open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Stop whinning about T2 BS screwing balance up !!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

Ikvar
A Blue Goat
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:14:00 - [61]
 

I broke into CCP HQ and stole the brains of several Devs, here is what I found.

All T2 BS will have the following bonuses.

10% to mining Yield Per Level
5% to Cargo cap per level

+2 warp core strength Very Happy

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.09.03 22:29:00 - [62]
 

Personally I'd be interested to see them with HAC resists, expanded C&C/EW/gang/whatever capabilities and reduced offensive abilities. Make them really tough but make them both a big advantage to and utterly dependent upon the rest of the fleet.

Noriath
Posted - 2005.09.03 23:02:00 - [63]
 

HAC resists are not the problem, tanking is underpowered anyways.

HAC damage is the problem, because damage setups are overpowered already.

Tido Maliyu
Cobalt Dragon Exploration Company
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2005.09.04 00:18:00 - [64]
 

Edited by: Tido Maliyu on 04/09/2005 00:24:54

OK some1 wrote in this post that if there came any more ships that would require higher lvl and such the newbies wouldnt play past their 1st month... well what will happen with the vets when they reach their max?Shocked

When i started playing this game i wasnt expecting to get a bs very soon... i was happy when i got my first cruiser after 1 week. after that i didnt get my bs be4 4-5 months l8rShocked

Those that arent interested in spending time in eve shouldnt be playing! Theres no fast way to a dread f. ex.!!!!!

And about the "OMG if every1 would be flying an Elite bs": Do you have 1 bill Shocked... i know i dont, and im not expecting getting it anytime soon ugh

I dont even fly a HAC and id be very interested in c'ing Assault ship resistance on the Elite BS!

Lucas Vicenzo
Gallente
Neubiennye
Terra Prime
Posted - 2005.09.04 00:25:00 - [65]
 

I dont understand what the fuss is about, if it has hac like resistances, its just going to take more ammo to kill, nothing else.

If these ships even follow the same lines as assault ships, then your an idiot to line up against one in tech 1 ships and slug it out. That would be like going thorax vs deimos with identical setups.

However use your brains, or borrow someone elses, and it will be like killing anyhting else.

Noriath
Posted - 2005.09.04 00:33:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: Noriath on 04/09/2005 00:34:43

If MMORPGs teach us one thing then this: If you're gonna put something in that is better then everything else people will spend the time to get it. No matter how "hard" it is to get, people will make the effort if it's simply the best.

Sobeseki Pawi
Minmatar
Insurance Claim Services
Posted - 2005.09.04 00:34:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: The Praetor
Originally by: Vilserx
Uber-BSs would surely widen the gap further between new players and 'vets.'

Whilst everyone points out 'diminishing returns' the T2 introduction meant that was no longer completely the case and T2 battleships with what will be high skill requirements will make it even harder for newer players to compete.


Exactly. The current skillgap already discourages many new players (actual new players, not new alts!) from continuing beyond their 1st month.


That was the case before Tech II was even an itch in CCP's gankapants.

Nerogk Shorn
Caldari
Invicta.
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:02:00 - [68]
 

Ok here is the deal plain and simple. If a Tech 2 bs was fashioned in the same style as an AF or HAC then i believe it would not work. Here is the deal

If the ships keep the same number of module slots, then lets say the raven will have 6 mid slots to shield tank. If it goes a straight tank the best set up would probably be on the order of Em, Em, Exp hardener, 2 shield boost amps and an Xlarge Shield booster II. This would give you around 73% average resists (probably a low estimate) The Shield booster would give around 983 shield per boost every 5 seconds which works out to around 196.5 shield per second. Now 196.5 shield per second with an average of 73% resists come out to about 728 damage per second. This means that not only does it need 3 or more bs's to take it on, it can also easily tank sentry guns indefinetly. If you get a shield boost bonus like the hawk and eagle (one would assume it to continue) or a gistii Xlarge, it would become nearly undefeatable.

I doubt that even another tech 2 battle ship could break its tank. The scary part is... if it COULD, cause then it would take probably 6 battle ships to take out its tech 2 counterpart. Not to mention this is only 1 of 8 races bs's.

I hope it is a logistic ship. = (

Nero Scuro
Jejaikaro Corporation
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:21:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu

I'm not short sighted. What happens when I put a tracking disruptor or two on that T2 gankageddon? It turns into a billion ISK T2 paperweight. Sure it'll be a challenge to take down, but they will go down, and they'll provide a critically needed money sink for Eve. I guarantee you that money sink won't be there if CCP releases a set of worthless and unwanted T2 logistics battleships with ovaries and a Yanni CD to defend itself with.

The way you're panicking, it's like you expect everyone in Eve but you to suddenly be flying T2 BS the moment they're released. Tell me, out of a hundred ships in space you see, how many are HACs?

I think the 30 million SP plus veterans of Eve deserve a class of ship to represent the amount of time they've put into the game.


First of all, why do you assume anything but a HAC-style BS is going to suck? Logistics suck. Bombers suck. EVERY other type of specialised T2 ship does not.

Secondly, do you REALLY think EVE should be reduced to having ships that progressively get better while becoming increasingly more expensive to lose? So we end up with T13 BS that can make anything it's ***** but cost 50 billion to insure or something? Because that would be lame. Ships need balance. Generic counters that work on every ship are NOT balance, as they hurt the bad ships just as much as the good. Sure a T2 tracking disrupter would screw over a T2 BS pilot, but it'd also screw over T1 BS pilots, and all cruiser and all frigs as well. Generic counters are beside the point.

Thirdly, no I don't expect everyone to be flying T2 HAC-BS around the minute they come out. I expect EVERYBODY will aim to get one, given they have no disadvantages, which will turn EVE into one big stupid grind, because of their cost. SP is forever. Once people train up for T2 BS, they never lose this ability. Eventually a large number of people will be able to fly what will be THE best combat ship in the game, and they won't want to fly anything else. Battles will be reduced to EW ships and T2 BS. Which would be teh suckzor.

Franky B
AUS Corporation
CORE.
Posted - 2005.09.04 01:58:00 - [70]
 

i think the issue is that there would be no realistic counter to a Heavy Assaut Battleship.

AF's have cruisers or HAC's as counters

HAC's have BS's as a counter

HAB have... what a dreadnought? isnt that a little bit off the scale for a counter? cruisers and BS's aint that inaccesable but dreadnoughts with their billion dollar price tag and months of skill training are waaay off the scale for an effective counter.

Vince Draken
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2005.09.04 02:16:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: V0RL0N's Bio

2005.08.15 07:29:30 combat Your 425mm
Railgun I perfectly strikes 'True Power'
Assembly Security HQ, wrecking for 706.0
damage.



About says it all tbfh.

Sorja
11th Division
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2005.09.04 03:35:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
The people who stand against the creation of heavy assault battleships are merely those who fear having to face them personally.

Very interesting thought.
And very short-sighted.

First off, we are in a game. You win nothing here, you entertain yourself.
I find somewhat disturbing that some want to 'prove' anything in a game.
You are probably not aware of what the
Quote:
The weak of constitution should not dictate limitations for the powerful to abide by.
has generated as harm in the real world, otherwise you surely wouldn't like it to happen in a game.

Second off, if people are left out, they won't pay their subscription anymore, about which you probably don't care, but CCP should.

Third off, as already pointed at, outrageously expensive ships will only prevent fights, while it's already hard enough to get fights in EVE because most are afraid of losing their valuables.
This will lead to more ganking, more blobbing, more timesinks.

Fourth off, interceptors, assault frigates and assault cruisers were, IMHO, bad design choices.
It follows the logic described by jOsephine: more power for the sake of power.
Nothing different, just more powerful.
Poor design.
It creates a game of haves and have not, and adds nothing to the interest of combat.
A true PvP game is a game where tactics and player skills matter, not the gear they use or how long they played the game.

Aleis
Minmatar
Playboy Enterprises
Dark Taboo
Posted - 2005.09.04 04:12:00 - [73]
 

I don't feel like Digging up the old Devblog or patchnote, some where a while back but the Powers that be already adressed all these issue and Stated very clearly T2 Battleships aren't going to be Super HACs or Gankfactors.

Usualy i don't waste my time saying this cause there will just be another post exactly the same in another 3 days but I brush it off every now and then and repost.

Gariuys
Evil Strangers Inc.
Posted - 2005.09.04 11:09:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: babyblue
Edited by: babyblue on 03/09/2005 17:08:37
Originally by: V0RL0N
As i've stated in my original post, i am sick of the ppl that whine about a POSSIBLE T2 BS with HAC like stats, ppl that say: I'll quit the game when T2 BS with HAC like stats will be added to the game.

And from this link you can see that in the patch .3570 they have HAC like resists. Dont know about other bonuses yet though.


What are you going to do with your TS BS with HAC like stats? Level 4 missions? NPC'ing? Complexes? They will all be too easy (except maybe the 10/10). So there will have to be an adjustment all the way along the line. PvP? You will be able to hit a T1 battleship in gank mode before it can kill you. Probably be able to kill 2 or 3 before you are in trouble yourself. It's totally unbalanced and only an idiot would want to see this in the game.

If they are released, it's better they are pre-nerfed than released with the stats current on SiSi. Do you not see, logically, it does less harm to pre-nerf and patch them up, than to release them Uber and patch them down (look at the missile patch whining).





Don't know if it's been said can't be arsed.... but resists that can be achieved by 3 hardners, are enough to let you **** 3 t1 battleships at a time. Now I don't know WTF you are smoking, but I think it's bad for the brain. Cause that's what's in the dbase now. What would be bad, is having another 25% rof or damage bonus, and a crapload more grid ( although the grid isn't that big a deal anymore ).

Troezar
Minmatar
Posted - 2005.09.04 11:21:00 - [75]
 

Have to agree with those who say we need different, niche role, ships not more powerful ones. A super tanked command and control ship would be nice, lots of fleet bonuses and very, very hard to kill but with poor offensive abilities.

Perhaps they could have bonuses that benefit friendly ships that stay within say 50km to encourage squadron style flying with protective wingmen?

Nerdin
Posted - 2005.09.04 11:31:00 - [76]
 

The day these HAC status Battleships enter the game will be the day EvE lose a lot of players.
You said you didnt want any whining, but lets face the facts. Not many people can ever and i mean ever afford what they will cost. They are just a ship that makes the already superior and richer players better.
If CCP wants more players in EvE=money for them, they need to stop making all uberships and concentrate on perhaps more tech 1 ships, for example 3 more frigs, 2 more cruisers and 1 extra battleship to each race.

Whining or not. This is fact. Rolling Eyes

VossKarr
Caldari
The 6th Directorate
Posted - 2005.09.04 11:33:00 - [77]
 

I'd be fine with a SHAB that just has higher resistances (i.e. more survivable) and non(direct)damage bonuses, like tracking/optimal range increases or defensive bonii. Giving another dmg/RoF bonus would be too much, tbh, and that's the only thing I agree on with those who're against SHABs.

Orius Nix
Posted - 2005.09.04 12:03:00 - [78]
 

i will say it if i want. T2 Bs's WILL SCREW UP ALL THE WORK DEV"S HAVE TRIED TO PUT INTO BALANCING.

madaluap
Gallente
Anthrax Foundation
Posted - 2005.09.04 12:33:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: madaluap on 04/09/2005 12:37:03
Originally by: Nerdin
The day these HAC status Battleships enter the game will be the day EvE lose a lot of players.
You said you didnt want any whining, but lets face the facts. Not many people can ever and i mean ever afford what they will cost. They are just a ship that makes the already superior and richer players better.
If CCP wants more players in EvE=money for them, they need to stop making all uberships and concentrate on perhaps more tech 1 ships, for example 3 more frigs, 2 more cruisers and 1 extra battleship to each race.

Whining or not. This is fact. Rolling Eyes



yeh this is more power for the allready powerfull. its just not cool.

maybe 1% of eve wil use it, and ccp is putting time in something 1% will use. that just makes me REALLY ****ed off, to put so much time in something so utterly useless. stuff that ads nothing more than longtraining times, long training times shouldnt be what makes a game. designing a battlecruiser takes the same time.

Jorev
The Scope
Posted - 2005.09.04 12:37:00 - [80]
 

There's no balance, there's "OMG 200 bs blob, node dropping in 3..2...1.." or "15 inty/AF/HAC" roaming ganksquad blob. Neither get much real pvp.

Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2005.09.04 13:03:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Orius Nix
i will say it if i want. T2 Bs's WILL SCREW UP ALL THE WORK DEV"S HAVE TRIED TO PUT INTO BALANCING.


What if they give them identical stats to starter ships?

mimik
Posted - 2005.09.04 13:16:00 - [82]
 

while i accept some of the logic around balance or unbalance as some of the doomsayers would prefer there is a real danger that tech2 BS could be the biggest white elephant in the game unless they are made attractive to players.

if the same skill reqs both for building and flying follow the parallels from other tech2 ships and the relative cost between tech1 and tech2 ships of other classes applies then no-one is gonna bother with one if all they are is a big logistics ship.

the majority of the people whining on here about balance would probably get their a$$es kicked by a competent pilot in a well fitted faction BS so why does the tech2 BS make their lifes any harder.

or they know they will never have the patience to train the skills required for one or never be able to afford one so their mentality is "If I can't have one then no-one else should"

Necrologic
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2005.09.04 13:24:00 - [83]
 

I didn't read the whole thread, so if this has been said already just ignore it.

In response to the original post, you are wrong because unlike with af's or hacs, there is nothing bigger than a t2 bs.
Hacs will pwn t1 cruisers all day, same with af's vs t1 frigs. Hacs will also pwn af's all day. Hacs are an alternative to battleships. They can in some situations kill a battleship, but in general cannot 1v1, despite being very similar in operating cost, and much higher in skill reqs. But what will a heavy assault bs be compared to? A dreadnought? Dreads arn't even combat ships the way cruisers and bs are. They are there to kill stations, that's it. So, end result, this will make heavy assault bs the only ship in eve worth flying in the end.

Azuriel Talloth
M. Corp
M. PIRE
Posted - 2005.09.04 13:52:00 - [84]
 

Heavy Assault versions of Frigs and Cruisers make sense since the T1 versions of them have different roles such as mining, cargo carrying, EW etc. But a Battleship is a heavy combat ship already, hence the name. Making a "heavier" version seems stupid. The role of "ultra heavy artillery" is already filled by Dreadnoughts...

unless they give T2 BS very few turret high slots, and make them capable of using for example 2 Extra Large sized weapons... give them higher speed than regular BS and they can fulfill an anti-capital ship role?

Azrael Callidor
Minmatar
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2005.09.04 13:59:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: babyblue
Edited by: babyblue on 03/09/2005 13:57:34
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Original poster is right. Anyone arguing is wrong.


Even for these forums, thats response is probably the most arrogant and idiotic I can imagine. JUSTIFY. Your name alone doesn't mean **** to me, so this statement of yours is superfluous.




Haha, love it. The name clearly does mean something or you wouldn't bring it up in the first place. So silly.

As far as what he said, i'll second that happily with no prejudice. OP is right. It makes me laugh how many people complain about this. Its happened many times before, it will happen many times again. New content will ALWAYS be added.

Why is HAC-like resists going to be a problem? Afraid of spending longer to kill it? Or calling your mates in? No matter how much people whine, they WILL be more powerful, they WILL be formidable no matter their role, Logistics, Command, Damage. Live with it, they will be expensive enough to compensate.

A HAC is easily killable with several T2 frigates and some tactics. Do you not see the pattern?

ELECTR0FREAK
Eye of God
Posted - 2005.09.04 16:52:00 - [86]
 

If you know anything about game design and balance, its that introducing a super-powerful weapon is absolute murder on game balance no matter what way you cut it. I'd rather not see HABs enter the game and the Devs spend months trying to balance them.

Besides, the devs have ALREADY stated that HABs are not going to be uber-BS. Why in heck are we debating this issue when the decision has already been made? According to what I've seen the devs say, they're going to be flagships, with tons of bonuses for command modules and gang work.

So kids, stop fantasizing about flying around in an uber battleship blowing everything up. Its not likely to happen.

mimik
Posted - 2005.09.04 17:19:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
If you know anything about game design and balance, its that introducing a super-powerful weapon is absolute murder on game balance no matter what way you cut it. I'd rather not see HABs enter the game and the Devs spend months trying to balance them.

Besides, the devs have ALREADY stated that HABs are not going to be uber-BS. Why in heck are we debating this issue when the decision has already been made? According to what I've seen the devs say, they're going to be flagships, with tons of bonuses for command modules and gang work.

So kids, stop fantasizing about flying around in an uber battleship blowing everything up. Its not likely to happen.


if u actually ready what the devs said then u would know its tech2 battlecruisers that are gonna be the flagships and utilise gang assist mods. the last i saw there had been no decision as to the "role" of a tech2 BS.

VossKarr
Caldari
The 6th Directorate
Posted - 2005.09.04 18:14:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
If you know anything about game design and balance, its that introducing a super-powerful weapon is absolute murder on game balance no matter what way you cut it. I'd rather not see HABs enter the game and the Devs spend months trying to balance them.

Besides, the devs have ALREADY stated that HABs are not going to be uber-BS. Why in heck are we debating this issue when the decision has already been made? According to what I've seen the devs say, they're going to be flagships, with tons of bonuses for command modules and gang work.

So kids, stop fantasizing about flying around in an uber battleship blowing everything up. Its not likely to happen.



Afaik, I've read every dev blog and every dev chat since 04/04 and I don't remember them ever saying anything like that with regard to T2 BS. Could you post a link to where the Devs state what you just mentioned above?

Dionysus Davinci
The Scope
Posted - 2005.09.04 20:32:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Original poster is right. Anyone arguing is wrong.


At least the orginal OP made an attempt to argue his/her point instead of trolling.


Pages: 1 2 [3]

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