T3 Battleships

modules
redesign

(Hakiri Saisima) #1

So after reading through the forums for potential bridge classes between battleships and Caps, and reading through a few posts about Escort carriers and T3 battleships. ive read through most of them, even read through some on the old forums. and my idea was this

Similar to current T3C’s T3 battleships would be modular in design, so exactly like t3c’s you could change subs, unfit rigs (without destroying them) and as the name suggests you can change the fits of them for the “Strategic” role requirement. and while reading through some of the escort carrier posts i came up with a few thoughts of how t3 BS’s could be done

3 Subsystems (Core, Offense/Defense, and Propulsion), similar to t3c’s but also having a Specialization slot for each subsystem, but at the same time Merging Marauders into this (removing marauders as a class and changing it to a subsystem/ type of t3bs fit. So that there is a subsystem for “Marauders” a subsystem for “Escort Carriers” and a subsystem for “Mini-Fax”.so you arent removing marauders, so you shouldnt get too mad (hopefully).

Uses the same subsystem skills that are currently there, bonuses scale with the level of these skills same downsides to t3c’s eg SP loss. Maybe even a new set of the exact same subsystem skills but for the battleship variants of T3’s take longer to train to 5’s. (probably the better option)

Requires the Racial Battleship to 5 along with Racial “Strategic” (name subject to review) Battleship to 1, (bonuses also scale with this level)

** I will Only Be covering the Offense/Defence Subsystem Class, the rest will follow. **

each Subsystem could have 2 Specialisations for the Sub

Racial Specific Ewar Subsystems (not too hard to figure out really bonuses for the race specific ewar types. jams, paints, webs, tracking disrupts ect.)

Maybe Pirate variations of specialization so a Amarr t3bs with a Neuting subsystem and a blood raiders offense/defense spec, has Blood Raider nos bonus and a web range bonus. so basically you get a pirate t3 bhaal, so yes its better than a bhaal but, guess what, its better, so it must be more expensive… dun dun duuuuh

faction specializations would provide the “faction” specific bonus, eg Nossing like a bhaal or webbing like a vindy. and slightly larger bonuses over the standard specializations.

might become a little complex with pirate and standard specs but eh it means more freedom to customize “your” ship

Use the names for current marauders as the names of the new t3bs’s

NEW MODELS FOR THESE SHIPS NO COPY PASTA CCPLZ TY

Examples:

Marauder Subsystem:

Subsystem gives 8 Highslots 2 Lows and 2 mids.

Alternative Marauder style Specilization:
7 guns, small bonuses, but no utility highs. and can fit bastion

“old” Marauder style specilization.
4 guns, Larger bonuses but 3 utility highs and can fit bastion

Escort Carrier Subsystem EC for short

Subssystem gives 5 High Slots 1 mid and 2 Lows

Reduced Fighter support Unit Fitting costs (more suitable option) or maybe just huge fitting on the hull

Carrier Specialization:

3 fighter squads (not wings like a carrier), 3 light or 2 light & 1 support. but tweaked sizes.

No. of fighters per squad

Light: 5
Space Superiority: 7
Support: 1 maybe 2

Copy pasta Fighter interface and controls from carriers and fighter bay, but drastically reduced, only enough to fit 1 or 2 whole squads worth/ enough to be able to swap a light fighter squad or 2 out for SS fighters.

bonuses to fighter HP Damage ect based on race/hull similar to carrier racial bonuses

Drone boat Specialization:

Heavily increased bandwidth. so maybe 10 heavy drones???
bonuses to drones hp damage speed tracking.

Mini Fax

The idea was to have a logistics “battleship” that is inbetween a fax level worth of rep power , and a cruiser logi.

Oversize rep / Triage Specialization:

5 Highs Mids and lows/mids based on race, eg Amarr 4, 1 . Gallente 3, 2 mids. Caldari 1 ,4 . minnie 3, 2.

Can fit Triage module.
bonus to reduce fitting costs.

Ship debuff that reduces the “power” of the triage module so it isnt broken beyond all belief

Can fit Capital remote Reps (not local reps)

Tanks like a Marauder, but is a logi ship.

enough bandwidth for 5 heavys But same downside to Capital Triage. DPS drones are ■■■■■■■ useless. so logi drones duh

More reps is better specialization:

6/7 Highs

fits large rr mods, Amarr and Caldari focus more on Cap chaining, Gallente and minnie more on cap cost reduction
Basically a better. more expensive. more specialized. Nestor.

EG an amarr/caldari MRIB Logi T3bs would have a high layout like this:

5 reps, 2 cap trans

Has enough drone bandwidth for 5 light drones. (even logi needs to whore am i right)

**** Now that the wall of text is over, Constructive criticism, feedback and ideas would be greatly appreciated. dont be a negative nancy. if you have nothing to contribute that isnt a shitpost or shooting down of the post why did you read in the first place. ****


Something for those who like fighters
(Lugh Crow-Slave) #2

Before i even try to explain why none of this is a good idea you forgot one very critical part of your idea

WHY

why does eve need this? what missing niches do they fill.


(MinerArt) #3

I think a better question would be would a T3 frigate be a better choice before this?


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #4

no still need to answer the why do we need this. why do we need a t3 frig for that matter


(Scipio Artelius) #5

CCP’s graphic artists just died a little inside.

I don’t you have a chance at all of this every being adopted.


(MinerArt) #6

What? When did CCP artists get a piece of themselves allowed to be alive again? I blame @CCP_Paradox for this lapse in murdering the artists minds and souls for our entertainment. Has to be him. Artists being alive inside would be a paradox. Completely falls in line with Thiessen’s Law of Art.


And now to be serious.

Well currently a T3 cruiser has adaptability to what you want to make it at slightly stronger than T2 cruiser levels. If we create a T3 frigate version (there already is a destroyer version) we could adapt those cruiser based skills to a smaller ship which would use frigate adaptability. Knowing that if you lose your T3 cruiser (can’t remember if this applies to destroyer) you burn skill points in using it perhaps this would be a logical step down where the skill points don’t get burned as badly? Or a ship that can change to what you need to make it into at a moments notice similar to the way T3 destoyers do.

Picture if you will an Ares/Taranis or Ishkur/Enyo hot swap like a T3 destroyer already can but only between those two settings as opposed to 3 for destroyer and more for cruiser.

In Ares mode you’re a better scrambler, but in Taranis mode you get that missile launcher activated for more damage at the cost of your scrambling dropping a bit. Otherwise no fitting changes.

I bring this to the table purely as theory craft. If I can logically put a pattern into play for frigates I could possibly figure out why a battleship (as opposed to battlecruiser which is only a step up) would have a purpose. Perhaps it’ll get the OP to bring his theory out on why the battleship came to him in an idea.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #7

that is just examples of what you think they could do NOT examples of needs they fill.

for example the role of a ishkur/enyo is already filled by guess what the ishkur and the enyo


(R4d1o4ct1v3) #8

I’d much rather see any new T3 ships adopt the T3 dessy mechanic than the T3 cruiser mechanic. - The variety of the T3C sub-systems makes those ships a nightmare to balance (even now, they aren’t even close to being balanced, even against each other) and inevitably 99.9% of those ships out in the wild will be configured in one or two identical ways to fill specific roles the best.


(Erethond) #9

The Strategic (plan before you deploy) vs tactical (adapt during deployment) character of T3 ships is pretty cool, but it would be hard to expand on unfortunately.

The only way I can see it applied to frigates is by doing essentially the same thing as destroyers, with less of a cooldown or no cooldown at all since 10s is already quite short.

On the other end of the scale, keeping BC and BS adaptable but less so that the cruisers makes little sense, unless they get a whole slew of conflicting bonuses or fewer and fewer subsystems (only 3 for BCs, only 2 for BS?) both more hulls to put them on.


(Slayer Liberator) #10

Why not have a mixture of both?


(Arthur Aihaken) #11

Battlecruisrs and Battleships really just need an array of small-medium weapon slots. Give Battlecruisers a pair of small launchers/turrets and Battleships up to four medium launchers/turrets. In the fitting window they could use the real estate where T3 subsystems normally go.


Marauder ideas
(Erethond) #12

Well, the precedent has been set for smaller being adaptable on the fly and bigger being more customizable. There’s nothing between a destroyer and a cruiser where it could be mixed, just more “ends” towards which to expand. Of course, I advocate for something of a continuum that is self-consistent. One could also be all over the place but that’s not as elegant.


(Specia1 K) #13

That’s actually a really good idea.
Won’t help much if you get blobbed by frigates, but that is how it should be.
+1


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #14

you both do understand you can fit small guns to a BB right? it’s not even all that uncommon with some of them.


(Arthur Aihaken) #15

Yes, but fitting small guns leaves you vulnerable and defenseless against larger ships. Plus hull bonuses rarely extend to small and medium-sized guns. The idea was to have a few smaller weapons to deal with nuisance ships. It certainly won’t stave off an attack from a group of smaller ships determined to take you out.


(Specia1 K) #16

It would make sense to have a “Fire Control” unit that you fit to enable this, just like real-world modern battleships. That unit would be specific to BB, and could open up the possibility of what Arthur is proposing.

It would not be OP, but would be a nice feature for battleship class.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #17

my god you mean… no it cant be?!? give and take!!! what kind of balance is this

and of yeah the bonuses are not going to be applied to the smaller guns they have more hard points than the ships that do get bonuses to them


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #18

they are in the game and called smart bombs


(Specia1 K) #19

No they are not the same thing.

Arthur’s got a good idea, I’ll leave it at that.


(Lugh Crow-Slave) #20

but… they are. The do negligible damage to larger ships but wreck small ships and are able to hit any in the surrounding area. they also work to take out incoming missiles. how exactly is it deferent?

or are you just upset that in eve bigger =/= better