These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tech 3 Battleships?

Author
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#41 - 2012-11-10 21:12:05 UTC
..actually, it just occurred to me, you could make Tech 3 Industrial ships with the ability to function as Tech 3 refitting ships. Maybe just one Sub that gives this ability, or the entire line that allows it. Specifically, it would allow Tech 3 ships to have their Subs to be swapped out in Space, instead of requiring a Station hangar, as well as being able to refit other ships.

Functionally, the ship could also do other things. A more expensive Cov Ops Transport, a super transport, a tank transport, or a gun transport. Maybe a Gas Miner. Role options would have to be reasonable of course, and it would probably be better if the option was limited to a special Sub that allowed refitting of Tech 3 ships, and was made more effective in combination with another Sub.

Just an idea, but it might be cool, and I'm sure many would find it very useful. Probably a very practical step in the evolution of T3s.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Kashmyta
HC - gizmos Gizco
Aporkalypse Now
#42 - 2012-11-10 21:17:41 UTC
Sounds interesting, although I personally would not use such a ship it keeps the continuity of the T3 technology theme going, which is what I'm afraid will not happen..
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#43 - 2012-11-10 23:02:42 UTC
Tech 3 BS doesn't need to be overpowered.

An abaddon tech 3 using the legion subs could gives something like this :

-5% to max velocity per level
-10% bonus to medium energy turret capacitor, damage, optimal range per level
-5% bonus to max capacitor per level
-10% bonus to armor hitpoints per level
-15% bonus to scan resolution per level

1b without the subs
fukier
Brave Collective
#44 - 2012-11-11 00:47:57 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Demolishar wrote:
Let's compare a T3 cruiser to a T1 cruiser.
Tengu vs Caracal.

24k EHP vs 123k EHP
220 DPS vs 602 DPS

So that's a 500% increase and a 200% increase, roughly.
Let's consider stats now for a Tier 3 BS compared to a Raven!

Raven:
110k EHP, 1000 dps (torps)
So our T3 BS has roughly:

550k EHP and 3000 dps! BEFORE faction fit or ganglinks!

And as for cost, well a Tengu costs 500m with subs while a Caracal costs 5M. That's a 10000% increase! So our T3 BS could cost around 15-20bil.


SOUND GOOD?

Interesting. Might as well save for a supercarrier.


super caps can dock now?
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#45 - 2012-11-11 01:30:56 UTC
Bobmon wrote:
I want to see T3 Frigs Because they wil be awesome



CCP already stated they have no plans on adding Tech 3 frigate anywhere soon or years to come but definitively thinking about battleship sized Tech3 hulls which would be an excellent addition.

brb

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2012-11-11 02:22:27 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
I'm hoping that for this years SASS that my Santa is an EVE player, because I'd like a Nyx as opposed to the random sports crap I've received the past few years.


Sounds like you don't keep up with TWR?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

stoicfaux
#47 - 2012-11-11 02:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
Demolishar wrote:
Let's compare a T3 cruiser to a T1 cruiser.
Tengu vs Caracal.

24k EHP vs 123k EHP
220 DPS vs 602 DPS

So that's a 500% increase and a 200% increase, roughly.
Let's consider stats now for a Tier 3 BS compared to a Raven!

Raven:
110k EHP, 1000 dps (torps)
So our T3 BS has roughly:

550k EHP and 3000 dps! BEFORE faction fit or ganglinks!

And as for cost, well a Tengu costs 500m with subs while a Caracal costs 5M. That's a 10000% increase! So our T3 BS could cost around 15-20bil.


SOUND GOOD?


Still not as good as a Machariel though. Color me shocked. Ugh

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#48 - 2012-11-11 02:48:45 UTC
Logically there should be a T3 variant for every type of sleeper vessel found in WH space.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#49 - 2012-11-11 06:07:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
stoicfaux wrote:
Demolishar wrote:
Let's compare a T3 cruiser to a T1 cruiser.
Tengu vs Caracal.

24k EHP vs 123k EHP
220 DPS vs 602 DPS

So that's a 500% increase and a 200% increase, roughly.
Let's consider stats now for a Tier 3 BS compared to a Raven!

Raven:
110k EHP, 1000 dps (torps)
So our T3 BS has roughly:

550k EHP and 3000 dps! BEFORE faction fit or ganglinks!

And as for cost, well a Tengu costs 500m with subs while a Caracal costs 5M. That's a 10000% increase! So our T3 BS could cost around 15-20bil.


SOUND GOOD?


Still not as good as a Machariel though. Color me shocked. Ugh


Since when could you get both 123K EHP and 602 DPS out of a Tech 3; for me it was always one or the other as I recall. Oh.. someone mentioned Faction and Officer mods... nvm. Roll

edit.. btw, the T3 BS would cost around 1.2 Billion ISK in all likelihood. The cost scales with the materials required, not the comparison between a Caracal and a Tengu. The main cost increase is the Tech 3 materials and steps toward using them; once they are in use, the cost should scale based on quantities used, as with anything else.

A HAC cost around 120 Million right? ..and a Widow, reasonably priced around 4-500 Million? Been awhile since I looked, but I think that was around the price last I checked. Seems to scale much more appropriately compared to the 200 Million ISK difference between a Caracal and a Hyperion.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-11-11 08:08:47 UTC
Blake Gates Heleneto wrote:
There should be a T3 version of everything.


T3 titan o yah
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#51 - 2012-11-11 08:15:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Johan Civire wrote:
Blake Gates Heleneto wrote:
There should be a T3 version of everything.


T3 titan o yah


Why not; we have a Sansha Mothership? j/k of course. Nothing above a Cap ship as far as I am concerned, and that means no T3 Dreads, Super Carriers, or Titans. That would be beyond ridiculous. Even your standard Cap, which doesn't even yet have a Tech 2 variant, would be absurd--in most respects--at this point in time.

Edit:

At most, Tech 3 anything that currently has one or more tech 2 variants only. That doesn't even mean for certain that we should have Tech 3 Battle Cruisers or Destroyers, though we could have. Unfortunately, a Tech 3 Battle Cruiser might be far too overpowered, where a Tech 3 Destroyer would actually be quite nice to have.

Personally, I think we should see Tech 3 Frigates, Destroyers, and Battleships. I'm not convinced we should see Tech 3 Battle Cruisers, though we could almost rebalance the Tech 3 Cruisers and recategorize them as Battle Cruisers with some changes.

I don't see any great harm in that, but any changes would have to be done in a fashion that didn't increase their cost overmuch, or reduce their effectiveness in any way drastically. Basically, they should remain relatively close in power, maneuverability, and speed to what they are now.

That would open up a new Tech 3 Cruiser line as available, while not making potential Tech 3 Battle Cruisers ridiculously powerful, and potential Tech 3 Battleships beyond ridiculous in many respects.

So new Tech 3 designs would then move to potential Transports, Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships. I think that would be much more practical, and keep things within a relative level of power and overall capability.

I always sort of though of Tech 3 'Strategic' Cruisers as Battle Cruisers anyway, and I'm not sure they aren't. Perhaps that's the problem many people are having when looking at them.

I know they are listed under Cruisers, but I checked a Claymore vs. a Loki fit I was looking at and found virtually same Inertia and same velocity, similar mass and--I would assume--volume. Also, only slightly lower PG and CPU on the Loki, and about half Capacitor. Less overall slots in the Layout, but similar Mediums and Lows, Slightly higher scan Res and similar Targeting range, lower Sig, , etc.. and that was for a Cov Ops Loki.

Basically, the Loki comes in as a Slightly smaller and afaik, less powerful ship when compared to the Claymore. Similar overall specifications though. I haven't checked the rest, and haven't gone so far as to buy and fit a Loki, but the basic impression for me, has always been that Strategic Cruisers were small Battle Cruisers.

So why not make them such?
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-11-11 08:15:26 UTC
if they nerf t3 cruisers maybe, but think about this, if a t3 cruiser can run level 4 missions, how strong would a battleship be?

Gulboy
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#53 - 2012-11-11 08:30:41 UTC
Johan Civire wrote:
Blake Gates Heleneto wrote:
There should be a T3 version of everything.


T3 titan o yah

THIS is the reason why there shouldn't be everything of tech 3.
I bet it can have a smaller damaging type of the old doomsday, covert ops cloaking device, or something that would make it have over 50 million ehp.
Would cost like 200 billion though.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#54 - 2012-11-11 08:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Herping yourDerp wrote:
if they nerf t3 cruisers maybe, but think about this, if a t3 cruiser can run level 4 missions, how strong would a battleship be?



You can run level 4s in a Hurricane or Drake too iirc. I saw a post earlier today that mentions trying to run them in a Vengeance but not quite having the necessary DPS. I should also point out, that a Tengu and a CNR Raven can, (or could back when I did this), both effectively run c6 Sleeper sites with a fleet using very similar fits and results. That was a Faction and Complex fit Tengu vs a partial Faction fit CNR iirc.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#55 - 2012-11-11 08:48:15 UTC
T3 Cruisers are fine.
Please no T3 Frigs.....frigs are already versatile enough...would only lead to a lot of dead t3´frighs with people loosing skillpoints and whining until the nerfbat hits...
T3 BC´s or Battleships would be interesting within a well planed frame. I guess some erxplorers would spend a considerable amount of ISK for a Expedition/Exploration Battleship-sized Vessel that can be adjusted to their needs. With plenty of High-Mid and Lowslots for utuility gadets but only limited amount of turret or launcher points (similar to a Marauder).
They should be able to dish out enough damage for PVE stuff and probably be able to play a supporter Role in PVP.

Price for such versatility: 2-3 Billion ISK
You would need to have T3 cruisers and subsystems up to 5 (so that skill cruiser skill gets a purpose finally...)

Call it a spitball...
/discuss

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP

Irya Boone
The Scope
#56 - 2012-11-11 09:01:16 UTC
nice idea and most of all be able to change subsytem In space not only in station ( or maybe in a POS)

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB

Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#57 - 2012-11-11 09:53:20 UTC
Hyperion Navy Issue

why did this not happen years and years ago?

correct this oversight please CCP
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#58 - 2012-11-11 10:45:57 UTC
Aramatheia wrote:
Hyperion Navy Issue

why did this not happen years and years ago?

correct this oversight please CCP



Would get more EHP CPU/PG some drones and ... another mid. Roll CCP hates Gallente.

brb

Rek Seven
Galactic Deep Space Industries
Brave Collective
#59 - 2012-11-11 11:45:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
I would rather see T3 frigates (so i have a reason to fly a frigate hull again) and T3 industrial ships. The T2 battle ships need to be fixed/buffed before CCP even think about introducing another dps platform.
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#60 - 2012-11-11 16:19:15 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Aramatheia wrote:
Hyperion Navy Issue

why did this not happen years and years ago?

correct this oversight please CCP



Would get more EHP CPU/PG some drones and ... another mid. Roll CCP hates Gallente.


I agree, and the proof is in the navy version of the space slug.. blehhh. I guess at least the mega looks ok i guess