These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ideas for battleships

Author
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#61 - 2017-02-06 18:25:01 UTC
Because MOAR.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#62 - 2017-02-06 18:48:24 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Don't get me wrong - I love the idea of Pocket Battleships. I suspect that the in-game equivalent are Attack Battlecruisers. If CCP ever gets around to releasing a T3 Battleship my quest will be complete.




CCP should be banned from EVER adding another T3 anything


If they implement it, we might get a real counter to T3C. Then, we only need to add T3frigs to counter the new T3BS. Then, you add T3BC to counter those new frigs and have them be vulnerable to T3DD and T3C.

It would TOTALLY not be a clusterfuck to balance. Trust me, about as far as you can throw a USS Iowa with your bare hands...
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2017-02-06 21:52:59 UTC
I agree with the "no more T3 anything" point of view, at least until we figure out what exactly a T3 is supposed to be, and the fix the current ships. I don't want to remove them though, they are so interesting, I love the transformations of the destroyers and the so many combinations of the cruisers.

For new battleships, there are 2 roles I can get behind:
- during the ship design contest in 2010, someone designed 4 escort carriers
- siege battleships, which are following the traditions of the Oracle and her siblings - battleships equipped with capital sized guns, intended to be used primarily against structures in hi-sec (especially in Perimeter, there start to be way too many citadels in that system).

Also, following the logic of the anti-subcapital guns, I think we could have a form of actual point defense system for battleships only - may be extended to attack BCs.
I imagine these as utility modules with roughly 2 short-range medium guns' damage about 5k optimal range, high tracking speed and rate of fire. No ammo required, like for the civilian guns, but has more fitting needs than an average large turret, and also more capacitor need. It should have a periodic "cooldown" time, and you may fit only one. You may set them to automatic mode, where it will target an enemy within range and shoot it until it blows up, gets too far, or the gun needs to cool down. Or you may use it on a target as a regular weapon.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2017-02-07 02:28:04 UTC
We need t3iricide.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#65 - 2017-02-07 05:39:25 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
We need t3iricide.



if the CSM recaps were anything to go by it's coming my friend
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#66 - 2017-02-07 06:03:25 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
if the CSM recaps were anything to go by it's coming my friend

Yeah, Soon™.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#67 - 2017-02-07 10:43:04 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
if the CSM recaps were anything to go by it's coming my friend

Yeah, Soon™.


That flame war is long overdue.
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2017-02-07 15:32:02 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
We need t3iricide.



if the CSM recaps were anything to go by it's coming my friend

Yes but i meant in the sense of regicide. :}
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#69 - 2017-02-07 16:05:08 UTC
I think a few people have pushed for X-Large Shield Extenders and 3200mm plates for BS to buff the ehp but not over buff it, since it will take more PG etc etc.

ewar resistance isnt the worst idea.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#70 - 2017-02-07 21:42:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
if the CSM recaps were anything to go by it's coming my friend

Yeah, Soon™.


That flame war is long overdue.



i can't wait to see all the ppl come out and defend "how balanced T3s actually are"
Lugh Crow-Slave
#71 - 2017-02-07 21:44:06 UTC
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
I think a few people have pushed for X-Large Shield Extenders and 3200mm plates for BS to buff the ehp but not over buff it, since it will take more PG etc etc.

ewar resistance isnt the worst idea.




lol you should have seen it when they were added


you were able to put them on BBs and get things like 2m EHP SNIs it was so fun and soo broken
Brok Haslack
9624968
#72 - 2017-02-10 18:51:23 UTC
Cearain wrote:
A few ideas I was thinking about with battleships. The problem as I see it is once you are scrammed and even if you have a single tracking disruptor you are basically unable to do any damage to any frigates or t3ds inside range. This is true even if you have one grappler web and 1 regular web.

1) some sort of ewar resistance. Say 50%.

2) A new module that works as an afterburner burst. The idea is that it would give your battleship the ability to pulse for a high rate of speed say somewhere around 600% speed boost but it does so for only one cycle. It then has a spool up timer. It would be immune to scrams and should have some immunity to webs as well. Maybe webs cap out to make it only 400% speed boost. The idea is that the battle ship pilot can use this to momentarilly gain some transversal and at least get a few good shots off to possibly kill some of the smaller stuff instead of just always being a sitting duck. I don't really know all the details or numbers here but you get the idea.

3) they should get a hp buff. The increase in ehp between BS and carriers should be comparable to the ehp increase between BS and bcs.



The shield version of the Nestor? Surely Winmatar is smart enough to rustle one up?
Cade Windstalker
#73 - 2017-02-10 19:54:00 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i can't wait to see all the ppl come out and defend "how balanced T3s actually are"


Almost all of the discussion I've seen in the last... two years or so(?) has been in agreement that T3s are OP. The last holdouts were a few T3D players, but even most of those were either trolls or people who felt that the T3Ds should be left as-is and other things buffed up to their level.

I've yet to see someone seriously try and defend T3Cs as anything other than the OP little monsters that they are and that includes every single wormhole player I've talked to so far.

Most of the actual flaming/debate comes when you try to actually figure out how to balance T3-anything. Some people want them removed from the game (unrealistic), others want the cost massively increased but the ships left more or less as they are (bad idea IMO), and then there's about twenty different flavors of "make my change ccpls senpai" for which there is not a large enough tub of popcorn in the world.
Julie Oppenheimer
COX INDUSTRIES
#74 - 2017-02-10 21:26:40 UTC
T3C's definitely need be nerfed, but I think battleships could also do with at least a 30% base EHP buff as their EHP levels do not scale well at all compared to how other levels of ships scale to each other (also along with a buff to NPC battleship damage).

Frigate -> Destroyer : ~1.8x
Destroyer -> Cruiser : ~2.1x
Cruiser -> Battlecruiser : ~2.6x
Battlecruiser -> Battleship : ~1.6x

Note: this is bare EHP, no skills (which shouldn't matter anyways because they are % increases) and no modules. I think it's fair to say that even though battleships have more fitting slots, this is true for each class to the next class, yet the increase class over class barebones EHP increase ratio increases as you get higher up. Also, this is based on T1 ships but I think you'd probably see a similar trend with T2 ships.

If not an EHP buff for battleships, there needs to be fitting buff to battleships and higher class of extenders/plates/reppers introduced, with fitting requirements set so that lower class ships would have to significantly cripple their fits to use them (think undersized guns) or existing extenders/plates/reppers need an increase in fitting requirements across the board to achieve the same affect.

I also think battleship damage could also use a small buff but I think that's a lot more debatable than the fact that the need an EHP buff.
A8ina
Doomheim
#75 - 2017-02-10 21:53:36 UTC
Cade Windstalker
#76 - 2017-02-10 22:06:57 UTC
Julie Oppenheimer wrote:
T3C's definitely need be nerfed, but I think battleships could also do with at least a 30% base EHP buff as their EHP levels do not scale well at all compared to how other levels of ships scale to each other (also along with a buff to NPC battleship damage).

Frigate -> Destroyer : ~1.8x
Destroyer -> Cruiser : ~2.1x
Cruiser -> Battlecruiser : ~2.6x
Battlecruiser -> Battleship : ~1.6x

Note: this is bare EHP, no skills (which shouldn't matter anyways because they are % increases) and no modules. I think it's fair to say that even though battleships have more fitting slots, this is true for each class to the next class, yet the increase class over class barebones EHP increase ratio increases as you get higher up. Also, this is based on T1 ships but I think you'd probably see a similar trend with T2 ships.

If not an EHP buff for battleships, there needs to be fitting buff to battleships and higher class of extenders/plates/reppers introduced, with fitting requirements set so that lower class ships would have to significantly cripple their fits to use them (think undersized guns) or existing extenders/plates/reppers need an increase in fitting requirements across the board to achieve the same affect.

I also think battleship damage could also use a small buff but I think that's a lot more debatable than the fact that the need an EHP buff.


Raw Battleship EHP is fine. They have more fitting space, more slots, and fully fitted they easily end up with at least 3-4 times the EHP of a Cruiser. HP pool has never been why people don't use battleships in various circumstances.

Also you've provided zero support for any of this, you're just going "I think this would be nice" with no evidence for why, or even evidence that there's a problem and that this is the solution.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#77 - 2017-02-11 01:17:39 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i can't wait to see all the ppl come out and defend "how balanced T3s actually are"


Almost all of the discussion I've seen in the last... two years or so(?) has been in agreement that T3s are OP. The last holdouts were a few T3D players, but even most of those were either trolls or people who felt that the T3Ds should be left as-is and other things buffed up to their level.

I've yet to see someone seriously try and defend T3Cs as anything other than the OP little monsters that they are and that includes every single wormhole player I've talked to so far.

Most of the actual flaming/debate comes when you try to actually figure out how to balance T3-anything. Some people want them removed from the game (unrealistic), others want the cost massively increased but the ships left more or less as they are (bad idea IMO), and then there's about twenty different flavors of "make my change ccpls senpai" for which there is not a large enough tub of popcorn in the world.



yeah it was the same with OGB until fozzie started getting serious about removing it
Cade Windstalker
#78 - 2017-02-11 04:18:31 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
yeah it was the same with OGB until fozzie started getting serious about removing it


Yeah, but that was a bit different and less blatantly broken to some players. After all it's harder to see that the guy who just murdered you had a boosting alt hanging out 50 AU away, but it's really obvious when a T3D just spontaneously disassembled your ship for the third time tonight.

Plus we've already seen a couple of attempts at reigning in T3Ds where as the OGB change was talked about for years without anything being done in terms of an active change that most players saw (a few small scale tests being mostly out of sight and not widely talked about).

Most of the argument, both around the T3D focus group and elsewhere, has been focused on how to tweak T3Ds and T3Cs, not on whether or not they're over powered.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#79 - 2017-02-11 06:54:08 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
yeah it was the same with OGB until fozzie started getting serious about removing it


Yeah, but that was a bit different and less blatantly broken to some players. After all it's harder to see that the guy who just murdered you had a boosting alt hanging out 50 AU away, but it's really obvious when a T3D just spontaneously disassembled your ship for the third time tonight.

Plus we've already seen a couple of attempts at reigning in T3Ds where as the OGB change was talked about for years without anything being done in terms of an active change that most players saw (a few small scale tests being mostly out of sight and not widely talked about).

Most of the argument, both around the T3D focus group and elsewhere, has been focused on how to tweak T3Ds and T3Cs, not on whether or not they're over powered.


Don't worry, the second the nerf thread pops up it will gather more salt than the Sifto salt mine.
Cade Windstalker
#80 - 2017-02-11 16:15:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Don't worry, the second the nerf thread pops up it will gather more salt than the Sifto salt mine.


Oh almost certainly, but I expect most of it to be in the form of people arguing over what CCP should nerf or change and trying to preserve the most OP characteristics of T3Cs the same as what was seen in the first round of T3D nerfs.