These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So, new battleships eh?

First post
Author
Amber Solaire
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2015-07-19 19:11:00 UTC
If any new Battleships are needed, then some newer faction ones are well overdue

By that, I mean Pirate Factions, not Mordu etc
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#22 - 2015-07-19 20:21:34 UTC
Darth Terona wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by looking at the imperial issue Armageddon, the new battleships must be some kind of prize.
Not something everyone is going to have. So kinda mutes the point op.

Well point still valid but delivery is off

Might be , might not be though, might just be fluff for "tactical" battleships ala the desies
Darth Terona
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#23 - 2015-07-19 20:38:34 UTC
Ooooo
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#24 - 2015-07-19 20:41:03 UTC
There was mention of subsystems. I'm not sure if it will be a ship for players though, it might just be some NPC thing.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#25 - 2015-07-19 20:55:07 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.



What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?


Not speaking for him but many feel the role of the T3 variants should be versatility. not more powerful and more versatile.

p.s. illl note my general complaint that losing SP should never happen for any reason.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#26 - 2015-07-19 21:25:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.



What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?


it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#27 - 2015-07-19 21:48:37 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.


Kestral Anneto wrote:
equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


^^ this. Why in the hell would anyone nerf T3s further? The tengu just got nerfed, and so did the proteus. Battleships need a buff. T3s are fine.

It would be a huge mistake to break a whole line of ships in order to try and fix another.

BTW, battleship fleets are already a thing - both PL and NC. use TFIs.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#28 - 2015-07-19 23:33:19 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.


Kestral Anneto wrote:
equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


^^ this. Why in the hell would anyone nerf T3s further? The tengu just got nerfed, and so did the proteus. Battleships need a buff. T3s are fine.

It would be a huge mistake to break a whole line of ships in order to try and fix another.

BTW, battleship fleets are already a thing - both PL and NC. use TFIs.


T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#29 - 2015-07-19 23:33:23 UTC
Darth Terona wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by looking at the imperial issue Armageddon, the new battleships must be some kind of prize.
Not something everyone is going to have. So kinda mutes the point op.

Well point still valid but delivery is off


Well, it won't be an AT13 ship. Phantasm and Succubus look-a-likes are already listed on the market with ATXIII logos. Maybe it'll be handed out in some event. First to kill a Drifter BS gets one; good luck with that!

Could just be lore fluff that may mean practically nothing at all.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#30 - 2015-07-19 23:42:31 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.


equates to the same thing, really.


No, it really doesn't.
Omega Capsuleer
Order of Cut-Throats
#31 - 2015-07-20 00:46:45 UTC
Webvan wrote:
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.

Player generated content.

So think of new things to do with battleships. I am thinking of using mine like AirBnB. Another thought of mine is using them to blow up your salvage before someone pirates it from you.

We do not need new things, we just need to think of new ways to use the old things while CCP focuses in on...Stuff.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-07-20 01:22:42 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.



What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?



I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?

The only advantage T3's will have is the ability to carry additional subs and refit on the fly, and of course the nullifier sub for getting through bubbles. That doesn't seem sufficient to justify their existence if you make them the second best option for everything else. I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks.

Why would people go to BS fleets over HAC's except in cases of a set piece battle unfolding right on their doorstep?
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#33 - 2015-07-20 01:26:09 UTC
Omega Capsuleer wrote:
Webvan wrote:
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.

Player generated content.

So think of new things to do with battleships. I am thinking of using mine like AirBnB. Another thought of mine is using them to blow up your salvage before someone pirates it from you.

We do not need new things, we just need to think of new ways to use the old things while CCP focuses in on...Stuff.

Why do they need to only work on "stuff". Much of "player generated content" comes out of the sandbox systems. A bunch of codes or scripts or whatever to give players the tools to create and manage emergent game play. Look around, they are all around you helping you "think of new ways to use the old things".

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#34 - 2015-07-20 02:18:10 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:


I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?

The answer is you shouldn't. But that assumes you know you are doing cloaky hunting or armour brawling or.....
The T3 should adapt on the fly much faster, Tactical Destroyers are a good example of this adaptation, though if they are truly OP or not is hard to judge with no T2 Assault Destroyers, only interdictors, to compare against.

As for the Battleship... Note 'Imperial Issue'. Look at the market, there are already two Imperial Issue Battleships. It's the same as the Tribal Edition etc, they are just fancy versions with higher stats of the current versions that get given out in a very limited number in some way. They wouldn't name a new T3 BS the same as an existing line like that, not to mention a new T3 Battleship would be utter crazyness when they haven't fixed Battleships and BC's place in the meta yet, or T3's being crazy OP.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#35 - 2015-07-20 04:31:53 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:



I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?


That's the point. For specialised jobs you should be wanting to use the t2 ships, t3s should not be the answer to everything. T3s should be adaptable cruisers, not pocket battleships.
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks.


They are not that much more skill intensive than t3s and mobility isn't everything.
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

Why would people go to BS fleets over HAC's except in cases of a set piece battle unfolding right on their doorstep?


In a slugging match BS fleets will generally win, it doesn't matter how long it takes to get somewhere, what matters is what happens when they arrive.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2015-07-20 05:42:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Ellendras Silver wrote:
it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat

I agree with the notion that specialized ships should be better, but saying that T3s should just perform T2 roles, but worse, is IMO wrong approach. If laser Legion is worse than Zealot, HAM Legion is worse than Sacrilege and Covops neut Legion is worse than Pilgrim, then there's no point in Legion at all - IF it keeps using existing mech.

There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing specialized ships; they may be still comparable, but people won't use T3 just because if they will pay premium to do same job T2 can do for its T2 price).
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2015-07-20 07:10:06 UTC
The reason there is no real way of differentiating ships is because there is no real cost factor in operating ships. If operating a super was prohibitive to owning tons of supers there wouldn't be tons of supers meaning no reason to nerf them. Likewise if battleships were prohibitive to operate except when they were absolutely needed on field then EvE wouldn't have become battleships online requiring resulting in excessive over nerfing.

Same goes for T3s, or Ishtars, or any other flavour of the meta. Unlike in real life where over demand means extreme price rises (petrol for vehicles is a good example or taxi plates) to operate there is no limiting resource in EvE preventing overuse of a particular ship.

When you nerf T3 it will simply result in a useless ship. If you fix battleships it will simply turn into best of meta battleship blobs online.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#38 - 2015-07-20 07:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
baltec1 wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.


What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3? Just admit it, You want T3Cs obliterated from the game. Your opinions about T3 are just bias based on your personal dislike of them. CCP would be wise to never listen to your nonsense about T3s, or else they'll regret it.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#39 - 2015-07-20 07:28:55 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.



What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?


it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat


Sure, as long as they reduce their cost below that of a T2 cruiser and remove the SP loss on death and MAYBE someone will find a use for it, maybe.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#40 - 2015-07-20 07:45:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Andreus Ixiris]Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.

Rather than dragging them down to the level of cruisers perhaps it would be as effective (more effective with regard to battleship utilisation perhaps) to make them behave a little more like Battlecruisers (speed, warp speed, agility, sig).
When Stategics were unveiled at FanFest they were refered to as Battlecruisers, perhaps reeastablishing that parity would be the best option.