These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Battlecruiser and Battleship Buff

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1 - 2014-02-17 12:34:37 UTC
Increase Battlecruiser hull, armor and shield strength to battleship equivalent.
Increase Battleship hull, armor and shield strength by a factor of 2-4x.

These classes will now be able to roam solo as well as provide a more substantial counter to capitals.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2014-02-17 13:04:04 UTC
So what happens when you get a fleet of them?

It takes what, four or five bombing runs to kill battleships as is? Do you want them to be functionally immune to bombers? How do you propose countering them in serious numbers?
Zamyslinski
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#3 - 2014-02-17 13:05:08 UTC
CAPS
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2014-02-17 13:08:14 UTC
Why? Don't worry I know why, but it would be nice if you explained it to others. I don't think what you propose is good. BS are fine and BC even more so. Let me explain were the problem lies:

frigate < cruiser < BC < BS

Everything is fine and as it should be. Now where the problem lies:

BC ~ / > HAC
BS > command ship, T3

When you want to spend around 200 mil and you have proper skills BS or BC is just less preferable to similarly priced (especially in case of BS) T2 equivalent who have: the same dps (little less), more tank (inc. resists, signature, speed) while costing the same.

It's a question of balance between T1 and T2 as lower class T2 outperforms higher class T1 (BS < Commands). For me a simple solution is to add T2 line combat BS. That’s it. Also all BS need mire firepower (role bonus: +25% dps - not to buff ABCs) to counter the fact that they cant hit anything and need webbing support to function properly. But I proposed such a thing a while back and was flamed. So maybe BS will suck for all eternity.

When we look at your proposal a questions arises should commands, marauders etc. be buffed accordingly? So -1 from me but i still support that a change in metagame to buff BS is needed.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#5 - 2014-02-17 13:11:17 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
These classes will now be able to roam solo


As i would appraised this change i highly doubt that more tank would help them because most of them cant hit cruisers in close combat situation which means they only die longer.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Claud Tiberius
#6 - 2014-02-17 13:21:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Claud Tiberius
Asking for a ship that can survive solo is asking for a ship that is OP. Every ship should have a weak spot that another ship can take advantage of.

And regardless, assuming you do buff one of the ships making it more efficient/OP, everyone will then use it. Thus its no longer suitable as a solo ship because it cannot survive on its own in a 1v1.

Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#7 - 2014-02-17 14:31:24 UTC
Zamyslinski wrote:
CAPS

lol i agree this is funny because of T3 topic

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-02-18 03:40:19 UTC
Is there any reason they should be able to roam solo ?

In real world terms solo battleships were dead battleships. Even in the realm of armored vehicles a solo heavy tank is generally a dead heavy tank (look at Tigers on the Eastern Front in WWII, they needed multiple smaller tanks for support and protection).
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#9 - 2014-02-18 04:27:00 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
So what happens when you get a fleet of them?




more blap dreads? Like the games does not give enough reasons for cap proliferation? lol


BC's real problematic. As in the case of tier 3 bc tank is gimped by design. Need bs dps don't need the bs tank? Run them if so inclined. make them more tanky and well this idea steps on its own ****....as a nice tank boost to the tier 3's and its a case of why even bother running bs's even with more tank. Naga speed tanks jsut a bit better than rokh.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#10 - 2014-02-18 04:54:56 UTC
BC's are in a pretty good place.

BS however could certainly do with this tank increase. They are barely tougher than a BC or Cruiser, and the jump from BS to Caps is currently stupendous. A smaller gap between BS & Caps as well as a larger tank gap from BC to BS would be a good thing.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-02-18 05:04:09 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
BC's are in a pretty good place.

BS however could certainly do with this tank increase. They are barely tougher than a BC or Cruiser, and the jump from BS to Caps is currently stupendous. A smaller gap between BS & Caps as well as a larger tank gap from BC to BS would be a good thing.



My concern with buffing BS more is putting them out of reach of small ships to kill. Even if by default of having 80k armor HP, that would pretty well put most BS out of what a few frigs could kill within realistic expectation.


Also don't agree on BC's. The Tier 3 BC's are great. The other's are all kinda just heavy cruisers, not battle cruisers. I'd like to see them rebalanced into real battle cruisers, tank or gank of BS and weakness of cruisers in the other.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#12 - 2014-02-18 05:49:59 UTC
Passive tank increase will simply increase time to kill, not ability.
Active tank increase of *2 will take it up to oh... Four frigates to kill an active armour tank that is perma stable?
Assuming they don't have neuts to take it unstable. Stable shield tanks might go a few more.
Anything using ASB's or Cap Boosters is simply time to run out of cap boosters.

It's almost never going to make a difference vs a solo BS with frigates engaging, but it will give them a decent difference from the BC's & HAC's in EHP/Tank
Linkxsc162534
Silent Scourge
#13 - 2014-02-18 06:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Linkxsc162534
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Is there any reason they should be able to roam solo ?

In real world terms solo battleships were dead battleships. Even in the realm of armored vehicles a solo heavy tank is generally a dead heavy tank (look at Tigers on the Eastern Front in WWII, they needed multiple smaller tanks for support and protection).


I will point out the battle of Raseiniai. There was an instance of 1 KV-2 stopping the advance of the 6th panzer division for a day alone. But yeah, lone tanks are dead tanks. Lone battleships are dead battleships (think of the Indianapolis)

Even if they were to flat out buff the BSes and BCs by the margins the OP is calling for, they'd still get ganked, they'd just get more annoying for smaller ships to attack.

If anything I would like to see the addition of a 3200mm plate for BSes, an Xlarge armor repper (to counterpart the xlarge sbooster) an an extra large shield extender. Fitting balancing ofcourse would have some minor issues, but its far FAR to easy to put what were designed to be "battleship" sized tanking gear, on cruiser classed ships.

Also 1600mm artys, but make them too demanding to fit a full rack on a tornado. And who needs tracking, I just want alpha.

Also a T2 "tier3" battleship is a nice idea and all, who doesn't want to see a t2 rokh or hyperion charging around a battlefield like people use HACs for. Actually most of all I'd liek to see the T2 Maelstrom (OH SOOOOOOO NIIIIICEEEE)

BCs are fine IMO. Decent tank and damage for the old ones, and well the ABCs are in a pretty nice place.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#14 - 2014-02-18 06:49:58 UTC
Yes to buffing CBCs to light BSes.

Oh god.
Actaeon Versaea
#15 - 2014-02-18 06:54:26 UTC
CCP doesn't like power creep, and this would create such..

Therefore CCP would instead of this do a Frigate, Cruiser, and Destroyer gun Neff, which I disprove off... Battleships never were meant to be good solo ships in my education (History, as well)
Actaeon Versaea
#16 - 2014-02-18 06:57:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Actaeon Versaea
Linkxsc162534 wrote:


an Xlarge Armour Reparation (to counterpart the Xlarge Shield booster) .


This.

Quote:

Also a T2 "tier3" battleship is a nice idea and all, Blah Blah Blah.


Khanid! Khanid! Khanid! Khanid Battleship! Cool

I will fully approve and like anything that might result in more Khanid Ships, particularly Khanid BS.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-02-18 08:59:02 UTC
shouldn't be in the line of damage (although I find is strange the ABC's do more damage then the attack battleships), it should be in the line of survivability.

to keep the link to real life, lone battleships might be dead battleships, though if you see how long and how much effort and ships it took to sink the Bischmark, a little more survivability would not be out of place.

I still think larger ships should be more resistand to E-war. things like warp strenght, most larger vessles have more than one engin so crippeling one should stop them completly. webs seem to have no problem in the size of the mass of a ship.

more e-war resistance would be more ballanced in my humble opinion and might show some more battlesships in small gangs.
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#18 - 2014-02-18 09:29:03 UTC
Oh god, I just went through his Killboard.
Mixed tank Tengus. All of them Rapid Light Missile Launcher fit.

How does someone like that even think he's in a position to make suggestions on how to balance stuff.
I think a stone would be more qualified.

My Condor costs less than that module!
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2014-02-18 09:35:01 UTC
I have a feeling that Auther pays for a lot of his ships with PLEX.

Anyways... back on topic:

BS's can do a lot more than smaller ships can... for starters they're almost immune to Warp Disruptors (MJD)

They can fit good Anti-Frigate Modules (SB's Heavy Neuts)

I would say that the Battleships all do seem to have slightly less HP than I thought would be best for them (somewhere in the region of a 10% buff to HP would be sufficient)

The utmost frustrating thing about BS's though is warp mobility. I don't mind the slow warp speed but it feels like it takes forever for a BS just to decelerate and exit warp. This is only a frustration though and I completely understand that BS's are not supposed to fly alone.

BC's are absolutely fine as is
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2014-02-18 11:00:01 UTC
If we increase the HP we would need to increase active tank effectiveness or active tank will be useless in comparison with passive tanks. Because if we increase passive tank HP then more damage mods can be fitted. So if we increase HP a tad then t1 battleships won't be able to take eachother in 1v1s anymore. On singularity the rule is that t1/faction battleships need 3 damage mods and often 1 or even 2 damage rigs or the other guy has a good enough tank to tank your dps.

And as long as warp disruption exists solo ships are a long forgotten myth that old geezers talk about.
123Next pageLast page