A few ideas I was thinking about with battleships. The problem as I see it is once you are scrammed and even if you have a single tracking disruptor you are basically unable to do any damage to any frigates or t3ds inside range. This is true even if you have one grappler web and 1 regular web.

1) some sort of ewar resistance. Say 50%.

2) A new module that works as an afterburner burst. The idea is that it would give your battleship the ability to pulse for a high rate of speed say somewhere around 600% speed boost but it does so for only one cycle. It then has a spool up timer. It would be immune to scrams and should have some immunity to webs as well. Maybe webs cap out to make it only 400% speed boost. The idea is that the battle ship pilot can use this to momentarilly gain some transversal and at least get a few good shots off to possibly kill some of the smaller stuff instead of just always being a sitting duck. I don't really know all the details or numbers here but you get the idea.

3) they should get a hp buff. The increase in ehp between BS and carriers should be comparable to the ehp increase between BS and bcs.

I'm open to battleships getting more ehp and deeps, but only to set them apart from other ships. Ones that should probably be nerfed.

They don't have to be fit for the fight. Your guns won't hit them.

Four fights wow. The first was a smart bombing bs and the attacking frigates went in close range. I love how you show a smart bomb battle ship in response to a post I made saying their guns won't hit frigates. The next was station games. I didn't bother with the third or fourth because they are just anecdotal anyway.

Instead of posting a few videos over years of eve where someone may have had a good fight why don't you look at less anecdotal information.

I am not even talking about fleet doctrines. I am mainly interested in low sec shenanigans.

Battleships have only had it this good vs frigate once before and that was when tracking didnt exist. I have few issues with frigates in my battleships.

1906 called and wants to tell you about it's new toy, HMS Dreadnaught. Literally the opposite of what you think a naval battleship is, and what every battleship afterwards was based on.

Seriously. Please, spend thirty seconds on google if you're going to make a comparison.

Now, please explain why you feel battleships should be immune to everything smaller than they are? If you want real world examples, should we look at what sank the Yamato, Repluse, Prince of Wales, Muashi, Tirpitz, the battleships at Pearl Harbour, Mers-el-K+¬bir and Taranto...need I go on?

(Oh god I took the bait again please help me)

While it does not necessarily need to be represented in EVE, it's still worth noting that while pretty much everything designed as "all big guns" battleships after Dreadnaught, those ships still included secondary batteries to counter small craft. The move was not complete removal of anything but main battery large guns. It was a move from combo of 8 inch and 10 inch guns on the same ship just like nobody fit 1400mm and 1200mm at the same time in EVE. They retained stuff like 5 inch guns for example because firing a 12+ inch gun at a torpedo boat is an exercise in futility. How well those capabilities are represented by drones could be asked. I don't think more need to be added on top of current config tho. BS balance would be better done by making adjustment to T3Cs.

Speak for yourself, a grapple coupled with Neutron blasters are great fun

Or be put on smaller ships, webs are for frigs (wimpy wimpy wimpy)
Grapplers on big old bs' s (hefty hefty hefty)

Surely there needs to be a middle ground one for battlecruisers/cruisers. No?

At least with another web, you won't need to switch ammo from void to antimatter.


"Come to momma.."

Traditionally Battleships had teh main guns, and also a secondary set of smaller guns. So that they could deal with smaller boats that could dodge their mains and drop a Torpedo on them.

Pocket Battleships took this to a fine art.

EVE needs boats like these.


And some kind of EWAR hardened chassis would be fun as well.


Tuppence deposited.

Pocket Battleships were basically heavy cruisers with battlecruiser armament, and they were designed at the time to get around treaty restrictions.

Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of Pocket Battleships. I suspect that the in-game equivalent are Attack Battlecruisers. If CCP ever gets around to releasing a T3 Battleship my quest will be complete.

Never not t3 battleship....CCP when they are coming give cool toys for something that is not cancer will you?

T2 resists moderate to low hp combat subs ewar subs navigation subs fleet subs and many many many ....many visual mods and animations ...i want

...i need.

We need t3iricide.

That flame war is long overdue.

I think a few people have pushed for X-Large Shield Extenders and 3200mm plates for BS to buff the ehp but not over buff it, since it will take more PG etc etc.

ewar resistance isnt the worst idea.

Almost all of the discussion I've seen in the last... two years or so(?) has been in agreement that T3s are OP. The last holdouts were a few T3D players, but even most of those were either trolls or people who felt that the T3Ds should be left as-is and other things buffed up to their level.

I've yet to see someone seriously try and defend T3Cs as anything other than the OP little monsters that they are and that includes every single wormhole player I've talked to so far.

Most of the actual flaming/debate comes when you try to actually figure out how to balance T3-anything. Some people want them removed from the game (unrealistic), others want the cost massively increased but the ships left more or less as they are (bad idea IMO), and then there's about twenty different flavors of "make my change ccpls senpai" for which there is not a large enough tub of popcorn in the world.

Oh almost certainly, but I expect most of it to be in the form of people arguing over what CCP should nerf or change and trying to preserve the most OP characteristics of T3Cs the same as what was seen in the first round of T3D nerfs.

The issue is not 1 BS vs 1 T3c.

A well fitted brawling BS should beat any most T3C brawler in s straight 1 VS 1 fight. I did, and still do it occasionally.

I actually had a thought on this, and I've no idea if it's a good one or not.

The basic basic version is replace one subsystem per slot with an Amplifier Subsystem that operates similarly to the Pirate Implants, boosting the effectiveness of all the other non-Amplifier subsystems. Then give the basic subsystems themselves fairly low bonuses. So, you can either fit 4 Amps and 1 bonus, and get something very very slightly better than normal (for example 5% resists per level on the hull) but nothing else, or you can fit two or more and get exponential drop off in bonus power, for example a T3C could be fitted out like a Moa and have Damage and Resists but they'd both be at a lower level than the Moa's bonuses.

This keeps the flexibility but directly trades flex for power. Stuff like the Interdiction Nullifier that doesn't multiply well could either be removed to become an Amplifier or have a drawback added that goes down with Amps, so for example you could put a Sig Bloom penalty on the Nullifier so if you fit that you're bigger and easier to hit and lock, but that pretty much goes away if you fit nothing else. Want Cloak and Nullifier? You're going to make a trade off for that.

I support topic starter.
BSs deserve more attention and love from CCP.
There can be a lot of solutions, and main one - bring to them role bonus. Most of them simply have such bonus.
It could be something similar to the BC - additional tracking and so on.

I feel like you could adjust this by tweaking the bonuses and base stats on the ships. Like, there's no reason a tanking module has to just provide resists, it could also provide base HP or something as well. The values could also be tweaked so that, for example, you can get 2 bonuses that are greater than a T1 ship's but not equivalent to the 4 specialized bonuses a T2 hull gets.

The general idea being that you don't really want to pick just one thing to be good at, you want to do something like be like T2 ship X but with Y attribute, like an EWar Cruiser with a lot more tank, or a Logi ship that's faster than normal or something like that.

To me it feels like the two main problems with T3s in general are the high natural EHP they get from T3 resists, and the extra bonuses they get over a T2 ship. For the T3Ds it's the basic hull bonuses combined with the mode swapping, and for the T3Cs its the ability to pick five different bonuses, all of which are about at the level of a T2 ship's bonuses, which allows you to basically min-max something that's better than a T2 ship because you can pick and choose to a large extent and because most of the bonuses aren't actually worse than a T2 hull, especially the overall effect of the tank subsystems on a naturally tanky T3 hull.

Instead of nerfing T3C we need new T3B - then it won't be an issue. Skip the T3C rebalance and focus on the other ships that need it instead.

I've wanted escort/light carriers for years now :(

actually.... if you look those are called carriers.

Escort Carriers ( smaller than the big ones ) could be fun. Flights of 7 drones in a special Battleship?

According to the original design from the contest in 2010, these should be BS sized carriers. I imagine them with the ability to control 1 light or support fighter squad, while can hold maybe 3. Able to move free in hi-sec but can't use accel gates, to prevent using them in incursions and on missions. Maybe a refitting ability, so they can be used as a kind of mobile base. Remote rep/boost bonuses, no ewar resistance, no command burst, no entosis link, no whatever else you usually put on carriers that would make these ridiculously OP.

Niche roles for these could be
- cheap and fairly weak mobile bases to store modules and refit other ships
- BS sized logistic ships: more range and efficiency than cruisers, probably primary at all times
- anti-structure platforms in hi-sec maybe? or you need fighter bombers for that?

I don't know what roles still missing from the game. Could you name a few please?
Also, is it really necessary for every ship to have a niche role? Can't we make something to increase the variety, or because it's an interesting idea?
What niche role do the attack battle cruisers have? Having oversized weapons is a niche? Why don't we have destroyers with medium guns and battleships with capital guns then?

The new carrier fighter functionality is good and interesting but there is a big gap in skills between battleships and carriers. There is probably some value providing a bridge ship that starts to make use of fighter skills while still not having the full complement of capital skills.

Whether it fills a niche is a different question.

I think expanding use of good gameplay functionality is a good thing and that to a certain extent new shiny ships sell subscriptions.

As for skills the cost is large and the training time is fairly large, you also pretty much need the lot before stepping into one.

Previous posters idea was probably overpowered doesn't mean there isn't some value there in the idea.

Thing is there are about 20 different ways to do this.

Could go T1 new BS hull, T2 BS, capital, hell there are even ways a BC hull argument could be made....

Then you would decide on NSA on subcap hull possibilities or no

Then there are arguments for everything from 1 tube to 5.....


Then you have all the arguments for how does it behave... does it sit and tank, does it try to avoid a fight, etc etc etc.....




What that all really means is by the time you get done looking at all those options there is someone who is going to have a problem with every single one. Rather than nitpicking the particulars of one out of a multitude of ways this concept could work, why not just a 'Do it CCP' or 'Don't do it CCP'?

Toying with the idea of a Battleship carrier for a moment that can provide logistics and flights of drones/fighters.

Limit the assisting fitting of ships to frigate or destroyer hulls exclusively.
I can imagine this keeps it as a support to fleets of that makeup. In all honesty I'm just spit balling to promote discussion.

Because sitting here arguing over specifics of a concept CCP and maybe the CSM will ultimately decide on is a far less useful use of energy than gathering support for a concept and getting CCP's attention that it's something we want, and letting... IDK, the game dev's decide on the specifics of it? Then giving feedback and critiques after it hits the test servers.... *shrug* that's not at all sensible, we should sit here and keep arguing over whether it has 2 tubes or 3, is red or blue, and how many fish are on it, right?

the only way i could see these being balanced at all is if there were heavy restrictions placed on them

sig and speed slightly worse than normal BBs

tank of T1 cruiser

reduced fighter HP

this would mean you would have to warp these in at range and use them similar to ABCs

even then a few hyper-spacial rigs and they will still mow down small and solo gangs in LS, be use widely in HS wars and be a nightmare in large numbers.

that said when you have to put heavy penalties onto an idea you probably should rethink the idea in the first place

i want to fly this IDEA but i don't think there is a way it can fit into eve

How about this.

Escort carrier type battleship

2 - 3 tubes depending on balance issues. Problem needs to be able to do several hundred DPS though.

Restrict it to space superiority and support fighters.

Bonus to fighter speeds

Concerns about DPS are relevant so the ship could have no damage bonus but fighter costs are also relevant so perhaps restrict number of fighters in the tubes (we know different fighters do have different squadron numbers) and have a damage bonus (maybe even racial)

Allow it to fit a defender launcher. (Don't feel this makes the destroyer platform obsolete but provides fleet utility)

No command bursts

No fighter support units

No jump drive or capital skill requirements

Not sure about network sensor array probably no.

No Requirement for 1bill of capital skill books and two months of training time before being able to experience fighter functionality.

Now you have a battleship sized anti fighter/bomber platform providing a stepping stone to full carrier.

No idea if it's balanced as per above posters comments specifics of any ideas will always need further balancing and strength will vary depending on whether it is a fourth battleship or T2 battleship platform.

they need CCP to find the balance between massive range EWar and not-full-strength EWar.

I was referring to the Inertia bonus on the Sin *and* the speed bonus on the Redeemer. Both of these feel like bonuses begging to just be baked into the hulls they're on. They may be useful but they're also not that powerful compared to other bonuses, and one thing that we've pretty consistently seen through the tiericide is bonuses like this just baked into the hulls and replaced with something that either scales better or is more interesting.

Also a fair point, but to me this seems like more of an argument *against* the Window than anything else. If nothing else the hulls could get a moderate bonus to EWar as a role bonus without breaking any of them terribly or eclipsing the Recons.

While I generally agree that they're not OP or nearly as worthless as they were when they were basically only used to bridge T3Cs around, I still feel like they could safely be tweaked and buffed without becoming OP. It feels more like they're used these days because they're slightly more affordable for an older and more ISK-rich Eve population, and because nothing else really does what Black Ops BSes do, not because they've magically changed somewhere in the last 3-4 years from when they were basically considered mobile bridges for either small-scale Logistics work or hot drops.

[/list]