These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Any incoming changes to battleships?

Author
Shrike Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-07-27 20:22:00 UTC
I am well aware that as new player i know little about the current balance, but, for me, the battleship is the most disappoint ship type in eve.


Starting in the common sense area(or as much common sense as we can predict the technology in 1000s years):

Why are battleship so big with so few tech systems onboard?

Given a cruiser can have X slots, a battleship that is 5x the size (or more), should have slightly more equipment slots than the "30% more than cruiser"....

Difference in armor, hull, shield is not staggering either. Not to mention some of the t3 cruiser can get several times over effectiove hitpoints of a battleship.

Weapons. Are a.... Sad joke? Given Eve balance, Han Solo could have solo'd (har har) the imperial dreadnought/battleship instead of running away from it.

I know that precariously constructed and heavily patched balance is hard to keep - but please for the love of god give each battleship 5ish more high-slots (WAIT!) that can fit only *small* guns. So it adds very little to the effective high end pve/pvp dmg, BUT fixes the horrible unfairness of frig/destroyer/cruiser vs battleship fights.

Can u imagine the engineers of current battleships - while designing its battle potential.

- "So this frigate goes under our guns and slowly kills us, while keeping us unable to move fast or jump...."
- "And it slowly kills us? yes, thats the plan, junior! Now go fetch those blueprints to the factory!"


Utility slots - I guess that more than half a kilometer of high tech ship is hardly enough space to fit some (obvious?!) electronic warfare toys.... I mean, really, every single one should have a tractor beam, target painter, scrambler and a web. Dedicated slots, or just built in t2ish version(the hull has requirements, add more requirements to fly it)

Yes i know, balance. You put yourself in a tough position, and its very hard to fix battleships without completely destroying the "game-of-cruisers".

Increase the price, 5times, 10 times... Add some little gun slots, give each BS 2-3 more utility slots. Please.
Valkin Mordirc
#2 - 2015-07-27 21:29:15 UTC
No frigate is going to tackle a properly fit Megathron on it's own.

No Frigate isn't going to even touch a properly fitted Barghest or Raven.

No frigate will take down a Rattler Geddon or Domi.

I'm really getting tired of these Battleships sux ccpls fix threads
#DeleteTheWeak
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-07-27 22:13:16 UTC
Another sad case of "bigger must be better right?"
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2015-07-27 22:20:20 UTC
Unless the battleship is either...

- hyperspecialized (see: sniper or PvE fit)
- fail-fitted ("look ma! I ken make RAINBOWS wit mah lazors!")
- specifically designed as a fleet ship (ex. Abaddon, Mealstrom, Rokh, etc)

... a single frigate will likely die against a single battleship.


Now a swarm of frigates is a different matter and no amount of small guns or tank is going to help a lone battleship against that.
However a group of battleships supported by logi is a wrecking ball that few other fleet doctrines can go toe to toe against.

Basically... battleships shine when used with groups. They are not so good solo. This was a gameplay decision to force older players with more skillpoints; money, and "powerful ships" to rely on younger players to defend them (that was the intent anyways).
Iyokus Patrouette
Buccaneers of New Eden
Liquor Legion
#5 - 2015-07-27 22:25:07 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:

- fail-fitted ("look ma! I ken make RAINBOWS wit mah lazors!").


I think this is an unfair example of a fail fit ship. . . rainbow lasers are pretty.

---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----

Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2015-07-28 00:20:16 UTC
Interesting.
I was quite excited myself that day I finally was able to afford an Apocalypse class battleship.

To this day, 3 years later, I still fly around in my Paladin which I still completely love spinning around.

Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-07-28 04:00:46 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Interesting.
I was quite excited myself that day I finally was able to afford an Apocalypse class battleship.

To this day, 3 years later, I still fly around in my Paladin which I still completely love spinning around.



Only in high sec I bet.

Oh what a brave and gallant warrior you are Sir Kanerian.


Bastion Arzi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2015-07-28 12:15:26 UTC
this myth that bs will lose to single frig is becuase of pvp fit frigs killing mission runner bs. it does not mean any bs will lose to a frig lol omg.

my vargur will instablap any/most frig(s) sitting like 20km away not moving.

and if he got under my guns he'd have a heavy neut and drones to deal with.
Lan Wang
Knights of the Posing Meat
#9 - 2015-07-28 12:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
I like my, vargur, rattlesnake, machariel, domi, typhoon fleet issue, tempest and vindicator oh and panther is the best ship in the game idgaf what everyone else says

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-07-28 12:49:21 UTC
armageddon is also one of the most important ships in wormhole space right now.


OP you just haven't seen enough of EVE to know what is good and what isn't

I can give you lot's of ships that are "not meta" and therefore not in use at the moment but there's no single ship CLASS that is completely obsolete (apart from maybe assault frigs, make t3ds barred from smalls already ffs)
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#11 - 2015-07-28 13:41:51 UTC
Shrike Crendraven wrote:
I am well aware that as new player i know little about the current balance, but, for me, the battleship is the most disappoint ship type in eve.


Starting in the common sense area(or as much common sense as we can predict the technology in 1000s years):

Why are battleship so big with so few tech systems onboard?

Given a cruiser can have X slots, a battleship that is 5x the size (or more), should have slightly more equipment slots than the "30% more than cruiser"....

Difference in armor, hull, shield is not staggering either. Not to mention some of the t3 cruiser can get several times over effectiove hitpoints of a battleship.

Weapons. Are a.... Sad joke? Given Eve balance, Han Solo could have solo'd (har har) the imperial dreadnought/battleship instead of running away from it.

I know that precariously constructed and heavily patched balance is hard to keep - but please for the love of god give each battleship 5ish more high-slots (WAIT!) that can fit only *small* guns. So it adds very little to the effective high end pve/pvp dmg, BUT fixes the horrible unfairness of frig/destroyer/cruiser vs battleship fights.

Can u imagine the engineers of current battleships - while designing its battle potential.

- "So this frigate goes under our guns and slowly kills us, while keeping us unable to move fast or jump...."
- "And it slowly kills us? yes, thats the plan, junior! Now go fetch those blueprints to the factory!"


Utility slots - I guess that more than half a kilometer of high tech ship is hardly enough space to fit some (obvious?!) electronic warfare toys.... I mean, really, every single one should have a tractor beam, target painter, scrambler and a web. Dedicated slots, or just built in t2ish version(the hull has requirements, add more requirements to fly it)

Yes i know, balance. You put yourself in a tough position, and its very hard to fix battleships without completely destroying the "game-of-cruisers".

Increase the price, 5times, 10 times... Add some little gun slots, give each BS 2-3 more utility slots. Please.


No. No. No. I really wish these "give BS more slots for SMALL guns" threads would stop popping up. They would break any semblance of balance. Why fly any other ship, when I can put small and large turrets/launchers on my ship, basically making it so it never needs support. Then you go on about adding more utility slots on top of that... your joking/high/drunk right?

So my RHML typhoon FI with 2 heavy neuts, mjd, 1200dps and 130k EHP is now going to add on RLML, and some smartbombs, nos, and more neuts? I can alternate between RLML and RHML while one is on reload. Insta-cap any ship except another BS, and kill any frig/cruiser/bc that gets close. And then, if i cant catch or kill you, I can mjd away. In what way does this sound balanced to you?
Switch Savage
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-07-28 15:00:00 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Shrike Crendraven wrote:
I am well aware that as new player i know little about the current balance, but, for me, the battleship is the most disappoint ship type in eve.


Starting in the common sense area(or as much common sense as we can predict the technology in 1000s years):

Why are battleship so big with so few tech systems onboard?

Given a cruiser can have X slots, a battleship that is 5x the size (or more), should have slightly more equipment slots than the "30% more than cruiser"....

Difference in armor, hull, shield is not staggering either. Not to mention some of the t3 cruiser can get several times over effectiove hitpoints of a battleship.

Weapons. Are a.... Sad joke? Given Eve balance, Han Solo could have solo'd (har har) the imperial dreadnought/battleship instead of running away from it.

I know that precariously constructed and heavily patched balance is hard to keep - but please for the love of god give each battleship 5ish more high-slots (WAIT!) that can fit only *small* guns. So it adds very little to the effective high end pve/pvp dmg, BUT fixes the horrible unfairness of frig/destroyer/cruiser vs battleship fights.

Can u imagine the engineers of current battleships - while designing its battle potential.

- "So this frigate goes under our guns and slowly kills us, while keeping us unable to move fast or jump...."
- "And it slowly kills us? yes, thats the plan, junior! Now go fetch those blueprints to the factory!"


Utility slots - I guess that more than half a kilometer of high tech ship is hardly enough space to fit some (obvious?!) electronic warfare toys.... I mean, really, every single one should have a tractor beam, target painter, scrambler and a web. Dedicated slots, or just built in t2ish version(the hull has requirements, add more requirements to fly it)

Yes i know, balance. You put yourself in a tough position, and its very hard to fix battleships without completely destroying the "game-of-cruisers".

Increase the price, 5times, 10 times... Add some little gun slots, give each BS 2-3 more utility slots. Please.


No. No. No. I really wish these "give BS more slots for SMALL guns" threads would stop popping up. They would break any semblance of balance. Why fly any other ship, when I can put small and large turrets/launchers on my ship, basically making it so it never needs support. Then you go on about adding more utility slots on top of that... your joking/high/drunk right?

So my RHML typhoon FI with 2 heavy neuts, mjd, 1200dps and 130k EHP is now going to add on RLML, and some smartbombs, nos, and more neuts? I can alternate between RLML and RHML while one is on reload. Insta-cap any ship except another BS, and kill any frig/cruiser/bc that gets close. And then, if i cant catch or kill you, I can mjd away. In what way does this sound balanced to you?


Sounds balanced to me but hell what do i know I'm tearing up the verse in a Svipul.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#13 - 2015-07-28 15:47:30 UTC
Do not buff me.
Shrike Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-07-28 18:13:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Shrike Crendraven
Bigger and more expensive ships are meant to be better in every aspect, yes. One good thing about eve is that the balance is about the money. The more u pay, the better stuff u get.

I'd say cars are a good analogy - sure u can drive a dacia duster - its a good car, but a range rover thats priced around 100.000+ eur *is* better in each and every aspect. Why isnt everyone driving a range rover then??? Those dumb people!! :D See my point?

BS should require a significant party of smaller ships to defeat - lets say 3-5 cruisers. (currently one cruiser can pretty much destroy a battleship, isnt it wrong?)

The price should be a barrier so not everyone can buy and fly one - i dont really see any problems. Imaging BS hulls for 15bil apiece. Creditcard warriors wont care, gankers wil be supperhappy to organize a bs-ganking party, finally whoever gets a BS will be happy as they get more firepower and "relative" (;-)) safety.

It really does not have to be "fair". Please adjust the price so the loss of one can really hurt. And give them the power they lack.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2015-07-28 18:26:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Do not buff me.


Please listen to this man. He's scary enough warping around in a cruiser gang with a battleship.
If you buff him he won't need us around anymore.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#16 - 2015-07-28 19:06:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Shrike Crendraven wrote:
Bigger and more expensive ships are meant to be better in every aspect, yes. One good thing about eve is that the balance is about the money. The more u pay, the better stuff u get.

I'd say cars are a good analogy - sure u can drive a dacia duster - its a good car, but a range rover thats priced around 100.000+ eur *is* better in each and every aspect. Why isnt everyone driving a range rover then??? Those dumb people!! :D See my point?

BS should require a significant party of smaller ships to defeat - lets say 3-5 cruisers. (currently one cruiser can pretty much destroy a battleship, isnt it wrong?)

The price should be a barrier so not everyone can buy and fly one - i dont really see any problems. Imaging BS hulls for 15bil apiece. Creditcard warriors wont care, gankers wil be supperhappy to organize a bs-ganking party, finally whoever gets a BS will be happy as they get more firepower and "relative" (;-)) safety.

It really does not have to be "fair". Please adjust the price so the loss of one can really hurt. And give them the power they lack.


Your analogy is flawed. A range rover is not better than a dacia duster in every aspect, because it probably has poorer fuel economy. So it might be faster and haul/tow more, but in doing so uses more fuel than the duster. Same goes for weight/size. The RR will be heavier and have a larger footprint. Possibly making it harder to navigate in smaller, confined areas. You cannot just get "more" of everything for free. Everything has a cost/balance. This isnt WoW.

Price is not the only balancing point. Big alliances have no worries about "cost". They fly what will give them the biggest advantage. See ishtars. They cost similarly to t1 BS, and they have been used for years as fleet doctrine. Alliances are out welping rattlesnakes, gilas, machariels with no f***s given about cost.

Some null bears, market traders, indy folk or WH dwellers have amassed hundreds of billions of isk. Money is of no object to them. You introduce a ship that is broken and try and balance by price, all you will see are BS flying around with small/large guns and no other ship can compete with them. So then everyone flies BS and the game becomes boring.

And even worse, it becomes immensely harder on newbros who dont have the SP to compete. The "tackle rifter" would get vollied once he landed point because you want to put 5 small guns on a BS, that already has neuts, a large drone bay, or is fit with missiles.

1 cruiser will NOT kill a BS if the person in the BS has a clue on what they are doing. Or is fit with BS strengths in mind. Your ratting BS on the other hand WILL crumble to a pvp fit cruiser. Thats different though, as PVE and PVP are 2 different animals.

Then you end it with a bang. 15b BS? How much have you smoked, and can i have some? Yes, lets just make it impossible for the players who have the SP and skill to fly a BS in ever being able to fly one. 15b is slightly more than JF cost. Which has a jump drive.

Again, price alone is not a balancing point. Point defense/small turrets on BS is a terrible idea. Learn to fly/fit them, and you will see that most are in decent shape.
Shrike Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2015-07-28 19:51:48 UTC

Quote:
Your analogy is flawed. A range rover is not better than a dacia duster in every aspect, because it probably has poorer fuel economy. So it might be faster and haul/tow more, but in doing so uses more fuel than the duster. You cannot just get "more" of everything for free. Everything has a cost/balance. This isnt WoW.


Fuel economy is "cost". At the same time hardly worth accounting for (give u an exmaple - i tank 200eur monthly, this is nothing compared to the price of car divided by 4-5 years + insurance costs + taxes and whatnot).

Speaking of BS costing more i meant exactly that - make them cost more. In fuel, in hulls in setup. It will balance out.

Many many games are making the flaw of going into separate pve and pvp ways.... Pve would really be more fun if more than raw dps and tank was required ;-( Plus you wouldnt have the whole pve/pvp fits problem ever.

The tackler thingy - well, seen any sci-fi movie when a swarm of small vessels rush for a bigger enemies?? - yes they get swatted, most of them. As they should. This tackling is very un-intuitive role... Catch a running away ship - u can try, u try to slow him down (he will die if u succeed), he tries to kill u. Why do u want to have 100% bulletproof tacklers?

You are defending a few very broken and illogical things as the game was built around them many years ago. Ofcourse you will think you are right. Im just stating my opinion ;-)

I will say no more.
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#18 - 2015-07-28 20:15:41 UTC
Shrike Crendraven wrote:
Why do u want to have 100% bulletproof tacklers?

You are defending a few very broken and illogical things as the game was built around them many years ago. Ofcourse you will think you are right. Im just stating my opinion ;-)

I will say no more.


Tacklers are in no way bulletproof, unless its a PvE fitted BS they are very likely to die, If its a PvE fitted frig/cruiser against a PvP BS guess who wins?
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2015-07-28 20:22:14 UTC
Shrike Crendraven wrote:
Bigger and more expensive ships are meant to be better in every aspect, yes. One good thing about eve is that the balance is about the money. The more u pay, the better stuff u get.

I'd say cars are a good analogy - sure u can drive a dacia duster - its a good car, but a range rover thats priced around 100.000+ eur *is* better in each and every aspect. Why isnt everyone driving a range rover then??? Those dumb people!! :D See my point?

BS should require a significant party of smaller ships to defeat - lets say 3-5 cruisers. (currently one cruiser can pretty much destroy a battleship, isnt it wrong?)

The price should be a barrier so not everyone can buy and fly one - i dont really see any problems. Imaging BS hulls for 15bil apiece. Creditcard warriors wont care, gankers wil be supperhappy to organize a bs-ganking party, finally whoever gets a BS will be happy as they get more firepower and "relative" (;-)) safety.

It really does not have to be "fair". Please adjust the price so the loss of one can really hurt. And give them the power they lack.

Train for super I'd say, and enjoy dem costs.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#20 - 2015-07-28 20:53:08 UTC
Shrike Crendraven wrote:

Quote:
Your analogy is flawed. A range rover is not better than a dacia duster in every aspect, because it probably has poorer fuel economy. So it might be faster and haul/tow more, but in doing so uses more fuel than the duster. You cannot just get "more" of everything for free. Everything has a cost/balance. This isnt WoW.


Fuel economy is "cost". At the same time hardly worth accounting for (give u an exmaple - i tank 200eur monthly, this is nothing compared to the price of car divided by 4-5 years + insurance costs + taxes and whatnot).

Speaking of BS costing more i meant exactly that - make them cost more. In fuel, in hulls in setup. It will balance out.

Many many games are making the flaw of going into separate pve and pvp ways.... Pve would really be more fun if more than raw dps and tank was required ;-( Plus you wouldnt have the whole pve/pvp fits problem ever.

The tackler thingy - well, seen any sci-fi movie when a swarm of small vessels rush for a bigger enemies?? - yes they get swatted, most of them. As they should. This tackling is very un-intuitive role... Catch a running away ship - u can try, u try to slow him down (he will die if u succeed), he tries to kill u. Why do u want to have 100% bulletproof tacklers?

You are defending a few very broken and illogical things as the game was built around them many years ago. Ofcourse you will think you are right. Im just stating my opinion ;-)

I will say no more.


What about weight/size? Harder to navigate in confined areas. The increased mass can also play a role in off roading. Its better at certain things than the other. But is not better at everything than a duster.

Those bigger ships getting swarmed normally have their own fighter squadrons for defense from smaller ships. In eve you could say drones offer the same role. I also remember seeing the smallest ship in starwars fly into the bridge of the larger ship (super star destroyer) and disabling it/killed it. And which ships blew up its deflector shield generators? Oh right, the small ones. Your argument holds no water and doesnt even follow most scifi movies/shows. You are just trying to make something up that suits your argument.
123Next pageLast page