These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tech 3 battleships

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#41 - 2014-07-20 11:19:14 UTC
... Roll

nope.P
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#42 - 2014-07-20 13:20:07 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
There is no place in eve for a T3 battleship in a combat role.

I would prefer to see a t3 industrial or a t3 frigate.

T3 Industrial would actually be useful, with the ability to reconfigure subsystems on the fly for covert travel, then the type of ore/gas/ice/transport you need, then back to covert to extract from hostile territory. And with strong tank.
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
#43 - 2014-10-24 11:26:51 UTC
Unlocked at OP request.

CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics

@CCP_Logibro
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#44 - 2014-10-24 11:31:45 UTC
CCP Logibro wrote:
Unlocked at OP request.

Wait, that's a thing?
The Hamilton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2014-10-24 12:20:10 UTC
Saelem Black wrote:
Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..."

But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced."

Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really.


Love this comment since EVE Vegas. Destroyers aren't exactly Battleships, but T3 they are.
Who knows, our big T3 rebalance may be closer than I'd like.. Along with it the possibility for more T3 stuff.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#46 - 2014-10-24 12:50:36 UTC
The Hamilton wrote:
Saelem Black wrote:
Consuela says, "No no. Mr. CCP no es home. No... No..."

But seriously, the devs have often commented thinly veiled statements to the effect of, "Despite their popularity, T3s were the worst ships we ever introduced."

Don't think they're going to add more T3s any time soon... or ever, really.


Love this comment since EVE Vegas. Destroyers aren't exactly Battleships, but T3 they are.
Who knows, our big T3 rebalance may be closer than I'd like.. Along with it the possibility for more T3 stuff.


perhaps Tactical battleships like the tactical dessies that are coming ..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#47 - 2014-10-24 13:19:55 UTC
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
Gallante Drone Decoder, offensive system: gives +2 Max drone control, + 20m3 drone bay and +50 drone bandwith,


CCP is trying to crack down on the number of drones being used, in various ways. I think you'd be far more likely to see say, 100 bandwidth with a 50% drone damage bonus, (3 effective geckos, or 7.5 effective mediums) than +2 drone control, and over 125mb bandwidth.


T3 battleships have been proposed in the past, and shot down by ccp. They have been really open about there being little to no interest or desire to add additional t3 ships in the game. Even the destroyers they are adding are closer to marauders than t3s in terms of functionality.
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#48 - 2014-10-24 13:27:50 UTC
Why?
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
#49 - 2014-10-24 13:40:28 UTC
Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released).
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#50 - 2014-10-24 16:08:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
CCP Logibro wrote:
Unlocked at OP request.

Wait, that's a thing?

Apparently it is if you ask nicely and it was locked for inactivity rather than because it violated rules.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#51 - 2014-10-24 16:12:26 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
Why?

This is a thread I made because I like the idea and want to put a proposal up, get feedback on the proposal itself and see if a reasonably balanced version can be made to exist.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Airto TLA
Acorn's Wonder Bars
#52 - 2014-10-24 16:25:04 UTC
The problem with T3 in general is that it was a mistake. It is from a time when EVE developers had not yet realized that MMO power creep was going to kill the game. It also exist from a cruiser centric game design, where you could get a fast hit in power by going BS, but you were going to be out maneuvered by T2 then T3 cruisers the "vets" flew.

Along this line the super caps and maybe even caps fall into this box.

So, all new ideas must fall into either filling a new role or be an 5x expensive 10% better faction/t2 variant.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#53 - 2014-10-24 16:29:38 UTC
Airto TLA wrote:
The problem with T3 in general is that it was a mistake. It is from a time when EVE developers had not yet realized that MMO power creep was going to kill the game. It also exist from a cruiser centric game design, where you could get a fast hit in power by going BS, but you were going to be out maneuvered by T2 then T3 cruisers the "vets" flew.

Along this line the super caps and maybe even caps fall into this box.

So, all new ideas must fall into either filling a new role or be an 5x expensive 10% better faction/t2 variant.

As I said, I want these to end up balanced no higher than parity with faction or the correct t2, and have much more room to completely screw the ship up by making even a single bad choice.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#54 - 2014-10-24 16:32:21 UTC
Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#55 - 2014-10-24 16:32:51 UTC
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:
Now isn't really the time to propose T3 battleships because any discussion on it will be colored by the current T3 cruisers. Wait 'til they do a balance pass on T3 cruisers (and probably a tweak pass on the T3 destroyers after they're released).

I'd like to be soliciting the same sort of feedback, and tweaking my proposal this whole time, so that by the time they're ready to listen, I have a tuned up proposal, with all the MASSIVE holes filed in

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#56 - 2014-10-24 16:33:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS.

I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#57 - 2014-10-24 17:22:30 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS.

I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat?


When CCP nerf them back into being cruisers rather than pocket battleships.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#58 - 2014-10-24 17:25:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Until they get the t3 cruisers sorted I simply cannot support t3 BS.

I understand completely. Can you, when I finish one, tell me in reasonably polite terms, how ***** broken it is, and how it might be fixed somewhat?


When CCP nerf them back into being cruisers rather than pocket battleships.

Oh well. Here's hoping I can eventually get your imput on these things.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2014-10-24 18:45:17 UTC
James Baboli wrote:


I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range



I think that's too cheap.

Besides, if T3 battleships ever became a thing... I'd say 150 days of training for it would be reasonable.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#60 - 2014-10-24 18:58:30 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
James Baboli wrote:


I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost in the 1.5B range



I think that's too cheap.

Besides, if T3 battleships ever became a thing... I'd say 150 days of training for it would be reasonable.


1.5 in sleeper componets, + blueprint costs + subsystems at something else fairly high.
Will clarify OP.

As proposed, its closer to a 200 day train to fly them well, assuming no t3 losses during the train to run them.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp