Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Its been brought up tangentally, but I have yet to see an actual thread proposing them. So here it is.

I propose the introduction of tech 3 battleships. Seriously.

---

Modular Battleship concept
Working name: Flagship

I'm working on a set of subsystems and build costs that would put the material cost for the hull in the 1.5B range, along with BPC and subsystem prices. Current progress is here If you want t contribute, preferred format for fully designed subsystems is here

I would like help with ideas for subsystems, keeping in mind actually balancing them to fly.

So as a set of guidelines for things to stay somewhat reasonable:

• Not more than 22 slots, 19-20 if running a large or heavily bonused drone bay. A current NM has a 150% native damage bonus, and 21 slots, meaning this should not be entirely out of line with other "top tier" battleship hulls i.e. pirate and t2
• Not more than 12 effective weapons. 1 sentry/heavy = 1 turret = 1 launcher for this guideline.
• Full t2 resists should be the TOP end of resist tank native to the hull, rather than the bottom as it is with t3s.
• No jump bridges or cov-ops cloaks.
• Slots of a given type beyond 8 are wasted.

Suggested slot allocation per subsystem type:

• Propulsion 2
• Offensive 7
• Defensive 5
• Electronic 3
• Engineering 4

Now, for the unfun parts:

• Require advanced subsystem skills which further require [race] [type] subsystem 5, and are 3x-4x skills and lost like current subsystem skills.
• Due to the greater strain of flying the still more complex systems involved in a t3 ship of this size, 2 random levels of skills are lost, potentially from the same skill.
• Some mechanism to make them less than totally broken with logi support will be necessary.

---

Transforming Battleship
Working name: Vera-Tech

Current proposal has the modes as "Tank", "Offensive" and "Mobility" as the modes so far proposed

Rough overview of modes:

Tank mode trades damage bonuses for higher resists and increased buffer, helping with survivability

Offensive mode:Two proposals have been made so far.
One, via this thread for a "anti-capital" role, which would trade most to all of the ships mobility for increased damage, or the ability to fit capital scale weapons.
Two, via PM, a smaller damage bonus, with increased range and tracking, for a better battleship to kill pesky HACs and t3s.

Mobility: Trades damage bonuses and tank bonus for improved speed, faster align times and possibly a better warp speed, in the 2.2-2.4 range before implants and fittings.

---

Dedicated Anti-capital Battleplatform
Working name: Crater maker

A stand alone concept, without the variability of the other two, to allow a battleship to fit capital guns. This concept, while it has gotten some support, seems like it would be better served as a t2 concept.

Thus the focus on trying to balance them, w/ resist tank subs ending at full t2 resists and 2-3M sp on the line at high skills.

Other issues with this:
Proteus has a much more dramatic slot profile than most gal cruisers, while the gal BS already has 8 lows, meaning attempts to stack subs for tank and raw DPS top out at the same number of slots.
Proteus average is blinged out, while the others are sounding like t2 fits. More fair to compare blingy t2 and/or faction cruisers to proteus for power curves.
Proteus is top of the heap by a large margin in PVP and posting impressive numbers.

No

Why ? Balance

First think. Then post.

caldari enhanced missle release coding, offensive system, reduces reload time on cruise/heavy missles and torpedo's with 5 seconds, grants +2% flight speed per level. but maxium loaded ammo reduces with 5 rounds per level

caldari emercengy thruster overload, propulsion system, boosts mwd/ab speed by 5% per level, but takes 2% more capacitor per level aswell.

caldari shield flux matrix, defensive system, grants + 15 shield recharge a second, but lowers total shield hp with 2% per level, after stacking penalty.

caldari power grid subroutines, engineering system, grants +5% powergrid per level, but increases inertia with 2% per level aswell.

caldari warp destabalizing sensor array, electronic system, grants +1 warp strenght on self and on your warp scrambler/disruptor, but reduces the range with 2 km.

lets see, minmatar and amar left :P

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.

-1

often posted hopefully never going to be implemented.

Hm.. let me think about this for a moment....


NO

Folks, while t3 cruisers are currently broken, I am attempting to find ideas give them unique, powerful but not unbalanced roles, not turn them into 75/75/75/80 300k EHP with 4 TC, 2 sebo and 2k DPS combat monstrosities.

For example:

Caldari Advanced propulsion subsystem:

Hyperspatial dragnet:

7%/lvl warp speed

Role bonus: All sub-caps in a fleet warp use this ships warp speed if it is better than their own.

Max Velocity
94 m/sec
inertia modifier (agility)
0.116
Warp Speed
1.8 AU/s
base time to warp
~17s

Takes 3 levels to be roughly equivelent to a standard BS warp speed, and tops out at a native speed about equivalent to a single ascendency plant in a marauder, or 2 in a BS, with no sub BC benefits until you devote the entire pod to ascendency set.

as much as i loved to fly a 16 high solot 8 millislaunchers and 8 lasers boat , which would be cool ass hell like in somkind of other game or movie , sadly its only a dream sins, i don't see any use for t3 bs,cause of the prices and game mechanics and etc., then only ships ccp might add is 1 or 2 faction lines but thats about it . Now if they added somthnig new to the game like "system " where you can't use dreatnoughts but you can use somthnig between a battleship and dread, or lower and you can't pve in it then ,why the hell not.

Proteus tank is probably getting a nerf anyway when the T3 balance pass happens.