These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#41 - 2015-07-20 07:45:32 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
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).


I believe your concept on what a T3 should be is the most acute idea I've heard in the forums. A specialize ship that can perform many roles the same (NOT LESS) as their T2 Counters and have a sorta built in mobile depot like ability that can refit in space on the fly like a carrier. Have a 700 m3 cargo hold to be able to hold multiple subs & mods and having slightly less dps, but more tank than a HAC with no drone bays.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#42 - 2015-07-20 07:51:40 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
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.


I guess you don't know a thing about neuts. All it takes is ONE heavy neut to cap out a T3C. No cap, no tank, = dead T3C.
What? Cap Boosters you say, please. Just how long can a T3 hold up on heavy neut pressure with only a 280 m3 cargo bay, hmm?
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2015-07-20 07:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Daniela Doran wrote:
What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?

I suppose something T2 can't do. This is the only way to exist in EVE without stepping on anyone's toes while being useful. They already have an ability to completely change themselves by refitting subs in addition to refitting any other ship is capable of. New T3Cs can be developed around this general idea.

Sure, this won't be a fleet ship at this point. Not that they must be.

Daniela Doran wrote:
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.

SP loss, I'm ok if it goes away tbh. Just personal preference. Other than that, if T3s cease to be min/max material and become that "Swiss army ship" they were advertised as but never truly were, then their versatility will sure cost something over T2 ship they can mimic. The only thing I suppose must happen is subs price adjustment to ensure that having spare ones in cargohold (or better yet - in dedicated subsystems hold) is not a luxury or foolish endeavour, but standard way of flying new T3Cs.

EDIT: Oh, got ninja'd by your reply.

Daniela Doran wrote:
I believe your concept on what a T3 should be is the most acute idea I've heard in the forums. A specialize ship that can perform many roles the same (NOT LESS) as their T2 Counters and have a sorta built in mobile depot like ability that can refit in space on the fly like a carrier. Have a 700 m3 cargo hold to be able to hold multiple subs & mods and having slightly less dps, but more tank than a HAC with no drone bays.

I believe that systems they can use (like drones, additional tank etc.) should be part of mosaic of their abilities. Currently, there are situational drone configurations people actually use, for example. I believe there's no point in specifically destroying them regardless of what particular ship we are talking about.

I think I can agree with you on where they should be on general power level.

Another edit:

Daniela Doran wrote:
I guess you don't know a thing about neuts. All it takes is ONE heavy neut to cap out a T3C. No cap, no tank, = dead T3C.
What? Cap Boosters you say, please. Just how long can a T3 hold up on heavy neut pressure with only a 280 m3 cargo bay, hmm?

I suppose people have different ideas on how T3s work and what is realistic to use against them. I suppose that for long ranged T3 fleets neuts aren't really the answer, in other situations they help immensely indeed.
Sianca
Spessart Rebellen
#44 - 2015-07-20 08:18:48 UTC
I have a proposal, T3 are sleeper tec. optimized for j-space. Let T3 perform in J-space are the way they are now, if a T3 entering k-space it performs all at 50% to 70% (speed, resistance, dps). Tuned down to cruiser level.
Aladar Dangerface
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2015-07-20 10:30:10 UTC
Wait, new battleships? where did this come from?

I don't need twitter. I'm already following you.

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#46 - 2015-07-20 10:32:28 UTC
Aladar Dangerface wrote:
Wait, new battleships? where did this come from?

CCP posted this , started the rumormill.
dor amwar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2015-07-20 10:35:17 UTC
Sianca wrote:
I have a proposal, T3 are sleeper tec. optimized for j-space. Let T3 perform in J-space are the way they are now, if a T3 entering k-space it performs all at 50% to 70% (speed, resistance, dps). Tuned down to cruiser level.


have thought the same since introduced, came from there tech works there. t3 closed off a lot of roles for other existing ships for 2 reasons only: 1) someone thought it as a cool idea and, 2) ccp was needing to introduce new skills to keep keep high skill players interested. ccp has always been a bit schizophrenic about retaining old or recruiting new players, a difficult task as the spread/disparity between young and old increases. A new BS? no, thanks.
Aladar Dangerface
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-07-20 10:43:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Aladar Dangerface
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Aladar Dangerface wrote:
Wait, new battleships? where did this come from?

CCP posted this , started the rumormill.

At work, site block :(

Can i get a tl:dr?

Edit: Nvm, suppose i could use my phone What?

I don't need twitter. I'm already following you.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#49 - 2015-07-20 10:55:36 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:


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).

Solution 1 is the one that best fits the space CCP have said a T3 is meant to fill. If it does both roles at the same time at lets say.... 75% efficiency compared to the T2 specialist ship.... you then have 150% of both if you get two T3's, while only 100% of both if you go one specialist in each.
Which means T3's become ideal for covering a large number of roles in a small gang, but a large fleet or a very purpose built gang you are going to see T2's as specialising is best when you have the numbers or only plan for one thing.

Unique roles are more suited to a specialist ship, being...... specialists and all that jazz.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2015-07-20 11:00:20 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Solution 1 is the one that best fits the space CCP have said a T3 is meant to fill. If it does both roles at the same time at lets say.... 75% efficiency compared to the T2 specialist ship.... you then have 150% of both if you get two T3's, while only 100% of both if you go one specialist in each.
Which means T3's become ideal for covering a large number of roles in a small gang, but a large fleet or a very purpose built gang you are going to see T2's as specialising is best when you have the numbers or only plan for one thing.

Unique roles are more suited to a specialist ship, being...... specialists and all that jazz.

This kinda makes sense, although I think there may be a way to somewhat make both solutions working together.
I've made a proposal btw and I hope for some healthy discussion.

Meanwhile, back to battleships, I guess.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#51 - 2015-07-20 11:17:53 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:

What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?


Whats the point in t2 cruisers if T3 overpower them at their specialty?

Reducing them down to below t2 cruisers would not make them useless, they can still retain their adaptability and with the mobile depot they can swap to be something different on the fly like no other ship can. Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#52 - 2015-07-20 11:39:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?


Whats the point in t2 cruisers if T3 overpower them at their specialty?

Reducing them down to below t2 cruisers would not make them useless, they can still retain their adaptability and with the mobile depot they can swap to be something different on the fly like no other ship can. Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.


With the SP loss on death and the double price tag, I can see plenty of reasons to fly my Deimos over a Proteus or My Zealot over a Legion. My Legion has yet to leave Hi-Sec because of these risks while I've use both my Zealot and Deimos many times in WHs and null sec.

Now If CCP removes the SP loss on death and reduce the T3Cs price to the same level as HACs, then I'll have no argument about SOME of your proposed changes baltec1.

Why don't you make a thread with some figures on how you believe the T3Cs should be properly balanced (not reduced to redundancy) and let's see how the mass view these changes that you propose.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#53 - 2015-07-20 11:43:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
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.


you mean they need a way to somehow defend against bombs, which in turn were introduced into the game to counter blobs of battleships in the first line? If any nerf of bombs will allow BS blobs to rise again, it will simply mean that bombs become useless as counter and greatly fail its purpose.

You can already defend against bombs, field few squads of instalocker T3 and pop the bombers as they decloak. Bombing already gets nerfed a little in the upcoming expansion by fleet warp changes.

I kinda miss BS fleets but if I had a choice between blobs of T3 and blobs of BS I would rather pick the first. Popping a T3 is simply more satisfying due to its cost and skill loss for the pilot compared to a fully insured BS.


On a side note: which BS are they going to introduce? I must've missed something.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#54 - 2015-07-20 11:47:36 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:

With the SP loss on death and the double price tag, I can see plenty of reasons to fly my Deimos over a Proteus or My Zealot over a Legion. My Legion has yet to leave Hi-Sec because of these risks while I've use both my Zealot and Deimos many times in WHs and null sec.

Now If CCP removes the SP loss on death and reduce the T3Cs price to the same level as HACs, then I'll have no argument about SOME of your proposed changes baltec1.

Why don't you make a thread with some figures on how you believe the T3Cs should be properly balanced (not reduced to redundancy) and let's see how the mass view these changes that you propose.


Here is what CCP think should happen.

And I agree with them. I have no issue with getting rid of SP loss and it doesn't work. Price wise the market will naturally adapt to demand and prices will drop, if CCP need to fiddle with build costs per ship then so be it. In the end though these ships desperately need to be dragged into line as they cause the bulk of the ship balance issues.
Zero Conscience
Neurotoxin Control
Cynosural Field Theory.
#55 - 2015-07-20 11:50:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Zero Conscience
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Daniela Doran]
Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.



all kinds of wrong. In the last few months BS hulls have poured into lowsec (possibly null too but im there less so i see less) - solo'ers and gangs. A few tweaks here and there and a mass of pew vids to educate the playerbase has made alot of difference. Yep tech 3 cruisers are powerful (multi skill requiring, expensive etc) and do still get roflstomped. The gaps between hulls are also being misreported. So a tengu will smash a mega (usually) assuming equal skill and the fact the mega got fit for all guns in highs no webs etc. WHAT A SUPRISE! but a brawler t1 BS should die to a Tengu that doesnt mess up.

Now take that same 'Gu against a Geddon (still t1 basic) or a Rattlesnake (still t1 but coloured :) ) or how about a good old Vindi?
T3 survival drops sharrply huh? Of course we can counter each others arguments with statements like "Mebbbe i cant tackled tenguuu) - Which brings response "fly betterer?)


So. T3s rock
BSs rock
D3s are broke except Hecate.

Have a nice day
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#56 - 2015-07-20 12:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Zero Conscience wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Daniela Doran]
Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.



all kinds of wrong. In the last few months BS hulls have poured into lowsec (possibly null too but im there less so i see less) - solo'ers and gangs. A few tweaks here and there and a mass of pew vids to educate the playerbase has made alot of difference. Yep tech 3 cruisers are powerful (multi skill requiring, expensive etc) and do still get roflstomped. The gaps between hulls are also being misreported. So a tengu will smash a mega (usually) assuming equal skill and the fact the mega got fit for all guns in highs no webs etc. WHAT A SUPRISE! but a brawler t1 BS should die to a Tengu that doesnt mess up.

Now take that same 'Gu against a Geddon (still t1 basic) or a Rattlesnake (still t1 but coloured :) ) or how about a good old Vindi?
T3 survival drops sharrply huh? Of course we can counter each others arguments with statements like "Mebbbe i cant tackled tenguuu) - Which brings response "fly betterer?)


So. T3s rock
BSs rock
D3s are broke except Hecate.

Have a nice day


Tell me why a tengu, a cruiser, should have more EHP than a megathron but with a sig a quarter the size while moving almost six times faster.
Lucius Kalari
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2015-07-20 12:32:47 UTC
Battleships need a tracking, dps and tank buff as they're currently just big floating pinatas.
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
Stay Feral
#58 - 2015-07-20 13:20:52 UTC
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.

This is precisely the reason that nerfing T3s to encourage use of battleships will not work - you'll just have another class of ships that people are just as reluctant to use in PvP. Battleships need a very serious change in how their damage application against smaller ships works.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#59 - 2015-07-20 13:30:19 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

This is precisely the reason that nerfing T3s to encourage use of battleships will not work - you'll just have another class of ships that people are just as reluctant to use in PvP. Battleships need a very serious change in how their damage application against smaller ships works.


Lucius Kalari wrote:
Battleships need a tracking, dps and tank buff as they're currently just big floating pinatas.


Battleship tracking is just fine.
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
#60 - 2015-07-20 13:34:57 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Why people asume it's about new BS.


because the Amarrian Empress said it was the hull of a new navy battleship being laid down, of the abaddon class.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/world-news/navy-announce-imperial-keel-laying-ceremony-empress-confirmed-to-attend/


It could just as well be an AT price ship or the missing Abaddon Navy Issue. Than again Amarr was first on the D3 race so they might also get a T3 BS first if there should ever be one.