Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zeanea K
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Is it possible to have T3 battleship? if yes this would be cool. who's agree with me? |
Lexs
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Not as cool as T4 battleships. |
Uma D
Uma D Ltd.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Surely Tech 3 Battleships would be quite nice to see in general. But i have the feeling that it would be very difficult to balance those.
If the increase in strength from tech 1 to tech 3 would be as huge as it is for cruisers you would create some really strong monsters which would be very difficult to stop.
On the other side, we do not need another prenerfed battleship variation like Marauders. |
Moneta Curran
Lunar Industries Ltd
103
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 11:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
They'd be terribly overpowered if they are done in a similar way to the current T3 cruisers. Anyway I'd rather see T3 frigates.
Let's wait for the Marauder rebalance.
oh and I cannot help but point out that it's either:
who agrees with me or who's in agreement with me |
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
126
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
T3 BS or BC would be nice, but they do not need to be very powerful. For exemple, a T3 abaddon could have 4% armor resist bonus or 5% bonus to armor rep or 5% bonus to ROF. Make ships more versatile. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1621
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
No. Not unless they go along with what people are clamouring for right now with T3 cruisers - instead of being just more powerful than T2, make them slightly less powerful but give them the ability to save two or so fits and transform in space. Otherwise it just condemns T1 and T2 battleships to obsolescence. Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 21:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
i want a jove frig far better than a T3 bs |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3702
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lexs wrote:Not as cool as T4 battleships.
Rock, Paper, T5 Battleship! This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Hevymetal
POT Corp Semper Ardens Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 23:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Zeanea K wrote:Is it possible to have T3 battleship? if yes this would be cool. who's agree with me?
Oh yes it's possible.
Cloaky, interdiction nullified Rokhs here we vome.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
14867
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hevymetal wrote:Zeanea K wrote:Is it possible to have T3 battleship? if yes this would be cool. who's agree with me? Oh yes it's possible. Cloaky, interdiction nullified Rokhs here we vome.
Let's do this "Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff-á
Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?-á http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny |
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
514
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
Technically, since T3 battlecruisers carry battleship size weapons, don't we kinda already fly T3 battleships? |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
14867
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:Technically, since T3 battlecruisers carry battleship size weapons, don't we kinda already fly T3 battleships?
Tier 3, not tech 3.
Get it right "Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff-á
Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?-á http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
514
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ok, I'll just go sit in a corner. |
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
What about a T3 Battleship that would not be overpowered but would have some very interesting module adaptations.
The only module adaptation that I can think of is combing POS Gun attack settings to the battleships Auto Targeting Module.
POS Guns can be set to certain standings where the guns will automatically attack any ship within range that has a value equal to or lower than the attack setting.
The Advanced Auto Targeting Module would be able to have attack settings that would allow the pilot to adjust the setting of attack.
For example the pilot sets the AATM to -5.00. Any pilot with a -5.00 standing with the pilot that comes within range would first be targeted and then asked if the guns should fire.
The same type of setting could also be built for a Security Status AATM where the pilot sets the modules setting to -5.00 and any pilot that with a -5.00 or lower sec status that come into range would be targeted where the pilot is the asked once again if the guns are to be fired.
The green and red safety settings would determine whether or not the guns fire or permission is asked to fire the guns.
Green = Permission is asked first Red = Guns fire as soon as the target is locked.
There would also be a Suppressed version of the AATM where the pilot being targeted would not know that they are being targeted.
The drawback to this class of Battle Ship is that it would only have four low slots, four medium slots and five high slots due to the amount of hull volume taken up by the POS Gunnery mechanics built into the Battleship.
Normal bonuses apply such as a 7.5 per level damage modifier and a 5% AATM targeting bonus per level that locks the target down at a faster rate of 25% by level five. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
2151
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:46:00 -
[15] - Quote
Given the balancing nightmare T3 cruisers still are, T3 BS and frigsshouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole. You know... morons. |
Felicity Love
Whore and Peace
754
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 01:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Won't see anything even close until all of the T2's are rebalanced, which will likely take a year or so, and then POS's need fixing as well.
All of which has to be done so as to have a hope of identifying any possible niches where any new T3 hulls, of any class, might have half a reason to exist.
Kick back, have a brew or three... this will take awhile.
Proud Beta Tester for "Bumping Uglies for Dummies" |
ACE McFACE
Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve
1409
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 03:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
They'd either be very OP, or not worth the cost. You should be notified if someone quotes your post so you can continue the argument! |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Yes, T2 cruisers need to be addressed... along with Marauders, Black Ops and Pirates. T3 Strategic Cruisers are fine and should be left the heck alone, however. As for T3 Battleships, I'd actually like to see three additions:
GÇó T3 Destroyers (we don't really need any more frigates, do we?) GÇó T3 Battlecruisers ("Pocket battleships") GÇó T3 Battleships ("Flagships")
T3 Battlecruisers would be along the lines of an upgraded Strategic Cruiser (7 weapon slots), and T3 Battleships would rival all T2 Battleships (8 weapon slots) - think Dread and Carrier killers. Yeah, probably a long way off. I can still dream... |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3114
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:Given the balancing nightmare T3 cruisers still are, T3 BS and frigsshouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole. How about a T3 ten foot pole? |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
2180
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:34:00 -
[20] - Quote
Covops nullified probing abbadon here I come! |
|
AligatorVer1337
The Black Talon Assult Force A T O N E M E N T
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:43:00 -
[21] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Yes, T2 cruisers need to be addressed... along with Marauders, Black Ops and Pirates. T3 Strategic Cruisers are fine and should be left the heck alone, however. As for T3 Battleships, I'd actually like to see three additions:
GÇó T3 Destroyers (we don't really need any more frigates, do we?) GÇó T3 Battlecruisers ("Pocket battleships") GÇó T3 Battleships ("Flagships")
T3 Battlecruisers would be along the lines of an upgraded Strategic Cruiser (7 weapon slots), and T3 Battleships would rival all T2 Battleships (8 weapon slots) - think Dread and Carrier killers. Yeah, probably a long way off. I can still dream...
Dreads playing station games? no thanks.
T3 BS would be BS.
If ANY t3, then frigate sized. Because frigates need the different variations, while battleships have to be "boring" shooting monsters. I mean it's a battleship afterall. |
masternerdguy
nul-li-fy Nulli Secunda
1246
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 04:47:00 -
[22] - Quote
T3s may have been one of the worst ship classes to be added. They obsoleted HACs, recons, and brick tanked bait cyno ships overnight.
Yeah yeah, they're expensive. But let me remind you of 2 facts.
1. Price is not a factor in balance. 2. A generalized ship (t3) should never be configurable to be better than a specialized one (HAC, Recon)
The original idea of T3s was we could get one ship we could swap subsystems out on to use it as many kinds of ships, but it would be worse at their roles than the specialized counterparts (that you would have to buy 1 of each of, instead of reconfiguring one ship to act as one).
That's not what happened. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 05:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
AligatorVer1337 wrote:Dreads playing station games? no thanks.
T3 BS would be BS.
If ANY t3, then frigate sized. Because frigates need the different variations, while battleships have to be "boring" shooting monsters. I mean it's a battleship afterall.
I said Dread and Carrier killers, ie: good at shooting capitals. I'm not opposed to T3 Frigates; just as long as I get my T3 Battleship. :D |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
766
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 05:36:00 -
[24] - Quote
T3 Battleships....do they drop in Incursions?
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
masternerdguy
nul-li-fy Nulli Secunda
1246
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 05:43:00 -
[25] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:AligatorVer1337 wrote:Dreads playing station games? no thanks.
T3 BS would be BS.
If ANY t3, then frigate sized. Because frigates need the different variations, while battleships have to be "boring" shooting monsters. I mean it's a battleship afterall. I said Dread and Carrier killers, ie: good at shooting capitals. I'm not opposed to T3 Frigates; just as long as I get my T3 Battleship. :D masternerdguy wrote:T3s may have been one of the worst ship classes to be added. They obsoleted HACs, recons, and brick tanked bait cyno ships overnight.
Yeah yeah, they're expensive. But let me remind you of 2 facts.
1. Price is not a factor in balance. 2. A generalized ship (t3) should never be configurable to be better than a specialized one (HAC, Recon)
The original idea of T3s was we could get one ship we could swap subsystems out on to use it as many kinds of ships, but it would be worse at their roles than the specialized counterparts (that you would have to buy 1 of each of, instead of reconfiguring one ship to act as one).
That's not what happened. I beg to differ. Were the other ships obsoleted, or have they simply been long overdue for an upgrade? T3 Strategic Cruisers were designed for wormhole space, and in that role they have excelled. They are not particularly good in any of their sub-roles (Covert Ops, ECM) - as there are superior ships for these roles. They are decent at tanking and killing sleepers. They're excellent for mission running, but have since been removed from 3/4 complexes - so there are finite limits to what they all can do. T3s are inherently expensive (especially once you start considering all the sub-systems), and there's a huge skill penalty when you die in one. Fix the other ships and they won't seem as overbalanced.
So you are claiming that HACs are better combat ships than Strategic Cruisers?
Also, buffing things to be up to date with overpowered things is power creep, which is bad. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
50
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 06:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:So you are claiming that HACs are better combat ships than Strategic Cruisers? Also, buffing things to be up to date with overpowered things is power creep, which is bad.
Never said that. But on a price per basis, you could field a small fleet of HACs for an average Strategic Cruiser with spare sub-systems. HACs are also the largest ships you can take into 3/4 complexes now, so they do need to be buffed. Power creep is sometimes unavoidable, and I prefer it to nerf'ing everything. |
masternerdguy
nul-li-fy Nulli Secunda
1246
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 06:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:masternerdguy wrote:So you are claiming that HACs are better combat ships than Strategic Cruisers? Also, buffing things to be up to date with overpowered things is power creep, which is bad. Never said that. But on a price per basis, you could field a small fleet of HACs for an average Strategic Cruiser with spare sub-systems. HACs are also the largest ships you can take into 3/4 complexes now, so they do need to be buffed. Power creep is sometimes unavoidable, and I prefer it to nerf'ing everything.
But price is not a factor in balance. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8704
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 07:18:00 -
[28] - Quote
T3 frigs or gtfo. would totally pwn your BS. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7311
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 07:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:masternerdguy wrote:So you are claiming that HACs are better combat ships than Strategic Cruisers? Also, buffing things to be up to date with overpowered things is power creep, which is bad. Never said that. But on a price per basis, you could field a small fleet of HACs for an average Strategic Cruiser with spare sub-systems. HACs are also the largest ships you can take into 3/4 complexes now, so they do need to be buffed. Power creep is sometimes unavoidable, and I prefer it to nerf'ing everything.
HACs just got their first look in teircide and they have not been buffed to t3 levels. They are on par with t1 and navy but more specialised. Its time to face facts that these 4 t3 cruisers are going to get nerfed to be in line with the rest of the cruisers. |
duglas Luven
Confederate Industry and Investments Inc. Confederacy of Stellar Empires
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 10:05:00 -
[30] - Quote
T3 Battleships? give them ubber bad ass tracking and optimal range bonuses. Also really good Ewar counters. Bonus to sensors. No bonus to turret damage and smaller drone bays. As well as add in command ship role.
High 6 Med 8 Low 6
A second route to take is give them 4 rig slots with 500 calibration.
In any event just spit balling. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |