These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#21 - 2014-06-25 17:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
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.

*edited for math correctness*
This is mostly due to the headaches of trying to balance something with 1024 possible configurations of base sats, and then the modules which effect different aspects of the t3 differently based on subsystems. (number given is the absolute possible number of subsystem combinations for any single t3)

Of these, roughly 100 configurations are viable per t3 for some purpose. Of that massive number 256 being just possible nullified configs which aren't much used, and 256 are cov-ops, which are used mostly for moving stuff, and 64 mount both subs and are effectively super-blockade runners for truly high value stuff.

3 subsystems of each type yields a much more manageable 243 variations. With 2 weapon systems per race ( racial turrets for min/gal/amar + missiles for cal) and secondary (missiles for min+ amarr, drones for gal, hybrids for cal), this reduces the possible configurations to 81 subs for the secondary weapon type and 162 for the primary, or 81 and a tertiary or utility focused offensive sub system with its own 81 configurations.

This brings the deluge of data about possible configurations to a level that is only slightly higher than anything else in eve.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
J A Aloysiusz
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#22 - 2014-06-25 18:41:08 UTC  |  Edited by: J A Aloysiusz
how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there.

edit: also I'm wondering where the commentor above me came up with 3125, as there are 4 choices for each of the 5 subsystems...
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#23 - 2014-06-25 19:11:16 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there.

edit: also I'm wondering where the commentor above me came up with 3125, as there are 4 choices for each of the 5 subsystems...

every T3 ship

5 different slot with 4 choice each so, math go like this
4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 1,024

plus 4 different ship so, 1,024 x 4 = 4,096 possible combo over 4 different ship
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2014-06-25 19:17:07 UTC
I don't see what unique role T3 battleships would fill. Never mind the horrible balance implications of full tech 2 resists on something with a battleship sized HP pool and the fittings to easily fit BS sized tank mods and BS sized weapons.

-1
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#25 - 2014-06-25 20:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there.

edit: also I'm wondering where the commentor above me came up with 3125, as there are 4 choices for each of the 5 subsystems...

I messed up my math, thinking it was 5 subs per type. fixing the math above now.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#26 - 2014-06-25 22:36:45 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Proteus average is blinged out, while the others are sounding like t2 fits.

T2 Proteus is 300k ehp and 900 dps.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#27 - 2014-06-26 06:25:19 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Proteus average is blinged out, while the others are sounding like t2 fits.

T2 Proteus is 300k ehp and 900 dps.

With or without slaves + boosts, as I cannot match these numbers without boosts and/or implants with skills 5 and a straight t2 fit. I can get one or the other fiarly quickly, but the two seem mutually exclusive without implants and/or boosts.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#28 - 2014-06-26 21:02:40 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
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.

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

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.




there was plan for them years ago, and the t3 frigates. But turned out they would IMBA and push other role ships out of the game. like faction battle ships etc.

And so CCp decided not to introduce them to the game THE END. and you will not see them, do not bother posting about them
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#29 - 2014-06-28 10:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Theory crafting and attempts at balance started. googledocs for the project linked here.
Fully designed subsystem submissions will be added as I can. Formats to be "fully designed" follow and should reflect stats BEFORE ANY SKILLS.

Formats


Prop subsystem format


Race
Name of subsystem

Maximum velocity
Inertia mod

Highs
Mids
Lows

Turrets
Launchers
Bandwidth
Dronebay

Bonus 1
Bonus 2
Bonus 3


Defensive subsystem format

Race
Name of subsystem

Cargo
Shield HP
Armor HP
Structure HP
Shield resist profile as EM/therm/kin/exp
Armor resist profile as EM/therm/kin/exp
Structure resist profile as EM/therm/kin/exp
Signature radius
Shield recharge

Highs
Mids
Lows

Turrets
Launchers
Bandwidth
Dronebay

Bonus 1
Bonus 2
Bonus 3


Offensive subsystem format

Highs
Mids
Lows

Turrets
Launchers
Bandwidth
Dronebay

Bonus 1
Bonus 2
Bonus 3


Electronic subsystem format


Scan res
Lock range
CPU
Sensor strength
Sensor type
Targets


Highs
Mids
Lows

Turrets
Launchers
Bandwidth
Dronebay

Bonus 1
Bonus 2
Bonus 3


Engineering subsystem format

Powergrid
Capacitor
Recharge

Highs
Mids
Lows

Turrets
Launchers
Bandwidth
Dronebay

Bonus 1
Bonus 2
Bonus 3

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#30 - 2014-06-28 11:05:30 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
how about we remove that silly SP loss, balance the T3 cruiser class properly, and work from there.



The approach id take. Wouldnt even play with the idea of T3 battleships until we're clear on: what T3's do, how they do it, and where their power level compared to other ships should be.

At the moment we cant even get a consensus on any of the above.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-06-28 11:12:13 UTC
Rather than the BS be T3 tech i'd prefer simply to change BS and BC to use the T3 style fittings and be formed from subsystems much like real BS and BC's were.

Allow us to create a 'Hood' type BC with BS guns but good speed at expense of armour or more balanced 'Bismarck' style BS, or even 'Monitor' style ships with lots of BS guns at the expense of mobility and armour (good for POS bashing but equally good for gank targets) at expense of mobility. I'm sure the existing hulls could be modeled in this way but then players can tweaks subsystems to suit their own. I'm equally sure this could be tricky to balance but not as tricky as full blown T3 BS would be.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#32 - 2014-06-28 12:00:35 UTC
The hood was bigger than the bismarck though

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2014-06-28 12:29:18 UTC
Still only a battlecruiser albeit with 15" guns (theoretically the armour plan should have been fine against Bismarck at the range they engaged, it was a 'lucky' hit that caused the magazine explosion), but that's my point, the flexibility in subsystem creation of BC and BS could breathe new life into those classes
Michael Mach
Arx One
#34 - 2014-06-28 16:59:01 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.


But, but, but my Marauder isn't good enough for ratting!
ido spaceship
#35 - 2014-06-28 22:17:11 UTC
maybe just axing rigs on all ships in favour of class customized subsystems would be a good thing.. this is prolly one of those type before you think posts but still im having fun thinking of the possibilities..
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#36 - 2014-06-28 23:43:31 UTC
A lot of people talking about how OP T3s are now, which is rather amusing since they are hardly what people are claiming, as per usual.

That said, balancing T3 BSs would be impossible. And it has been proposed before.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
stoicfaux
#37 - 2014-06-29 02:01:21 UTC
Sigh. T3 ships are supposed to be flexible ships, and not super-powerful at any one thing to the point that they overshadow a T2 or pirate ship. However, the Tengu (and the Proteus) happened. Plus, high-sec exploration gates were changed to prohibit T3 ships, so being flexible enough to fit dps, tank, probes and analyzer modules all at once would be considered too powerful in the high-sec context.

So if you assume that a T3 battleship would be a flexible generalist that would be noticeably less powerful than a Marauder or Pirate battleship, then what would a T3 battleship need in order to be flexible enough to provide more value than a T2/Pirate battleship? (Especially given the existence of mobile depots.)


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#38 - 2014-06-29 05:49:28 UTC
OP, you seem to have totally forgotten the whole point of T3's. They are meant to be versatile, not just powerful. You haven't approached that side of the subject at all. How can you claim to be trying to create a balanced line of new ships when you ignore the core principals behind their existance?

T3 cruisers are presently on par with Battleship levels of tank and dps, and they can apply it to smaller targets easier and they are also much faster and maneuverable. As much as I would love to see modular BS's because I think they would be cool, I also understand that they could not be balanced if they were in line with the present T3 designs.

So, instead of apparently pulling numbers out of thin air, you better go back and start at the begining of the design process and FIND A ROLE for these ships.

Also, remember that NO one ship should ever be able to do everything. It is also important to make sure that you not making existing ships redundant. Lastly, power creep should be avoided, so making them any more powerful than comparable ships in their weight class would just be making them the next "must have" ship.

Friends
J A Aloysiusz
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#39 - 2014-06-29 19:35:49 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
A lot of people talking about how OP T3s are now, which is rather amusing since they are hardly what people are claiming, as per usual.

That said, balancing T3 BSs would be impossible. And it has been proposed before.


^ Confirming SYJ does T3s better than most of you folks here.

I think part of the issue is due to the "stigma" of T3s. People always love to say 300k EHP, but it takes slaves and fleet boosts to get that high with a reasonable fit. Then people say things like "well it's a T3, it's supposed to be flown with slaves and fleet boost".

But really, everything gets pretty good when you add on slaves and fleet boost. Not to mention, if I'm buying slaves for my super duper proteus, they don't go away when I fly other ships...

Here's a megathron fit for comparison:
[Megathron, lol meg] - links + slaves

7x Neutron Blaster Cannon II (Void L)

Damage Control II
Armor Explosive Hardener
Armor Kinetic Hardener
Armor Thermic Hardener
Armor EM Hardener
3x 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II

3x Large Trimark Armor Pump I

1x Gecko
1x Hammerhead II
3x Hobgoblin II

920 DPS, 387k EHP (501k overheated). That looks like T3 stats to me, on a <200m hull! If you're going to tell me the proteus is faster and hits small targets for better, I'd say I sure hope so, at twice the cost of my beautiful megathron. But the proteus also has low sensor strength, tends to be vulnerable to neuting, has crap for range when blaster fit, and crap for tracking when rail fit.

So moral of the story: Those protei are only scary if you're a high sec bear being hunted by a guy with slaves, links and neutral logi. The proteus is a good boat, but the only thing that would make it OP is that unlike you, the guy is dropping a few bil on a slave clone and spent the last 6 months training perfect link skills on his alt.
DingieSan
DingieCo
#40 - 2014-07-20 11:16:48 UTC
I do think it is possible to introduce T3 battleships but with limited different roles compared to strategic cruisers.

By clearly defining roles for the different moduled T3 bs's the potential unbalancing could be reduced considerably.

When I would design T3 bs's I would define the roles as covert ops, mining, (logi) carrier. The latter could fill the gap between drone boats and carriers.
Another option would be to introduce tier 3 battleships that would do the above suggestion.

This is only high level thinking.