These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tech 3 Battleships revisited (Odyssey)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ivan St
Doomheim
#1 - 2013-06-05 09:00:16 UTC
The idea:
Tech 3 Battleships

Why?
Because Odyssey broke the Navy issue ships

Why won't they be overpowered?
Look at the price jumps with the cruisers:
1-10M T1; 100-200M T2; 400M+ T3

So, basically the T3 Battleships will outprice a carrier anyways ;)

Proposed bonuses:
Well, mostly similar to the strategic cruiser counterpart, but give (at least to the Gallente one) more than 5 drones for one subsystem (The guardian vexor is the only subcap that can field more than 5 drones and there aren't really many people around who have one)
Minmatar?
Give it a speed/cap usage bonus for MWDs (instead of one for Afterburners)

Slots?
Well, similar to T3 cruiser, but with a more-less full rack of high- slots and higher med/low slots ;)

And don't forget to add a subsystem for logistics ;)

and @CCP:
Don't just ditch the idea, just do it (make a design competition for it like you did for the Tier3 battlecruisers), test and balance them a little and let the people try tem out on the test server ;)

Please no hating about "You just want a battleship- sized Tengu"
(well, I would like to have one lol, but my argument is rather because the battleships need to be more flexible, especially in Nullsec

Please think about it a little before replying
and THX for reading this ;)
Reist Silvrite
Erebus Solia
#2 - 2013-06-30 06:05:48 UTC
I agree Battleships do need more work and a t3 battleship would be just the ticket. Or at least have a new ship class between BS and Capital. Think of it as a flag ship :)
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#3 - 2013-06-30 06:12:08 UTC
No. Not under any circumstances. Tech 3 is supposed to be generalized. There has to be a range of potential subsystems that these ships can fit. The only class with a capable number of potential subsystems is cruisers which already have tech 3. There is no T2 BS sized logi, recon, HAC, Hictor, etc. Without these specialized ships in place you can't have generalization.

You just want an OP BS. You are trying to validate the OPness by claiming that the cost makes up for it. This is the exact thing CCP is trying to get away from with this entire ship rebalance. In other words, CCP would never do something like this.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#4 - 2013-06-30 06:37:48 UTC
Ivan St wrote:
The idea:
Tech 3 Battleships

Why?
Because Odyssey broke the Navy issue ships

Here's where it's clear this isn't going to be a good post.

The idea of what a T3 is and does is getting shifted soon and this doesn't fit either of those. All of it is OP as all else and it calls for a BS that could solo caps stupidly easy.

Price isn't an excuse for a win button and you don't seem to know how much a cruiser even costs, direct me to the 1mil vexors.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#5 - 2013-06-30 06:58:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Aliventi wrote:
No. Not under any circumstances. Tech 3 is supposed to be generalized. There has to be a range of potential subsystems that these ships can fit. The only class with a capable number of potential subsystems is cruisers which already have tech 3. There is no T2 BS sized logi, recon, HAC, Hictor, etc. Without these specialized ships in place you can't have generalization.

You just want an OP BS. You are trying to validate the OPness by claiming that the cost makes up for it. This is the exact thing CCP is trying to get away from with this entire ship rebalance. In other words, CCP would never do something like this.


Why exactly can't you have generalization? There's nothing that says a ship type has to exist in order to create a subsystem that performs a specific function. If there were, we wouldn't have Emergent Locus Analyzers. There are no cruisers with bonuses to tractor beams, virus strength or probing.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#6 - 2013-06-30 07:29:51 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
No. Not under any circumstances. Tech 3 is supposed to be generalized. There has to be a range of potential subsystems that these ships can fit. The only class with a capable number of potential subsystems is cruisers which already have tech 3. There is no T2 BS sized logi, recon, HAC, Hictor, etc. Without these specialized ships in place you can't have generalization.

You just want an OP BS. You are trying to validate the OPness by claiming that the cost makes up for it. This is the exact thing CCP is trying to get away from with this entire ship rebalance. In other words, CCP would never do something like this.


Why exactly can't you have generalization? There's nothing that says a ship type has to exist in order to create a subsystem that performs a specific function. If there were, we wouldn't have Emergent Locus Analyzers. There are no cruisers with bonuses to tractor beams, virus strength or probing.

To have generalization you have to have spezialisation to compare and balance it against. There aren't enough T2 battleships to have a meaningful generalized T3 for the class. It means your T3 battleship would have to be compared to cruiser/BC class ships, since those are the closest classes with a good amount of specialized ships. The problem is, that T3 cruisers will occupy that spot with the new rebalance. This leads the the problem, that either you have no place to put your new T3 BS or you have to make it a simple upgrade compared to existing ships. Neither of these are good or even desireable options.

As for your counterexample about subsystems, keep in mind, that neither T2 cruisers nor T3 ships have been rebalanced yet, so it's at best suspect to use their current comparable status as indication of anything, since it's in a condition CCP isn't fine with and plans to change.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#7 - 2013-06-30 07:55:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
1 - If you're looking for flexible ships in the first place, you shouldn't be looking at battleships anyways.
2 - Please state how exactly Odyssey broke the Navy ships.
3 - Price is not a balancing factor ('Oooh, Titans, so strong! So expensive! No powerbloc will ever have more than a handful of those! Same for Supercarriers!')
4 - I'd also like a covert-ops battleship with a jump drive and heavy interdiction capabilities while easily fielding 1.5m EHP. Please make it trainable within 6 months from start.
5 - More than 5 drones on a battleship hull: Because **** you, frigates, just **** you!
Goti fase
Faulcon de Lazy
#8 - 2013-06-30 09:38:30 UTC
Unfortunately, the reason being navy ships are broke isn't good enough.

Know why?

CCP will see how they are broke go through a rebalancing act all over again to bring them into line.

Now t3 frigs would be nice... but overall I doubt any more t3 ships should be introduced at all.
Xander Det89
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#9 - 2013-06-30 14:36:12 UTC
T3 frigs are more likely... but I don't think we'll see any more T3 for a good while.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#10 - 2013-06-30 15:02:36 UTC
Pretty sure that CCP has learned at least a little bit from past mistakes and intends on balancing what's present rather than introduce new unbalanced things into an already **** heap of bad balance. In terms of "**** heap" I'm referring to when t3 cruisers were introduced, not the current state of the game.
Mr Doctor
Therapy.
The Initiative.
#11 - 2013-06-30 15:17:27 UTC
T3 frigs are my most wanted addition in Eve tbh. Though I think SP loss for them would be a tad unfair... maybe half a level(if any) instead of a full level, then 1 level for cruisers and 1.5-2 levels on the BS if ever added.
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#12 - 2013-06-30 15:17:56 UTC
T3's aren't what they were suppose to be when they came out of concept and I think ccp knows that they missed their intentional mark with the strategic cruisers.

They wanted target-able T3 modules and they got a ship with extra module slots. Not that those are bad but were underwhelming from the ability to fire on and disable/ destroy another ships guns, engines, shields, exc.

It may be too far gone but I hope they still have some of those plans for the T3 era.