These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battlecruiser and Battleship Buff

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#101 - 2014-02-19 20:10:49 UTC
Battleships are not meant to fly solo. It is a simple fact, if you do fly them solo a mix of active tank, drones, neuts and smartbombs do wonders. Two battleships with eachother could easily provide a cross fire grid making them insanely hard to fight.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2014-02-19 20:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Sean Parisi wrote:
Battleships are not meant to fly solo. It is a simple fact, if you do fly them solo a mix of active tank, drones, neuts and smartbombs do wonders. Two battleships with eachother could easily provide a cross fire grid making them insanely hard to fight.

Incorrect. Battleships were put in the game in 2003 when EVE released. They were designed to be used both solo and in groups and were used very successfully in both styles of play.

Successive nerfage but more importantly successive buffing of small ships and the additional ships since added have cause them to fall behind in terms of ability.

Battleships are ironically still the most popular class for solo play but unfortunately only in PvE these days.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Kane Fenris
NWP
#103 - 2014-02-20 00:03:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kane Fenris
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Kane Fenris wrote:
i agree bs could take a bit more beef on the rips but you sugestion is over the top

and for the point of solo play,,, that cant be fixed over ehp
solo was nerfed by lots of tiny changes
but the bigest nerf solo took was the balanceing of ships solo vessels need to be "OP" in the sense of the ship has to be stronger than average cause you need to match several people at once.
but most viable solo vessels still had to be piloted good .

whyt this game needs is vessels that are stronger than most of the other ships in its class range but not stronger than em when flown in numbers.
here kicks the gameplay in current gameplay doesnt allow this sort of ship to exist....

Personally the main issue I have with solo battleship is scan res. to solo in null with them you have to have a cloak, they get scanned too easily and with interceptors and the warp nerf it's impossible to disengage without one. Sticking a cloak on is not viable though when it takes your scan res down to 70mm. Along with mandatory 9.5 second delay after decloak you just cannot engage anything that doesn't want to be engaged, pretty much anything other than a gank or bait.

With a mega's 4 slots, giving up your cap booster is the only option but that's still not enough scan res at 118 mm..

I think what people fail to realise is yes you can team up with a tackler but then you're dependent on someone else and what ceptor is going to want to roam around with a ship that warps at 2au per second.

And at the end of the day, a battleship solo even with a 200mm scan res is still going to be very difficult to kill stuff in. The way people are behaving you would think they believe slight buffs would somehow turn BS into uber solo killing machines but that role will still be firmly held by T3s, BLOP's gangs and nitty gangs.

BS would still die horribly but you might get a couple of kills before that happens.



i want talking about bs exclusively but more in general what you mention is just a aditional problem of BS

Mournful Conciousness wrote:


This already exists. Any of the hulls that have a self repair bonus fall into this category.



youre partly right but let me bring up a example (i know its the worst case example but still it shows a problem):
lets say you jump gates in a hyperion do you consider it viable solo pvp to jump into a camp and shoot a few guys till you die?
it might be fun once in a while but its not vialble solo to me.
cyclone is a viable solo boat but suffers partly from the same problem. just beeing able to tank long enough to shoot someone while outnumbered doesnt bring the solo fun imho.
you should have to use skilled piloting and modules to outplay them not pure tank.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#104 - 2014-02-20 02:11:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I agree here too. It might be better if battleships were treated as a group of smaller ships glued together from the mechanics point of view. For example, a battleship could consist of 6 cruiser-sized sections, each of which must be destroyed to fully disable and therefore destroy the ship.

Battleships are currently a laughing stock in a small engagement. Slow to arrive, essentially immobile on grid, slow to lock, quick to die. It should take 4 cruisers to kill a battleship, at great peril to themselves. not one.

It's an interesting idea. On the fitting window there are 5 slots normally reserved for T3 subsystems. What about extending these as "wildcard" slots (subject to grid and CPU limitations), ie: +2 slots for T1 battlecruisers, +3 for Faction/T2 battlecruisers, +4 for T1 battleships and +5 for Faction/T3 battleships? Exclude weapons and make them a hybrid low-mid slots.

And they didn't sink the Bismark; the Germans scuttled it.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2014-02-20 02:25:05 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I agree here too. It might be better if battleships were treated as a group of smaller ships glued together from the mechanics point of view. For example, a battleship could consist of 6 cruiser-sized sections, each of which must be destroyed to fully disable and therefore destroy the ship.

Battleships are currently a laughing stock in a small engagement. Slow to arrive, essentially immobile on grid, slow to lock, quick to die. It should take 4 cruisers to kill a battleship, at great peril to themselves. not one.

It's an interesting idea. On the fitting window there are 5 slots normally reserved for T3 subsystems. What about extending these as "wildcard" slots (subject to grid and CPU limitations), ie: +2 slots for T1 battlecruisers, +3 for Faction/T2 battlecruisers, +4 for T1 battleships and +5 for Faction/T3 battleships? Exclude weapons and make them a hybrid low-mid slots.

And they didn't sink the Bismark; the Germans scuttled it.


I'm sorry, are you implying you want to add 5 more slots, not bound high-med-low description, to faction battle ships, 4 of these to regular battleships and so on down to battlecruisers?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#106 - 2014-02-20 02:27:17 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
I'm sorry, are you implying you want to add 5 more slots, not bound high-med-low description, to faction battle ships, 4 of these to regular battleships and so on down to battlecruisers?

I'm throwing it out there for discussion, yes.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Linkxsc162534
Silent Scourge
#107 - 2014-02-20 03:17:50 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
I'm sorry, are you implying you want to add 5 more slots, not bound high-med-low description, to faction battle ships, 4 of these to regular battleships and so on down to battlecruisers?

I'm throwing it out there for discussion, yes.


Yeah, instead of wildcards you could call them crew commanders (ehhh ehh, ofcourse a BS would have a larger crew than a cruiser or BC) and then roll on with all the threads that pop up about making ships crewed and getting bonuses depending on your crews
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#108 - 2014-02-20 03:40:09 UTC
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Yeah, instead of wildcards you could call them crew commanders (ehhh ehh, ofcourse a BS would have a larger crew than a cruiser or BC) and then roll on with all the threads that pop up about making ships crewed and getting bonuses depending on your crews

I haven't really followed the "crew" discussions, other than it seems to be a contentious issue...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2014-02-20 03:51:12 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
I'm sorry, are you implying you want to add 5 more slots, not bound high-med-low description, to faction battle ships, 4 of these to regular battleships and so on down to battlecruisers?

I'm throwing it out there for discussion, yes.


That would honestly be an insane, game breaking buff. Admittedly some good points have been raised in this thread, such as the gulf between cap ships and battleships in terms of tank and w/e else. But adding 5 more slots (that don't have restrictions on module type(!!!)) would be a horrible idea. Look, if battleships really need a buff to survivability then the easiest solution is to add 1 more size up of plate/SE. That would, by proxy, free up a med/low slot on all BS's currently using dual plates or extenders and thus be a buff specifically to battleships fit for tank (assuming PG reqs and w/e else scaled the same way they do for the existing mods) as well as a buff to battleships that presently have a large excess of PG in their fits. But imo adding free slots (especially such a high amount of them) to a large number of ships would completely throw off the existing balance of the game.
Linkxsc162534
Silent Scourge
#110 - 2014-02-20 03:53:47 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Linkxsc162534 wrote:
Yeah, instead of wildcards you could call them crew commanders (ehhh ehh, ofcourse a BS would have a larger crew than a cruiser or BC) and then roll on with all the threads that pop up about making ships crewed and getting bonuses depending on your crews

I haven't really followed the "crew" discussions, other than it seems to be a contentious issue...


I dunno I was just trying to throw something else at the discussion. Because it would buff BSes more than smaller ships but woudl still buff stuff across the board. (Besides some of the crew suggestion threads are actually kinda good)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2014-02-20 08:54:17 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
I'm sorry, are you implying you want to add 5 more slots, not bound high-med-low description, to faction battle ships, 4 of these to regular battleships and so on down to battlecruisers?

I'm throwing it out there for discussion, yes.


That would honestly be an insane, game breaking buff. Admittedly some good points have been raised in this thread, such as the gulf between cap ships and battleships in terms of tank and w/e else. But adding 5 more slots (that don't have restrictions on module type(!!!)) would be a horrible idea. Look, if battleships really need a buff to survivability then the easiest solution is to add 1 more size up of plate/SE. That would, by proxy, free up a med/low slot on all BS's currently using dual plates or extenders and thus be a buff specifically to battleships fit for tank (assuming PG reqs and w/e else scaled the same way they do for the existing mods) as well as a buff to battleships that presently have a large excess of PG in their fits. But imo adding free slots (especially such a high amount of them) to a large number of ships would completely throw off the existing balance of the game.

EHP won't do anything for battleships. If you look at the progression of EHP things are fine. Apart from some wierd anomalies (T3, Stratios) EHP goes up quite uniformly.

More EHP will mean you'll get to sit there longer while you're killed being unable to hit the ships orbiting you for any reasonable damage.

The issues are less obvious -

Warp speed - too slow - increase to pre-nerf levels
Agility - again too slow - increase to that of BC (9 seconds is plenty of time to lock a battleship)
Scan resolution - too slow - increase to 200mm minimum capped for all ships (excluding capitals and sensor damps)
Drone capacity - too small - battleships should be able to fit a minimum of 1 flight of lights, 1 med, 1 heavy
Tracking - terrible - slight increase to large turrets

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#112 - 2014-02-20 10:44:26 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
I'm sorry, are you implying you want to add 5 more slots, not bound high-med-low description, to faction battle ships, 4 of these to regular battleships and so on down to battlecruisers?

I'm throwing it out there for discussion, yes.


That would honestly be an insane, game breaking buff. Admittedly some good points have been raised in this thread, such as the gulf between cap ships and battleships in terms of tank and w/e else. But adding 5 more slots (that don't have restrictions on module type(!!!)) would be a horrible idea. Look, if battleships really need a buff to survivability then the easiest solution is to add 1 more size up of plate/SE. That would, by proxy, free up a med/low slot on all BS's currently using dual plates or extenders and thus be a buff specifically to battleships fit for tank (assuming PG reqs and w/e else scaled the same way they do for the existing mods) as well as a buff to battleships that presently have a large excess of PG in their fits. But imo adding free slots (especially such a high amount of them) to a large number of ships would completely throw off the existing balance of the game.

EHP won't do anything for battleships. If you look at the progression of EHP things are fine. Apart from some wierd anomalies (T3, Stratios) EHP goes up quite uniformly.

1. More EHP will mean you'll get to sit there longer while you're killed being unable to hit the ships orbiting you for any reasonable damage.

2. The issues are less obvious -

Warp speed - too slow - increase to pre-nerf levels
Agility - again too slow - increase to that of BC (9 seconds is plenty of time to lock a battleship)
Scan resolution - too slow - increase to 200mm minimum capped for all ships (excluding capitals and sensor damps)
Drone capacity - too small - battleships should be able to fit a minimum of 1 flight of lights, 1 med, 1 heavy
Tracking - terrible - slight increase to large turrets


1. totaly agree i posted something similar X pages back

2. i cant agree here, you basicly want to create a smaller gap between battleships and capitals and i really think that is bad. capitals need seriously a TON of training to fly it decently and are nerfed several times, the interceptor change is brutal for ratting carriers as they are cought way faster if sentries are used its almost impossible to get away and if you use fighters you loose fighters because you need to be aligned and get out of repping range fast and fighters are too far away to rep. so die at 20 to 30 mil a piece. now the change to omnidirectional links is also bad for sentry carriers and that combined with the 50 assist drone cap that is comming wil make slowcats crap with a capital C

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2014-02-20 10:52:03 UTC
What I think is really wrong?

2 catalysis have more dps than a tempest (a battleship with 2 bonuses focused on damage)




Battleship damage is too low. Of course Increasing damage on battleships woudl need some increase on their own ehp otherwise they would kill each other too fast in large fleet.


All battleships could get 10% more damage and 10% more EHP at minimum.

Also agree that the drone bay on them should be at LEAST 2 times their bandwidth.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kane Fenris
NWP
#114 - 2014-02-20 10:56:16 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
What I think is really wrong?

2 catalysis have more dps than a tempest (a battleship with 2 bonuses focused on damage)




Battleship damage is too low. Of course Increasing damage on battleships woudl need some increase on their own ehp otherwise they would kill each other too fast in large fleet.


All battleships could get 10% more damage and 10% more EHP at minimum.

Also agree that the drone bay on them should be at LEAST 2 times their bandwidth.



sounds goob but then youl need to beef up all sites with less bounties/npc and more npcs to keep mission/anomalie income stable.
and that would hurt all non npc pilots.
unless youll make it like WH sites only escalateing when a BS is present (still problem with the less bountie)
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2014-02-20 10:58:46 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
I'm fairly sure that's because you don't actually know how to fit megathrons, and are trying to compare a T3 ship with a covert ops cloak to a T1 battleship you've not put all the guns on and have all the penalties a cloak brings...

Lol.

[Megathron, Generic Solo]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Armor Explosive Hardener II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Damage Control II

Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script
Shadow Serpentis Stasis Webifier
True Sansha Warp Scrambler
100MN Microwarpdrive II

Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Improved 'Guise' Cloaking Device II

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


Warrior II x5
Hammerhead II x5

This is something I'd use. Perhaps not the best setup but it works for me.


Fail.... HORRIBLE fit. Then you come complain about battleships when you do stuff like that.

Lol. Says the Minnie frig and cruiser pilot :) Please enlighten me with your own personal solo Mega fit... You might want to get some experience before you comment or criticize those who know through experience what works and doesn't work.



You even checked our own killboards? Stop posting builllshit.. any POH member knows more of PVP than you will ever know.

Knowing how something should be fitted is as important when killing that thing as when flying it.

You on other hand kills nothing with ANYTHING. Your efficiency is under 50% ! That means you are barely better than an NPC. Mine is OVER 99%. So You have ZERO argument on this. You prooved you have no clue several times. That is not an opinion, its a FACT.

Also I do not see you killing anythign with that MEga of yours.



Also.. Most ships I fly use blasters on the last 1 year.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#116 - 2014-02-20 11:00:50 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
What I think is really wrong?
2 catalysis have more dps than a tempest (a battleship with 2 bonuses focused on damage)

We could probably include Thrashers in the list as well, but I've often wondered the same thing… Is this to ensure a mechanism for high-sec ganking?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#117 - 2014-02-20 11:01:13 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
While I do believe this is a good idea (siri other scifi genres 'big' ship performance), I believe it's not going quite far enough. Increasing destroyer tank to that of a cruiser would be ideal, but the material cost should be upped a bit. Battleships and capitals should get an extra set of offensive slots for automatic PD weaponry, as you would see on a modern-day aircraft carrier or other sea-going vessel.
It is idiotic from a military standpoint to have your strongest capital ships be almost completely vulnerable to attack from smaller vessels.


I agree with the sentiment but in game terms it would destroy balance. In eve terms BS should be lethal with point defence performed by escort fleet. Here would be the perfect role for T2 escort destroyers to screen the BS whilst it nails the enemy heavies one by one.

I think the lower ship class balance is generally ok for frig/dessies but cruisers have been overcompensated now pushing BC and BS into relative obscurity.

This also happened in RL with the arrival of aircraft carriers though there are arguments that there woud once again be a role for BS as fleet command as anti-ship missiles would barely dent 16" thick armour and 15-16" rail guns could deliver 9-12 1 ton charges with pinpoint accuracy over 100's of kilometres...

For game balance I think its a bad idea to let such great ships fall of the radar literally, they should bring more fun and real challenge in engagements...



In 2003.. there was no gun signature size. So battleships were shootign at frigates easily. Back then they were more terrifying than titans are nowadays.

THe nerf was needed, but was a bit too much.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#118 - 2014-02-20 11:10:48 UTC
Warp speed is a mixed bag of snakes, and while I'd personally like to see it increased for larger ships I suspect this has to do with keeping power projection in-check. I do agree with the scan resolution and I'd like to add sensor strength to the list, as it should be a lot harder to apply EW to battlecruisers and battleships. As for drones, instead of seeing them become prevalent in every race I would rather see something like a secondary weapons array for light (battlecruiser) and medium (battleship) weapons along the lines of secondary array = (maximum launchers+turrets/2 rounded up), to a maximum of five slots - which coincidently is the number of slots available in the fitting window (so you'd get 3 light launchers on a Drake, 4 light launchers on a Navy Drake, 3 medium launchers on a Raven and 4 medium launchers on a Navy Raven, as an example). This would actually address both the DPS and tracking issues.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#119 - 2014-02-20 11:13:39 UTC
Still think that if you size Webs, scramblers and disrupters as Neutrilisers and nosies are sized, you make a good start at making use or larger ships.


or you make Warp strength dependend on the size of the ship. and give interceptors and interdictor a bonus on their disrupt/scamble strenght.

that will make it harder to pin battleships down, which will make them more usefull in smaller groups
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#120 - 2014-02-20 11:19:24 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
Still think that if you size Webs, scramblers and disrupters as Neutrilisers and nosies are sized, you make a good start at making use or larger ships.


or you make Warp strength dependend on the size of the ship. and give interceptors and interdictor a bonus on their disrupt/scamble strenght.

that will make it harder to pin battleships down, which will make them more usefull in smaller groups



That coudl work a bit. But then all ships larger than frigates need to get a bit more fittign so they can keep their current intended fits, but it their respective sized tackle.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"