These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Command Battleships, your thoughts.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Samual Gideon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-03-19 21:59:05 UTC
Hello Eve Forum,

I don't use the forums much but I've had this idea running around in my head for a while now and after discussing it with my Corp I wanted to get the opinion of a wider audience.

In my personal opinion I feel that the tier 3 battleships (Maelstrom, Hyperion, Abbadon and Rokh) are under appreciated, they are slated on the forums and largely ignored. I think this is due to a lack of variation, with the tier 1 and 2 battleships you have the option of Navy Issues or tech 2 varients which you don't have with the tier 3. I've been thinking about this and would love to see the tier 3's get the same treatment, now Navy Issues are obvious but what role would their tech 2 varient fill? After some thought I think a Battleship class Command ship would be a wonderful tech 2 varient for the tier 3 ships, it would give them a central role in fleet actions and be something unique in themselves instead of being another Marauder or Black ops ship.

I think my idea would give the tier 3 battleships a new breath of life as well as adding a new and exciting class of ship to the game. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-03-19 22:41:04 UTC
Samual Gideon wrote:
Hello Eve Forum,

I don't use the forums much but I've had this idea running around in my head for a while now and after discussing it with my Corp I wanted to get the opinion of a wider audience.

Without trying to sound mean, that's obvious. This is an idea for a new feature as such should be posted in Features and Ideas.

Quote:

In my personal opinion I feel that the tier 3 battleships (Maelstrom, Hyperion, Abbadon and Rokh) are under appreciated, they are slated on the forums and largely ignored.

What? Wha?

Maelstrom and Abbadon are considered some of the best BS's and get lots of love of these forums. Mael for its massive alpha with 1400's and Abbadon with its decent damage and rather massive tank. Both are used pretty heavily in PVP and also in PVE.

Hype and Rohk are perhaps under represented, but only because the Hype works best in small gang (or docking games), which isn't the primary form of PVP at the moment, and the Rohk suffered for years due to rails being poor but seems to be gaining in popularity.

Quote:
After some thought I think a Battleship class Command ship would be a wonderful tech 2 varient for the tier 3 ships, it would give them a central role in fleet actions and be something unique in themselves instead of being another Marauder or Black ops ship.

I think my idea would give the tier 3 battleships a new breath of life as well as adding a new and exciting class of ship to the game. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I can see where you're coming from, but we already have the T2 battlecruisers for the command role (and T3 cruisers which do it better in some cases). If you give that role to BS's, what're you going to give the battlecruisers instead? After all, they're not meant to be hacs, and a BS with command links and massive EHP would completely obsolete them.
Samual Gideon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-03-20 16:31:30 UTC
I get what your saying, but that's no different than the progression from AF's to HAC. The game already contains many examples of progressively larger and more powerful ships fulfilling the simular roles. Players would still be required to train for the command BC before they could train a Command BS just like they would have to train any other smaller scale ship before moving on to it's larger counterpart. People would still use Command BC's in small or mid scale fleets where they should logically be, but in larger fleets that role should be filled by a larger, more durable ship and I believe a Command Battleship option would do the job wonderfully.
kyrv
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-03-20 16:41:51 UTC
Battleships which transform Blink and have gang bonuses!
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#5 - 2012-03-20 16:43:27 UTC
Samual Gideon wrote:
I get what your saying, but that's no different than the progression from AF's to HAC. The game already contains many examples of progressively larger and more powerful ships fulfilling the simular roles. Players would still be required to train for the command BC before they could train a Command BS just like they would have to train any other smaller scale ship before moving on to it's larger counterpart. People would still use Command BC's in small or mid scale fleets where they should logically be, but in larger fleets that role should be filled by a larger, more durable ship and I believe a Command Battleship option would do the job wonderfully.


The difference is that HACs don't obsolete AFs at all, they fill different roles (which is made possible by the large difference in size and SP requirement between frigs and cruisers and the different nature of frigate combat compared to cruiser+ combat).

Your proposed ship would be designed for fleet warfare. The people who would use CSes for fleet combat are maxing out leadership stuff for the best possible fleet boosting and wouldn't hesitate to spend another month or two training into this new and better BS-sized CS, which is a drop in the bucket compared to how much they're already training in leadership and ship skills for a maxed out CS.

tl;dr: This would obsolete CSes and is a fundamentally different situation than AFs vs HACs.
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-03-20 18:13:18 UTC
This reminded me about the dire need for boosting mechanics to ONLY WORK ON GRID!!!!


Who ever farted out the original idea to make offgrid boosters needs to go stuff his face with coal and light it up.
Borun Tal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-03-20 18:41:00 UTC
Cedo Nulli wrote:
...needs to go stuff his face with coal and light it up.


That doesn't even make sense...
Vince Snetterton
#8 - 2012-03-20 20:20:56 UTC
Cedo Nulli wrote:
This reminded me about the dire need for boosting mechanics to ONLY WORK ON GRID!!!!


Who ever farted out the original idea to make offgrid boosters needs to go stuff his face with coal and light it up.



Sounds like someone who has been trounced by command ship boosts and is jealous.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-03-20 20:31:14 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Cedo Nulli wrote:
This reminded me about the dire need for boosting mechanics to ONLY WORK ON GRID!!!!


Who ever farted out the original idea to make offgrid boosters needs to go stuff his face with coal and light it up.



Sounds like someone who has been trounced by command ship boosts and is jealous.


Haha, you still use command ships instead of t3?
Samual Gideon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-03-21 12:07:35 UTC
It seems that alot of you don't like the idea of BSCS's and that's fair enough as I wanted peoples opinions, but I've yet to hear any alternatives suggested.

It seems that people do want Navy and T2 varients for the tier3 3 BS's so my challenge to you all is now this, give me your suggestion on what the T2 varients should be. It's easy to mock someone elses ideas, so think up one of your own and post it here.

Just to clarify you must give a T2 varient for the tier 3 BS's that doesn't currently exist, I'm not interested in more Marauder or Black Op's ships.. the game has those already.
Skorpynekomimi
#11 - 2012-03-21 12:21:38 UTC
Maybe. Possibly something along the lines of the existing T2 BSes; fleet boosts and maybe some logistics bonuses, as well as more bonuses on fewer guns. Something that can stand up to fleet combat while boosting on-grid and supplying some extra survivability.

Economic PVP
Samual Gideon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2012-03-21 12:58:42 UTC
A nice idea Skorpynekomimi, but wouldn't you rather see something new than a rehashed tier 1 or 2 T2 BS in a new skin ?
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#13 - 2012-03-21 13:11:56 UTC
Why exactly 'must' we have a T2 version of tier3 BSes? I'd rather wait 'till there is an actual need for it in the game rather than have people tossing out ideas just to think up something to wedge them into doing.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later
...
when we start off with an awesome idea rather than an actual problem we want to fix or a feature that has a clear, functional and necessary goal, it generally requires painful fixes further down the road
Samual Gideon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-03-21 14:50:58 UTC
We don't need T2 versions of the tier 3 BS's, just like we didn't need T3 cruisers or the new tier 3 BC's. There is alot in the game we don't need to have, but we like having it. I only want the tier 3 BS's to be given the same options as the tier 1 and 2 BS's have, nothing more, nothing less and I have thought up some ideas about what those options could be.

So far mxzf all your posts have been purely to criticize, so how about you come up with some useful ideas of your own instead of trolling other peoples posts just to tell them why their ideas aren't good enough for you.
Whiteknight03
Trilon Industries and Exploration
#15 - 2012-03-21 15:29:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Whiteknight03
Samual Gideon wrote:
We don't need T2 versions of the tier 3 BS's, just like we didn't need T3 cruisers or the new tier 3 BC's. There is alot in the game we don't need to have, but we like having it. I only want the tier 3 BS's to be given the same options as the tier 1 and 2 BS's have, nothing more, nothing less and I have thought up some ideas about what those options could be

So far mxzf all your posts have been purely to criticize, so how about you come up with some useful ideas of your own instead of trolling other peoples posts just to tell them why their ideas aren't good enough for you.


Just because someone is pointing out the flaws in your idea does not mean that they are trolling. Also, you're in the wrong part of the forum anyway, so you probably shouldn't be complaining that people aren't taking you seriously

And personally, I don't see much of a role for a new BS. We've got one that jumps, and a PvE one. If you make a high DPS or high Tank version that beats out T1 BS's, then you've just obsoleted one of the few areas of the game where tiers are not the end all of balance. If you make a better CS, then CS are now completely useless.

Let's see what niches are (somewhat) unfilled
A Low/Null sec Miner. Mining Yield comparable to a Covetor, with slots available for tank/damage. Maybe a large cargohold, so it can double as a heavily tanked hauler.

BS class ECM ships. Problem being, this cuts into some of the Recon's role, as well as the Vindi and the Bhalagalala. They might also be too tough to remove from the field, if they have traditional BS EHP
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#16 - 2012-03-21 15:30:03 UTC
Honestly, I'm not trolling and I have posted ideas of my own a few times (which are typically very well-received because I stop and put thought into the ideas and why they would be good and the possible exploits of them before posting them).

And I'm not trying to criticize at all, I'm trying to get people to stop and think about the why and how about any given suggestion. My point remains that there have been a few changes to the game that were added purely because someone decided it'd be cool that have ended up hurting the game in the long run (see supers). I'm not interested in seeing any more halfway thought out ideas get into the game just because it sounds cool to some people, and the quote from Greyscale made it clear that CCP doesn't want that to happen either.

And yes, I am good at shooting down ideas that haven't been thought through thoroughly, probably for the same reason I'm good at debugging code, I just instinctively see the loopholes and cracks in the system. Maybe you should stop and think more about why your idea was so easily shot down rather than attacking someone for pointing out a flaw in it (namely that they would make the current CSes completely redundant). Just some food for thought.
Joyelle
SludgeSlingers
#17 - 2012-03-22 04:45:55 UTC
CCP, we need battleships that can transform during combat!!!Big smile
Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2012-03-22 06:39:53 UTC
We could always consider a whole new set of boosts from command bs hulls. Make them a wing scale set of modifiers to things like missile and turret dmgs maybe things to assist in the ehp issues of pos grinds by giving boosts to sieged dreds... or and this is wacky so hold on... maybe a clear logistics step from cruisers before you get into carriers would be a nice role to fill.

Then again we can likely all agree that fixing current ships (wisely) are more important than making new roles out pf whole cloth.
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2012-03-22 07:54:09 UTC
The current warfarelink ships need to be looked at before introducing more.
If we're talking more in general about T2 BS'es, let's look at what we are "missing":
- logi BS (no sigtanking involved)
- recon bs (except jamming, neuting and target painting)
- dictor BS (possibly anti-supercapital only)
- scanning/probing BS (wait what? or perhaps can scan the next system or scan/sonar pulse for cloakies)

Possible new ideas:
- ion cannon BS (anti supercap)
- mini pos shielding (looks like a hictor), activate once every ... minutes and can e.g. absorb a bomb impact from all ships in the immediate velocity

What is already plenty of in the game:
- dps/tank

Having said that, navy baddon would be nice.