Battleships

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Here is a couple ideas for some new battleships, and one change.

The one change is, Nestor: Just give it covert cloak capability, allow it to go threw blops bridge, but as with the line, no lighting covert cynos. And for those who are going to say the Nestor already has too many bonus’s, my only answer is: who uses Nestors other than Supers/Caps for a instant mobile depot…

idea 1: I was going to suggest a small carrier type battleship that uses fighters at short range but there’s already a post.

Idea 2: Logistics Battleships, there is already the Nestor, but why not take it a step further and add a T2 Battleship that is logi-ish. Something like Rohk or Abbadon hull that is just a brick that can do logi. Read another post (Solo logi) that said implementing a bastion type module for logi would go with an idea like this, but thats up for debate wether it would be worth to have subcap fax’s.

Idea 3: So a big complaint about large scale engagements is that alpha doc is the only way to go, so why not make a ship that fits into a active mitigation role instead of passive (Boosts). Again back to the Tier 3 hulls, you could make a battleship that has 4 highslots dedicated to active shield/armor link that you lock up a friendly and use the module to then extent your shield/armor and share some of the damage. Rule of this could be that one ship could only be affected by one of these modules at a time, something like that just to keep it simple. But with this you could have 1 ship link to 4 other ships and take 40-60% of the damage from them and apply it to the ‘Vanguard’ Ship. Also this ship could not be affected my the module type either, cause chaining might be too much of a headache. But the overall idea would be that you have a ‘Vanguard’ ship that has 2-3x the tank of a normal mainline dps so that you can have 10 ‘Vanguard’ ships and 40 dps ships and be able to take on a much larger foe and stand a chance. Complexity never hurts, just adds more to theorywarrior.

Idea 4: So to the idea before at fan fest for directional fire ships, maybe add capital class weaponry to the table for that. But I could possibly think further than that I couldn’t think of anything, but a battleship-capital idea fits the whole frigate-battleship idea stealth bombers do. Hmmm, maybe even make it blops… Interesting, I’ll leave the up to more theorycrafting for later.

Any other ideas?

2

Why? I can see givin the Nestor a cloak eventually, that’s about it.

  1. It’s called the Dominix and it uses drones, not fighters.
  2. Why? Logistics ships don’t do enough right now? Or do you just really want to add new ships?
  3. I just really don’t like this idea. If you’ve got 55k or more EHP you’re not getting wiped out in one volley. If you’ve got enough alpha damage on you to crack a battleship that quickly, you didn’t have enough people to win that engagement anyway.
  4. WHY?! Do you have any single reasons for this or do you just want to add new ships? What would be the damn point of adding capital class weaponry onto battleships? To make a more alpha-clone friendly POS brasher or what? What role could you possibly fill with that that isn’t already filled by dreadnaughts and other POS bashers

You need to have reasons why these should change.

3
  • Dominix as above.
  • Promotes even more alpha doctrine when logi is tougher and can rep more. People will just bring bigger fleets or go home.
  • Promotes more alpha doctrine as ships get more ehp. Makes it even easier for logi to manage a fleet. People will just bring bigger fleets or go home.
  • Always be careful with this. People will rat with them to make mad isks. Blops versions would be very effective at running fw missions which are already stupidly lucrative.

At the end of the day, whatever mechanic that is intended to help the few fight the many, no matter what it is, will be used by the many to much greater effect and to dominate the few.

The only way to stop alpha doctrines is to nerf logi. The less effect logi has, the less need to kill a target instantly.

1 Like
4

What is this, trickle-down dps-nomics? Nerfing the logi will not balance the crazy dps infused fleets. Nobody forces them to fly alpha, they choose to because it’s a strategy that wins. As a small corp logi pilot I’d love a battleship logi but until CCP confronts the problem of alpha docs then I must concede there is a need to wait.

5

It’s not dps fleets. Its alpha fleets. Different thing.

I am a logi pilot, and even other logi pilots will tell you, nerf logi and the alpha fleet loses value.

6

Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as accusatory I was actually surprised by the reasoning. I’ve thought about it some but haven’t been able to see the reasoning you presented.

Could you explain why you and your other logi constituents feel this way?

I’m also curious as to how this doesn’t undermine the role of logi in pvp and I’d like to point out incursions as a cursory note for something we shouldn’t forget about when discussing nerfs.

Thank you

7

The whole reason the alpha doctrine exists is because logi is powerful enough to save any ship once logi lands. So if you can’t kill a ship before logi lands (or in a single volley with artillery), you don’t engage and go home.

If you make it harder to kill a ship before logi lands (like spreading the dps across ships) it’s even harder to reach that threshold and even more likely that you will have to bring artillery or go home.

If logi is made more effective (tanks harder because its a battleship) the same happens again, it’s harder to volley logi off the field before reps land and again more likely that you will just not engage.

If logi is somehow nerfed (easier to kill or reps made less effective), it will mean the opposite. That threshold of alpha before you can effectively engage is lowered.

Say reps take longer to cycle it lowers the threshold of ships you have to have before you can engage an enemy fleet. Or maybe it means instead of artie you can take beams or rails and still volley ships of the field.

Say reps had shorter range, piloting (of both the dps ship anchor and logi anchor) becomes a bigger deal. Maybe reps don’t land due to pilot error and you don’t have to volley a ship off the field. You can kill it with regular dps.

Same as above with vulnerability to e-war.

Say logi required charges that slowly recharged or had to reload, you burn through enemy reps with dps but eventually they have to give. Allowing you to choose doctrines other than alpha.

Now I’m not pushing any of the above as a particular idea. Just trying to explain that the weaker logi is, the increased validity of doctrines other than alpha doctrines. Nerfing logi doesn’t particularly hurt alpha doctrines either. Insta-popping ships would still have its value.

Long story short. If you don’t like alpha fleets, you want a nerf to logi.

Incursions wise, they will still work with nerfed logi. Right now fleets take just the right amount of logi. If they got nerfed they can still drop a dps ship for more logi. Or fly differently. They’d still make stupid amounts of isk. No one should worry about incursions unless it’s to say they make too much isk.

1 Like
8

I wonder the price of T2 logi battleship, and regarding the idea, they want fighters in high sec as well…

9

I hate to say this as a logi/Fax pilot, but ideally the game should not have remote reps whatsoever, and dps of all ships should be much lower, (Or overall ehp should be much higher) so that alpha fleets are irrelevant, and all ships die constantly in pvp. Better balance, better economics, more enjoyable battles… But of course this would require an entirely new game for such a reworking at this point.

10

Why would you think the Logi was added, it’s just another way of tactics e.g. 2:2 its 2:1+1 logi. which makes the game more flexible interesting.

11

Interesting? Yes it does. But it’s also a source of imbalance and makes battles less fun. Like I said, I know it’s here to stay in eve. But I want my next space game to have limited to no repairs mid-battle, only after battles. Just personal preference. Plus it makes a hell of a lot more sense realistically.

12

i see what you’re saying but following that logic fleet booster are the next things to get rid off.

13

Well someone may not like fleet boosters, but I personally do now that they are AOE boosts, the old offgrid boosters needed to die in a raging fire, and they did, to the vast improvement of the game. They make sense, they boost ships, but they don’t make things invulnerable or make cartoonish atempts at representing reality.

14

Every fleet is an alpha fleet if you have enough.

Adapt or die, alpha fleets has some counters, use them.

15

Can we not ruin a whole series of ships by deciding we need to get rid of logistics? We don’t, it’s good to have a healing class as it were and making ships die easier in larger engagements is a messy, haphazard way of trying to balance fights. I don’t think this idea will make the difference in blob on blob warfare that you’re theorizing it will

16

Some time ago, we had that because anything on grid had to be tanked to survive an AoE DD which meant no cruisers could even hope to stay on grid. Your logi, if you had any, were at a safe and repped those who managed to warp out. It was ■■■■ gameplay.

17

Number > If both side lose something, it’s not really more balanced…

Whose who have SRP shall win every war while those who don’t just lose because they run out of ship/ISK sooner or later.

Debatable depending on what you enjoy in current fights.

18

Ha, I hate fleet boosts.

19

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.