Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Quality posting in it's finest form.

Also - you are wrong on all accounts.
Clearly you don't understand reasons beyond the mechanics.
In other words - you are....not too bright.

TLDR :
OP is an idiot, move along please, idiocy can be contagious ( I feel dirty already ).

The only thing being fail is tier 2 and 3 battlecruisers and strategic cruisers being too dominant while game mechanics makes it far too easy to avoid combat in many situations (and at the same time does very little to encouage pvp)

I have to say that changes (the addition of bonus smaller sized high slots and turret/missil bays or utility of large sized ships against smaller ones) proposed would simply break the way that ship progression goes in EVE. It means that once you train medium sized ships then there is no longer a valid reason to ever take a frigate anywhere. And once you train battleships then all medium sized ships become functionally irrelevant.

As it stands, bigger weapons do reduced damage against smaller sized ships. Normally this means that you can fight "down" a step about as easily as you can "up". It's hard, but not impossible. But it makes two steps rather difficult.

Might I suggest using drones, or making a friend who can support with a complementary ship? I mean, an Interceptor or Assault Frigate fit to tackle would complement a damage-oriented battleship quite nicely.




Additionally, with the introduction of the Dreadnought and the modern Battleship we removed secondary armaments altogether, anti-aircraft armament doesn't really count here largely because we already have an analogue in smart bombs against drones. This made the ship better because it didn't have to carry multiple classes of ammunition, increased overall weight of fire, and made centralized targetting possible. At the same time, it made that class of ship more vulnerable to smaller classes of hostile ship. Still, the historical use of a secondary armaments was not a design feature to help the ship fight off smaller attackers, but rather because wooden ship hulls were significantly weaker towards the top, and you can't fit the big guns up there. Given a choice between putting half the guns you could, puttting half the firepower you could, or mixing cannon types they simply mixd the cannon types.

Also, while I agree that Battleships are really more akin to Heavy Cruisers than modern Battleships, their choice of names isn't necessarily a "fail". Mostly because people by and large do not care and it is the largest class of ship that isn't restricted (for good reason) from high security space.

I do have to point out that scamblers and webbers are always the same size. Why would they magically work worse when strapped to a frigate all of a sudden?

It sounds to me that you lost a battleship and are simply upset that the design allowed it to happen. I have to say, I prefer playing smaller ships. Those very things you mentioned, namely making bigger ships better and largely invulnerable to smaller ships would force me to stop playing altogether or adopt a play style I don't like. As it stands things are "working as designed". In this case, the design is that there are reasons for people to use smaller ships and a reason to use drones or a friendly small ship to protect yourself against the stronger hostile frigates.



Finally, I totally agree with the notion that dollars shouldn't replace player skill. But wouldn't doing what you suggest do exactly that? Battleships, the associated skills, and the associated modules are already more expensive. If the rules were rewritten that those who train those skills and buy those modules win by default against those who haven't had an opportunity to train the skills or haven't spent the money on the battleship, then you will have created precisely the situation you decry. As it stands, a player who knows what they are doing in a quality frigate can defeat a player who doesn't in a battleship. It's just difficult at a Frigate's damage output. Still, that frigate doesn't have much of a chance if the battleship has the correct drones or a friend on the way.

Knowledge of history of Naval ships of OP... FAIL

Battleships usually had LESS or EQUAL guns as a smaller ship when you look at the guns that were used to actually hit other ships.. They mounted bigger guns in 2-4 "slots" and a bunch of other smaller guns that were silent unless aircraft came around. Modern naval ships, like EVE ships, are built with even less of a mixed bag of weapons as AA guns tend to be a waste when you have your own air cover.

yes this is all correct. however you forget that this is a game. and of course, that on real battleships there are many more people operating them then a single capsuleer.

I would like for my kronos to be able to fit 4 large guns, 6 mediums and 12 smalls. plus an assortment of light missile and rocket launchers. 20+ drones and be immune to frigate ewar.

however it would unbalance the game.

Im glad that you have spent so long on the wikipedia page learning about history. It makes me happy that someone is still willing to take the time to research his rant before posting it on a public forum. Bravo good sir.

I just have a question, is "white whales" supposed to be a racist reference?

HTFU.

I'm grateful that there were at least eight others who had jumped in with at least a decent post to prove this village idiot wrong. The cookie, however, has to go to Mr fly v baseball example.

Bottom line OP, if you do not want your battleship to get it's arse torn by a gnat tank it up, use smartbombs/drones, or get a frigate-sized friend to tag along. That is all.

get a friend?

what a crazy idea

No no no, in today's world frigates can harass a battleship and a destroyer is needed to defend the BS. It's the same in EvE.

If you're correct please link me to a fitting for a Vigil with 8x800mm Repeating Artillery II. I fly it often and find it's really lacking in DPS.