These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#161 - 2014-11-15 18:13:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Ever flown a tengu? Or an orthrus? How about a claymore or a sleipnir?



I fly battleships with tengus.

All this topic has shown me is that a bunch of frigate and cruiser pilots want battleships to act like the ships they fly. You jump into a battleship, see that its different and rather than adapt you come here to demand horribly overpowered buffs to battleships to turn them into cruisers and throw the entire ship balance out of whack. Hell the Mengu that just died the other day probably had more flight time than everyone else in this thread combined.


You asked for examples of ships that can take on fleets of frigates or cruisers.

Also, no, to your first point. What I want is for t1 battleships, with the right doctrine, to be a worthwhile fleet composition to field against tech 3s, HACs, and supers. Note that I don't say one ship should be able to do all of these jobs simultaneously. Currently they're not. I know you're going to tell me that they are, but they aren't. I've seen fights the first hand, the battle reports, and the recordings where the ship you designed, the baltec megathron, often with apocs, are crushed with impunity by t3 doctrines, along with every other t1 doctrines against t3s or HACs.

Secondly I want battleships to be a worthwhile contribution to small gang warfare. It's fine with me that they're slow, but I want t1 battleships to have the stats so that if they make it to the field, they can provide a worthwhile contribution over what a faster ship might have brought instead. You say they do, I say they don't.

This brings my to my final point here, which is that you've claimed here that the lack of use of battleships is because people lack the creativity or belief that battleships are capable of being made useful, so they don't try. This is a fallacy. The people who play this game to hurl internet spaceships against each other are astoundingly creative in the ways in which they try to get every possible advantage that they can in a fight. All that it takes is for one person do discover a tactic once and then use it once on one opponent that is both capable of recognizing the innovation and using it himself.

Look at RnKs videos. Everyone's seen them now, and it sounds almost stupid to say it, but the stuff you see in their videos was cutting edge **** at one time, and you can bet the people who started using these tactics didn't want anyone else to know how to do it. But ideas spread.

Not all of us here are muppets that want battleships to be solo wtf pwn mobiles. I acknowledge that some battleships, particularly a couple of the pirate battleships and the napoc, domi and geddon are useful in their current state. That's fine. People like me just want to see a reason to fly every ship in the game. There should never be a ship that people think of as useless, and if over time, people tend not to fly those ships and exclaim that they're not worth using, then maybe its time to start thinking about why.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#162 - 2014-11-15 18:15:38 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:

I have yet to see a single post from you that isn't just a contrarian post for the sake of being combative. If you're not actually going to discuss the issue than **** off.


I posted a pest nobody can match.

Meanwhile we have you lot posting things such as the above begging for battleships to be more like cruisers. These ships have a role, that you dont like this role is no reason to destroy ship balance. Telling people who have vastly more experience with the hulls than you to **** off because you dont like being told you are wrong is no way to go about things.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#163 - 2014-11-15 18:27:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:

I have yet to see a single post from you that isn't just a contrarian post for the sake of being combative. If you're not actually going to discuss the issue than **** off.


I posted a pest nobody can match.

Meanwhile we have you lot posting things such as the above begging for battleships to be more like cruisers. These ships have a role, that you dont like this role is no reason to destroy ship balance. Telling people who have vastly more experience with the hulls than you to **** off because you dont like being told you are wrong is no way to go about things.


The above post is a prime rib example.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#164 - 2014-11-15 18:27:41 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Ever flown a tengu? Or an orthrus? How about a claymore or a sleipnir?



I fly battleships with tengus.

All this topic has shown me is that a bunch of frigate and cruiser pilots want battleships to act like the ships they fly. You jump into a battleship, see that its different and rather than adapt you come here to demand horribly overpowered buffs to battleships to turn them into cruisers and throw the entire ship balance out of whack. Hell the Mengu that just died the other day probably had more flight time than everyone else in this thread combined.


You asked for examples of ships that can take on fleets of frigates or cruisers.

Also, no, to your first point. What I want is for t1 battleships, with the right doctrine, to be a worthwhile fleet composition to field against tech 3s, HACs, and supers. Note that I don't say one ship should be able to do all of these jobs simultaneously. Currently they're not. I know you're going to tell me that they are, but they aren't. I've seen fights the first hand, the battle reports, and the recordings where the ship you designed, the baltec megathron, often with apocs, are crushed with impunity by t3 doctrines, along with every other t1 doctrines against t3s or HACs.

Secondly I want battleships to be a worthwhile contribution to small gang warfare. It's fine with me that they're slow, but I want t1 battleships to have the stats so that if they make it to the field, they can provide a worthwhile contribution over what a faster ship might have brought instead. You say they do, I say they don't.

This brings my to my final point here, which is that you've claimed here that the lack of use of battleships is because people lack the creativity or belief that battleships are capable of being made useful, so they don't try. This is a fallacy. The people who play this game to hurl internet spaceships against each other are astoundingly creative in the ways in which they try to get every possible advantage that they can in a fight. All that it takes is for one person do discover a tactic once and then use it once on one opponent that is both capable of recognizing the innovation and using it himself.

Look at RnKs videos. Everyone's seen them now, and it sounds almost stupid to say it, but the stuff you see in their videos was cutting edge **** at one time, and you can bet the people who started using these tactics didn't want anyone else to know how to do it. But ideas spread.

Not all of us here are muppets that want battleships to be solo wtf pwn mobiles. I acknowledge that some battleships, particularly a couple of the pirate battleships and the napoc, domi and geddon are useful in their current state. That's fine. People like me just want to see a reason to fly every ship in the game. There should never be a ship that people think of as useless, and if over time, people tend not to fly those ships and exclaim that they're not worth using, then maybe its time to start thinking about why.



Only, baltec fleet does crush these t3 and hac fleets, hence why we still use it as our primary fleet. T3 cruisers must not be compared to battleships. They are horribly overpowered and will be getting nerfed most likely in the next year. The entire problem with the people in their thread is that you all lack experience flying these ships and most are suffering from EFT sydrome. Im willing to bet none of you would be willing to armour tank a raven and fit rlml to it and then fly it around null/low looking for bombers.

The reaction to the pest showed that people in this thread arn't interested in being shown viable fits. They want their change no matter what.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#165 - 2014-11-15 18:29:34 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:

I have yet to see a single post from you that isn't just a contrarian post for the sake of being combative. If you're not actually going to discuss the issue than **** off.


I posted a pest nobody can match.

Meanwhile we have you lot posting things such as the above begging for battleships to be more like cruisers. These ships have a role, that you dont like this role is no reason to destroy ship balance. Telling people who have vastly more experience with the hulls than you to **** off because you dont like being told you are wrong is no way to go about things.


The above post is a prime rib example.


Faster speeds, more tracking, faster warp times, faster locking times. Its as clear as day they want it to be closer to a cruiser.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#166 - 2014-11-15 18:56:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Something I've always been curious about (with regards short-range large weapons) is if there could be more ways of distinguishing between the 'heavy' weaponry (the Neutron Blasters/ Megapulses e.t.c), and the lighter weapons such as the 'dual' variants of cruiser weaponry - dual 425mm's, dual heavy pulses, electron blasters [previously known as dual heavy ions] e.t.c...

Signature resolution for example, could be played around with to great effect, to make more of a genuine choice between the above, rather than the "go big or go home" philosophy that has always existed.

What if, say for example, the lightest Battleship weapons had a 250m* sig resolution?...



*number as an example only

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#167 - 2014-11-15 19:02:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:

I have yet to see a single post from you that isn't just a contrarian post for the sake of being combative. If you're not actually going to discuss the issue than **** off.


I posted a pest nobody can match.

Meanwhile we have you lot posting things such as the above begging for battleships to be more like cruisers. These ships have a role, that you dont like this role is no reason to destroy ship balance. Telling people who have vastly more experience with the hulls than you to **** off because you dont like being told you are wrong is no way to go about things.


The above post is a prime rib example.


Faster speeds, more tracking, faster warp times, faster locking times. Its as clear as day they want it to be closer to a cruiser.



Where did I say that? I don't remember saying that. Could someone dig that up for me where I said that?

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#168 - 2014-11-15 19:50:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Ever flown a tengu? Or an orthrus? How about a claymore or a sleipnir?



I fly battleships with tengus.

All this topic has shown me is that a bunch of frigate and cruiser pilots want battleships to act like the ships they fly. You jump into a battleship, see that its different and rather than adapt you come here to demand horribly overpowered buffs to battleships to turn them into cruisers and throw the entire ship balance out of whack. Hell the Mengu that just died the other day probably had more flight time than everyone else in this thread combined.


You asked for examples of ships that can take on fleets of frigates or cruisers.

Also, no, to your first point. What I want is for t1 battleships, with the right doctrine, to be a worthwhile fleet composition to field against tech 3s, HACs, and supers. Note that I don't say one ship should be able to do all of these jobs simultaneously. Currently they're not. I know you're going to tell me that they are, but they aren't. I've seen fights the first hand, the battle reports, and the recordings where the ship you designed, the baltec megathron, often with apocs, are crushed with impunity by t3 doctrines, along with every other t1 doctrines against t3s or HACs.

Secondly I want battleships to be a worthwhile contribution to small gang warfare. It's fine with me that they're slow, but I want t1 battleships to have the stats so that if they make it to the field, they can provide a worthwhile contribution over what a faster ship might have brought instead. You say they do, I say they don't.

This brings my to my final point here, which is that you've claimed here that the lack of use of battleships is because people lack the creativity or belief that battleships are capable of being made useful, so they don't try. This is a fallacy. The people who play this game to hurl internet spaceships against each other are astoundingly creative in the ways in which they try to get every possible advantage that they can in a fight. All that it takes is for one person do discover a tactic once and then use it once on one opponent that is both capable of recognizing the innovation and using it himself.

Look at RnKs videos. Everyone's seen them now, and it sounds almost stupid to say it, but the stuff you see in their videos was cutting edge **** at one time, and you can bet the people who started using these tactics didn't want anyone else to know how to do it. But ideas spread.

Not all of us here are muppets that want battleships to be solo wtf pwn mobiles. I acknowledge that some battleships, particularly a couple of the pirate battleships and the napoc, domi and geddon are useful in their current state. That's fine. People like me just want to see a reason to fly every ship in the game. There should never be a ship that people think of as useless, and if over time, people tend not to fly those ships and exclaim that they're not worth using, then maybe its time to start thinking about why.



Only, baltec fleet does crush these t3 and hac fleets, hence why we still use it as our primary fleet. T3 cruisers must not be compared to battleships. They are horribly overpowered and will be getting nerfed most likely in the next year. The entire problem with the people in their thread is that you all lack experience flying these ships and most are suffering from EFT sydrome. Im willing to bet none of you would be willing to armour tank a raven and fit rlml to it and then fly it around null/low looking for bombers.

The reaction to the pest showed that people in this thread arn't interested in being shown viable fits. They want their change no matter what.


Except that it doesnt. What happened the last time BL showed up in YA0 in a tengu fleet? A baltec fleet with apocs and archon support outnumbering a tengu fleet more than two to one lost 49 battleships for 4 tengus.

I agree that tech 3s are out of control and hope that they get toned down, but I don't think that they're going to be nerfed as heavily as people are hoping- and I don't think that you can ignore them (or bombers or supers for that matter) in any discussion about battleships, because tech 3s overlap roles in a big way with the roles of battleships.

A blanket statement like 'you all lack experience flying these ships and most are suffereing from EFT syndrome' isn't accurate. Many of us here, do, in fact, have experience flying battleships, tech 3s and hacs. We do try crazy builds from time to time and we recognize that ideal theorycrafting on EFT does not translate to success in game. Which is why I'm surprised you keep pointing back to the tempest fit you posted earlier. That fit is a good example of what can look good in eft not performing well in a fight. We are interested in good fits and innovation, but the tempest fit has been done before and I've used the exact fit you posted. I've also told you what's wrong with the the tempest, which you either shrugged off as non issues, or ignored.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#169 - 2014-11-15 19:58:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
baltec1 wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:

I have yet to see a single post from you that isn't just a contrarian post for the sake of being combative. If you're not actually going to discuss the issue than **** off.


I posted a pest nobody can match.

Meanwhile we have you lot posting things such as the above begging for battleships to be more like cruisers. These ships have a role, that you dont like this role is no reason to destroy ship balance. Telling people who have vastly more experience with the hulls than you to **** off because you dont like being told you are wrong is no way to go about things.


The above post is a prime rib example.


Faster speeds, more tracking, faster warp times, faster locking times. Its as clear as day they want it to be closer to a cruiser.



As for faster speeds, I personally don't really care to see battleships get any faster than they are, in terms of both on grid speed and warp speed. The references I've made to these characteristics refer the the fact that these attributes influence the power of battleships relative to other ships.

As for faster lock times, I don't think that battleships in particular need faster lock times, just that the locking speed differential curve between ship classes (imagine an average of ship locking times by class plotted as a curve on a graph) should be flattened somewhat. This could mean either that lock times for smaller subcaps gets a little slower, or for battleships gets a little faster.

Edit: I've tried to edit for clarity and spelling in my posts as best I can, but I'm in a drafty room and I have big hands so fatfingering myself into spelling mistakes is an ever present danger.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#170 - 2014-11-15 20:08:11 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
It should be clear now that we cannot discuss anything with goons.

Kagura dear, the only thing that will happen is that you get mad Sad

I get mad very easy but lucky for the rest of mankind so far I only got upset so far. Humans are making any attempt in improving life unnecassary difficult and depressing.

A small summary for what we are trying to do here:

- Battleships get better mobility

- Tech one battleships get better sensors as in signature resolution starting at 150mm for minmatar, 160 for Gallente, 170mm for Amarr and 180mm for Caldari, all of them, no exceptions.

- Faction battleships start at the same range at 155mm for minmatar, 165mm for Gallente, 175mm for Amarr and 185mm for Caldari.
All values for the sensors are maximum values with skills at V.

- Base target lock range for all battleships start at 100km.

- All turrets that shoot beyond 180km at this point get a tracking buff to accommodate for the shorter range(s).

- All additional minerals that were added to the battleship bpos will be reset to the old values.

Everyone except goons will be happy battleship pilots in New Eden.


I wouldn't say quite that, especially on the industry side because with teiracide these ships don't all perform in the stepped manner they had before, and especially not stair-stepping the scan res like that by race.

What I'm currently looking at:

Battleships
t1 Combat battleships: Roughly 10% increase in native buffer (rounded to the nearest 10 @ skills 0), base, skills 0 scan res between 140 and 155, skills 0 times between 12 and 14 seconds, 3-5% more base cap/s, a slight increase in PG/CPU for most combat battleships. Can all lock to 145 km with skils 5
t1 Attack battleships: 3-5% increase in native buffer, skills 0 scan res between 150 and 170, skills 0 align times between 11 and 13 seconds, skills 0 speed of 130+, possibly reducing minerals close to former tier 2 requirements. Can all lock to 120km with skills 5
t1 disruption: One in good spot (geddon) one in bad spot (scorpion), working on each separately.

Navy: similar changes to the above by role.
Pirate: Mostly fitting room tweaks, and ehp buffs to maintain relative tank.

Nestor: Keep hearing it is a wormhole thing and in use there, and in wormholes does quite well. Need more feedback about how it is used, and see if a way to keep its allegeded W-space use intact while making it useful somehow in K-space.

Large turrets:
A balance pass, trying hard not to break anything
Projectiles: ACs need more optimal than blasters, 1:1 trade of falloff for optimal topping out with 0% ammo in 800s with a 15km optimal, maybe a 5-7.5% increase in damage, scaling from dual 425s to 800s. 1400s need slight PG reduction, while 1200s need slight performance increase.
Hybrids: Mostly good. rails need slightly longer ROF, 5% or so. Maybe 425s need more PG cost to drop CPU slightly. dual 250s need more tracking,
Lasers: Fix Tachs, maybe look at midrange DPS inversion of short and long range weapons. Cap and fitting buff to combat battleships should produce desired balance. "Smallest" weapons in beams and pulse need more ~5% more overall performance.

Battle cruisers:
Keep in mind all of these are stil VERY preliminary

CBCs: Increase native buffer 5-7.5%, slightly better cap, skills 0 aligns between 9 - 11 seconds, skills zero speeds of 160-195, lock range increases so all CBCs can lock to ~105km with perfect skills
Navy BCs: similar changes, slightly better end state, maybe ask for an LP reduction
Command ships: Similar actual stats, work more on underpowered ones for actual combat, maybe nerf sliepnir some.

ABCs: No major buffs, maybe nerf oracle PG reduction so it cannot fit tachs, aligns between 10-11s. Large weapon balance pass should produce desired balance.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#171 - 2014-11-15 21:49:19 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Nestor: Keep hearing it is a wormhole thing and in use there, and in wormholes does quite well. Need more feedback about how it is used, and see if a way to keep its allegeded W-space use intact while making it useful somehow in K-space.


My corporation(and previous iterations where relevant) thinks the Nestor is a hilarious waste of isk. In my opinion it's a worthless hull.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#172 - 2014-11-15 22:15:11 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Nestor: Keep hearing it is a wormhole thing and in use there, and in wormholes does quite well. Need more feedback about how it is used, and see if a way to keep its allegeded W-space use intact while making it useful somehow in K-space.


My corporation(and previous iterations where relevant) thinks the Nestor is a hilarious waste of isk. In my opinion it's a worthless hull.

I appreciate the sentiment, and share it, but I keep hearing people say they are "vital" in wormhole space and would like to hear this. Thus the alleged uses and so on above.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#173 - 2014-11-15 22:58:02 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Nestor: Keep hearing it is a wormhole thing and in use there, and in wormholes does quite well. Need more feedback about how it is used, and see if a way to keep its allegeded W-space use intact while making it useful somehow in K-space.


My corporation(and previous iterations where relevant) thinks the Nestor is a hilarious waste of isk. In my opinion it's a worthless hull.

I appreciate the sentiment, and share it, but I keep hearing people say they are "vital" in wormhole space and would like to hear this. Thus the alleged uses and so on above.


Well basically all of it's roles and bonuses can be provided for in cheaper platforms that are also more effective.

10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints,
Dominix does the exact same thing with better bonuses and a fraction of the price tag and half the training.

4% armor resist bonus:
Admittedly nice, but with 6 low slots you either limit your dps or tank there by nullifying one or the other bonus. An Ishtar would achieve the same effect without the sig radius or speed penalty without even touching a tank bonus.

From a DPS perspective it can be loaded out to provide below average DPS and below average tank from a battleship perspective.

Then from a logi perspective is shines considerably brighter, but still falls incredibly short. For half the price tag, three times the range, a cap transfer range bonus, a fraction of the sig radius, and better mobility, you can have two guardians do the exact same thing better.

Then from an exploration perspective, a covert ops frigate does the exact same thing, can cloak, more than quadruple the maneuverability, a smaller destiny sphere(detection purposes), a fraction of a fraction of the price tag, and can fit small rigs which are far cheaper to interchange.

Finally, a T3 hull can do all of the above for half the price and with considerably higher survivability. The Nestor is completely over shadowed and only liked by sentimental bears that don't make any pvp considerations.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#174 - 2014-11-15 23:44:02 UTC
I'm just going to throw this idea out there… Instead of looking at buffing the EHP for Battleships through a combination of increased shield, armour, hull and resistances, augmenting overall damage or enhancing sensor strength - why not instead give all Battleships an inherent bonus against small and medium-sized weapons.

• All incoming damage from medium-sized weapons is reduced by 25%
• All incoming damage from small-sized weapons is reduced by 50%

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Maraner
The Executioners
#175 - 2014-11-16 00:49:37 UTC
I see Baltec is as usually rubbishing everyone else's battleship suggestions. Someone should explain that its not just about his rail mega fleets.

The class needs work, I really hope that they are not being left to wither on the vine for CCP to introduce t3 BS.

Buff the AU speed NOW - at least 2.5 ideally back to 3.0 that they went for the last decade FFS.

Add 10% across the board armor and shield HP and leave it at that.

And thanks to the OP for starting the thread, hope at somepoint a Dev will comment on the multiple threads there have been around the state of battleships in the game.
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#176 - 2014-11-16 01:35:22 UTC
Maraner wrote:
I see Baltec is as usually rubbishing everyone else's battleship suggestions. Someone should explain that its not just about his rail mega fleets.


Eh I disagree with him, but he deserves to be able to voice his opinion here too. He tries hard to make battleships work in their current form and it's more than most people do, so he's got that.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#177 - 2014-11-16 02:28:06 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I'm just going to throw this idea out there… Instead of looking at buffing the EHP for Battleships through a combination of increased shield, armour, hull and resistances, augmenting overall damage or enhancing sensor strength - why not instead give all Battleships an inherent bonus against small and medium-sized weapons.

• All incoming damage from medium-sized weapons is reduced by 25%
• All incoming damage from small-sized weapons is reduced by 50%

No. New mechanics should be introduced sparingly, and only when there is a pressing need. Therefore, if you want this, you must prove all of:
A: This mechanic solves a real and present problem
B: This mechanic does not create massive exploits.
C: This mechanic improves the game

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#178 - 2014-11-16 02:31:23 UTC
Maraner wrote:
I see Baltec is as usually rubbishing everyone else's battleship suggestions. Someone should explain that its not just about his rail mega fleets.

The class needs work, I really hope that they are not being left to wither on the vine for CCP to introduce t3 BS.

Buff the AU speed NOW - at least 2.5 ideally back to 3.0 that they went for the last decade FFS.

Had some CCP folks comment in other venues that this change is here to stay, especially with the change to warp formulas and the introduction of warpspeed mods and rigs.

Maraner wrote:

Add 10% across the board armor and shield HP and leave it at that.

And thanks to the OP for starting the thread, hope at somepoint a Dev will comment on the multiple threads there have been around the state of battleships in the game.


Still doesn't solve these ships getting absolutely murdered by petes, most HAC doctrines, ect.
But thanks for tuning in and supporting the general concept, if not my vision of where I would like them put.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Arthur Aihaken
Kenshin Academia.
Kenshin Shogunate.
#179 - 2014-11-16 03:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Maraner wrote:
Buff the AU speed NOW - at least 2.5 ideally back to 3.0 that they went for the last decade FFS.

If we're going to do this, Battleships should receive a flat +0.5 across the board (and probably +0.25 for Battlecruisers).

James Baboli wrote:
No. New mechanics should be introduced sparingly, and only when there is a pressing need.

Battleships have been relegated to primarily fleet actions and high-sec missioning (including Incursions). It's almost unheard of to utilize battleships in solo play simply because once you venture out of high-sec you have to contend with mass gangs of roving frigates and cruisers. I could also point out that with the warp speed, loot and salvage nerfs that high-sec missioning is nowhere near as lucrative as it used to be.

Bullet Therapist wrote:
Eh I disagree with him, but he deserves to be able to voice his opinion here too. He tries hard to make battleships work in their current form and it's more than most people do, so he's got that.

To be sure. However, I highly doubt baltec1 flies solo without gang links, team mates or readily available reinforcements. For him battleships work great; for the vast majority of us, we can't even begin to scratch the surface of the resources that he has available through his corporation/alliance.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#180 - 2014-11-16 03:57:11 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

James Baboli wrote:
No. New mechanics should be introduced sparingly, and only when there is a pressing need.

Battleships have been relegated to primarily fleet actions and high-sec missioning (including Incursions). It's almost unheard of to utilize battleships in solo play simply because once you venture out of high-sec you have to contend with mass gangs of roving frigates and cruisers. I could also point out that with the warp speed, loot and salvage nerfs that high-sec missioning is nowhere near as lucrative as it used to be.

It still does not prove that this is a necessary change to get them used in solo, and lone battleships should be very much the exception rather than the rule. All of their intended downsides, like low mobility, mean they have terrible ability to choose their fights or ambush others absent being bridged, and so should be hitting objectives the opposition can be reasonably relied on to defend, or as the heavy element of a defensive force where capitals aren't available or have been ruled out.
I can already think of several ways this can be exploited and/or will further unbalance the game.
This does not sound like it increases fun.

It also means you can hit 99% mitigation of incoming frigate DPS fairly easily depending on how this is implemented, etc.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp