These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#501 - 2015-04-22 19:33:57 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Maybe. maybe. Still my least favorite way to fix them, but this is mostly because I do have ascendancies in already.

As do I, but I think bringing the warp speed a bit closer to cruisers would solve at least one interim aspect of Battleships.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#502 - 2015-04-22 20:00:08 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Maybe. maybe. Still my least favorite way to fix them, but this is mostly because I do have ascendancies in already.

As do I, but I think bringing the warp speed a bit closer to cruisers would solve at least one interim aspect of Battleships.

I really don't. If brawling was the main meta, or they were all balanced around 150m hull cost (with currentish mineral prices) or they could all lock out to 100km with max skills and no mods, maybe. as it is, they aren't particularly competative for their price.

They are outdone in many aspects, especially in the realms of:

Tanking
T3s mount similar raw HP numbers as most armor battleships if double or triple plated, and have much better mitigation.
HACs can be pushed to similar raw HP numbers as battleships, and again have much better mitigation.


RAW DPS:
Ishtars can about match dominix damage.
Brawler HACs in general come fairly close to BS damage levels if shield fit, or lightly tanked in armor.

Damage Application:
Most battleships can't apply full DPS to PVP fit cruisers without landing a scram, 2x web and 2-5xTP. Those that can are what is still mostly used, like domis.

Utlity:
Except for neuts, you get more EWAR on field for the same isk with cruisers or frigates, and better ability to apply it where it needs to be (better agility to catch or keep tackle, better lock speed to apply longer range ewar like damps or ECM).

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#503 - 2015-04-23 10:37:20 UTC
What James said is correct.

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons.

This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR.

Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats.

Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc.


What do you people think of this idea? Blink
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#504 - 2015-04-23 11:34:08 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
What James said is correct.

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons.

This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR.

Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats.

Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc.


What do you people think of this idea? Blink


No that doesn't solve the problems they are facing. As I said before, if you hit nothing no amount of dps will help you.

And since battleships got reduced in performance and doubled in price they are not worth undocking.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#505 - 2015-04-23 12:33:41 UTC
Yes, I agree that it started way back with the change from 90% to 60% Stasis webifiers, among other things.

However, more slots for Neuts would render Battleships more effective, as seen in the case of drone boats which don't have to sacrifice DPS for this most essential utility tool against cruisers. A Highslot battleship-only Stasis webifier with Officer web ranges would also be a pleasant addition. Blink
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#506 - 2015-04-23 17:31:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Baali Tekitsu
remvoe due to wrong thread

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#507 - 2015-04-23 17:45:47 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Innate damage increase would also enable fitting of tracking enhancers, instead of 3 damage mods.

Current situation is:

Fit damage mods -> Hit nothing;
Fit TEs -> 1 logi cruiser shuts down your damage.

But even if you do manage to overcome their logi, why fly a battleship with TEs in the current meta? Just get a cruiser, which has the same or even better DPS, perfect damage application, warps faster, locks faster, great nanufaget platform, and with EHP probably equal to a battleship if you account for sig tanking.

Heroic cruiser combat. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง


To point out, 1 logi will out rep three rail megathron equipped for damage. That issue is not with battleships but with logistics being overpowered.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#508 - 2015-04-23 18:10:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Innate damage increase would also enable fitting of tracking enhancers, instead of 3 damage mods.

Current situation is:

Fit damage mods -> Hit nothing;
Fit TEs -> 1 logi cruiser shuts down your damage.

But even if you do manage to overcome their logi, why fly a battleship with TEs in the current meta? Just get a cruiser, which has the same or even better DPS, perfect damage application, warps faster, locks faster, great nanufaget platform, and with EHP probably equal to a battleship if you account for sig tanking.

Heroic cruiser combat. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง


To point out, 1 logi will out rep three rail megathron equipped for damage. That issue is not with battleships but with logistics being overpowered.


How many logi should be required to outrep 1 mega for it to be balanced?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#509 - 2015-04-23 18:23:30 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
How many logi should be required to outrep 1 mega for it to be balanced?


I agree with Baltec here. You may want to look at it this way, one logi is no problem but 2x logi makes ships indestructable at least in small gangs.

The risk vs reward is out of whack by a margin there.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#510 - 2015-04-23 18:23:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Innate damage increase would also enable fitting of tracking enhancers, instead of 3 damage mods.

Current situation is:

Fit damage mods -> Hit nothing;
Fit TEs -> 1 logi cruiser shuts down your damage.

But even if you do manage to overcome their logi, why fly a battleship with TEs in the current meta? Just get a cruiser, which has the same or even better DPS, perfect damage application, warps faster, locks faster, great nanufaget platform, and with EHP probably equal to a battleship if you account for sig tanking.

Heroic cruiser combat. (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง


To point out, 1 logi will out rep three rail megathron equipped for damage. That issue is not with battleships but with logistics being overpowered.

Yes, but by outsourcing reps onto a cruiser, isn't the logi a priority target, which is softer than the ships it supports?

Do we want self sufficient throns to outfight an equal number of BS that rely on logi support?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#511 - 2015-04-23 18:48:51 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
What James said is correct.

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons.

This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR.

Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats.

Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc.


What do you people think of this idea? Blink


I am somewhat leery of any idea which changes the fittings so radically, and for only one class. I also worry about the ships with 7 turrets being seriously over or under powered if this isn't taken into account (looking squarely at the megathron and machariel). It probably also forces a fittings change on several battleships so that you can't get an octuple plated abbadon or other really messed up scary fits.

On the upside, it would bring a sharp uptick in reasons to bring battleships, even if it is at the expense of some of the better ships right now. But imagine if this logic continued through onto the existing 100% damage bonused hulls.....

baltec1 wrote:

To point out, 1 logi will out rep three rail megathron equipped for damage. That issue is not with battleships but with logistics being overpowered.

Cut logi effectiveness by about a third, such that 1 logi = 1 blaster mega's max output. Makes it so there are reasons to fly brawl ships, as you can just brute force through reps if you can bring even 1 more DPS than they bring logi.


Nikk Narrel wrote:


Yes, but by outsourcing reps onto a cruiser, isn't the logi a priority target, which is softer than the ships it supports?

Do we want self sufficient throns to outfight an equal number of BS that rely on logi support?


As for logi being softer, sorta.... They may have less EHP, but they have very high resists, low signatures for cruisers (if AB fit) and generally have really good damage mitigation, making them almost unbreakable once they begin receiving RR.

As for self sufficient throns outfighting even numbers of a well balanced fleet comp that includes logi, never gonna happen. RR scales all the way up until the alpha of the opposing fleet exceeds the size of the total primary tanking buffer, while local reps can not do so (outside hilariously borked EFT-only abominations like the officer lows to get a stable capital shield booster on a maelstrom)

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#512 - 2015-04-23 19:19:07 UTC
I wish that in Eve, there was diminishing returns on logi, so much that no matter how many you had, they could never prevent the destruction of a ship in fleet, but at best, buy that ship a little more time before it goes boom. Fights would be much more chaotic. Many more ships would blow up, on both sides. Did I mention I like stuff that blows up?

Eventually I'd like to see huge fleet fights where every individual pilot has to start making every move count, such as whether to shoot at a primary target that they expect to yield little result with, or to shoot at another target which they are more certain will inflict more damage in the long run. While not strategically sound, it would be a lot of fun to be flying through a huge battle with munitions flying in all directions, not just everybody focused on one single target.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#513 - 2015-04-23 19:32:24 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
I wish that in Eve, there was diminishing returns on logi, so much that no matter how many you had, they could never prevent the destruction of a ship in fleet, but at best, buy that ship a little more time before it goes boom. Fights would be much more chaotic. Many more ships would blow up, on both sides. Did I mention I like stuff that blows up?

Eventually I'd like to see huge fleet fights where every individual pilot has to start making every move count, such as whether to shoot at a primary target that they expect to yield little result with, or to shoot at another target which they are more certain will inflict more damage in the long run. While not strategically sound, it would be a lot of fun to be flying through a huge battle with munitions flying in all directions, not just everybody focused on one single target.

It's in human nature to seek the most return in exchange for the least effort.

If we were to diminish the capabilities of logi, which may not be a bad idea at all, then we would need to balance that somehow.

Perhaps if we limited how many ships could lock onto each hull size, so a BS only needed to worry about a limited number of ships for an alpha.

I also like to see results from my efforts, but at the same time I don't want to pop in the first 20 seconds of an encounter either.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#514 - 2015-04-23 20:00:12 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
I wish that in Eve, there was diminishing returns on logi, so much that no matter how many you had, they could never prevent the destruction of a ship in fleet, but at best, buy that ship a little more time before it goes boom. Fights would be much more chaotic. Many more ships would blow up, on both sides. Did I mention I like stuff that blows up?

Eventually I'd like to see huge fleet fights where every individual pilot has to start making every move count, such as whether to shoot at a primary target that they expect to yield little result with, or to shoot at another target which they are more certain will inflict more damage in the long run. While not strategically sound, it would be a lot of fun to be flying through a huge battle with munitions flying in all directions, not just everybody focused on one single target.

It's in human nature to seek the most return in exchange for the least effort.

If we were to diminish the capabilities of logi, which may not be a bad idea at all, then we would need to balance that somehow.

Perhaps if we limited how many ships could lock onto each hull size, so a BS only needed to worry about a limited number of ships for an alpha.

I also like to see results from my efforts, but at the same time I don't want to pop in the first 20 seconds of an encounter either.


Let me lock my friends to be sure the enemy can't lock them... We need more drone doctrine not using their high slots to put a few passive targetter for additional "defensive" locks...
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#515 - 2015-04-23 20:03:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
James Baboli wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
What James said is correct.

Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons.

This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR.

Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats.

Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc.


What do you people think of this idea? Blink


I am somewhat leery of any idea which changes the fittings so radically, and for only one class. I also worry about the ships with 7 turrets being seriously over or under powered if this isn't taken into account (looking squarely at the megathron and machariel). It probably also forces a fittings change on several battleships so that you can't get an octuple plated abbadon or other really messed up scary fits.


Taking the Megathron with 7 Turrets as an example:

Mega has 7 * (1 / (1 - 0.25 RoF bonus)) = 9.33 Effective turrets, by reducing the Turret hardpoint count to 4, we get 5.33 Effective turrets, so to compensate that, a 75% Role damage bonus brings it back to 9.33. Smile

Quote:
On the upside, it would bring a sharp uptick in reasons to bring battleships, even if it is at the expense of some of the better ships right now.


Indeed.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#516 - 2015-04-23 20:11:34 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...

Perhaps if we limited how many ships could lock onto each hull size, so a BS only needed to worry about a limited number of ships for an alpha.

...


Let me lock my friends to be sure the enemy can't lock them... We need more drone doctrine not using their high slots to put a few passive targetter for additional "defensive" locks...

You are describing a work-around to create a sensor jamming effect.

You make a good point with that, but at the same time, for each friend you protect in this manner, you are able to target one less opponent.

Would that trade off be a good or a bad thing?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#517 - 2015-04-23 20:14:24 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:


Taking the Megathron with 7 Turrets as an example:

Mega has 7 * (1/(1-0.25 RoF bonus)) = 9.33 Effective turrets, by reducing the Turret hardpoint count to 4, we get 5.33 Effective turrets, so to compensate that, a 75% Role damage bonus brings it back to 9.33. Smile



Which is as it should be.
Statement was much more intended as a preemptive ward against purely blanket changes which would have pushed the mega into vindicator DPS levels, or the mach breaking 1.2k DPS with it's guns.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#518 - 2015-04-23 20:26:18 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Taking the Megathron with 7 Turrets as an example:

Mega has 7 * (1 / (1 - 0.25 RoF bonus)) = 9.33 Effective turrets, by reducing the Turret hardpoint count to 4, we get 5.33 Effective turrets, so to compensate that, a 75% Role damage bonus brings it back to 9.33. Smile...


Well that means that there will only be 3 gun battleships with 239892823 neuts on in different colors - who needs diversity anyway..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#519 - 2015-04-23 20:27:23 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...

Perhaps if we limited how many ships could lock onto each hull size, so a BS only needed to worry about a limited number of ships for an alpha.

...


Let me lock my friends to be sure the enemy can't lock them... We need more drone doctrine not using their high slots to put a few passive targetter for additional "defensive" locks...

You are describing a work-around to create a sensor jamming effect.

You make a good point with that, but at the same time, for each friend you protect in this manner, you are able to target one less opponent.

Would that trade off be a good or a bad thing?


It's not good or bad but just stupid to give such tool to some doctrine while it is absolutely impossible to replicate with anything else but drone fleet because they can't reach the same number of locks available. Any BS without 2 utility high won't reach the 12 target cap which is way beyond what you would need to follow basic fleet target calls who would probably stop at 4 if not before that.

important : I made a misstake, it's auto-targetting systems that are needed not passive one but the problem is still there. Turret and missile ship absolutely can't counter this unless they sacrifice their DPS.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#520 - 2015-04-23 20:35:02 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


It's not good or bad but just stupid to give such tool to some doctrine while it is absolutely impossible to replicate with anything else but drone fleet because they can't reach the same number of locks available. Any BS without 2 utility high won't reach the 12 target cap which is way beyond what you would need to follow basic fleet target calls who would probably stop at 4 if not before that.

important : I made a misstake, it's auto-targetting systems that are needed not passive one but the problem is still there. Turret and missile ship absolutely can't counter this unless they sacrifice their DPS.


Yep. Yet more easily abused mechanics which should not exist. I had a scathing rant against it written up, until my playlist turned over to a song by a certain Ice Queen..... So I shook it off.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp