We do not need a second line of Attack Battlecruisers. That would not address a problem or make the game more interesting, but would have the potential to introduce severe balance/OP problems.
So I just put 8x Torps on a Typhoon in Pyfa it also has a 5% Torp ROF bonus) to get an idea of the DPS/Alpha - it is insanely high for a BC, even if it were T2 (Or “T3” for that matter) without the help of mods/rigs. I am also comparing its DPS/Alpha to other Attack BCs, it is absurdly high. I am also comparing it to Stealth Bombers, which already serve the role of low-cost-low-skill-low-risk ganking. This ship would make the Stealth Bomber redundant, which would be bad (esp. since Attack BCs already have insanely high power relative to their costs and skill reqs). The ship you propose truly would introduce numerous balancing problems for literally no reason other than “it would be cool for it to exist”
Really torps belong on a battleship hull. I love t1 torp typhoons, they are amazing for bashing structures if that’s your thing, and are basically a BC when you look at maneuver and tank fitted right. OP is after calling an apple an orange really in that respect. You already have a suitable hull for the purpose you propose, use it.
Edit: he possibly wants a cheap missile gank platform, and no that is not a good idea to start with lol
The way you worded that sentence implies that Naga used to be torpedo BC, am I understanding you right? (it’s hybrit turret platform for as long as I am around and it did seem awkwardto me that it was not missile ship, if it used to be one but was turned intu hybrid because of difficulty with balancing it would make sense…)
nvm I’ve just scrolled up and re-read couple messages above, disregard me xD
If any race were going to get a dedicated missile ABC, it would likely be Caldari. Plus, a Minmatar missile boat wouldn’t likely get bounses to range.
Even ignoring those two issues, introducing a fifth ABC just to fill a missile role when the gun ABC lineup is already pretty well complete seems ill-advised regardless of the race. Pretty much any single-race concept (for the four empire races at least) is DOA.
There needs to be a fire and assured hit ABC class that is fit with torpedoes. Being able to suddenly drop an ABC Torp ship into a fight will help balance the terms of the engagement regarding other BS that are on the field. The Torp ABC would basically be an anti-BS class type of ship. Fast and very powerful torpedoes that are able to punch through a line of TII or Faction BS that would then allow the smaller ships, Cruisers and BC to pour through the gap and inflict severe damage on the baggage train of the enemy.
Like the other Assault Battle Cruisers the Torp ABC would suffer from reduced EHP as a result of fitting the torp launchers, even more so if polarized torp launchers are used, the Torp ABC basically becomes a glass launcher. Not to terrible as a solo ship, but exacting in a fleet of ten or more.
Nope. There is no such need. Nor would the instroduction of such a fit improve the game. Stick to existing ABCs or to your Raven/Typhoon. Stop complaining.
…unbalance the game.
Too bad. You use what works. Missiles have pros and cons over turrets by their nature - when the cons are outweighed by the pros, you switch over or suck it up. Fun fact: they’re no meant to be interchangeable. Anyone with intimate knowledge of the damage/precision mechanics (formula properties, etc) and their damage graphs can tell you that.
Maybe I’m not an authority on ship balance, but explain to me why we need a new battlecruiser class ship to torp battleships with when we have HAW phoenixes and torp bombers.
Doesn’t it make more sense to just make sure the ships that already exist for that role can actually do it effectively by looking at bomber and haw stats than design a whole new entirely redundant ship class?
I mean if the existing anti-BS torp platforms aren’t working, first step is to make them actually work, right?
Really this whole conversation is on a concept that is doa. Buffing torps in general might be an idea. They have ■■■■ application, and no range. Really in most cases other than sitting still bashing something else sitting still, you’ll get better results with a t2 cruise missile.
They’re not intended for use on subcaps (unless the target in question is heavily painted and webbed) - they’re anti-cap weapons. So no, they don’t bad application, they’re just misapplied and then players complain about their application because they’re being misapplied (I’m not calling you out, just saying in general). Their range isn’t bad, though, by either cap or anticap standards, given their raw power. Certainly longer than Neutron Blasters.
I mean, T1-to-T1, Faction-to-Faction, Torps get a 20% increase in damage, so that’s kind of a big deal. Rage-to-Fury is a 33% increase, which is a bigger deal. Use Torps against the right target (caps) and/or heavily painted/webbed targets (subcaps), and they are far superior to Cruise. Plus, don’t forget Torps are used by stealth bombers and Rapid Torps can be used by HAW Dreads (eg. Phoenix).