These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Battleship PVP Viability
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#61 - 2015-01-28 23:18:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

I have said it many times, EFT lies. When burning gates I keep up with harpies and leave cruisers trailing behind. There has been a few times I winded up as the fleet scout simply because I burned ahead of the fleet.

Implants dont take up slots on your ship.

Its a simple rule, if it dies before I lock it they didn't need my firepower. If I lock it they need my firepower.

Feel free to go find where I said nobody can do what I can.


Quote:
I have said it many times, EFT lies. When burning gates I keep up with harpies and leave cruisers trailing behind. There has been a few times I winded up as the fleet scout simply because I burned ahead of the fleet.


Yep, EFT doesn't tell the whole picture; but it's certainly closer to the truth than your anecdotes are. You've always had a hard time answering posts that directly refute your statements with hard math, and this is a pretty characteristic response.
Quote:

Implants dont take up slots on your ship


If you're talking about implants, lets talk about what we can do with implants then, and when players are actually going to use implants or how we should consider them when discussing ship balance. If we're going to fly a megathron with ascendancy implants, shouldn't we then start talking about harpies with snakes or halos?

Quote:
Its a simple rule, if it dies before I lock it they didn't need my firepower. If I lock it they need my firepower.


So in the 12 seconds that it takes you to lock a cruiser primary that isn't killed by your entourage the opposing gang's logi isn't doing anything? And how's your warp speed fit megathron going to fare applying dps to your primary? What about in the 18 seconds or so it will take you to lock a frigate? When you've considered gun tracking, your applied DPS is going to weigh in at about the same or less than a cruiser, with the added penalty of having to fly with expensive implants and a long period of no damage at all. The net sum here is negative.

Quote:

Feel free to go find where I said nobody can do what I can.

I stand by this statement because I feel that it's implied by many of your statements. I don't think that you're a bad person, and I don't dislike you, but I do dislike what you do sometimes in this forum. You like to retort against other people's posts with half truths that fail to encompass the totality of the situations they're describing. I admire you for sticking to your guns and trying to make battleships work but when you write something like sacrificing one rig and two lows to get cruiser warp speeds isn't a big deal what are we supposed to think? No, losing a few slots doesn't cripple your ship, but you're not actually able to align as fast as cruisers. Your response: EFT lies.

Your not actually getting the performance you claim, and to make up the deficit you have to use ascendancy implants, and when I point this out, your retort is to say that they don't take up ship slots. The reality is that very few players are going to risk using ascendancy implants on their megathrons to be able to warp at cruiser speed while participating in nullsec PVP and trying to make a convincing case based on their use is flawed. Your megathron is still largely ineffective as a part of the gang you're in and is essentially ornamental.

Should CCP take implants into consideration when they balance ship? Of course they should, and I'm sure that they already do, but that isn't what anyone is really even talking about here. The argument is that for a given investment, that smaller ships perform similar roles to battleships, that they overlap strongly with what battleship do best, and that they do other things that battleships cannot do without having the drawbacks associated with larger ships.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#62 - 2015-01-29 02:18:48 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:

If you're talking about implants, lets talk about what we can do with implants then, and when players are actually going to use implants or how we should consider them when discussing ship balance. If we're going to fly a megathron with ascendancy implants, shouldn't we then start talking about harpies with snakes or halos?


So in the 12 seconds that it takes you to lock a cruiser primary that isn't killed by your entourage the opposing gang's logi isn't doing anything? And how's your warp speed fit megathron going to fare applying dps to your primary? What about in the 18 seconds or so it will take you to lock a frigate? When you've considered gun tracking, your applied DPS is going to weigh in at about the same or less than a cruiser, with the added penalty of having to fly with expensive implants and a long period of no damage at all. The net sum here is negative.



about the implants....its a players choice to use or not use. ccp balances with them in effect. They have to. For the 90 players who cba to run them because of cost or they want the more say shooty or tanky ones...there will be those 10 who will run them. CCP has to cover all the bases in balance. This assumes implants. And fleet boosters. And drugs. CCP seems to forget about wh effects as they sometimes create some interesting math bugs when wh effects take ccp's math and just tear it apart so will give you that ding to my theory on how ccp balances.


Make 90 who won't run certain implants happy, you make the 10 who do really happy. And then the 10 becomes 20, then 30...as the fun (or op factor possibly) becomes apparent. Not all in eve are looking to be on the eve version of forbes richest person list nad have the massive wallet. 300 mil just sitting there, they spend it on fun stuff that could even be lost in pvp. In my more active richer days I was like this. 40-50 mil in shield and prop mods alone on a 20 mil pvp frigate...wth, its only isk.


for the second part....why is your bs killing cruisers in the first place. Your tackle and fast dps should be doing that. Baltec is spot on.....if the inty and say 2 hacs for fast dps can drop the target fast, let them. BS is there for the tanked to hell stuff. And if really wanting to kill the cruiser and you tackle and fast dps is not breaking tank so good...there you are later on to help. Or sacrifice some mids to run more sebo scan res. Believe a hardwire for this but not 100% sure.

Right tool for the job the take away. Or run machs. I recall some of the space richer players in a home I was in loving a good ole fashioned mach roams. Not sure how good they are these days though, if they suck now someone please correct me.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2015-01-29 03:01:15 UTC
Battleships were already only slightly more powerful than battlecruisers, and only slightly less mobile. Now the mobility gap has increased so I'd like to see an increase in the power gap. I feel like a large part of it is that while battleships do indeed shoot harder, they do not possess enough more tank than battlecruisers to match with their larger sig radius and lower mobility. Now I don't feel any large sweeping changes are needed, just some small buffs here and there.

One very significant change for the better would be to add a larger shield extender and armor plate that can only reasonably be equipped by battleships. They don't get the chance to spend much of their leftover powergrid on hit points, and the large shield extender and 1600mm plate don't grant a whole lot more than the 15% bonus from a rig or module. It'd be nice if there were more upper-end subcap modules that could really stretch the limits of battleship fitting space, allowing them to pull the same tricks that cruisers already do with lower-end battleship modules.

Here's a short list of possible candidates due for a larger size:
shield extender
armor plate
remote rep modules
capacitor booster charge
capacitor battery

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."
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#64 - 2015-01-29 03:21:08 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:

about the implants....its a players choice to use or not use. ccp balances with them in effect. They have to. For the 90 players who cba to run them because of cost or they want the more say shooty or tanky ones...there will be those 10 who will run them. CCP has to cover all the bases in balance. This assumes implants. And fleet boosters. And drugs. CCP seems to forget about wh effects as they sometimes create some interesting math bugs when wh effects take ccp's math and just tear it apart so will give you that ding to my theory on how ccp balances.


Make 90 who won't run certain implants happy, you make the 10 who do really happy. And then the 10 becomes 20, then 30...as the fun (or op factor possibly) becomes apparent. Not all in eve are looking to be on the eve version of forbes richest person list nad have the massive wallet. 300 mil just sitting there, they spend it on fun stuff that could even be lost in pvp. In my more active richer days I was like this. 40-50 mil in shield and prop mods alone on a 20 mil pvp frigate...wth, its only isk.


for the second part....why is your bs killing cruisers in the first place. Your tackle and fast dps should be doing that. Baltec is spot on.....if the inty and say 2 hacs for fast dps can drop the target fast, let them. BS is there for the tanked to hell stuff. And if really wanting to kill the cruiser and you tackle and fast dps is not breaking tank so good...there you are later on to help. Or sacrifice some mids to run more sebo scan res. Believe a hardwire for this but not 100% sure.

Right tool for the job the take away. Or run machs. I recall some of the space richer players in a home I was in loving a good ole fashioned mach roams. Not sure how good they are these days though, if they suck now someone please correct me.


It wasn't me that said I was bringing a megathron to a cruiser fleet. In any event it looks like you're trying to argue that ships should be balanced as if players were using implants, drugs and links all the time. It's something that should be taken into consideration to prevent run-aways, but any ship should be viable for a range of PVP scenarios without boosts, drugs, or implants- as most ships cruiser and down already are. In any event, it works both ways. If we dictate that battleships need to have implants to function, why cant cruisers? Halo sets are cheap enough that tengu or ishtar pilots can equip them, so why don't they? The answer is that they don't need to. Tengus are tanky enough and can survive enough bombs that they're no longer the weak point in their fleet.

Battleships do excel in certain roles, and I'm not trying to argue that they don't, but for many of the roles that they probably should excel a little more at, the game mechanics keep them restrained. When you start looking at how much of a role that signature radius and speed scale tanking as ship size moves down, you notice how poorly the dps and tank of battleships scales on the opposite end. Speed and signature radius scale multiplicatively, and when you start to include other factors like lock time, align time and endurance scaling you understand that after a certain point they begin to be insurmountable.

Some battleships are still pretty good. It shouldn't come as a surprise though that the ones that are considered the best can do something that mitigates, at least in part, their biggest weaknesses. You made an example of the mach, well, why it so good? Because it's freaking fast, so fast and nimble that with active piloting you're able to put it's weapon's chief disadvantage- tacking, on the back burner for long enough to make a difference. The vindicator? A similar scenario, 90% webs are insanely powerful. The barghest can use it's bonus on RLMLs, which, as I've abused it heavily, can assure you is absolutely nuts.

Just don't get crazy here and try to twist my words into something they're not or slide off down the semantic slope. I don't think battleships are useless, I just think that they're less useful than they should be. They don't need a titanic buff, just enough to keep up with the rest of the t1 pack. That's it. Nothing wild about it.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#65 - 2015-01-29 03:27:39 UTC
Battleships need an all round 30% buff to their main weapon dps. That will bring most battleships to the 1300-1700dps range which is acceptable for terrible everything apart from tank.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2015-01-29 04:20:15 UTC
Zekora Rally wrote:
Battleships need an all round 30% buff to their main weapon dps. That will bring most battleships to the 1300-1700dps range which is acceptable for terrible everything apart from tank.



Blanket statements like this don't work. At all.

That drastic of an increase will also make battleships way OP for a T1 hull. That's dread DPS numbers out of siege. That being said, it's impossible to see if there really is a 'problem' with battleships while T3's and ishtars/sentries are so borked. Yes, I said borked. Personally, most of them are fine. A few need a few tweaks, but most of them are pretty close to the right direction. All these proposed buffs with trying to make BS able to go toe to toe with broken ships in a fleet battle also run the risk of making battleships way OP in small gang. No ship can really be properly balanced while others are so exceptionally out of balance.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#67 - 2015-01-29 05:35:31 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Yep, EFT doesn't tell the whole picture; but it's certainly closer to the truth than your anecdotes are. You've always had a hard time answering posts that directly refute your statements with hard math, and this is a pretty characteristic response.


Its not hard maths its just you spouting rubbish as you have zero experience with such ships and setups. The very fact that I have a green light to take such battleships in strategic frigate fleets alone should tell you that my ships don't slow down their fleets.


Bullet Therapist wrote:

If you're talking about implants, lets talk about what we can do with implants then, and when players are actually going to use implants or how we should consider them when discussing ship balance. If we're going to fly a megathron with ascendancy implants, shouldn't we then start talking about harpies with snakes or halos?


No because they don't fit them. The whole point of harpy fleet is that it is cheap and disposable. Also my point is that implants dont take up ship slots. You only need one rig and two lows to pull off speeds fast enough to keep up with cruisers (you can get away with just one nano) So, the ship itself is not gimped like you say.


Bullet Therapist wrote:

So in the 12 seconds that it takes you to lock a cruiser primary that isn't killed by your entourage the opposing gang's logi isn't doing anything? And how's your warp speed fit megathron going to fare applying dps to your primary? What about in the 18 seconds or so it will take you to lock a frigate? When you've considered gun tracking, your applied DPS is going to weigh in at about the same or less than a cruiser, with the added penalty of having to fly with expensive implants and a long period of no damage at all. The net sum here is negative.


I might miss the first target but after that I have the secondary locked and from then onwards I do just fine. My damage application is fine because I adapt to whatever the fleets range is. That is the key difference between me and you. You dont adapt you just give up without trying.

Bullet Therapist wrote:

I stand by this statement because I feel that it's implied by many of your statements.


Dont care what you feel, I never said those words. Anything anyone pulls off in EVE is possible to do by everyone if they put in the time and effort to learn.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#68 - 2015-01-29 05:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Bullet Therapist wrote:


Your not actually getting the performance you claim


I couldn't take my ships on the fleets I do if I couldn't match them. If you spent more time actually flying these ships and testing new fits like I do rather than sitting there doing nothing other than looking at EFT and decrying impossible you would have a lot more success. I find this is a problem across the entire range of ships, people just don't try or think for themselves and simply use whatever the FOTM ship and fit is out there. Anything outside of this narrow view to them is wrong and impossible.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2015-01-29 05:58:42 UTC
Excuse me, but what is all about?

i completelly missed the thread's subject ((

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#70 - 2015-01-29 06:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Excuse me, but what is all about?

i completelly missed the thread's subject ((


People who dont fly battleships are trying to tell people who do fly them they are wrong about battleships being fine. Battleclinic must be leaking into the internet again.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#71 - 2015-01-29 07:56:22 UTC
Search for James Baboli's "making battleships worth the warp"... Its a thread about this exact topic which is so well researched and mathed that i have actually forwarded it to corbexx who forwarded it to the guys at CCP....
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2015-01-29 09:35:08 UTC
FireFrenzy wrote:
Search for James Baboli's "making battleships worth the warp"... Its a thread about this exact topic which is so well researched and mathed that i have actually forwarded it to corbexx who forwarded it to the guys at CCP....


i'm glad you've picked it up to the higher level so we would finally have battleships back to the game for good !

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2015-01-29 09:38:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Tiddle Jr wrote:
Excuse me, but what is all about?

i completelly missed the thread's subject ((


People who dont fly battleships are trying to tell people who do fly them they are wrong about battleships being fine. Battleclinic must be leaking into the internet again.



now i see what's going on here, so looks like an old school bs concept came to the end of it's life and you no longer able to do anything to anyone while flying battleship, that's pretty said if that's true but hey, i still have few battleships in the pocket and the do perfeclty well what i want them to do

somebody wrong that's for sure

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#74 - 2015-01-29 10:14:45 UTC
Foxicity wrote:

Let's keep things amicable guys, we're here for the BS discussion! (Not directed at you Ines)

It's an interesting thing you suggest, Ines. If I'm reading it right, you think battleships are an appealing target to cruisers and caps because, while battleships can somewhat effectively combat the cruisers or capitals targeting them, they lack the 'true' mobility of cruisers or the cyno-mobility of capitals, leaving them with an awkward disadvantage. Thus, while their damage and tanking ability is commensurate with their cost, they end up being something of a 'white whale' for more-mobile fleets to tackle and destroy, or avoid.


Pretty much this. After tiericide I whipped up some Apoc small gang support fits, and they get some very impressive numbers. 1200 m/s, 8s align, 6-800 dps with good application (enough to hit cruisers). Definately enough to keep up with a cruiser gang (though not a nano gang) while bringing a lot of firepower, range, and tank. Just adding one of these to the fleet is a force multiplier, since it can hammer anything that's even lightly tackled and it's not going to focus fired off the field.

I've never used any of those fits though, because one of two things will happen if I take it out. Either we won't get fights, cause noone will engage with a BS around, or the fight will escalate to a level where a BS is just a free kill. So in spite of CCP specifically making some of the battleships REALLY well suited to it (they called them Attack Battleships), they still aren't getting used much. The one thing a BS can never be allowed to do is the one thing that keeps it out of pvp: the ability to control the engagement.

Honestly I'm ok with that. When I said earlier the problem was not with the hull, I meant that the ship is fine. It's place in the meta game is complicated, and there's no way to change that and keep it balanced. I'd rather have it stay balanced, and only brought out for specific engagements then have it be OP.

Overhaul Dscan!
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2015-01-29 10:29:09 UTC
Battleships are fine. Nerf T3s.
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2015-01-29 10:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiddle Jr
T3's are fine (except railgus)

so nerf ishtars and railgus and bombers

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#77 - 2015-01-29 11:13:01 UTC
Tiddle Jr wrote:
T3's are fine (except railgus)

so nerf ishtars and railgus and bombers


They all need a nerf.
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#78 - 2015-01-29 11:22:07 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
For one I'd fix some of the stooopid hull buffs. I'm looking at you maelstrom, and hype

secondly Ishtars and T3s are just better.

give all drone boats a kick in the bandwidth, and and make T3 actually something interesting. or remove them these ships are dumb

thirdly they simply do not do enough DPS to justify their god awful application.

give them more speed, just worse acceleration. and stright op more DeeePS.




Stupid hull buffs? Im guessing you are talking about active rep. Do you actually ever PvP? Active Maels and Hypes are the most common BS to see in small scale PvP.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#79 - 2015-01-29 13:13:47 UTC
I would like to see MJDs changed to actually behave like (micro) jump drives.

i.e. when you activate one you get a list of cynos to choose from, but their range is limited to your current solar system.

This would certainly make MJDs more offensive and with multiple cynos in the same system it could make BS significantly more 'agile'.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2015-01-29 13:46:19 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
For one I'd fix some of the stooopid hull buffs. I'm looking at you maelstrom, and hype

secondly Ishtars and T3s are just better.

give all drone boats a kick in the bandwidth, and and make T3 actually something interesting. or remove them these ships are dumb

thirdly they simply do not do enough DPS to justify their god awful application.

give them more speed, just worse acceleration. and stright op more DeeePS.




Stupid hull buffs? Im guessing you are talking about active rep. Do you actually ever PvP? Active Maels and Hypes are the most common BS to see in small scale PvP.


I've seen an active hype once, and have never seen an active Mael or a maelstrom for that matter in low or null.

and that active hype, we killed it with 2 T1 cruisers, a corm, a crow, and a Scythe Fleet Issue. anyway particularly in the case of the maelstrom, in a fleet or small gang with logi the active repping buff become useless, resist is just good for both local and remote tanking.

if the mael had a tracking, falloff, resist, or hell even a TP buff I think the ship would just be better all around.