List a one sentence problems BB/Carriers...EWAR

[Saladinae]

There are currently no tier one battleships specializing in Electronic Warfare (EWAR) aside from the Scorpion.

EDITED
I propose giving the Armageddon Tracking Disruptor Bonuses (at 10% per level, instead of 7.5%).

The the Dominix should receive a sensor dampening bonus at the tier one level (at 10% per level, instead of 7.5%)…

That the Hyperion should get a disruptor and scram range bonus, making it competitive with an Arazu in a straight fight.

That the Maelstrom should get a web bonus, making it competitive with the Rapier in a straight fight. And that the Typhoon should get a target painter bonus (10% per level like the Hyena).

Regarding the Vindicator battleship, its web bonus predates the introduction of grapplers in the game. To modernize its abilities, I suggest changing the bonus to a 10% increase in grappler range per level, applicable at the minimum level. Additionally, it should receive a 10% sensor dampening bonus per level with Gallente training. This modification will make it a highly sought-after heavy tackle ship, capable of effectively using blasters against targets attempting to close in after being dampened.

---

Carriers are currently underperforming in 2024.

I propose granting them a Role Bonus: Capital EWAR that bypasses all capital EWAR resistances. Subsequently, provide race-specific bonuses. Amarr = Tracking Disruption, Cald= ECM, Gal = Damp, Min = webs.

Additionally, equip carriers with a fourth tube dedicated solely to support fighters. This enhancement will significantly improve their utility and usability in combat scenarios.

---

Now that you read one my one liners on the tier one BB’s and Carriers getting dedicated EWAR support, here’s my rant on destroyers!

Tier One Destroyers pale in comparison to Tier 2/3 and Faction Dessies.

We should explore methods to enhance specific destroyer types to fulfill their intended roles effectively. For instance, it’s currently challenging to close in on targets with a Dragoon due to its lack of tank, large signature, and slow movement.

Taking inspiration from how the Eris Interdictor was made viable through plate mass reduction (at 100% at destroyer level 5), the same approach should extend to the Catalyst, which also requires a substantial agility boost for maneuvering at 500 meters. This enhancement should apply to all tier one destroyers to improve their overall performance. Additionally, shield destroyers should not experience signature bloom from fitting extenders. This does not generalize to tier 2 and 3 dessies, which I believe to be in a good state the current moment.

This adjustment comes with the condition of allowing only one plate or extender to be fitted (not both), and simultaneously reducing the fitting requirements for shield extenders and plates by 50% for tier one destroyers. This modification aims to make them more resilient against incoming salvos and force tier 2 frigates, faction frigates and combat interceptors to reconsider engaging them without proper support (thus allowing the tier one destroyer of securing its chief design—the killer of frigates, regardless of whether or not they are tier 2 or faction/pirate hulls).

Algos and Dragoon an extra low.

Talwar goes down to 6 launchers, keeps its 7th for utilty and gains a mid. Corax does the same, but gaining a low. Corax also needs base speed increased.

Addressing speed concerns, the Talwar currently achieves only 1700 m/s with an MWD (and the Corax 1500 m/s) at level 5 skills, with a signature of 135 (Corax’s being 414). These speeds should be significantly higher, with the Talwar hitting at least 2400 m/s and the Corax around 2000 m/s with MWD activated. More generally, 2000 m/s should be the FLOOR for all tier one destroyers when using an MWD.

Furthermore, all tier one destroyers and dictors should receive a -75% signature bloom as a role bonus (not a level bonus) when using MWDs, culminating in an 85% reduction with each level. This adjustment ensures their signature radius remains competitive with Tier 2 Frigates while maintaining balance for cost. T2 frigs cost more, and the assault frig line has an ADCU and smaller sig when it turn off the MWD to mitigate damage, neither of which the cheaper tier one destroyer can do. Hence, in order for destroyers to be ISK competitive with AF’s, they need a greatly reduced sig when they activate their MWD.

Back to slots. Corecer , 6 turret slots + 7th utility. Give it a mid slot.

Corm minus one high slot. Give it a low.

Trasher minus one high slot. Give it medium (giving it a low would result in more devastating alpha strikes, without otherwise changing how it can be flown).

In summary, we aim to align the slot layouts of tier one destroyers closer to those of the Mekubal and Sunesis, while retaining the unique fitting characteristics of the latter two ships (which by design and cost, are meant to be easier to fit than the vanilla tier one destroyers).

EDIT 2:
Another potential buff for tier one destroyers (which would apply solely to tier 2 command destroyers and not to Interdictors or Tier 3 Destroyers) would be the introduction of a harpoon high-slot module. This module is designed to target carrier and supercarrier fighters and bombers, featuring a 50km range. Upon activation, it would scram and web them, effectively pulling them towards the destroyer similar to a tractor beam. Such an addition would enable short-range destroyers (such as the Catalyst) to play a role in nullsec fleet engagements, particularly when these EWAR-enhanced carriers are brought into the mix (otherwise we risk returning to an older age where carriers deleted subcap fleets).

Also considering the Harpoon Module for dreads. The idea is that a dread and a carrier would stalemate in 1v1. The Dread can kill the fighters, and carrier can burn away while disabling the dread at long range.

[Malak_Starfire]

Addressing just Battleships here (other groups should be in a separate thread imo), any EWAR platform should be on the Blackops hulls, like the scorpion. So Armageddon, Typhoon, and Dominix. Also, T1 hulls should only have one EWAR bonus, not 2, as that would go to the T2 hull. Armageddon already has these bonuses (nos/nuet), Typhoon would be a TP platform (not web), and Dominix as a Sensor Damp platform (not scram/disruptor).

[Saladinae]

I agree with this perspective. That’s precisely why discussions like these are crucial. Earlier today, I also considered relocating the Tracking Disruptor bonus to the Armageddon, aligning it with ships like the Sentinel and Pilgrim/Curse, especially given its role as a drone-centric platform akin to the Arbitrator.

Regarding the EWAR distribution, it raises questions about which Minmatar battleship should receive the web bonuses and which Gallente hull should be equipped with scramblers.

Expanding on carrier adjustments, I propose implementing a restriction of one capital EWAR module per carrier for Tracking Disruptors, Sensor Damps, ECM, or Webs. This limitation is necessary to prevent carriers from becoming excessively powerful. However, I suggest excluding neuts, target paints, or points from this limitation to maintain balance.

EDIT:
However, I do not agree that they should be in separate threads (see next post)

[Saladinae]

It’s also challenging to create separate threads for these issues because, at a fleet-wide level, the problems with tier one destroyers, carriers, and the absence of EWAR battleships all contribute to a significant challenge.

For example, relying on tier one destroyers for an Anti-bomb role to safeguard fleets is impractical as they lack the durability to withstand even minor attacks. Instead, we’re forced to deploy tier 3 destroyers (like Confessors in armor fleets) because they offer the survivability necessary to effectively counter bombs.

Ideally, we would be able to assign new players to tier one destroyers to fulfill these roles, but the current state of affairs makes this unfeasible. For almost two decades, the advice to new players has remained consistent: “Skip Destroyers (for now) and jump straight to cruisers.” This advice stems from the fact that, beyond suicidal tier one frigate tackle roles, new players struggle to contribute meaningfully in destroyer hulls, necessitating a quick progression to cruisers.

This approach has a profound impact on new players’ learning experiences, particularly when transitioning back to frigates or destroyer hulls. Suddenly, they’re faced with understanding concepts like signature radius, tracking, and maneuvering their ships for “speed tanking,” feeling as though they’re starting a new game altogether. These are fundamental lessons that could have been learned earlier and more affordably in tier one hulls had they been updated to keep pace with the game’s power creep.

We devised several doctrines, such as “mass target disruptors” using Arbitrators and/or mass damps with Celestis. However, we realized that these would easily be countered by a few HAW dreadnoughts and a couple FAX being dropped, just enough to eliminate the Arbitrators and/or Celestis. In such scenarios, having a few carriers equipped with Target Disruptors (TDs) for the dreads and Damps for the FAX could change the dynamics. This would allow the carriers to engage the dreads and FAX ships, potentially resulting in their destruction or escalation of the conflict. Thus the very existence of a small Counter EWAR carrier drop alone is sufficient to thwart the idea of a small HAW+FAX drop. Also, this would give Carriers a good role if another large capital brawl ever occurred (which is why carriers most be limited to one EWAR mod if the change went forward).

Another challenge arose concerning Arbitrators and Celestis. While they excel against battleship fleets due to their smaller signatures, they are susceptible to being alphaed by HAC and BC fleets. Introducing a Battleship EWAR platform could address this issue. This means deploying cruiser EWAR against battleships and Battleship EWAR against BCs and HACs.

In conclusion, none of these doctrines progressed due to the inefficacy of tier one destroyers and carriers in nullsec fleet engagements, coupled with the absence of battleship EWAR platforms for Arbitrators and Celestis pilots to transition between. Additionally, the separation of Tracking Disruptors and Guidance Disruptors into distinct modules poses challenges. While it’s clear which to fit for defensive purposes, incorporating Weapon Disruption ships into offensive doctrines becomes problematic. There’s a 50% chance that the enemy fleet will have the opposite weapon system (turret or missile), essentially hard countering your fleet by chance alone.

Therefore, it’s essential to discuss all three hull sizes in a single thread, as the absence of the proposed buffs compounds the failures of all three hulls in a negative synergistic manner.

Another potential buff for tier one destroyers (which would apply solely to tier 2 command destroyers and not to Interdictors or Tier 3 Destroyers) would be the introduction of a harpoon high-slot module. This module is designed to target carrier and supercarrier fighters and bombers, featuring a 50km range. Upon activation, it would scram and web them, effectively pulling them towards the destroyer similar to a tractor beam. Such an addition would enable short-range destroyers (such as the Catalyst) to play a role in nullsec fleet engagements, particularly when these EWAR-enhanced carriers are brought into the mix (otherwise we risk returning to an older age where carriers deleted subcap fleets).

And I certainly stand by the proposal to equip all carriers with a fourth tube explicitly designated for support fighters.

Moreover, I advocate for the consolidation of Tracking Disruptors and Guidance Disruptors into a single module. Currently, their division into two distinct classes restricts their offensive utilization, relegating them solely to defensive engagements where the appropriate choice is evident. Because any doctrine that can’t be used both offensively and defensively will be abandoned in favor of existing doctrines that can already do both.