EVE Search - T3 Battleship - Juggernaut

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

T3 Battleship - Juggernaut

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 17	Posted - 2014.12.27 11:27:40 - [1] - Quote I suggest a T3 Battleship - Juggernaut. This ship would be fit like a battleship for fighting other large ships, and also for fighting a friget fleet. It would work similar to how the T3 destroyer works. Ability to change modes. It would have a heavy combat mode 1, and a light combat mode 2. Mode 1 would have guns and enhancers for fighting large ships. Mode 2 would have guns and enhancers for fighting small ships. They simply change mode depending on the type of ships they are mostly fighting. This is not unsimilar to a bastion or seige mode. The ships would have a lot more slots to fit, but only one set of them could be active at a time. So we have a H/M/L slots for Mode 1 and another set of H/M/L slots for Mode 2. These types of ships would make excellent escort ships to command ships or freighters. A nice complement to any fleet.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14361	Posted - 2014.12.27 11:58:36 - [2] - Quote So an anti-everything. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
HiddenPorpoise Under Dark Sins of our Fathers 299	Posted - 2014.12.27 12:00:51 - [3] - Quote It's actually worthless if it works the way you suggest it would; at most it would have 4/4/4 and could only use a DC half the time.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 17	Posted - 2014.12.27 12:03:57 - [4] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So an anti-everything. No. It won't have any great firepower in any specific mode, just the ability to switch between them. Imagine you are fighting against a Battleship (fit to fight large ships) and a Cruiser (fit to fight frigs), only they both can't fight at the same time. Only one of them can fight you. That will make it more difficult for you to select ship and loadout, or maybe you would need to bring friends.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 17	Posted - 2014.12.27 12:08:00 - [5] - Quote HiddenPorpoise wrote: It's actually worthless if it works the way you suggest it would; at most it would have 4/4/4 and could only use a DC half the time. No. It would have more slots. At most it would have 16/16/16 But only 8/8/8 could be used at one time. Now I'm not suggesting it be that high, maybe 7/4/6 in one mode and an additional 8/5/5 in the other mode. that would provide you a total of 15 High, 9 medium, 11 low slots. A lot to fill, and a lot of expense, but you can only use one mode at a time, and if you lose your ship, you lose a lot.
Ix Method Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery 369	Posted - 2014.12.27 12:53:33 - [6] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: baltec1 wrote: So an anti-everything. No. It won't have any great firepower in any specific mode, just the ability to switch between them. Imagine you are fighting against a Battleship (fit to fight large ships) and a Cruiser (fit to fight frigs), only they both can't fight at the same time. Only one of them can fight you. That will make it more difficult for you to select ship and loadout, or maybe you would need to bring friends. So no. Or yes and no. Or more specifically yes. How could this be balanced without making it Blopsesque subpar/niche in both modes? Travelling at the speed of love.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 17	Posted - 2014.12.27 13:21:31 - [7] - Quote Ix Method wrote: How could this be balanced without making it Blopsesque subpar/niche in both modes? In terms of dishing out damage it won't be sub par in EITHER mode, it will be a little better than a battleship in Mode 1, and a little better than a battle cruiser in mode 2. But the fittings and resist in those modes is entirely up to the pilot.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 511	Posted - 2014.12.27 14:35:51 - [8] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So an anti-everything. Yes, I believe what the OP Is asking for is the fabled solo OMGWTFPWN-mobile of myth. Basically, what you've done, OP, is render 90% of the ships in the game obsolete. No need to bring anti frig support on a fleet. Just change modes, blap them off the field, and then resume pounding the enemy. No. Will I get banned for boxing!?!?! This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Tabris Katz New Moon Harvesters 24	Posted - 2014.12.27 14:53:42 - [9] - Quote I'm going to half to say no on this as well. We are only know starting to see t3 destroyers, lets wait a bit and see how these pan out before any more t3 ship classes are created. On another point, if an new kind of t3 ship is added it should have a different mechanic then what we already see on t3 destroyers and cruisers. Just a thought here.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 561	Posted - 2014.12.27 15:12:14 - [10] - Quote how exactly are these "modes" working? Will there be a need to haul depots or carriers tag along for refits? If not.... I am not seeing this mode stuff just making large bore guns get magical boosts to tracking to hit small targets. Tracking to hit small targets is tracking to smack the crap out of large targets as grazing hits become solid hits pretty consistently. Better men than I at eve maths than can work out the math but if you remove'd most of my low damage hits on say Rokh due to its less than stellar tracking (lacking tracking bonus, te/tc can't be piled on not gimping something else) the solid hits coming damn near everytime on a large target might come out statistically better in the end to my mind. And I blap small targets for added bene's. So if this here bs is needing refits (I would press for this caveat, small target mode needs small weapons)....this here bs if enemy layers it right is spending too much time in refit ops. Kind of pointless really as this fleet would be better served having cruisers, bc's and maybe even frigs pulling this small target duty. The'd be johnny on the spot fit already and would not be this bs going damn...frigate wave came in after BS wave quick rush to depot/carrier. And what downsides are there to this. You see.....one could envy the rapid launchers of the missile boats. A rapid heavy looks damn good on paper with say rattler. Massive dps that can be applied to smaller targets if needed. But it has that reload time from hell on it. Fair tradeoff all things considered. Some find it contentious with the rapids, others don't. Me I am on the fence as I believe eve is game for all people. That would include the attackers of the BS in smaller ships. In this case I break out my broken record statement. BS' don't fly alone or risk what they get when they do out of empire. But be that as it may....what downsides are turrets getting? You know so that they don't fire like they do on large targets at small targets. hate to be **** but if on rapids I am stuck on being a 2 pump chump who needs forever to get it up again so to speak....I'd want turrets having performance issues getting it up for round 2 as well.
Ix Method Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery 370	Posted - 2014.12.27 16:00:44 - [11] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: Ix Method wrote: How could this be balanced without making it Blopsesque subpar/niche in both modes? In terms of dishing out damage it won't be sub par in EITHER mode, it will be a little better than a battleship in Mode 1, and a little better than a battle cruiser in mode 2. But the fittings and resist in those modes is entirely up to the pilot. How is this balanced? Or as the goon asked how is this not anti-everything? What combat ship has a prayer of countering it? Travelling at the speed of love.
Nalelmir Ahashion Omegon 42nd Core 615	Posted - 2014.12.27 16:34:15 - [12] - Quote if there is going to be a ship with switch modes to all target types why would I use anything else? "To know the true path, but yet, to never follow it. That is possibly the gravest sin" - The Scriptures, Book of Missions 13:21
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 199	Posted - 2014.12.27 16:39:47 - [13] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So an anti-everything. Actually the primary problem with BS in large fleets is their speed and warp slowness. So basically a battleship that can hit frigates is not necessarily a game breaker. The frigs can still outmaneuver them. A T3 battleship is a good idea to implement some day. The OP's idea or a version of it is a worthy contribution to think about. I think there are more pressing issues for the moment, but this idea should be thrown into the bag of possibilities to think about at some point. Oh, and the reason not to use them could be their extreme price. Unreal skill point requirements could be another reason. SERIOUS skill point loss upon dying could be another. Their slowness and the traditional vulnerability of battleships to HAC fleets could be another reason. Just because a ship can shoot everything doesn't mean it's a counter to everything. For one, it may only be able to shoot everything within a given range band. Plus, in order to be a counter to everything, it has to be able to be killed by nothing. The OP mentioned nothing about that.
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 194	Posted - 2014.12.27 17:22:21 - [14] - Quote How about you learn to use the search tool before posting ideas..?
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 561	Posted - 2014.12.27 19:04:36 - [15] - Quote Paynus Maiassus wrote: Just because a ship can shoot everything doesn't mean it's a counter to everything. For one, it may only be able to shoot everything within a given range band. Plus, in order to be a counter to everything, it has to be able to be killed by nothing. The OP mentioned nothing about that. since you mention range.... we can assume like current t3 for cruisers bonuses will scale up to BS. Rokh's range bonus as an example in small ship mode would apply to caldari t3 BS with hybrid sub (as tengu does based on range being a common cruiser hybrid bonus) . We can argue values later...caldari hybrid sub optimal bonus is 20% per level, 10% is the usual standard. We can also assume OP would want this in place. For one simple reason. If they wanted gimped range if hybrid sub fit on atheoretical t3 ship ....they can have this in game right now. They could run a rokh with small or medium hybrids (losing ofc optimal bonus to large in the process). Smaller bore, better tracking off the bat right there. Mix and match other racial bs' combos...no law says you have to run bonuses weapons on your ride. Something is telling me OP is not giving all these bonuses up in small ship mode. Jaded part of me is telling they want them improved on tbh.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 17	Posted - 2014.12.28 11:07:58 - [16] - Quote Nalelmir Ahashion wrote: if there is going to be a ship with switch modes to all target types why would I use anything else? Because it cost a lot, and it is also a single target to bring down.
Bob Maths Aliastra Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2014.12.28 17:02:57 - [17] - Quote Or lets not have a 'mode' feature and leave that to the destroyers, much like subsystems to cruisers.
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 511	Posted - 2014.12.28 17:11:54 - [18] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: Nalelmir Ahashion wrote: if there is going to be a ship with switch modes to all target types why would I use anything else? Because it cost a lot, and it is also a single target to bring down. Yes, because cost is an effective balancing feature, as evidenced by the very few titans in the game. Oh wait... Will I get banned for boxing!?!?! This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 562	Posted - 2014.12.28 22:03:33 - [19] - Quote Jean Luc Lemmont wrote: Alia Ravenswing wrote: Nalelmir Ahashion wrote: if there is going to be a ship with switch modes to all target types why would I use anything else? Because it cost a lot, and it is also a single target to bring down. Yes, because cost is an effective balancing feature, as evidenced by the very few titans in the game. Oh wait... This... and t3 does not follow normal market trends. While inflation and tiericide has seen t1 (and t2 since based on t1 hulls) go up over the years price wise t3 breaks this trend. We are paying the same, if not less, for t3's from what I recall prices from years ago. Even I am surprised about the pricing of the new destroyer. The speculation bubble burst sooner than I expected and they dropped from the expected you must be high prices new ships always get to reasonable in a short time frame. Take away is t3 doesn't have a very good price controls use history. I remember years ago t3 pvp in cruisers was a space rich player's game. That was only because of the isk making potential of the game at the time. And even in these years you found players who said its only isk and spammed these. Now we have fleet doctrines (for large fleets) for them. Lots of isk faucets changed this dynamic. even just Ihub upgrades in post dominion SOV made t3 doable as rides for the masses. Get the good ca's more often, you can lose a t3 more often. Then came PI, incursions, fw economically viable for alt running, etc.... I would not see t3 bs' being priced for the rich basically. All the c1-c3 runners and inventors/reverse engineers would keep this moderately priced. They don't have rat bounty to tide them over while they try to gouge on the markets. Kill sleepers, move the sleeper loot dropped. Its how they get paid. Longer they hold the sleeper loot....longer they aren't getting paid.
Krops Vont Genii Federation 28	Posted - 2014.12.29 00:58:07 - [20] - Quote Still smoking that dark matter are we? Honestly, the last thing we need is MORE t3 ships. There should be more specialized ships and re balances that are already coming into effect. Even the t3's are expecting a shaking up. Alia Ravenswing wrote: Nalelmir Ahashion wrote: if there is going to be a ship with switch modes to all target types why would I use anything else? Because it cost a lot, and it is also a single target to bring down. You don't introduce a ship based off price. That comes after you invent the damn thing. Like saying I will bring a new salvage frigate that will be less than 1 million isk. I can't control that. As with any human, we must map out everything for the sake of living. So what happens when you put the same aspect in a game with random events? They go nuts trying to figure out how to predict and map out everything.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 177	Posted - 2014.12.29 03:45:16 - [21] - Quote So many "___ Battleships" and "T3 _____" threads lately. Let's wait for CCP to properly balance both battleships and T3s before we add new versions of either. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 19	Posted - 2014.12.29 04:44:31 - [22] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: So many "___ Battleships" and "T3 _____" threads lately. Let's wait for CCP to properly balance both battleships and T3s before we add new versions of either. I don't think they should "balance" anything. That's like spending a bunch of money on that new car because of it's power windows, airbags, Sat radio, etc. and then the manufacturer comes along and takes those things away from you because it's not fair to drivers that don't have them. All that does is take my money.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 19	Posted - 2014.12.29 04:55:39 - [23] - Quote Krops Vont wrote: Honestly, the last thing we need is MORE t3 ships. There should be more specialized ships and re balances that are already coming into effect. Even the t3's are expecting a shaking up. As usual, people always complain about ANY proposal. I myself have previous suggested specialized ships including. 1. Long Range Heavy Bomber - Drops multiple bombs at once (all same type), at a much greater range (80 km), not cloakable. 2. Picket ship - A much higher magnitude of range for it's directional scanner, and the ability to use deep space probes (bring them back).
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 178	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:06:46 - [24] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: So many "___ Battleships" and "T3 _____" threads lately. Let's wait for CCP to properly balance both battleships and T3s before we add new versions of either. I don't think they should "balance" anything. That's like spending a bunch of money on that new car because of it's power windows, airbags, Sat radio, etc. and then the manufacturer comes along and takes those things away from you because it's not fair to drivers that don't have them. All that does is take my money. It's more like buying a new car and on your purchase agreement it states, "all features and components are subject to change at anytime by the manufacturer". On the same purchase agreement it also states, "this vehicle is direct property of the manufacturer and all rights pertraining to it's use may be revoked at any time". ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 19	Posted - 2014.12.29 05:22:42 - [25] - Quote [/quote] For the analogy to apply to EVE it would be like buying a new car and on your purchase agreement it states, "all features and components of this vehicle are subject to change at anytime by the manufacturer". On the same purchase agreement it also states, "this vehicle is direct property of the manufacturer and all rights pertaining to it's use may be revoked at any time".[/quote] EXACTLY! And I for one have had enough of that B.S. both in game and especially real life.
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 40	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:04:11 - [26] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: So many "___ Battleships" and "T3 _____" threads lately. Let's wait for CCP to properly balance both battleships and T3s before we add new versions of either. I don't think they should "balance" anything. That's like spending a bunch of money on that new car because of it's power windows, airbags, Sat radio, etc. and then the manufacturer comes along and takes those things away from you because it's not fair to drivers that don't have them. All that does is take my money. Do you want to drive EvE into a stagnant cycle of power creep? Because that's how you drive EvE into a stagnant cycle of power creep. /archer Segueing onto what I can remember if the OP (sorry if wrong thread, there are just so many of them on t3) Try and have some understanding of the juxtaposition between the words 'tactical' and strategic' - one is sm.... I cant be bothered paraphrasing a post of mine to fit into this one, especially when on an iPad, so I'll just quote myself.. Aran Hotchkiss wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Once t3 cruisers are worked out properly I would like to see is Strategic Frigates af Battleships and Tatical Battlecruisers. Bleurgh. Bit of a nomenclature rant here. Tactical and strategic are different scales, I.e. superioit tactics win engagements, superior strategies win campaigns. I mean look at tactical and strategic missiles as an example - a tactical missile could be something employed in the middle of a battle to create a temporary advantage to be exploited, a strategic missile would be used to neutralise that army that'll arrive in two days time. When I first saw t3 destroyers were going to be labelled as tactical I had a good chuckle (very clever, CCP, my hat off to you) - and their mechanics suit the name - able to be changed in-flight during engagements at the pilots discretion, and strategic cruisers (ideally) are changed in between engagements to suit particular roles. So apart from wanting to slap people around the head when I hear them say frig/cruiser/battleship = strategic and the bastard hulls (destroyer / battle cruiser) = tactical , two questions: A) How would you class new t3 ship types B) How do you make a frigate more 'tactical' than d3's? How do you make a battleship more 'strategic' than a cruiser? Not to mention that start cruisers look like they're going to be overhauled anyway. Once the t3 destroyer/cruiser dust has settled, I'd be fine if they never implemented any more tech 3 hulls. That combat engineer thread did look interesting though. Right, one last thing slaps Omnathius up the head for being a silly fool I feel if I write anymore I'm going to descend (further) into a rant.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 19	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:11:13 - [27] - Quote In short, yes that is exactly what I want. It's how the real universe works, so it should work the same in EVE. I do understand the problems associated with it, and clearly those details need to be worked out first. But I think eventually, we need to get to the point that EVE Online has no more "re-balance".
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 40	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:33:51 - [28] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: In short, yes that is exactly what I want. It's how the real universe works, so it should work the same in EVE. I do understand the problems associated with it, and clearly those details need to be worked out first. But I think eventually, we need to get to the point that EVE Online has no more "re-balance". The issue is it's incredibly hard (impossible) to get a ship balanced on its first release, so rebalances exist. Moves onto the question of what is 'balanced' The dev's original intends design? Something the majority of EvE players can agree on? Something the majority of Eve plates who use the forums can agree on? (Big difference I'm pretty sure) What keeps The Mitanni happy? What factors in to it as well is... The only feedback is from players/people - if New Eden went crazy and started only flying hull-tanked arty rohks, and against all reason these fail fit rohks became the best performing / most often used ship (ishtars/pete's) you'd probably see requests for them to receive some scrutiny. On the other hand you can also look at raw numbers - I.e. The Ehp attainable by strategic cruisers coupled with their sig radius, damage application of missiles, etc. There are many ways to slice the pie, and it never runs out either. Bleh. Words. Not even sure what to put as tl; dr.
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 20	Posted - 2014.12.29 06:47:34 - [29] - Quote I spent 1.3 Billion ISK on a Loki when it first came out because of it's abilities. Today I could build that same ship for less than 300 Million, but if I don't have those capabilities due to a re-balance, then I want my money back, at least based on current market value, and after a re-balance, that market value would drop even lower. So many people like to complain that a Strategic Cruiser is too powerful, but I beg to differ. We need only look at a command ship (T2 Battle Cruiser) The Command Ship has a great tank and a lot of DPS (If fit correctly). It's true that a Strategic Cruiser could Out Tank it, or could out DPS it, but not both at the same time. I have a Loki that can stand toe to toe against three PVP battleships, and tank anything they throw at me, but add one neutralizer to the mix, and it's all over for me and my Loki. Or they battleships can just sit there and do nothing because my Loki has almost no DPS at all, and I would run out of ammo long before bringing one of those ships down. The T3 is designed to be a highly specialized ship, not a jack of all trades.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 562	Posted - 2014.12.30 02:31:32 - [30] - Quote Alia Ravenswing wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: So many "___ Battleships" and "T3 _____" threads lately. Let's wait for CCP to properly balance both battleships and T3s before we add new versions of either. I don't think they should "balance" anything. That's like spending a bunch of money on that new car because of it's power windows, airbags, Sat radio, etc. and then the manufacturer comes along and takes those things away from you because it's not fair to drivers that don't have them. All that does is take my money. kind of a bad example. At least for the US market, car makers release cars that are emissions legal for all 50 states. Strictest emissions is the baseline to pass. Unless changed since last I was living there are regions with more lax or don't even have emissions testing. Their cars are gimped for tests levels they don't even need to pass or need so high a standard. Air/fuel matters adjusted in the onboard computer, exhaust gas routing less free flowing to not fail testing in the hardest test. This is lost performance. They can't have nice things because say California has more strict laws than they do.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20250913/1153
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.