Ships & Modules

LOL

So the combination of the T3s cruiser sig and BS ehp makes them OP huh. What if CCP removes their Buffer subs entirely and increase their sigs to around 200, would they still be OP?

Also at the same time they give BSs around 300-400 ehp and rebalance their weapons systems. For example with the Pest, modifying the dual 425mm to be able to hit smaller sigs without webs or TP, but having less falloff and doing less damage than the 800mm.

I think T3 need to be balanced in terms of their own hulls. They should be equal to T2 cruiser hulls but able to be reconfigured to different roles. They should not have cruiser sig, speed and also BS dps, tank etc.

Battleships need to be able to move with gangs (better mobility), hit better against smaller targets unless that target is set up and flown to avoid big guns and scan resolutions need to be increased. Ovuer stated BS should not be solopwnmobiles but I doubt he wanted them to be solopwned by cruisers and below either.

For the folks involved in the ammo bay side bickering. Ammo used to be 5 or 10 (don't recall which) times larger than it is now. When I started playing the game a raven could fit enough cruise missiles in cargo to complete a level 4 mission. The geddon could fit a second set of crystals OR cap boosters. It was really bad and impacting play in a negative way.

CCP got our their doctor shrinker raygun and reduced ammo to its current size. As of now it's fine and doesn't need changing. You can fit enough ammo to complete any pve the game provides several times over. There is also enough room to fit enough ammo for pvp to last through several hours of play (Disclaimer: I don't do the big null 100+ dude roaming fleets, so I can't speak to that from experience, but then again I haven't seen any "I'm out of ammo" type complaints from my ultra whiney nullbros).

I'll get to the punch line for you. Ammo storage used to be a real problem. CCP fixed it years ago. There is no problem currently. Any percieved need for an ammo bay (or as one squirrel treasure wanted - a different bay for every different type of widget in eve). There is no need for a bigger bay. If you are seriously cargo cramped I'll suggest the marauder. The ship was put in the game specifically w/ large a cargo bay and extended deployment in mind.

There are real issues with the game. 'We need an ammo bay' is not among them - please stop.

I'm posting off-topic, but I just want to agree. The point of T3 as I see it is the ability to become something else on the go (including weird hybrid setups) instead of being min-maxer's delight. Now that we have depots, a lot of ships can have limited ability to refit for the task, but T3 subs can allow you to do that much more with it. Maybe even give T3s built-in depot for itself since it's going to be kinda the point of those ships if this is where they should go (obviously, make it so that combat refit is practically impossible).

Now, if you don't need such ability (you're at home, for example), then just go grab specialized T2 that does what you are going to do, but cheaper.

And while we are at it, T3D-like modes is something the definitely should not happen to T3Cs unless CCP will do something about them to prevent them from turning their stronger side towards their enemy no matter what happens. Some tweaks may fix that maybe, but even then I'd rather have another class of ships with this ability if tactical cruisers are to happen to us instead of causing mess in traditional T3C class.

If that is bickering to you I would want to see what you think is a constructive discussion.

Even at 10 times the current volume of crystals the cargobay of the geddon would have had to be sub current frigate size for that to math out.

Neither did I ever claim it was a life-or-death problem for EVE. That is entirely on you.

Implementation of such a bay would've easily allowed such (old) ammo sizes (that - oh wait we didn't need realism) would be a tad bit more real*. I doubt it needs a ton of work to implement a a cargobay - it's not the once dreaded POS code. Neither did I ever scream that EVE NEEDs it. I just don't see the point of this vehement nay-saying to random ideas - it's something the game certainly DOESN'T need.

The point with the cap charges was allready done. Your post adds to the discussion (about battleships) probably about as much as mine - none.


*good thing that EVE is not real

So this little story I like to call the dual MWD Calvary Raven.

3 little ravens in 2004 decided to go for a roam in Stain. They came across a small gang that attempted to intercept them on the gate. This gang consisted of 2 megathrons, a Domi, and 2 scorpions. Now non of these ships are super fast by any means. The ravens decloaked and turned on their mwds. Now in these days scrams didnt shut off your mwds, but webs were still 90%. So even though the gang wasnt able to catch any of the ravens they did engage and thus the torp run began.

So now with 5 aggroed BS on a gate, the secret weapon decloaks. A vigil! The vigil begin to scramble one of the scorpions and the gang attempts to help its tackled and painted friend by engaging the vigil. What they dont see are the ravens now at 230km away turning around.

The ravens are now accelerating towards the tackled scorpion. However they are not accelerating normally. They are going almost 10km/sec. Barrling towards their target. But how can they go fast? Well they each had 2 mwds and back then were able to activate both at the same time stacking their speeds boosts. As they get closer and closer a strange aura begins to appear around each raven. This aura are their torps. The ravens are moving almost as fast as their torps and everytime they fire the torps begin to stack on top of each other. In 230km 7 flights of 6 torps each are now stacked on top of each other. Thats 126 total torps if you are counting. The ravens are 15km, away now from the scorpion and break off in random directions so as to not bump their target.

The aura now leaves the ravens and slam into the scorp instantly vaporizing their target. The ravens line up for another a run. They get 2 more BS before the small gang realizes whats going on and bails.


and that kids is the story of the dual mwd calvary raven

Admittedly not an expert, but I'd like to throw this out there...

I think battleships are generally fine as they are, but the problem is lower-level power creep. I think the game design where bigger weapons have trouble tracking smaller targets is brilliant and allows for incredible dynamics in game play and balance.

But too much power in too low a level of a ship class creates problems. Higher level ships can't easily hit lower-level ships without support, at which point, why not just down-ship and change the support ship to another attack ship?

Mobility is a big thing in any game. People don't like not being able to get around on-grid. Plus with EVE you run the risk of your opponents getting away if you can't keep up.

Due to these traits, cruisers in general are the natural go-to. For most circumstances, they sit in the middle of ship classes. They can fight off frigates well enough since they only have to shoot down one class, verses a battleship which would have to shoot down two classes and likely not the target enough to matter. Plus cruisers do enough damage to battleships to work. They have enough mobility to chase many targets, and don't need nearly as much support to hit their targets as battleships.

Now with the addition of tech 3 destroyers, even more power is collecting in the lower levels. And good luck with battleships being able to hit such fast and powerful opponents in most general engagements. Why would someone undock a battleship when a destroyer is in every single way a better ship, including cost-benefit.

As much as I love my HACs, they are part of the problem. Much higher EHP, still great mobility, good projection/firepower for the most part. Even putting aside the Ishtar, HACs are such great ships at the same approximate cost as battleships that it'd be foolish not to get into them at some point in your EvE career. Battleships still hold several advantages (such as large neuts), but again, mobility is key. If your opponent can get out of your neut range and keep applying damage to you, what do you have? Which is probably why pirate vessels are so popular.

Which brings into perspective, the kiting meta. And all that entails.

If I had sway at CCP, I'd look into (very important, not advocate for immediately, but research and see the potential outcomes of) nerfing speed across the board by reducing the boosts from links and mobility modules. Delete sentry drones from the game. Change tech 3 cruisers to battlecruisers, with the associated sig increases and mobility decreases that it infers, then watch them for further adjustments (positive and negative) that might be necessary like playing with their projection, DPS, EWAR capabilities, and tank. Savagely nerf tech 3 destroyers or remove them from the game until a real role is figured out for them. Look at HACs for possible across-the-board adjustment of their EHP and DPS projection so they don't compete as heavily with battleships.

All of that with the goal of making battleships slightly more desired. "Bring the biggest gun" shouldn't be the best option in the majority of scenarios, but it should be feasible more often than it is now. I wouldn't want this to turn into battleships online, I just think we need to provide a slightly healthier environment to bring out battleships more often. Cruisers should probably be the most common sight due to their mid-range abilities and flexible nature.

DHB, you forgot to tell everyone that the Raven had 90km range with torpedos and they applied 100% damage unless you could outrun them.
And two years later in 2006 a member of the band of developers ship was destroyed that way and they had to nerf all missiles in November 2006 into useless.

I'd like to see some implementation along RHML lines, to the 'lowest' tier dual turrets (long/short range) - it could open up some more interesting options for Battleship doctrines.