EVE General Discussion

Battleship with a single XL turret and very good tank.

Gives players in High-sec and lower wormholes a better ship to blow up a pos.

Gives non-capital players a better ship to counter capital ships.

I thought I was making a mistake. I should have looked it up. Anyhow, that's not evidence I haven't flown one, it's a phenomenon known as a brain fart. Evidence I haven't flown one would be revealed on my eveboard page (http://eveboard.com/pilot/Reaver_Glitterstim) where you can see that I do not have the skills to fly one of those ships.

I did mention that the siege module duration would be much lower; also subcaps align to warp much faster. So it would not take nearly as long to get them out of there. I was only guessing at the mobility required to fix the problem, I need input to further refine the idea.

I figured it doesn't need to move while sieged.

I think the problem is that capitals and supercapitals have too high a max velocity. Even without propulsion modules they coast nearly as fast as battleships that aren't using propulsion modules (though they get less bonus from props). They clearly have little use for this propulsion other than speed tanking, and so I believe that capital max velocity should be cut way down. It is not possible for dreadnoughts to match a target's velocity while in siege mode.

I personally like the idea of a combat sentric gun capital, but as a capital ship. This was brought up earlier in the development forums. The idea of a lower tanked capital ship for guns, but actually usable out of siege. Similar to Tier 3 bc, they would be closer to T1 battleship performance and tanks, Actually, a bit more on tank simply due to module costs. Cap guns and citadels aren't that great against maneuverable fleets even with no siege so hopefully they would be able to be countered. Higher cost would make them a bit more specialized but allow vets to fly dps outside the logistics of carriers, or the locked into the ship of the supercaps.

As a capital, I would agree with a mobile XL weapon ship, but not a high sec capable battleship. If they want something for sieging poses, then they need siege barrage ships. Dessie, bc and bs that do the same few turrets and siege modules.

you know i came up with the same idea in 08... but then thought that seige mod on a bs would be bad as bs's wont be able to tank the damage and will die real fast...

but if you made the eq of a t3 bc but for bs's... a ship the size of a frieghter that has 8 capital sized weapons but does not use a seige mod... example would be a galente one which would do around 26k alpha and 3500 dps...

so pretty much the ship would have the hp of a tier 3 bs but the damage of 3 tier 3 bs's....

A Widow that could fit 6 bomb launchers would be pretty devastating. I'm not sure that would balance well at gate camps though. Maybe there needs to be a new kind of ammo for these BS... like maybe you could give a BS 2 citadel torp launchers. I'm liking the heavy glass cannon roll though. There is a need.

With 2 capital weapons and a siege module, it would do far more damage than any other battleship in the game. So no, it most certainly does not exist already. It also does considerably less DPS than a dreadnought and cannot fire for such extended periods of time, so there's the benefit of a dreadnought. Of course all of those numbers can still be tweaked anyway.

It wouldn't be all that easy to gank ships with this. Don't forget it uses capital weapons. Also, it cannot fire in highsec, as I mentioned.

Precisely why the capital-killer I am proposing is more expensive than a carrier and similar in cost to a faction battleship. What's your point?

Dreadnoughts do a lot more damage and can siege for longer. They also have dramatically higher tank to offset their lack of mobility, which really pays off while sieged. Once again, the numbers can be tweaked if dreadnoughts need a larger margin ahead of the ship I'm proposing.

I should hope two of these obliterate your carrier. After all, either one of them is more expensive. But they probably would fail in a one-on-one with a carrier. You've got to figure your carrier's DPS can break their tier 3 battleship tank faster than they can break your carrier's dramatically superior tank. Still, I'd like to think something that expensive would stand a chance against a carrier.

quote=Aestivalis Saidrian
Moms and Titans laugh at them if they go into siege mode, thereby invalidating what you want. Titan simply goes "Oh, thank you for sitting still." while the Mom just throws enough fighters at it so it goes away.
/quote

Once again this is an issue with supercapital speed tanking, not with the ship I'm proposing. Just the same, a swarm of fighter bombers may be able to apply significant DPS to one of these, but they'll lose so much damage on it that it'll be a waste of time overall, unless there are no better targets on the field. And that seems about right, a capital fleet vs. a fleet of capital killers, the capital killers should win.

It might then be useful for breaking into cyno-jammed systems.

I'm curious: do you think that 2 capital weapons is too much? And if so, do you think that one is enough?

-edit-
with a t2 siege module, t1 pulse lasers, t1 ammo, max skills, and 3 t2 heat sinks, it'll get 5378 dps. With only one capital turret it'll get 2689 dps.

Perhaps there needs to be a new class of capital weapons, smaller and with better tracking but that don't hit as hard. These could be used both for dreadnoughts to hit nanoing capitals and for the battleship I'm proposing to fit (it could be designed to come short on powergrid if trying to fit the regular capital turrets). And then perhaps there should be a large capital turret as well, for titans to fit. Their dps bonus should be reduced so that their overall damage is about the same when they fit the large weapons, but now they have worse tracking.