These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Battleships and Capitals: Bigger is not better

Author
MRietfors
Lumen et Umbra
#1 - 2017-05-04 09:54:49 UTC
HI all, I'm a long time player that read a lot but does not write so much.
However after long thinking I decided to start this topic cause I feel that this already great game could be much better.

The problem title is: "bigger is not really better in eve"

Details:
A- Bigger in eve cost more than smaller and it is fine
B- Bigger in eve means you get ganked more, spend more, get killed more, go slower, target slower etc.... and this could be ok too
C- Bigger in eve means you get some more DPS, some more range and "apparently" some more tank ... but the last is not true cause you get hit much more and better .... AND this is not OK
D- Smaller ships can kill bigger ships even 1vs1 very easily .... AND this is really absurd imho

What a spaceship/sandbox game is supposed to be in order to be really fun? (always IMHO)

A - To kill a good Battleship (with good skills too) you should need a decent fleet of cruisers at least, and they should suffer some losses in the process too
B - Battleships should be a reference point in the game: no one should be able to engage them without fear! Maybe are slow but their tank should be really great, their DPS huge compared to cruisers and frigates, and they shall have way to counter small ships too.
They should be the king of the game, in no way an elite cruiser shall be able to pose a threat to a good battleship.
C- Capitals should be 3 to 5 times effective as a battleship at least.

Basic impacts in eve:
If we consider “100” as the cost, dps and tank of a good T2 frigate, we can imagine:

T2 Cruisers: approx. 500 dps, 700 tank, 2.000 cost (almost there already, apart from the cost)

T2 Battleships: 3.000 DPS, 5.000 tank, 50.000 cost

Subcapitals: 15.000 DPS, 50.000 tank, 500.000 cost


I didn’t mentioned the other stats (speed, energy, recharging, drones etc… but those need to be adjusted as well)

Final notes:
I cry when I see a 1Bil rattlesnake that cannot make a simple DED5 while with an HAC or a t3 cruisers I can easily solo up to DED8/9.
I cry even more when I see new player losing they shining new Battleship to an easygoing ganker in a stupid stabber.
I could do more and more examples..…….

I hope many other pilots would like this idea and sooner or later CCP would consider it.
Any comment is appreciated.
Have Fun, Mri
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#2 - 2017-05-04 11:38:08 UTC
Little ships have been killing big ships since the invention of the Whitehead torpedo in the late 1800's. Torpedo bombers were one of the biggest threats to capital ships in WW2.

Real capital ships have point defense and CIWS in addition to an escort fleet for area defense.

Eve battleships are frequently used solo in PVE and I believe all can launch a squad of light drones for defense against small craft. They also have weapon systems optimized for use against smaller ships - i.e. rapid heavy missile launcher.

Capital ships shouldn't fly without escort. Even if you give them point defense and CIWS, they will be vulnerable, high value targets.
MRietfors
Lumen et Umbra
#3 - 2017-05-04 13:28:44 UTC
Do Little wrote:
Little ships have been killing big ships since the invention of the Whitehead torpedo in the late 1800's. Torpedo bombers were one of the biggest threats to capital ships in WW2.

Real capital ships have point defense and CIWS in addition to an escort fleet for area defense.

Eve battleships are frequently used solo in PVE and I believe all can launch a squad of light drones for defense against small craft. They also have weapon systems optimized for use against smaller ships - i.e. rapid heavy missile launcher.

Capital ships shouldn't fly without escort. Even if you give them point defense and CIWS, they will be vulnerable, high value targets.



I understand your vision is biased toward "sea combat" and i like that too (especially World of Warships e.g.).

But EVE is a space game, not a sea game.
In space more space means more power, much more power, nothing small should be able to kill anything big, unless in large numbers.

Big ships should be able to withstand ofr long time and killing many small ships in the meanwhile.
This would be much more fun imho.
Today there is really no point in flying big ships.

Mri
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
#4 - 2017-05-04 14:20:40 UTC
You know I've mentioned this before, why capital ships don't have but only a few high slots and only cheapo abilities to terrorize any swarm of smaller ships...I don't get it.

A lay out for me would be;

High tier 1; slot layout =8 users small weapon systems.

High tier 2; slot layout = 6 uses mid size weapons.

High tier 3 slot layout = current fitting for the X-tra large stuff

A least gives the cap the ability to counter small gangs effectively as it should be, your correct when you say it should be fear to approach it, but nope, you get frigates solo tackling them and holding them down till reinforcements arrive and that is the problem, that solo frigate shouldn't last 5 seconds alone with a cap ship, I mean who builds capital ships with no teir level of guns to counter many different threats...Shocked
Valkin Mordirc
#5 - 2017-05-05 03:04:33 UTC
Battleships, and up, are not intended to be solo pwnage mobiles. They are meant to have supporting elements to be used with them, for the most part anyways.

EVE's ship line is not meant to be an ascending level of badassery, every ship is designed to fill, in some capacity, a role. Certain battleships also do fine solo in a highly specialized fitting, to used against certain conditions in a situation.

Nightmares, Vindi's Rattler,, Barghest, Machs, and Typhoons can go about solo, or work in a small gang with little supporting elements and do fine. But all in all those ships need to be in a situations where the grid suits them, it's on you, not the game to make that happen.


And again. Battleships and Capital's need a supporting gang to be effective. It's how they are designed. If you have a proper supporting gang, you'll rip your enemies faces off. That is the point.

Asking for a T2 battleship that does 3000DPS is ********.

Also the idea for a Point defensive that allows you to fit 8 small turrets/6 medium turrets is bad because thats one slot for a grouping. It would be OP as fuuuuuck.
#DeleteTheWeak
MRietfors
Lumen et Umbra
#6 - 2017-05-05 08:17:40 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Battleships, and up, are not intended to be solo pwnage mobiles. They are meant to have supporting elements to be used with them, for the most part anyways.

EVE's ship line is not meant to be an ascending level of badassery, every ship is designed to fill, in some capacity, a role. Certain battleships also do fine solo in a highly specialized fitting, to used against certain conditions in a situation.

Nightmares, Vindi's Rattler,, Barghest, Machs, and Typhoons can go about solo, or work in a small gang with little supporting elements and do fine. But all in all those ships need to be in a situations where the grid suits them, it's on you, not the game to make that happen.

......


I agree that today EVE is designed this way, what I'm saying is that in this way it is NOT FUN.

There is no point in flying big ships today, even in smal, medium and even some large fleet, cruisers fleets are almost always much better.

There aer a lot of posts of ppl trying to optimize Machariel or rattlesnakes to do solo L4 missions faster... this is dumb and absurd when you can do those mission at even greater speed in a proper fitted Ishtar or even a Gila.

Again: today there are no real reasons to fly battleships in eve imho.Ugh
Mri
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
#7 - 2017-05-05 09:25:31 UTC  |  Edited by: hmskrecik
MRietfors wrote:

The problem title is: "bigger is not really better in eve"

This is not a problem. This is a good game design.

Imagine for a while that your wish is granted. That battleships are formiddable, fear inducing ships. Now imagine a large gang of such ships and tell me, how would you best counter them? If your answer is "bring even more such battleships" then it's sure sign that your idea is flawed.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2017-05-05 09:28:41 UTC
hmskrecik wrote:
MRietfors wrote:

The problem title is: "bigger is not really better in eve"

This is not a problem. This is a good game design.

Imagine for a while that your wish is granted. That battleships are formiddable, fear inducing ships. Now imagine a large gang of such ships and tell me, how would you best counter them? If your answer is "bring even more such battleships" then it's sure sign that your idea is flawed.


We got supers for that.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

hmskrecik
TransMine Group
#9 - 2017-05-05 09:29:53 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
hmskrecik wrote:
MRietfors wrote:

The problem title is: "bigger is not really better in eve"

This is not a problem. This is a good game design.

Imagine for a while that your wish is granted. That battleships are formiddable, fear inducing ships. Now imagine a large gang of such ships and tell me, how would you best counter them? If your answer is "bring even more such battleships" then it's sure sign that your idea is flawed.


We got supers for that.

So, power creep?
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2017-05-05 11:14:29 UTC
hmskrecik wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
hmskrecik wrote:
MRietfors wrote:

The problem title is: "bigger is not really better in eve"

This is not a problem. This is a good game design.

Imagine for a while that your wish is granted. That battleships are formiddable, fear inducing ships. Now imagine a large gang of such ships and tell me, how would you best counter them? If your answer is "bring even more such battleships" then it's sure sign that your idea is flawed.


We got supers for that.

So, power creep?


That's Eve. Cool

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Punisher Ofara
Amar Adventurers
#11 - 2017-05-05 13:42:30 UTC
This sounds like a single-player game. You climb up the ladder and advance to the "best ship", own everything and "complete" the game. Done.
In a game that needs longevity, a better plan is to make sure that many different things are usable and worthwile, even if you are a veteran player. Helps to keep you interested. If you already had the most powerful, all-consuming mega ship, there would be little incentive to keep playing after it gets boring.
The way it is now, trying out new ships is fun, from all different categories since they all can make a difference. Also, it's great for new players. If you join a PvP corp, you can become a useful contributor fairly soon, without having to train "Battleships 5" and a gazillion other skills for months.
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
#12 - 2017-05-05 14:27:32 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
hmskrecik wrote:

So, power creep?


That's Eve. Cool

I get what you mean though in my opinion it's not that bad. We don't have levels, neither on characters nor on equipment, we don't have "endgame" stuff. As game design goes, EVE is quite rock-paper-scissory. And even if we have FOTM here and there, CCP occasionally rebalances stuff to shake things up (per words of CCP Fozzie, if memory serves).

Going back to the topic, this big vs. small ship dilemma is briliant. While big ships have better damage, better tank and better range, small ones have better speed and better damage application. If I was creating similar game, this is one of few ideas I would steal outright.
MRietfors
Lumen et Umbra
#13 - 2017-05-05 15:50:35 UTC
Punisher Ofara wrote:
This sounds like a single-player game. You climb up the ladder and advance to the "best ship", own everything and "complete" the game. Done.
In a game that needs longevity, a better plan is to make sure that many different things are usable and worthwile, even if you are a veteran player. Helps to keep you interested. If you already had the most powerful, all-consuming mega ship, there would be little incentive to keep playing after it gets boring.
The way it is now, trying out new ships is fun, from all different categories since they all can make a difference. Also, it's great for new players. If you join a PvP corp, you can become a useful contributor fairly soon, without having to train "Battleships 5" and a gazillion other skills for months.



Nah, this is not what I said.
Bigger ships should not be "overall" better, but for sure worthy flying.
Today it's not worthyfly a BS in eve, is this good game design?

Having Big battlship fearsome does not mean those can do everythig, they will have ohter limitations: e.g. cannot enter many mission or DEd sites, are very slow and easy to scan, are very expensive etc....

But you need to feel their greatness when u fly them or, as today, you won't use them, or you use them and get disappointed.

Answer this: is there any expert long time eve player out there that flies a tempest or a rattlesnake (or any other BS for example) on a regular base apart from occasional PVP fleet?

Mri
Valkin Mordirc
#14 - 2017-05-05 20:40:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
MRietfors wrote:



I agree that today EVE is designed this way, what I'm saying is that in this way it is NOT FUN.



For you, and did you think about player who are new and can't fly larger ships yet? Can you be even more selfish? If you don't think battleships are fun to fly don't fly them. I don't like capital's and even though I can fly dreads and carriers, I don't bother because I don't like them. I don't demand for a change so that they may fit my personal idea of fun.




Quote:
There is no point in flying big ships today, even in smal, medium and even some large fleet, cruisers fleets are almost always much better.


Yes there is. Titans, Dreads and Carriers are still in use all across nulsec. And I always see battleships being used for POS take downs in highsec. A Spider Domi and Geddon fleet will roll pos's and citadels like it's a cake walk.



Quote:
There aer a lot of posts of ppl trying to optimize Machariel or rattlesnakes to do solo L4 missions faster... this is dumb and absurd when you can do those mission at even greater speed in a proper fitted Ishtar or even a Gila.


The Machariel is the best level 4 blitzer in the game. So you are completely wrong, or out right lying.
Quote:

Again: today there are no real reasons to fly battleships in eve imho.Ugh


Level four mission blitzers, POS and Citadel takedowns, Wardec station ganks, POCO take downs, Spider-Fleets, Soloing, Small gang. Literally the list could go on. Can a cruiser do it to? Sure but a battleship will bash a structure down a lot faster.

Quote:
Answer this: is there any expert long time eve player out there that flies a tempest or a rattlesnake (or any other BS for example) on a regular base apart from occasional PVP fleet?


Big Miker, Mr Hyde, Planet 6, Suitonia, worsteveplayerever, Baltec, Chessure, Casper24, and John Dress, are the first that come to mind. Most of which have a youtube channel where you can go about and watch them and maybe learn a few things before you decided to have a spurge.
#DeleteTheWeak
Karmen Baric
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2017-05-06 06:52:38 UTC
MRietfors wrote:

Final notes:
I cry when I see a 1Bil rattlesnake that cannot make a simple DED5 while with an HAC or a t3 cruisers I can easily solo up to DED8/9.
I cry even more when I see new player losing they shining new Battleship to an easygoing ganker in a stupid stabber.
I could do more and more examples..…….


If you cant beat up to 10/10 in a Battleship hull for the same cost of a T3/HAC you're doing it wrong.
You know why you see a new player losing their shiny new Battleship to a ganker in a stabber, its because the stabber pilot is much better than the Battleship pilot. You're using half truths and lies to try to justify your stance.
Please stop
Enju Shadow
Yellow Fish Technologies
#16 - 2017-05-07 08:10:33 UTC
MRietfors wrote:
H
Basic impacts in eve:
If we consider “100” as the cost, dps and tank of a good T2 frigate, we can imagine:

T2 Cruisers: approx. 500 dps, 700 tank, 2.000 cost (almost there already, apart from the cost)

T2 Battleships: 3.000 DPS, 5.000 tank, 50.000 cost

Subcapitals: 15.000 DPS, 50.000 tank, 500.000 cost


I didn’t mentioned the other stats (speed, energy, recharging, drones etc… but those need to be adjusted as well)



This approach to balancing could be viable if Eve was a strategy game, but certainly not in a MMO where players are limited to controling a single ship.

If CCP were to implement your suggestion, where 50 capitals would always beat a 200 battleships, the result would be a lock-down of territorial warfare where rich alliances would become undefeatable, new alliances would be sentenced to live as vassals, and 0.0 would become dull.
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#17 - 2017-05-07 09:24:36 UTC
CCP Quant publishes a report called Damage Profiles by Ship Group and Weapon Type. For 2014 and 2015 battleships were at the top of the list. I don't see a report for 2016. https://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/damage-profiles-by-ship-group-and-weapon-type-in-2015/

Somebody is flying battleships and doing lots of damage!
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#18 - 2017-05-07 18:22:44 UTC
MRietfors wrote:
But EVE is a space game, not a sea game. In space more space means more power, much more power, nothing small should be able to kill anything big, unless in large numbers.


As a student of military history and tactics I can tell you that there is no example in real life in which something big can't be defeated by something small. And that's true at sea, on land or in the air.

1. Aircraft carriers are designed to fight with escorts to protect them from air and subsurface attacks. They can certainly defend themselves with their own point defense systems, aircraft and anti-sub aircraft, but it's not doctrine to rely on those things because they can easily be overwhelmed. The same was true in the era of battleships. In fact, the battleship era ended because they were too vulnerable to smaller combat craft. Even in the 1500's, the great Spanish Armada was defeated in the Battle of the Gravelines by smaller English ships who used superior maneuverability to their advantage.

2. Tanks are designed to fight alongside infantry to protect them from dismounted troops with anti-tank missiles. If you add up all of the tank losses in the world since their introduction in WWI, the vast majority were not killed by other tanks. Most were killed by small, cheap anti-tank systems in the form of mobile infantry with big guns (tank destroyers) or missiles and rockets launched by dismounted teams. No doctrine in the world sends tanks into battle without infantry support to guard against small threats that have the ability to get in close.

3. In the era before mechanized warfare, you had heavy infantry that relied on body armor and shields. They were big and lumbering, but were often the decisive unit on the battlefield because they packed such a devastating force. But they were incredibly vulnerable to fast moving and lightly armored cavalry that could get around the flanks and archers that could rain projectiles on them well outside of engagement range (something that was eventually replaced by artillery and mortars when gunpowder came along). You never, ever sent heavy infantry in without support because of their vulnerability.

4. Even in the story of David and Goliath, Goliath was actually the underdog in that encounter because, as heavy infantry, he was the natural prey of a projectile warrior like David. Far from being remarkable, any tactician could have told you that David would win that encounter. It couldn't have gone down any other way.

5. In terms of air warfare, larger aircraft are always vulnerable to smaller aircraft. The heavy bombers of WWII were probably some of the most heavily armed aircraft ever sent aloft (relative to the time period) and yet they were decimated by small fighters when they attempted to fight without escorts. Even today, large aircraft rely on escorts or stealth.

I personally dispute the idea that bigger is better in terms of gameplay balance, but it's also not reflective of the way that real life combat works (or has ever worked).
Lucy Callagan
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#19 - 2017-05-08 00:28:38 UTC
MRietfors wrote:
Today it's not worthyfly a BS in eve


no, it's not because you don't know how to use them that they are useless
MRietfors
Lumen et Umbra
#20 - 2017-05-08 13:22:26 UTC
Well explained thanks all for your contribution!

I wish to add a few things to the discussion:
I never said big ships shall always be able to travel without escort, of course they have to!
At the same time a lone big battleship that would cost 2Bil shall be able to take care of 8-10 T1 cruisers or 4-5 T2 cruisers without too much pain (provided pilots of the same skill level).
Also in no case a ponting frig (even an interceptor) alone, shall be able to last more than 10-20 seconds against such a monster wihtou help.

Why not?
Cause it's no fun! (and also absurd imho).

OK, let's assume BSs shall not be able to fly alone never: in this case you want a very expensive huge DPS platform that also need escort. So i nthis case they shall be able to delivery 10K DPS or so to make sense.


I flown most the BS in the game and still fly them sometime, so I well know how to use them in the current game and I can confirm you they are way too much undersused compared to all other ships in the game ( proportionally speaking of course, based on their isk value).

I also read the above statistic but i't something different: yes BS guns make most damage but you are not going to use them except in their specilized occasions since in all other cases you wont' do damage at all.

Look the thing this way: BS today are no fun, and it is demostrated by the fact that even if they are 1/5th (approx) of the flyable ships, only 1/30th or os of the pilos actually fly them.

Mri
123Next page