T3 Attack Battlecruisers - The anti-capital subcap

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Currently their exists a niche for an anti-capital subcap. As it stands now, the best way to kill capitals is to bring more capitals. This creates an N+1 meta and also hinders small gang and some wormhole scenarios. Simply put, capitals apply too well to everything and are the best answer for nearly every situation, this has skewed balance quite a bit to favor capitals.

On to the proposal on T3 ABCs. They will follow the same design principle as T1 ABCs, they are glass cannons with large guns. Expected EHP would be 60-70k at the most and cost ~350 to 500m for the hull alone.

It will function like a T3D (have mode switching capabilities). It will have prop mode, tank mode and (lack of a better term) siege mode (anti-cap mode, whatever you want to call it).

Typical DPS in the non “anti-cap” mode would be roughly 800dps (could be higher/lower depending on fit) and would track like a typical ABC/Battleship sized weapon.

Anti-cap mode:

In the “anti-cap” mode, it would multiply the DPS x4, giving it 3200dps at the cost of a 95% tracking penalty (effectively giving it XL tracking).

As you can see, the DPS is nowhere near the level of an XL dread, but more of like a HAW dread.

Thats because these are not dread replacements. They are a subcap alternative to start forcing people to support their caps with subcaps. Dreads will still be the #1 dps ship to kill capitals.

Propulsion Mode:

This mode increases speed and reduces sig radius (either base or reduces MWD sig bloom all together) but does not modify DPS (so you’re still doing 800 dps with normal large weapon tracking/application). This mode is to help mitigate fighter dps when engaging carriers.

Tank Mode:

Provides a shield boost bonus or armor rep bonus, so if it does actually get tackled, or start getting applied to, it can potentially tank long enough until the gang can save it (unlikely, but meh)

Alternate Mode (instead of tank mode) - Tracking/Sharpshooter:

Gives bonus to tracking (no DPS buff/penalty) and increases sensor strength/EWAR resistance

So a gang of T3 ABCs, engaging a carrier/capital would be playing a game of hot-potato of some going into anti-cap mode, others going into prop mode and others going into tracking/sharpshooting to bring down a capital efficiently.

THEIR TRUE STRENGTH IS AGAINST UNSUPPORTED CAPITALS

If the capital brings subcap support, such as a BC wing/HACs (basically anything that can project with medium weapons or even small weapons) will counter them hilariously easily.

If all people do is dump a bunch of capitals on a fleet of these, then yes, its possible for them to defang/kill the capitals (in time). Which is why you need to support your capitals with subcaps (just like battleships need support, capitals shouldn’t be some special snowflake).

Summary:

DPS: 800 in non cap mode, 3200 in cap mode (95% tracking penalty)

EHP: 60-70k

3 modes: Anti-cap, prop and tank (or sharpshooter)

Not a replacement for dreads, just a tool for other groups to use to limit roaming with fleets just to kill a single capital

Cost: 300-500m for hull alone

Side note: No SP loss like T3C as its mode based

FAQ:

“So why would i use these and not a dread”

No one is stopping you from using suicide dreads. These are not replacements for dreads, they are a tool that small gangs and wormholers would use to kill unsupported capitals without needing 80+ people.

“These will scale and insta-pop capitals in fleets”

If left unsupported, its possible. If you have HACs/BCs supporting your capitals, they will be decimated. Just like t1 ABCs.

Also, if capitals are supported by subcaps, these would be erased even easier, as a super can use a target painter burst and then a bomber wing can nuke the entire fleet.

As mentioned, these are strongest against unsupported capitals, once that goes away, then they lose all their strengths.

“You just want a ship that does everything (like a capital)”

Not really, its just a fancier t1 ABC when not in anti-cap mode, and t1 ABCs arent roaming en masse destroying every subcap fleet.

“Why should something that costs 500m kill something that costs 1.5b?”

The same reason a 50m assault frigate can kill a battleship, cruiser or BC (depending on fits). Because EVE has always been balanced by smaller ships having an advantage against larger ships by means of application.

1 Like
2

Why would this be a Battlecruiser rather than a Battleship?

3 Likes
3

Bringing more ships into the game will just make it more pain staking. IMO they should just rework caps to only fight caps and structures. This would stop the abundance of caps showing up for sub-cap fights.

Honestly though, this would be incredibly interesting. But why? A good fleet of battleships can easily stop a few carriers or Dreads. IF you fine the solo cap pilot a fleet of Cruisers can even take it down.
Like so

Here’s my complaint about Caps. I just posted it today, it may intrigue you.

1 Like
4

Holy ■■■■, I just liked a comment made by Mike. What’s the world coming to?

To the OP, the role you’re looking for is most certainly a battleship role.

An Attack Battleship with XL guns (no HAW variants for obvious reasons) would fit the role perfectly. “Anti-Fighter” should be the role of existing subcap support… no fleet should be intended to work as a homogeneous doctrine.

That said… you don’t even need XL guns. Existing battleships will utterly shred capitals. The only reason it never plays out like this is because battleships lack the mobility to make it on to grid 9 times out of 10 (titan bridges making up the 1/10).

I’d settle for bigger buffers on blops battleships (thread already open :wink: I’m not hijacking, I promise lol). That’d keep them alive through a super’s volley, and around long enough to catch reps. They have the mobility, they have the ambush capability, they’re perfect for killing capitals with a bit more buffer.

2 Likes
5

Sorry for the double-post, something else comes to mind.

Where are you planning on actually using these? They’re clearly offensive ships, but they’re going to be damn near useless against subcaps (at least, they’d better be).

Are you going to bring them as a nuclear deterrent to the locals dropping caps on you? Cause that doesn’t sound like a very fun ship to fly. “If they drop caps I get to be useful… but because I’m there they won’t want to drop caps”.

Are you going to bring them for whale hunting? Cause there’s already a bazillion successful whale hunting doctrines.

In the end, it sounds very much like this is a whale hunting boat, because you never drop caps unsupported (unless you’re yoloing). There’s already a LOT of competition in that niche.

6

Because an anti-capital battleship would require massive EHP to make it work. Meaning its easier to abuse in other situations where its not against a capital.

ABCs already paved the way for glass cannons, as a means to get a lot of dps in a semi-mobile package, these just take the dps to levels that can actually hurt a capital without needing 80+ people (ASB rorqs particularly).

Also, keeping these BC sized means its easier to move them through a wormhole to pounce on isolated capitals.

I disagree on the first part in a way. I agree adding ships that serve no real role is bad for the game (like navy EWAR frigs, theyre fun to some, but not something that was needed). I disagree with the fact that adding ships that counter other ships would make balancing harder. A ship that helps counter a proliferation of ships in the game would infact ease balance. As you are not directly nerfing ship stats which causes a ripple in every role that ship could perform (like pve and pvp carriers getting nerfed if fighter application was nerfed).

Im not opposed to a direct capital nerf either. However, CCP has dug themselves into a deep hole by keeping capitals imbalanced for so long and sucking the injector drip of cash flow. Many capital pilots feel entitled to these toys now in their current form and will flood New Eden in their tears should a direct nerf occur to capitals. I foresee many rage posts about “quitting EVE” and “Fire Fozzie” the moment a nerf to capitals occurs.

Providing a ship to counter them doesnt directly nerf them, but applies pressure to change how theyre used and limit proliferation from taking over.

7

Absolutely, IMO Battleships are squishy as is. Big Fleets, they still get welp’d. No different than a cruiser. More buffer is needed.

2 Likes
8

I don’t know if you have ever flown a Battleship before… but massive EHP isn’t exactly something they have. They get popped by frigates all the time.

They lack the high degree of mobility that smaller ships enjoy, and trade a bit more tank and more DPS for it.

ABC’s were a bad idea, and you want to double down on that?

If a specific anti-capital subcap were to be made, then it needs to be one step down, not 2. You don’t need to make these ships that cheap and that maneuverable.

9

I almost exclusively fly battleships and battlecruisers. Im well aware of their actual limitations and perceived limitations. A battleship focused on being anti-capital t2 or t3 would necessitate it having a huge signature, which means capitals could easily apply and negate a counter. It having huge EHP would be the only counter to that scenario. It also would scale insanely well in large fleet fights. Just bring 1000 t3/t2 XL battleships and dunk every capital on field (with or without subcap support). On top of that, subcaps would struggle to break them due to the large EHP.

Doctrines used to hunt capitals via small gang/roams/WH isnt done with battleships (except bhaal for its neut capabilities), its done with 100mn t3s, fast cruisers and ewar (to kill/jam fighters). Battleships are also not brought to fight against a capital fleet, it would be suicide (only nightmares have a chance). Isolated pve carriers, sure, especially if its a blops gang and they have a widow to jam fighters. Thats not because of them being in battleships, its because of EWAR.

These T3 ABCs toe the line of being mobile/hard to hit for capitals, but easy and weak to hit/kill with subcaps. It forces capitals to require subcap support, just like battleships need support.

1 Like
10

Then why not just give a role bonus to reduce sig for a battleship?

11

Why is this true of Battleships and not true of Battlecruisers?

You could just as easily not inflate the battleship signature or tank. It’s not as if these were real ships with actual physical limitations…

What do you think will happen with them as you describe them?

Pretty sure you just argued your way out of needing this ship at all.

12

Exactly, battleships. Huge EHP is battleship material. It allows them to catch reps so that the capitals are able to apply but not able to execute. It also very rightly ensures that your anti-cap ships require support to be sustainable.

Is there a reason that this applies only to battleships and not to battlecruisers? You’ve successfully completely removed the need to have dreads at all. Just drop these instead, whether battleship or battlecruiser, they’re still going to be way better choices.

I agree that blops survive because of ewar (typically falcons over Widows, but meh, same diff really). As for “conventional hulls”, they survive because they’re fast. That means they have low EHP. If you roam in these battlecruisers, you’d be subject to the same glass cannon stipulations on ABCs. You can’t have it all.

T3ABCs being mobile is all well and good, but we all know mobility comes at a cost of tank. If subcaps can kill it easily, carriers can kill it easier. Unless you’re expecting it to be countered by stuff with small guns (destroyers/frigates) in which case the sig tank is way too much.

I’ll say it again. You want a massive amount of dps, you want a massive amount of tank, and you want a significant sig/speed tank. You don’t get to have everything on one hull.

You claim to want to hunt unsupported capitals. This only happens when you’re whale hunting and you catch a PVE carrier. You don’t need all of this to do that. All you need is a Griffin and a couple of run-of-the-mill ABCs.

13

-1 a battle cruiser is already a “big gunned” cruiser.

conjured up image with HUGE weapon on tiny ship :rofl:

Battleship would be better with more correct offsets, but I am not 100% convinced of the need for the role.

1 Like
14

image

2 Likes
15

Why make a battleship with a battlecruiser sized sig, when you could just make a battlecruiser?

A battleship with a non-inflated sig isnt a battleship, its a class smaller, which is a battlecruiser.

A panther has the smallest sig for a battleship (288m), which is only 30m larger than a hurricane. Yet a panther struggles to even field a tank that out competes a prophecy.

Now you are claiming that a T3/2 Battleship with a sig of 250m or less should also field high EHP and fit XL weapons is better suited and balanced than a t3 ABC with a paper thin tank and large weapons. Doesnt even take into account the range of XL weapons and larges, putting ABCs at more risk as they need to be closer, which is easier to counter.

Any smart fleet commander would use bombers/target painter bursts to erase them. Or support their capitals with subcaps to counter them. Anyone who thinks they would be mainline ships would be very disappointed.

At 3200 dps, they do less dps than an XL dread by a significant margin. Combined with a weak tank, they will not trade well if you dropped 1k of them on dreads/carriers that had any support.

16

Propulsion mode… you move a whopping 15km and the problem is solved. Remember that in 99% of the circumstances where this kind of ■■■■’s happening, tidi has been turned all the way up to 11. Getting a bombing run on these dudes would be damn near impossible.

dps mode, volley, prop mode and relocate, rinse and repeat. Oh, we can’t get out of the way in time? Tank mode.

How many billion isk are you expecting these to cost each? “Trading well” is only half the equation. Killing 1 super for every 10 of these you lose is hardly something to concern yourself over.

Which is why you need only ask for bigger buffers. Remember your target is unsupported ships. You don’t need this for unsupported ships… you need a griffin. But if you insist on not using a griffin, the bigger buffer will allow you to catch reps and the cap won’t be able to kill you.

17

So your suggesting an anti-concord ship, I like it!

18

I mean… any ship can be anti-concord if you put enough plates on it? :stuck_out_tongue:

Edit: Sauce Machine Gun Jetpack

19

If we had this ship think of all the other threads that could be closed? It would be a forum improvement and a game improvement :rofl:

20

But you already have glasscannon battlecruisers which can fit L weapons.

1 Like