open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked The Elimination of the Battleship from EVE.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (14)

Author Topic

CCP Spitfire


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.08 10:06:00 - [91]
 

Spam posts removed.


Jennifer Starling
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.08 11:01:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 08/12/2010 11:02:32
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Pet Project:
Allow weapon bonuses to apply to all weapons of a given type (ex. Abaddon: +5%/Lvl to S/M/L lasers). Provides a potential solution to all the tracking woes.

Love this idea. Would love to fit 100% bonussed large lasers on my Ashimmu with it huge PG!!Razz
Would make for some very interesting builds and a lot more surprising ship setups than is the case now.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.12.08 11:15:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: James Lyrus on 08/12/2010 11:21:36
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Somal Thunder
Only thing I agree on is how bloody cheap capitals are.


This should have been fixed when they changed rigs by making capital sized and supercap sized ones.

Having capital rigs at 5x the cost of current large rigs, supercapital ones at 25x the cost of current larges wouldnt hurt.


Price isn't a substitute for balance. It really isn't. If it were, we wouldn't be seeing supercapital blobs.

Anyway, more generally, the more I think on it, the more I think there's just too big a gap between BS and carrier.
A BS is ~400m signature, aligns in 12s or so, does 100-150m/sec, and under 1000 on MWD.
It can get up to about 150k ehps, but 100k is probably more normal.
Can do 1000dps or so in close range fits, and ... probably nearer 400 in long range fits.

A carrier/dread is around 2000m signature, 80odd m/sec, but no MWD option.
Does comparable DPS (1000 with 10 fighters, which is about on a par with a 'damage' BS) but with more effective range.
And has a lot more EHPs and tank - 1mil EHPs, 4kdps tank is not that unusual.
Carriers take around 25s to warp.

That's really quite a large gap - large than the one between BS and BC.

Roll in dreads, and you have a similar scenario, but with more DPS when sieging. In all honesty, I have no idea if a sieging dread gang could hit a BS gang. But otherwise, they're similar to carriers, in that they have a lot more EHP/DPS/Signature than BS.

The other factor though, is that dreads/carriers are jump drive capable. Their being 'slower' has no real bearing on their ability to deploy, simply because they're in the fight seconds after it starts.
That makes the infinitely more 'mobile' than a battleship gang. And tougher. (Not to mention, able to jump _out_ again, when the tactical situation changes)

The gap is bridged slightly by jumpdrive capable blackops, but even then - they lack the firepower, hitpoints and tank of a 'real' carrier.

I think perhaps, there's just too big a 'gap' in the middle, between 'heavy-but-jumpdrive' and 'sluggish, with not enough firepower'.

Now there's a thought.
How about a siege module for battleships?
Something similar - but maybe not quite the same - as the dread ones. That gives a significant boost to tank/gank, but inhibits movement. Or maybe just 'warping', because lets face it, BS ain't that fast anyway.


Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2010.12.08 11:56:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: TradeHat
Edited by: TradeHat on 08/12/2010 07:51:06
You are wrong
Battleships track abing hacs just fine if your smart enough.

Use your head. PL is infamous for dumping their SC blob ontop of other SC for easy kills. Battleships attract SC. PL is flying in battleships. What do you think they're trying to do?

Kurogauna
Posted - 2010.12.08 12:06:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Dabljuh
Here's a suggestion: There should be battleship-sized weapons modules designed to kill cruisers and frigates efficiently. Like the Assault Launcher, a cruiser sized module that is designed to kill anti-frigate missiles.

Precision Cruises don't cut it, there's no BS turrets to that end, and drones are highly situational / unreliable.


I like this suggestion. War is a matter of purpose focused weaponry. I would like to see anti frig or anticruiser Battleships as well as more battleships focused on electronic warafare. Anti BS frigs already exist so why not specialized BS.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.08 12:12:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Originally by: TradeHat
Edited by: TradeHat on 08/12/2010 07:51:06
You are wrong
Battleships track abing hacs just fine if your smart enough.

Use your head. PL is infamous for dumping their SC blob ontop of other SC for easy kills. Battleships attract SC. PL is flying in battleships. What do you think they're trying to do?

If i could be bothered to find the link i would post the KB link to a CVA abaddon/geddon fleet murdering a PL AHAC fleet. Was CVA also trying to attract SCs?

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.08 12:37:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus

Now there's a thought.
How about a siege module for battleships?
Something similar - but maybe not quite the same - as the dread ones. That gives a significant boost to tank/gank, but inhibits movement. Or maybe just 'warping', because lets face it, BS ain't that fast anyway.




Well given how popular it is to siege a dread and get hotdroped I don't think this really would be this adorable.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.12.08 13:49:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: James Lyrus

Now there's a thought.
How about a siege module for battleships?
Something similar - but maybe not quite the same - as the dread ones. That gives a significant boost to tank/gank, but inhibits movement. Or maybe just 'warping', because lets face it, BS ain't that fast anyway.




Well given how popular it is to siege a dread and get hotdroped I don't think this really would be this adorable.


It would give battleships something else they could do though. And certainly, a hot drop is a hazard, but is it really any worse than battleships running into a bubble? Bubble -> Cyno ... who cares if they're 'sieging' or not?

Make it a lighter form of siege module, and you at least give them active tank and enough firepower to be a threat to said hot drop though.

And yes, I know 'most' hot drops are overkill or they just don't bother, but that's not really the point now, is it?

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2010.12.08 15:15:00 - [99]
 

I completely agree that BS's need love, however this bit is un-fathomable (this may have been touched on already)

Originally by: DHB WildCat

Problem - Shield tanking > Armor tanking. However most ships period armor tank. Thus making a shield tanked "drake" fleet with scimis more efeective than armor fleets.
Solution - Make armor RR rep at the beginning of the cycle like shield ones. No reason they have to be different. At the same time lets nerf the logi ships a little bit. Two logis should not be able to tank a ship from 10 people.




Armour tanking is already too prevalent in eve, for some stupid reason CCP never split it down the middle for shield tanking and armour tanking ship layouts, and shield tanking is very much a minority in fleets (with the exception of drake fleets).

If what you say were to go through, shield tanking would need compensation i.e. shield transfer mods take way more valuable cpu fitting and cap than does armour rr, make them easier to fit and maybe then your change would be fair.

Oh and make more minmatar ships shield tankers, it makes no sense to have a game with ~66% vs. ~33% prevalence of a vital mechanic that affects so much.

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.12.08 16:02:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Kireiina

There's lots of null-sec alliances using battleship heavy fleets. They are actually having a resurgence given they're an excellent counter to drakes (eg. PL is spending a lot of time in abaddons).



This would be true if everyone had access and the balls to make use of the titan bridge hot drop. They don't. PL's battleship fleets are almost exclusively used with the titan bridge. You shouldn't have to have a titan available just to make use of the battleship class.

Originally by: Kireiina

Ships not being able to one shot everything smaller than them is part of what keeps the strategic space interesting. And this has been extended with the latest change to fighter bombers which restricts them from being used effectively against sub-caps.



This doesn't change the fact that battleships are still underpowered. The BC class is superior in flexibility exponentially.

Originally by: Kireiina

Yes, super-cap proliferation is making sup-caps strategically meaningless. If you cannot counter the enemies super-caps, or at least the possibility of threat so they keep them off the field, then fly something you don't care too about losing (eg. drakes).



It's not even super-CAPS, it's super CARRIERS that have distorted the playing field. With the nerf of the area doomsday the titan has been reduced to a mobile jump bridge. When it comes to cap or sub-cap killing you can't beat the drone spewing, spider tanking, immune to EWAR massively overtanked OPness that is the super carrier. There's literally nothing it can't do. Sure the FB nerf made wyverns and aeons semi-useless against sub-caps, but given that 90% of all super carriers are nyx's, which have a fighter damage bonus and more than enough room for FBs, fighters, AND drone spam, this really didn't affect the super carrier problem as a whole.

Originally by: Furb Killer

Then carriers would be the best ships.

Now however with both carriers and dreads it is reasonably balanced. In general dreads > carriers, carriers > BS, BS > dread. Because dread is imo pretty much the best balanced capital ship by far, simply because it cannot possibly hit a sub cap in siege.


This is actually why dreads are fail, they're restricted to hitting inanimate objects. Even carriers kill other carriers better than dreads, especially with the spider tank. You actually think dreads are balanced?

Super carriers > titans > carriers >>>>>>>> dreads

The argument "ZOMG THE DREAD IS SO BALANCED BECAUSE IT CAN'T HIT SUB CAPS" is way outdated thinking, thinking that predates even the advent of the titan. As soon as sub-cap pwning cap ships were introduced the dread became useless, especially given that super carriers effective against EVERYTHING, including towers.

Anubis Xian
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.12.08 16:11:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 08/12/2010 05:05:08
Originally by: Anubis Xian

There is no such thing as extra slots, especially when talking about BS compared to BC. And I didn't see anyone saying to 'drop all drawbacks like scan res and speed' anywhere.


So you dont remember your own post on page 1 where you suggest a buff in scanres by 100%, increased dronebays across the board, and a modular jump drive?


Your post was a Chicken Little response that took the suggestions out of context and exaggerrated the end result. Nothing I suggested makes BS overpowered in relation to where they are now, but makes them more versatile. Which incidently is the only real course to improving them without making them too strong.

Versatility should be the Battleship mantra.

Evanglion
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.08 17:10:00 - [102]
 

where be the orange text ?

Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
United Mining And Distribution
Posted - 2010.12.08 17:24:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
If i could be bothered to find the link i would post the KB link to a CVA abaddon/geddon fleet murdering a PL AHAC fleet. Was CVA also trying to attract SCs?

If you could find dozens of such examples showing battleships in fleet use over the past few months your point would hold. One group doing one thing with a fleet once doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.12.08 19:52:00 - [104]
 

A lot of the tracking issues could be countered by revising the dual/quad etc weaponry to give them the tracking/sig res and range of their namesakes (or at least close to). This would get around the ship bonus problem.

as far as lock times go, the furthest I would suggest (I think even this is excessive though) is that the time for a ship to lock a target of the same size should be normalized: a battleship should lock another BS in the same time it takes a cuiser to lock another cruiser.

Capital droneships are so versatile regarding the different target sizes that they are obsoleting other ships, but I don't know what the answer is without a complete nerf or yet another massive redesign. I'll leave that to more experienced minds to ponder.

Probing results need to be looked at imo. A successful scan (100%) should be based on total sig radius on grid and give a result in the style of "a group of large ships", "a battleship" rather than the exact detail, and the warp in should only place you on the same grid, not right on top. This would give the heavier ships time to react and either target or gtfo.

As far as armour reps go, if you must change something, just halve everything. Cap use, duration, rep amount.


Ranthe Bloodmoon
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.08 19:54:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Ranthe Bloodmoon on 08/12/2010 19:54:46
I think what would be cool would be you have two types of high slots, active and passive. The passive slots could be used for smaller than normal weapons. Say you're in a battleship, you put the battleship weapons in the active slots and you have a couple passive highs that you can put medium or small weapons in. These passive slots would then autofire on anything in range, that you have locked on, but would be triggered by you pushing the buttons to fire the main, active high slot weapons. They would turn off when you turn off the main weapons on your ship. That would be sweet.


(this is not a serious post unless you see some merit in this goofy idea [unlike me])

Jaik7
Posted - 2010.12.08 20:17:00 - [106]
 

rl battleships had shorebombardment guns sure, but they did also have a lot of aa and anti ship guns too.

the only reason that carriers are the primary ship in modern navies is that they outrange battleships in almost every respect.

in EVE, not only are carriers capable of sending damage clear across a system, they have some of the best tanks.

a fix needs to be made so that battleships can effectivly combat small ships, but not to the extent that a realativly small pack (2-3 cruisers, or even a single well played bc) cannot eliminate them.

in EVE, we have risk vs reward, and taking a battleship into low sec seems to be quite a risk, but there's not much reward in it.

i don't know what will balance the game, nor do i know what will break it. but for some reason the ability to fit different tiers of weapons on a ship appeals to me.

This fix would be an attempt to make it more like reality. when was the last time you've heard of a few speedboats full of pirates taking a navy vessel? when was the last time you heard about a frigate wolfpack getting a battleship in EVE?

Mortuus
Minmatar
Divine Power.
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2010.12.08 20:33:00 - [107]
 

BS serve no purpose, BCs put out similar DPS, are much faster and more agile, and cost much less.

Luscious Linda
HariKari And Combines
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:02:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Jaik7
rl battleships had shorebombardment guns sure, but they did also have a lot of aa and anti ship guns too.

the only reason that carriers are the primary ship in modern navies is that they outrange battleships in almost every respect.

in EVE, not only are carriers capable of sending damage clear across a system, they have some of the best tanks.

a fix needs to be made so that battleships can effectivly combat small ships, but not to the extent that a realativly small pack (2-3 cruisers, or even a single well played bc) cannot eliminate them.

in EVE, we have risk vs reward, and taking a battleship into low sec seems to be quite a risk, but there's not much reward in it.

i don't know what will balance the game, nor do i know what will break it. but for some reason the ability to fit different tiers of weapons on a ship appeals to me.

This fix would be an attempt to make it more like reality. when was the last time you've heard of a few speedboats full of pirates taking a navy vessel? when was the last time you heard about a frigate wolfpack getting a battleship in EVE?


In RL they mounted .50's/cannon on planes and wheeled vehicles as offensive weapons and on battleships as defensive/anti-air. These complimented their large bore cannon for the obvious reasons the BS in Eve can face.

Are BS subsystems the answer? Not sure

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:13:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Luscious Linda
Originally by: Jaik7
rl battleships had shorebombardment guns sure, but they did also have a lot of aa and anti ship guns too.

the only reason that carriers are the primary ship in modern navies is that they outrange battleships in almost every respect.

in EVE, not only are carriers capable of sending damage clear across a system, they have some of the best tanks.

a fix needs to be made so that battleships can effectivly combat small ships, but not to the extent that a realativly small pack (2-3 cruisers, or even a single well played bc) cannot eliminate them.

in EVE, we have risk vs reward, and taking a battleship into low sec seems to be quite a risk, but there's not much reward in it.

i don't know what will balance the game, nor do i know what will break it. but for some reason the ability to fit different tiers of weapons on a ship appeals to me.

This fix would be an attempt to make it more like reality. when was the last time you've heard of a few speedboats full of pirates taking a navy vessel? when was the last time you heard about a frigate wolfpack getting a battleship in EVE?


In RL they mounted .50's/cannon on planes and wheeled vehicles as offensive weapons and on battleships as defensive/anti-air. These complimented their large bore cannon for the obvious reasons the BS in Eve can face.

Are BS subsystems the answer? Not sure


Well, the real world they don't really care about game balance ;p.

Zyress
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:21:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: BiggestT
I completely agree that BS's need love, however this bit is un-fathomable (this may have been touched on already)

Originally by: DHB WildCat

Problem - Shield tanking > Armor tanking. However most ships period armor tank. Thus making a shield tanked "drake" fleet with scimis more efeective than armor fleets.
Solution - Make armor RR rep at the beginning of the cycle like shield ones. No reason they have to be different. At the same time lets nerf the logi ships a little bit. Two logis should not be able to tank a ship from 10 people.




Armour tanking is already too prevalent in eve, for some stupid reason CCP never split it down the middle for shield tanking and armour tanking ship layouts, and shield tanking is very much a minority in fleets (with the exception of drake fleets).

If what you say were to go through, shield tanking would need compensation i.e. shield transfer mods take way more valuable cpu fitting and cap than does armour rr, make them easier to fit and maybe then your change would be fair.

Oh and make more minmatar ships shield tankers, it makes no sense to have a game with ~66% vs. ~33% prevalence of a vital mechanic that affects so much.


and make LSE's produce as much buffer as 1600 mm plates...

Zyress
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:52:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Luscious Linda
Originally by: Jaik7
rl battleships had shorebombardment guns sure, but they did also have a lot of aa and anti ship guns too.

the only reason that carriers are the primary ship in modern navies is that they outrange battleships in almost every respect.

in EVE, not only are carriers capable of sending damage clear across a system, they have some of the best tanks.

a fix needs to be made so that battleships can effectivly combat small ships, but not to the extent that a realativly small pack (2-3 cruisers, or even a single well played bc) cannot eliminate them.

in EVE, we have risk vs reward, and taking a battleship into low sec seems to be quite a risk, but there's not much reward in it.

i don't know what will balance the game, nor do i know what will break it. but for some reason the ability to fit different tiers of weapons on a ship appeals to me.

This fix would be an attempt to make it more like reality. when was the last time you've heard of a few speedboats full of pirates taking a navy vessel? when was the last time you heard about a frigate wolfpack getting a battleship in EVE?


In RL they mounted .50's/cannon on planes and wheeled vehicles as offensive weapons and on battleships as defensive/anti-air. These complimented their large bore cannon for the obvious reasons the BS in Eve can face.

Are BS subsystems the answer? Not sure


Well, the real world they don't really care about game balance ;p.


In real Navy fleets Battleships never operated alone, they didn't need defensive weapons because they had escorts for that, they were meant for hitting large high value targets and bombarding fixed installations from long distances, they were not solo pwnmobiles. They usually did have other smaller guns for either anti-aircraft and anti ship use, these were not the main weapons though. The only way to simulate that in eve would be to have a lot more hardpoints or maybe different kinds of hardpoints, something like a Main weapon hardpoint that can hold a main offensive weapon and maybe a few heavy weapon (ie anti ship ) harpoints and a couple maybe rocket launcher like anti-frigate/drone weapon hardpoints. In real Navy Battleships these defensive weapons just supplemented the escorts firepower, it was not meant to be the sole defense of the Battleship. It can also be acknowledged that real Navy Battleships never had a flight of drones.

ZeJesus
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:01:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: ZeJesus on 08/12/2010 23:01:25


TBH frigates/cruisers shouldn't be even able to scratch BSs.

But ppl want to see SW kind of feats, after all an X-Wing managed to take down the freaking Death Star, right?


James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:36:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: ZeJesus
Edited by: ZeJesus on 08/12/2010 23:01:25


TBH frigates/cruisers shouldn't be even able to scratch BSs.

But ppl want to see SW kind of feats, after all an X-Wing managed to take down the freaking Death Star, right?




No, it's more that in gameworld, as opposed to realworld, your limiting factor is pretty much always numbers of people.
Therefore pilots should add approximately equivalent value to a fleet. Well, within certain parameters, anyway.
It's good gameplay to have a mixed/well balanced fleet, because it promotes tactics.

In the real world, the limiting factor is money, and more crew are just an asset with a cost. So it's reasonable to choose between one really expensive carrier, with a fighter complement, and a load of cheaper ships.
In EVE, that doesn't work - because your 'crew' is only ever one person. You don't get to choose between a battleship and several cruisers.
You get to choose between one battleship and one cruiser.
Or maybe you've a newbie who can't fly battleships, but whatever.

Jintai san
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:38:00 - [114]
 

Going of the talk of real life Battleships what would the result be if the range on medium weapons were reduced, say by 30%, or the battleship weapons range increased by 30%, so that battleships had the range advantage and thus positioning would become important. or heavy escort to tackle for the battleships?

Tester Zeta
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:42:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Zyress


In real Navy fleets Battleships never operated alone, they didn't need defensive weapons because they had escorts for that, they were meant for hitting large high value targets and bombarding fixed installations from long distances, they were not solo pwnmobiles. They usually did have other smaller guns for either anti-aircraft and anti ship use, these were not the main weapons though. The only way to simulate that in eve would be to have a lot more hardpoints or maybe different kinds of hardpoints, something like a Main weapon hardpoint that can hold a main offensive weapon and maybe a few heavy weapon (ie anti ship ) harpoints and a couple maybe rocket launcher like anti-frigate/drone weapon hardpoints. In real Navy Battleships these defensive weapons just supplemented the escorts firepower, it was not meant to be the sole defense of the Battleship. It can also be acknowledged that real Navy Battleships never had a flight of drones.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29

Seeing as you and some others posting have absolutely no clue about the tiered armament design of the real world battleships, I would suggest looking at the pages above. You will want to pay careful attention the types and layers of the armaments on those ships.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:50:00 - [116]
 

Quote:
what would the result be if the range on medium weapons were reduced, say by 30%, or the battleship weapons range increased by 30%, so that battleships had the range advantage and thus positioning would become important. or heavy escort to tackle for the battleships?
It would have significant impact on cruiser/bc PvP tactics, not just against battleships, but against all ships.

There are 2 main cruiser tactics - get in under web/scramble range, or stay at the disruptor range. The effectiveness of orbiting at disruptor range would be considerably reduced.

Increasing battleship range by 30% would not help battleships hit their targets any better, due to tracking. It'd only have impact on sniper setups. And battleships already dominate the sniper tactics.

Overall these changes would make people fly more battleships, but only cause cruiser/bc get a huge nerf.


DHB WildCat
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.09 00:28:00 - [117]
 

In reguards to just Battleships vs. Battlecruisers....

Battleships cost more, are slower, and have difficulty tracking its target. The Battlecruiser does similar if not MORE dps due to actual hits and "wrecking" hits, is MUCH cheaper, and is much much fast / agile. The battlecruiser pilot should think "man this going to be a tough fight against a battleship, rather than.... lol a lone battleship easy gank time!"

The Battleship needs more skill points to fly and should be able to hit smaller targets..... OR. Make everything in line. Make it difficult for BC to hit cruisers, and cruisers to hit frigs ect. I think btw, that would be an aweful idea. BS just need a little boost to help them be more than just a floating brick used only to fight other battleships.

There have been many good ideas in this thread, none my own 8), that I hope CCP takes into account.

DHB WildCat
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.09 01:00:00 - [118]
 

Allow me to propose this question to the people. Say.....

A fight at a planet. Thus taking out tanking and deagroing.... This fight goes all the way to the end.You have a choice between....

Battleships -

Battlecruisers -

Cruisers / frigs -

Hacs / recons -

All things being equal..... equal number of ships, range is 0km, competent fc's.

Why I wouldnt choose the Battleships.

By the time you lock the samller targets, they are out of tackle range and kiting you. At that kiting range you cannot hit the smaller ships while they can hit you. They have equal dps . They are cheaper aside from the hacs / recons.

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:39:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Gligan
I know 1 BS that absolutely owns every single type of BC, cruiser, t3, recon, command , or even frigate(if it isn't smart enough to get away). Yes - that's right - it's a domi with neuts.

Webs and points you, then shuts down your mwd/ ab , tank? whatever you're using with cap, releases the drones, MWD's in your direction while laughing at your dps.

Alternatively use MWD'd machariel.


But seriously - there's only 1 single change that CCP devs have to do to put BS's back in the game - do not limit the BS bonuses to BS weapons only. I.e. instead of the bonus being to large projectiles for the typhoon - make it a bonus to projectiles, and instead of bonus to torpedoes and cruise missiles , give a bonus to missiles for the raven ... and so on.

So a maelstrom with 425's AC's and a web would be a tough mofo that can hit almost any class out there.

And a raven with HAM's , while it may sound stupid would most likely destroy smaller ships just because it has more endurance.(ok I'm not missile guy and don't know wth different missiles sizes can hit but still)


This has my vote. And I have always felt that should be applyed to all ships. i.e. Cruiser bounses work for Med and Small weapons and so on.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:57:00 - [120]
 

As far as supercapitals go it would help a bit if there would be anchorable POS battery with infipoint, that can keep them there should they decide to come spanking the tower. Currently they just laugh off the POS disruption batteries giving them significant mobility advantage over the dreads at POS sieges, as they can just disengage if the defending side does counterattack, unlike sieged dreads. Preferably something that does not use CPU so it would stay online if tower is reinforced.

Granted it would fall relatively fast to fighter-bomber swarm being immobile and all that.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (14)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only