These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Gallente

First post
Author
SamuelK
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#941 - 2013-04-10 00:46:43 UTC
Leave. My. Mega. Alone.


Kick that dumb Hyperion rep bonus out and add a tracking bonus.
Don't mess with my Megathron.
Nerf the drones down to 75 ban but leave the bay the same size.
Don't mess with my Megathron.
Slot lay out 8/3/8
Don't mess with my Megathron.
Give it a hit point buff.
Don't mess with my Megathron.

DO. NOT. MESS. WITH. MY. MEGA.
Alice Katsuko
Perkone
Caldari State
#942 - 2013-04-10 00:55:10 UTC
The problem with giving the Hyperion a resistance bonus is that it won't solve anything. It will merely turn the Hyperion into a short-range Abaddon. There will still be no reason to use it over an Abaddon in a fleet. If it gains sufficient damage output, damage projection, and/or tank to be more useful than an Abaddon or a Rokh, then it will render one or both ships obsolete. Making one ship useful by obsoleting another is not good design practice.

Instead, the Hyperion should excel at something that the other three factions' fleet battleships do not. Lack of a resistance bonus in itself is not fatal to a fleet ship; the Maelstrom and the Tempest are prime examples.

This all assumes that every faction should have a fleet-doctrine battleship. There's no real reason for why this should be, and it seems to be coming out of a misguided search for symmetry where none needs to exist. I'm not sure why the Hyperion cannot receive some minor tweaks to make it an excellent solo/small gang platform.

+

The proposals for moving sentry drones are interesting, but may make heavy drones and fighters almost wholly obsolete. Currently, sentries, heavy drones, and fighters all compete against one another for the anti-battleship drone role. The higher dps and tracking of heavy drones and fighters relative to sentries compensates for their long travel time, and makes them superior to sentries in engagements of under 10km, or where the ship cannot remain in one position.
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#943 - 2013-04-10 01:04:18 UTC
fukier wrote:

anywho those bonus i already said would be op on a tech I ship... but not on a revamped Sin.


That is why I said NO NO NO lets keep it to realistic sugestions.


Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Do you feel a single type of drone retains comparable advantages and versatility to a single type of turret?



No but to give a ship ( a tech 1 ship at that ) a bonus to drones then to sentries as I have stated before Pigeon hole's a ship and its load out as people always want all the bonuses unless its an off the wall fitting ( and i'm more for off the wall fittings than cookie cutter exact copies of one another ) and giving the domi an exact bonus to sentries over an overall drone bonus is taking creativity away from people the fittings may differ slightly but the drone load outs will always remain the same.
Actually scratch that fittings will more than likely be exact copies as well creativity on the whole in eve is dead.


ShahFluffers wrote:

Maybe that's because you can't stockpile drones in your dronebay like you can ammo in your cargohold. If you lose 5 heavy/sentry drones in a Dominix... it hurts. You only have enough drone space for 2 extra sets of heavy/sentry drones... but realistically you only carry 1 extra set because you need light and utility drones "just in case." Consciously losing drones (and thus DPS) left and right as a tactic is not what I consider very smart (nor cheap).


No you can not stockpile drones but then again you should have a finite amount of drones like ammo, cap boosters and so on its the pilots choice to load what drones they want if you want 3 flights of heavy / sentry drones that is your choice like your choice is what 2 flights of heavy or sentry drones and the rest of your space for whatever else.
You also have the ability to scoop to drone bay on any un owned drones of the dead or abandoned drones on field assuming you are with others in a fleet.
And if you quote doctrine at me I may just virtually slap you that is your corp, alliance and your own decision to follow.



Omnathious Deninard wrote:

I might be asking for a bit much here, but 1k drone bay for the Dominix would leave plenty of utility and offensive room for drones.
I guess I kind of think of drone ships like a tool box, but right now you can only fit 3 screwdrivers in the whole thing.


Yeah think 1000m3 of drone space on a domi is OTT perhaps 400m3 is a more realistic goal.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#944 - 2013-04-10 01:05:03 UTC
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Truth be told the biggest problem with the Dominix, is the Armageddon.


No, the biggest problem with the domi is the drones...

-Arazel

No, the biggest problem with the domi is the ship model...
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#945 - 2013-04-10 01:08:53 UTC
Alice Katsuko wrote:
The problem with giving the Hyperion a resistance bonus is that it won't solve anything. It will merely turn the Hyperion into a short-range Abaddon. There will still be no reason to use it over an Abaddon in a fleet. If it gains sufficient damage output, damage projection, and/or tank to be more useful than an Abaddon or a Rokh, then it will render one or both ships obsolete. Making one ship useful by obsoleting another is not good design practice.


Well, except for the fact the abaddon does its dps at useful ranges and with good tracking at said ranges. It wouldn't be obsolete because the hyperion would remain useless for fleets with blasters fitted. You need to be able to apply dps in the range of 30-60km+ in fleets. Rails are the only viable hybrid option.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#946 - 2013-04-10 01:12:16 UTC
Thinking a bit more about the domi concerns compared to the armageddon, they mostly are :
- mid slots are worthless ;
- PG is good ;
- CPU is worthless ;
- speed/mobility is worthless ;
- neutralizers are king ;
- armor is the only worthy tank stat (BTW, 500 armor translate into ~4kehp... a 200mm plate...)
This is clearly an amarr bias in fact. Considering these concerns, the Dominix *cannot* be good compared to an amarr drone ship, and the only solution would be to wipe out the armageddon and do something else with it.

Yet these qualities fit a lot more the amarr doctrine, so why don't you go to the amarr thread to congratulate CCP for the perfect ship they made for you ?

As for the tracking/optimal bonus, that will allow garde II to hit at 56+12km with one OTLII, with 0,0675 rad/s tracking : this is comparable to pulse abaddon with scorch.
Loki Vice
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#947 - 2013-04-10 01:12:53 UTC
CCP rise, you suck, quit touching ships go back to "bringing solo back" in a game where solo realistically doesn't exist.

Fozzie please help us, everything you touched is pure bliss, but this ****, **** this ****. If i want a shield ship, i'm not going to ******* fly gallente, if I want a dominix, i'm going to fly a ******* dominix not this ****** ass armageddon.

CCP rise, how you convinced anyone that you know what you're talking about is ******* beyond me
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#948 - 2013-04-10 01:18:09 UTC
Alice Katsuko wrote:
This all assumes that every faction should have a fleet-doctrine battleship. There's no real reason for why this should be, and it seems to be coming out of a misguided search for symmetry where none needs to exist. I'm not sure why the Hyperion cannot receive some minor tweaks to make it an excellent solo/small gang platform.
Well, honestly, that mindset stems because CCP is pushing more for specialization, and specialization, to CCP, extends not just toward T2 hull specialization, but race specialization as well.

When looking through this lens, there is a hole for "hybrid/armor" (Gallente) boats in fleet doctrines. And before someone says "Oh well Domi is the intended fleet ship for Gallente rabble rabble rabble!" let me remind you that of the Battleship-hulled drone boats, the Geddon is the better of the two, and those longer range neuts and capless missile/projectile fits are going to help neut out tacklers, etc., in addition to being a fierce dps platform with comparable tracking to a Domi with the addition of a couple of OTLs in its newly made available 4 midslots.

There is a demand, there, to be sure. But I think shoving the Dominix into that role is a mistake. I'd much rather see the Mega or Hype fit into the fleet doctrine by giving them an advantage on mobility (50% quicker MJD spool or something similar) to let them--ffs--get into range to open up hellfire from those neutron blaster cannons. Or give them, as some have suggested, a stacking armor HP buff (to limit the amount of plates needed, which is an increase in mobility). The last option, however, doesn't really address the strength of the resist bonus in Logi supported gangs and fleets, as well as the built-in buff resist bonuses serve to local active tanks, as well.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Janice Endashi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#949 - 2013-04-10 01:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Janice Endashi
Loki Vice wrote:
CCP rise, you suck, quit touching ships go back to "bringing solo back" in a game where solo realistically doesn't exist.

Fozzie please help us, everything you touched is pure bliss, but this ****, **** this ****. If i want a shield ship, i'm not going to ******* fly gallente, if I want a dominix, i'm going to fly a ******* dominix not this ****** ass armageddon.

CCP rise, how you convinced anyone that you know what you're talking about is ******* beyond me



Well to be fair Fozzie did deliver the OMGWTFLULZUSELESS GARBAGE that is the AAR.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#950 - 2013-04-10 01:51:34 UTC
Janice Endashi wrote:
Loki Vice wrote:
CCP rise, you suck, quit touching ships go back to "bringing solo back" in a game where solo realistically doesn't exist.

Fozzie please help us, everything you touched is pure bliss, but this ****, **** this ****. If i want a shield ship, i'm not going to ******* fly gallente, if I want a dominix, i'm going to fly a ******* dominix not this ****** ass armageddon.

CCP rise, how you convinced anyone that you know what you're talking about is ******* beyond me



Well to be fair Fozzie did deliver the OMGWTFLULZUSELESS GARBAGE that is the AAR.


AAR is pretty good
Helena Khan
Ministry Of Reverse Engineering
#951 - 2013-04-10 01:52:07 UTC
The proposed Mega changes could be extraordinarily good, though more base speed would be a good thing imho. There is the potential to create a super-thorax like fit which could be used in any number of scenarios as an example.

I'd prefer to see the Mega remain mobile and have a range of options to deal with a changing battlefield, which the extra mid slot provides. Cap issues will be a concern if the ROF bonus is put in place, esp considering AM is usually the go to ammo. Void is worse in that respect.

The Hyperion, however doesn't seem to easily sit anywhere as far as it goes. Again, imho, the Hype would be the better ship in a fleet role. Tough, dependable and with a reasonable ability to force project. You 'd almost be better to retool the Hype and it's bonuses completely and leave the proposed Mega changes in place.

Lastly, EvE needs to change and evolve. Nothing is static. Not the game and not we, as capsuleers. The Mega is essentially my favorite hull, and while the tweaking and changes make me a wee bit twitchy, I can see the need for it to happen.

If you want CCP to take our feedback seriously, I'd suggest dialling back the bluster and carry on for those of you shrieking at the top of your lungs, and put forward your suggestions calmly and logically. Change is inevitable. Get used to it.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#952 - 2013-04-10 01:54:26 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:


AAR is pretty good


It's reasonable, for a t1 item. The problem is that everyone compares to the ASB lineup, which is a t1 item more on par with the tankability of dead space shield boosters. IF ASB were more heavily nerfed and t2 and meta versions of aar and asb became available I think allot of the issues would solve themselves.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#953 - 2013-04-10 02:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Helena Khan wrote:
The proposed Mega changes could be extraordinarily good, though more base speed would be a good thing imho. There is the potential to create a super-thorax like fit which could be used in any number of scenarios as an example.

I'd prefer to see the Mega remain mobile and have a range of options to deal with a changing battlefield, which the extra mid slot provides. Cap issues will be a concern if the ROF bonus is put in place, esp considering AM is usually the go to ammo. Void is worse in that respect.


The mega's old proposed slot layout is 8-5-6. That is as flawed as a BS' slot layout can get - just ask today's Hyperion. The wasted bonus isn't why no one uses one - the Mael has the same bonus. The reason is the slot layout making it impossible to armor or shield buffer well.

A solid shield buffer requires about 6 mids - 5 for tank + a low for the damage control. A solid armor buffer requires the same, but as the damage control is also occupying a low, this becomes 7 lows. 5 mids means either a weak shield tank or no prop mod, and 6 lows means either a weak armor tank or no damage mods. The only way to skim some slots is to give a ship a resist bonus, which change the minimums to 5 mids or 6 lows for a BS.

8-5-6 doesn't allow a solid tank in any slot. It makes a ship into a jack of all trades, master of none. This is a flaw in ship design, as good flexible ships can fill multiple roles WELL depending on fitting. There is a reason people don't mix guns or tanks - specialization is the only way to succeed.

Now, if they wanted the mega to shield tank, drop a high and a low and make it 7-6-5. If they want it to armor tank on the level of other race's line DPS battleships, buff its base armor and make it 7-4-8 or don't alter its slot layout. In either case, give it a whole lot more than 25 more CPU. But for the love of god don't try and make it into a "this ship can shield tank or armor tank!" boat. That is the fast lane to failure. See: Hyperion.
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#954 - 2013-04-10 02:04:04 UTC
My attempt at the domi change now before the flame and rage I have been at this a few mins and admit refinement will be needed by someone who has not been up over 24 hours and has been getting drunk for the last 4 hours.

Gallente Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% Drone Damage and Drone hitpoints
+7.5% Drone optimal range

Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 7L; 5 turrets , 0 launchers
Fittings: 9000 PWG, 600 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 7300(+1831) / 8000(+1789) / 8500(+1859)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5350(+350) / 1080s / 4.77
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 112 / .1254 / 100250000(+3150000) / 16.88s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 425
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 72.5km / 96 / 6
Sensor strength: 21 Magnetometric Sensor Strength
Signature radius: 468(+48)



Trying to be constructive here although i fell rage and flam coming on god help me CryCryCry
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#955 - 2013-04-10 02:04:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
smoking gun81 wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:

Maybe that's because you can't stockpile drones in your dronebay like you can ammo in your cargohold. If you lose 5 heavy/sentry drones in a Dominix... it hurts. You only have enough drone space for 2 extra sets of heavy/sentry drones... but realistically you only carry 1 extra set because you need light and utility drones "just in case." Consciously losing drones (and thus DPS) left and right as a tactic is not what I consider very smart (nor cheap).


No you can not stockpile drones but then again you should have a finite amount of drones like ammo, cap boosters and so on its the pilots choice to load what drones they want if you want 3 flights of heavy / sentry drones that is your choice like your choice is what 2 flights of heavy or sentry drones and the rest of your space for whatever else.
You also have the ability to scoop to drone bay on any un owned drones of the dead or abandoned drones on field assuming you are with others in a fleet.
And if you quote doctrine at me I may just virtually slap you that is your corp, alliance and your own decision to follow.


I am merely countering that whatever mobility advantage the Dominix has over the Armageddon is lost because it isn't a good idea to throw away HALF your DPS with only 1 "reload" (and yes, moving away from sentry drones is as good as throwing them away unless you are in close quarters combat and/or are very fast (like the Ishtar or Gila)).
Not wanting to leave behind drones while in a droneship isn't "averse attachment"... it's a matter of being a viable combat ship over the long haul. Cap boosters and ammo may also be finite... but they don't get left behind or limit your tactical options just because you move.

As far scooping abandoned drones... yes, you can do that... but not when when "sniping" and/or at range (which is a tactic that many people seem to be stuck on for the Dominix). The only reason I "quote" this "doctrine" is because it perfectly illustrates the problem that sentry drones (and by extension drone battleships) have... that drone battleships are simply not mobile... which means that people will easily choose the ship that can fit the biggest tank... which is the Armageddon.

Which comes back to my concern... why fly a Dominix when an Armageddon can do most of the same things but better.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#956 - 2013-04-10 02:08:20 UTC
IceDe4d wrote:


PS: PLS FIX ASTARTE !!!


I second this, Command ships are FAR FAR FAR more broke than any of the T1 BS were. ATM All commands other than sleipnir and claymore have 1 less total slot than t1 BCs.

I think it's reasonable to assume that they will be receiving a slot each or be mauraderfied, in the sense that the number of guns will be reduced combined with a large damage bonus making up for the lost dps. This would then open up utility highs for the usage of Gang links w/o totally shitifying your combat capabilities. Such a change is going to be necessary if On grid boosting is to go live.
Tennessee Jack
Doomheim
#957 - 2013-04-10 02:10:54 UTC
T1 battleships please.

What is the fleet doctrine for the megathron and Hyperion. If there is none, what should it be?
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#958 - 2013-04-10 02:11:57 UTC
These changes fix nothing, the Dominix and Mega were considered very good for battleships and are now infeirior at what they were good at.

The Hyperion was considered **** and is now more ****.

Battleships as a class need to be rethought.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#959 - 2013-04-10 02:14:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Tennessee Jack wrote:
T1 battleships please.

What is the fleet doctrine for the megathron and Hyperion. If there is none, what should it be?


Simple: Armor hybrid platform.

Right now there are 2 viable shield doctrine backbones and 1 viable armor doctrine backbone among BSes. Making either capable of line DPS balances that out.

In order to fill the role, either ship would need to be capable of hitting roughly 120k EHP with all resists around 75, using rails.

This doesn't mean specialize either ship into rails - it just means make fitting them possible.
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
#960 - 2013-04-10 02:20:29 UTC
Askulf Joringer / IceDe4d

PS: PLS FIX ASTARTE !!!


Please don't.

ATM Damnation & Abso will get an AOE DD bonus and Astarte/Eos will get an optimal range bonus to Fireworks and Snowballs.

Lets fix one disaster at a time before we get into another mk.