open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Chance of New T2 Battlecruiser
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

General Britt
Posted - 2011.01.28 20:03:00 - [1]
 

Hello.

I'd love to see a t2 version of a hurricane, myrmidon, drake or harbinger.

How big is the chance, that these ships will be implementet in the future?
Or will they never come?

Greetings

Serge Bastana
Gallente
GWA Corp
Posted - 2011.01.28 20:12:00 - [2]
 

You aren't alone in wanting this, it's a shame the command ships were brought out before the 2nd tier of BC's were released otherwise we probably would see those hulls used. Not sure about the chance but there has been plenty of discussion regarding this so it may eventually filter through and CCP might eventually get something going, but don't hold your breath.

I really want my T2 Myrm Cool

esclavegalllente
Posted - 2011.01.29 01:02:00 - [3]
 

i want

Pod Liberator
Posted - 2011.01.29 06:36:00 - [4]
 

The Drake can be made by whoever makes the rook so we can all have black Drakes!

Zephris
Posted - 2011.01.29 06:37:00 - [5]
 

Backop drake would be awesome wouldn't it Laughing

General Britt
Posted - 2011.01.29 11:29:00 - [6]
 

well, if we would be enough people, ccp sure will make them.
but this is the question... how many does really want this ships.

so, i still hope, that i anytime will get my t2 hurricane, to pown all in this universe^^

GizzyBoy
Posted - 2011.01.29 11:47:00 - [7]
 

/me drools,


t2 myrm DO WANT!
what about command bouns boost for drones in fleet :)
or extra drone per command ship level or would that be game breaking...

also Navy versions of myrm, hurricane, Drake and harby..

Manalapan
Dynasty Banking
General Tso's Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.29 17:35:00 - [8]
 

Well what do you think the purpose of T2 versions of the tier 2 battlecruisers would be? I don't think having more command ships would get this very far. You should think of a new direction or role that they could fill.

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.29 17:44:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Manalapan
Well what do you think the purpose of T2 versions of the tier 2 battlecruisers would be? I don't think having more command ships would get this very far. You should think of a new direction or role that they could fill.


Assault Battle Cruiser, similar to HAC <-> Cruiser.

Serge Bastana
Gallente
GWA Corp
Posted - 2011.01.29 17:47:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Manalapan
Well what do you think the purpose of T2 versions of the tier 2 battlecruisers would be? I don't think having more command ships would get this very far. You should think of a new direction or role that they could fill.


Assault Battle Cruiser, similar to HAC <-> Cruiser.


That might be the best option, would make them enjoyable to fly too

Manalapan
Dynasty Banking
General Tso's Alliance
Posted - 2011.01.29 18:09:00 - [11]
 

The next step would be to come up with some preliminary bonuses and let people comment on those so you have a completed idea.

Lekla en Chasteaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.29 18:43:00 - [12]
 

I can't think of any non-specialized roles that haven't been filled as far as ships go (e-war, rr'ing, etc.), so I would guess that in order to make a t2 version of the tier 2 BC's would require them to make just an insanely gimped out BC, and they might not want to do it because it would probably unbalance PvP. Just a guess on my part, since tier 2 BS's are already used extensively in PvP and are quite good at it.

Ephraim Glass
Posted - 2011.01.29 19:22:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Manalapan
Well what do you think the purpose of T2 versions of the tier 2 battlecruisers would be? I don't think having more command ships would get this very far. You should think of a new direction or role that they could fill.


I'd like to see something that's a proper hybrid of command and logistics. The fact that Fleet Command requires a Logistics underpinning but doesn't get any remote repper bonuses irks me. Suppose that the T2 Harbinger has similar requirements to the Damnation, can operate 2 command links, but also gets Guardian-like bonuses to remote reppers (but NOT to energy transporters.)

Or create a command ship that enhances the entire fleet whether that pilot is assigned to a booster role or not (probably not a very big deal, except for the most tightly-designed fleets.) Or a command ship that enhances fleet members even when not in the same system (now this would be a big deal.)

Goose99
Posted - 2011.01.29 20:59:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Goose99 on 29/01/2011 21:05:04
Originally by: Lekla en Chasteaux
I can't think of any non-specialized roles that haven't been filled as far as ships go (e-war, rr'ing, etc.), so I would guess that in order to make a t2 version of the tier 2 BC's would require them to make just an insanely gimped out BC, and they might not want to do it because it would probably unbalance PvP. Just a guess on my part, since tier 2 BS's are already used extensively in PvP and are quite good at it.


Does HAC gimp out t1 cruisers? Well, it actually kind of does, except maybe for stuff like Cynabal. But we don't hear much, and it's taken as granted. If we have an Assault BC, it would be pretty much the same.

The biggest pitfall CCP jumped into is the idea that all t2 ships must have a specific and very narrow role. This resulted in many worthless ship lineups like electronic attack frigs, whose niche is so tiny it hardly exist, while the more normal lineups like HACs gets all the usage. There is nothing wrong with a normal t2 ship that is actually useful. Cramming the nice looking tier 2 BC models into some obscure role would be a tragedy.

Sinister Dextor
Posted - 2011.01.29 21:20:00 - [15]
 

How about a role as Anti-ECM boats, with a bonus to ECCM, and a projected ECCM bonus capability to gang mates?

CarnegieSteel
Posted - 2011.01.29 21:29:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: CarnegieSteel on 29/01/2011 21:30:34
Id like to see them used as ON GRID command ships. Instead of having an unprobable loki giving out links while safed up, make these short range command ships that actually have to be in the fight.

Something like a range of 20km/skill level on the buff.

Then to encourage not sitting 80-90km away from the action, give a shorter range debuff to enemy ships. (Eg: The minmatar version of this might give an agility bonus to friendly ships near it, and a MWD/ab cap use increase to enemy ships near it. Caldari might be a rof increase for friendlies, and a sig radius increase for hostiles, etc)

Im thinking there should be a primary command bonus, a secondary(and weaker) command bonus, and a shorter range command penalty for the enemy.

Right now, using an unprobable T3 for links is all reward, no risk. This gives a variable risk/reward ratio. Do you want to keep the command ship way back so its hard to kill? Then you dont get its full abilities, and take the risk that ships move out of its range.



Lekla en Chasteaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.01.29 21:35:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Goose99


Does HAC gimp out t1 cruisers? Well, it actually kind of does, except maybe for stuff like Cynabal. But we don't hear much, and it's taken as granted. If we have an Assault BC, it would be pretty much the same.


Yes, and it would completely take away any purpose that the original HAC's had. Tier 2 BC's are good enough as is, I honestly don't think a T2 version is necessary.

Ephraim Glass
Posted - 2011.02.01 12:20:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: CarnegieSteel
Edited by: CarnegieSteel on 29/01/2011 21:30:34
Id like to see them used as ON GRID command ships. Instead of having an unprobable loki giving out links while safed up, make these short range command ships that actually have to be in the fight.

Something like a range of 20km/skill level on the buff.

Then to encourage not sitting 80-90km away from the action, give a shorter range debuff to enemy ships. (Eg: The minmatar version of this might give an agility bonus to friendly ships near it, and a MWD/ab cap use increase to enemy ships near it. Caldari might be a rof increase for friendlies, and a sig radius increase for hostiles, etc)

Im thinking there should be a primary command bonus, a secondary(and weaker) command bonus, and a shorter range command penalty for the enemy.

Right now, using an unprobable T3 for links is all reward, no risk. This gives a variable risk/reward ratio. Do you want to keep the command ship way back so its hard to kill? Then you dont get its full abilities, and take the risk that ships move out of its range.





Although I like this idea, mechanically, it doesn't quite make sense. On the current generation of command ships, the buffs are granted to qualifying members of one's fleet. It's easy to keep track of who should and should not be receiving a buff. In your scheme, how would it be determined who gets buffed and who gets debuffed? Would it be based on membership in one's fleet? Or would some new mechanism need to be created? Assuming that the player needs to specify which pilots to buff, which to debuff, and which to ignore, would the system require a target lock?

The idea of an on-grid support ship is appealing. That's what logistics ships are and, because of their strength in combat, field command ships also appear on-grid. I've heard that fleet command ships, on the other hand, frequently max out their warfare links and provide boosts from a safe spot.

How to best execute such an idea, I don't know. It would also, in my opinion, be preferable to do it without having to add any new modules or skills to the existing leadership system. My proposal would be to have the Tier 2 command ships offer the same benefits as existing command ships but also increase the strength of their boost to ships in close proximity. If the benefit from a Leadership skill or warfare link is X, then have the command ship give (1.05)X to ships in the fleet from 80-100km, (1.10)X from 60-80km, (1.15)X from 40-60km, (1.20)X from 20-40km, and (1.25)X to ships from 0-20km away from the command ship.

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.02.01 12:56:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 01/02/2011 12:56:38
There are already 2x companionships that do two different things.



You don't need a new ship, all you would need is to change the models of one of them in order to better coordinate with their tech I counterparts.


Nighthawk = Drake model.
Sleipnir = Hurricane Model.
Astarte = Myrmidon Model (And really needs 5 heavy drone bandwith)Evil or Very Mad
Absolution = Harbinger Model.



See how easy that was kids? Wink

Ephraim Glass
Posted - 2011.02.01 15:45:00 - [20]
 

Eternum,
At least the direction I was taking this was less of "How to get a command ship with a Harbinger model" and more of "If we were going to introduce new command ships based on the Tier 2 models, how could they be distinguished from the existing command ships?"

Goose99
Posted - 2011.02.01 15:54:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Edited by: Goose99 on 29/01/2011 21:05:04
Originally by: Lekla en Chasteaux
I can't think of any non-specialized roles that haven't been filled as far as ships go (e-war, rr'ing, etc.), so I would guess that in order to make a t2 version of the tier 2 BC's would require them to make just an insanely gimped out BC, and they might not want to do it because it would probably unbalance PvP. Just a guess on my part, since tier 2 BS's are already used extensively in PvP and are quite good at it.


Does HAC gimp out t1 cruisers? Well, it actually kind of does, except maybe for stuff like Cynabal. But we don't hear much, and it's taken as granted. If we have an Assault BC, it would be pretty much the same.

The biggest pitfall CCP jumped into is the idea that all t2 ships must have a specific and very narrow role. This resulted in many worthless ship lineups like electronic attack frigs, whose niche is so tiny it hardly exist, while the more normal lineups like HACs gets all the usage. There is nothing wrong with a normal t2 ship that is actually useful. Cramming the nice looking tier 2 BC models into some obscure role would be a tragedy.


Originally by: Sinister Dextor
How about a role as Anti-ECM boats, with a bonus to ECCM, and a projected ECCM bonus capability to gang mates?


This is exactly what I was talking about. *shudders*Neutral

Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 01/02/2011 12:56:38
There are already 2x companionships that do two different things.



You don't need a new ship, all you would need is to change the models of one of them in order to better coordinate with their tech I counterparts.


Nighthawk = Drake model.
Sleipnir = Hurricane Model.
Astarte = Myrmidon Model (And really needs 5 heavy drone bandwith)Evil or Very Mad
Absolution = Harbinger Model.



See how easy that was kids? Wink



Yes, change the model, and then change the bonuses from gang link to normal t2 gank/tank bonuses. So basically, change the whole thing.Rolling Eyes

Czert ElPrezidente
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.01 15:55:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: GizzyBoy
/me drools,

also Navy versions of myrm, hurricane, Drake and harby..


FULLY supported. Make this and many users will be happy (for short time).

Berikath
Posted - 2011.02.01 16:46:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Goose99
Originally by: Manalapan
Well what do you think the purpose of T2 versions of the tier 2 battlecruisers would be? I don't think having more command ships would get this very far. You should think of a new direction or role that they could fill.


Assault Battle Cruiser, similar to HAC <-> Cruiser.
Tier2 Battlecruisers can already put out very similar numbers to an average battleship for either tank or DPS (or reasonably close for both). Does pumping up both really seem like a good idea to you?

I could see maybe having them be "heavy logistics" ships or something- maybe half the hardpoints, 100% damage bonus (a la marauders) and smaller bonuses to a wider variety of support modules (instead of 150% range 20% strength per level, maybe 75/100% range 10-15% strength per level) with tanking ability similar or SLIGHTLY better than command ships.

Basically, I'm thinking more flexible logistics ship which reps a bit less but tanks like a champ.

Crazy KSK
Posted - 2011.02.01 19:25:00 - [24]
 

the best idea I heard so far is to make them the opposite of command ships i.e. give them a module that gives penalties to ships on grid
some of which could be

lower cap recharge
lower resists shield/armor
lower tracking/optimal
lower sensor strength/scan resolution/targeting range/may locked targets/
higher signature radius
etc....


Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.02.02 00:16:00 - [25]
 

Easily solved.

Simply make the Sleipnir and all other such classes of CSs into a Tier 2 BC hull.

/thread.

Belfelmalak
Posted - 2011.02.02 04:47:00 - [26]
 

As time goes on technology improves and becomes more expensive. Today a missile cruiser would completly dismantle a WW1 dreadnaught. So it should be in Eve.

I have no problem with a higher tech BC being able to take out a tier 1 BS. As long as its cost is higher and the skill tree more extensive it makes sense. It gives the more experianced players an advantage while still allowing the newer players to play with the T1 ships.

Zephris
Posted - 2011.02.02 06:40:00 - [27]
 

I think a covert op command ship that can provide bonus to deep striking covert op fleet would be ideal for T2 tier 2 BCs.

Deterro
Caldari
Atlantean Defense Fleet
Motivated and Determined
Posted - 2011.02.02 18:39:00 - [28]
 

Okay, lets examine the primary attributes of the tier 2 BCs:
Drake: Tank, and tank, also tank. Oh, it can tank also! (<3 my Drake no matter what ships I can fly, such as Tengu and Nighthawk :p)
Myrm: Good Tank, Droneboat
Harbinger: DPS, also good tank
Hurricane: DPS, also good tank (both cane and binger are mostly buffer tank ships, have good dps but not such a good tank)

Of course these are generalisations, but lets see how they can be translated into tech 2:
Drake - both commandships have great tanks, more would be even more...
Myrmidon - i don't know a lot of the commandship with the drone bonus, but i'm sure that a dedicated drone carrier would be good (although i think the domi fills the role already, variation is always lovely)
Binger: DPS... yeah well the Zealot is here for that.... (ofc I personally would love more tank and DPS every day of the week)
Cane: Guess the same applies with the binger above...

Solution: Maybe, just maybe, these ships could be related with an eve expansion, possibly DUST (although that would be a waste), or some sort of new expansion that requires a specialisation that only an advanced battlecruiser can offer...

PS: Loved the on-grid command ship idea, but something more radical is needed, I want my Kaalakiota Drake to have an uber badass role! :p

Admiral Leviathan
Posted - 2011.02.02 23:34:00 - [29]
 

Webbifier Interdictors! Target Painting Interdictors! Sensor Dampening Interdictors! Tracking Disruption Interdictors!

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.02.03 00:03:00 - [30]
 

I personally don't see any need for additional cruiser sized ships. And even tho BC is not technically cruiser, face the reality - it uses cruiser sized rigs, cruiser size weapons, cruiser size tanking mods, and cruiser size propulsion mods.

T3 nicely fills "the next step" in progression of power for cruiser sized hulls. If there's some new special ability you want to add to cruisers, make it in form of 5th subsystem.

I want new t2 battleship, something PvP oriented.


Pages: [1] 2

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