These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Give battleships a bigger buffer margin: armor plates/shield extenders
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-11-08 03:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
There are quite a few medium ships that can reach battleship level buffer tank while remaining much smaller and more mobile. I see no reason not to let battleships have a more significant advantage in the buffer department than they do currently.

3200mm Reinforced Steel Plates I
Powergrid: 2000 MW
CPU: 35 Tf
Armor: +6000
Mass: +15,000,000

3200mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Powergrid: 2300 MW
CPU: 39 Tf
Armor: +9600
Mass: +15,000,000

X-Large Shield Extender I
Powergrid: 1250 MW
CPU: 50 Tf
Shield: +4500
Signature Radius: +87m

X-Large Shield Extender II
Powergrid: 1375 MW
CPU: 57 Tf
Shield: +6300
Signature Radius: +87m


===================================================================
EDIT

Some people have said (and I agree) that a lot of medium ships find it a bit too easy to fit big armor plates and extenders. I feel a blanket 50% increase to their powergrid costs is not unreasonable. It would mean that you would see 1600mm armor plates used on medium ships far less. 800mm armor plates would still see a lot of use along with large shield extenders, but their higher cost would be more balanced with their fairly high HP bonuses.

Medium Shield Extender I: 42 MW
Large Shield Extender I: 225 MW
X-Large Shield Extender I: 1875 MW

200mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 15 MW
400mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 45 MW
800mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 300 MW
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 750 MW
3200mm Reinforced Steel Plates I: 3000 MW

I don't know about you but I don't foresee any significant difficulty in fitting the biggest ones to battleships.

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."
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-11-08 04:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
No. Ships in this game already work counter-intuitively as it is.

The problem is the modules and fitting ability. you identified a problem (oversize modules allowing extreme tankiness), but drew a conclusion that doesn't match to the game design aspects of NAKED ships.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-11-08 04:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
13kr1d1 wrote:
The problem is the modules and fitting ability. you identified a problem (oversize modules allowing extreme tankiness), but drew a conclusion that doesn't match to the game design aspects of NAKED ships.

Then the solution is to increase the powergrid requirements for existing armor plates and shield extenders.

I'm okay with that.

It's not the base attributes as much as it is what they can fit on top of it.

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."
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4 - 2014-11-08 04:59:35 UTC
probably better to increase grid amount of existing mods. BC's could fit those x-large shield extenders with some compromise.

electron blaster ferox with 600dps and 110k+ ehp or something like that.
ion shield navy brutix with 930 dps and near 90k tank.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#5 - 2014-11-08 05:52:40 UTC
Or.... Increase the base HP of BS by a reasonable portion and the percentage increase modules will be better than the 1600mm plates anyway. And then you don't have to buff BS's PG to match the buffs to module fittings and then discover you now have BS's pulling all sorts of crazy fits they never used to be able to because of it.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#6 - 2014-11-08 06:27:07 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Or.... Increase the base HP of BS by a reasonable portion and the percentage increase modules will be better than the 1600mm plates anyway. And then you don't have to buff BS's PG to match the buffs to module fittings and then discover you now have BS's pulling all sorts of crazy fits they never used to be able to because of it.

I can see room for a bit of both. not something ridiculously large as buffing battleship grid that far, or straight incorporating these into the ships to begin with. A larger plate is also unlikely to be needed, while the XL extenders seem a little heavy on the sig relative to the shield. An XL armor rep might be needed though.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#7 - 2014-11-08 06:54:26 UTC
I think I posted something along these lines several times. Good idea that needs to happen; the buffer margin between bc's and battleships is too thin. +1
Ix Method
Doomheim
#8 - 2014-11-08 08:31:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ix Method
Oh yes, bog standard T1 ships all running around with 200k ehp, that's a thing that needs to happen.

-1

Travelling at the speed of love.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-11-10 01:29:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Daichi Yamato wrote:
probably better to increase grid amount of existing mods. BC's could fit those x-large shield extenders with some compromise.

electron blaster ferox with 600dps and 110k+ ehp or something like that.
ion shield navy brutix with 930 dps and near 90k tank.

With a lot of compromise. Sure, blasters can score you some DPS without costing much powergrid, but they have terrible range. Then try fitting the microwarpdrive you WILL need to make the fit useful and suddenly the only way you're getting that extender on is with a bunch of powergrid upgrades, preventing you from fitting as much for resists and other things. So I'm not worried about such a fringe case, though I'm also not opposed to a slight increase in the powergrid requirements of ALL shield extenders and armor plates.



Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Or.... Increase the base HP of BS by a reasonable portion and the percentage increase modules will be better than the 1600mm plates anyway. And then you don't have to buff BS's PG to match the buffs to module fittings and then discover you now have BS's pulling all sorts of crazy fits they never used to be able to because of it.

I'd increase their base HP by a bit too, but I believe in compromise. I think battleships should have to sacrifice something to get the top hit points. That's why I would not suggest increasing their powergrid just to make fitting these easier. It's already easy enough.



James Baboli wrote:
I can see room for a bit of both. not something ridiculously large as buffing battleship grid that far, or straight incorporating these into the ships to begin with. A larger plate is also unlikely to be needed, while the XL extenders seem a little heavy on the sig relative to the shield. An XL armor rep might be needed though.

I disagree about the sig radius. I think the LSE gives a rather small sig radius increase for how much HP it gives. In fact if you look at the trend of armor plates and shield extenders, the LSE gives more HP than it should to follow the normal curve, and it costs less powergrid.

A large sig radius bonus like that is also going to discourage the XLSE further from being fitted onto battlecruisers, while battleships won't be bothered too much by it.

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."
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#10 - 2014-11-10 01:31:36 UTC
Fully support this...battleships are far too easy to kill/gank.

+1
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#11 - 2014-11-10 01:37:48 UTC
The problem with battleships is their strategic vulnerabilities, not their literal ones. Things like the warp speed nerf did far more damage than can be easily accounted for, for instance. Another is their overall lack of scan resolution, which I think could use an across the board buff.

But as for their tank? Hardly. Many of them offer the largest buffer/isk spent ratio among ship classes. Yes, you can get larger amounts in some specialized ship classes, but often for a higher sticker price and training time.

But the problems with battleships are not either in dps or hitpoints. It's in the small things, the details and the little bits.

"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.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#12 - 2014-11-10 01:44:05 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
probably better to increase grid amount of existing mods. BC's could fit those x-large shield extenders with some compromise.

electron blaster ferox with 600dps and 110k+ ehp or something like that.
ion shield navy brutix with 930 dps and near 90k tank.


..eeek! Or they start putting those on carriers and titans.

But that would also cater to more = better and the powercreep continues.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-11-10 01:49:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
The problem with battleships is their strategic vulnerabilities, not their literal ones. Things like the warp speed nerf did far more damage than can be easily accounted for, for instance. Another is their overall lack of scan resolution, which I think could use an across the board buff.

But as for their tank? Hardly. Many of them offer the largest buffer/isk spent ratio among ship classes.

If you are talking about fits in which the module costs well outweigh the hull, then sure, battleships get more out of the one-size-fits-all resistance modules. But if we're going on the cost of the ship itself esp. with cheap fittings (Tech 2 and down) then you'll easily get more EHP for your money with a cruiser or battlecruiser. It just quickly gets expensive to keep increasing it once you hit the ceiling with tech 2 mods.

I think the strategic vulnerabilities of battleships are an excellent thing to have. For too long, they were too easy to use and move around. Because of that, CCP made sure they weren't particularly powerful. But now that they are so clunky, maybe they can get some buffs to make them actually stand out.


elitatwo wrote:
..eeek! Or they start putting those on carriers and titans.

But that would also cater to more = better and the powercreep continues.

More shitfits to laugh at on killmails? I hardly think that's a problem.

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."
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#14 - 2014-11-10 01:58:03 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

If you are talking about fits in which the module costs well outweigh the hull, then sure, battleships get more out of the one-size-fits-all resistance modules. But if we're going on the cost of the ship itself esp. with cheap fittings (Tech 2 and down) then you'll easily get more EHP for your money with a cruiser or battlecruiser.


What? Pretty sure I cannot, in fact, get more hitpoints from a Maller or Prophecy than I can from an Abaddon.

Tech 2 mods or otherwise.

For a single player, a battleship is the most hitpoints you can achieve with a tech 1 hull. And it is still rather cost effective.

"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.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#15 - 2014-11-10 02:04:53 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
..eeek! Or they start putting those on carriers and titans.

But that would also cater to more = better and the powercreep continues.

More shitfits to laugh at on killmails? I hardly think that's a problem.


No that is not what I am saying.

If we get those modules implemented it will not take long before the first outcry for more dps comes and we have the same problem all over again.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2014-11-10 02:14:17 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


What? Pretty sure I cannot, in fact, get more hitpoints from a Maller or Prophecy than I can from an Abaddon.

Tech 2 mods or otherwise.

For a single player, a battleship is the most hitpoints you can achieve with a tech 1 hull. And it is still rather cost effective.

The number of mallers needed to equal said BS are normally far more isk efficient though, which is what you were claiming.
I'm sure an edge case might say otherwise with a particular bait EHP fit, but normally speaking BS EHP are not Isk efficient compared to some smaller ships.
And there is certainly room for their buffer to increase a bit to distinguish them more from BC's. It should be in the interests of distinguishing the class though and done in a way which doesn't allow for them to increase other things. Upping the PG for example simply makes it vastly easier to fit top tier guns and stay with the current EHP.
Which is why I said base EHP should be where it's touched, not PG which then affects everything else at the same time.

There is also a huge gulf from a BS up to a Capital which makes no sense why it's such a huge jump which upping BS EHP would make a more even graduation across classes.

It's also either EHP or more firepower, or undoing all the strategic mobility nerfs that CCP dumped on them. Since CCP have acknowledged that BC's & BS are not doing well in the meta compared to the lighter classes or caps, being either too light, or too immobile. So they need something to give them an overall buff. Why not EHP? It doesn't increase local tank so it's not going to have very much impact at all on missions.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#17 - 2014-11-10 02:25:14 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

The number of mallers needed to equal said BS are normally far more isk efficient though, which is what you were claiming.


No, it's not.

I'm saying that, once you have the hull, that pound for pound no tech 1 hull class offers more hitpoints for the price of the modules. a T2 resist module gives more benefit to a battleship than to a battlecruiser, pretty much universally.




Quote:

There is also a huge gulf from a BS up to a Capital which makes no sense why it's such a huge jump which upping BS EHP would make a more even graduation across classes.


Well, when you get down to it, that's just because capital ships are ludicrously overpowered, based on an opportunity cost fallacy that CCP still refuses to address.


Quote:

It's also either EHP or more firepower, or undoing all the strategic mobility nerfs that CCP dumped on them.


Well, putting aside the other potential solutions, the answer is the latter. It was poorly conceived and they need to take it back, and more besides.

Quote:

Since CCP have acknowledged that BC's & BS are not doing well in the meta compared to the lighter classes or caps, being either too light, or too immobile. So they need something to give them an overall buff. Why not EHP? It doesn't increase local tank so it's not going to have very much impact at all on missions.


Both of those ship classes suffer from a lack of mobility, but battlecruisers also suffer from a severe lack of damage mitigation. They don't have the speed or low sig to tank damage that way, and they don't have the cap or native hitpoints to tank damage the other way. They also fail to benefit in any significant way in the dps category either.

Overall, battlecruisers are in a very, very poor place of balance.

As for "why not EHP?", I will tell you why.

They're already on the extreme end of that spectrum of damage mitigation. They don't need to go any further, as that not only justifies their prior nerfs, but also creates power creep in a similar manner to capitals (which have been an irrefutable disaster for game balance).

They need a utility buff, that's about it. Better scan res, some of them need bigger dronebays, and some of them need their weapons readjusted (lasers and projectiles being the biggest issue among Large size guns).

"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.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-11-10 03:15:22 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Overall, battlecruisers are in a very, very poor place of balance.

As for "why not EHP?", I will tell you why.

They're already on the extreme end of that spectrum of damage mitigation. They don't need to go any further, as that not only justifies their prior nerfs, but also creates power creep in a similar manner to capitals (which have been an irrefutable disaster for game balance).

They need a utility buff, that's about it. Better scan res, some of them need bigger dronebays, and some of them need their weapons readjusted (lasers and projectiles being the biggest issue among Large size guns).


At least this guy gets it. Power creep on hp is NOT the answer.
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2014-11-10 06:07:39 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
13kr1d1 wrote:
The problem is the modules and fitting ability. you identified a problem (oversize modules allowing extreme tankiness), but drew a conclusion that doesn't match to the game design aspects of NAKED ships.

Then the solution is to increase the powergrid requirements for existing armor plates and shield extenders.

I'm okay with that.

It's not the base attributes as much as it is what they can fit on top of it.


That was kind of my point. If they can fit stuff that completely disregards the base stats, then there's not really a balance. The base stats of a ship should take up a majority of what that ship can do, if you want ships to be inherently powerful in their own right and their own hull bonuses, rather than just different-skin-version-of-same-ships online.

I want you to imagine a game based around the ships inherent abilities being CORE, and armor/weapon modules being FRACTIONAL improvements that push your ship one way or another. Easier to balance that kind of game, and easier to have satisfying PvP by mitigating coin flip scenarios.

Catherine Laartii wrote:
I think I posted something along these lines several times. Good idea that needs to happen; the buffer margin between bc's and battleships is too thin. +1


Right, and it's too thin because of HP from buffer being too good, while fitting also being to lax.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2014-11-10 06:33:08 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


What? Pretty sure I cannot, in fact, get more hitpoints from a Maller or Prophecy than I can from an Abaddon.

Tech 2 mods or otherwise.

For a single player, a battleship is the most hitpoints you can achieve with a tech 1 hull. And it is still rather cost effective.

The number of mallers needed to equal said BS are normally far more isk efficient though, which is what you were claiming.
I'm sure an edge case might say otherwise with a particular bait EHP fit, but normally speaking BS EHP are not Isk efficient compared to some smaller ships.


And that is exactly how it should be. More power should be more inefficient in power/isk ratio to get/field.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
123Next page