Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Nope. These are nto supposed to be the battleships targets.

When we detect a fleet of a few battleships and RR ships at 5-7 jumps and someoen ask if we shoudl bbring battleships. .the answer is always NO!!! BEcause battleships do nto bring extra damage capability Even over other battleships to be worth HUGE travel time

Kagura dear,
I know that and I wasn't solely talking about links, since roaming gangs don't have them with them all the time. I was referring to what is currently popular in space.

Oh and despite sounding arrogant again, just three weeks ago I made a similar thread about battleships and battlecruisers and was harshly shut down.

Out of sight, out of mind much!?

You are right, don't get me wrong and I know that you have a long year experience on the field and everyone with long year experience is gratefully invited to come here and help to get something done.

Maybe we even get the council of missile haters here.

I will take any hp and firepower buff for battleships we can get even though I must be the most hated girl of mankind because I proposed something ahead of time.

It still doesn't mean that is has less merrit because I was a few weeks early.

James dear, no that would be a little overboard. And as far as I know the ewar subs on tech 3 were in the same range as the current recon ships.
Let's keep our focus on battleships and battlecruisers.



As far as I have read it, it looks fine. Maybe you can mention the Gecko on the Rattlesnake which is a really strong wingman.

The machariel and Barghest are becoming the posterchildren for mobilty and long(er) range kiting in a battleship hull. Top speeds of up to 2400m/s are no joke on them without heat.
The Nestor is still trying to blend in and the Nightmare could just a very little more agility and afterburner top speed, nothing major, somewhere in the line of 10%.

I was talking about for comparing battleship DPS for small gang at and around these sweetspots, which are where one would try to kite at or be kited at. These magic ranges are where most solo fights would happen, and where most engagements begin in the case of solo battleship gets caught without a gang to start with, etc.

One could argue that battleships were supposed to be a painful threat to cruisers and battlecruiser. Now those are just gankmails waiting to happen.

So in an attempt to put battleships into this spot once again, changes are necessary.

Another step might need to be taken to area of effect weapons, the 50 account yolo-bomber ones for instance.

I tend to agree and would go further by stating that more than a few Cruisers outshine Battlecruisers while having none of the inherent drawbacks in terms of speed, size limitations on sites, etc. Given a choice of the following, it's not hard to see what's been happening (Command cruisers were obviously omitted):

• Amarr: Legion vs. Harbinger
• Caldari: Tengu, Orthrus, Cerberus, Gila vs. either Drake
• Gallente: Proteus or Ishtar vs. Brutix
• Minmatar: Loki or Vagabond vs. Hurricane

We need a new role for both Battlecruisers and Battleships outside their specific T2 variations.

25 mb/guns -----> Ishtar become even more of a train wreck balance wise...

Not to belabor a point, but this sounds to me like you are basing the improvement to battleships, by scaling up the cruiser damage till it sounds right for the bigger hull.

I don't see this making them better, just bigger in a way that was apparently seen by CCP as self defeating.

Decrease reactivation time on MJD of both sizes by some 30%. That would already be a reasonable help.



Take short range guns and rebalance tiers. Example with AC. Make the dual 650mm AC be the SAME as the current 800mm. MAke the dual 425mm have the same RANGE as 800mm, but keep its dps and reduce its signature resolution to 300. Make 800mm guns have some extra 20% dps but increase their signature resolution to 600 (so they become not good against moving subcapitals). Make the equivalent for the other weapon systems.

With these changes a battleships can be fit to be good anti support , good anti battleships or good anti capital ship.

Now, increase their base EHP some 20% as well.




On a different set of changes that I would love and would help battleships. NERF LOGIS!! Logis make the EHP of battleships mostly irrelevant.

I would DOUBLE the base range of all remote repair modules. Would make them affect the target based on resolution. So 400m for large ones and if you use one in a ship 100m big you get only 25% of the effect.

Now drop the range bonus of logistics repairers to 1/3 of current range bonus ( RR battleships are boosted and logistics slightly nerfed ending with 2/3 of current range). REMOVE FITTING BONUS FOR LOGISTICS. They should use only MEDIUM REPAIRERS. Increase logistics signature to the same as other t2 cruisers. They currently are TOO SMALL.

Give all COMBAT BC another role bonus (since NO ONE uses them for links) or 25% increase in remote repair modules effectiveness. With the base increase on the RR modules they will be able to repair things well if they work hard to Stay in range, all that while fielding relevant DPS.

I fiddled with EFT for you all. Put on two warp velocity optimizer 2 rigs to get back to 3.0 warp speed on battleships. A BC only needs a single velociy opt 1 rig to get 3.0.

From what It looks like, it seems that they WANT to force people to make more optimizing decisions rather than just spamming full on gank or full on tank onto your ships, which is why they have fiddled with BCs and BSes in the first place. Bring smaller ships, or run the logistics of getting the old gank or tank BS, or use rigs to get better response time out of BS, etc.

Obviously, an ideal Eve Online runs along the same balance structure as those card games with such item or unit proliferation that they're balanced by the fact that it's impossible to find the absolute best combination, because there's like 500+ single options which leads to possible combos closer to infinite than zero as far as human ability to see all the options are concerned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxszx60ZwGw Relevant video on power creep, on game sustainability and growth.

HACs were power creep. So were T3s. If there's a problem where people are not using BSes despite their balancing flaws, if certain ships are clearly better, and if there's very few valid fits for ships other than "MOAR TANK MOAR DPS", then what we have is power creep on part of new ship content and shallow gameplay on part of existing modules and rigs collections.

What we're talking about is balancing Eve so that everything is incomparable, due to no clear factor of one being better than the other, or something have an advantage sometimes and a disadvantage other times. Since we see cruisers and HACs and T3s as clearly better, given the amount of easy ISK one can grind, making the cost difference favor the extreme advantages these smaller ships have over BSes, they are not incomparable. They are clearly "good" while BSes are clearly "bad".