These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

THE battleship discussion thread
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#21 - 2015-05-11 23:05:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
People need to fly these ships before they start making demands because thats how we get 600k hp hull megathrons.

I want to find a better way to use this. Maybe a meme of an EFT screen with 30% base hull resist silliness shooped in.


This block of steel will do

Not sure, but that looks to be more than 1600mm, if those are 4x4 blocks.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2015-05-11 23:26:54 UTC
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#23 - 2015-05-11 23:29:57 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
baltec1
[url=http://forgeusa.com/images/forged-shapes/blocks/block4.jpg wrote:
This[/url] block of steel will do

Not sure, but that looks to be more than 1600mm, if those are 4x4 blocks.


What part of that looks to be more than 1.6meter (5.25feet)?
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#24 - 2015-05-12 00:55:34 UTC
IMO Battleships do need more tank, but more tank alone doesn't do anything in a kiting meta aside from dying slower (and maybe buying enough time to de-aggro or call for help).

IMO to fix Battleships we need to increase the usage of the ship they're good at killing, i.e. Battlecruisers. Fix Battlecruisers and increase their usage and Battleship usage will increase.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#25 - 2015-05-12 01:15:03 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
IMO Battleships do need more tank, but more tank alone doesn't do anything in a kiting meta aside from dying slower (and maybe buying enough time to de-aggro or call for help).

IMO to fix Battleships we need to increase the usage of the ship they're good at killing, i.e. Battlecruisers. Fix Battlecruisers and increase their usage and Battleship usage will increase.

Which is why Stich is running the battlecruiser projection bonus thread, which IMO should be added to the OP as a resource (as this one will be added to my OP as another discussion thread)

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#26 - 2015-05-12 01:33:50 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
IMO Battleships do need more tank, but more tank alone doesn't do anything in a kiting meta aside from dying slower (and maybe buying enough time to de-aggro or call for help).

IMO to fix Battleships we need to increase the usage of the ship they're good at killing, i.e. Battlecruisers. Fix Battlecruisers and increase their usage and Battleship usage will increase.

Which is why Stich is running the battlecruiser projection bonus thread, which IMO should be added to the OP as a resource (as this one will be added to my OP as another discussion thread)

Will be linking separate threads like that and yours when I'm not about to fall asleep and suffer a massive attack of qwertitis. What?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#27 - 2015-05-12 01:36:04 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
IMO Battleships do need more tank, but more tank alone doesn't do anything in a kiting meta aside from dying slower (and maybe buying enough time to de-aggro or call for help).

IMO to fix Battleships we need to increase the usage of the ship they're good at killing, i.e. Battlecruisers. Fix Battlecruisers and increase their usage and Battleship usage will increase.

Which is why Stich is running the battlecruiser projection bonus thread, which IMO should be added to the OP as a resource (as this one will be added to my OP as another discussion thread)

Will be linking separate threads like that and yours when I'm not about to fall asleep and suffer a massive attack of qwertitis. What?

Sweet. sounds good.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#28 - 2015-05-12 09:15:28 UTC
My sister (i know its odd but she works in the offices) works for TATA steel here in Holland, thats a fairly puny piece of metal:P (i got the guided tour once).

I have seen a 4 foot thick slab of steel the width of a building get rolled (and yes this means every roller needs a different surface speed and such) into a roll around 5mm thick where the last roll was doing several thousand RPM:)

Hey Baltec you know battleships and nullsec, any reasons you can think off why people dont use more of them? Is it bombers? Is it the travel time now you can no longer just bridge a full rack into a fight and get them out again? Is it my "their extra dps is pointless if you're one shotting ships anyway thing?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#29 - 2015-05-12 17:03:11 UTC
Crossposted from thread in my signature, as this seems to be the discussion thread now, while mine will continue mostly as a working place and me asking for feedback or comments on specifics.

I was noodling about with some spreadsheets, and got some interesting results using the ratios of sizes currently extant to make up some XL buffer modules (spreadsheet working space in the link).

XL Shield Extender II 5271HP 879PG 63CPU 90Sig
And

3200MM plate II 9600HP 1438PG 39CPU 15000000 kg
6400MM plate II 19200HP 3594PG 46CPU 37500000 Kg

The high grid prevents them from being used on almost anything but battleships and BCs with otherwise seriously compromised fits, which would make something like these a partial solution to the "Battleships aren't tough enough relative to cruisers" but would create potential for significant HP creep.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#30 - 2015-05-12 18:42:08 UTC
that or it just makes the whole N+1 thing worse...

The problem with power creep in eve is that the primary thing there is NUMBER creep... Hell i bet if we could subscribe and online every single titan in the universe we have enough of them to fill a full 255 man fleet...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#31 - 2015-05-12 19:27:32 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
FireFrenzy wrote:
that or it just makes the whole N+1 thing worse...

The problem with power creep in eve is that the primary thing there is NUMBER creep... Hell i bet if we could subscribe and online every single titan in the universe we have enough of them to fill a full 255 man fleet...

Probably. I have a tracker with 100 titans on it.

Ed: though it does allow battleships to be used more effectively to counter capital creep, and to have the raw HP to take time to murder with a small gang of anything but battleships/ABCs/Caps.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#32 - 2015-05-12 19:42:29 UTC
The sad part is that the propper way to counter capital creep is bhaalgorns or geddons docterine and then dreadnaughts;)

And thats so awesome we will never see it because well SEND IN THE BLAP DREADS, also (fighter)bombers...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#33 - 2015-05-12 19:44:00 UTC
FireFrenzy wrote:
The sad part is that the propper way to counter capital creep is bhaalgorns or geddons docterine and then dreadnaughts;)

And thats so awesome we will never see it because well SEND IN THE BLAP DREADS, also (fighter)bombers...

But now your bhaal can survive the first blap in armor, and then catch reps and keep neuting.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#34 - 2015-05-12 19:47:16 UTC
but that means you just need moar dreads:S which means more battleships which means the hamsters go on strike.
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#35 - 2015-05-12 22:21:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
James Baboli wrote:
Going point by point on this one.
Enya Sparhawk wrote:

I think for a battleship their tank should be uniform across the three (shield, armor, hull) to reflect the fact that these things are built for war.


So, they should have even HP profile across the 3 kinds of HP, or do you mean the they should have something like the omni resists of the gnosis, or do you want something else?
Cause, for the first 2, the answer is a resounding no, and any other option would need some pretty massive justifications.
They aren't built to the same specs, and shouldn't be homogenized like that, and the ratio of where their HP is is one of the major factors in the balance of these ships.

Actually I was suggesting that since they are ships intended solely for the purpose of hostile engagements it should be reflected by 'each' of their HP profiles (as it already is by their mass, agility, signature radius and relative size to every other ship beneath them). The term 'Uniform' in reference to its tank does not equate to identical HP profiles and resists...

Their use is diluted because of people who think it is already 'balanced'. The balance to them needs to come across the three profiles as opposed to across just the one specific to race/specialization. (obviously something no other non capital ship would be able to accomplish). ie. A knight, carrying a shield and wearing a suit of armor doesn't charge into battle with just the metal torso and then a pair of cloth pants does he?

This opens up so many more tank fitting options, and therefore, more utility options and uses for the ship...
James Baboli wrote:

Enya Sparhawk wrote:

Higher shield regeneration rate for ships that rely on armor tanking, extra plating for ships that rely on shields...
(even a resist bonus for hulls, simple as 30% across the board, pre-module)

Durability should reflect their use.


Why would you make buffs to things outside the specialization of the ships, especially of the sort that aren't helpful to game balance? Right now, there is a distinct ability to tailor the tank of most battleships to the engagement types you intend for the ship, and the type of tank you prefer. The fact that it is practically required to use 3 slots for resists and 2-3 for buffer, with a full set of buffer rigs, or write them off as alpha-able in larger fights points to them being low on either native resists (yeah, right) or native buffer (yep.) or lacking a suitably impressive single slot buffer module (yep again.) Fixing those makes much more sense than going around making them all tank in armor and shield, as well as the niche hull fits.

As for a hull resist bonus, do you want 600k hull HP megathrons? because thats how you get 600k hull HP megathrons.

I want to be able to fight engagements with the entirety of the ship not just a single part of it. Remember, it's called a battleship.

They need staying power over any engagement, especially when compared to others combat ships of lower classes. This is a battleship's sole purpose, to dominate.

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#36 - 2015-07-20 16:39:20 UTC
Enya Sparhawk wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Going point by point on this one.
Enya Sparhawk wrote:

I think for a battleship their tank should be uniform across the three (shield, armor, hull) to reflect the fact that these things are built for war.


So, they should have even HP profile across the 3 kinds of HP, or do you mean the they should have something like the omni resists of the gnosis, or do you want something else?
Cause, for the first 2, the answer is a resounding no, and any other option would need some pretty massive justifications.
They aren't built to the same specs, and shouldn't be homogenized like that, and the ratio of where their HP is is one of the major factors in the balance of these ships.

Actually I was suggesting that since they are ships intended solely for the purpose of hostile engagements it should be reflected by 'each' of their HP profiles (as it already is by their mass, agility, signature radius and relative size to every other ship beneath them). The term 'Uniform' in reference to its tank does not equate to identical HP profiles and resists...

Their use is diluted because of people who think it is already 'balanced'. The balance to them needs to come across the three profiles as opposed to across just the one specific to race/specialization. (obviously something no other non capital ship would be able to accomplish). ie. A knight, carrying a shield and wearing a suit of armor doesn't charge into battle with just the metal torso and then a pair of cloth pants does he?

This opens up so many more tank fitting options, and therefore, more utility options and uses for the ship...
James Baboli wrote:

Enya Sparhawk wrote:

Higher shield regeneration rate for ships that rely on armor tanking, extra plating for ships that rely on shields...
(even a resist bonus for hulls, simple as 30% across the board, pre-module)

Durability should reflect their use.


Why would you make buffs to things outside the specialization of the ships, especially of the sort that aren't helpful to game balance? Right now, there is a distinct ability to tailor the tank of most battleships to the engagement types you intend for the ship, and the type of tank you prefer. The fact that it is practically required to use 3 slots for resists and 2-3 for buffer, with a full set of buffer rigs, or write them off as alpha-able in larger fights points to them being low on either native resists (yeah, right) or native buffer (yep.) or lacking a suitably impressive single slot buffer module (yep again.) Fixing those makes much more sense than going around making them all tank in armor and shield, as well as the niche hull fits.

As for a hull resist bonus, do you want 600k hull HP megathrons? because thats how you get 600k hull HP megathrons.

I want to be able to fight engagements with the entirety of the ship not just a single part of it. Remember, it's called a battleship.

They need staying power over any engagement, especially when compared to others combat ships of lower classes. This is a battleship's sole purpose, to dominate.

While i don't necessarily agree with the last sentence in that statement, i do agree with the sentiment that they should have a very large HP pool. However, i think the right way to go about it would be to balance it more along their primary HP lines, i.e. caldari bs getting most of their hp pool in shields, amarr in armor, etc. Ships like gal or min could get a more even distribution, like having it split fairly evenly into armor and hull, or shields and armor.
Thron Legacy
White Zulu
Scorpion Federation
#37 - 2015-07-21 01:26:27 UTC
shield bs are fine, armor bs tank like a jackdaw (or maybe a dual rep maller if bonused)
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#38 - 2015-07-21 09:25:14 UTC
the problem is that getting armor resists to the point where a single plated ship has usefull ehp in big fights costs hundreds of millions, you can do double and tripple plated ships sure but at that point you might as well be flying a brick that someone threw out of a speeding car...

Not very manouverable and not particularly intresting until it hits something and explodes
Previous page12