These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"Berzerker"-class Anti-Capital Ship T2 Battleship
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Damien White
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#81 - 2014-03-16 09:43:12 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't think you understood the OP's proposal very well. Do you know how signature resolution works?


Instead to you, he does. People frequently snipe frigates with BS Guns and as far as I know most of them have less than 10% signatureradius than large turrets.


That is one of the main reasons why the OPs idea is crap beyond repair, all he wants is an improved dreadnaught that does the job of a dreadnaught without the drawbacks.

3 of these ships do the same damage as a single dread, propably will cost the same in total but have way better tracking, signature, speed, mobility, 3 utility High Slotts, dont need a cyno, dont need to siege up, have no fuel management, are trained in propably a third of the time you need for a propper dread and will most likely have better stats in terms of targeting.

And you still need people to tell you how broken this crap is?



You, as well as the OP have no idea how game mechanics work or PvP or capital fights.

97% of girls would die if Justin Bieber were about to jump off a cliff. Post this in your sig if you`re part of the 3% yelling,

"DO A BARREL ROLL!"
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#82 - 2014-03-16 10:36:57 UTC
This entire thread is comedy gold.
Chusa Unholy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#83 - 2014-03-16 15:29:17 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I like the idea, and I think it is well thought out. I'd give them less ancillary weapon power though. They look like they're designed to be fielded alone, but I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea. They should have a powerful subcap support fleet along with them. They may as well use all 8 high slots for primary weapons, so they'd be forced to lose DPS in order to fit anything else in the top. I also disagree a bit with the high calibration. If you want them to have the ability to fit two damage rigs, why don't you give them a larger damage bonus instead of the calibration? Tech II ships aren't supposed to be very flexible, that's why they have less rig slots and (sometimes) less calibration, among other things.

I like the ammo bay a lot. It would be neat if the ships had a really high rate of fire so they burn through ammo really fast. It would make it more expensive for them to use faction ammo. It wouldn't be a huge price increase considering the cost of the ship but it would make their impact on the ammo market much more significant. It might also get some fleets to carry an ammo industrial along on strat ops--which also would get those Hoarders to undock more often. You could accomplish this by giving them a 50% rate of fire role bonus and changing the skill bonuses to +15% damage and +5% rate of fire (for 8 weapons). This way they will burn through ammo 2.67x as fast as an attack battlecruiser, and their ammo bay will become more important to them.



I like the idea of speeding up the firing rate to make the ship more inefficient for what it does. I didn't do that originally because of the fact that more guns, firing faster, have a higher hit rate, all things being equal. My main goal was not to field a ship that could wipe subcapitals right off the field but could hurt capital ships.

However, I might have made a mistake, as other posters have mentioned (Anhenka, I think), with the very high alpha. My goal, as stated in the original post, was a battleship that hit capital ships for full damage, battleships with battlecruiser-scale damage, battlecruisers with cruiser-damage, and maybe not at all anything as small as cruisers (unless at distance and straight-on, zero-transveral--and even then that would be nerfed with a range penalty).

Possibly, to drop this ship's alpha a bit and nerf its sub-cap capability some more, we could give it 7 guns and a 150% firing rate bonus while dropping the damage bonus to ~ +50%/ level. That would keep the ship within a ~3000 dps sweet spot to justify the hull (already 5 times more expensive than a t1 battleship) but reduce the alpha.

To compensate for the greatly improved chances to hit sub-capitals, we could nerf the signature resolution to 500% (Dreadnought guns) or even 600% (worse than Dreadnought guns, but when combined with the greater tracking still leads out to an advantage--this is still needed though to hit anything at all, because this ship has better mobility).

With a nerf like that, even target painters and TCs will just bring it back to its original bonuses on capital ships and still less dangerous to subcapitals.
Chusa Unholy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-03-16 15:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Chusa Unholy
Damien White wrote:


3 of these ships do the same damage as a single dread, propably will cost the same in total but have way better tracking, signature, speed, mobility, 3 utility High Slotts, dont need a cyno, dont need to siege up, have no fuel management, are trained in propably a third of the time you need for a propper dread and will most likely have better stats in terms of targeting.


Yeah, sure, but a Dread has about 2 mill EHP (give or take) versus maybe 100k EHP for this ship (and that's a big maybe). The ehp difference is 20 times in favor of the dread, and the price isn't terribly in favor of this ship. It is for maintenance--no stront, for instance--and for deployment--again, no cynos.

But it doesn't replace a dread: its range is about 50% of the dreads (the 25% range nerf and the lighter guns), less ehp, less tank in and out of siege. Siege has drawbacks, sure. But it also has benefits.

Comparing this to a dread is like comparing HACs to battleships--sure, you could do that but you lose far more information than you gain. HACs are part of the inspiration for this ship, as you see in the modified MWD bonus--a T2 ship that can, in groups, take down larger ships than themselves using speed, firepower, and agility. This is not a slugger. It's much different.

Also, the basic configuration is subject to change. As I said in my previous posts, this is a rough draft: perhaps a final will have more turrets and worse tracking or something different. Nothing here is set in stone until something like this hits the test server to judge its performance there.
EvEa Deva
Doomheim
#85 - 2014-03-16 17:32:45 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2014-03-16 19:30:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Kasenumi Ozuwara wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't think you understood the OP's proposal very well. Do you know how signature resolution works?

Quite well.

Do I know that if I put a few painters on the target of a tracking dread dropped into a fleet fight, It can blap BS's in a few shots, despite them being a smaller ship? I do.

And if I can do that on an immobile massive ship with ships that have half the tracking1/6th the tracking and 5x the scansignature resolution of a large gun BS, can do it far far easier on a mobile ship that has double-triple the tracking, only 4x the scansignature resolution of a large gun, and a thirdquarter of the DPS of a dread? I most certainly can. Especially considering they cost around 1/6 - 1/3rdth the cost of a blap dread.

It wold be glorious. They would be the ultimate anti-BS fleet. Capable of alphaing past even the largest of BS buffers (with Sigurd alpha at ~25-30k) with less than 10 ships (which can already be done with like 15 Maelstroms), with enough painters to light up the targets like a Christmas tree. Logistics would be useless against them. (guess you have to bring more total ships because of all the painters you need)

And of course, should anyone try and do something as foolish as bring capitals onto the field, they would be dealt with in short order by the overwhelming DPS and alpha. (because less than ten of these can pretty much destroy dreads too)

TLDR: Broken as hell.
Fixed your post. And no, they don't look broken at all. If you had several web and paint ships, you could easily use these to blap battleships. Of course, you could alternatively bring a smaller ISK value in battleships and do it with just a bit larger fleet. Or you can bring dreadnoughts and use even MORE webs and painters to blap targets, and then you can do it with REALLY few ships applying the actual DPS, even though support fleet size is still similar.

TL;DR responding to a bloke who believes that the primary mitigating factor in the power of a dreadnought is that it can't jump through stargates.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Damien White
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#87 - 2014-03-16 19:32:21 UTC
Chusa Unholy wrote:
Comparing this to a dread is like comparing HACs to battleships--sure, you could do that but you lose far more information than you gain. HACs are part of the inspiration for this ship, as you see in the modified MWD bonus--a T2 ship that can, in groups, take down larger ships than themselves using speed, firepower, and agility. This is not a slugger. It's much different.


No.

HACs and Battleships have different roles, different styles and differen tactics.

Your "Berzerker" ships as well as all of the other so called anti capital sub capital ship ideas like new Marauders, T3 BS etc. have the exact same intended job and role as Dreadnaughts. Both ships can only be used for exactly two things, killing capitals and destroying structures. All you guys want to create are some beefed up Dreadnaughts that have all the benefits, increased weapon stats and none of the drawbacks of actual Dreadnaughts.



Allthough, your ships would fail at their role because you need 3 times the ammount of Pilots to rival the firepower of dreadnaughts, otherwise you simply take longer to kill stuff, they would be perfect for combating Battleships though, simply because of their overpowered weapons. And thats not what you want to create, or is it?

97% of girls would die if Justin Bieber were about to jump off a cliff. Post this in your sig if you`re part of the 3% yelling,

"DO A BARREL ROLL!"
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2014-03-16 20:38:40 UTC
Damien White wrote:
All you guys want to create are some beefed up Dreadnaughts that have all the benefits, increased weapon stats and none of the drawbacks of actual Dreadnaughts.
Damien White wrote:
Allthough, your ships would fail at their role because you need 3 times the ammount of Pilots to rival the firepower of dreadnaughts


They're more mobile than dreads; they can go through stargates and fly with their support group. They are not ships with all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. Rather, they occupy a space in between dreadnoughts and battleships, with the mobility of a battleship. They have DPS and tracking both right about midway between dreadnoughts and battleships. All of your gripes with them have been in trying to pretend that they have the DPS of a dreadnought with the tracking of a battleship. If these can easily track battleships then it's not a big step up for dreadnoughts to track battleships, and dreadnoughts shoot a lot harder. Yes these require more pilots than a dreadnought fleet but they require fewer than a battleship fleet. They cost more ISK than a battleship and less ISK than a dreadnought. The net value of the fleet is about the same, the net DPS of the fleet is about the same, and the ability to field quickly does not scale evenly with their DPS, however neither does their ISK to EHP ratio.

Seems pretty balanced to me. To get the advantage of the quicker fielding, you've got to risk the blingy ships. Might be nice to have a tech II battleship that's actually worth putting on the front lines for once.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Chusa Unholy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#89 - 2014-03-16 21:20:57 UTC
Damien White wrote:


Your "Berzerker" ships as well as all of the other so called anti capital sub capital ship ideas like new Marauders, T3 BS etc. have the exact same intended job and role as Dreadnaughts. Both ships can only be used for exactly two things, killing capitals and destroying structures. All you guys want to create are some beefed up Dreadnaughts that have all the benefits, increased weapon stats and none of the drawbacks of actual Dreadnaughts.



No, I want all new drawbacks for these ships. They are DIFFERENT ships from dreadnoughts. If I wanted a beefed up dreadnought, I'd have saved myself the words and wrote: "Hey, let's beef up some of these dreadnoughts!"

This is a different proposal.

This is a faster, lightly-armored (in comparison), high dps ship that will be able to fight sub-caps but will not dominate them. It can add dps to a fleet struggling with cap ships. Ships like this could reinforce a roving gang suddenly embroiled in a cap ship fight, either as rescue or as part of a pursuit.

Damien White wrote:

Allthough, your ships would fail at their role because you need 3 times the ammount of Pilots to rival the firepower of dreadnaughts, otherwise you simply take longer to kill stuff, they would be perfect for combating Battleships though, simply because of their overpowered weapons. And thats not what you want to create, or is it?


Not necessarily. You have what special operations call "relative superiority"--they can take 12 men and take out twenty times that number, because everywhere they fight they pit their 12 against just half a dozen of the enemy. Relative superiority. These are more mobile and can be moved from point to point quicker. Will it take 36 of these to kill 12 dreadnoughts? It could just take 12, if you manage it 12 on 1, all down the line and so forth.
Chusa Unholy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#90 - 2014-03-16 21:21:59 UTC
EvEa Deva wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us1BH3dIxIo


I was going more for Fred Saberhagen's Berzerkers, but I still dig it. Lol