These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ideas for battleships

Author
Cade Windstalker
#101 - 2017-02-21 03:21:38 UTC
Dark Lord Trump wrote:
CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima wrote:

What does BB stand for

Battleship. It's a military term.


Naval, specifically.
Brok Haslack
9624968
#102 - 2017-02-22 12:46:52 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Brok Haslack wrote:
I haven't got a problem with a seriously high-end T3 Cruiser taking out a T1 Battleship. I expect said T3 to have trouble with a t2 Battleship, for obvious reasons.

As for T3 Battleships the Modular Toy would be loved by many a suffering Bowhead Pilot. And no, I do not expect said T3 Battleship to be cheap.


This both completely misses the issue with T3Cs and the idea behind T2 Battleships.

T2 Battleships are, like all other T2s, specialized ships. The two currently available options are Marauders which are PvE and local tank specialists, and Black Ops Battleships which are mobile covert jump bridges and bling-mobile specialists. Okay for real they're gank specialists, but neither is in any position to beat up on even a well fitted HAC let alone a T3C. That's not the issue here. Faction Battleships are the "T1 but better" and still don't have the combination of speed, HP, and utility that make T3Cs so dangerous, except maybe for the Machariel and there's literally a guy who put a desire to nerf the Mach in his CSM campaign profile because it's become so ubiquitous in Null Sec fleet fights.

The main issue with T3Cs is that they can tank about as much as a battleship while being faster and having more utility.

Also CCP have said, categorically, that they aren't doing T3 Battleships, for what I hope are reasons obvious to you and everyone else.



1 T2 BB with webs & tracker-fit guns ( pulses, 800mm, blasters ), vs 1 T3 Cruiser. Armor.

10k tank plus resists vs 10k tank plus resists. With both fresh that'll be 10k in shields ( the BB ) vs. about 3k in shields. Hull differences should be about the same as shield. Who does the most DPS wins in theory. T3 may well have better resists.

T2 should win, even with the T3 on a close orbit at high speed ( to feck up tracking ). If not then we have a problem.
Starrakatt
Celtic Anarchy
Dead Terrorists
#103 - 2017-02-22 13:23:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Starrakatt
Brok Haslack wrote:

1 T2 BB with webs & tracker-fit guns ( pulses, 800mm, blasters ), vs 1 T3 Cruiser. Armor.

10k tank plus resists vs 10k tank plus resists. With both fresh that'll be 10k in shields ( the BB ) vs. about 3k in shields. Hull differences should be about the same as shield. Who does the most DPS wins in theory. T3 may well have better resists.

T2 should win, even with the T3 on a close orbit at high speed ( to feck up tracking ). If not then we have a problem.

The issue is not 1 BS vs 1 T3c.

A well fitted brawling BS should beat any most T3C brawler in s straight 1 VS 1 fight. I did, and still do it occasionally.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#104 - 2017-02-22 14:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Starrakatt wrote:
Brok Haslack wrote:

1 T2 BB with webs & tracker-fit guns ( pulses, 800mm, blasters ), vs 1 T3 Cruiser. Armor.

10k tank plus resists vs 10k tank plus resists. With both fresh that'll be 10k in shields ( the BB ) vs. about 3k in shields. Hull differences should be about the same as shield. Who does the most DPS wins in theory. T3 may well have better resists.

T2 should win, even with the T3 on a close orbit at high speed ( to feck up tracking ). If not then we have a problem.

The issue is not 1 BS vs 1 T3c.

A well fitted brawling BS should beat any most T3C brawler in s straight 1 VS 1 fight. I did, and still do it occasionally.


maybe if the T3 pilot is poor or the BB is fit to do just that. otherwise a T3C will have about as much DPS and tank but far better application and damage reduction when up against the BB

and most importantly the t3s speed advantage and high ehp can enable them to break a BBs tackle and run if they are not going to win
Cade Windstalker
#105 - 2017-02-22 14:52:58 UTC
Brok Haslack wrote:
1 T2 BB with webs & tracker-fit guns ( pulses, 800mm, blasters ), vs 1 T3 Cruiser. Armor.

10k tank plus resists vs 10k tank plus resists. With both fresh that'll be 10k in shields ( the BB ) vs. about 3k in shields. Hull differences should be about the same as shield. Who does the most DPS wins in theory. T3 may well have better resists.

T2 should win, even with the T3 on a close orbit at high speed ( to feck up tracking ). If not then we have a problem.


Except pretty much exactly this:

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
maybe if the T3 pilot is poor or the BB is fit to do just that. otherwise a T3C will have about as much DPS and tank but far better application and damage reduction when up against the BB


If the BB has short range guns then the T3C can kite him around more or less forever, if the BB has long range guns the T3C can get under them and apply more effective DPS than the BB can because the T3C has a smaller sig radius, is faster, and has better application on his own weapons.

A Bastion fit Marauder can probably tank a T3C more or less indefinitely, but it almost certainly can't kill one in return.

So yeah, generally speaking a Battleship, T1, T2, or Faction, is not going to have a particularly easy time with a T3C and I'd put money on the Cruiser more times than I would the Battleship, all other things being relatively equal.

Also one quick note on T2. Something being T2 does not mean it will beat a T1 ship in a straight up fight or is even generally better than a T1 ship. As CCP stated in their original ship tiericide post, T2 ships are specialists, T1 ships are generalists, and Faction are T1 but better.
Brok Haslack
9624968
#106 - 2017-02-22 15:01:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Brok Haslack
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Brok Haslack wrote:
1 T2 BB with webs & tracker-fit guns ( pulses, 800mm, blasters ), vs 1 T3 Cruiser. Armor.

10k tank plus resists vs 10k tank plus resists. With both fresh that'll be 10k in shields ( the BB ) vs. about 3k in shields. Hull differences should be about the same as shield. Who does the most DPS wins in theory. T3 may well have better resists.

T2 should win, even with the T3 on a close orbit at high speed ( to feck up tracking ). If not then we have a problem.


Except pretty much exactly this:

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
maybe if the T3 pilot is poor or the BB is fit to do just that. otherwise a T3C will have about as much DPS and tank but far better application and damage reduction when up against the BB


If the BB has short range guns then the T3C can kite him around more or less forever, if the BB has long range guns the T3C can get under them and apply more effective DPS than the BB can because the T3C has a smaller sig radius, is faster, and has better application on his own weapons.

A Bastion fit Marauder can probably tank a T3C more or less indefinitely, but it almost certainly can't kill one in return.

So yeah, generally speaking a Battleship, T1, T2, or Faction, is not going to have a particularly easy time with a T3C and I'd put money on the Cruiser more times than I would the Battleship, all other things being relatively equal.

Also one quick note on T2. Something being T2 does not mean it will beat a T1 ship in a straight up fight or is even generally better than a T1 ship. As CCP stated in their original ship tiericide post, T2 ships are specialists, T1 ships are generalists, and Faction are T1 but better.



How about if you mix turrets on the Battleship? If you have 8 slots fit 4 Long Range ( crap tracking ) & 4 Short Range ( better tracking )? Anyone tested that?

I find that many Battleship Pilots in EVE have no idea how Battleships are supposed to work. As they were taught by an FC who only knows how to read spreadsheets ( and yes, it is a pet peeve of mine; but (s)he who controls the Insurance sadly gets to call the shots ).

You can't get under her guns if she has close-quarters kit too. Real Engineers in the real world do it this way for a reason. Primary Guns AND Secondary Guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29
Cade Windstalker
#107 - 2017-02-22 15:10:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Brok Haslack wrote:
How about if you mix turrets on the Battleship? If you have 8 slots fit 4 Long Range ( crap tracking ) & 4 Short Range ( better tracking )? Anyone tested that?

I find that many Battleship Pilots in EVE have no idea how Battleships are supposed to work. As they were taught by an FC who only knows how to read spreadsheets ( and yes, it is a pet peeve of mine; but (s)he who controls the Insurance sadly gets to call the shots ).

You can't get under her guns if she has close-quarters kit too. Real Engineers in the real world do it this way for a reason. Primary Guns AND Secondary Guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29


Then you're going to have no chance of killing him in either circumstance, because he's still faster, you're still applying less than your full DPS from *any* of those turrets at any range, and as a result of splitting your guns like that he probably out DPSes you at any range as well.

The only way for a well flown Battleship to kill a well flown T3C is either with a fit specifically designed to hunt T3Cs, and even then it's nowhere near a sure thing, or if the T3C pilot screws up and gets scrammed and grappled at close range by a BB with short range guns, and anything that requires a mistake like that to happen isn't reliable or balanced.

Eve Battleships bear basically no resemblance to real-world ones. They're a size of ship, nothing more. Bigger isn't always better, a Cruiser swarm will dismantle a Battleship, and a fleet of Battleships will blap a Cruiser Swarm off the field if flown right. Any comparison to real life naval ships is erroneous and only going to lead to incorrect conclusions about ship performance.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#108 - 2017-02-22 16:33:52 UTC
aye its a hard but necessary mentality to break its common in new players but i have even seen vets that have a hard time with the idea.


i'm hopeful that CCP can tone down the T3s

if they manage to do a similar thing in all of the roles that they did with logistics (not better than a T2 just different) that would be ideal but i have a hard time myself trying to find a way to do this. T3s just do to many things.

E-war and command links would be easy to do but DPS i have no idea how to work that out with all four races nor exploration
Brok Haslack
9624968
#109 - 2017-02-22 18:46:21 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Brok Haslack wrote:
How about if you mix turrets on the Battleship? If you have 8 slots fit 4 Long Range ( crap tracking ) & 4 Short Range ( better tracking )? Anyone tested that?

I find that many Battleship Pilots in EVE have no idea how Battleships are supposed to work. As they were taught by an FC who only knows how to read spreadsheets ( and yes, it is a pet peeve of mine; but (s)he who controls the Insurance sadly gets to call the shots ).

You can't get under her guns if she has close-quarters kit too. Real Engineers in the real world do it this way for a reason. Primary Guns AND Secondary Guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_%28BB-63%29


Then you're going to have no chance of killing him in either circumstance, because he's still faster, you're still applying less than your full DPS from *any* of those turrets at any range, and as a result of splitting your guns like that he probably out DPSes you at any range as well.

The only way for a well flown Battleship to kill a well flown T3C is either with a fit specifically designed to hunt T3Cs, and even then it's nowhere near a sure thing, or if the T3C pilot screws up and gets scrammed and grappled at close range by a BB with short range guns, and anything that requires a mistake like that to happen isn't reliable or balanced.

Eve Battleships bear basically no resemblance to real-world ones. They're a size of ship, nothing more. Bigger isn't always better, a Cruiser swarm will dismantle a Battleship, and a fleet of Battleships will blap a Cruiser Swarm off the field if flown right. Any comparison to real life naval ships is erroneous and only going to lead to incorrect conclusions about ship performance.



I see your point. Yeah, that's not useful at all.

So T3 Cruisers are where the cool kids are at. Nuts.

As for mixing guns and the stubborn refusal to, well, I assume you like missing a lot ( I don't ).

Mixed gun systems work. And this game is A LOT like the real world here. Including having to sacrifice a little DPS to get some accuracy in ( the Missouri could fit nothing but big guns on that hull, but would then have no Close Quarters kit ). CCP are not as daft as some people think. A skilled PVP'er knows that missing a lot is how you get killed. And they'll also know what a straight-line burn is.

Vindi vs. Cruisers. Cruisers get in close, and Vindi just giggles. I know Pilots who have flown it.
Cade Windstalker
#110 - 2017-02-22 18:57:43 UTC
Brok Haslack wrote:
I see your point. Yeah, that's not useful at all.

So T3 Cruisers are where the cool kids are at. Nuts.

As for mixing guns and the stubborn refusal to, well, I assume you like missing a lot ( I don't ).

Mixed gun systems work. And this game is A LOT like the real world here. Including having to sacrifice a little DPS to get some accuracy in ( the Missouri could fit nothing but big guns on that hull, but would then have no Close Quarters kit ). CCP are not as daft as some people think. A skilled PVP'er knows that missing a lot is how you get killed. And they'll also know what a straight-line burn is.

Vindi vs. Cruisers. Cruisers get in close, and Vindi just giggles. I know Pilots who have flown it.


The Vindi is something of a special snowflake among battleships, but it's also a bit of a one-trick pony. If someone doesn't know how to deal with one they'll die, but anyone who does can kite just outside overheated faction web range and laugh at you, and anyone who can't do that will out run you.

As for mixed guns, generally speaking it's far better in Eve to fit one type of guns, fit to support and best utilize those types of guns, and avoid anything those guns are really bad at. That's part of why Arty Machs have been so popular, the hull (with a good fitting) inherently makes up for some of the weaknesses of Arty and massed fire makes up for most of the rest.

I should somewhat clarify that not *everyone* uses T3Cs or T3Ds, but they're common and ubiquitous enough at this point that whatever you're flying you need to have a plan to deal with them, even if it's just "bring more doodz".

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
aye its a hard but necessary mentality to break its common in new players but i have even seen vets that have a hard time with the idea.


i'm hopeful that CCP can tone down the T3s

if they manage to do a similar thing in all of the roles that they did with logistics (not better than a T2 just different) that would be ideal but i have a hard time myself trying to find a way to do this. T3s just do to many things.

E-war and command links would be easy to do but DPS i have no idea how to work that out with all four races nor exploration


I actually had a thought on this, and I've no idea if it's a good one or not.

The basic basic version is replace one subsystem per slot with an Amplifier Subsystem that operates similarly to the Pirate Implants, boosting the effectiveness of all the other non-Amplifier subsystems. Then give the basic subsystems themselves fairly low bonuses. So, you can either fit 4 Amps and 1 bonus, and get something very very slightly better than normal (for example 5% resists per level on the hull) but nothing else, or you can fit two or more and get exponential drop off in bonus power, for example a T3C could be fitted out like a Moa and have Damage and Resists but they'd both be at a lower level than the Moa's bonuses.

This keeps the flexibility but directly trades flex for power. Stuff like the Interdiction Nullifier that doesn't multiply well could either be removed to become an Amplifier or have a drawback added that goes down with Amps, so for example you could put a Sig Bloom penalty on the Nullifier so if you fit that you're bigger and easier to hit and lock, but that pretty much goes away if you fit nothing else. Want Cloak and Nullifier? You're going to make a trade off for that.
Brok Haslack
9624968
#111 - 2017-02-23 08:43:37 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Brok Haslack wrote:
I see your point. Yeah, that's not useful at all.

So T3 Cruisers are where the cool kids are at. Nuts.

As for mixing guns and the stubborn refusal to, well, I assume you like missing a lot ( I don't ).

Mixed gun systems work. And this game is A LOT like the real world here. Including having to sacrifice a little DPS to get some accuracy in ( the Missouri could fit nothing but big guns on that hull, but would then have no Close Quarters kit ). CCP are not as daft as some people think. A skilled PVP'er knows that missing a lot is how you get killed. And they'll also know what a straight-line burn is.

Vindi vs. Cruisers. Cruisers get in close, and Vindi just giggles. I know Pilots who have flown it.


The Vindi is something of a special snowflake among battleships, but it's also a bit of a one-trick pony. If someone doesn't know how to deal with one they'll die, but anyone who does can kite just outside overheated faction web range and laugh at you, and anyone who can't do that will out run you.

As for mixed guns, generally speaking it's far better in Eve to fit one type of guns, fit to support and best utilize those types of guns, and avoid anything those guns are really bad at. That's part of why Arty Machs have been so popular, the hull (with a good fitting) inherently makes up for some of the weaknesses of Arty and massed fire makes up for most of the rest.

I should somewhat clarify that not *everyone* uses T3Cs or T3Ds, but they're common and ubiquitous enough at this point that whatever you're flying you need to have a plan to deal with them, even if it's just "bring more doodz".



In Battleship Combat you have no idea what the enemy will bring. Same as with the Missouri in the real world.

A 1000 DPS ship that only hits 60% of the time is a 600 DPS ship in reality. Basic math.

Vindi with 3 webs, 4 Blasters, & 4 Rails, is... unexpected. Unexpected is good.

Missing 40% of the time is how you end up dead. Spreadsheets are not gods.

Roaming alone is usually a bad plan.

.

Can you fit a Cat-flap to a Battleship? Asking for a co-pilot.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#112 - 2017-02-23 09:58:55 UTC
Brok Haslack wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Brok Haslack wrote:
I see your point. Yeah, that's not useful at all.

So T3 Cruisers are where the cool kids are at. Nuts.

As for mixing guns and the stubborn refusal to, well, I assume you like missing a lot ( I don't ).

Mixed gun systems work. And this game is A LOT like the real world here. Including having to sacrifice a little DPS to get some accuracy in ( the Missouri could fit nothing but big guns on that hull, but would then have no Close Quarters kit ). CCP are not as daft as some people think. A skilled PVP'er knows that missing a lot is how you get killed. And they'll also know what a straight-line burn is.

Vindi vs. Cruisers. Cruisers get in close, and Vindi just giggles. I know Pilots who have flown it.


The Vindi is something of a special snowflake among battleships, but it's also a bit of a one-trick pony. If someone doesn't know how to deal with one they'll die, but anyone who does can kite just outside overheated faction web range and laugh at you, and anyone who can't do that will out run you.

As for mixed guns, generally speaking it's far better in Eve to fit one type of guns, fit to support and best utilize those types of guns, and avoid anything those guns are really bad at. That's part of why Arty Machs have been so popular, the hull (with a good fitting) inherently makes up for some of the weaknesses of Arty and massed fire makes up for most of the rest.

I should somewhat clarify that not *everyone* uses T3Cs or T3Ds, but they're common and ubiquitous enough at this point that whatever you're flying you need to have a plan to deal with them, even if it's just "bring more doodz".



In Battleship Combat you have no idea what the enemy will bring. Same as with the Missouri in the real world.

A 1000 DPS ship that only hits 60% of the time is a 600 DPS ship in reality. Basic math.

Vindi with 3 webs, 4 Blasters, & 4 Rails, is... unexpected. Unexpected is good.

Missing 40% of the time is how you end up dead. Spreadsheets are not gods.

Roaming alone is usually a bad plan.

.

Can you fit a Cat-flap to a Battleship? Asking for a co-pilot.


Mixing long and short range guns (especially on a battleship) always ends in disaster. For example if you are in rail range your blasters are useless, if you are in blaster range your rails are useless.
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
Seventh Sanctum.
#113 - 2017-02-23 10:23:37 UTC
MJD is what u want in your battleship;
energy cap neutralizator is the 2nd module which u want to have in your battleship;

and b00m problem solved =]
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2017-02-23 11:37:16 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also one quick note on T2. Something being T2 does not mean it will beat a T1 ship in a straight up fight or is even generally better than a T1 ship. As CCP stated in their original ship tiericide post, T2 ships are specialists, T1 ships are generalists, and Faction are T1 but better.

I still can't understand this picture. What does "generalization" mean exactly? It would make more sense if we would replace it with "flexibility" for example.
Also, did T3s ever follow this concept? Mabe not only the T3 ships are broken, but also the rule we're trying to make them follow.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#115 - 2017-02-23 12:20:25 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Also one quick note on T2. Something being T2 does not mean it will beat a T1 ship in a straight up fight or is even generally better than a T1 ship. As CCP stated in their original ship tiericide post, T2 ships are specialists, T1 ships are generalists, and Faction are T1 but better.

I still can't understand this picture. What does "generalization" mean exactly? It would make more sense if we would replace it with "flexibility" for example.
Also, did T3s ever follow this concept? Mabe not only the T3 ships are broken, but also the rule we're trying to make them follow.


T3 in the teiricide plan would land between T1 and T2.
Cade Windstalker
#116 - 2017-02-23 14:52:56 UTC
Brok Haslack wrote:
In Battleship Combat you have no idea what the enemy will bring. Same as with the Missouri in the real world.

A 1000 DPS ship that only hits 60% of the time is a 600 DPS ship in reality. Basic math.

Vindi with 3 webs, 4 Blasters, & 4 Rails, is... unexpected. Unexpected is good.

Missing 40% of the time is how you end up dead. Spreadsheets are not gods.

Roaming alone is usually a bad plan.

.

Can you fit a Cat-flap to a Battleship? Asking for a co-pilot.


Expected is only good if it works. Dressing an entire battalion of soldiers in saggy trousers and clown makeup would be unexpected but that doesn't mean it would be effective. Putting mixed guns on your Battleship just makes you easier to tank, because you've effectively halved your potential DPS at all ranges, and makes your fit less focused.

Trust me on this, people have theory crafted this, tested it, tried it and it just doesn't work. The only thing your 'unexpected' fit is going to do is give the people who kill you an unexpected laugh.

Dior Ambraelle wrote:
I still can't understand this picture. What does "generalization" mean exactly? It would make more sense if we would replace it with "flexibility" for example.
Also, did T3s ever follow this concept? Mabe not only the T3 ships are broken, but also the rule we're trying to make them follow.


The general rule isn't inherently broken, and yes you could replace "generalization" with "flexibility" but that's just swapping synonyms. The general idea seems to be that T3s are jacks of all trades, masters of none, able to do a lot of things sorta-well in contrast to the T2 ships that do one thing very well. Unfortunately this has run up against the issue that a ship that can do a lot of things can end up being greater than the sum of those things.

So, for example, while T3Ds aren't as fast as Intys, or as hard hitting as most Destroyers the combination of stats plus their kind of inherently strong tank means that they end up being good enough at other things to out-play the specialists. The same goes for T3Cs, though really to some extent here I think we're back to the major lynchpin problem with T3s being their tank.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#117 - 2017-02-23 16:27:32 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


I actually had a thought on this, and I've no idea if it's a good one or not.

The basic basic version is replace one subsystem per slot with an Amplifier Subsystem that operates similarly to the Pirate Implants, boosting the effectiveness of all the other non-Amplifier subsystems. Then give the basic subsystems themselves fairly low bonuses. So, you can either fit 4 Amps and 1 bonus, and get something very very slightly better than normal (for example 5% resists per level on the hull) but nothing else, or you can fit two or more and get exponential drop off in bonus power, for example a T3C could be fitted out like a Moa and have Damage and Resists but they'd both be at a lower level than the Moa's bonuses.

This keeps the flexibility but directly trades flex for power. Stuff like the Interdiction Nullifier that doesn't multiply well could either be removed to become an Amplifier or have a drawback added that goes down with Amps, so for example you could put a Sig Bloom penalty on the Nullifier so if you fit that you're bigger and easier to hit and lock, but that pretty much goes away if you fit nothing else. Want Cloak and Nullifier? You're going to make a trade off for that.


problem with this is it will almost always make the t3 worse than (particularly in your example) a t1 cruiser. at best there will be one or two t3s with a single viable set up and the rest of the line just crap :/


like i said best thing for t3 is to be about equal but different than the t2 cruisers
Cade Windstalker
#118 - 2017-02-23 19:08:56 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
problem with this is it will almost always make the t3 worse than (particularly in your example) a t1 cruiser. at best there will be one or two t3s with a single viable set up and the rest of the line just crap :/


like i said best thing for t3 is to be about equal but different than the t2 cruisers


I feel like you could adjust this by tweaking the bonuses and base stats on the ships. Like, there's no reason a tanking module has to just provide resists, it could also provide base HP or something as well. The values could also be tweaked so that, for example, you can get 2 bonuses that are greater than a T1 ship's but not equivalent to the 4 specialized bonuses a T2 hull gets.

The general idea being that you don't really want to pick just one thing to be good at, you want to do something like be like T2 ship X but with Y attribute, like an EWar Cruiser with a lot more tank, or a Logi ship that's faster than normal or something like that.

To me it feels like the two main problems with T3s in general are the high natural EHP they get from T3 resists, and the extra bonuses they get over a T2 ship. For the T3Ds it's the basic hull bonuses combined with the mode swapping, and for the T3Cs its the ability to pick five different bonuses, all of which are about at the level of a T2 ship's bonuses, which allows you to basically min-max something that's better than a T2 ship because you can pick and choose to a large extent and because most of the bonuses aren't actually worse than a T2 hull, especially the overall effect of the tank subsystems on a naturally tanky T3 hull.
PavlikX
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#119 - 2017-02-24 06:48:43 UTC
I support topic starter.
BSs deserve more attention and love from CCP.
There can be a lot of solutions, and main one - bring to them role bonus. Most of them simply have such bonus.
It could be something similar to the BC - additional tracking and so on.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#120 - 2017-02-24 10:10:05 UTC
PavlikX wrote:
I support topic starter.
BSs deserve more attention and love from CCP.
There can be a lot of solutions, and main one - bring to them role bonus. Most of them simply have such bonus.
It could be something similar to the BC - additional tracking and so on.



why BBs are fine they are not op or under powered. problem is there are OP ships that do the BBs job better