These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 do people fly BS?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#401 - 2014-01-07 20:19:39 UTC
If you cant find viable uses for battleships in both PvP and PvE then you are very far below the curve in this game and on your way out.

If you choose not to use any battleships in this game then you are doing just fine.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#402 - 2014-01-07 21:02:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Radius Prime
Riot Girl wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If its T3 cruisers the T3's will have bigger buffer tanks than the battleships.

T3s are irrelevant when discussing ship balance. Wait until they are nerfed and then we can see how they compare to BSes (they won't lol).


They will never be nerfed simply because the penalties that come along with flying T3's. Loss of SP must be reflected in something. They also represent future tech. For now only tech 3 cruisers been released. Some day CCP will get around to expanding the T3 ship tree. Price, required skills and penalty at death will save other ships from becoming obsolete as they do now. T3 battleship would kick strategic cruisers ass, that's for sure...

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
Tasiv Deka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#403 - 2014-01-07 21:09:23 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If its T3 cruisers the T3's will have bigger buffer tanks than the battleships.

T3s are irrelevant when discussing ship balance. Wait until they are nerfed and then we can see how they compare to BSes (they won't lol).


They will never be nerfed simply because the penalties that come along with flying T3's. Loss of SP must be reflected in something. They also represent future tech. For now only tech 3 cruisers been released. Some day CCP will get around to expanding the T3 ship tree. Price, required skills and penalty at death will save other ships from becoming obsolete as they do now. T3 battleship would kick strategic cruisers ass, that's for sure...


Actually no... CCP has even said theyre getting reworked i forget who it was that said they were rabid dogs that need put down

I for one just want all the subs to be viable (as does most everyone) and skillwise they are easier to get into than most tech two ships...

Oh, Do go on... no seriously ive got nothing better to do then listen to all the petty arguments and feeble trolling attempts... 

The sad thing is i'm not sure if i'm telling the truth.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#404 - 2014-01-07 21:14:46 UTC
i dont like mine since the warp speed adjustment.

and i havnt been fond of them since TDs and ew got improved also the new EAFs are stupid strong.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#405 - 2014-01-07 21:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Radius Prime
Tasiv Deka wrote:
Radius Prime wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If its T3 cruisers the T3's will have bigger buffer tanks than the battleships.

T3s are irrelevant when discussing ship balance. Wait until they are nerfed and then we can see how they compare to BSes (they won't lol).


They will never be nerfed simply because the penalties that come along with flying T3's. Loss of SP must be reflected in something. They also represent future tech. For now only tech 3 cruisers been released. Some day CCP will get around to expanding the T3 ship tree. Price, required skills and penalty at death will save other ships from becoming obsolete as they do now. T3 battleship would kick strategic cruisers ass, that's for sure...


Actually no... CCP has even said theyre getting reworked i forget who it was that said they were rabid dogs that need put down

I for one just want all the subs to be viable (as does most everyone) and skillwise they are easier to get into than most tech two ships...


Bummer

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.
Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.

As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then?
I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#406 - 2014-01-07 22:15:49 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control.



+1

However you cannot entirely blame CCP. As soon as any ship gets something interesting happening, the forums are immediately deluged with whiners demanding it be nerfed.
Tasiv Deka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#407 - 2014-01-07 22:55:37 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
Tasiv Deka wrote:
Radius Prime wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If its T3 cruisers the T3's will have bigger buffer tanks than the battleships.

T3s are irrelevant when discussing ship balance. Wait until they are nerfed and then we can see how they compare to BSes (they won't lol).


They will never be nerfed simply because the penalties that come along with flying T3's. Loss of SP must be reflected in something. They also represent future tech. For now only tech 3 cruisers been released. Some day CCP will get around to expanding the T3 ship tree. Price, required skills and penalty at death will save other ships from becoming obsolete as they do now. T3 battleship would kick strategic cruisers ass, that's for sure...


Actually no... CCP has even said theyre getting reworked i forget who it was that said they were rabid dogs that need put down

I for one just want all the subs to be viable (as does most everyone) and skillwise they are easier to get into than most tech two ships...


Bummer

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.
Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.

As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then?
I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.


Nerfing t3s isnt homoginizing the game... as a matter of fact ships are seriously different now that they are rebalancing them... Before it was you want to win fly whatever was currently the most op ship now everything has a purpose you want insanely long range you go with Caldari, You want bum rush the enemy and slug them in the face you go Gallente, You want to sit there and outlast the enemy go Amarr, and for Minmatar... you well i guess run away? i dont know i dont fly much of thier line.

To be honest nerfing T3s will be good for the game, might be bad for me as nanoribbon proces will go down but it will be good for the game. As it stands now the only way T3s create versatility is in what Race T3 do you fly... and even thats limited for fleet warfare.

Oh, Do go on... no seriously ive got nothing better to do then listen to all the petty arguments and feeble trolling attempts... 

The sad thing is i'm not sure if i'm telling the truth.
Qweasdy
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#408 - 2014-01-07 22:59:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Qweasdy
Radius Prime wrote:

~snipped Quotes~

Bummer

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.
Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.

As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then?
I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.


Then where's my brawling amarrian battleship?... and the apoc doesn't count cuz lazorz v0v

Battleships to me are the strongest 'all around' ship types, with the large number of slots, ehp and dps you can do a lot with them, comparing them in specific circumstances to a different ship type is just totally misunderstanding their role. Sure you can say an AF has a better sig tank and better applied dps but if that AF gets webbed and scrammed down by a small gang of T1 cruisers it's toast, a megathron for example gives not a single **** that it just got webbed and scrammed by 5 T1 cruisers, it doesn't NEED to be in an optimal situation to do well, it has the base stats to handle a wide variety of situations even with the major drawbacks that comes with a big unwieldy hull.

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#409 - 2014-01-07 23:04:42 UTC
Qweasdy wrote:
Radius Prime wrote:

~snipped Quotes~

Bummer

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.
Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.

As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then?
I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.


Then where's my brawling amarrian battleship?... and the apoc doesn't count cuz lazorz v0v

Did you check out the Armageddon?
Also the Apoc isn't too bad, given the tracking bonus.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Qweasdy
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#410 - 2014-01-07 23:07:01 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Qweasdy wrote:
Radius Prime wrote:

~snipped Quotes~

Bummer

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.
Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.

As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then?
I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.


Then where's my brawling amarrian battleship?... and the apoc doesn't count cuz lazorz v0v

Did you check out the Armageddon?
Also the Apoc isn't too bad, given the tracking bonus.


Yeah I know, that's why I mentioned it, it's nice... but I'd still rather use gallente or caldari with torps for a pure brawling ship.

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#411 - 2014-01-07 23:07:55 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Qweasdy wrote:
Radius Prime wrote:

~snipped Quotes~

Bummer

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.
Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.

As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then?
I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.


Then where's my brawling amarrian battleship?... and the apoc doesn't count cuz lazorz v0v

Did you check out the Armageddon?
Also the Apoc isn't too bad, given the tracking bonus.


Navy Geddon

the T1 Geddon kinda sux these days
Qweasdy
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#412 - 2014-01-07 23:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Qweasdy
Hasikan Miallok wrote:

Navy Geddon

the T1 Geddon kinda sux these days

Lies horrible lies! Just because you don't have a use for it doesn't mean it sucks.

EDIT: Kind of off topic but that reasoning is more or less behind every bit of rebalancing tears you will come across, "But now I can't use RLMLs on my cerberus to OMGWTFBBQPWN everything! therefore you broke my game! CCP sux!" that's about the gist of it anyway...

This is a terrible thread. As such, it's locked. - CCP Falcon
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#413 - 2014-01-07 23:18:29 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Navy Geddon

the T1 Geddon kinda sux these days

You've got to be kidding me.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#414 - 2014-01-07 23:21:03 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Navy Geddon

the T1 Geddon kinda sux these days

You've got to be kidding me.


Well you say that but there's a very obvious alternative explaination.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#415 - 2014-01-07 23:25:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Navy Geddon

the T1 Geddon kinda sux these days

You've got to be kidding me.


Well you say that but there's a very obvious alternative explaination.

Well I suppose there's more than one.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#416 - 2014-01-08 06:20:31 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If its T3 cruisers the T3's will have bigger buffer tanks than the battleships.

T3s are irrelevant when discussing ship balance. Wait until they are nerfed and then we can see how they compare to BSes (they won't lol).


They will never be nerfed simply because the penalties that come along with flying T3's. Loss of SP must be reflected in something. They also represent future tech. For now only tech 3 cruisers been released. Some day CCP will get around to expanding the T3 ship tree. Price, required skills and penalty at death will save other ships from becoming obsolete as they do now. T3 battleship would kick strategic cruisers ass, that's for sure...

CCP is very consistant when it comes to nerfing useful ships into useless crap. The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE as its played by the players and tend to understand it only through paper based stats that dont translate well into the actual gameplay.

I have both Minnie and Gallante T3s trained with my Gallante subs to 5 yet havent used a T3 for about 4 months.

Its very likely they will take T3 and balance them based on that paper data making them useless in game. One of the methods of determining if something is ima is over representation in game. I dont think T3 are overrepresented. In comparison sentry based ship, suicide cats and Archons are.

That wont stop devs turning T3 into scrap though.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#417 - 2014-01-08 06:28:50 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.

It doesn't. Ever.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#418 - 2014-01-08 06:35:05 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE

Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve.

Oh god.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#419 - 2014-01-08 06:38:09 UTC
Qweasdy wrote:
Radius Prime wrote:

~snipped Quotes~

Bummer

No1 will use them anymore and I already feel like the trend of making all ships the same and boring, is out of control. Diversity is what keeps a game interesting and fun imo. Nothing wrong with a ship being OP if the cost or time to build puts it back on a level playing field.
Caldari can have weak cruisers but above average battle cruisers and Minmater can have strong cruisers but weak battle cruisers. You could then balance a bit by providing more versatility to weaker ships or advantage in slots or something so players can fool around. Would reflect real life military a lot more and would keep things interesting.

As it is after the rebalance all races will end up with basically the same ships with different looks in their arsenal. What is the point in having different races then?
I feel like CCP is throwing all the ice cream flavours together to create a single flavour no-one would chase the ice cream truck for.


Then where's my brawling amarrian battleship?... and the apoc doesn't count cuz lazorz v0v

Battleships to me are the strongest 'all around' ship types, with the large number of slots, ehp and dps you can do a lot with them, comparing them in specific circumstances to a different ship type is just totally misunderstanding their role. Sure you can say an AF has a better sig tank and better applied dps but if that AF gets webbed and scrammed down by a small gang of T1 cruisers it's toast, a megathron for example gives not a single **** that it just got webbed and scrammed by 5 T1 cruisers, it doesn't NEED to be in an optimal situation to do well, it has the base stats to handle a wide variety of situations even with the major drawbacks that comes with a big unwieldy hull.

You dont compare their performance in specific scenarios but rather their specific stats outside of specific scenatios.

If a frig scan res is 600mm, a cruisers is 400, a battlecruisers is 250 and a battleships is 120 is are the differences justified in consideration of the ships abilities.

Given 1 sebo on a 600mm will take scan res to inty lock time, 400 to frig lock time, 250 to cruiser lock time but 120 to only half of battlecruiser lock time is this justified based on ship performance.

Given BC and below 1 sebo will take lock times down to the next small class is BS requiring 3 sebos for the same result balanced.

Its about asking questions based on known data not opinion or fanboism.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#420 - 2014-01-08 06:41:15 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
The devs are also consistant at showing their inability to understand EvE

Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve.

would beif they listened to their players. . .

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)