These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Battleships?

First post
Author
Taurean Eltanin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2016-11-07 16:12:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Taurean Eltanin
Apparently there is a maximum quote limit of 5. After the first quote, then, I have put your comments in italics.

Steffles wrote:

This is actually not true. It sounds good but its false. A good example which completely debunks this is the recent fleet of 80ish Svipuls that slaughtered PL's fleet of 120 Mach's.

I don't know anything about that fight, but I would point out that Svipuls are acknowledged by CCP to be overpowered and not working as intended. Nerfs are incoming. I'm fairly certain that your example says more about Svipuls than it does about battleships.


Lets look at your post a bit -

Battleships are not particularly intended to be solo - true or false? False initially, true after about 2004 or 2005.


This is an odd comment. I used the present tense. You acknowledge the current correctness of my point. Therefore it is true. None of this 'false initially' stuff.


What we're missing here though is a bit of perspective. Interceptors were never intended to be used solo. Nor were recons. Nor were dreadnaughts or carriers. You could say that none of the ships post 2004-5 were intended to be used solo but almost all are or can be except the battleship which will die extremely quickly due to its terrible mobility and inability to disengage (apart from ships like the Mach and to a lesser extent Typhoon and Tempest).

Even if what you say is true, all you have done is establish that the battleship is different from those other ship classes you mention. Which is entirely consistent with what I said in my earlier post. I get the impression that you are replying to the post you think I made, rather than the one you actually quoted.


In terms of your example you suggest to defeat a single frigate in a battleship due to it outrunning your tracking and unbonused drones you need to have an extra battleship... I think I'll leave that one right there as a great example of how terrible battleships are then.

Again, you seem to be responding to something other than what I posted. I did not say that a single frigate would 'defeat' a battleship - assuming any kind of active tank or passive regeneration, the frigate is unlikely to apply enough dps to destroy the battleship. And battleships have a variety of tools that they can use to destroy said frigate, assuming they have been fit to do so.

All I did was point out that a particular difficulty - being unable to bring your main armament to bear on a frigate in a close orbit - went away when you had more than one battleship. Which was the whole thrust of my argument; that battleships 'scale up' very well for fleet actions.


Battleships are not area of denial ships. Ships that are mobile, apply dps quickly and which are difficult to catch are area of denial ships. A Svipul fleet, a hurricane fleet, a cerb fleet are much more effective area of denial ships than a battleship, especially now in the Fozziesov era.

I've already made a point about the Svipul. I won't pretend to be experts on those kinds of fleets - possibly you are correct. But it does seem an unlikely claim. Can you support this with evidence? Can you link to any recent fleet actions in defense of a fixed point where a gang of Cerebi or Hurricanes defeated a similar sized fleet of battleships?


In short battleships don't have a role that cannot be performed by another ship as well or better.

I don't think you've actually supported this point.


There are a few battleships that can also perform well however that's not because of a particular battleship ability its because they have certain non-battleship abilties (speed, nuets, drones bonuses, utility highs not being required for battleship sized weaponry).

I think that you are confusing 'not all battleships are equally good' (which is true of any class of ship), and 'battleships have no role'.


In short the main reason you will find battleships in fleets is because of 1) t1 newb friendly and insurance 2) some faction ships like Machs don't suffer as badly from being a battleship because they have bonuses.

Your point about insurance is very interesting. From a resource management point of view, it certainly makes sense to bring a T1 battleship over a T2 cruiser, all other things being equal.


Frankly as things stand, a carrier with a networked sensor array or a HAW Dread are better battleships than battleships are. They can kill subcaps much better than battleships can in most cases. The last time I orbited a battleship with an AB Arazu at 30km it couldn't hit me. The last time I orbited a dread at 30km in an AB Lachesis it killed me in 2 volleys. Enuff said.

I don't think that anyone is going to disagree that capital ships are not stronger than battleships (or any sub capital, really). In fact, I went so far as to mention capital ships in the post you quoted. That is not the same as saying that battleships do not have a role in subcapital warfare. My understanding, from the battle reports that I read, and the doctrines that I have flown, is that they are used fairly heavily.

If you like reading about low sec piracy or wormhole pvp, you might enjoy my blog.

Cade Windstalker
#62 - 2016-11-07 16:40:49 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
But why a battleship in general? They seem to suck. They have a hard time hitting anything but other battleships. I don't know why you'd PvP in one (and perhaps people don't), and why would you put them in fleets? Seems like a fleet of battleships would have a hard, if not impossible time, against a bunch of cruisers and frigs.


This is only true some of the time and against very specific Cruiser comps. If you've ever heard of Armor HACs that's the basic idea. You make up for your lack of tank and DPS but being small enough and fast enough that you avoid a lot of damage.

That said those comps don't always work and like I said they're pretty specific. If you can pull range on on it has a pretty hard time, for example.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
This is one place where I think CCP screwed the pooch. In real life, a frigate, destroyer, cruiser, whatever, would be toast against a battleship.


This is actually pretty false these days. You'll note that the US hasn't built a Battleship since WW2 and hasn't had one in its active fleet since 1990. These days a Cruiser, Destroyer, or Submarine can mount weapons capable of sinking a Battleship and Battleships are large, slow, and vulnerable to air attack as a result. It's simply not possible to armor a real-life battleship well enough to justify building a ship of that size and the "big guns" that defined the class are no longer necessary or even particularly dominant.

All of that said, comparing real life naval ships to Eve ship classes is an exercise in futility. It just doesn't work and creates unrealistic and false expectations for in-game roles and performance. The ship classes simply define size, how they're used is defined by the player.

Beast of Revelations wrote:
But at any rate, tell me why these things are used, if indeed they are.


Large fleet battles mostly, though they also see some use in defensive fleets or anything where speed isn't much of a factor. It doesn't matter much if you have a low chance of hitting a Cruiser because he has half your EHP, your fleet can be spread out enough that he'll have bad traversal against at least some of you. More recently with the drop in price of Pirate BSes the Mach fleet is starting to replace the Maelstrom fleet because it brings more mobility to the table and Rattlesnake fleets are also seeing some significant use due to high drone damage, the ability of missiles to always apply at least some damage, and the brick tank on Rattlesnakes.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#63 - 2016-11-07 17:10:11 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Just want to point out that if we feel the need to nerf a whole bunch of other ships just to make battleships viable, then it's probably easier and better to just buff the battleships.

People like their ships, and nerfing T3C's won't make them fly battleships, the same way nerfing high-sec won't make carebears interested in low.

There are several kinds of T1 cruisers, and several classes of T2 cruisers. Compared to the multitude of cruisers (and frigates), there are way too few battleship types. EVE doesn't have gear progression, and bigger isn't better, but I feel that there should be a greater diversity of battleships, given that they're sort of the end-of-the-line as far as subcaps.


The 4 T3C invalidate way more than battleships. I think at the last count some 60+ ships were either invalidated or matched by T3C.

We are talking of a cruiser that gets more EHP than a battleship, a sig half the size, 3x faster, better tracking and more firepower all while being cap stable.

That is in no way balanced. Never mind battleships, how are AHACs supposed to compete with that?
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#64 - 2016-11-07 17:58:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

So you've formed balance opinions about a class of ships yo have never even flown, and are arguing with people who have?

That's...I don't even know what to call that.


Oh, you're one of 'those people.' People who think that in order to have an opinion about something, you have to have direct personal experience with it. I've been told I can't have opinions on war (because I haven't fought in one), on management (because I haven't been a manager), on politics (because I haven't been the president of the USA) - on and on. And now on a class of unit in a game. Personally I think it's the height of ignorance.

It's obvious that I don't need to have flown a ship in order to have a balance opinion about it. I have two eyes, I can see, I can read, I have a brain, I can think, and that's all that's necessary. I don't think it's rocket science. There's obviously an issue.

My advice is, if you don't agree with my arguments, attack my arguments, but don't attack me or tell me I'm not allowed to have an opinion. It wouldn't work in a logic class, and it won't work here.
Corbain Huesin
Doomheim
#65 - 2016-11-07 18:08:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Corbain Huesin
I feel like battleships only need 3 things to be relevant in fleets again.
1. 10-15% more EHP
2. 10-15% more cap
3. (and this a long stretch) ability to use 10 drone to make them more effective at protecting them selfs from smaller ships.

Battleships should be a sub-cap fleet centerpiece. The issue now is mainly there lack of tank against smaller ships combined with relative inflexibility when it comes to using modules (as pointed out they cant use capital modules).
Hell, even if you just up them to 4 rigging slots and 500 adjustment it would go a long way to give them more flexibility.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#66 - 2016-11-07 18:28:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

So you've formed balance opinions about a class of ships yo have never even flown, and are arguing with people who have?

That's...I don't even know what to call that.


Oh, you're one of 'those people.' People who think that in order to have an opinion about something, you have to have direct personal experience with it. I've been told I can't have opinions on war (because I haven't fought in one), on management (because I haven't been a manager), on politics (because I haven't been the president of the USA) - on and on. And now on a class of unit in a game. Personally I think it's the height of ignorance.

It's obvious that I don't need to have flown a ship in order to have a balance opinion about it. I have two eyes, I can see, I can read, I have a brain, I can think, and that's all that's necessary. I don't think it's rocket science. There's obviously an issue.

My advice is, if you don't agree with my arguments, attack my arguments, but don't attack me or tell me I'm not allowed to have an opinion. It wouldn't work in a logic class, and it won't work here.


Oh, you are one of 'those people'. You know the type I'm talking about, the people who are willfully ignorant of something they could easily gain some experience in (like, oh, I don't know, a class of imaginary internet spaceships) and then scream "I'm allowed to have an opinion even about stuff I don't know about!!" as if someone was trying to stop them from posting.

No one said you can't have an opinion. I'm saying it's dumb to have an opinion about something you could experience for yourself, BEFORE EXPERIENCING IT. We aren't talking about getting elected to something or joining the army (although it must be said, civilians have all kinds of stupid opinions about war, I've never been a soldier so i'm smart enough to STFU about it around veterans), we are talking about Space Battleships in a video game.

Whle their may be disagreement between those of us who have flown Battleships (imo divided between the "I want my solopwnmobile back" crowd and the "lets please not screw up the game with stuff that just gonna get nerfed anyways" crowd), at the very least we've flown the enough to have an informed opinion.

Battleships are my favorite class, I think they are mostly fine and I think that CCP screwing with them would reopen a situation that is long dead and buried for a reason. If small ships are a problem, Grapplers, RHMLs, Drones and Burst Jammers (if they are in scram range, they are in jam range) are options...

...Which you'd know if you'd ever flown one lol.
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#67 - 2016-11-07 18:34:19 UTC
Corbain Huesin wrote:
I feel like battleships only need 3 things to be relevant in fleets again.
1. 10-15% more EHP
2. 10-15% more cap
3. (and this a long stretch) ability to use 10 drone to make them more effective at protecting them selfs from smaller ships.

Battleships should be a sub-cap fleet centerpiece. The issue now is mainly there lack of tank against smaller ships combined with relative inflexibility when it comes to using modules (as pointed out they cant use capital modules).
Hell, even if you just up them to 4 rigging slots and 500 adjustment it would go a long way to give them more flexibility.

Yeah give the Machariel 10-15% more EHP.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#68 - 2016-11-07 18:49:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Corbain Huesin wrote:


Battleships should be a sub-cap fleet centerpiece.


2 problems with that.

The 1st is that balancing something to a 'cenerpiece' of something never works The idea might be for battleships to be an integral part of a small gang or some such, but what will happen with the buffs you want is "Battleships Online" ie whole hugh fleets of the things with not even bombers able to reliably kill them, festooned with cap batteries making cap warfare against them impossible, and with clouds of drones that slaughter any inty or dictor that gets close (and even if bubbled they'd just MJD moonwalk away).

The 2nd thing is that in some cases, they are already like that. I remember dreading the nights when that damn frig fleet...and BALTEC would swing by and like fools we'd all try to kill his Mega while getting slaughtered by his mates.

More recently my area has been visited by small kitey gangs that have inculded Barghests, Machs, Typhoons and even a Raven (accompanied by the standard kiting ships like Orthurses and Navy Omens and Oracles....I do NOT want to see any ships that start with "O" for a few months lol).

The 2nd point is very important, if competent people can use Battleships like that RIGHT NOW, what happens when you buff them?

Atrocity happens, that's what. This is why CCP is quicker to nerf things than buff them, buffs have more unintended consequences than nerfs do. IMO it should stay that way.
Raiden Schereau
Cresent Shade
#69 - 2016-11-07 18:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Raiden Schereau
Very interesing discussion game wise and game development wise. And good and valid points made by the OP.

As I begun EVE I soon notices that a "battleship" in EVE is no battleship.

EVE ships evolve mostly around WWI naval warfare.

A dreadnought is a battleship with a armament of one large calibre. This was an fail idea of the British Navy. A battleship carries an mix a calibers in differnet batteries.

An aicraft carrier is a refit battleship, battlecruiser or even tanker hull with the ability to launch aircraft, an idea of the US Navy that was very successful in the pacific - due to better climate and seas than in the north atlantic.

So technically all cap - capital ships, are battleship or biuld on battleship hulls.

In EVE - a game I really love - a battleship is a heavy cruiser or armourd cruiser.

Today battleships and aircraf carriers are obsolete wepons of WW2.

In EVE battleships are in a bad place - not obesolte weapons, but weapons system in a dire need of role definition.

It is useless to copy WWI naval warfare too much.

EVE developers have started balancing EVE top down - good to see on the new cap meta modules that all have BPOs.

So the EVE battleship will get high angle weapons (HAW).

With HAWs an EVE battleship would be in a place where the heavy or armoured cruiser belongs.

So simply wait a bit.

07
Memphis Baas
#70 - 2016-11-07 18:52:18 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The 4 T3C invalidate way more than battleships. I think at the last count some 60+ ships were either invalidated or matched by T3C. That is in no way balanced. Never mind battleships, how are AHACs supposed to compete with that?


I don't disagree about T3C's, but this is a battleships thread.
Raiden Schereau
Cresent Shade
#71 - 2016-11-07 19:06:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Raiden Schereau
T3C`s are in a very strong position which suits destroyers fine.

CCP is giving the two most owerpowered T3Cs a balance pass. I appreciate that. But destroyers are rightfully the bane of capital craft.

In real life torpedo boat destroyers had the exact role they may just soon recieve with D.I.C.K.S`s,. destroy vessels with high explosive weapons attacks (torpedo boats).

Technically a "covert ops" bomber is an destroyer too - you can call it a submarine but that really does not fit well. There are no real "sub" ships in EVE. A cloak is more of a smoke screen.

That would be a good way to balance cloaks btw - give them an proximity warning - but that is not the thread here.

If CCP desires to stay on the WWI naval topic large guns would need a kind of splash damage.

We all know that that will not work due to the powers of concord.

A possibility for large guns or missiles would be a new ammo type that would have the effect of a target painter - ergo more dps applied to small targets.

07
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#72 - 2016-11-07 19:37:47 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Memphis Baas wrote:


I don't disagree about T3C's, but this is a battleships thread.


They are the reason so many complain about battleships. The ideas always wind up being to buff battleships to ever higher levels to beat the T3C, power creep is very bad. You need to whack to 4 problem ships not buff everything around them.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#73 - 2016-11-07 19:56:10 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

So you've formed balance opinions about a class of ships yo have never even flown, and are arguing with people who have?

That's...I don't even know what to call that.


Oh, you're one of 'those people.' People who think that in order to have an opinion about something, you have to have direct personal experience with it. I've been told I can't have opinions on war (because I haven't fought in one), on management (because I haven't been a manager), on politics (because I haven't been the president of the USA) - on and on. And now on a class of unit in a game. Personally I think it's the height of ignorance.

It's obvious that I don't need to have flown a ship in order to have a balance opinion about it. I have two eyes, I can see, I can read, I have a brain, I can think, and that's all that's necessary. I don't think it's rocket science. There's obviously an issue.

My advice is, if you don't agree with my arguments, attack my arguments, but don't attack me or tell me I'm not allowed to have an opinion. It wouldn't work in a logic class, and it won't work here.



Oh... you're one of 'those people.' People who think their ignorance is as good as everyone else's knowledge. Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#74 - 2016-11-07 19:57:55 UTC
Battleships in their current state are generally fine. They do end up getting a bum rap PvP-wise for a few reasons:

1. They're slow, and slow roaming fleets are no fun. This is less of an issue if your fleet has a fixed objective.

2. They require active piloting. You can't just "orbit", "keep at range", or form up on your anchor with many battleship fits, you have to watch your motion relative to your target's motion.

3. The killmail whore factor. Everyone wants in on a battleship kill, so more pilots will tend to get up off of their butts to go fight one.

4. Bombers. If you gather a large group of battleships in one place anywhere bombs can be deployed, you're all but asking to get wiped out by a good bombing run.


Having said all of that, if you can overcome those shortcomings, battleships do offer a lot of options and capabilities in a durable platform. Some battleships are good for soloing in ('Geddon, Hype) and others are made for small groups (RR Domi anyone?) or sniper fleets. But what you absolutely can't do is just fit and fly a battleship like an oversized cruiser and expect to not end up as a comedy killmail.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#75 - 2016-11-07 20:03:56 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Battleships in their current state are generally fine. They do end up getting a bum rap PvP-wise for a few reasons:

1. They're slow, and slow roaming fleets are no fun. This is less of an issue if your fleet has a fixed objective.

2. They require active piloting. You can't just "orbit", "keep at range", or form up on your anchor with many battleship fits, you have to watch your motion relative to your target's motion.

3. The killmail whore factor. Everyone wants in on a battleship kill, so more pilots will tend to get up off of their butts to go fight one.

4. Bombers. If you gather a large group of battleships in one place anywhere bombs can be deployed, you're all but asking to get wiped out by a good bombing run.


Having said all of that, if you can overcome those shortcomings, battleships do offer a lot of options and capabilities in a durable platform. Some battleships are good for soloing in ('Geddon, Hype) and others are made for small groups (RR Domi anyone?) or sniper fleets.



Totally agree.

Quote:

But what you absolutely can't do is just fit and fly a battleship like an oversized cruiser and expect to not end up as a comedy killmail.


Mostly....... AgreeBig smile
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#76 - 2016-11-07 20:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Corbain Huesin wrote:
I feel like battleships only need 3 things to be relevant in fleets again.
1. 10-15% more EHP


Yes, I do realize that I literally just posted about how battleships are fine, but I wanted to address your first point.

If one were looking for a way to buff battleships, you couldn't just buff their EHP/tank. In order to maintain parity between battleship offense and battleship defense, you'd also have to increase battleships DPS.

This is called power creep and is generally a bad thing. (Shout out to baltec1!)

Now, on the other hand, if you buffed their EHP/tank by x%, buffed their DPS by x% as well, but then decreased their application so that they did the same damage to smaller ships as they do now, that would produce a more balanced change. Battleships would be harder for smaller ships to kill, but battleships would kill each other and smaller ships just the same as they do now.

Not that I think this is necessary, but it's just something to think about instead of just saying "Buff battleship EHP".

Jenn aSide wrote:
Quote:

But what you absolutely can't do is just fit and fly a battleship like an oversized cruiser and expect to not end up as a comedy killmail.


Mostly....... AgreeBig smile


Well, yes. There are exceptions to most rules though. Blink That Mach fight was awesome.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Corbain Huesin
Doomheim
#77 - 2016-11-07 20:49:11 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Corbain Huesin wrote:
I feel like battleships only need 3 things to be relevant in fleets again.
1. 10-15% more EHP


Yes, I do realize that I literally just posted about how battleships are fine, but I wanted to address your first point.

If one were looking for a way to buff battleships, you couldn't just buff their EHP/tank. In order to maintain parity between battleship offense and battleship defense, you'd also have to increase battleships DPS.

This is called power creep and is generally a bad thing. (Shout out to baltec1!)

Now, on the other hand, if you buffed their EHP/tank by x%, buffed their DPS by x% as well, but then decreased their application so that they did the same damage to smaller ships as they do now, that would produce a more balanced change. Battleships would be harder for smaller ships to kill, but battleships would kill each other and smaller ships just the same as they do now.

Not that I think this is necessary, but it's just something to think about instead of just saying "Buff battleship EHP".


I see your point, i rather avoid increasing DPS as that will result in OP Battleships. I was mainly just thinking Battleships just need more flexability and greater tank, there DPS can be enhanced by target painters and other modules designed to slow/stop smaller ships. its just a matter of flexability of the BS or the fleet its with.
Degnar Oskold
Moira.
Villore Accords
#78 - 2016-11-07 21:53:16 UTC
Battleships still get used heavily in lowsec, where they can mostly laugh at bombers.

Lowsec pirates tend towards Machariel fleets, Caldari Militia use Rattlesnakes, Gallente use Navy Megathron fleets.

Battleships are great at dealing DPS and buffering enough incoming DPS for logistic ships to repair them.
Cara Forelli
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#79 - 2016-11-07 23:43:37 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Oh, you're one of 'those people.' People who think that in order to have an opinion about something, you have to have direct personal experience with it. I've been told I can't have opinions on war (because I haven't fought in one), on management (because I haven't been a manager), on politics (because I haven't been the president of the USA) - on and on. And now on a class of unit in a game. Personally I think it's the height of ignorance.

Fortunately, having no experience with informed opinions, what you think doesn't matter. Lol

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament

Memphis Baas
#80 - 2016-11-08 00:34:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
They are the reason so many complain about battleships.


T3C's are ONE reason, and we're agreed, NERF them, end of discussion. I mean, what else needs to be said? CCP's already doing it, aren't they?

Post #74 above, and other previous posts show other reasons to complain about battleships, and thus we can continue to have a battleship discussion thread about battleships without constant attempts to derail or stop the discussion because T3C's.