These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Battleship revamp
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#1 - 2013-04-11 01:24:48 UTC
Crazy idea, ship the size of a Battleship having the magical ability to control more than 5 drones.

5 is my favorite number, not a magic number.

Add a skill if you feel like it. Make them fit a drone control unit.

Do people feel there should be more than one, almost extinct, ship that can control more than 5 drones that does not have "carrier" in its name?

Figure every 2 years this needs to be discussed.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#2 - 2013-04-11 01:27:10 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Do people feel there should be more than one, almost extinct, ship that can control more than 5 drones that does not have "carrier" in its name?

Nope, especially since Drone Interfacing essentially gives you an extra drone per level.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#3 - 2013-04-11 01:35:40 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
Do people feel there should be more than one, almost extinct, ship that can control more than 5 drones that does not have "carrier" in its name?

Nope, especially since Drone Interfacing essentially gives you an extra drone per level.

My point exactly. But you didn't explain why you are against ships with more than 5 drones.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#4 - 2013-04-11 01:44:02 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
My point exactly. But you didn't explain why you are against ships with more than 5 drones.
Because it's not necessary and has ramifications beyond simple damage dealing, especially if utility drones get a revamp at some point.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Zeko Rena
ENCOM Industries
#5 - 2013-04-11 01:59:08 UTC
You used to be able to have ten drones, but it caused too much lag in fleet fights.
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#6 - 2013-04-11 04:18:51 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
My point exactly. But you didn't explain why you are against ships with more than 5 drones.
Because it's not necessary and has ramifications beyond simple damage dealing, especially if utility drones get a revamp at some point.

Of course it would have ramifications beyond damage dealing. But god forbid we make people change up the way they approach situations.

I mean look at the stats from the Battle of Asakai. Did something strike you as odd? Mainly a huge battle that barely involved battleships. Why is that? My guess is because battleships are easily nullified by larger AND smaller ships.

Hopefully the next changes will bring battleships back into the battle. Giving the drone battleships the ability to control more drones would, imo, help in this regard.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#7 - 2013-04-11 04:24:24 UTC
There's a reason why removed that ability…
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#8 - 2013-04-11 05:16:20 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Of course it would have ramifications beyond damage dealing. But god forbid we make people change up the way they approach situations.

So what you're saying is that, in addition to extra-range heavy neuts, the new Geddon (for instance) should be able to field 10 ECM drones? Or five ECM drones and five damage drones?

I think five drones is plenty.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#9 - 2013-04-11 05:41:59 UTC
CCP had the opportunity to revitalize the battleship class and make them viable in combat, they did not.

The revamp is primarily just changing ship stats for changes sake, and blurring the racial traits.

.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2013-04-11 07:14:12 UTC
Roime wrote:
CCP had the opportunity to revitalize the battleship class and make them viable in combat, they did not.

The revamp is primarily just changing ship stats for changes sake, and blurring the racial traits.


And nailing amarr into a coffin. yes i mad. yes i will complain every chance i get about my precious geddon i can no longer fly. only commenting here because ive been banned from mumble and TS until i "get over it" (so has half our group, lol, good 50 people temp-banned, wormhole groups are so whiney about their comms)
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#11 - 2013-04-11 07:24:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Nexus Day wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
My point exactly. But you didn't explain why you are against ships with more than 5 drones.
Because it's not necessary and has ramifications beyond simple damage dealing, especially if utility drones get a revamp at some point.

Of course it would have ramifications beyond damage dealing. But god forbid we make people change up the way they approach situations.

Try again. Drone cause lag in large numbers. Lots of lag. When you have 50 ships on field, each with 5 drones out, that creates about 250 different flying objects in space that must be handled by the server.

If you give ships the ability to field more than 5 drones then you exponentially (sorry... my maths no good when drunk) increases the number of flying objects in space.

The only reason carriers never received this limitation is because CCP never anticipated how many would be built for personal use... or how frivolously people use them.

Nexus Day wrote:
I mean look at the stats from the Battle of Asakai. Did something strike you as odd? Mainly a huge battle that barely involved battleships. Why is that? My guess is because battleships are easily nullified by larger AND smaller ships.

Note quite. The current meta for fleet warfare is to be more mobile than the enemy while dealing decent damage. Failing that... have more defense and "punching power." Attack Battlecruisers are better at mobile damage than battleships and carriers/dreds are better at defense and anti-cap duty than battleships.

Nexus Day wrote:
Hopefully the next changes will bring battleships back into the battle. Giving the drone battleships the ability to control more drones would, imo, help in this regard.

Or giving them a higher drone damage bonus... which would largely do the same thing without as many unintended consequences.

edit:
@Nariya Kentaya
You can have the 'Geddon as it was. The proposed changes for it are stepping on the toes of the Dominix and leaving me fairly "unhappy."

How did you Veterans start?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#12 - 2013-04-11 07:28:11 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:

Try again. Drone cause lag in large numbers. Lots of lag. When you have 50 ships on field, each with 5 drones out, that creates about 250 different flying objects in space that must be handled by the server.

If you give ships the ability to field more than 5 drones then you exponentially increase the number of flying objects in space.


Fun fact - missiles cause more lag, both server side and client side. They are also flying objects in space, but involve more complex calculations and graphics.

.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#13 - 2013-04-11 07:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Roime wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:

Try again. Drone cause lag in large numbers. Lots of lag. When you have 50 ships on field, each with 5 drones out, that creates about 250 different flying objects in space that must be handled by the server.

If you give ships the ability to field more than 5 drones then you exponentially increase the number of flying objects in space.


Fun fact - missiles cause more lag, both server side and client side. They are also flying objects in space, but involve more complex calculations and graphics.

Question; what would people complain about more if tinkered with? Drones or missiles?

Every little bit of lag reduced counts.

How did you Veterans start?
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-04-11 08:14:22 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
Do people feel there should be more than one, almost extinct, ship that can control more than 5 drones that does not have "carrier" in its name?

Nope, especially since Drone Interfacing essentially gives you an extra drone per level.

My point exactly. But you didn't explain why you are against ships with more than 5 drones.


A) Because of LAG

B) My Drones already hav 1K DPS at 57km optimal why would I need more?

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2013-04-11 08:43:40 UTC
Roime wrote:
CCP had the opportunity to revitalize the battleship class and make them viable in combat, they did not.

The revamp is primarily just changing ship stats for changes sake, and blurring the racial traits.



You suck at flying battleships then.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#16 - 2013-04-11 12:02:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Roime wrote:
CCP had the opportunity to revitalize the battleship class and make them viable in combat, they did not.

The revamp is primarily just changing ship stats for changes sake, and blurring the racial traits.



You suck at flying battleships then.


Well, I haven't had any good reason to fly them in ages. Last time I used a Mega was to pop some pocos. And it's been several months since I saw one in lowsec. Unless the Kronos I soloed last week counts.

Maybe they don't offer enough benefits to overcome their weaknesses? I would have loved to see them get a hefty EHP and dps buff to separate them from BCs and pull them closer to caps. Currently all other subcaps are fielded in equal amounts all over EVE, and battleships only in null blobs, and even those have largely been overtaken by BCs and caps.

In wormholes they suffer from their mass, and the fact that they just die easier than T3s while applying damage worse.

In lowsec they suffer from mobility and vulnerability to smaller ships.

.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#17 - 2013-04-11 12:17:56 UTC
Roime wrote:


In lowsec they suffer from mobility and vulnerability to smaller ships.



You dont fly them yet you say things like this.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#18 - 2013-04-11 12:19:35 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:
Crazy idea, ship the size of a Battleship having the magical ability to control more than 5 drones.

5 is my favorite number, not a magic number.

Add a skill if you feel like it. Make them fit a drone control unit.

Do people feel there should be more than one, almost extinct, ship that can control more than 5 drones that does not have "carrier" in its name?

Figure every 2 years this needs to be discussed.


And this here is an example of (forgive the figure of speech OP) "newer player ignorance", an ignorance that could be fixed by asking questions BEFORE making posts.

We see it all the time on this forum, so person who hasn't player EVE all that long relatively speaking coming up with some brilliant, never before seen idea......of something that in reality was once part of the game and got removed for a god reason.

Like drones (sub caps used to be able to field more than 5), like MINES (omg, itf i could only mine a gate, that would be cool, wouldn't it?), like, well, lots of things, you can still find items in game that used to work but that don't know , I think I have some mines somewhere lol.

Like others have told you, there is a reason why it's not a good idea, maybe ask around 1st, then post brilliant idea #28130954
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#19 - 2013-04-11 12:39:57 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Roime wrote:


In lowsec they suffer from mobility and vulnerability to smaller ships.



You dont fly them yet you say things like this.


That's the reason why nobody flies them in lowsec. If you'd be lucky and spotted one, it would a smartbombing BS in Rancer, or someone playing undock games.

A battleship should be something that evokes fear when it lands on grid. Currently everyone just gets mad happy because it's an easy kill.

.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#20 - 2013-04-11 12:45:24 UTC
Nexus Day wrote:

I mean look at the stats from the Battle of Asakai. Did something strike you as odd? Mainly a huge battle that barely involved battleships. Why is that? My guess is because battleships are easily nullified by larger AND smaller ships.


Confirming Battleships played no role in Asakai


There are some issues with scaling but I think the problem is really with T3 cruisers being too versatile. I don't think the battleship changes will be of huge consequence as long as the faction BS aren't changed. With the game as it is there is almost no reason not to fly navy BS over T1.
123Next page