Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is an idea I had a long time ago, and I don't think it'd be too complicated to implement either. It's pretty simple to explain too.

A weapon battery is a collection of weapons all fitted together. How this would work in game is with a set of modules, as follows:

Small Light Battery: A Cruiser sized weapon which incorporates 4 Frigate sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Large Light Battery: A Battleship sized weapon which incorporates 16 Frigate sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Small Heavy Battery: A Battleship sized weapon which incorporates 4 Cruiser sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Large Heavy Battery: A Capital sized weapon which incorporates 16 Cruiser sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Capital Battery: A Capital sized weapon which incorporates 4 Battleship sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

These weapons would function pretty much exactly like multiple smaller weapons, but have 4/16 times the ammo capacity and 4/16 times the rate of fire.

Now, part of this idea also includes a minor modification to destroyers, and perhaps battlecruisers as well.

Basically you reduce the overall high slots and hard points of the ships, and give them a powergrid reduction for equipping the appropriate batteries. As an example, you could have a Thrasher with 5 high slots, 2 turret hard points, and 2 launcher hard points. Then with a powergrid reduction for fitting Small Light Projectile Batteries it could then have the same 8 Projectile Turrets, and still have a few hard points left over.

You could even have special battery models for these ships, so the turrets all line up, instead of fitting in a traditional circular turret point on the ship model.

So that's the gist of it, not too complex, works with existing game mechanics, and provides a way to fit larger ships with 'point defense weapons' to fight off drones and smaller ships without sacrificing significant overall firepower.

What do you think?

As an alternate naming scheme, the batteries could have the 'size' represent what style ship they're designed for: in example - Medium Light Battery (4x Small), Large Light Battery (16x Small), Large Heavy Battery (4x Med), Capital Light Battery (16x Med), Capital Heavy Battery (4x Large).

A good idea but your numbers of lighter weapons fitted are way too high per slot. This would allow large ships to engage targets much smaller then their intended purpose, thus making it easily overpowered. If a ship were to be altered like this it would have to be weaker then it would be with its full sized turrets or people would fit capitals with hundreds of small turrets making the small ships useless.

But if the ranges on the weapons are the same, it would not be as effective at engaging ships its own size, if it was capable at all. Seems fair to me.

Balancing based on monetary cost is absurd. I think if modern day naval forces had drones they would not be concerned with point defenses. Improve drones.

Ok so you missed the drones already act as point defense argument completely, so I guess improve smartbombs. (defender missiles are next)

I really don't like your suggestion.

Typically speaking, when you climb the ship-class ladder, you gain tank, dps, and range, but you lose the ability to engage more agile ships (you lose speed, tracking, etc). This keeps EvE in a good state of balance. It encourages the use of tactics like orbitting under an enemy's guns and kiting to engage dangerous targets.

Currently, if 5 noobs in frigates catch a 5 yr vet ratting in an apoc, they kill the apoc's drones and perhaps lose a few frigates, but then the remaining kill the apoc. With your suggestion, the apoc drops one Large gun and gets a HUGE amount of firepower to wtf pwn the frigates.... I don't think that's right, nor good for the game. If the apoc wants to fit up to kill a bunch of frigates, it needs to sacrifice a shitload more than one large gun spot....

*edit* I posted before completing this section:

There are three tiers of weapons for each class. Each tier has different amounts of the range/dps vs tracking balance, and those are there for balance. You asked what we think about gun batteries, but the lowest tier is typically just that.... Hell, they're often named dual "next smaller class" guns. What your really proposing is a way for BC's and BS's to engage frigates, and your proposal is absurdly out of balance... 1 guns equating to 16 (5 ships) small guns? HELL NO!! I think its fine the way it is now, if you want your BS to engage frigates or cruisers, you have to severely nerf its ability to engage in BS vs BS and the like.

Exactly my point. An Apoc Pilot has so much invested in time and ISK into his ship, it's not balanced that 5 noobs should be able to gank him.

I agree, to an extent, but I also think this current model lacks something. Point defense weapons are an important part of not only modern military, but also most sci fi universes out there. Currently it doesn't work well in Eve primarily because of the maximum high slots count. Which of course, is where this idea suggestion comes in.


The intention was to balance it so that sacrificing one large gun nets you less overall damage, but still more than you'd get if you just fit a normal frigate sized weapon. To make the payoff worthwhile, while still not overpowered. Quite frankly, at the present model, it's not worth sacrificing even 1 gun. But if you could get even a+50% firepower cruiser gun, or +100% firepower frigate gun, it might be worthwhile.

Again, the exact numbers are not what I'm here to discuss.

Actually, there's only three tiers for close range turrets. Long range cannons usually have only 2, while missiles have only one per category. Besides, naming them 'dual' or 'quad' of the next smaller class still does not make them function at all like the smaller class weapons. They still use larger ammo, and the smaller class weapons of the same name still have higher accuracy etc.


Actually, what I'm proposing is to make the tradeoff more worthwhile.

Not as imbalanced as the current tradeoff for sacrificing a large gun and replacing it with a small one.

And why not? Is a T1 battleship not worth more than 16 T1 frigates? As I've said before, repeatedly, the exact numbers are not what we're here to discuss.


And why should you have to take such a heavy blow, just to have a little defense against ships you SHOULD be able to defend against? Battleships are best at fighting other battleships, fine, but that doesn't mean they should be easily ganked by a group of pilots with a fraction of the experience. This wouldn't upset the overall balance of the game, just provide an additional option for players who want to protect their investments or take on NPC fleets in missions, etc.

Destroyers would still be the primary anti-frigate platforms. They'd afterall have more comparable speed, not to mention tracking and damage bonuses to gun batteries. Battleships would still be vulnerable to frigates, but they'd have a more viable option for combating them, though interceptors would still probably outrun non-augmented gun batteries (and battleships would not have ship bonuses to said batteries).



Well again, I'm not talking straight multipliers, merely a conceptual/graphical number. The primary thing the x16 number would effect is rate of fire, and thus rate of ammo consumption. Tone down the actual damage multiplier and you could find yourself consuming 16 times the small ammunition in exchange for only 3 times the damage. Or something to that effect. Either way though, you'd have more damage than you would with a regular weapon, making the tradoff from a large weapon more balanced and managable, and more attractive to certain kinds of players.


Moving back to the original idea though, this concept would primarily apply to destroyers, BCs, and possibly Marauders. If you took away the Marauders +100% damage bonus, and simply gave them a reduction to large battery PG requirements, then you could gain the same damage potential with the same extra high slots they have now.

Similarly destroyers could gain the same damage potential they have now, and still have a few high slots left over. Same with BCs, if you wanted to give them a similar bonus.

I'll leave it at that for now.

I'm referring to both. Experienced pilots shouldn't be able to create no SP alts and defeat a battleship any more than noobs should be able to. And Experience doesn't always prevent a battleship from being destroyed by pilots in frigates, as has been pointed out already in this thread.

What exactly is your argument here? I'm having a hard time telling if you're arguing for or against my idea, and for what reasons...

Is there a point to this post? If there's some argument or explanation here, I'm not seeing it, all I see is assumption, accusation and perhaps insult. None of which is particularly convincing or constructive. Cheers.

Would be good if you would be able to give "argument or explanation" for your assumption that you absolutely should have guaranteed defense in a given situation. So far you are taking it as absolutely granted, while the game design in its' very basics is made on the opposite premise, and for quite good reasons.

If you want to see here some more assumption, accusation and perhaps insult, you are welcome, as nothing can stop you really. Cheers.