These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Building a better battleship.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2012-12-11 12:40:28 UTC
I'd rather reduce battlecruiser scan resolution than increase that of battleships. Battlecruisers are some of the largest sub-caps out there, they shouldn't be able to so easily lock frigates in less time than the frigate can align to warp. That should be a feat reserved for sensor-boosted tier 1 battlecruisers at minimum.

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."
Alara IonStorm
#82 - 2012-12-11 12:48:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd rather reduce battlecruiser scan resolution than increase that of battleships. Battlecruisers are some of the largest sub-caps out there, they shouldn't be able to so easily lock frigates in less time than the frigate can align to warp. That should be a feat reserved for sensor-boosted tier 1 battlecruisers at minimum.

They already can not lock a Frigate in less time then it takes to warp. It takes a Tier 2 Battlecruiser on average about 7 Seconds to get a lock on a Shield Frigate not running their MWD, takes a Frigate between 2.5-4 Seconds to Warp. They will probably bring the Tier 3's in line with the Tier 2's for Scan Res anyway. Battlecruiser Scan Res is fine for Tier 1 / 2

Lowering Battlecruiser Scan Res doesn't help Battleships with 90-120 Scan res one bit. It isn't about catching things it is about getting lock in time to do anything at all.

Malcanis wrote:
The trouble with your plate/extender HP values is that they give far too little consideration to the benefit of passive regeneration.

Perhaps we could consider giving extenders a shield regeneration rate penalty to reduce the effect on passive tanks.

Well regen would mostly stay the same on current Medium / Small Hulls, a targeted nerf to some Battleships base Recharge would an ample solution and maybe to a couple of the smaller hulls. Don't want to destroy Passive tanking entirely, but reign it in sure for ships like the Rattler which would use the new Extenders.
Marcus Henik
Rules of Acquisition
#83 - 2012-12-12 03:54:17 UTC
Hold off judgement till after teiricide. That being said, I would like to see races other than caldari get ew battle ships. It would be nice to see a Amar bs that uses bonuses drones and neuts or disrupters, a gal bs that gets a bonus to point range and damps, and a Minnie ship that rocks a web/painter bonus.
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#84 - 2012-12-12 05:00:27 UTC
Moondancer Starweaver wrote:
Isn't that one of the next steps in rebalancing, I mean i assume they would continue next year with Battle Cruisers and Battleships to round out all of the tech one rebalancing.


Sure. But CCP's stance seems to be that there was a lot wrong with smaller hulls that needed fixing, and not a lot wrong with large (subcap) hulls such as BC and BS, so they are unlikely to change much.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#85 - 2012-12-14 12:42:58 UTC
Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns

capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah!

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Kiteo Hatto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2012-12-14 12:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiteo Hatto
Skippermonkey wrote:
Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns

capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah!


Yes lets make highsec ganking possible with 1 ship. I mean what could POSSIBLY go wrong.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#87 - 2012-12-14 12:53:50 UTC
If and when battlecruisers gets toned down a little and CCP will have a look into making all battleships equal in strength with unique roles I am sure battleships will see a better use. Currently you can make battlecruisers with about the same dps and EHP with better mobility.

Currently the real only advantage of battleships are heavy neuts and Large Gun range...
Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#88 - 2012-12-14 19:28:33 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Honestly I think the best thing CCP could do for Battleships is take a peak at their MWD's. Cap Booster is pretty much mandatory unless you are sitting still. Just letting them run for the time frame of a BC's MWD would be a big buff. Probably could take a second quick peak at sensor strength as well, bring it somewhere in between BC and current, 140-160ish average max skill.

After that it is all about Tier Work and flushing out the slots and bonuses in the rebalance.

Ancillary Micro Warp Drives? It would free up that cap booster slot.
Fehnrail
Why Do NPC Corps Even Have Tax Rate
#89 - 2012-12-15 19:28:14 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns

capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah!


No, but going in exactly the opposite direction might be a good start.

Tier 3 style battleships with 50% role damage bonus to medium weapons and high sensor resolution, paying for it with speed (50-70 m/s top). That way they aren't the ultimate ganker's wet dream that outclasses everything, but rather a pretty stationary anti-cruiser platform (that is really damn good at it) with a lot of toughness.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#90 - 2012-12-15 19:47:19 UTC
Fehnrail wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns

capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah!


No, but going in exactly the opposite direction might be a good start.

Tier 3 style battleships with 50% role damage bonus to medium weapons and high sensor resolution, paying for it with speed (50-70 m/s top). That way they aren't the ultimate ganker's wet dream that outclasses everything, but rather a pretty stationary anti-cruiser platform (that is really damn good at it) with a lot of toughness.


People seem to think that under-sized weapons are the best idea for battleships. This is hideously wrong.

battleships can hit other BS and BC's perfectly, and cruisers with tackle on them. The issue is that battleships cant tank. DPS in this game has been going up and up for a long time - and people are fitting more damage mods than ever. battleships die so quickly that's its barely worth brigning them into a fight - avoiding damage is much more preferable right now.

I am the last person who wants to see this game turn into slug-fest online, i love mobility. But i's also like to see battleships be really worthwhile flying. I think it lies with battleship active tank and fixing the cycle time of large neuts.
Jasmine Shepard
Relentless Destruction
Immediate Destruction
#91 - 2012-12-15 20:12:18 UTC
Battleships are by no means bad ships and imo are the most fun ship class to fly. If you look at the stats they get about 800-1200 dps with buffers of ~120k or active tanks of at least 1200dps. This outclasses bc's by quite a lot and the average bs I'd say = 3 bc's.

The biggest issue with going with bs's is the amount of people that fly nano. Due to the way eve works, being able to engage without actually commiting is very attractive since every other person is bait for another gang, has falcon/logi, or can just straight up kill you if you get within its' weapon range. Tier 3 bc's really hurt bs's viability because you can now get bs dps with cruiser speed. The last place where bs's shine then would be brawling, however they're no longer the biggest kids on the block. Strategic cruisers can easily out buffer your average bs + provide more utility and the speed of cruisers with decent dps.

It's not that bs's are bad, it's just that there are better options out there.
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2012-12-15 21:53:39 UTC
The problem is not that battleships as a whole is bad. What he said was that the vanilla tech 1 battleships suck. And they do. That's a real issue.

You can put together a reasonably successful fleet in vanilla BS, but you still need the 90% webs of the vindi, and the neuting power of the bhaalgorn somewhere in the fleet. Also, Apocs are pretty much your only obvious choice. When your enemy can engage from whatever range they want against you, you have to be able to match them either with high dps at close range or at least doing something at long and only apocs really give you that. And Napocs do it better still, so why wouldn't you?

All the other tech 1 bs were designed for a different age. They do need rebalancing in light of tier 3 BCs and tech 3 cruisers. Battleships should never be simple to win with, but at the very least each race needs something to give them a chance in a fight against smaller ships.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#93 - 2012-12-16 18:17:08 UTC
Jasmine Shepard wrote:
Battleships are by no means bad ships and imo are the most fun ship class to fly. If you look at the stats they get about 800-1200 dps with buffers of ~120k or active tanks of at least 1200dps. This outclasses bc's by quite a lot and the average bs I'd say = 3 bc's.

The biggest issue with going with bs's is the amount of people that fly nano. Due to the way eve works, being able to engage without actually commiting is very attractive since every other person is bait for another gang, has falcon/logi, or can just straight up kill you if you get within its' weapon range. Tier 3 bc's really hurt bs's viability because you can now get bs dps with cruiser speed. The last place where bs's shine then would be brawling, however they're no longer the biggest kids on the block. Strategic cruisers can easily out buffer your average bs + provide more utility and the speed of cruisers with decent dps.

It's not that bs's are bad, it's just that there are better options out there.


You will only get 800+ dps out of a non-drone battleship if you go 3x damage mods, or have blasters. 120k ehp is fully brick-tanked (2x plates, 3x trimarks) or a rokh (but the rokh has other issues - it's a brick even without plates).

No non-faction fit battleship can active tank 1200 dps. In fact a standard 5 slot tank with dual armor repairers will only tank 650'ish dps with maxed out skills and 3 rigs. This can be improved if the ship has a tanking bonus, but still - it's nowhere near this 1200 number you have pulled out of thin air. If it was 1200 i'd be flying a battleship permanently.

Please don't defend battleships with broken logic just because you like them. I like battleships, i want to fly them more - but the problem is they don't offer much that battlecruisers or T3's can offer.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#94 - 2012-12-16 18:18:15 UTC
Valea Silpha wrote:
The problem is not that battleships as a whole is bad. What he said was that the vanilla tech 1 battleships suck. And they do. That's a real issue.

You can put together a reasonably successful fleet in vanilla BS, but you still need the 90% webs of the vindi, and the neuting power of the bhaalgorn somewhere in the fleet. Also, Apocs are pretty much your only obvious choice. When your enemy can engage from whatever range they want against you, you have to be able to match them either with high dps at close range or at least doing something at long and only apocs really give you that. And Napocs do it better still, so why wouldn't you?

All the other tech 1 bs were designed for a different age. They do need rebalancing in light of tier 3 BCs and tech 3 cruisers. Battleships should never be simple to win with, but at the very least each race needs something to give them a chance in a fight against smaller ships.


ACtually blasterthrons and tempest are decent. I hardly see any apoc's. Ever. They have no damage bonus.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#95 - 2012-12-16 19:25:11 UTC
Klymer wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:


In history, battleships were mostly just a way for a nation to show off how powerful they were. The battleships themselves were actually pretty pointless and crap.



I'm sure you would feel differently had you been on the receiving end of the 16" guns on the Iowa class.


Say that to any of today's guided missile frigs/cruisers with RGM-84 Harpoons...Cool

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Robert Tables
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2012-12-16 20:54:22 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Klymer wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:


In history, battleships were mostly just a way for a nation to show off how powerful they were. The battleships themselves were actually pretty pointless and crap.



I'm sure you would feel differently had you been on the receiving end of the 16" guns on the Iowa class.


Say that to any of today's guided missile frigs/cruisers with RGM-84 Harpoons...Cool

The Phalanx and SeaRAM would like a word with your Harpoon. :)
Alara IonStorm
#97 - 2012-12-16 21:14:35 UTC
Robert Tables wrote:

The Phalanx and SeaRAM would like a word with your Harpoon. :)

If they do manage to stop a heavy barrage of Missiles it doesn't help guns be more useful since the ships that launch them will surely be far out of range with current non rail technology.

It's missiles here in out until someone develops and deploys something better.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#98 - 2012-12-16 21:59:21 UTC
only thing i like about battleships is the ehp for fights. but that's about it. and their looks.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-12-16 22:34:16 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
I don't think Battleships are supposed to be able to hold their own in a fight. If you look at how battleships were used in history, they were expensive ships that needed an escort of smaller ships to protect them. They were particularly vulnerable to crappy torpedo boats.

In history, battleships were mostly just a way for a nation to show off how powerful they were. The battleships themselves were actually pretty pointless and crap.

I dunno .. a dozen or so 15-18" shells fired over the horizon is a lot of firepower .. especially if your where that firepower is being aimed at. they were just superceded by a submarine/carrier combo



The battleship era was incredibly short, it was almost over before it began What?
They went from Dreadnaught style to Battleship style somewhere around 1900-1910
Aircraft carriers came in around 1920-30, and certainly by 1935 the age of the carrier was already firmly entrenched in several major naval doctrines.


the dreadnaughts were the final development of the "ships of the line" ... a mostly unchanged 'broadside' dependant layout unchanged from the middleages.
Robert Tables
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2012-12-17 00:41:51 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Robert Tables wrote:

The Phalanx and SeaRAM would like a word with your Harpoon. :)

If they do manage to stop a heavy barrage of Missiles it doesn't help guns be more useful since the ships that launch them will surely be far out of range with current non rail technology.

It's missiles here in out until someone develops and deploys something better.

You're absolutely right about that, although I'd like to point out that an Iowa-class battleship could keep pace with most modern warships (closing to gun range still presents a problem though).

On the EVE front, folks like Malcanis are right; you can't apply the real-life common sense or military approach to designing these ships or else they would obsolete everything smaller than them. You end up with a system like in flight games (think Ace Combat) where the F-22 or Su-37 obsoletes all of the aircraft before them (except maybe the A-10).
As a fan of EVE's battleships, what I dislike is the idea that a frigate or two can happen across a battleship, engage it and expect to win with impunity on their own. The battleship shouldn't be able to own the frigate(s), but the frigates should have a major challenge trying to apply enough damage on their own to finish the battleship. The battleship should find it only marginally less difficult to deal with the frigates, with even that requiring some kind of mistake on the frigate's part (I've seen an interceptor one-shotted by a T3 BC because he bumbled into station and the BC fired at just the right time).