EVE Search - Tech 3 battleships

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Tech 3 battleships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 38	Posted - 2014.06.25 06:36:00 - [1] - Quote Its been brought up tangentally, but I have yet to see an actual thread proposing them. So here it is. I propose the introduction of tech 3 battleships. Seriously. I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range. I would like help with ideas for subsystems, keeping in mind actually balancing them to fly. So as a set of guidelines for things to stay somewhat reasonable: Not more than 22 slots, 19-20 if running a large or heavily bonused drone bay. A current NM has a 150% native damage bonus, and 21 slots, meaning this should not be entirely out of line with other "top tier" battleship hulls i.e. pirate and t2 Not more than 12 effective weapons. 1 sentry/heavy = 1 turret = 1 launcher for this guideline. Full t2 resists should be the TOP end of resist tank native to the hull, rather than the bottom as it is with t3s. No jump bridges or cov-ops cloaks. Slots of a given type beyond 8 are wasted. Suggested slot allocation per subsystem type: Propulsion 2 Offensive 7 Defensive 5 Electronic 3 Engineering 4 That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
HiddenPorpoise Under Dark Sins of our Fathers 239	Posted - 2014.06.25 06:55:00 - [2] - Quote 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.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 40	Posted - 2014.06.25 07:09:00 - [3] - Quote 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. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
Brutus Le'montac section 18 trade 0	Posted - 2014.06.25 07:12:00 - [4] - Quote Gallante Drone Decoder, offensive system: gives +2 Max drone control, + 20m3 drone bay and +50 drone bandwith, but takes 2 high slot gun point as trade off, this enables 3 gecko's basicly. or 7 medium drones max gallante warp bubbel stabilizer, propulsion system makes your mwd immune to warp scrams, but limits the speed to 75% of max speed. Gallante augmented repair transponder defensive system, increases local repair and incoming remote armor repair with 5% per level, however slotting this decreases your armor damage ressistance with 10% on all 4 damage types, after stacking penalty. gallante Backup battery engineering system, grants +5% recharge per level on capacitor, deflects 10% of incoming neuts/vamps, however using a vamp/neut yourself is 10% less effective. gallante boosted targeting sensor, electronic system, grants -5% locking time per level, but limits your active locks to 4 max. thats what i can come up with for gallante, when at work will make some more for the other 3 races, but i do like the idea, so an +1 for you.
Luwc Biohazard. WINMATAR. 152	Posted - 2014.06.25 07:24:00 - [5] - Quote No Why ? Balance First think. Then post. http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 2261	Posted - 2014.06.25 07:25:00 - [6] - Quote T3 battleships ... I don't believe it's possible for them to not be the most broken ships in the history of EVE. They're the stuff of legends, and they should probably stay that way.
Brutus Le'montac section 18 trade 0	Posted - 2014.06.25 07:29:00 - [7] - Quote caldari enhanced missle release coding, offensive system, reduces reload time on cruise/heavy missles and torpedo's with 5 seconds, grants +2% flight speed per level. but maxium loaded ammo reduces with 5 rounds per level caldari emercengy thruster overload, propulsion system, boosts mwd/ab speed by 5% per level, but takes 2% more capacitor per level aswell. caldari shield flux matrix, defensive system, grants + 15 shield recharge a second, but lowers total shield hp with 2% per level, after stacking penalty. caldari power grid subroutines, engineering system, grants +5% powergrid per level, but increases inertia with 2% per level aswell. caldari warp destabalizing sensor array, electronic system, grants +1 warp strenght on self and on your warp scrambler/disruptor, but reduces the range with 2 km. lets see, minmatar and amar left :P
Samillian Angry Mustellid Overload Everything 568	Posted - 2014.06.25 07:36:00 - [8] - Quote With the Recon, T3, Blops and cap rebalance yet to come this seems a bit premature. On top of that considering the negative effect T3's had on cruiser use and the hints we have had about there rebalance I doubt very much that you would get the kind of ship your hoping for even should they be introduced. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Rek Seven Probe Patrol Ixtab. 1588	Posted - 2014.06.25 09:58:00 - [9] - Quote There is no place in eve for a T3 battleship in a combat role. I would prefer to see a t3 industrial or a t3 frigate. +1
Auduin Samson Do not disturb Sanctuary Pact 251	Posted - 2014.06.25 12:11:00 - [10] - Quote There's a reason that "T3 Battleships" are often used as an example of hideously overpowering something... You just lost your ship The tears will fuel my spaceship Go quit Eve again -Bane Nucleus-á
Tabyll Altol Caldari Campers 4	Posted - 2014.06.25 12:52:00 - [11] - Quote -1 often posted hopefully never going to be implemented.
Egravant Alduin republic fleet battle support 159	Posted - 2014.06.25 13:13:00 - [12] - Quote Agree from the guys above about balance and I think marauders are fine tech 2 ships with bastion mode .The only tech 3 battleship I might liked and support would be something that would give something different than the usual 8 highs 8 meds 8 lows(max) .Maybe something totally different which would be able to have 16 high slots for example or extra unique slots different than the ussual we know high med and lows etc. Feel the wrath of the GECKO!
elitatwo Congregatio 247	Posted - 2014.06.25 15:33:00 - [13] - Quote Hm.. let me think about this for a moment.... NO signature
De'Veldrin Black Serpent Technologies The Unthinkables 2373	Posted - 2014.06.25 15:38:00 - [14] - Quote T3 cruisers can be built with the DPS and tank of a battleship. So T3 battleships would basically take a capital ship to take down - this is a terrible idea at the present time. Once CCP has done a balance pass on T3s and (hopefully) brought them back into line with their cruiser brethren, then maybe it would be time to look at adding other T3 ship classes, but not until then. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. Schr+¦dinger's Hotdropper
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 40	Posted - 2014.06.25 15:47:00 - [15] - Quote Folks, while t3 cruisers are currently broken, I am attempting to find ideas give them unique, powerful but not unbalanced roles, not turn them into 75/75/75/80 300k EHP with 4 TC, 2 sebo and 2k DPS combat monstrosities. For example: Caldari Advanced propulsion subsystem: Hyperspatial dragnet: 7%/lvl warp speed Role bonus: All sub-caps in a fleet warp use this ships warp speed if it is better than their own. Max Velocity 94 m/sec inertia modifier (agility) 0.116 Warp Speed 1.8 AU/s base time to warp ~17s Takes 3 levels to be roughly equivelent to a standard BS warp speed, and tops out at a native speed about equivalent to a single ascendency plant in a marauder, or 2 in a BS, with no sub BC benefits until you devote the entire pod to ascendency set. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 40	Posted - 2014.06.25 15:50:00 - [16] - Quote Reserving for subsystem list That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
Lokar Griman Revenant Tactical 11	Posted - 2014.06.25 15:52:00 - [17] - Quote as much as i loved to fly a 16 high solot 8 millislaunchers and 8 lasers boat , which would be cool ass hell like in somkind of other game or movie , sadly its only a dream sins, i don't see any use for t3 bs,cause of the prices and game mechanics and etc., then only ships ccp might add is 1 or 2 faction lines but thats about it . Now if they added somthnig new to the game like "system " where you can't use dreatnoughts but you can use somthnig between a battleship and dread, or lower and you can't pve in it then ,why the hell not.
Lokar Griman Revenant Tactical 11	Posted - 2014.06.25 15:58:00 - [18] - Quote antother think to add is ccp should look carefuly how they balance the stuff cuase . fr exmaple sister of eve ship line especialy the nestor , who the f with brain would buy that for that price , plus the stats bonuese are ****: so bringing t3 down ( like some poseted before me) to the other curisers the ship perfomance has to have correct price tag or it be render fail and no use what so ever.
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 75	Posted - 2014.06.25 15:58:00 - [19] - Quote 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. Proteus tank is probably getting a nerf anyway when the T3 balance pass happens.
Saelem Black Savage Knights 5	Posted - 2014.06.25 17:09:00 - [20] - Quote Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..." But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced." Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 40	Posted - 2014.06.25 17:27:00 - [21] - Quote Saelem Black wrote: Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..." But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced." Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really. This is mostly due to the headaches of trying to balance something with 3,125 possible configurations of base sats, and then the modules which effect different aspects of the t3 differently based on subsystems. (number given is the absolute possible number of subsystem combinations for any single t3) Of these, roughly 500 configurations are viable per t3. Of that massive number 625 being just possible nullified configs which aren't much used, and 625 are cov-ops, which are used mostly for moving stuff. 3 subsystems of each type yields a much more manageable 243 variations. With 2 weapon systems per race ( racial turrets for min/gal/amar + missiles for cal) and secondary (missiles for min+ amarr, drones for gal, hybrids for cal), this reduces the possible configurations to 81 subs for the secondary weapon type and 162 for the primary, or 81 and a tertiary or utility focused offensive sub system with its own 81 configurations. This brings the deluge of data about possible configurations to a level that is only slightly higher than anything else in eve. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
J A Aloysiusz Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited 34	Posted - 2014.06.25 18:41:00 - [22] - Quote how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there. edit: also I'm wondering where the commentor above me came up with 3125, as there are 4 choices for each of the 5 subsystems...
unidenify Caldari Provisions Caldari State 92	Posted - 2014.06.25 19:11:00 - [23] - Quote J A Aloysiusz wrote: how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there. edit: also I'm wondering where the commentor above me came up with 3125, as there are 4 choices for each of the 5 subsystems... every T3 ship 5 different slot with 4 choice each so, math go like this 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 1,024 plus 4 different ship so, 1,024 x 4 = 4,096 possible combo over 4 different ship
Antillie Sa'Kan Forging Industries Silent Infinity 504	Posted - 2014.06.25 19:17:00 - [24] - Quote I don't see what unique role T3 battleships would fill. Never mind the horrible balance implications of full tech 2 resists on something with a battleship sized HP pool and the fittings to easily fit BS sized tank mods and BS sized weapons. -1
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 40	Posted - 2014.06.25 20:24:00 - [25] - Quote J A Aloysiusz wrote: how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there. edit: also I'm wondering where the commentor above me came up with 3125, as there are 4 choices for each of the 5 subsystems... I messed up my math, thinking it was 5 subs per type. fixing the math above now. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
HiddenPorpoise Under Dark Sins of our Fathers 240	Posted - 2014.06.25 22:36:00 - [26] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Proteus average is blinged out, while the others are sounding like t2 fits. T2 Proteus is 300k ehp and 900 dps.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 40	Posted - 2014.06.26 06:25:00 - [27] - Quote HiddenPorpoise wrote: James Baboli wrote: Proteus average is blinged out, while the others are sounding like t2 fits. T2 Proteus is 300k ehp and 900 dps. With or without slaves + boosts, as I cannot match these numbers without boosts and/or implants with skills 5 and a straight t2 fit. I can get one or the other fiarly quickly, but the two seem mutually exclusive without implants and/or boosts. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
Hairpins Blueprint CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 49	Posted - 2014.06.26 21:02:00 - [28] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Its been brought up tangentally, but I have yet to see an actual thread proposing them. So here it is. I propose the introduction of tech 3 battleships. Seriously. I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range. I would like help with ideas for subsystems, keeping in mind actually balancing them to fly. So as a set of guidelines for things to stay somewhat reasonable: Not more than 22 slots, 19-20 if running a large or heavily bonused drone bay. A current NM has a 150% native damage bonus, and 21 slots, meaning this should not be entirely out of line with other "top tier" battleship hulls i.e. pirate and t2 Not more than 12 effective weapons. 1 sentry/heavy = 1 turret = 1 launcher for this guideline. Full t2 resists should be the TOP end of resist tank native to the hull, rather than the bottom as it is with t3s. No jump bridges or cov-ops cloaks. Slots of a given type beyond 8 are wasted. Suggested slot allocation per subsystem type: Propulsion 2 Offensive 7 Defensive 5 Electronic 3 Engineering 4 Now, for the unfun parts: Require advanced subsystem skills which further require [race] [type] subsystem 5, and are 3x-4x skills and lost like current subsystem skills. Due to the greater strain of flying the still more complex systems involved in a t3 ship of this size, 2 random levels of skills are lost, potentially from the same skill. Some mechanism to make them less than totally broken with logi support will be necessary. there was plan for them years ago, and the t3 frigates. But turned out they would IMBA and push other role ships out of the game. like faction battle ships etc. And so CCp decided not to introduce them to the game THE END. and you will not see them, do not bother posting about them
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 40	Posted - 2014.06.28 10:06:00 - [29] - Quote Theory crafting and attempts at balance started. googledocs for the project linked here. Fully designed subsystem submissions will be added as I can. That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1737	Posted - 2014.06.28 11:05:00 - [30] - Quote J A Aloysiusz wrote: how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there. The approach id take. Wouldnt even play with the idea of T3 battleships until we're clear on: what T3's do, how they do it, and where their power level compared to other ships should be. At the moment we cant even get a consensus on any of the above. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 584	Posted - 2014.06.28 11:12:00 - [31] - Quote Rather than the BS be T3 tech i'd prefer simply to change BS and BC to use the T3 style fittings and be formed from subsystems much like real BS and BC's were. Allow us to create a 'Hood' type BC with BS guns but good speed at expense of armour or more balanced 'Bismarck' style BS, or even 'Monitor' style ships with lots of BS guns at the expense of mobility and armour (good for POS bashing but equally good for gank targets) at expense of mobility. I'm sure the existing hulls could be modeled in this way but then players can tweaks subsystems to suit their own. I'm equally sure this could be tricky to balance but not as tricky as full blown T3 BS would be.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1738	Posted - 2014.06.28 12:00:00 - [32] - Quote The hood was bigger than the bismarck though EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 584	Posted - 2014.06.28 12:29:00 - [33] - Quote Still only a battlecruiser albeit with 15" guns (theoretically the armour plan should have been fine against Bismarck at the range they engaged, it was a 'lucky' hit that caused the magazine explosion), but that's my point, the flexibility in subsystem creation of BC and BS could breathe new life into those classes
Michael Mach Nova Wolves 14	Posted - 2014.06.28 16:59:00 - [34] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: There is no place in eve for a T3 battleship in a combat role. I would prefer to see a t3 industrial or a t3 frigate. But, but, but my Marauder isn't good enough for ratting!
ido spaceship 24	Posted - 2014.06.28 22:17:00 - [35] - Quote maybe just axing rigs on all ships in favour of class customized subsystems would be a good thing.. this is prolly one of those type before you think posts but still im having fun thinking of the possibilities..
M1k3y Koontz Thorn Project Surely You're Joking 585	Posted - 2014.06.28 23:43:00 - [36] - Quote A lot of people talking about how OP T3s are now, which is rather amusing since they are hardly what people are claiming, as per usual. That said, balancing T3 BSs would be impossible. And it has been proposed before. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
stoicfaux 5026	Posted - 2014.06.29 02:01:00 - [37] - Quote Sigh. T3 ships are supposed to be flexible ships, and not super-powerful at any one thing to the point that they overshadow a T2 or pirate ship. However, the Tengu (and the Proteus) happened. Plus, high-sec exploration gates were changed to prohibit T3 ships, so being flexible enough to fit dps, tank, probes and analyzer modules all at once would be considered too powerful in the high-sec context. So if you assume that a T3 battleship would be a flexible generalist that would be noticeably less powerful than a Marauder or Pirate battleship, then what would a T3 battleship need in order to be flexible enough to provide more value than a T2/Pirate battleship? (Especially given the existence of mobile depots.) WASABI: Warp Acceleration System Ancillary Boost Injected(Gäó)
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 838	Posted - 2014.06.29 05:49:00 - [38] - Quote OP, you seem to have totally forgotten the whole point of T3's. They are meant to be versatile, not just powerful. You haven't approached that side of the subject at all. How can you claim to be trying to create a balanced line of new ships when you ignore the core principals behind their existance? T3 cruisers are presently on par with Battleship levels of tank and dps, and they can apply it to smaller targets easier and they are also much faster and maneuverable. As much as I would love to see modular BS's because I think they would be cool, I also understand that they could not be balanced if they were in line with the present T3 designs. So, instead of apparently pulling numbers out of thin air, you better go back and start at the begining of the design process and FIND A ROLE for these ships. Also, remember that NO one ship should ever be able to do everything. It is also important to make sure that you not making existing ships redundant. Lastly, power creep should be avoided, so making them any more powerful than comparable ships in their weight class would just be making them the next "must have" ship. http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg
J A Aloysiusz Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited 35	Posted - 2014.06.29 19:35:00 - [39] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: A lot of people talking about how OP T3s are now, which is rather amusing since they are hardly what people are claiming, as per usual. That said, balancing T3 BSs would be impossible. And it has been proposed before. ^ Confirming SYJ does T3s better than most of you folks here. I think part of the issue is due to the "stigma" of T3s. People always love to say 300k EHP, but it takes slaves and fleet boosts to get that high with a reasonable fit. Then people say things like "well it's a T3, it's supposed to be flown with slaves and fleet boost". But really, everything gets pretty good when you add on slaves and fleet boost. Not to mention, if I'm buying slaves for my super duper proteus, they don't go away when I fly other ships... Here's a megathron fit for comparison: [Megathron, lol meg] - links + slaves 7x Neutron Blaster Cannon II (Void L) Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener Armor Kinetic Hardener Armor Thermic Hardener Armor EM Hardener 3x 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 3x Large Trimark Armor Pump I 1x Gecko 1x Hammerhead II 3x Hobgoblin II 920 DPS, 387k EHP (501k overheated). That looks like T3 stats to me, on a <200m hull! If you're going to tell me the proteus is faster and hits small targets for better, I'd say I sure hope so, at twice the cost of my beautiful megathron. But the proteus also has low sensor strength, tends to be vulnerable to neuting, has crap for range when blaster fit, and crap for tracking when rail fit. So moral of the story: Those protei are only scary if you're a high sec bear being hunted by a guy with slaves, links and neutral logi. The proteus is a good boat, but the only thing that would make it OP is that unlike you, the guy is dropping a few bil on a slave clone and spent the last 6 months training perfect link skills on his alt.
DingieSan Black Salmon 0	Posted - 2014.07.20 11:16:00 - [40] - Quote I do think it is possible to introduce T3 battleships but with limited different roles compared to strategic cruisers. By clearly defining roles for the different moduled T3 bs's the potential unbalancing could be reduced considerably. When I would design T3 bs's I would define the roles as covert ops, mining, (logi) carrier. The latter could fill the gap between drone boats and carriers. Another option would be to introduce tier 3 battleships that would do the above suggestion. This is only high level thinking.
Liafcipe9000 Critically Preposterous 24445	Posted - 2014.07.20 11:19:14 - [41] - Quote ... nope. Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase I like to gank it, gank it!
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1626	Posted - 2014.07.20 13:20:07 - [42] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: There is no place in eve for a T3 battleship in a combat role. I would prefer to see a t3 industrial or a t3 frigate. T3 Industrial would actually be useful, with the ability to reconfigure subsystems on the fly for covert travel, then the type of ore/gas/ice/transport you need, then back to covert to extract from hostile territory. And with strong tank.

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 633	Posted - 2014.10.24 11:26:51 - [43] - Quote Unlocked at OP request. CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics @CCP_Logibro

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13699	Posted - 2014.10.24 11:31:45 - [44] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Unlocked at OP request. Wait, that's a thing? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
The Hamilton Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude 66	Posted - 2014.10.24 12:20:10 - [45] - Quote Saelem Black wrote: Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..." But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced." Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really. Love this comment since EVE Vegas. Destroyers aren't exactly Battleships, but T3 they are. Who knows, our big T3 rebalance may be closer than I'd like.. Along with it the possibility for more T3 stuff.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 927	Posted - 2014.10.24 12:50:36 - [46] - Quote The Hamilton wrote: Saelem Black wrote: Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..." But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced." Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really. Love this comment since EVE Vegas. Destroyers aren't exactly Battleships, but T3 they are. Who knows, our big T3 rebalance may be closer than I'd like.. Along with it the possibility for more T3 stuff. perhaps Tactical battleships like the tactical dessies that are coming .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
Arronicus Bitter Lemons Brothers of Tangra 1188	Posted - 2014.10.24 13:19:55 - [47] - Quote Brutus Le'montac wrote: Gallante Drone Decoder, offensive system: gives +2 Max drone control, + 20m3 drone bay and +50 drone bandwith, CCP is trying to crack down on the number of drones being used, in various ways. I think you'd be far more likely to see say, 100 bandwidth with a 50% drone damage bonus, (3 effective geckos, or 7.5 effective mediums) than +2 drone control, and over 125mb bandwidth. T3 battleships have been proposed in the past, and shot down by ccp. They have been really open about there being little to no interest or desire to add additional t3 ships in the game. Even the destroyers they are adding are closer to marauders than t3s in terms of functionality.
King Fu Hostile Imperial Collective Unsettled. 189	Posted - 2014.10.24 13:27:50 - [48] - Quote Why?
Ghaustyl Kathix Rising Thunder 39	Posted - 2014.10.24 13:40:28 - [49] - Quote Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released).
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 162	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:08:51 - [50] - Quote baltec1 wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: Unlocked at OP request. Wait, that's a thing? Apparently it is if you ask nicely and it was locked for inactivity rather than because it violated rules. Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 162	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:12:26 - [51] - Quote King Fu Hostile wrote: Why? This is a thread I made because I like the idea and want to put a proposal up, get feedback on the proposal itself and see if a reasonably balanced version can be made to exist. Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
Airto TLA Puppeteers of Doom 65	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:25:04 - [52] - Quote The problem with T3 in general is that it was a mistake. It is from a time when EVE developers had not yet realized that MMO power creep was going to kill the game. It also exist from a cruiser centric game design, where you could get a fast hit in power by going BS, but you were going to be out maneuvered by T2 then T3 cruisers the "vets" flew. Along this line the super caps and maybe even caps fall into this box. So, all new ideas must fall into either filling a new role or be an 5x expensive 10% better faction/t2 variant.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 162	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:29:38 - [53] - Quote Airto TLA wrote: The problem with T3 in general is that it was a mistake. It is from a time when EVE developers had not yet realized that MMO power creep was going to kill the game. It also exist from a cruiser centric game design, where you could get a fast hit in power by going BS, but you were going to be out maneuvered by T2 then T3 cruisers the "vets" flew. Along this line the super caps and maybe even caps fall into this box. So, all new ideas must fall into either filling a new role or be an 5x expensive 10% better faction/t2 variant. As I said, I want these to end up balanced no higher than parity with faction or the correct t2, and have much more room to completely screw the ship up by making even a single bad choice. Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13704	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:32:21 - [54] - Quote Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 162	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:32:51 - [55] - Quote Ghaustyl Kathix wrote: Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released). I'd like to be soliciting the same sort of feedback, and tweaking my proposal this whole time, so that by the time they're ready to listen, I have a tuned up proposal, with all the MASSIVE holes filed in Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 162	Posted - 2014.10.24 16:33:58 - [56] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS. I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat? Yes, I do incursions. Find out how to be as space rich as me here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 13705	Posted - 2014.10.24 17:22:30 - [57] - Quote James Baboli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS. I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how *** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat? When CCP nerf them back into being cruisers rather than pocket battleships. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 162	Posted - 2014.10.24 17:25:05 - [58] - Quote baltec1 wrote: James Baboli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS. I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat? When CCP nerf them back into being cruisers rather than pocket battleships. Oh well. Here's hoping I can eventually get your imput on these things. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 137	Posted - 2014.10.24 18:45:17 - [59] - Quote James Baboli wrote: I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range I think that's too cheap. Besides, if T3 battleships ever became a thing... I'd say 150 days of training for it would be reasonable.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 162	Posted - 2014.10.24 18:58:30 - [60] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: James Baboli wrote: I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range I think that's too cheap. Besides, if T3 battleships ever became a thing... I'd say 150 days of training for it would be reasonable. 1.5 in sleeper componets, + blueprint costs + subsystems at something else fairly high. Will clarify OP. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 165	Posted - 2014.10.24 20:27:57 - [61] - Quote As someone said earlier, that they wanted to see a long train to fly these, I'm starting to flesh out the universal skill requirements for advanced subsystems, and the one current proposed class of t3 battleships. They require perfect or nearly perfect support skills, and generally have a fairly high barrier to entry, as well as a very long train before the bonuses are maximized, with 5 3x skills to maximize the bonuses to subsystems, and a 5x skill for the overheating bonus on the hull. Skill requirements: Across the board for (racial) Flagship: 5x (Racial) Strategic cruiser 5 Advanced weapon upgrades 4 Spaceship command 5 Leadership 5 Subsystems universal requirements: Advanced Engineering subsystems: 3x Power Grid managment 5 Mechanics 5 Energy Grid upgrades 5 (Racial) Engineering subsystem 5 Advanced Electronics Subsystems: 3x Electronics Upgrades 5 CPU management 5 Signature analysis 4 Target management 5 (Racial) Electronics Subsytem 5 Advanced Defensive Subsystem: 3x Hull Upgrades 5 Mechanics 5 Tactical shield manipulation 5 (racial) Defensive subsystem 5 Advanced Offensive Subsystem: 3x Advanced Weapon upgrades 5 (Racial) Offensive subsystem 5 Advanced propulsion Subsystem: 3x Warp Drive operation 4 Evasive maneuvering 5 Navigation 5 (Racial) Propulsion subsystem 5 Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 384	Posted - 2014.10.25 00:26:08 - [62] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Ghaustyl Kathix wrote: Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released). I'd like to be soliciting the same sort of feedback, and tweaking my proposal this whole time, so that by the time they're ready to listen, I have a tuned up proposal, with all the MASSIVE holes filed in I have got one, inspired by the coming tech3 destroyers (which seem to be inspired by the generation one Transformers from 1984 and Blitzwing says "hello" but shhhhhh...) A tactical battleship that can "transform" into a current fast attack battleship, a marauder or a blackops on the fly. signature
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 165	Posted - 2014.10.25 01:31:33 - [63] - Quote elitatwo wrote: James Baboli wrote: Ghaustyl Kathix wrote: Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released). I'd like to be soliciting the same sort of feedback, and tweaking my proposal this whole time, so that by the time they're ready to listen, I have a tuned up proposal, with all the MASSIVE holes filed in I have got one, inspired by the coming tech3 destroyers (which seem to be inspired by the generation one Transformers from 1984 and Blitzwing says "hello" but shhhhhh...) A tactical battleship that can "transform" into a current fast attack battleship, a marauder or a blackops on the fly. I'd rather not have them duplicate existing battleships. However, I am more than happy to help with making a battleship that switches roles in a similar manner to the t3 destroyers. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
viverxia Serenity Prime The Volition Cult 1	Posted - 2014.10.25 02:54:55 - [64] - Quote With the new T3 destroyers on the horizon i can see T3 Battleships working, But only if they are treated the same way as those (and not horrifically op as a Modular design would be) Tactical battleships could function in much the same way. Perhaps adding a "Sleeper Reconfiguration" skill to allow them to switch modes faster, and giving the default ships a higher cool down on their mode shifts. I do not support the idea of Modular battleships unless T3 cruisers are seriously brought back into line.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 1950	Posted - 2014.10.25 03:13:20 - [65] - Quote Dont go along the lines of 'its allowed to be powerful because its expensive and takes a long time to train into' it doesnt really matter how much it costs or how long it takes to train into, if there is little reason to fly anything else other than the one ship once you've trained into it, then it's problematic. What ive read about the new dessies is certainly an interesting approach. But ill wait to see them in action before judging them completely. And in the same way, i think this thread is still premature. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 166	Posted - 2014.10.25 03:16:18 - [66] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Dont go along the lines of 'its allowed to be powerful because its expensive and takes a long time to train into' it doesnt really matter how much it costs or how long it takes to train into, if there is little reason to fly anything else other than the one ship once you've trained into it, then it's problematic. What ive read about the new dessies is certainly an interesting approach. But ill wait to see them in action before judging them completely. And in the same way, i think this thread is still premature. Noted, thank you for the feedback. It is currently mostly a labor of love, as I am absolutely a fanatic about the modular ship concept and love the flexibility and theorycrafting that this enables. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Things I support: Channel links directly from tab. Tech 3 battleships. Brains over blobs.
Solaris Vex Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2014.10.25 03:22:31 - [67] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Dont go along the lines of 'its allowed to be powerful because its expensive and takes a long time to train into' it doesnt really matter how much it costs or how long it takes to train into, if there is little reason to fly anything else other than the one ship once you've trained into it, then it's problematic. What ive read about the new dessies is certainly an interesting approach. But ill wait to see them in action before judging them completely. And in the same way, i think this thread is still premature. Agreed, we wouldn't want to inadvertently undo tiericide.
The Hamilton Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude 66	Posted - 2014.10.25 05:24:14 - [68] - Quote T3's current idea (and one we see in the destroyers) is that they are not perfect at any one thing, but a Jack of all trades. We'll still have to wait and see how the destroyers work. But in the meantime, if your going to go through with the mental exercise of designing a T3 Battleship then take into account what CCP has already stated about their intentions to re-focus T3 when they balance them. - What are all the aspects that Battleships are meant to do? - Make each of these area's less powerful than current battleships and combine them in a way that players can switch and change, depending on the circumstance. -Don't go adding entire fleet / area buffs, as that should really be left to the Command Ships. If it were ever added to the game, I'd hope that I could switch from being a Malestrom Arty fit with less firing power to a Baltec Hyperion maybe with less tank. The only other flavour I really see in Battleships is for PvE and switching to that sounds stupid. It really doesn't seem to fit with the idea of Battleships which have two main roles. Provide alpha and tank.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 166	Posted - 2014.10.25 05:37:58 - [69] - Quote The Hamilton wrote: T3's current idea (and one we see in the destroyers) is that they are not perfect at any one thing, but a Jack of all trades. We'll still have to wait and see how the destroyers work. But in the meantime, if your going to go through with the mental exercise of designing a T3 Battleship then take into account what CCP has already stated about their intentions to re-focus T3 when they balance them. - What are all the aspects that Battleships are meant to do? - Make each of these area's less powerful than current battleships and combine them in a way that players can switch and change, depending on the circumstance. -Don't go adding entire fleet / area buffs, as that should really be left to the Command Ships. If it were ever added to the game, I'd hope that I could switch from being a Malestrom Arty fit with less firing power to a Baltec Hyperion maybe with less tank. The only other flavour I really see in Battleships is for PvE and switching to that sounds stupid. It really doesn't seem to fit with the idea of Battleships which have two main roles. Provide alpha and tank. I see 4 or 5 other roles for battleships, that aren't great in the giant massed armadas of 0.0, but are great for a smaller scale game. Heavy DPS: It is hard to beat the DPS of a blaster battleship in close combat, and most things which try are rendered into dust by the massive firepower. Long range sniping: Other than the extremely fragile attack battlecruisers, nothing can match the range and availability of battleship guns. While dreads bring more firepower, they are also harder to get a decent number of for anything smaller than the major blocs. Heavy-Ewar platforms: These lovely ships have a large number of slots, making them able to fit a fairly large number of E-war systems. These can prove effective, although at present most forms of EWAR do not have t1 hulls bonused in their use. PvE: Most PvE isk comes out of battleships at this point, so it has to be addressed. PvE balance, while definitively secondary, is an important consideration for battleships as a whole. Pipe bombing: relies on battleships, as nothing else has the requisite combination of large numbers of highslots, a deep EHP well, sufficient slots to tank against your own damage type and put cap into. This is not a role which can be much improved on though, without making an over powered ship in some other applications. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
King Fu Hostile Imperial Collective Unsettled. 192	Posted - 2014.10.25 07:34:36 - [70] - Quote James Baboli wrote: King Fu Hostile wrote: Why? This is a thread I made because I like the idea and want to put a proposal up, get feedback on the proposal itself and see if a reasonably balanced version can be made to exist. I asked why there should be a T3 BS, not your personal reasons for posting forum threads.
The Hamilton Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude 67	Posted - 2014.10.25 09:30:20 - [71] - Quote James Baboli wrote: The Hamilton wrote: T3's current idea (and one we see in the destroyers) is that they are not perfect at any one thing, but a Jack of all trades. We'll still have to wait and see how the destroyers work. But in the meantime, if your going to go through with the mental exercise of designing a T3 Battleship then take into account what CCP has already stated about their intentions to re-focus T3 when they balance them. - What are all the aspects that Battleships are meant to do? - Make each of these area's less powerful than current battleships and combine them in a way that players can switch and change, depending on the circumstance. -Don't go adding entire fleet / area buffs, as that should really be left to the Command Ships. If it were ever added to the game, I'd hope that I could switch from being a Malestrom Arty fit with less firing power to a Baltec Hyperion maybe with less tank. The only other flavour I really see in Battleships is for PvE and switching to that sounds stupid. It really doesn't seem to fit with the idea of Battleships which have two main roles. Provide alpha and tank. I see 4 or 5 other roles for battleships, that aren't great in the giant massed armadas of 0.0, but are great for a smaller scale game. Heavy DPS: It is hard to beat the DPS of a blaster battleship in close combat, and most things which try are rendered into dust by the massive firepower. Long range sniping: Other than the extremely fragile attack battlecruisers, nothing can match the range and availability of battleship guns. While dreads bring more firepower, they are also harder to get a decent number of for anything smaller than the major blocs. Heavy-Ewar platforms: These lovely ships have a large number of slots, making them able to fit a fairly large number of E-war systems. These can prove effective, although at present most forms of EWAR do not have t1 hulls bonused in their use. PvE: Most PvE isk comes out of battleships at this point, so it has to be addressed. PvE balance, while definitively secondary, is an important consideration for battleships as a whole. Pipe bombing: relies on battleships, as nothing else has the requisite combination of large numbers of highslots, a deep EHP well, sufficient slots to tank against your own damage type and put cap into. This is not a role which can be much improved on though, without making an over powered ship in some other applications. Can't say I'm convinced. Only two of those things are widely used by all battleships. The rest are either "where" you use it, a very niche use, or Apocs and Scorpions (plus their variations) for Ewar. Even the SOE Nestor doesn't covert cloak. There are just far fewer roles for a Battleship to fill and thus I feel like T3 battleships is grasping at straws, at least until a balance pass for T3 Cruisers and Capitals. Honestly what is a battleship that can fit missiles badly, sniper badly, brawl badly AND fit Ewar badly all at once gonna be used for?
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1835	Posted - 2014.10.25 11:19:36 - [72] - Quote The only role I can think for T3 battleships would be anti capital ships and Structure/pos grinding (woudl be specially helpfull in high sec ).. Somethign like battleships with 50%-70% MORE dps than normal battleships but with tracking halved and weapons resolution around 2000m. Since t3 destroyers will change their bonuses in space. Make so that the t3 battleship can change from a travel mode to a offensive mode where its siganture doubles and it dps doubles, while tracking drops drastically (YES like siege, but with no denfensive ubberness) Besides that.. i think effort is better used to HELP the current battleships that are a disaster. "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 167	Posted - 2014.10.25 15:47:37 - [73] - Quote The Hamilton wrote: James Baboli wrote: The Hamilton wrote: T3's current idea (and one we see in the destroyers) is that they are not perfect at any one thing, but a Jack of all trades. We'll still have to wait and see how the destroyers work. But in the meantime, if your going to go through with the mental exercise of designing a T3 Battleship then take into account what CCP has already stated about their intentions to re-focus T3 when they balance them. - What are all the aspects that Battleships are meant to do? - Make each of these area's less powerful than current battleships and combine them in a way that players can switch and change, depending on the circumstance. -Don't go adding entire fleet / area buffs, as that should really be left to the Command Ships. If it were ever added to the game, I'd hope that I could switch from being a Malestrom Arty fit with less firing power to a Baltec Hyperion maybe with less tank. The only other flavour I really see in Battleships is for PvE and switching to that sounds stupid. It really doesn't seem to fit with the idea of Battleships which have two main roles. Provide alpha and tank. I see 4 or 5 other roles for battleships, that aren't great in the giant massed armadas of 0.0, but are great for a smaller scale game. Heavy DPS: It is hard to beat the DPS of a blaster battleship in close combat, and most things which try are rendered into dust by the massive firepower. Long range sniping: Other than the extremely fragile attack battlecruisers, nothing can match the range and availability of battleship guns. While dreads bring more firepower, they are also harder to get a decent number of for anything smaller than the major blocs. Heavy-Ewar platforms: These lovely ships have a large number of slots, making them able to fit a fairly large number of E-war systems. These can prove effective, although at present most forms of EWAR do not have t1 hulls bonused in their use. PvE: Most PvE isk comes out of battleships at this point, so it has to be addressed. PvE balance, while definitively secondary, is an important consideration for battleships as a whole. Pipe bombing: relies on battleships, as nothing else has the requisite combination of large numbers of highslots, a deep EHP well, sufficient slots to tank against your own damage type and put cap into. This is not a role which can be much improved on though, without making an over powered ship in some other applications. Can't say I'm convinced. Only two of those things are widely used by all battleships. The rest are either "where" you use it, a very niche use, or Apocs and Scorpions (plus their variations) for Ewar. Even the SOE Nestor doesn't covert cloak. There are just far fewer roles for a Battleship to fill and thus I feel like T3 battleships is grasping at straws, at least until a balance pass for T3 Cruisers and Capitals. Honestly what is a battleship that can fit missiles badly, sniper badly, brawl badly AND fit Ewar badly all at once gonna be used for? Well, turn that on its head, what about a battleship with 90% the DPS of a raven, with a small bonus to longer range EWAR like paints, that is a little faster than most combat battleships, and has something strongly resembling a tank? I can think of several uses for this, without stepping on any of the t2 specialties, and simply being "95% as good as" the best relevent t1 hull in each of several area. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 167	Posted - 2014.10.25 16:02:48 - [74] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: The only role I can think for T3 battleships would be anti capital ships and Structure/pos grinding (woudl be specially helpfull in high sec ).. Somethign like battleships with 50%-70% MORE dps than normal battleships but with tracking halved and weapons resolution around 2000m. Since t3 destroyers will change their bonuses in space. Make so that the t3 battleship can change from a travel mode to a offensive mode where its siganture doubles and it dps doubles, while tracking drops drastically (YES like siege, but with no denfensive ubberness) Besides that.. i think effort is better used to HELP the current battleships that are a disaster. This is one of the ideas I had by rejected initially, but if you think it would be a reasonable idea, and you get a second for it, I will add it to the list of concepts, and start trying to figure out how to make such a concept work, or role it into the "tactical battleship" concept as one of the modes. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 700	Posted - 2014.10.25 16:16:25 - [75] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: The only role I can think for T3 battleships would be anti capital ships and Structure/pos grinding (woudl be specially helpfull in high sec ).. Somethign like battleships with 50%-70% MORE dps than normal battleships but with tracking halved and weapons resolution around 2000m. Tier 3 battleship hulls (Maelstrom, Rohk ect as they don't have T2 variations), fit XL guns but bonused except for tracking (their speed alone would kill it) but not blapping ability like when Titans where fitted as glass cannons a few years ago, like the assault battlecruisers with BS guns. An idea I have had floating around, for the new cap ship jumping gates ability through lowsec and pilots (the targets of said caps) afraid to train for caps to counter their enemy....BS with capital guns, but my preferred idea was short range guns only. Basically a fast dread on a BS hull with an XL gun or two (no damage bonus), able to counter enemy caps at gates without the extra training time required of jump drives and capital ships with the niche role of being able to destroy only large ships.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 167	Posted - 2014.10.26 01:23:17 - [76] - Quote OP updated to reflect the transfroming battleship and anti-capital ship concepts. I will say that the oversized guns concept looks and sounds much more like a t2 concept than t3. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
The Hamilton Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude 69	Posted - 2014.10.26 05:32:00 - [77] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Well, turn that on its head, what about a battleship with 90% the DPS of a raven, with a small bonus to longer range EWAR like paints, that is a little faster than most combat battleships, and has something strongly resembling a tank? I can think of several uses for this, without stepping on any of the t2 specialties, and simply being "95% as good as" the best relevent t1 hull in each of several area. You keep coming back to Ewar though. What is a T3 battleship supposed to do without Ewar subs and is there room and variation enough for this without power creep?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 167	Posted - 2014.10.26 05:57:44 - [78] - Quote The Hamilton wrote: James Baboli wrote: Well, turn that on its head, what about a battleship with 90% the DPS of a raven, with a small bonus to longer range EWAR like paints, that is a little faster than most combat battleships, and has something strongly resembling a tank? I can think of several uses for this, without stepping on any of the t2 specialties, and simply being "95% as good as" the best relevent t1 hull in each of several area. You keep coming back to Ewar though. What is a T3 battleship supposed to do without Ewar subs and is there room and variation enough for this without power creep? It is hard to say. I haven't got a good answer yet, as almost every battleship PvP role other than "blob member # 248" either includes EWAR for application of its own damage (missile boats with paints) or to hold a target in place (Tackle in all flavors) or as it's primary function (geddons and domi's). Some of that is due to the currently underwhelming performance of such ships, and some of it is due to these being the only roles which t2/t3 cruisers do not currently fill better than t1 battleships in mobile warfare, even if only from lower slot pressure. That said, a T3 battleship without EWAR subs would likely be one of the following Optimized for one kind of PvE and making mad isk at it Badly set up for one kind of PvE and making okay isk A DPS ship worth bringing on a roam, either because it can keep up well and perform as well as a non-warp fitted t1 hull or because it is a DPS beast once it gets there. A logisitics platform with enough cap and tank to perform solo under neuts A swiss army knife for W-space operations, with the ability to transform role quickly off a depot or nestor and swap modes for bonuses in whatever is most needed at the moment. A fail fit for solo Really good bait resembling #5, but with a cyno and fleet ready to go Bad bait, because no one wants to engage it A possible RnK doctrine to replace golden fleet Primary Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises 5986	Posted - 2014.10.27 01:26:33 - [79] - Quote Looking through the OP, I feel like a 'Tactical' Battleship would have a stronger variation with the modes- instead of stat level changes, wouldn't it make sense to change roles with different modes? Like something like this: Standard Mode: The standard mode for the ship Would have set hull bonuses, not unlike Faction BS bonuses Basically a standard BS but stronger 'Stronghold' Mode: Increases resists, lowers turret/launcher effective range, amps up damage and tracking/exp. rad/vel. significantly, drops speed Essentially becomes a 'stronghold', able to fight close-up enemies extremely efficiently, but has trouble at range 'Longbow' Mode: Halves resists, lowers tracking/exp rad/vel., amps up weapon range and damage immensely Essentially becomes a superb sniping platform that will be easily ousted at short range 'Caravan' Mode: Decreases weapon bonuses and mass, increases agility/velocity Allows covert ops cloak and bridge/covert bridge to be fitted, allows jump drive to come online Activates fitting service availability from ship Essentially an advanced transport mode, unable to fight strongly but very effective for moving It would take a set amount of time so switch modes, likely a minute or so- during which the ship would be unable to warp, cloak, jump, lock targets or activate any modules. However, it would still be able to receive remote reps. Ether that or the 'Strategic Battleship' plan, which could have sybsystems like strategic cruisers and would be able to switch between roles (brawl, snipe, logi, covert/blops, exploration). Because now that the Tech III dessies are on the horizon, I feel like the Tech III lineup will look something like: Strategic Frigates-->Tactical Destroyers-->Strategic Cruisers-->Tactical Battlecruisers-->Strategic Battleships "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams...is built in heaven." GÖâ Jovian Proverb GÖâ Project Galileo
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 169	Posted - 2014.10.27 03:56:40 - [80] - Quote Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote: 'Caravan' Mode: Decreases weapon bonuses and mass, increases agility/velocity Allows covert ops cloak and bridge/covert bridge to be fitted, allows jump drive to come online Activates fitting service availability from ship Essentially an advanced transport mode, unable to fight strongly but very effective for moving This portion would be quite a problem to implement, and would be ridiculously over powered in a number of ways. List of unintended consequences for the mass reduction: Allows significantly more of them through WHs than intended Much lower fuel to bridge means they can be slingshotted across the galaxy too quickly for too low a price, with only jump fatigue to counter this. with I-stabs or nano fibers, this will potentially create instawarp battleships. List of problems with covert cloak: It would out perform the existing t2 blops ships, making it much harder to balance. CCP has said they do not want Cov-ops battleships, and all of the reasons not to do so on a nestor with meh combat ability apply much more on a tactical battleship that can then swap into a total combat beast. Make it into the premier hunter killer over night. Issues with a jumpdrive: Rebuilds the threat for Schrodinger's hotdrop, especially if it has blops range Fewer jump capable ships, not more. played up lore wise as large and hard to shoehorn into a battleship sized hull Also a big no on the blops bridge Partially obsoletes the blops ships Again, something existing bridging hulls need to make largish sacrifices for. And just a personal no to refitting service, because it doesn't thematically fit. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Luwc Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 262	Posted - 2014.10.27 07:54:45 - [81] - Quote http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 32	Posted - 2014.10.27 13:18:12 - [82] - Quote I would love to see ships with 150 k Armor and resistance of over 90% for each DMG-Type. Oh wait no i don-¦t wanna Battleships with Capital EHP. Use a dam Capital if you wanna more EHP. And which space should they fill?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 174	Posted - 2014.10.27 15:10:03 - [83] - Quote Tabyll Altol wrote: I would love to see ships with 150 k Armor and resistance of over 90% for each DMG-Type. Oh wait no i don-¦t wanna Battleships with Capital EHP. Use a dam Capital if you wanna more EHP. And which space should they fill? Once again, as with every post about this, I am trying very very hard to take into account almost every thing that could be used to completely break these ship, up to and including looking at plates, slaves and officer hardeners and the EHP these produce for armor tanks, and ASBs, crystals and deadspace hardeners for shield (I say deadspace because only the 20Bish estamels invuln is better than the Pith A invuln, and similar conditions hold true for targeted resists). It is also why I started with the minmatar ship, as this is easiest to balance well in my opinion, and then balancing the others to this, rather than creating each ship out of whole cloth and then trying to create balance afterwards. Yes, I do incursions. Find out more here Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
viverxia Serenity Prime The Volition Cult 2	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:57:50 - [84] - Quote Let's look at the dessies. Tank, sniping (the won't have increased gun range though, increased lock range and sensor strength) and mobility Tank is easy on a battle ship. The question is how do you implement this without it being horrifically op OR treading on the toes of marauders. You don't want T3's with 'free' bastion mods otherwise you **** everyone who has ever invested in a t2 battleship. Here's my suggestion. In normal mode the bs will have slightly higher resists than a t1, but lower than t2. Going into tank mode boosts these resists to be slightly higher than t2, but increases sig pen and reduces rep amount. (As normal mods don't know how to properly work on the weird sleeper tech?) You get yourself a powerful battleship with a different dynamic to marauders, less capable of sig tanking but having a mobility that they don't provide. It would lessen the blow of ancillary reps and mean these ships if built this way would rely on buffer tanks(plus logi, but logi reps would also be cut in effectiveness ) Sniping. I am against the idea of them needing this. Instead I propose a racial mode in this slot to deal with each of the racial weapon types. Cal would gain a bonus to cruise and torp launchers, rof and explosion radius maybe. With the new increase to speed/minus to range thing they have been doing as of late. Gel gaining a bonus to hybrids, traversal and damage maybe with a bit of falloff bonus perhaps? Min a bonus to projectiles, falloff and traversal. Amarr a bonus to lasers, unsure what to give here (never flown amarr) All in all they should have around 7/8 effective weapons. Maybe with gel pushing the top (but sacrificing speed because of their armour tank) And mobility, giving the ships a boost in prop mod strength, maybe a cool down reduction on mjd's and an increase in agility. ---- Just a suggestion, feel free to poke and change (tried to keep numbers out of it to limit racial bias, my ideas for the cal weapon systems are probably the most fleshed out cause I started off as a cal pilot) And an answer to a question you might ask - why no drones for gal? I don't want the bs to step on the toes of the Ishtar or the domi, I think a t3 drone battleship might even make carriers slightly obsolete if they aren't handled correctly at the balancing stage so I think it's better safe than sorry. --- Sorry for the long post, have a potato
Mahna Titus Hellkite Cartel Drop the Hammer 2	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:20:41 - [85] - Quote 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 The Draconis Federation [DFED] Alliance Diplomat If at first you dont succeed skydiving is not for you...
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 15	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:33:30 - [86] - 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. Ah...no. T3 is not supposed to be superior to T2. 2013(!) Ship balance chart. CCP Ytterbium wrote: Tech3s are due for a change, and are not meant to go above Tech2 in terms of raw performance (example: Warfare Subsystems, have a look why at the end of this blog). The other problem with Tech3s is that only a few of the sub-system configurations are actually decent, with the rest being quite terrible. Ideally all the sub-systems should have a proper role on the field, and Tech3 should be used because of their flexibility and adaptability, not because they surpass hulls of the same category at their specialized purpose. The chart linked in the first post is slightly out-of-date - the new one we've showed during Fanfest 2013 is here. In summary: Tech1 are the basic entry level, simple gameplay hulls that are used as reference points for all the other. That's why we started with them during the "tiericide" initiative. Navy / Faction are improvement over Tech1, with roles more or less varied depending on the ships themselves. Ex: Drake vs Drake Navy Issue, Megathron vs Vindicator and so on. Tech2 hulls provide specialized gameplay with advanced mechanics. Perfect example are Stealth Bombers, Interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, or Black Ops. Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems. Tech3 ships are due to be rebalanced after Tech2 hulls so that our team may use the experience they've gained along the way to overhaul them properly. Exactly how and when this is going to be accomplished, we cannot say for now, even if we do have some ideas. So with it established that T3 is not supposed to be superior to T2, can we we wait on.. a) The transforming T3 dessies to actually come out so we can see how they work (or not, as the case may be) b) Re-balancing of T3 cruisers such that they actually even remotely fit their place in the balancing chart.
viverxia Serenity Prime The Volition Cult 2	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:02:15 - [87] - Quote Gaan Cathal wrote: - snip- Before we suggest adding any more T3 ideas? Just gonna requote this, CCP Fozzie from an interview after Vegas CCP Fozzie wrote: Why destroyers? Why not something bigger like a battlecruiser or battleship? Is it just a matter of trying to cultivate smaller scale warfare? Partly. Actually, itGÇÖs because the gameplay space for battleships would be a lot more limited. The ways that you get to use that ship would be more limited. A battleship would have to be much more expensive, is slower, and you end up [overlapping] - in PVE it would overlap with marauders, in PVP it would overlap with the faction battleships. It wouldGÇÖve been hard to make this a ship that a wide variety of people could use. ItGÇÖs very possible we could introduce Tech 3 battleships in the future, but we wanted for this a ship that a lot of people could get into. The other thing with destroyers is that we can keep it quite cheap. We donGÇÖt need to have the price point be very high - a lot of that is still be worked out, but I wouldnGÇÖt expect the price to fall too far outside the 20-30 million ISK range for the hull. Its obviously on their mind, and us adding suggestions to what we think should be done (even if it helps the devs a little bit) is worthwhile. In the end we are all just talking about the game we love and ways to make it better for everyone. There is no harm in talking. We can only go as fast as the devs want to.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 649	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:23:37 - [88] - Quote At this point, I think any requests to add T3 anything are kind of moot. Let's see what CCP has in mind for the T3 Destroyers first. Also, to all the folks saying that T3 is supposed to be better than T2...you're all wrong. T3 is more flexible than T2, not necessarily better than T2. They can seem better than T2 when you combine certain configurations, but if T3 were strictly better than T2 we would be hearing complaints about "Proteus Online" instead of "Ishtar Online". CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
viverxia Serenity Prime The Volition Cult 2	Posted - 2014.10.30 15:42:14 - [89] - Quote the T3 cruisers defiantly need a balance pass though -_-
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 19	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:54:56 - [90] - Quote 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.
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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.