These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

More Tech 3?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lord Helghast
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-06-07 13:28:52 UTC
I honestly dont get where the "t3's need a purpose" not hey dont t3's purpose is to be able to mix the t1/t2 roles, so theres no reason we shouldnt be able to have t3 frigates

which were said to be planned since A LONG TIME AGO
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#42 - 2012-06-07 13:41:19 UTC
Denuo Secus wrote:
Blaster/Rail/ECM-Tengu anyone? It's so boring a Tengu is good in one config only. If I want to surprise or confuse my opponent with creative sub-system choice...I end up in a subpar ship atm :S

if rail rengu wasn't subpar, it would not be a surprise to encounter one. as for the T3 and unique role issue: if you really think you can find a unique role for every ship, you are delusional. how about just giving players some more choices for each role?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#43 - 2012-06-07 14:23:00 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Denuo Secus wrote:
Blaster/Rail/ECM-Tengu anyone? It's so boring a Tengu is good in one config only. If I want to surprise or confuse my opponent with creative sub-system choice...I end up in a subpar ship atm :S

if rail rengu wasn't subpar, it would not be a surprise to encounter one. as for the T3 and unique role issue: if you really think you can find a unique role for every ship, you are delusional. how about just giving players some more choices for each role?



Tengu issues making it above T2 specialised ships

-command sub

That's it.


brb
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2012-06-07 15:43:26 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
While they definitely look sexy; there are ** extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.

  • my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above.

    • Hope that clears things a bit.


    You hear it here first, CCP is introducing T3 battleships! /quotemining

    I agree fully with the full post of CCP Ytterbium on this.
    Daniel Plain
    Doomheim
    #45 - 2012-06-07 15:59:39 UTC
    Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
    Daniel Plain wrote:
    Denuo Secus wrote:
    Blaster/Rail/ECM-Tengu anyone? It's so boring a Tengu is good in one config only. If I want to surprise or confuse my opponent with creative sub-system choice...I end up in a subpar ship atm :S

    if rail rengu wasn't subpar, it would not be a surprise to encounter one. as for the T3 and unique role issue: if you really think you can find a unique role for every ship, you are delusional. how about just giving players some more choices for each role?



    Tengu issues making it above T2 specialised ships

    -command sub

    That's it.



    ...what?

    I should buy an Ishtar.
    Callic Veratar
    #46 - 2012-06-07 16:04:01 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    While they definitely look sexy; there are no extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.


    First, you need a role for them that can fit in our balancing composition while not making existing vessels obsolete. That is a big problem we face with current Tech 3 cruisers, best example being the Tengu / Tech 3 command subsystems being better than tech 2 counterparts, while the others tech 3 cruisers / subsystems are quite subpar. Before we introduce new tech 3 ships, we really want to define a purpose for them that is unique and revamp existing ships to match. Ideally, each of their configuration should be useful, but it is not the case in practice when only a few have practical applications.

    Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.


    Based on all of this, here is the ship priority plan for the time being:

    • Fix old hulls that are underpowered
    • If and when we need new shinies, create new tech 1 roles (tier 3 BCs) or, if needed, missing tech 2 variations
    • If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above. Tech 3 battlecruisers are not a choice I would vouch for however, as they would conflict with tech 3 cruisers (same weapon system size) and without to say this ship class already is extremely popular, quite at the expense of the other hull sizes, so no need to aggravate the problem further.



    Hope that clears things a bit.


    Rather than T3 frigates, a line of T3 destroyers might be a more reasonable option, then. That little bit more tank, fight, and capability means there's more price room to wiggle in. If a T3 cruiser costs 500-800M for the subsystems, 100-200M for a T3 destroyer seems quite reasonable to me.

    Figure 75M for the hull and 3 subsystems worth 25-50M each.
    SeenButNotHeard
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #47 - 2012-06-07 16:20:38 UTC
    I am no doubt in a minority of 1 here......

    I have thought, since I trained and flew my first Tengu, that it would be awesome if ALL ships were fitted in the same way as T3 Cruisers.

    This would create Tech 1 and Tech 2 variants such as we currently have, but with a range of subsystems available for both - T2 variants boost the strength of subs in their own unique way above and beyond the T1 variants.

    It would certainly shake up the "cookie cutter" fleets we see atm.

    The complexity in designing it, balancing it and the players coming up with doctrines........blows my mind. I can imagine new players just melting in the face of that level of difficulty - though personally it gives me a semi. I like complexity!

    Sometimes the current restrictions in fittings (whilst necessary) are obvious.

    Nice fantasy, though little more than that.
    Denuo Secus
    #48 - 2012-06-07 16:39:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
    Daniel Plain wrote:
    Denuo Secus wrote:
    Blaster/Rail/ECM-Tengu anyone? It's so boring a Tengu is good in one config only. If I want to surprise or confuse my opponent with creative sub-system choice...I end up in a subpar ship atm :S

    if rail rengu wasn't subpar, it would not be a surprise to encounter one. as for the T3 and unique role issue: if you really think you can find a unique role for every ship, you are delusional. how about just giving players some more choices for each role?


    When I see a Tengu on scan atm it's almost always HM + 100MN AB fitted. A highly modular T3 cruiser, every time the same fitting and tactic.

    If the hybrid subsystems would be better I'd have two more valid choices to fit a Tengu. I wouldn't say these subsystems should make a hybrid Tengu stronger than Caldari T2 hybrid cruisers (which need a buff imho). Instead they could add some unique qualities. For instance a sub which gives a tracking bonus or something no T2 hull offers. A long range rail sniper with range (= indirect damage and tracking bonus) + tracking bonus (for instance) would be unique.

    It would be very cool if subsystems could be differentiated by a theme instead just plain by weapon type as it is now. For instance an offensive sub wich gives tracking + missile precision bonus at the same time (and necessary slots ofc). Another which gives plain damage for both weapon types and so on. That way a T3 could be fitted with all weapon systems + in a great variety. Funny part: I could even fit split weapon if it would make any sense in a certain situation.

    Change the ECM strength sub to a non offensive mod (as it is on the other T3s atm) and a Tengu could be fitted in even more (valid) variations. An ECM Tengu doesn't need to be a missile ship always. I could combine turrets with ECM or missiles with ECM. Also the ECM strength could need a slight buff. With 10% per level it's even below T1 ECM ships. I guess this is because the Tengu was introduced before the last ECM nerf and then forgotten. Ofc a Tengu should not match a Falcon with 30% ECM strength. Something like 20% sounds cool imo.
    Tor Gungnir
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #49 - 2012-06-07 16:43:31 UTC
    SeenButNotHeard wrote:
    I am no doubt in a minority of 1 here......

    I have thought, since I trained and flew my first Tengu, that it would be awesome if ALL ships were fitted in the same way as T3 Cruisers.


    It would undoubtedly be awesome if each ship was as customizable, especially from an aesthetic viewpoint. One has to wonder about gameplay balance though.

    Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
    Lin-Young Borovskova
    Doomheim
    #50 - 2012-06-07 16:48:19 UTC
    Lunkwill Khashour wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    While they definitely look sexy; there are ** extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.

  • my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above.

    • Hope that clears things a bit.


    You hear it here first, CCP is introducing T3 battleships! /quotemining

    I agree fully with the full post of CCP Ytterbium on this.


    Yep same here.

    Marauders are in need of role reinforcement and not just a simple tweak to make it another "Elite Battleship" .

    Capital guns on it while keeping bonus and abilities to fit large ones could make it very interesting.
    Loose that silly salvager bonus now that we have specialised ship for it and give it something like NOS bonus amount/cycle, or 20% rep and incoming rep amount 5% cycle bonus per level.

    Marauders would be fine with punching ball role and some scary dps, well at least as good as pirate ones. you should not laugh at just because you fly frigs ^^

    Just some stuff, but also some ideas about Black Ops

    brb
    Axl Borlara
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #51 - 2012-06-07 17:09:21 UTC
    Crellion wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    That is a big problem we face with current Tech 3 cruisers, best example being the Tengu / Tech 3 command subsystems being better than tech 2 counterparts



    - Fix tengu (and all T3) command bonus imbalance = easy = make 3% a 5% and 5% a 3% and you are done. Surprised you are still mulling it over.


    Have to agree here.

    Simply swap bonuses around so that command ships become better at commanding than t3's.

    Simple, easy, no other side effects.
    Why can't that be done right now?
    Moonlit Raid
    Doomheim
    #52 - 2012-06-07 17:31:38 UTC
    Forget tech 3 I wanna see tech 2 titans. They're far too underpowered in their current guise. I want to see supernova guns.

    If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

    Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.
    Beef Knuckleback
    Pawnstars INC
    #53 - 2012-06-07 18:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Beef Knuckleback
    Kalel Nimrott wrote:
    Almost every role in the game is covered by a ship class or type, even the multiplataform role (T3 cruisers). Which possble role is yet to be fullfilled?
    Answer me that question and not what mods would you like to use and you have your new ship type.
    But I don't think it would be another multiplataform T3.


    Spitballing. Small hull logistics is the only one I've actually put any thought into. Here's a few bad ideas Lol.

    Question Tech 3 rigs that would give a ship an extra slot or bonus (with enough of a penalty to something to make a pilot think twice). The subsystems skill isn't restricted to a hull size - make it a requirement to fit the rig/module and tie the rig bonus to the subsystem skill. Think "Caldari Offensive Systems V" being applied to a Rokh for hybrid damage, for example.

    Arrow Siege module for Exhumers. There's a lot of butthurt about Hulks lately - how about a Super Duper Mining Laser that will fill your hold in one cycle at double speed while leaving the ship totally vulnerable (possibly with enough of a resist buff to make Logistics viable). One-off, with an extremely long cooldown/recharge period that persists past docking. Could turn mining into as much of a hit-and-run activity as ganking miners. Undock, run out, SIEGE THAT VELDSPAR!, run back, dock up, wait out the recharge/cooldown timer... which would be long enough that you've effectively traded mining yield for survivability. Exhumers have a survivability problem and this could be addressed in the typical Rock Paper Scissors fashion - sacrifice a mining laser for better survivability, etc.

    Question Area Of Effect cloaking devices. Possible extension for the Destroyer platform - cloak a small gang with one module, but if one ship is uncloaked they all uncloak and if the bubble is "popped" by a ship leaving it, all ships uncloak. Restrict the module so that only one can be active within, say... a 200km sphere. Increase the decloak border from whatever it is now to 5-10 km. Throw in a cooldown to prevent easy abuse. Could spice up gate camps considerably.

    Arrow Small hull logistics - either a Frigate or a Destroyer explicitly bonused to range and repair/transfer amount of small shield/armor/cap reps/transfers. Get some mileage out of all those small dirt cheap deadspace logistics modules.

    Question "Tier 3 destroyers" - Destroyers bonused to fit medium guns. Seems a natural extension of the Tier 3 battlecruisers, though they'd have to be very carefully balanced and restricted to, say... four or five high slots.

    Arrow Capital rigs.

    Question Rigs or modules (or rigs AND modules) to increase drone bay and bandwidth at the expense of, say... cargo hold (bay) and slots (bandwidth).


    With the possible exception of small hull logistics (which I think would be spiffy, as the Destroyer line is quite anemic), the game doesn't need more ships. It doesn't really need more modules - and any module added (like an Exhumer Siege Equivalent) should be balanced in such a fashion that you'd think twice about slapping it on.
    Lili Lu
    #54 - 2012-06-07 18:18:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    While they definitely look sexy; there are no extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.

    First, you need a role for them that can fit in our balancing composition while not making existing vessels obsolete. That is a big problem we face with current Tech 3 cruisers, best example being the Tengu / Tech 3 command subsystems being better than tech 2 counterparts, while the others tech 3 cruisers / subsystems are quite subpar. Before we introduce new tech 3 ships, we really want to define a purpose for them that is unique and revamp existing ships to match. Ideally, each of their configuration should be useful, but it is not the case in practice when only a few have practical applications.

    Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.

    Based on all of this, here is the ship priority plan for the time being:

    • Fix old hulls that are underpowered
    • If and when we need new shinies, create new tech 1 roles (tier 3 BCs) or, if needed, missing tech 2 variations
    • If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above. Tech 3 battlecruisers are not a choice I would vouch for however, as they would conflict with tech 3 cruisers (same weapon system size) and without to say this ship class already is extremely popular, quite at the expense of the other hull sizes, so no need to aggravate the problem further.


    Hope that clears things a bit.

    Agreed as to no new tech III being needed at this time, and definitely not destroyers, frigates or BCs. I like the stated priority for addressing changes to hulls and modules that are either overused, overpowered, or underused and underpowered.

    However, could you please get faster at it? Five frigs every half year? Please say this will not be so.Sad Of course moving faster may create new mistakes. But as long as the process is onging and you don't let the mistakes fester for years it should be no big deal.

    Why was so much effort put into the introduction of the flawed new inventory system? The central point of this game is spaceships. If most of the spaceships are rarely seen and a few others seen too much, that is where developer effort and brainpower should be invested. And we should not have to wait years for fixes to trully broken mechanics (moon goo, technetium) and ships (was that an auguror, lol). Interface changes are fine if they work. As long as the recent interface was workable, changes to it (the wonderful new inventory systemX) should not have been prioritized over ship and module rebalancing.
    Gunz blazing Ronuken
    Insane's Asylum
    #55 - 2012-06-07 20:22:48 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    While they definitely look sexy; there are no extra tech 3 ships planned for now. Reasons for that are quite simple.


    First, you need a role for them that can fit in our balancing composition while not making existing vessels obsolete. That is a big problem we face with current Tech 3 cruisers, best example being the Tengu / Tech 3 command subsystems being better than tech 2 counterparts, while the others tech 3 cruisers / subsystems are quite subpar. Before we introduce new tech 3 ships, we really want to define a purpose for them that is unique and revamp existing ships to match. Ideally, each of their configuration should be useful, but it is not the case in practice when only a few have practical applications.

    Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.


    Based on all of this, here is the ship priority plan for the time being:

    • Fix old hulls that are underpowered
    • If and when we need new shinies, create new tech 1 roles (tier 3 BCs) or, if needed, missing tech 2 variations
    • If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above. Tech 3 battlecruisers are not a choice I would vouch for however, as they would conflict with tech 3 cruisers (same weapon system size) and without to say this ship class already is extremely popular, quite at the expense of the other hull sizes, so no need to aggravate the problem further.



    Hope that clears things a bit.






    I know what ya could do! Make t3 battleships that can be capital ship tacklers? or some sort of capital ship support ship that increases their abilities somehow?
    I think the logical step in the eve universe would be to adapt t3 technology to more ship classes, so there are t3 frigates, industrials, mining barges, battlecruisers ect.
    Would make wh salvage more valuable :)
    Kahega Amielden
    Rifterlings
    #56 - 2012-06-08 01:27:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
    Quote:
    Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.


    Frigates have no more variation than any other ship class. Cruisers and BS also have navy, pirate, and t2. Also, frigates are not innately expendable. T2 frigates are more expensive in most cases than t1 cruisers. Pirate frigates are more expensive than battlecruisers. People still fly pirate frigates; in fact, frigates are the most popular pirate ship class in PVP. Why do you think expensive frigates wouldn't work? If all frigates had to be expendable than how do you explain the popularity of the Dramiel or the Daredevil?


    I'm not saying that t3 frigs would be a great idea - I'm not sure - but your reasoning is awful. There's at least as much reason to have t3 frigates as there is t3 cruisers.

    The problem with t3 cruisers is that the original philosophy behind them (at least, as I understood it) was "less specialized than t2, but more versatile"...You could have a pseudo-Vaga Loki that had bonused webs like a Huginn, but was inferior at either than the specialized ship in question. Conceptually that's fine. That's also why you don't see that many Lokis doing exactly that.

    T3s only become broken when they are flat out better than t2 at everything. If the Legion couldn't have hundreds of thousands of EHP on a *cruiser* hull, if the Tengu wasn't just flat out better than the Cerb at everything, if their gang boost bonuses weren't just flat out better than CS bonuses, then T3s would be fine. There are just as many if not more T3 variants that are completely useless than variants that are overpowered. How many blaster or rail tengus do you see?

    It's not a failure of concept, it's a failure of balance. CCP didn't put enough time and effort into balancing T3s given the ridiculous variety in fittings on such a ship whose base slots and fittings can be changed. That is not reason to throw out the whole concept.
    Trinkets friend
    Sudden Buggery
    Sending Thots And Players
    #57 - 2012-06-08 01:50:16 UTC
    Crimminy. What's with people demanding frigate sized Logis? What would the point be, to get alpha struck the instant you arrive on grid? You just want more range so you can play mindgames with orbiting a frigate at 30-50km feeding your Dramiel with enough shield/armour to top up the tiny amount of damage it takes at the moment.

    You can do this one of two ways; roll a gang with Armour RR's, fight within scram and web range and you are within small RR range. Or, just bring along a logistic cruiser. I see no reason you need a frigate with range bonus to logi.

    As for tech 3 BS's, this would be a good way to move the Black Ops out of obscurity, by providing T3 BS various subsystems which give them extra capabilities beyond normal BSs. Mayhaps a propulsion subsystem which allows jumping, or portals; electronics subs which allow infini-points so you can act as a HICtor for cap tackling, offensive subs to enhance neuting, etc etc. It's a concept worth exploring.

    But I welcome the plan to buff frigates and cruisers. Just remember, Ytterbium, that as it stands at the moment the Merlin, Incursus and even Tormentor far, far utclass almost all the low-tier cruisers hands down.

    Merlin: 180DPS, 8K EHP
    Scythe: 125DPS, 7K EHP, less slots. WTF?
    Augoror: Ahahaha

    You desperately need to rethink and redo these two cruisers, ASAP. Even more desperately than the frigates; if you buff more frigates first, you will have obsoleted almost all the cruisers in one shot, leaving us with the Vexor, Thorax, Ruppy, Moa, Caracal and Arby.

    ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
    Mechael
    Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
    #58 - 2012-06-08 03:02:41 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    Second, frigates are not really the best hull to base a tech 3 ship hull from. That's because tech 3 ships are, by nature, expensive to acquire, which conflicts with the frailty of a frigate as a whole. Frigates are supposed to be expendable and relatively straightforward to set up, but this directly clashes with the complex nature of selecting and getting subsystems. Also, frigates have a lot of variations already - navy, pirate, tech 2, you name it, we have it. Thus, the chance that a tech 3 frigate would bring something new to the table without creating the problem explained in the first paragraph remains very low, and we would setting ourselves up for the same problems we face with tech 3 cruisers at the moment.


    Er ... isn't the whole advantage of T3 in that they can be configured into filling multiple roles, more varied than T1 but not as specialized as T2? IE ... frig with a single command link for boosting small gangs, an active shield bonus on a minmatar T3 frig (sucks that the minmatar logi is shields and all of their small ships, for the most part, favor armor), etc etc. Call me cooky, but T3 hulls for Frigs/Cruisers(already have'em)/Battleships do seem like they're in order. You've got a point about how fragile frigs are, but honestly the turret damage formula should be fixed so that large weapons can't hit small targets anymore (well, it should be very, very tough, especially at extreme ranges ... both close range due to transversal and long range due to the target appearing so damned small. Go to a rifle range sometime and try to hit something at varying ranges.) Balance things so that bigger does not equal better, and then we'll have a place for T3 frigs.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    Based on all of this, here is the ship priority plan for the time being:

    • Fix old hulls that are underpowered
    • If and when we need new shinies, create new tech 1 roles (tier 3 BCs) or, if needed, missing tech 2 variations
    • If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above. Tech 3 battlecruisers are not a choice I would vouch for however, as they would conflict with tech 3 cruisers (same weapon system size) and without to say this ship class already is extremely popular, quite at the expense of the other hull sizes, so no need to aggravate the problem further.



    Hope that clears things a bit.


    This sounds great. :) I approve. No need for T3 Destroyers, either. Or, heaven forbid, T3 Capitals. Fix what we've got, then figure out what roles are missing. Awesome.

    I am excited for these changes.

    Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
    Veryez
    Hidden Agenda
    Deep Space Engineering
    #59 - 2012-06-08 06:12:12 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:


    If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above.



    That might be enough to finally convince me to train for them.....
    Lin-Young Borovskova
    Doomheim
    #60 - 2012-06-08 13:52:07 UTC
    Veryez wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:


    If we ever need new tech 3 hulls in the future, my vote would be to larger hulls, like battleships for the reasons explained above.



    That might be enough to finally convince me to train for them.....



    Battleships are a logical progression step that doesn't fit in actual gameplay because of so many breaking game setups like Battlecruisers and specially Tier 3 battlecruisers.

    The logical progression should be frigs->destroyers->cruisers-BC->BS-Capitals

    Actually is more like frigs->T2 frigs Cruisers->T2 cruisers Battleships because pve and requirement for Capitals and immediately carrier/dreadnaught. It's actually a jump step sytem that has no logic in a game with so many hulls that become useless or underused because of so much ships/guns unbalance.

    Battleships training should not be a mistake or for capitals purpose only, it should be a viable and wanted progression for pvp and this means more than POS bashing or alpha fleets.

    brb