These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make battleships and battlecruisers worth the warp! 2.0

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#441 - 2014-12-19 09:53:08 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I can see the argument from all sides here and I do see flaws in Battleships.

The Typhoon:
Other than torps (and in general the missile system requiring a large redesign) I can't really see anything wrong with this ship. It works.

The Tempest:
Is it okay to accept that this ship is a Battlecruiser dressed in Battleship clothing?
Is it okay that this ship has a double damage bonus and still lacks punch?

The Maelstrom:
Is it okay to accept that the Minmatar Battleship designed for solo/small gang stuff is used primarily as a fleet alpha platform?

For me, the roles should be far more clearly defined. Minmatar favour the "Attack" style of ships which is why they have two "Attack Battleships" (ABS's) and one "Combat Battleship" (CBS).

I think the Maelstrom should be addressed first. This ship should be the shield equivalent of the Hyperion. The Hyperion is a CBS they got almost exactly right (if you ignore the common issues with all BS's relative to other ship classes). It's only flaw being a little tight on CPU.
So if we "Hyperionize" the Maelstrom we would:
Remove 2 turret hardpoints and increase the RoF bonus to 10% / level to compensate for the loss of two turrets (7% less turret dps than 8 guns with 5% RoF bonus). Adding enough bandwidth for an extra heavy drone removes the loss in DPS if this is required but I don't think it is.
Remove a high slot and push it to a mid slot as this ship is supposed to be the king of active shield tanking it allows it to be able to fit a web without sacrificing it's shield tank.
A small CPU buff
The Maelstrom then gains a Utility High. A better slot layout and the ability to use all of it's low slots instead of welding a Co-Pro in one of them.

Now the Tempest:
If the Tempest dropped it's RoF bonus for a tracking bonus this would put the Tempest truly into the ABS role (ABS's kind of need application bonuses). You can then double the projectile damage bonus to 10% per level and leave the slot layout.
What does this achieve? Well first, it doesn't really nerf the ships DPS that much whilst retaining it's awesome utility. The tracking bonus lets it use it's mobility more and is a very useful bonus. Third, a 10% damage bonus applies exceptionally in the "Fleet" role as this will give the Tempest an enormous alpha potential.

What do you think?



On one thing you are wrong. The maesltrom was MADE to be a fleet ship. I remember that CCP tuxford stated that CLEARLY when he presented the ship.



Then it has the wrong bonuses. It should have Optimal and RoF bonus to projectiles and drop the shield boost bonus.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#442 - 2014-12-19 10:14:15 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:


In the end with a tracking bonus, compared to it's counterparts in close range weapon fits:

In terms of damage projection:
Apocalypse > Tempest > Megathron

In terms of tracking:
Megathron > Tempest > Apocalyspe

In terms of raw damage potential:
Megathron > Tempest > Apocalypse

In terms of versatility:
Tempest > Megathron > Apopcalypse




Which makes the pest a great all round ship.




A ship that is mediocre at everything is FAILURE. Eve is about MIN MAXING. andyou KNOW it, you are just trolling if you post anything on the lines that being a jack of all trades and master of none being something good.




EVE is not about min maxing, its about using the tools you have effectivly. When you take the pest package as a whole you find you have a very adaptable hull that will do well in more situations than some of the other ships quoted.



IF that was true people would be using it a lot.. they are not.. because.. that statement is plain WRONG! Defeating someone in any combat in real life or eve is being far superior to the enemy at one scenario and forcing them into that scenario, that is warfare 101. Not worth discussing that. Its plain and unavoidable truth in eve , other games and real life combat. Just take as an example ww2 MC 202 family of italian fighters, they were good.. at everything, but were not excelent at anything. They were a COMPLETE DISASTER in field.

Not being too bad on some things is somewhat relevant and important so that enemies do not have an easy time cornering you into their advantage zone. But when you are not good at anything that does not help.


Most people dont fly 90% of the ships out there, they only aim for whatever the fotm is. Also dont use real life examples to try and justify yourself in an internet spaceship game. Just because you have no idea how to use a ship does not mean it is underpowered in any way.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#443 - 2014-12-19 11:46:26 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:


In the end with a tracking bonus, compared to it's counterparts in close range weapon fits:

In terms of damage projection:
Apocalypse > Tempest > Megathron

In terms of tracking:
Megathron > Tempest > Apocalyspe

In terms of raw damage potential:
Megathron > Tempest > Apocalypse

In terms of versatility:
Tempest > Megathron > Apopcalypse




Which makes the pest a great all round ship.


So you agree with me on the tracking bonus idea?

baltec1 wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:


Then think about the alpha strike advantage the Tempest would posess in a fleet role. It would out alpha all other ships whilst still keeping it's two utility high slots (Firewall protection from bombs).
The Tempst would then have a fleet role and a solo/small gang role.


Alpha platform is the Maels job.


However like I said above, the Mael would become more like the Hyperion and use it's active tanking bonus. Right now the only thing people are taking advantage of with the Mael is the fact it has 8 guns. The Tornado can do the same Alpha with better projection and mobility but lacks the tank of the Mael. However in large scale fleet environments it's essentially trading ship for ship so I'm not sure how effective a larger buffer is.


honestly I really think the meal should lose it's tanking buff. more often that not it's not used. I think the meal should be more like the Apoc 7.5 tracking 10 falloff

what the pest really needs is some projection, I think it should be 10 damage and 10 falloff. less overall DPS, but better application in ranges where its rational to use a battleship. plus with 9 effective guns it would be a great arty boat to.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#444 - 2014-12-19 12:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
baltec1 wrote:
...blurb...



I'd have thought that ship power is all relative to the situation anyway. In the overwhelming force point above how do you define overwhelming force by ship class? It's irrelevant. Enough ventures will kill a BS, far fewer nerues would achieve the same even though neither is a combat ship. One on one is very very rare in Eve from what I've seen and as you say most train for FotM until it is nerfed or the current prevailing doctrine if they are fleet focussed.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#445 - 2014-12-20 06:07:35 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Most people dont fly 90% of the ships out there, they only aim for whatever the fotm is. Also dont use real life examples to try and justify yourself in an internet spaceship game. Just because you have no idea how to use a ship does not mean it is underpowered in any way.


That is true.

Thing is that even before the warp speed changes battleships were put in that awkward position of being twice as expensive to build for the sole purpose of being more expensive to build.

What I can get behind is that frigates and cruiser got more expensive to build but they were given a ton of more performance so I think it is okay.

When battlecruisers and battleships were changed I could not get behind the reasoning for making them that much more expensive to build.
The performance didn't change much and only a few slots were changed.

See the Brutix and the Ferox were exchanged so that the Brutix has 6 turret slots and the Ferox has 7 of them. Before the change they were reversed.
The Prophecy got a nice change and the Drake and hurricane were overnerfed - twice.

Some of the battleships even got ehp reduced but got increased build cost which are not even a little warranted.

Can you see now that battlecruisers to some extend and battleships are in dire need of something worthwhile?

I think James has put this nice in the right direction in his sheet. Not too dramatic changes where approtiate and some ehp here and there.

Now even if they still warp slow they might be considered worth undocking if we do it right this time.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Jacob Katruun
Kiith Naabal
#446 - 2014-12-20 17:56:18 UTC
So for logistics Battleships

I am most familiar with Caldari so I shall use that as an example and hope someone can translate my idea into other fations


Since there are already t2 Hulls for the other two battleships, I suppose this leaves the Rokh as the Logistics base.

Basically a halfway point between a Basilisk and a Chimera

-even more resists, maybe 10% per level instead of 4%?
-much less PG (no guns ofc)
I'm not sure what else to even suggest here

but basic concept:
-8 high slots for remote shield and cap transfers
-Bonuses to shield and cap transfers, give maybe 100 km range at logi 5
-like basi and chimera, designed to be in a cap chain, not meant to be stable on own
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#447 - 2014-12-20 18:27:39 UTC
Jacob Katruun wrote:
So for logistics Battleships

I am most familiar with Caldari so I shall use that as an example and hope someone can translate my idea into other fations


Since there are already t2 Hulls for the other two battleships, I suppose this leaves the Rokh as the Logistics base.

Basically a halfway point between a Basilisk and a Chimera

-even more resists, maybe 10% per level instead of 4%?
-much less PG (no guns ofc)
I'm not sure what else to even suggest here

but basic concept:
-8 high slots for remote shield and cap transfers
-Bonuses to shield and cap transfers, give maybe 100 km range at logi 5
-like basi and chimera, designed to be in a cap chain, not meant to be stable on own

If you could post this in my MOAR battleships thread located here it would be awesome. have been trying to figure out a way to do that reasonably for awhile.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Evan Giants
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#448 - 2014-12-21 06:44:19 UTC
I've been wondering, all size hulls has same amount of bonus to their defense.

Example:

Moa
Drake
Rokh

all of those has 4% bonus to shield resistance per level

why not have it give more bonus as you size up (for defense bonus only such as resist, rep, etc maybe not just defense but also support bonus)

Moa 4%
Drake 5%
Rokh 6%
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#449 - 2014-12-21 06:47:47 UTC
Evan Giants wrote:
I've been wondering, all size hulls has same amount of bonus to their defense.

Example:

Moa
Drake
Rokh

all of those has 4% bonus to shield resistance per level

why not have it give more bonus as you size up (for defense bonus only such as resist, rep, etc maybe not just defense but also support bonus)

Moa 4%
Drake 5%
Rokh 6%


Because it is already balanced by having that 4% apply to different HP amounts.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#450 - 2014-12-24 09:22:43 UTC
Evan Giants wrote:
I've been wondering, all size hulls has same amount of bonus to their defense.

Example:

Moa
Drake
Rokh

all of those has 4% bonus to shield resistance per level

why not have it give more bonus as you size up (for defense bonus only such as resist, rep, etc maybe not just defense but also support bonus)

Moa 4%
Drake 5%
Rokh 6%


Eh, I'm a little leery of more resist bonuses to hulls as it synergizes a little too well with logi, which is pretty powerful ATM. I'd rather just see hp baked into hulls than introduce a mechanic like this that scales with size.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#451 - 2015-01-01 23:49:42 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Evan Giants wrote:
I've been wondering, all size hulls has same amount of bonus to their defense.

Example:

Moa
Drake
Rokh

all of those has 4% bonus to shield resistance per level

why not have it give more bonus as you size up (for defense bonus only such as resist, rep, etc maybe not just defense but also support bonus)

Moa 4%
Drake 5%
Rokh 6%


Eh, I'm a little leery of more resist bonuses to hulls as it synergizes a little too well with logi, which is pretty powerful ATM. I'd rather just see hp baked into hulls than introduce a mechanic like this that scales with size.


Looking at how powerful they can end up being on battleships, and how high this sets the N+1 needed to destroy battleships with sufficient reps, especially when fit for a fleet fight (heavy buffer, weapons with decent application, minimal EWAR on the primary DPS hulls because thats handled on support ships) I think that a scaling resist bonus is the wrong way to go.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#452 - 2015-01-02 00:22:16 UTC
My wishlist is pretty simple:

-huge raw hitpoint increase (ie 2 or 3x current)
-huge scan res increase
-weapon bonuses applied to all weapon sizes
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#453 - 2015-01-02 18:17:32 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
My wishlist is pretty simple:

-huge raw hitpoint increase (ie 2 or 3x current)
-huge scan res increase
-weapon bonuses applied to all weapon sizes


Only a few issues present.

1: A 2-3x increase in raw HP takes them out of line with other ships. About the most that could be justified as it stands is likely a 1.5x increase as an average.
2: Define huge. For the most part, the current numbers are in the low to mid eighties for scan res, and I'd like to see them around 110-125, which is a 25-40% increase.
3: Doesn't seem particularly balanced to me, as then a gang (or solo battleship) can just drop a depot and switch to smaller guns and pwn anything silly enough to get caught, regardless of tracking, piloting etc.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#454 - 2015-01-02 18:44:46 UTC
Not even counting the predominance of t3, the power creep that has occurred as far down as t1 cruisers already outclasses battleships. Boosting resists is definitely not the way to go since their is already too much logi used in this game. Having a huge boost of EHP does serve a dual-purpose, the most important of which being bomb damage mitigation (bombz are 90% of the reason you do not see more fleets of battleships in null, and not just one megathron roaming around with ascendancy implants)

For scan res, yes, you are spot on what I would consider to be a reasonable boost.

For weapon system scaling, we have already been introduced to battleship weapons bonuses that apply to all size classes: Barghest. If not for the first two other reasons, this ship would make for a great anti-tackle point defense fleet addition.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#455 - 2015-01-02 18:47:34 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Not even counting the predominance of t3, the power creep that has occurred as far down as t1 cruisers already outclasses battleships. Boosting resists is definitely not the way to go since their is already too much logi used in this game. Having a huge boost of EHP does serve a dual-purpose, the most important of which being bomb damage mitigation (bombz are 90% of the reason you do not see more fleets of battleships in null, and not just one megathron roaming around with ascendancy implants)



We still use domi fleet. To successfully bomb a baltec fleet you would need over 100 bombs landing at the same time, this cant happen.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#456 - 2015-01-05 10:50:58 UTC
Okay thats a factual statement baltec... Atleast i assume its factual.

Not sure how its relevant but it certainly seems factual...

I wonder what would happen if this forum got a "hey dev's look here" button...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#457 - 2015-03-27 22:51:33 UTC
I'm going to keep this alive, but it is back burner.
Still working on it, but I have more pressing things and CCP rejected the premise in the patch notes. But they mentioned it, so I will keep plugging along.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
thatonepersone
Black Jack 0-1
#458 - 2015-03-28 00:01:56 UTC
I think they should just make t3 battle ships instead of buffing the existing ones.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#459 - 2015-03-28 00:16:55 UTC
thatonepersone wrote:
I think they should just make t3 battle ships instead of buffing the existing ones.

I'm totally cool with that.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#460 - 2015-03-31 02:13:00 UTC
thatonepersone wrote:
I think they should just make t3 battle ships instead of buffing the existing ones.

I ran that thread too. It is an absolute nightmare to balance though

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp