Assembly Hall

As it exists currently, the role of dreadnoughts is to hammer stationary targets and capital ships into oblivion. The heavy guns and launchers that fit on dreadnoughts along with the siege modules have solidified their intended use as POS bashers. I respect this role, however I do find it artificially restrictive. I would like to see these vessels useful for more than just as a 1.5 billion ISK battering ram.

I would like to propose a few changes be made to make dreadnoughts viable for fleet engagements and PvE.
Add high slots to the dreadnoughts. Right now dreads have at the most 5 high slots. Despite their size and cost, they cannot fit as many high slot modules as battleships or destroyers (8). Dreads should have at least 8 slots, and I would argue more.
Raise number of turret and launcher hardpoints. Currently, the most any dreadnought can fit is 4 weapon modules. The Amarr and Gallente dreads can only fit 3. This restriction is in place to keep the number of very big weapons that can be equipped under control, but I suggest that this is the wrong way of achieving that end. Control over how many ultra heavy weapons can be fitted should come from the CPU and powergrid usage (see below), not from arbitration.
Raise the CPU demand of extra large turrets and Citadel missile launchers. As stated above, the CPU requirements on extra large weapon systems is quite low. Up to this point, CPU usage has been a formality when it comes to dreadnoughts, as none of them is capable of fitting more guns than the CPU can handle. Raising the CPU demand for these modules will give CCP a more organic way to control how many can be fitted at a given time.
Proportional boost to the dreadnoughts' CPU. As I've stated in the two previous bullet points, the true bottleneck of the ships' capabilities is the CPU. Dreads have a massive powergrid, but have in some cases less CPU than battleships. Raising the CPU of dreadnoughts will allow the CPU demand of the extra large weapons to grow; this would maintain the destructive potential of siege fitted dreads while allowing for alternative fitting schemes.
Boost the scan resolution. This is almost a side issue, but I would like to submit this suggestion nonetheless. There is no reason why a 1.5 billion ISK ship capable of holding 7 different targets simultaneously should have a sub par sensor system.

These changes would achieve the following:
More high slots would give a dread pilot the option of equipping more logistical modules (remote repair, energy transfer arrays, energy destabilizers, scan probe launchers, tractor beams, etc.). Right now, there is only one viable way to use the high slots in any of the dreads (maximum number of extra large weapons + siege module).
More hardpoints would give the flexibility to load batteries of smaller weapon modules instead of a few gigantic ones.
Changes in the CPU demand of extra large weapon systems would maintain the current power balance and prevent too many of them being loaded on without significant tradeoffs being made. The boost to the ships' CPU will be proportional to the increase in demand, which means that none of the dreadnoughts in the game currently will need to change their fits.
The added versatility would cause an increase in dreadnoughts deployed in fleet operations, and consequently an increase in dread kills. They would become lumbering strategic elements, and would define the theater and the fleets they were in.
Currently, the carrier is the only capital class fleet combat vessel. Changing the dreadnoughts in the ways I've suggested will make them an alternative capital class ship for fleet operations.

I am eager to hear your feedback.

That is exactly what their intended role was supposed to be. However supercarriers and titans are (still) simply superior in every aspect at this role. Dreads would be much more useful and used if they had some unique ability which couldn't be replaced by supercaps.

They should only make them better at what they're supposed to do. Killing POS stuff and other caps.

I think, dreads not need + weapon slot, just need + damage bonus in siege mode.

And maybe other solution against SC-s : +1 high slot and + one bonus in siege mode

Increase energy pulse weapon range (smartbomb) 15 or 20%/dread lvl

I'd like to see the dreadnaught's tracking and accuracy go up a little so that it would be a viable tactic to jump them into a fight and let them shoot at battleships.

I don't like the idea of intended anything in EVE. In the case of the dreadnought, why have any slots at all, why not just say that it comes pre-fitted with the weapons and modules and rigs that they intend you to use on it? They don't do that because they know it would be a giant middle finger to those of us who like to tweak and customize and play in the sandbox. Yet, they make the ship so unusable in any other capacity that they might as well have had them standardized. I've said it before, and I never mean it to sound as harsh as it comes off, but I don't care what their intent was. I have no interest in fitting into CCP's little box. In my estimation, they do best to just let the pieces fall where they may and let emergence take over. Appeal to tradition doesn't hold water for me.

You're right, though. If I want a combat ship, I should bypass the dreadnought and go for the carrier like everyone else. My proposal was to make combat on the capital class level less funneled by adding in more options.


Is a PvE dreadnought any more offensive than a PvE carrier? If yes, why? The siege module? Actually, I can imagine that being broken in a PvE situation come to think of it.

Hadn't thought of that.

Well the tracking boost could take effect while only in siege mode. Anyone who goes into siege while ratting just deserves to get jumped by a random roam. I can't count how many ratting carriers we have caught because they align slower than our scout can scan down and warp to the sanctum in the system. Imagine if you caught some random dread halfway through a siege cycle in a haven with 2:30 left before they could warp off.

The concern I hear about PvE ratting really seems to be a non-issue to me for the reason you just stated. a Dread is a big, slow target for PvPers.

Yes; exactly what I was thinking.

Such a horrible idea, you obviously know nothing about capitals. You've suggested multiple completely rediculous ideas, learn about things before you try and propose changes.

Much like your so called expertise on WHS....good motives....but your reasoning for dreadnaughts are fruaght with inmaturity and utter horror.

Leave this to the experts please.

I'm in favor of improving dreadnaughts...but your lack of forthought in many areas leaves me very unsetteled.

The PVE Comment alone made me facepalm so hard I broke my glasses.

*runs to NeX Store to get new pair of shades*