I was thinking and pondering deeply on the capital issue, and then i realized maybe we are looking at the capital spam problem from the wrong direction.
Everyone wants to “squish” the states of capitals, maybe the issue is that the ships closest to them (battleships) are not quiet enough to come into line with checking their power.
What if we look at a meta 3 battleship with high damage rates using capital level weapons (something like meta 3 bc for battleship. This should be isk efficient (with insurance) that will provide 3000-4000 dps but it being capital level weapons will make them invalid against smaller ships. They should get role bonus’s to reduce smart bomb, or ignore smart bomb and aoe effects (so they can tbe death balled).
Cheap, isk efficient batteships that can potentially challenge the deadballs head on.
So… Dread bombs basically. We already have these. They are called Dreadnaughts.
That would actually be MORE damage than a Dreadnaught gets without siege.
Also Capital weapons apply just fine vs subcaps as soon as you put support on the field.
P.S. Meta 3 isn’t the term you want, learn EVE terms, it makes your suggestions appear poorly thought out when you use the wrong terms.
Do you have any specifics about your suggestions or are you going to continue this trend of spamming poorly thought out “suggestion” threads and the immediately begin to insult everyone who comments on it?
Seriously though, idea’s are idea’s they are posted for conversation about them, but you and troll fiends/alts are only interested in attempting to get me banned, get me to quit, or something along the lines.
Which is why carrying “pretend” conversations with you (yes, i see through your game) is pointless.
my posting here has… alternative paths to changing the game.
I’m still willing to hear your support for these suggestions, btw.
As a refresher, since you need one, do you have any specifics on what these ships stats will look like? You say “3000-4000” dps, but don’t explain how that will work, would you be able to answer that question?
You also claim “low skill requirement” and “high isk efficiency”, would you be able to explain what you mean by this?
I picked this damage rate because i felt vedmaks damage was to high, but i felt that rattlesnakes were not high enough to impact the battle.
When we look at the meta 3 ships, they have some options but are really just not living up to their real potential due to insufficient tank, or damage rates.
I did not want to see “Warships” take the same route and be a useless meta 3 hull, so i am advocating for damage rates i think area in the area of being appropriate for large skill capital killing.
To be clear, the emotional response of capital blobs should be “oh ■■■■, need to get caps off field now”.
Now to play devils advocate i will say we should probably start looking into role specific damage application, like “bonus damage to capitals” + 10% per a level, for example. The reason why i said this is because we need specific things in the game to be designed for intended roles, and we do not really want them operating out side of those intended roles, as that just further complicates the issue of balance.
So desinging the ships with these sorts of modifiers will potentially help us “narrow” the intended applications, and potential applications.
Other wise we may see an invalidation of capital ships since the battleships with capital weapons could potentially do as much damage as caps at a cheaper rate, there by making these battleships the new meta at station bashing, and thats not something we should see.
Thus, bonus damage to capitals is a good solution for this issue.
I believe the meta 3 bc’s are good, but need something else… not sure… maybe a module like af, or something. ( i am becoming an increasing fan of this module being more wide spread then assault ships /hacs having it).
So it looks like you don’t actually know what you’re talking about here. Or, at the very least, don’t know what it’s like to be participant in a capital fight.
Your suggested idea, still lacks any specifics. You’re talking about nonsense like “deals +10% bonus damage to capitals” but still doesn’t make any mention of range, application, damage types, weapon platforms etc.
All of this is important, for fairly obvious reasons, which, I’m sure you, as a 18 year EVE Online developer veteran, must surely have thought about, right?
Like the idea that Battleships can be killed incredibly easily by HAW Dreads kinda throws a massive wrench into your cute little idea.
You also say this will have “high isk efficiency” but still, after almost 10 posts, still have not even mentioned a single ISK value to measure that “efficiency”.
So again, after all this time. I still need to ask you, do you have any specifics?
He clearly said capital weapons so capital tracking and dmg type is obviously racial. You’re literally just trolling. This is features and ideas not “submit 100% completely constructed from the ground up ships and their material requirements.”
The idea is obviously battleships with oversized guns that cant apply to subcaps effectively but can pose a threat to caps.
Except we already have Dreadnaughts.
There is no place in the Meta for this sort of Battleship. Either it’s more efficient than Dreads so Dreads never get used, or it’s less efficient so these never get used.
Not to mention there is no such thing as Meta 3 when it comes to Ship Hulls.
Then ask your questions more clearly and in a less condescending manner. You could have just said would these be upsized stealth bombers or use guns respectively? I doubt the answer would matter as you’re just seeking attention.
Stealth Bombers are a Covert Ops ship, there is a very clear place for them in the Meta. Because Covert Ops ships also have cloaks, launch AOE weapons in the case of SB’s and can bridge from a Black Ops.
Frankly ABC there isn’t a good place in the meta for, they compete directly with ABS’s, and it ends up with one of the two being not used in any significant manner. They do get use as a cheap gank ship, though I’m not sure if you would consider that a good or bad thing. I’m sure there is a little other use of them, but I don’t believe it is any use that couldn’t be done with another ship in this case.
So… ABC’s are a bad example to point at, because it reinforces the argument of not making these ships.
And SB’s have a clear place and don’t overlap.
I have seen Attack BCs used for whaling fleets. They have significantly lower mass than Battleships, making them very useful for traversing through wormholes in large numbers to attack enemy Rorquals mining in belts.
This statements lacks understanding of how we carry out development processes.
WE start with an idea and so “prototyping” your trying to invalidate the position based on something that will almost certainly change in the testing phases anyways.
Thus, you will never get “specifics” from me, because they are an invalid point.