ships for roles that are needed

Ask yourself, why do you really need this ship, which part is missing in the game (not some imaginary checklist), which role unfulfilled and can not be covered by existing hulls and fittings, ... tell me.

And don't tell me, because Command ships take to long to train°°

Cheers
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#7 - 2014-07-19 11:25:12 UTC
The point of T2 ships is that they specialise in given roles over the 'generalised' T1 ships.

Unfortunatly you have neglected to provide a role for your T2 ABC concept. All you have done is improve on the standard hull and remove a rig slot. It still fulfills the same niche role that the T1 hull does.

It would have made more sense to suggest the removal of some of the high slots, all the turret slots and allow it to fit a capital launcher and maybe a new "heavy bomb launcher" with a larger blast radius and higher damage that even BS's would probably be able to speed tank but capitals would take a pounding from. Then give it cov-ops status and nerf the tank even further.

Bam, you have a Heavy Bomber

(The "Heavy Bomb Launcher" idea is purely optional here, there is a good chance that it would actually be too imbalanced.)
Kane Fenris
NWP
#8 - 2014-07-19 11:43:11 UTC
horrible idea

t2 attack bcs should never be made unless they become something COMPLETELY diffrent than attack bcs themselfs
(maybe a sort of oversiszed fragile support vessel long range large heal oder ecm mods)
because attack bcs are as powerfull in theire role as you can allow a ship to be before breaking game balance!
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#9 - 2014-07-19 13:59:43 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
The point of T2 ships is that they specialise in given roles over the 'generalised' T1 ships.

Unfortunatly you have neglected to provide a role for your T2 ABC concept. All you have done is improve on the standard hull and remove a rig slot. It still fulfills the same niche role that the T1 hull does.



No, sorry. A Zealot is just an upgraded Omen, an Deimos is just an upgraded Thorax, a Cerberus is just an upgraded Caracal, and the list goes on. There are plenty of T2 ships that're just flat upgrades from their T1 counterparts.

Faction police variants, however, are not subject to that trend in any way. A Navy Augoror doesn't even resemble a standard Augoror, as probably one of the more extreme examples.

As far as the OP goes I just don't see it being possible to give an ABC T2 bonuses without it being horribly broken. You've already got 8 large guns on a medium hull, that's borderline silliness in itself. Trying to put them on par with other T2 hulls just results in insanity.

If you want more T2 BC's I highly recommend the thread for combat engineering ships. Put a vote in for BC hulls there.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Iain Cariaba
#10 - 2014-07-19 15:58:00 UTC
Just throwing this out cause it popped in my head, feel free to shoot it down.

ABC as light marauder? Fewer hardpoints, role bonus to damage, maybe light bastion module (or not, kinda pre-bastion marauder), maybe just an ewar-proofing module...

Anyway, good, bad, why?
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#11 - 2014-07-19 16:17:43 UTC
Maybe have it deploy and do 10 times damage with -99.9% tracking so they become demolition balls only good for structures and other stationary targets.
Kane Fenris
NWP
#12 - 2014-07-19 16:33:59 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Maybe have it deploy and do 10 times damage with -99.9% tracking so they become demolition balls only good for structures and other stationary targets.



highsec does not need this
all other areas have dreads for exactly that
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#13 - 2014-07-19 17:08:58 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Alright, this is a pretty straightforward feature thread. Of the several new t2 ships we need, t2 Attack Battlecruisers I think would be the most interesting direct combat ships we've had introduced in quite awhile. Basically the final step after HACs, these vessels would be less defense-oriented than their cruiser counterparts, although they would definitely be tougher than their t1 variants.

All ships would receive full t2 resists, would have the same amount of HP total but have some ported from secondary defenses to augment the primary tank. Capacitor increase would be analogous to the increase from t1 cruisers to HACs, although I would be fine with leaving that off or keeping it only slightly better than the t1 variants. Doing the math, the overall ehp with these things would be similar to or slightly less than hictors of the same race, for the amarr and caldari ones anyway.


(shipstats removed for space constraint)


The first flaw with this is that HAC's are the only shipclass that made it to T2 without a heavy specialised niche. For a T2 role to be considered for development it needs to fill an unoccupied niche. I'd love to see some heavy sluggers on BC hulls myself (that don't fall apart the minute someone in a venture farts at it) but seriously, large class weapons? high speed + bad tracking from overlarge turrets will inhibit the idea. Put 'em on the same hulls you're suggesting sure, but medium weapons. also realiase you're working on a 300m ship here considering the base hulls, it'll be limited at best in pvp due to the cost.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#14 - 2014-07-19 18:06:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
*Imagines sniping at 400km with Owl railguns* 8D

wheeeeeeeee!!!
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#15 - 2014-07-19 18:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Mhari Dson wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Alright, this is a pretty straightforward feature thread. Of the several new t2 ships we need, t2 Attack Battlecruisers I think would be the most interesting direct combat ships we've had introduced in quite awhile. Basically the final step after HACs, these vessels would be less defense-oriented than their cruiser counterparts, although they would definitely be tougher than their t1 variants.

All ships would receive full t2 resists, would have the same amount of HP total but have some ported from secondary defenses to augment the primary tank. Capacitor increase would be analogous to the increase from t1 cruisers to HACs, although I would be fine with leaving that off or keeping it only slightly better than the t1 variants. Doing the math, the overall ehp with these things would be similar to or slightly less than hictors of the same race, for the amarr and caldari ones anyway.


(shipstats removed for space constraint)


The first flaw with this is that HAC's are the only shipclass that made it to T2 without a heavy specialised niche. For a T2 role to be considered for development it needs to fill an unoccupied niche. I'd love to see some heavy sluggers on BC hulls myself (that don't fall apart the minute someone in a venture farts at it) but seriously, large class weapons? high speed + bad tracking from overlarge turrets will inhibit the idea. Put 'em on the same hulls you're suggesting sure, but medium weapons. also realiase you're working on a 300m ship here considering the base hulls, it'll be limited at best in pvp due to the cost.

Niche is high-end mobile fleet-oriented large weapon platforms. Distinction from their t1 variants is better weapon focus and stronger tank. That and being absurdly fun.Big smileBig smileBig smile
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#16 - 2014-07-19 20:56:28 UTC
Maby were approaching this wrong, how about instead of bigger weapons,
They get smaller ones,
but like sixteen of them.


Broken? Probably wouldn't even get off sisi , hilarious though.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2014-07-19 21:14:49 UTC
Surely if they have eight large weapons and HIC level tank, they are battleships? Well tanked ones at that, seeing as how you can top 250k EHP in a HIC.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#18 - 2014-07-19 21:32:46 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:

The first flaw with this is that HAC's are the only shipclass that made it to T2 without a heavy specialised niche.


Well.. There are Assault Frigates also...

And Interceptors. They get some unique perks but their T1 hulls are pretty much what an inty is without the perks. Fast, fragile, and quick to lock with benefits to tackle.

Oh... And Logi...

Oops, let's not forget EAS's either.

Or Combat Recons...

It's not that there isn't precedence for linear upgrades, because most of the T2's are exactly that. It's the fact that ABC's are barely balanced to begin with and giving them a linear upgrade is out of the question.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#19 - 2014-07-21 14:57:02 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:


It's not that there isn't precedence for linear upgrades, because most of the T2's are exactly that. It's the fact that ABC's are barely balanced to begin with and giving them a linear upgrade is out of the question.



this would be an issue. the lack of a strong tank was not the huge limiting factor ccp had in mind for them I imagine. Kind of glassy...but when jumped by handfullls of them....ship/fit depending by the time you get lock you can be thinking more along the lines of what celestial shall I try to clear my pod out to in a few seconds lol.



Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#20 - 2014-07-21 15:21:17 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Alright, this is a pretty straightforward feature thread. Of the several new t2 ships we need, t2 Attack Battlecruisers I think would be the most interesting direct combat ships we've had introduced in quite awhile. Basically the final step after HACs, these vessels would be less defense-oriented than their cruiser counterparts, although they would definitely be tougher than their t1 variants.

All ships would receive full t2 resists, would have the same amount of HP total but have some ported from secondary defenses to augment the primary tank. Capacitor increase would be analogous to the increase from t1 cruisers to HACs, although I would be fine with leaving that off or keeping it only slightly better than the t1 variants. Doing the math, the overall ehp with these things would be similar to or slightly less than hictors of the same race, for the amarr and caldari ones anyway.


(shipstats removed for space constraint)


The first flaw with this is that HAC's are the only shipclass that made it to T2 without a heavy specialised niche. For a T2 role to be considered for development it needs to fill an unoccupied niche. I'd love to see some heavy sluggers on BC hulls myself (that don't fall apart the minute someone in a venture farts at it) but seriously, large class weapons? high speed + bad tracking from overlarge turrets will inhibit the idea. Put 'em on the same hulls you're suggesting sure, but medium weapons. also realiase you're working on a 300m ship here considering the base hulls, it'll be limited at best in pvp due to the cost.

Niche is high-end mobile fleet-oriented large weapon platforms. Distinction from their t1 variants is better weapon focus and stronger tank. That and being absurdly fun.Big smileBig smileBig smile


So you want a battleship with more mobility without losing much tank?
12Next page