What class of ships are good at...

avl90

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
251
Reaction score
2
Location
The Clouds
I've been thinking about what role the different ship classes could play based on their strengths and weaknesses. While they don't really differ from class to class as much as in actual historical naval warfare, there are some things that one class will do better than another class in Eve.

So I thought I'd ask... what do you guys think of the different ship classes and their T2 variants? Are there obvious combined arms relationships beyond the basic stuff?
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Actually, I would say that many of EVE's ships are even more specialized than ships in the real world. For instance, a real world battleship is geared to fight other large ships and provide long range fire support, however, it is hardly defenseless against a smaller ship or against aircraft. These ships bristled with armaments of all types, including a huge quantity of AAA guns. In contrast, EVE's battleships are almost worthless in any role except PvE and fleet support.
 

avl90

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
251
Reaction score
2
Location
The Clouds
Yeah that's true to some degree. I was thinking alogn the same lines but had a different take on it. I was thinking how in real life a frigate can't just make a battleship helpless as long as a couple more frigates join in, or how energy neuts make many ships helpless. I'm not sure what's the correct way to look at it.

Thanks for the link there Kilgore.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
IMHO, the EVE designers have gone much too far toward super specializing every ship in the game, making the vast majority of them worthless for anything except one specific task. The intent is to ensure no one ship becomes a "solo pwnmobile," however, the end result is that EVE has morphed into a giant game of rock-paper-scissors.

This misguided design philosophy has just about killed off solo piracy, solo roaming, and small gang warfare. People who like this specialization need to understand this is the leading cause of EVE becoming blobs online.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
191
Reaction score
4
Location
DELVE
Country
llUnited States
Well, there was a lot of spider tanking in the last tournament which usually use the same type ships.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
As a general rule I hate spider tanking because it simply isn't much fun. It's Zerg rush tactics ported over from an RTS to EVE. And active tanking has become a joke for fleets because everything is about the blob.

It would be better if active tanking was somehow changed to make it a viable fleet option, which would allow fleets to move around more and actually use, you know, tactics. Everything else is just blob and shoot.

I will say that spider tanking seems more appropriate to capital fleets, though.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Some sort of limitation of say 4/8/16/32 locked enemy ships might do it, depending on class size. (Frigate/Cruiser/Battleship/Capital) Or possibly based on signature radius.

"Interference from other ships targeting that target are confusing your sensors, try to lock again later." Kinda like jamming in reverse.

That would put a damper on 100:1 shooter to target and DPS:rep-PS ratios...

I would also add tracking to most "directed energy" type systems to include remote reps and scrams/webs/painters. You have to keep that beam of energy on target to keep the effect up. Different maneuvers might break that tracking. It might also make speed tanks way too powerful.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Location
Maryland
The problem is that almost all weapons use a high slot. Battleships have no secondaries. Now, you could rig a Rohk, for example with 6 railguns and 2 anti-frigate blasters for example, this appears to rarely be done.

One reason is you lose 25% of your long range guns, the other may be that the small blasters just aren't worth a high slot on a BS.

It's kind of like the early dreadnoughts with inadequate secondaries, but lots of big guns, versus the late pre-dreadnoughts with a few big guns and abundant secondaries.

Perhaps if new modules were developed for battleships, like a "quad-mount rapid fire blaster" with the same requirements as a big gun turret, but the combat characteristics of four small blaster turrets.

Also, there could be adjustments to warp disruption and webbing.

For example, a battleship might have 3 warp points as a base making it harder to shutdown it's drive. And webbing might be factored against the mass of the ship, so sure, my small webber might stop a frigate dead or slow a cruiser significantly, but the battleship might just drag the webber along with it. Capital ships might not even notice a frigate web.

Some modules scale with ships while other don't seem too. Perhaps a battleship could mount a resource hungry warp core stabilizer that adds several points. Or a warp core disrupter with a much larger effect, i.e. points, range and perhaps area of effect.

Of course, it is always important to carefully adjust things so as not to tip balance too far the other way.

Torpedo boats in the Russo-Japanese war could not risk the numerous secondaries of battleships in daylight. Their successes were at night against unsuspecting or beaten and scattered foes.
 
Top