These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing battleships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-12-12 21:28:18 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
You'd be crazy not to use them, particularly considering the fact that the ISK cost is trivial for a lot of players.

There are lots of things you'd be crazy not to use that people still won't use. Good example: I do my PI in an Epithal with 4 warp stabs. It would be easy for a gang of two campers in strategic cruisers to fit +5 warp jam strength even if they had to use scramblers to do it because that thing doesn't warp all that fast, but they never do it. Often the gates of Naguton are camped, never have they caught me, but I see other industrial wrecks there. Multiple times they have locked and warp disrupted me. But apparently they get enough kills without fitting that many points because the prey doesn't know how to use warp stabs and fly defensively. There's two cases of people being crazy.

My brother brought up another: after seeing the +2 scram strength on the Navy Maulus, he couldn't understand why anyone would tackle with anything else. While he was giving the still weak scramble range too much credit, he did have a good point--if people actually used warp stabs properly then Navy Mauluses would be the way to fly lowsec gate camp. If the tacklers all used Navy Mauluses (wouldn't hurt their market price significantly) then the use of warp stabs for lowsec travel would be next to invalidated yet still the best fitting choice. This would result in a scenario in which lowsec gate campers all fly navy mauluses, and people just don't go through lowsec alone anymore because it doesn't work.

But that won't happen. People will continue not using warp stabs, and tacklers will continue fitting just one warp disruptor, and all the warp stabbers will get away but there will still be plenty of catches. Tacklers would serve to benefit from fitting more points but they won't do it. Why? Because people think a certain way, and true nonconformists are rare. You can notice a discrepancy in people's chain of thought and point it out to them, but they will continue in it.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2015-12-12 21:56:56 UTC
Something that always struck me as a little odd, is that while optimal ranges from small to large guns increase, and neut ranges increase, point and web ranges are still the same. Sure, a 10km web is generous enough for a frigate. Not so much on a practically immobile battleship.

Obviously not a dealbreaker, but some badass points/webs seem appropriate for ships their size. Not to mention targeting range in general seems on the short side; I need a sebo to be able to target as far as I can shoot?

Guess I'm trying to do things they were not designed to do...

Also on topic: it'd sure be nice to be able to actually lock a target before it burns 60km off.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#63 - 2015-12-12 22:11:01 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
You'd be crazy not to use them, particularly considering the fact that the ISK cost is trivial for a lot of players.

There are lots of things you'd be crazy not to use that people still won't use. Good example: I do my PI in an Epithal with 4 warp stabs. It would be easy for a gang of two campers in strategic cruisers to fit +5 warp jam strength even if they had to use scramblers to do it because that thing doesn't warp all that fast, but they never do it. Often the gates of Naguton are camped, never have they caught me, but I see other industrial wrecks there. Multiple times they have locked and warp disrupted me. But apparently they get enough kills without fitting that many points because the prey doesn't know how to use warp stabs and fly defensively. There's two cases of people being crazy.

My brother brought up another: after seeing the +2 scram strength on the Navy Maulus, he couldn't understand why anyone would tackle with anything else. While he was giving the still weak scramble range too much credit, he did have a good point--if people actually used warp stabs properly then Navy Mauluses would be the way to fly lowsec gate camp. If the tacklers all used Navy Mauluses (wouldn't hurt their market price significantly) then the use of warp stabs for lowsec travel would be next to invalidated yet still the best fitting choice. This would result in a scenario in which lowsec gate campers all fly navy mauluses, and people just don't go through lowsec alone anymore because it doesn't work.

But that won't happen. People will continue not using warp stabs, and tacklers will continue fitting just one warp disruptor, and all the warp stabbers will get away but there will still be plenty of catches. Tacklers would serve to benefit from fitting more points but they won't do it. Why? Because people think a certain way, and true nonconformists are rare. You can notice a discrepancy in people's chain of thought and point it out to them, but they will continue in it.

HICs will become FOTM and then it will be the norm. With fitting multiple scrams you are making a big trade off with the loss of a valuable mid which is why people won't often do it just to catch the occasional stabbed ship, although with the HIC you make no compromise to fit the 37km+ scram.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2015-12-12 22:29:18 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Something that always struck me as a little odd, is that while optimal ranges from small to large guns increase, and neut ranges increase, point and web ranges are still the same. Sure, a 10km web is generous enough for a frigate. Not so much on a practically immobile battleship.

We need more web sizes:
Small web: short range, webs frigates really great. Doesn't web battleships very much, but that's fine if you're a frigate cause it's already slow.
Large webs: long range, webs battleships great. Doesn't web frigates so well. Need to prevent too much battleship dominance, frigates can't shoot the battleship so they should be able to get away.
Medium web: between the two, best against cruisers but good against the other two.

Then give them moderate powergrid costs, such that a frigate can squeeze in a medium web or a cruiser can squeeze in a large web. Frigates will easily be able to keep up with a battleship they are tackling, but a lone frigate will not be so able to completely disable it. Conversely, battleships will be able to significantly reduce a frigate's speed from a long ways off, perhaps enough for their cruiser buddy to shoot it, but the battleship must choose to fit a smaller web if they really want to stop that frigate and that comes at the cost of web range which is a big deal for a battleship.

Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Also on topic: it'd sure be nice to be able to actually lock a target before it burns 60km off.

Sniper battleships can fight out past 150km pretty easily and even interceptors need a good 30 seconds to reach that distance. Plus, with their MWD on their sig radius is boosted by at least more than double the base value. A sniper battleship with 150km range and boosted scan resolution can easily lock the interceptor and hit it. A t1 frigate is toast. Once again, don't need battleships to be any more able to kill frigates. Frigates need to be able to get away because they sure as Hek can't be killing battleships.




Moac Tor wrote:
HICs will become FOTM and then it will be the norm. With fitting multiple scrams you are making a big trade off with the loss of a valuable mid which is why people won't often do it just to catch the occasional stabbed ship, although with the HIC you make no compromise to fit the 37km+ scram.

I agree. Those gate tacklers could easily find a mid slot to give up and probably increase their total kill number as well as their ISK efficiency, but it's not for certain and would vary depending on which carebears live in their region.
I would press for giving HICs two scripts: the long infinipoint they have now or an alternative, lower-range infini-scram. Just the same, though, I doubt HICs will be standard even at the peak of their popularity curve. But we'll see.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#65 - 2015-12-12 22:32:14 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Something that always struck me as a little odd, is that while optimal ranges from small to large guns increase, and neut ranges increase, point and web ranges are still the same. Sure, a 10km web is generous enough for a frigate. Not so much on a practically immobile battleship.

Obviously not a dealbreaker, but some badass points/webs seem appropriate for ships their size. Not to mention targeting range in general seems on the short side; I need a sebo to be able to target as far as I can shoot?

Battleship sized webifiers and scrams; that is the kind of stuff CCP needs to be looking at. I suggested an AEO scram before, but I'm sure there are loads of good ideas for unique battleship and battlecruiser type modules.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#66 - 2015-12-12 23:19:40 UTC
Why not just introduce optimal and falloff to webs?
With this, we can vary metas on strength, fitting costs, optimal, and fall off.

Let's say you have t1, 3 metas, t2, and 2 Navy. (This is obviously not based on in game and is example only)

T1/meta 1 - optimal 10km, falloff 10km, max strength 40%
Meta 2 - optimal 8km, falloff 8km, max strength 50%
Meta 3 - optimal 15km, falloff 15km, max strength 30%
Meta 4 - optimal 6 km, falloff 6km, max strength 60%
T2/meta 5 - optimal 6km, falloff 40km, max strength 50%
Navy 1/meta 6 - optimal 20km, falloff 50km, max strength 40%
Navy 2/meta 6 - optimal 5km, falloff 8km max strength 70%

Of course you can factor fitting costs in there as well.
Remember, this isn't exactly what should be put in game, but a simple example of a route that can be taken.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#67 - 2015-12-13 03:44:59 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Why not just introduce optimal and falloff to webs?

While we're at it, let's give warp disruptors and scramblers a %-based chance like ECM.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2015-12-13 03:55:00 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
While we're at it, let's give warp disruptors and scramblers a %-based chance like ECM.

Howabout a % based chance in falloff, but they always work in optimal?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union
Hatakani Trade Winds Combine
#69 - 2015-12-14 17:08:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Mornak
Valacus wrote:

You keep telling me BS don't have to fill every role in EVE, but you never tell me what role the actually do fill is.

Shooting BSs, BCs, Cruise, capitals, you name it. Just not tiny fast frigs. That's their weakness unless you gimp your fit against all other targets.

Valacus wrote:

It gives them ONE role, and that's to kill other ships.

seriously? you mean kill ALL other ship-classes? That's no role, that's just OP.


Ok, one step back then...

If i talk about "ship roles", I don't mean stuff like haulers, salvagers, miningbarges and so on. I talk about different combat roles.
~90% of all ships in eve are designed to shoot other ships. but not all ship-types are useful against all other ship-types. They usually do good against their own class plus one up and one down. You can of course adapt your fitting (hence the name 'fitting') to extend that range in one direction while simultaneously cripple it in the other, but that's all you can do... unless you switch ship-types to something better suited for the task.

Ceptors and BSs are on the opposite ends of the (subcap-)spectrum. It's supposed to be a terrible hassle with a huge amount of drawbacks to get even close to accomplishing this. This is by design. And it's already possible now....


If you still don't get my point... well, then I'll have to give up, sorry.
Vailen Sere
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#70 - 2015-12-14 19:45:21 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Seriously though, I don't know how to improve them without tipping it into battleships online.

It's simple.


Here's what we see:


Battlecruiser attributes:
1 ##################
2 ##########
3 ######################
4 #############
5 ###
6 ################

Battleship attributes:
1 ######################
2 ##############
3 #########
4 ##
5 #######
6 ####################

People notice that some battleship attributes are slightly better than battlecruisers, while others are far worse.



Here's how most people respond:
"We should buff the far worse attributes so that battleships are no longer marginalized by battlecruisers"


But here's how you actually solve the problem:
"We should buff the things the battleship does well, because it doesn't do these things well enough to justify its drawbacks."

Exactly. The "power creep" has caught up to the point BS's need looked at. Seriously, they need to be looked at what they do well instead of just omni-boosting everything that they do, unless determined a certain across board trait is not performing at the level it should be, while keeping in mind BS's are to cruisers as cruisers are to frigates.

Am I saying that a raven using cruises should hit a frigate really well? no. I'm saying a raven fit the same way as a hyperion fit equally should have an epic slugfest and that frigate there, being 4 tiers down is pretty insignificant if it isn't a bomber.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#71 - 2015-12-14 20:19:03 UTC
Valacus wrote:
... IE, the Raven now receives a rate of fire bonus to torpedoes, cruise missiles, rapid heavies, HAMs, heavy missiles, rapid lights, lights, and rockets, as well as a velocity bonus to all of the same. The Raven is now literally king of the missiles....


Nice to see that someone else like the Raven as much as I do but if you would read the traits tab on the Barghest you might be up for a surprise - we already have that.

Yes some battleships have problems with the kiting meta but other than a signature resolution buff and base targetting range buff they are fine.
May I show you how you shoot interceptors with cruise missiles? I didn't have support or links or implants and only used "bad" tech 1 stuff, now look at that.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2015-12-15 20:36:06 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
And just to add, the biggest nerf to solo and small gang pvp is going to be the new 37km hic scram. If you want to help BSs then first thing is you need to nerf that, or at least make mjds immune to its affect.

It's not going to affect battleships much because almost nobody flies HICs. Before MJDs came out, HICs could easily have been tackling battleships but they weren't. We know from experience that all the HIC buffs simply are not enough to make people want to fly HICs, because they would rather pay 1/3rd less for a HAC which has the same combat power but lacks an attribute they'll almost never use.

And every long range bs weapon is going to take them way out of the 37km range.

If you get that close to a gheddon, your nueted. If you kite teh range and hes smart, he's got gardes to push you back. Or your an immobile HIC that will be nueted out and blown up for a fancy killmail.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#73 - 2015-12-15 20:42:04 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

How about a % based chance in falloff, but they always work in optimal?

Just give them fractional strength in fall off.
So At 1*Falloff you get 0.5 strength and need 2 disruptor's to disrupt a frigate without stabs.
Much more intuitive.
And then make 'scramming' based on exceeding the targets warp strength by a certain factor.

So Scrams are high strength short range.
Disruptors are low strength mid range.
And both can 'scram' if you get enough on a target relative to warp strength.

Stops the current binary effects we have now and creates a much more fluid battlefield.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2015-12-16 10:45:44 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Why not just introduce optimal and falloff to webs?

While we're at it, let's give warp disruptors and scramblers a %-based chance like ECM.

I think making RNG-free ECM (kinda like with that "minus max targets" suggestion) would be a better idea than that. Maybe.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#75 - 2015-12-16 17:04:29 UTC
Mornak wrote:

Shooting BSs, BCs, Cruise, capitals, you name it. Just not tiny fast frigs. That's their weakness unless you gimp your fit against all other targets.


Oh yes, shooting the sub-capitals that are used the least. That totally gives them a roll. Meanwhile, you can use cruisers and T3Ds to shoot anything except for POS batteries.

Mornak wrote:

seriously? you mean kill ALL other ship-classes? That's no role, that's just OP.


You mean like... T3Ds? THAT kind of OP? Oh no, we can't have that. Surely no ship should be allowed to do what T3Ds do... except T3Ds. Even a few HICs and faction cruisers can be used on anything with a given fit. At least battleships would give these ships another predator if battleships could be made viable against them.

You're right, I don't get your point, because it's just backwards self-defeating logic. "We can't let battleships have what other ships already do better, even though said other ships are faster, lock quicker, cost less, and are less skill intensive than battleships and said other ships are already dominating EVE while battleships are scarce." That's just painfully short sighted. Even if battleships were the only fit to kill anything ship in EVE, it's still a ship you can run from and evade. The current do-it-all hulls are not so easy to avoid, especially when one of them is the go-to instalock ship for every gate camp. At least my suggestion leaves opponents with options.
Gleanerman
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#76 - 2015-12-16 17:34:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gleanerman
When I first got into eve all I wanted too do was fly a rohk. Then I got too fly it with large tier one guns and I couldn't hit anything. When you warp into a pirate cluster and the Npc ships are all 40km awaya and then fly straight at you, you should be able to shoot them every time. In real life a tracking computer as sophisticated as the technology level the eve universe must posses should be able too hit the target every time. There is no option in eve to not fly in a straight line at your target. This has never made any logical sense to me, and the biggest problem in eve when it comes to combat. Now on the same token some of the world's mightiest ships have been destroyed by one lucky torpedo or cruise missle. Such as the German Bismarck. I'd just like to see some realism in combat nom matter the size of the ship. One 425 mm shell from on hybrid turret would decimate it's target in terms frictionless environment of space. Especially a small one like a frigate flying straight at it.
If I was driving a combine harvester down the road and 2 mIles awaya you where on a dirt bike and I had a 50 cal too shoot you I'd it you before you could even see me. Especially if I had sophisticated computer controlled targeting. Now if I didn't see you and you got to circle me you would be able to flatten my tires hit my fuel tank or engine and then have your way with me. On the same token if I did manage to hit you witg the same 50 cal, if it didn't kill you I'd be able too destroy the bike in one shot.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at. I just feel like all ships of any class need more realism when it comes to combat. Battleships quickly become sitting ducks when in reality they have a much better chance at winning agianst smaller ships. Before someone posted the idea of letting big ships have large guns that act like small guns I would support something like that. As agian in real life large Battleships have plenty of small guns for anti air or close range combat
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#77 - 2015-12-16 18:29:53 UTC
Gleanerman wrote:
When I first got into eve all I wanted too do was fly a rohk. Then I got too fly it with large tier one guns and I couldn't hit anything. When you warp into a pirate cluster and the Npc ships are all 40km awaya and then fly straight at you, you should be able to shoot them every time. In real life a tracking computer as sophisticated as the technology level the eve universe must posses should be able too hit the target every time. There is no option in eve to not fly in a straight line at your target. This has never made any logical sense to me, and the biggest problem in eve when it comes to combat. Now on the same token some of the world's mightiest ships have been destroyed by one lucky torpedo or cruise missle. Such as the German Bismarck. I'd just like to see some realism in combat nom matter the size of the ship. One 425 mm shell from on hybrid turret would decimate it's target in terms frictionless environment of space. Especially a small one like a frigate flying straight at it.
If I was driving a combine harvester down the road and 2 mIles awaya you where on a dirt bike and I had a 50 cal too shoot you I'd it you before you could even see me. Especially if I had sophisticated computer controlled targeting. Now if I didn't see you and you got to circle me you would be able to flatten my tires hit my fuel tank or engine and then have your way with me. On the same token if I did manage to hit you witg the same 50 cal, if it didn't kill you I'd be able too destroy the bike in one shot.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at. I just feel like all ships of any class need more realism when it comes to combat. Battleships quickly become sitting ducks when in reality they have a much better chance at winning agianst smaller ships. Before someone posted the idea of letting big ships have large guns that act like small guns I would support something like that. As agian in real life large Battleships have plenty of small guns for anti air or close range combat


Comparing ships in EVE to realife does not equate to game balance. If BS had small guns and large guns, why fly any other ship? You have basically made a kill everything around it ship which makes other ships obsolete. Why fly anti-support ship when my 10man BS gang can kill anything around me.. sounds good in real life, but it doea not make for compelling strategy.

For your rokh reference, use an MJD and then try again when you are 100km away. Should track just fine then. In the game, 2-20km for a railgun is basically right on top of you. Railguns are some of the slowest tracking guns in the game.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#78 - 2015-12-16 21:42:15 UTC
Gleanerman wrote:
When I first got into eve all I wanted too do was fly a rohk. Then I got too fly it with large tier one guns and I couldn't hit anything. When you warp into a pirate cluster and the Npc ships are all 40km awaya and then fly straight at you, you should be able to shoot them every time. In real life a tracking computer as sophisticated as the technology level the eve universe must posses should be able too hit the target every time. There is no option in eve to not fly in a straight line at your target. This has never made any logical sense to me, and the biggest problem in eve when it comes to combat. Now on the same token some of the world's mightiest ships have been destroyed by one lucky torpedo or cruise missle. Such as the German Bismarck. I'd just like to see some realism in combat nom matter the size of the ship. One 425 mm shell from on hybrid turret would decimate it's target in terms frictionless environment of space. Especially a small one like a frigate flying straight at it.
If I was driving a combine harvester down the road and 2 mIles awaya you where on a dirt bike and I had a 50 cal too shoot you I'd it you before you could even see me. Especially if I had sophisticated computer controlled targeting. Now if I didn't see you and you got to circle me you would be able to flatten my tires hit my fuel tank or engine and then have your way with me. On the same token if I did manage to hit you witg the same 50 cal, if it didn't kill you I'd be able too destroy the bike in one shot.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at. I just feel like all ships of any class need more realism when it comes to combat. Battleships quickly become sitting ducks when in reality they have a much better chance at winning agianst smaller ships. Before someone posted the idea of letting big ships have large guns that act like small guns I would support something like that. As agian in real life large Battleships have plenty of small guns for anti air or close range combat


Real life battleship can also be sunk/destroyed with 1 lucky hit. Should we implement this in the name of realism too?
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2015-12-16 22:39:10 UTC
For the sake of science fiction, think 'structural integrity forcefields'. Nothing gets shot until your last hullpoint is spent. Otherwise, we'd see random system malfunctions all over the place and would have to seriously rethink hulltanking while we're at it.

As for undersized guns on battleships: you already can. Either use medium size drones, RHML or the dual-425mm autocannon series. Expect to get roflstomped by genuine anti-battleship armament, but that's the trade-off you make. What more fitting options do you guys want? The smallest large guns ARE practically medium sized guns....... Why don't you fit a rack of these, instead of asking for bonusses to medium guns?
Maraner
The Executioners
#80 - 2015-12-17 21:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Maraner
I have been reading this tread with interest. Personally I love the BS warfare of old. Megas and Geddons shooting each other in blobs and remote repping each other. It was fun.

These days a solo battleship is just a vicitim. Too slow to get away from anything, typically not strong enough to beat what it comes across. The whole class with one or two exceptions is looking a bit sorry for itself at the moment.

Suggested changes.

1. Revoke the warp speed nerf. This was a TERRIBLE idea and has meant that those that wanted to travel with small fleets just got left behind, this needs to be changed back to 3.0 immediately. I would buff the warp speed of the Mach even further.
2. A 10% hitpoint buff across the board on all BS hulls.
3. Finally I would add something unique, I would make them MJD invulnerable, if capitols are invulnerable to micro jump fields then make BS the same, they are after all the original capitol vessels.

Thanks for the excellent thread and keep it rolling guys, CCP should comment please.