These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Solo PVP among larger class ships?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#61 - 2014-03-18 22:35:01 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

choosing easy kills and killmail whoring over good fights - this is Eve Online culture he mentioned....

but people like you never look beyond killboard?


You're mistaking "using the wrong tool for the job because the other guy did too" with "killmail whoring".

Doing something that stupid because someone else did it too is just asinine, nevermind the point that in lowsec, you're basically falling for pretty obvious bait if you ship up and engage in such a situation.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#62 - 2014-03-18 23:07:36 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#63 - 2014-03-18 23:29:48 UTC
It's not that players wouldn't like to solo in battleships (outside of missions and incursions, that is), but over the past year or so battleships have regressed into the "dreadnought" equivalent in high-sec, ie: great at applying damage to large or stationary targets - but that's about it. T1 versions don't have enough tank or specialization and you can't insure the Navy or Pirate equivalents, so the risk vs. reward ratio is extremely skewed. Outside of command ships battlecruisers don't fare much better unless you're talking about the Tornado - the gank weapon of choice vs. shiny ships.

With every update we've seen smaller vessels buffed at the expense of larger ones. It's to the point where outside of Marauders, there's no reason to use battleships for L4 missions, since strategic cruisers will often outperform battleships - especially when you factor-in warp travel time (which is a significant component now).

The reality is that if we want to see solo battlecruisers and battleships again, they need to be buffed. Shield, armor and hull strength... resistances... sensor strength... and base warp core strength.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#64 - 2014-03-18 23:59:45 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
It's not that players wouldn't like to solo in battleships (outside of missions and incursions, that is), but over the past year or so battleships have regressed into the "dreadnought" equivalent in high-sec, ie: great at applying damage to large or stationary targets - but that's about it. T1 versions don't have enough tank or specialization and you can't insure the Navy or Pirate equivalents, so the risk vs. reward ratio is extremely skewed. Outside of command ships battlecruisers don't fare much better unless you're talking about the Tornado - the gank weapon of choice vs. shiny ships.

With every update we've seen smaller vessels buffed at the expense of larger ones. It's to the point where outside of Marauders, there's no reason to use battleships for L4 missions, since strategic cruisers will often outperform battleships - especially when you factor-in warp travel time (which is a significant component now).

The reality is that if we want to see solo battlecruisers and battleships again, they need to be buffed. Shield, armor and hull strength... resistances... sensor strength... and base warp core strength.


Much of that is true, but that would require them to rebalance the mission PvE content in the game to not be so faceroll easy, otherwise people can blitz them even faster than they already can. Which CCP have shown distinct unwillingness to rework any PvE content.

A good example is the way logi works. Logi is most of the problem with escalation of numbers in PvP, because the only real counter to logisitics ships is numbers/alpha, because one logi ship can repair more than one ship's worth of DPS fairly easily.

Logi is the problem with PvP, at every size level *cough Triage cough*, but the reason it won't be fixed is because the Incursion runners would scream bloody murder if logi were ever nerfed to an appropriate level. Which would mean to make everyone happy, they have to go back and fix that particular content.

Which basically isn't happening.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2014-03-19 00:05:24 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

With every update we've seen smaller vessels buffed at the expense of larger ones. It's to the point where outside of Marauders, there's no reason to use battleships for L4 missions, since strategic cruisers will often outperform battleships - especially when you factor-in warp travel time (which is a significant component now).


The one advantage of battleships in level IV is an MJD for semi afk missioning. Hence the profusion of T1 Dominix in mission systems. An MJD is uselss in PvP.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#66 - 2014-03-19 01:04:54 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
It's not that players wouldn't like to solo in battleships (outside of missions and incursions, that is), but over the past year or so battleships have regressed into the "dreadnought" equivalent in high-sec, ie: great at applying damage to large or stationary targets - but that's about it. T1 versions don't have enough tank or specialization and you can't insure the Navy or Pirate equivalents, so the risk vs. reward ratio is extremely skewed. Outside of command ships battlecruisers don't fare much better unless you're talking about the Tornado - the gank weapon of choice vs. shiny ships.

With every update we've seen smaller vessels buffed at the expense of larger ones. It's to the point where outside of Marauders, there's no reason to use battleships for L4 missions, since strategic cruisers will often outperform battleships - especially when you factor-in warp travel time (which is a significant component now).

The reality is that if we want to see solo battlecruisers and battleships again, they need to be buffed. Shield, armor and hull strength... resistances... sensor strength... and base warp core strength.




Now your last line is something that bothers me occasionally.


The changes to the interceptor, IMO, have damaged battleship viability but there is an even worse issue here that has persisted for a long time.


How can a ship of a given size "tackle" a ship many times larger, more powerful, and heavier than it? Can I go out in a 10' Zodiac and pin down an oil tanker?


Improving the base warp strength of the battleship or basing it on ship size (the bigger the warp core.... "expectant math anybody?") means more metal to tackle so much metal. At the given mechanics all it takes is one cheap rifter and some assault frigates and battleships are reduced to fodder for gate camps.

If anything the warp strength needs a boost so the "investment" of taking out battleships is raised.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#67 - 2014-03-19 03:09:24 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Cruisers yes. That is a common solo PvP class of shop.

Above that less so but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


I would say cruiser solo PvP is more common that destroyer solo PvP, but don't have figures to back that up.


Definitely not in null, destroyers and dictors are almost the backbone of small gangs and solo ganks. I've even seen destroyers kill tengus solo, haha.

anything past a cruiser is vulnerable to too many ships to be truly good at soloing. battlecruisers are extremely common ships and spank cruisers like its their job (it is), so you will see those soloing, but they are slow and annoying to fly. Battleships might as well have a "gank me please" sign painted on them and a guy in a frigate traveling a system ahead to announce his arrival.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#68 - 2014-03-19 03:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Definitely not in null, destroyers and dictors are almost the backbone of small gangs and solo ganks. I've even seen destroyers kill tengus solo, haha.

anything past a cruiser is vulnerable to too many ships to be truly good at soloing. battlecruisers are extremely common ships and spank cruisers like its their job (it is), so you will see those soloing, but they are slow and annoying to fly. Battleships might as well have a "gank me please" sign painted on them and a guy in a frigate traveling a system ahead to announce his arrival.


Sure small gang, but that doesn't quite fit in the idea of solo.

As I wrote, I don't have the figures to support the claim, just a feeling that cruisers (T1, T2 and T3) are a more common solo platform than destroyers.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2014-03-19 03:20:31 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Definitely not in null, destroyers and dictors are almost the backbone of small gangs and solo ganks. I've even seen destroyers kill tengus solo, haha.

anything past a cruiser is vulnerable to too many ships to be truly good at soloing. battlecruisers are extremely common ships and spank cruisers like its their job (it is), so you will see those soloing, but they are slow and annoying to fly. Battleships might as well have a "gank me please" sign painted on them and a guy in a frigate traveling a system ahead to announce his arrival.


Sure small gang, but that doesn't quite fit in the idea of solo.

As I wrote, I don't have the figures to support the claim, just a feeling that cruisers (T1, T2 and T3) are a more common solo platform than destroyers.


you seen an awful lot of catalysts and thrashers on highsec pipes
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2014-03-19 03:39:04 UTC
Yeah lets look at the base stats:

Raven - Sensor: 26 - Align: 11.2 - Warp Speed: 2 - Speed: 141 - Targeting: 93 - Scan Res: 106
Drake - Sensor: 22.8 - Align: 9 - Warp Speed: 3 - Speed: 175 - Targeting: 75 - Scan Res: 243
Tengu - Sensor: 42 - Align: 5 - Warp Speed: 5 - Speed: 231 - Targeting: 117 - Scan Res: 293
Cerberus - Sensor: 28 - Align: 6 - Warp Speed: 3.3 - Speed: 275 - Targeting: 118 - Scan Res: 352
Caracal - Sensor: 19.2 - Align: 5 - Warp Speed: 3 - Speed: 288 - Targeting: 72 - Scan Res: 337

Two have more sensor strength than the Raven.
Three have half the align time than the Raven
All have faster warp speed than the Raven
Three are significantly faster than the Raven
Two have greater targeting range than the Raven
All have have double the scan resolution with one almost tripling.

These are all base stats at level 5.


IMO a battleship should have the highest sensor strength of all sub-cap ships. Not a cruiser.

IMO a battleship should be able to travel at equal rate of speed as other ships. This was true historically in our world and for game purposes it makes no sense to slow the gang down so much that you're not welcome in a gang because you're soooo sloooow. Inties should have been sped up but that should not have not been at the expense of other ships. A cruiser down speed increase would have been enough. Combat ships should have very high top speeds (warp speeds), battleships should have very slow align times to compensate for the warp speeds. Both is outright stupid.

IMO Out of warp Battleships should have high top speeds, but slow acceleration.

IMO Battleships should have the longest targeting ranges. Not cruisers.

IMO Battleships should have an even jump in scan resolution decrease like all the other ships. Its perplexing that you see inties 800, frigs 600, cruisers 450, battlecruisers 250, battleships 100. Even more so when you consider that a sensor booster gives 60% of 100 (60mm), while battlecruisers get 60% of 250 (150mm)...

Battleships should be around 150 to 200mm base at level 5 IMO.

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..... :)
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#71 - 2014-03-19 04:00:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Now your last line is something that bothers me occasionally.

The changes to the interceptor, IMO, have damaged battleship viability but there is an even worse issue here that has persisted for a long time.

How can a ship of a given size "tackle" a ship many times larger, more powerful, and heavier than it? Can I go out in a 10' Zodiac and pin down an oil tanker?

Improving the base warp strength of the battleship or basing it on ship size (the bigger the warp core.... "expectant math anybody?") means more metal to tackle so much metal. At the given mechanics all it takes is one cheap rifter and some assault frigates and battleships are reduced to fodder for gate camps.

If anything the warp strength needs a boost so the "investment" of taking out battleships is raised.

The simplest solution is just to give larger ships an inherent warp core strength, otherwise things get very complex very quickly, ie: mass, energy, etc. Something like +1 for cruisers, +2 for battlecruisers and +3 for battleships would go a long way towards evening things out.

Infinity Ziona wrote:
IMO a battleship should have the highest sensor strength of all sub-cap ships. Not a cruiser.
IMO Out of warp Battleships should have high top speeds, but slow acceleration.
IMO Battleships should have the longest targeting ranges. Not cruisers.
IMO Battleships should have an even jump in scan resolution decrease like all the other ships. Its perplexing that you see inties 800, frigs 600, cruisers 450, battlecruisers 250, battleships 100. Even more so when you consider that a sensor booster gives 60% of 100 (60mm), while battlecruisers get 60% of 250 (150mm)...

Yep, yep, yep, yep...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Kiryen O'Bannon
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2014-03-19 05:28:28 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
[quote=Herzog Wolfhammer]Now your last line is something that bothers me occasionally.

The changes to the interceptor, IMO, have damaged battleship viability but there is an even worse issue here that has persisted for a long time.

How can a ship of a given size "tackle" a ship many times larger, more powerful, and heavier than it? Can I go out in a 10' Zodiac and pin down an oil tanker?

Improving the base warp strength of the battleship or basing it on ship size (the bigger the warp core.... "expectant math anybody?") means more metal to tackle so much metal. At the given mechanics all it takes is one cheap rifter and some assault frigates and battleships are reduced to fodder for gate camps.

If anything the warp strength needs a boost so the "investment" of taking out battleships is raised.

The simplest solution is just to give larger ships an inherent warp core strength, otherwise things get very complex very quickly, ie: mass, energy, etc. Something like +1 for cruisers, +2 for battlecruisers and +3 for battleships would go a long way towards evening things out.

That's a good idea, and it would also go a long way towards balancing the present problem of interceptors kiting at 20+km ranges where they essentially outrun Warrior IIs and small missiles, small and medium short range guns can't reach, and medium and large long guns and large short guns can't (or just barely can) track/ get enough sig resoultion. The only guns with any success at all are small long guns. There's just a HUGE space where an interceptor can just hold down a ship indefinitely and call in help from much farther away than it should.. 5 or 6 minutes in come cases.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#73 - 2014-03-19 09:11:41 UTC
I bet nobody here who is complaining about battleships has tried to fly them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#74 - 2014-03-19 09:31:18 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
IMO a battleship should have the highest sensor strength of all sub-cap ships. Not a cruiser.
IMO Battleships should have the longest targeting ranges. Not cruisers.
IMO Battleships should have an even jump in scan resolution decrease like all the other ships.
They do.

Quote:
Even more so when you consider that a sensor booster gives 60% of 100 (60mm), while battlecruisers get 60% of 250 (150mm)...
So I take it you don't understand how scan resolution works? Why is it strange that a battleship locks 40% with a scripted booster when a (battle)cruiser also locks 40% faster with a scripted booster?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2014-03-19 10:31:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Trippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
IMO a battleship should have the highest sensor strength of all sub-cap ships. Not a cruiser.
IMO Battleships should have the longest targeting ranges. Not cruisers.
IMO Battleships should have an even jump in scan resolution decrease like all the other ships.
They do.

Maybe in Trippia's fantasy reality they do. In the game they obviously don't. I posted the base stats as they are in game and clearly they don't.

Trippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Even more so when you consider that a sensor booster gives 60% of 100 (60mm), while battlecruisers get 60% of 250 (150mm)...
So I take it you don't understand how scan resolution works? Why is it strange that a battleship locks 40% with a scripted booster when a (battle)cruiser also locks 40% faster with a scripted booster?

You're obviously taking it wrong as usual. Who said it was strange?

Raven locking:

A frigate: 19s (Frigate warps in 3s) - consensual pvp only
A destroyer: 14 s (destroyer warps in 4s) - consensual pvp only
A cruiser: 12 s (cruiser warps in 5s) - consensual pvp only
A battlecruiser: 9.5 seconds (battlecruiser warps in 9 seconds) - consensual pvp only
A battleships: 8 seconds (battleships warps in 11 seconds) - non-consensual pvp possible


Raven locking (with sensor booster + scan resolution script):

A frigate: 12.3 seconds (Frigate warps in 3s) - consensual pvp only
A destroyer: 8.9s (destroyer warps in 4s) - consensual pvp only
A cruiser: 7.5 s (cruiser warps in 5s) - consensual pvp only
A battlecruiser: 5.9 seconds (battlecruiser warps in 9 seconds) - non-consensual pvp possible
A battleships: 8 seconds (battleships warps in 11 seconds) - non-consensual pvp possible

Compared with a battlecruiser with sensor booster:

A frigate: 5.3 seconds (Frigate warps in 3s) - consensual pvp only
A destroyer: 3.9s (destroyer warps in 4s) - non-consensual pvp possible
A cruiser: 3.3 s (cruiser warps in 5s) - non-consensual pvp possible
A battlecruiser: 2.6 seconds (battlecruiser warps in 9 seconds) - non-consensual pvp possible
A battleships: 2.3 seconds (battleships warps in 11 seconds) - non-consensual pvp possible


You can can repeat the above with every sub cap in game and you'll find that every subcap apart from battleship by fitting a sensor booster is able to catch and force engagements with almost all its smaller opponents.

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..... :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#76 - 2014-03-19 10:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Maybe in Trippia's fantasy reality they do. In the game they obviously don't. I posted the base stats as they are in game and clearly they don't.
You posted base stats that prove that they do, but your sample size (1 BS, 1 cruiser) was pitifully small so it might be an outlier. That's your problem for presenting bad stats that disprove your point, though.

Quote:
You're obviously taking it wrong as usual. Who said it was strange?
You did. “Perplexing” was the word you used.

Oh, and…
Quote:
Raven locking (with sensor booster + scan resolution script):
…have you tried turning the sensor booster on?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#77 - 2014-03-19 10:41:28 UTC
How are your BS locking times so long?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2014-03-19 10:45:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
How are your BS locking times so long?

They're base stats on unfitted ships.

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..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#79 - 2014-03-19 10:48:25 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
How are your BS locking times so long?

They're base stats on unfitted ships.


Well in action I can tell you it does not take 8 seconds to lock a BS. I lock cruisers in that time and frigates aren't that far off 8 seconds either.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2014-03-19 10:51:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
How are your BS locking times so long?

They're base stats on unfitted ships.


Well in action I can tell you it does not take 8 seconds to lock a BS. I lock cruisers in that time and frigates aren't that far off 8 seconds either.

We'll this thread is entitled "Solo PvP among larger class ships" so given your a goon and you have no solo BS kills afaik and you're always in a huge blob likely with info warefare links and you're able to do away with some crucial mid slots that soloers are not able to you can probably afford to fit a sebo as well.

Try fitting a sensor booster on a Mega with 4 mids when you need MWD, Scram, Web and Cap Injector.

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..... :)