These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make battleships and battlecruisers worth the warp! 2.0

First post
Author
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2014-11-10 10:30:58 UTC
Lurifax wrote:
A nerf to bombs would go a long way to help the BS.



Battleships are terrible in high sec as well. SO no its not simply bombs that are hurting them. They are slow, but do not bring enough OOMPH to compensate the extra time they take to arrive.


All battleshisp need some nice 20% EHP increase, some 10-15% damage increase and self repair large modules must get extra boost (like LAAR gettign 1 extra cycle of nanite paste)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2014-11-10 10:32:48 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Zekora Rally wrote:
Battleships need a good 30% increase in dps across the board. As it stands, we have all sorts of cruisers encroaching on battleship level DPS and tank plus better mobility and agility save for a handful.


I think that 30% is more than a bit too high as an across the board buff, but certainly some ships and weapons are going to some fairly large increases if all goes as planned, mostly in things that currently under-perform.


That's only because of links and suff thats smaller than an escape pod @5000+m/s.



Nope. These are nto supposed to be the battleships targets.

When we detect a fleet of a few battleships and RR ships at 5-7 jumps and someoen ask if we shoudl bbring battleships. .the answer is always NO!!! BEcause battleships do nto bring extra damage capability Even over other battleships to be worth HUGE travel time

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2014-11-10 10:34:23 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
MukkBarovian wrote:
I think CCP are looking into T3s. Battleships are pretty balanced if you ignore T3s and bombers. Rather than agitate for a big BS buff, I think the correct solution is simply to scale back the BS warp speed penalties. Something like BC 2.75, BS 2.5 would be nice.


I'm surprised you'd say so, I've gone up against PL a couple of times when they fielded napocs with archon support, and considering who you were fighting against, it didn't do as one sided as I expected they would against eagles. I'd say that the average PL player is probably a little more experienced and well skilled than the players you were up against, PL also had good bomber support on the field, eyes in the enemy fleet, really high end loki support, and napocs fit with triple plates and t2 rigs, and honestly, I was very surprised by how many napocs went down.

All things considered, it was a fun fight, and I'm glad PL brought napocs instead of t3s, but I think it shows how resilient hac doctrines are against battleships.



On 0.0, battleship mobility is NOT a huge drawback because of titan bridges.

Battleships pwoer must be scaled accordign to their OWN travel capabilities. With the new jump changes you will see less and less battleships used, because titans bridgign them left and right will not be as easy.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#84 - 2014-11-10 10:55:05 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
Kagura Nikon wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
That's only because of links and suff thats smaller than an escape pod @5000+m/s.

Nope. These are nto supposed to be the battleships targets.

When we detect a fleet of a few battleships and RR ships at 5-7 jumps and someoen ask if we shoudl bbring battleships. .the answer is always NO!!! BEcause battleships do nto bring extra damage capability Even over other battleships to be worth HUGE travel time


Kagura dear,
I know that and I wasn't solely talking about links, since roaming gangs don't have them with them all the time. I was referring to what is currently popular in space.

Oh and despite sounding arrogant again, just three weeks ago I made a similar thread about battleships and battlecruisers and was harshly shut down.

Out of sight, out of mind much!?

You are right, don't get me wrong and I know that you have a long year experience on the field and everyone with long year experience is gratefully invited to come here and help to get something done.

Maybe we even get the council of missile haters here.

I will take any hp and firepower buff for battleships we can get even though I must be the most hated girl of mankind because I proposed something ahead of time.

It still doesn't mean that is has less merrit because I was a few weeks early.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#85 - 2014-11-10 23:59:30 UTC
Question to you all who care: Are there particularly important ranges other than m4, t2 and top faction ranges for webs, scrams and points, with and without links that you want made a particular note of in the weapon comparisons? Is it worth noting loki web range for example, or just let those who care remember it and use that? Proteus point range?

Also, are there any particular mistakes or additions in the issues with the t1 and pirate ships? I know I haven't gotten to the navy hulls yet, and I'm kicking myself on it and they are on the way for the self imposed end of the week deadline.

As an aside folks, If comments could be kept to 1 in a row, with responses to multiple people in one post, I'd really appreciate it. It makes sorting out who thinks what on which topic faster and improves the clarity to me.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#86 - 2014-11-11 07:10:54 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Question to you all who care: Are there particularly important ranges other than m4, t2 and top faction ranges for webs, scrams and points, with and without links that you want made a particular note of in the weapon comparisons? Is it worth noting loki web range for example, or just let those who care remember it and use that? Proteus point range?


James dear, no that would be a little overboard. And as far as I know the ewar subs on tech 3 were in the same range as the current recon ships.
Let's keep our focus on battleships and battlecruisers.

James Baboli wrote:
Also, are there any particular mistakes or additions in the issues with the t1 and pirate ships? I know I haven't gotten to the navy hulls yet, and I'm kicking myself on it and they are on the way for the self imposed end of the week deadline.


As far as I have read it, it looks fine. Maybe you can mention the Gecko on the Rattlesnake which is a really strong wingman.

The machariel and Barghest are becoming the posterchildren for mobilty and long(er) range kiting in a battleship hull. Top speeds of up to 2400m/s are no joke on them without heat.
The Nestor is still trying to blend in and the Nightmare could just a very little more agility and afterburner top speed, nothing major, somewhere in the line of 10%.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2014-11-11 07:42:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
MukkBarovian wrote:
I think CCP are looking into T3s. Battleships are pretty balanced if you ignore T3s and bombers. Rather than agitate for a big BS buff, I think the correct solution is simply to scale back the BS warp speed penalties. Something like BC 2.75, BS 2.5 would be nice.


I'm surprised you'd say so, I've gone up against PL a couple of times when they fielded napocs with archon support, and considering who you were fighting against, it didn't do as one sided as I expected they would against eagles. I'd say that the average PL player is probably a little more experienced and well skilled than the players you were up against, PL also had good bomber support on the field, eyes in the enemy fleet, really high end loki support, and napocs fit with triple plates and t2 rigs, and honestly, I was very surprised by how many napocs went down.

All things considered, it was a fun fight, and I'm glad PL brought napocs instead of t3s, but I think it shows how resilient hac doctrines are against battleships.



On 0.0, battleship mobility is NOT a huge drawback because of titan bridges.

Battleships pwoer must be scaled accordign to their OWN travel capabilities. With the new jump changes you will see less and less battleships used, because titans bridgign them left and right will not be as easy.


Even with titan bridges battleship mobility is still an issue in nullsec, particularly with armor battleship doctrines, which are currently the only really viable doctrines because of bombers. A napoc takes ten seconds to align with links, discounting waiting for prop mod cycles to deactivate. Double plated domis take 11 seconds with links. Not every null alliance has large scale access to titan bridging, either, and with phoebe, titan bridging isn't as practical as it once was for every situation.

Battleship warp speed is a much a factor on grid as it is warping system to system. Their slow acceleration means that short warps give your opponent more time to react to tactical repositioning. Slow warps and aligns also mean that if an enemy hac or t3 gang flees to an exit gate, they often have time to defensively bubble the in system side of their exit gate before you can align, or failing that, bubble the other side of the gate to discourage pursuit.

MJDs go a long way to helping battleships pin a more mobile opponent, but often when they're used for anything other than escaping being alphad, they draw you far enough outside of logi range and nessesitate drone drone attrition, so you're usually looking at a tangible loss when you have to use them to gain a better on grid position.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#88 - 2014-11-11 08:43:11 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Question to you all who care: Are there particularly important ranges other than m4, t2 and top faction ranges for webs, scrams and points, with and without links that you want made a particular note of in the weapon comparisons? Is it worth noting loki web range for example, or just let those who care remember it and use that? Proteus point range?


James dear, no that would be a little overboard. And as far as I know the ewar subs on tech 3 were in the same range as the current recon ships.
Let's keep our focus on battleships and battlecruisers.


I was talking about for comparing battleship DPS for small gang at and around these sweetspots, which are where one would try to kite at or be kited at. These magic ranges are where most solo fights would happen, and where most engagements begin in the case of solo battleship gets caught without a gang to start with, etc.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#89 - 2014-11-11 13:27:26 UTC
I think it is a great idea that we are trying to restore purpose to these battleships.

But I would like to point out that we are thinking safely INSIDE the proverbial box, and not really trying anything creative.

I believe that cruisers have overtaken battleships, and I lump battlecruisers in with cruisers for a good reason.
The reason for this, is that the only difference between the ships is one of size.

They were competing for the same exact roles, in too many cases.
CCP has evolved the cruisers to absorb the roles previously performed by the BS.

Whether this was deliberate or not, is academic at this point. It happened.

I think we need to take a cue, instead, from the understanding that these are the biggest sub cap ships.
The ONLY tech 2 battleships BOTH have defining abilities that echo their capital sized cousins.

Jumping and bridging, for the BlOps.
Bastion inducing a siege mode that rejects repping for the Marauder.

I believe CCP is pointing that these ships are the bridge between caps and sub-caps, having qualities from both.

I advise we stop trying to make them into better cruisers, considering this.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#90 - 2014-11-11 23:52:13 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...I believe that cruisers have overtaken battleships, and I lump battlecruisers in with cruisers for a good reason.
The reason for this, is that the only difference between the ships is one of size.

They were competing for the same exact roles, in too many cases.
CCP has evolved the cruisers to absorb the roles previously performed by the BS....


One could argue that battleships were supposed to be a painful threat to cruisers and battlecruiser. Now those are just gankmails waiting to happen.

So in an attempt to put battleships into this spot once again, changes are necessary.

Another step might need to be taken to area of effect weapons, the 50 account yolo-bomber ones for instance.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#91 - 2014-11-12 01:39:23 UTC
It should be fairly simple. If a battleship has enough tackle or a cruiser pilot is stupid enough to let a battleship pilot apply their damage properly, then the cruiser should be smoked in fairly short order. Sitting at zero m/s or double webbed with MWD on, things like that, and the cruiser should fairly well evaporate.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#92 - 2014-11-12 02:03:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I believe that cruisers have overtaken battleships, and I lump battlecruisers in with cruisers for a good reason.

I tend to agree and would go further by stating that more than a few Cruisers outshine Battlecruisers while having none of the inherent drawbacks in terms of speed, size limitations on sites, etc. Given a choice of the following, it's not hard to see what's been happening (Command cruisers were obviously omitted):

• Amarr: Legion vs. Harbinger
• Caldari: Tengu, Orthrus, Cerberus, Gila vs. either Drake
• Gallente: Proteus or Ishtar vs. Brutix
• Minmatar: Loki or Vagabond vs. Hurricane

We need a new role for both Battlecruisers and Battleships outside their specific T2 variations.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#93 - 2014-11-12 02:58:45 UTC
So, in case anyone asks about the effective weapons thing, my method for that is 1 turret = 1 launcher=25mb bandwidth and any increases in damage or ROF are applied as a straight percentage bonus to the effective weapons.

In other words, the intended balance point for this proposal is that all turrets should be about as valuable as each other when fit on the appropriate hull, ditto launchers, and that 25mb of bandwidth should be about on par with 1 actual hardpoint.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#94 - 2014-11-12 04:09:31 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
So, in case anyone asks about the effective weapons thing, my method for that is 1 turret = 1 launcher=25mb bandwidth and any increases in damage or ROF are applied as a straight percentage bonus to the effective weapons.

In other words, the intended balance point for this proposal is that all turrets should be about as valuable as each other when fit on the appropriate hull, ditto launchers, and that 25mb of bandwidth should be about on par with 1 actual hardpoint.


25 mb/guns -----> Ishtar become even more of a train wreck balance wise...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#95 - 2014-11-12 04:12:15 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
So, in case anyone asks about the effective weapons thing, my method for that is 1 turret = 1 launcher=25mb bandwidth and any increases in damage or ROF are applied as a straight percentage bonus to the effective weapons.

In other words, the intended balance point for this proposal is that all turrets should be about as valuable as each other when fit on the appropriate hull, ditto launchers, and that 25mb of bandwidth should be about on par with 1 actual hardpoint.


25 mb/guns -----> Ishtar become even more of a train wreck balance wise...

I already consider the drones that valuable without further buffs, because they don't consume highslots, which led to things like the neut domi and tinker tank.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#96 - 2014-11-12 13:58:46 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
So, in case anyone asks about the effective weapons thing, my method for that is 1 turret = 1 launcher=25mb bandwidth and any increases in damage or ROF are applied as a straight percentage bonus to the effective weapons.

In other words, the intended balance point for this proposal is that all turrets should be about as valuable as each other when fit on the appropriate hull, ditto launchers, and that 25mb of bandwidth should be about on par with 1 actual hardpoint.

Not to belabor a point, but this sounds to me like you are basing the improvement to battleships, by scaling up the cruiser damage till it sounds right for the bigger hull.

I don't see this making them better, just bigger in a way that was apparently seen by CCP as self defeating.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#97 - 2014-11-13 02:48:55 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
So, in case anyone asks about the effective weapons thing, my method for that is 1 turret = 1 launcher=25mb bandwidth and any increases in damage or ROF are applied as a straight percentage bonus to the effective weapons.

In other words, the intended balance point for this proposal is that all turrets should be about as valuable as each other when fit on the appropriate hull, ditto launchers, and that 25mb of bandwidth should be about on par with 1 actual hardpoint.

Not to belabor a point, but this sounds to me like you are basing the improvement to battleships, by scaling up the cruiser damage till it sounds right for the bigger hull.

I don't see this making them better, just bigger in a way that was apparently seen by CCP as self defeating.


They aren't capitals, and capitals are a big problem with balance and have so many special case rules around how and when they can do what. Trying to make them behave like smaller capitals is bad.


1: Jump drives are pretty nice, but simply required the large nerf they just had to put their strategic mobility somewhere on the same chart as subcaps.
2: The EHP and DPS numbers pushed by even the less potent regular capitals are frankly a world apart from anything sub capitals can put out, with a t2 fit archon easily making a full million EHP with 4 tank modules and no rigs or implants, a number almost unassailable by battleships. Similarly, this same t2 fit can easily pump out 2K+ DPS, which is a number which requires perfect skills, faction modules and a pirate battleship to come close to with a subcap.
3: I have seen no officially published statements that battleships should be relegated to the dust, and several supporting the idea that while everything should have some sort of counter, every combat hull should be at least somewhat viable in most types of PvP.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2014-11-13 09:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Decrease reactivation time on MJD of both sizes by some 30%. That would already be a reasonable help.



Take short range guns and rebalance tiers. Example with AC. Make the dual 650mm AC be the SAME as the current 800mm. MAke the dual 425mm have the same RANGE as 800mm, but keep its dps and reduce its signature resolution to 300. Make 800mm guns have some extra 20% dps but increase their signature resolution to 600 (so they become not good against moving subcapitals). Make the equivalent for the other weapon systems.

With these changes a battleships can be fit to be good anti support , good anti battleships or good anti capital ship.

Now, increase their base EHP some 20% as well.




On a different set of changes that I would love and would help battleships. NERF LOGIS!! Logis make the EHP of battleships mostly irrelevant.

I would DOUBLE the base range of all remote repair modules. Would make them affect the target based on resolution. So 400m for large ones and if you use one in a ship 100m big you get only 25% of the effect.

Now drop the range bonus of logistics repairers to 1/3 of current range bonus ( RR battleships are boosted and logistics slightly nerfed ending with 2/3 of current range). REMOVE FITTING BONUS FOR LOGISTICS. They should use only MEDIUM REPAIRERS. Increase logistics signature to the same as other t2 cruisers. They currently are TOO SMALL.

Give all COMBAT BC another role bonus (since NO ONE uses them for links) or 25% increase in remote repair modules effectiveness. With the base increase on the RR modules they will be able to repair things well if they work hard to Stay in range, all that while fielding relevant DPS.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Valkin Mordirc
#99 - 2014-11-13 11:54:43 UTC
The work put into this is astounding, and by far out of my league to argue or backup. Honestly just want people to see hard work you're putting into this.


+1
#DeleteTheWeak
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#100 - 2014-11-13 13:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: 13kr1d1
I fiddled with EFT for you all. Put on two warp velocity optimizer 2 rigs to get back to 3.0 warp speed on battleships. A BC only needs a single velociy opt 1 rig to get 3.0.

From what It looks like, it seems that they WANT to force people to make more optimizing decisions rather than just spamming full on gank or full on tank onto your ships, which is why they have fiddled with BCs and BSes in the first place. Bring smaller ships, or run the logistics of getting the old gank or tank BS, or use rigs to get better response time out of BS, etc.

Obviously, an ideal Eve Online runs along the same balance structure as those card games with such item or unit proliferation that they're balanced by the fact that it's impossible to find the absolute best combination, because there's like 500+ single options which leads to possible combos closer to infinite than zero as far as human ability to see all the options are concerned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxszx60ZwGw Relevant video on power creep, on game sustainability and growth.

HACs were power creep. So were T3s. If there's a problem where people are not using BSes despite their balancing flaws, if certain ships are clearly better, and if there's very few valid fits for ships other than "MOAR TANK MOAR DPS", then what we have is power creep on part of new ship content and shallow gameplay on part of existing modules and rigs collections.

What we're talking about is balancing Eve so that everything is incomparable, due to no clear factor of one being better than the other, or something have an advantage sometimes and a disadvantage other times. Since we see cruisers and HACs and T3s as clearly better, given the amount of easy ISK one can grind, making the cost difference favor the extreme advantages these smaller ships have over BSes, they are not incomparable. They are clearly "good" while BSes are clearly "bad".

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