Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
190
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:28:16 -
[91] - Quote
To those saying that this is early, premature or otherwise not the time for this, I understand that these ideas are at a minimum, even if CCP starts modeling it the day after phoebe drops, 5 6 week expansions into the future. I would like to have these ships designed, all of the origional feedback collected and mostly addressed, any serious issues rectified and the general look of each ship in most configs hammered out.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
190
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:32:05 -
[92] - Quote
Gaan Cathal wrote:viverxia wrote:the T3 cruisers defiantly need a balance pass though -_- Not even that hard. Set Rig Slots = 0, give HACs and Recons their balance pass. Assess T3 EHP at that point and reduce as necessary. It is still broken, and now doubly so, as the rigs would continue to exist on current t3s, but you can no longer match them with newly built ships, so the veterans have an insuperable advantage, the armor buffer subsystems continue to increase the performance of some already powerful modules like 1600 plates well beyond their performance anywhere else, and synergize too well with slaves. To get the same sort of EHP multiplying effect any other way takes a 7.5% bonus to resists per level from the minmatar t2 shield resist line.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
855
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 22:25:47 -
[93] - Quote
As always I think T3s should be unique - I never want to see T3 cruiser style takes on T3 frigs, bcs, bs, etc. etc. the game needs some stand out ships to give it flavour and make it interesting to players who may not have much experience of the game - like it or hate it the current T3 cruisers inspire a lot of players towards training, saving for and flying their own unique take/style (who otherwise would quickly get bored with the game and leave).
Which is why in some ways I quite like what they did with the destroyers - in their own right they are something unique and interesting (even if not for everyone).
I almost wonder if the whole "T3" thing should be dropped and strategic cruisers become just strategic cruisers (with a few balances) because tbh the original concept of what T3s should be inline with other ships just doesn't work in any form with what strategic cruisers have become and there is no straight forward route to balancing them inline with that without completely destroying what strategic cruisers are today.
I would however love to see some degree of modular battleship - while marauders kind of worked out somewhat interesting I've always considered it a lost opportunity to make some proper "marauders" from them using a degree of modularity. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
190
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:18:08 -
[94] - Quote
Modular ships could be retained as the strategic series of t3s. Then have tactical t3s with modes, and maybe one other style of t3 ship with an third method of achieving flexibility. This means you can split frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships and only have one overlap if each style got 2 lines of hulls, or you could introduce a set of t3 capital ships (bad idea IMO, but hey, if someone proposes it and has a balanced proposal, it is worth discussing).
This makes for a fairly close to unique setup, as a modular cruiser and modular battleship will be wildly different in flavor and usage, while using a similar mechanism. Same for say a mode-switching destroyer and battlecruiser, with the third method of achieving a flexibility and multi-role setup is frigates only, and these share a fairly high level of basic skills needed to train but perform well when well fit.
Also, a deep deployment PvP ship which is suitable to long term back area harrasment is possible with the stuff I am working on but haven't yet released in the subsystem proposal. The Amarrian ship would truely clean up at this.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Gaan Cathal
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:32:49 -
[95] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Gaan Cathal wrote:viverxia wrote:the T3 cruisers defiantly need a balance pass though -_- Not even that hard. Set Rig Slots = 0, give HACs and Recons their balance pass. Assess T3 EHP at that point and reduce as necessary. It is still broken, and now doubly so, as the rigs would continue to exist on current t3s, but you can no longer match them with newly built ships, so the veterans have an insuperable advantage, the armor buffer subsystems continue to increase the performance of some already powerful modules like 1600 plates well beyond their performance anywhere else, and synergize too well with slaves. To get the same sort of EHP multiplying effect any other way takes a 7.5% bonus to resists per level from the minmatar t2 shield resist line.
Why in gods name would you leave pre-existing rigs in place? |
Lugia3
Intentionally Dense Easily Excited
1332
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 02:06:43 -
[96] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:You're not the first.
Basically it comes down to this: average Gal cruiser; 30k tank 600dps, average proteus; 300k tank, 900 dps. Average Gal BS: 110k tank, 1200 dps. Figure out what happens there. Thus the focus on trying to balance them, w/ resist tank subs ending at full t2 resists and 2-3M sp on the line at high skills. Other issues with this: Proteus has a much more dramatic slot profile than most gal cruisers, while the gal BS already has 8 lows, meaning attempts to stack subs for tank and raw DPS top out at the same number of slots. Proteus average is blinged out, while the others are sounding like t2 fits. More fair to compare blingy t2 and/or faction cruisers to proteus for power curves. Proteus is top of the heap by a large margin in PVP and posting impressive numbers.
It's impossible to balance them. If they're strong, they're going to be the go-to ship like the Tengu/Prot/Napoc/Fleetpest. If they have an inhibitor, like bastion module, they're going to be superior marauders. If they're weak, nobody will fly them. We're eve players. If there is one config better than the others, which there will be, we will find it.
And we will make our alliances train into it.
"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Remove Sov!
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
190
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 06:08:40 -
[97] - Quote
Gaan Cathal wrote:James Baboli wrote:Gaan Cathal wrote:viverxia wrote:the T3 cruisers defiantly need a balance pass though -_- Not even that hard. Set Rig Slots = 0, give HACs and Recons their balance pass. Assess T3 EHP at that point and reduce as necessary. It is still broken, and now doubly so, as the rigs would continue to exist on current t3s, but you can no longer match them with newly built ships, so the veterans have an insuperable advantage, the armor buffer subsystems continue to increase the performance of some already powerful modules like 1600 plates well beyond their performance anywhere else, and synergize too well with slaves. To get the same sort of EHP multiplying effect any other way takes a 7.5% bonus to resists per level from the minmatar t2 shield resist line. Why in gods name would you leave pre-existing rigs in place? How in Satan's name are you going to compensate those people with t2 rigs on their strategic cruisers?
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
190
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 06:12:29 -
[98] - Quote
Finished the subsystems and initial balance on the minmatar proposal. an example of the whole subsystem load and subsequent stats is below, and the links in the OP have all of them.
Finished examples of a Tyr
Tyr: shield missile brawler, roaming
Minmatar Flagship bonus: 7.5% reduction in heat generated /lvl
Role bonus: -25% to remote energy, shield and armor transfer effects
Offensive subsystem: Target Focusing Array: 6%/lvl target painter effectiveness 3%/lvl cruise, torp and RHML effectiveness 5%/lvl missile explosion radius
Defensive subsystem: Gravitic Shear Controller: 4%/lvl shield resist bonus
Propulsion Subsystem: Hyper-spatial Bore: 7.5%/lvl to warp speed
Electronics Subsystem: Immobility drivers: 20% /lvl to web range
Engineering Subsystem: Solar Sails: 5%/lvl to capacitor recharge rate 3%/lvl to Neut/nos Reflection rate
Slot layout:7H, 6M, 7L ; 5 turrets , 7 launchers Fittings: 18500 (23125) PWG, 700 (875) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 8500/ 7250 / 6500 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 6500Mj (8125Mj) / 520s (292.5s) / 12.5 (27.77) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 99 (123.75) / .138 / 113,000,000.00 / 16.98s (13.08s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 85 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 78km (97.5km)/ 85 (106)/ 7 Sensor strength: 19 Ladar Signature radius: 455
Numbers in parens are all skills 5, including subsystem bonuses
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
viverxia
Serenity Prime The Volition Cult
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 13:33:01 -
[99] - Quote
Gaan Cathal wrote: Why in gods name would you leave pre-existing rigs in place?
Cause thats how it works, If its rigged it says rigged.
There are still some collectors out there with non battleships with large rigs and such. They are valuable as all hell. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
191
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 06:12:32 -
[100] - Quote
Curious, has anyone actually looked at the google docs stuff?
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1847
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 08:07:05 -
[101] - Quote
Mahna Titus wrote:The problem with t3 BS is that there are already the T2s so they would need to be "better" then the T2s already out there and a marauder in bastion mode can be a bit of a beast, so IMO to find a balance between that and making it "not broken" is a grey area you wont find.
That said, as T3s are based on sleeper tech you could have them as being worse than T2s in base specs, however when used in a WH they get bonuses and boosts which take it above the T2 specs. (Due to sleeper tech being designed by sleepers for use in the space environments of a WH)
This helps limit the whole "OP in pvp" (I know you can still pvp in WH) and also helps give the high end WH users a bit more choice when it comes to running sites in WH
Just an idea for an alternative
Personally I liked the BS that can can use capitol weapons idea (call me whatever i dont care) but again that is a very fine balancing act
No they do not need to be better. You can make INTERESTIGN things as with the new destroyer idea. Make t3 battleship be able to change its bonus while in space between a set of 3, with a full minute colldown in between changes. THen make them have FOCUSED bonuses.
YOu can make them have about same EHP as a pirate BS (but not a navy one) and they would be on a reasonable power level.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1847
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 08:10:10 -
[102] - Quote
Gaan Cathal wrote:viverxia wrote:the T3 cruisers defiantly need a balance pass though -_- Not even that hard. Set Rig Slots = 0, give HACs and Recons their balance pass. Assess T3 EHP at that point and reduce as necessary.
The balance pass is still needed because there are several subsystems compeltely worthless (like the half proj half missiles for the loki) .
Also I still think t3 SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE DAMM COVERT CLOAK!!!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
192
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 08:52:20 -
[103] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Gaan Cathal wrote:viverxia wrote:the T3 cruisers defiantly need a balance pass though -_- Not even that hard. Set Rig Slots = 0, give HACs and Recons their balance pass. Assess T3 EHP at that point and reduce as necessary. The balance pass is still needed because there are several subsystems compeltely worthless (like the half proj half missiles for the loki) . Also I still think t3 SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE DAMM COVERT CLOAK!!! < sarc> That subsystem is one of the few ways to get a loki over 800 DPS. < /sarc > Seriously though, while creating a toon that can run the ship effectively with such a subsystem on, and setting it up to apply the damage is hell, it ends up with a very nasty profile if done right, especially with 3 full flights of lights allowing room for things not often seen.
As for the covert cloak: I like covert cloak on them. What is currently a problem IMO is covert cynos on them, as they combine too much tank for their tradeoffs and potentially bonused tackle with the ability to bring in a massive number of glass cannons to share their prey. And again to harp on the subject of synergy, I would like to see covops and nullification made mutually exclusive, or the covops and nullifier subs given a savage beating with the nerfbat.
Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
279
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 10:03:08 -
[104] - Quote
Still hoping someone actually looked at the google doc and has actual comments on it.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
390
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:13:43 -
[105] - Quote
To whoever is posting on the subsystem spreadsheet. I love you for actually looking at this.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
462
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 23:59:18 -
[106] - Quote
Any more new ideas? This is still back burner for the other two threads, but its worth bringing back up.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
848
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 06:11:55 -
[107] - Quote
I for one vote on a BS class that is able to reverse directions rapidly even while traveling at full MWD burn.
See a situation you don't want to be headed to? Hit the button and find yourself nope noping in the other direction in 2 seconds or less. Would be a silly ship.
Is that fleet burning towards us..? Nope, chuck Testa, it's headed in the other direction now.
Yeah I'm not being serious, but it is a fun idea.
I applaud your Dr. Frankenstein-esque dedication to keeping this thread unlocked though. |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 09:51:13 -
[108] - Quote
First of all let them make T2 of the tier3 battleships baddon mael rokh hiper thus would make the whole new class - other than Black Ops, Marauders ...
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2165
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 09:52:49 -
[109] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:See a situation you don't want to be headed to? Hit the button and find yourself nope noping in the other direction in 2 seconds or less. Would be a silly ship.
Is that fleet burning towards us..? Nope, chuck Testa, it's headed in the other direction now. I need a subsystem that will keep my sides from splitting open.
In other news, I am posting in one T3 battleship thread both to confirm its existence and to promote my own T3 battleship thread. Maybe we can make this happen, folks.
edit: OP feel free to make a Flexible Battleship section in your OP. I want to read it if you do.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Gregor Parud
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 10:48:50 -
[110] - Quote
The best, and only, way to balance T3 BS would be to not have them at all. |
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
463
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 10:49:09 -
[111] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Anhenka wrote:See a situation you don't want to be headed to? Hit the button and find yourself nope noping in the other direction in 2 seconds or less. Would be a silly ship.
Is that fleet burning towards us..? Nope, chuck Testa, it's headed in the other direction now. I need a subsystem that will keep my sides from splitting open. In other news, I am posting in one T3 battleship thread both to confirm its existence and to promote my own T3 battleship thread. Maybe we can make this happen, folks. edit: OP feel free to make a Flexible Battleship section in your OP. I want to read it if you do.
I'm not sure about the level of flexible you were promoting, but there is a modular battleship section that was the orginal idea of the thread, and which has mostly fleshed out subsytems for the minmatar t3, which seemed the easiest to make balanced, and thus the best place to start.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
463
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:08:01 -
[112] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:The best, and only, way to balance T3 BS would be to not have them at all.
I think it can be balanced. I also think it would need to be released as what is thought to be way under par and adjusted slowly upwards.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
Gregor Parud
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:41:21 -
[113] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:The best, and only, way to balance T3 BS would be to not have them at all. I think it can be balanced. I also think it would need to be released as what is thought to be way under par and adjusted slowly upwards.
No, it can't. A ~300k EHP BS with ~1200+ dps and all kinds of funky bonuses is inherently imbalanced, using the old T3 modular design would make for hilarious bullshit fits. Using the new T3 design (Confessor) would just poop on all other ships. It's one of those "wouldn't it be cool if" idea where we ended up with titans, the initial T3 and whatnot. All funky ideas that caused years of massive balance/gameplay issues.
There is no reason to have T3 BS other than "I WANTS IT CUZ NEW STUFF IS COOL AND OVERPOWERED STUFF IS FUN!!!!!", there is no tactical need for them. It can only end in tears because it either comes prenerfed to a degree where it's useless or it'll be hilariously OP. |
w3ak3stl1nk
Hedion University
91
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 16:59:40 -
[114] - Quote
Tech 0 battleship like gnosis seems more interesting...
Is that my two cents or yours?
|
Director Blackflame
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 00:02:48 -
[115] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:James Baboli wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:The best, and only, way to balance T3 BS would be to not have them at all. I think it can be balanced. I also think it would need to be released as what is thought to be way under par and adjusted slowly upwards. No, it can't. A ~300k EHP BS with ~1200+ dps and all kinds of funky bonuses is inherently imbalanced, using the old T3 modular design would make for hilarious bullshit fits. Using the new T3 design (Confessor) would just poop on all other ships. It's one of those "wouldn't it be cool if" idea where we ended up with titans, the initial T3 and whatnot. All funky ideas that caused years of massive balance/gameplay issues. There is no reason to have T3 BS other than "I WANTS IT CUZ NEW STUFF IS COOL AND OVERPOWERED STUFF IS FUN!!!!!", there is no tactical need for them. It can only end in tears because it either comes prenerfed to a degree where it's useless or it'll be hilariously OP.
Not speaking of any of the ideas put forth here but if you think a T3 BS has the potential to be either useless or hilariously OP it likewise could fall in between those boundaries and be balanced. Nothing says a T3 BS has to have 300k ehp in fact nothing says it even has to have ehp on par with a T1 battleship there are many variables that contribute to a ships usefulness beyond just dps and tank. |
Gregor Parud
843
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 00:37:39 -
[116] - Quote
Technically sure, realistically not going to happen. They're either too expensive for what they are and won't be used because they simply don't perform or they're going to be REALLY good and whatever the cost ppl will use them and it'll mess up just about everything.
How many years have T3 cruisers messed up any form of balance, they have done so since they got introduced in 2009 and it wouldn't surprise me if that will continue to be the case. Look at our current T3. some of them are "OP" for a specific use, others are just "crap" and essentially gimmicks depending on what use you have for them. How many T3 do we have atm where we all go "yeah it's all right, it's a decent option", that just doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |