[SHIP DESIGN] T2 battleships With Upsized Weapon Design / Anti Capital Role

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

T2 Battleship proposal for subcap based anti cap platform.

Similar to Capqu’s idea about a hac with an XL turret but BS sized instead.

  • the idea is to have the Dps output of a single Dread (Sieged) gun, without the siege module and on a semi mobile platform. so like 2000-3500dps but youll say, the trigs already do that, i know that, but thats after umpteen million cycles of ramp up, im talking about 2-3.5k dps consistently, but with the caveat of dread type tracking. and when using, say, XL arty, or Beams, youre really not gonna be able to track stuff, especially not when brawling theyd be for more kitey type setups on these ships, which i was thinking this could be a multi role type ship that can brawl, and kite, when fit for it.

Have you made it this far without closing the tab and/or down-voting?

Preferably New Design and Model to suit. (would look wonky to see a hyperion with a single Ion siege blaster or 1000mm Railgun on it aye… wouldnt it ccp.

the hulls would feature things such as:

  • No drones (drones r 4 bots kek)

  • Heavily Reduced activation cost for cap requiring weapons to make then viable

  • Heavily reduced Fitting requirements for XL weapons and Capital Neuts, so the hulls will be able to fit, 1 XL weapon and 1 Capital neut (capital neuts are balanced with a sig radius so you cant use it to Nuke an enemy ships cap. the sig radius determines how much the neut drains.)

  • 45% Capital neut/nos cycle time reduction role bonus and a 80% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer Activation Cost , so your neut cycles a bit faster and costs less to activate, this makes the neut more “useful” as some capital pilots have said to me that capital neuts are useless because they take too long to cycle for what they actually do, i think they are fine where they are at but on a battleship sized hull i think they should cycle a little faster, and require less cap to cycle. but same neut power.
    Proposed buffer similar to Faction battleships (roughly 200k with deadspace tank. and without slaves/amulets.)

  • No siege required, so you can move around, hence improved tracking so you can track caps and maybe, if your fit, piloting and support wing are good enough, even larger subcaps while moving. (goes hand in hand with following point)

  • 50% Bonus to XL Turret Tracking/ Missile Application. (allows these ships to still apply to ships while on the move.

  • Sig radius similar to other Battleships.

  • 150km base lock range, to support the Long range weapon variants each race has.

  • 300-400mm scan base scan res

  • between 30 and 50 sensor strength.

  • 2 au warp speed

  • 150m’s base speed (obviously augmented by mods fitted, prop ect.)

  • either an Ammo bay, like the Hoarder to store the XL ammo, or an increased standard cargo bay, to support increased ammo sizes.

  • 6 targets locked at a time

  • Racial T2 Resist Profiles

  • PG and CPU similar to other Racial and Faction BS hulls

ship designation undecided, could use ideas, currently the names i thought of were, man o war, ship of the line, ironclads. Assault Battleships, Attack Battleships.

Skill requirements:
XL racial weapon skills. (For XL Weapons)
Tactical weapon reconfiguration 3
Racial BS 5 (hull requirement)
New skill (hull requirement)
and all the Prerequisites for the skills

Keep in mind, my math is not the greatest, so if there are any inconsistencies in percentages not adding up or adding up “too well” making something nigh impossible/too op whatever. suggest and edit and ill fix it.

IF YOUVE GOTTEN THIS FAR, Below are the slot layouts, and hull/role bonuses i have though of.

All 4 racial Hulls to have 1 turret/Missile slot, and 1 Utility High, with racial based slot layouts. similar to dread slot layouts.

USING PLACEHOLDER NAME FOR NOW

Caldari:

Slot layout (2H 8M 4L 2R)

1 Launcher slot
1 Utility high

Hull Bonuses:

Caldari Battleship:
4% Shield Resistance per level (total 20% bonus at BS 5 which is a prerequisite for the t2 skill)
10% Launcher Reload speed Reduction (same bonus as phoenix)

Caldari Man ‘O’ War:
10% Bonus to XL Missile Velocity (total 50% at Man ‘O’ War 5, gives extra range)
40% Bonus to XL Missile Damage (at lv5 gives same bonus t2 siege mod gives (200%))
18% Bonus to XL launcher ROF (at lv5 gives 100% bonus)

Role bonuses:
50% Bonus to XL Turret Tracking/ Missile Application.
99% Reduction to XL launcher PG and CPU requirements
99% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu PG and CPU requirements
45% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu cycle time.
80% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer Activation Cost

Minmatar:

Slot layout (2H 6M 6L 2R)
1 Launcher slot
1 Utility high

Hull Bonuses:

Minmatar Battleship:
4% XL Projectile Turret ROF per level (total 20% bonus at BS 5)
15% XL projectile Turret Optimal Range & Falloff

Minmatar Man ‘O’ War:
150% Bonus to XL Projectile Turret Damage (at lv5 gives 750% bonus)
18% Bonus to XL Projectile Turret ROF ( at lv5 gives 90% bonus, 10% more than t2 siege mod gives)

Role bonuses:

50% Bonus to XL Turret Tracking/ Missile Application.
99% Reduction to XL launcher PG and CPU requirements
99% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu PG and CPU requirements
45% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu cycle time.
80% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer Activation Cost

Gallente:

Slot layout (2H 5M 7L 2R)
1 Launcher slot
1 Utility high

Hull Bonuses:

Gallente Battleship:
4% XL Hybrid Turret ROF per level (total 20% bonus at BS 5)
15% XL Hybrid Turret Optimal Range & Falloff

Gallente Man ‘O’ War:
150% Bonus to XL Hybrid Turret Damage (at lv5 gives 750% bonus)
18% Bonus to XL Hybrid Turret ROF ( at lv5 gives 90% bonus, 10% more than t2 siege mod gives)
10% bonus to Hybrid turret Activation Cost (50% reduced Activation cost)

Role bonuses:

50% Bonus to XL Turret Tracking/ Missile Application.
99% Reduction to XL launcher PG and CPU requirements
99% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu PG and CPU requirements
45% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu cycle time.
80% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer Activation Cost

Amarr:

Slot layout (2H 4M 8L 2R)
1 Launcher slot
1 Utility high

Hull Bonuses:

Amarr Battleship:
4% Armor Resistance per level (total 20% bonus at BS 5 which is a prerequisite for the t2 skill)

Amarr Man ‘O’ War:
150 % Bonus to XL Energy turret (at lv5 gives 750% bonus)
20% Bonus to XL Energy turret ( at lv5 gives 100% bonus, 20% more than t2 siege mod gives)
15% bonus to Energy turret Activation Cost (75% reduced activation cost)

Role bonuses:

50% Bonus to XL Turret Tracking/ Missile Application.
99% Reduction to XL launcher PG and CPU requirements
99% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu PG and CPU requirements
45% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer and Nosferatu cycle time.
80% Reduction to Capital Neutralizer Activation Cost

Apologies for poor formating, grammar ect, im pretty lazy when it comes to grammar lel. just imagine the errors arent there. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Constructive Comments would be appreciated, such as suggested improvements to the idea, name suggestions, any balance changes that might make the idea better.

obviously i cant stop you from shitposting either so, do your best, or, worst. Either works.\

Cheers,
HS

EDIT: I forgot the Obligatory CCPLZ

2 Likes
2

While i was pondering some other things related to this topic i also thought about going sort of in the Talos/nado/naga/oracle route, and running 6 XL turrets, with very small damage bonuses, to get the same effect. if you know what i mean.

r0YVfMh.jpg1338×846 441 KB

Ignoring the obvious Red parts where it would not normally fit to an armageddon navy (which is what i based it off for Slot layout Purposes. using a similar approach to the attack battlecruisers, and having 6 turret slots for XL weapons that dont track subs that great, except under heavy EWAR such as webs paints ect. or using pro piloting and minimising transversal, like one would in say, a beam nightmare or a kiting tornado. it could be a viable option, (obviously there would need to be bonuses to allow for the fitting to work. and a ship hull that suits the size of the weapons, Neut and weapon activation cost bonuses would also need to exist too. along with the above mentioned cycle time bonuses to make them “useful”. maybe even a slight tracking bonus enough so they can track subs under heavy ewar, but not subs that arent, maybe 50-75% of battleship tracking? so there would definitely be some piloting involved in being effective with this kind of ship. but also it would bring back some of the EWAR bonused ships that would need to be brought along to help these apply not only to Caps but to other subs if thats what an FC decides to do.

3

I would say no as this would make structure bashing especially in wormholes easier

1 Like
4

alot of people already complain about structure bashing to begin with. even in wormholes. while i agree with you. maybe its a good thing maybe not, maybe its something that can be balanced further.

5

If the ship in question had over 300M mass then it would ok since it could not enter anything smaller then a C5.

2 Likes
6

thats a very possible balance point
if its balanced to avoid it being used in low class evictions by the attackers, that could be an interesting balance point, as youre probably already using dreads in a c5 or c6 eviction, so maybe like 400 mass, so it can only be used in high class, similar to dreads.
if something like this was ever implemented. and sites in jspace are the same as they are now, i wonder if this type of ship would ever see use in PVE, would be interesting.
it might make a pretty decent site blitzing ship, when comboed with logi (maybe nestors that assign drones for killing frigs), and webbers to web down stuff for the XL gun to track and blap, and it would be fairly decent for drifter killing, if youre not keen on using a dread in your static. or even in your home
could make a decent rolling vessel if its balanced to be like that

edit. just thought about build costs, probably not that efficient to use it to roll, unless its like, unfit.

on that topic, build costs, maybe because it uses XL guns, it could require both T2 Components and Capital components, specifically Capital Siege arrays or whatever the part is that in the lore sense, provides the hardpoints for XL weapons on dreads.

1 Like
7

There are two instances in EvE where ships are designed around the concept of using larger-than-class high slot weapons: stealth bombers and attack battlecruisers. Both are paper-thin, both put out damage roughly on par with the ship class their weapons are intended for, and neither have bonuses to capital utility modules. This balance paradigm seems to have worked quite well for these classes in general.

In order to make this even remotely balanced, you’d have to drop the bonuses for capital nos/neut, radically reduce the overall damage output (those RoF bonuses in particular are absolutely bonkers), and you’d have to ensure that it had EHP/tank roughly equivalent to a T1 BS, or probably less.

So, in the end, you’d have a 1-2 billion-ISK platform (just based on T2 production of battleship hulls in general) with a tank less than that of a BlOps that does dreadnought-level damage but can’t apply damage particularly well to anything that’s not a capital ship or a structure.

Which leaves me with one question: why would anyone buy one?

I rather like the idea of finding a way to incorporate capital weapons on a subcapital platform (EDIT: or maybe releasing a more mobile, less seige-centric class of dreads), but doing a straight-up T2 BS hull like you propose doesn’t make any kind of sense.

-1

2 Likes
8

From the looks of things OP was looking at the bonuses the siege module gives dreads and basing the bonuses off that. Reasonable, given the aim, even if they are pretty bonkers numbers. Looking at pyfa myself, an XL torp launcher has a pretty shitty cycle time, hence the ROF bonus for the caldari hull. But it may not need to be as strong on the other hulls, or even there at all on say the minmatar hull. But it does look like he is going along the lines of the dreads, with the minmatar and gallente hulls doing more DPS but having less tank, and vice versa for the caldari and amarr huls, with that resist bonus, which is practically the same as dreads, but is also pretty standard ship design across the 4 races. And the way I read it and understand both what you said and op said is, it would be a decently priced hull yes, but if its fragile as hell why would people fly it over a leshak for instance, or a dread. I think his idea was for it to have a decent chunk of tank so that it wouldn’t be a 2b isk pinyata km that dies in 1 volley from a couple Arty Loki’s. The way I see it, something like this would need to be fairly tanky to be worth using in any scenario. Personally I don’t see a problem with throwing in capital ewar bonuses, it’s something new. It’s fairly interesting from my point of view.

9

** NO **
No need for another glasscannon. Dreads gets the job done

1 Like
10

Doesn’t look like a glass cannon to me…

11

No. Reasonable would have been maybe a 50% reduction in cycle time to have one capital weapon effectively function as two, or maybe a 66% reduction in cycle time to have it effectively function as three. But a net 90% reduction in cycle time yields an equivalent to ten effective turrets. And that’s before the 750% damage bonus. So, basically these things would put out Titan-level DPS, but track better.

That’s not reasonable, that’s someone who doesn’t understand how cycle time reduction bonuses work.

Also, it appears that the OP was mixing and matching turret and launcher bonuses from siege modules. Turrets don’t get cycle time bonuses from siege modules, only launchers do. Launchers do get a massive 80% reduction in cycle time, but they also only get a 200% bonus to damage, not the 840% bonus that turrets get (for a T2 module).

12

Yes you are right and I did say that the numbers were bonkers. I hadn’t done the maths yet other than napkin math in my head. And he did say his math wasn’t the best and apologized for any errors. Also op stated that this would need balancing. So it would seem that the ROF bonuses need to go. And maybe change the flat damage bonuses. Remove the huge 750% bonus, or at least reduce it by 60% or more

13

Op has probably misunderstood how the siege module applyies it’s bonuses, and probably also misread the bonuses think the ROF bonus was applied to all turrets

14

Doing some napkin maths and looking at the pyfa image that op posted for his other idea, unbonused XL weapons actually do very little damage, (about 200-250 DPS per turret on that theoretical geddon navy based fit. So as discussed before with the removal of the 750% damage bonus, it’s still a fairly reasonable number that would give you roughly 1400-1900 DPS from one turret. But, the ROF bonus needs to change, the extra ROF drives the DPS upwards of 2500 DPS. Before heat mind you. Which is an extra 15% which makes it around the 3k mark. Which. When you look at say, a naglfar with 4 faction damage mods in the lows, (13k DPS roughly with pyro and hail iirc.) That’s still less than the planned mentioned 33% of dread dps. Thoughts on napkin maths?

15

My thought on your maths is that you missed my earlier post about why the entire idea of a T2 battleship as a glass cannon XL weapon platform is a non-starter. Specifically:

16

It’s not really a glass cannon though… A tornado is a glass cannon, a polarized Oracle is a glass cannon.
A battleship based hull with 200-250k who before slaves is hardly a glass cannon

17

You missed the part where I pointed out that to be even remotely balanced, these ships would have to have the EHP of a T1 battleship or less, even after T2 resists, just like bombers and attack battlecruisers.

A ship like the one being proposed that isn’t a glass cannon would be grossly overpowered, not to mention function in a manner surprisingly similar to existing ships.

18

Sorry, but this wouldn’t work.
Did you see how big capital weapons are? How big the dreads are compared to the battleships? There is no way a battleship sized hull would ever put on more than 2 capital turrets or launchers. And even that would look ridiculous, I tried to draw them before.
To have 6 turret slots, this battleship would need to be about double the size of the current dreads.

About the structure bashing, the WH structures wouldn’t be the issue, HS structures would be. Whatever DPS these XL-sized battleships could provide, a group of the L-sized battle cruisers could also do for much cheaper.

As much as I like the idea personally, I have come to the conclusion before that these ships don’t really have a reason to exist.

1 Like
19

I’ve said on and off for years that a second class of T1 dreadnaught, balanced more around mobile combat than the use of a siege module, would be a much more viable option than any kind of battleship-class glass cannon. As much as I hate to base game balance on graphical concerns, this is one reason why.

20

No role, solves no problem, just ship creep which is super bad for EVE.

-1

1 Like