These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Old Guard Weighs in on Battleships flaws
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#61 - 2015-07-08 16:55:09 UTC
Maradusa Macarthy wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Maradusa Macarthy wrote:


ewww, I hope not. That would make them totally worthless. Tech 3 is suppose to be better than Tech 2, no? Or else CCP should change their names to T2 Strategic Cruisers and not mislead everyone thinking they are suppose to be more powerful than T2 cruisers.


This is where they should be. CCP will be making savage nerfs to T3s and it is long overdue.


So by this chart, are Pirate Faction hulls suppose to be the top tier per ship class?

And when are these T3 destroying nerfs suppose to hit?


Not better in the raw sense, as a HAC or Recon will offer more highly-specialised performance than a Pirate cruiser.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2015-07-08 19:41:48 UTC
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.

What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#63 - 2015-07-08 20:57:28 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.

What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?


You still have the issue of them getting better tanks than battleships.

T3 post nerf would still be effective ships, they just wont stomp all over everything like they do now.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#64 - 2015-07-08 21:55:53 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.

What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?


You can fit a plated/beam zealot, a legion and an absolution, then rip out the three trimarks from the legion, and get something like a beautiful, not even that linear progression. Legion and Prot without trimarks would sit at ~90k-100k ehp instead of 150-160k.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2015-07-08 22:29:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.

What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?


You still have the issue of them getting better tanks than battleships.

T3 post nerf would still be effective ships, they just wont stomp all over everything like they do now.


If you take away the damage projection at range that would make battleships more likely to be chosen for fleets. Close range T3's get really really good buffer but battleships can get better active tank and 1 heavy neut spells doom for any cruiser. Maybe they just need to give the Megathron a utility high?
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#66 - 2015-07-09 07:22:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
baltec1 wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.

What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?


You still have the issue of them getting better tanks than battleships.

T3 post nerf would still be effective ships, they just wont stomp all over everything like they do now.


That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#67 - 2015-07-09 09:10:38 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:


That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.


No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#68 - 2015-07-09 09:37:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.


No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.


Yea that's fine, IF you remove the SP loss on death AND reduce their cost to around 300 mill for the whole package. If CCP does this then I have no problem with them having 80k-100k EHP instead of 140k-200k EHP.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2015-07-09 11:00:34 UTC
Prob replacing the buffer bonus with resist bonus for the culprit subsystem would solve the insane hp issue.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#70 - 2015-07-09 11:24:08 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Daniela Doran wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.


No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.


Yea that's fine, IF you remove the SP loss on death AND reduce their cost to around 300 mill for the whole package. If CCP does this then I have no problem with them having 80k-100k EHP instead of 140k-200k EHP.


They already cost 300/350 mil. The market will adapt.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#71 - 2015-07-09 12:08:40 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that.


Ah, well you see - it is T3s current performance that is driving the demand, and consequently, the price. Blink As baltec1 mentioned, T3Cs have gone down in price already.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2015-07-09 12:39:46 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that.


Ah, well you see - it is T3s current performance that is driving the demand, and consequently, the price. Blink As baltec1 mentioned, T3Cs have gone down in price already.


Materials for making them have become easier to get recently too.

No Worries
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#73 - 2015-07-09 13:53:22 UTC
Does that mean CCP is actually getting ready to nerf these ships?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#74 - 2015-07-09 16:48:45 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Does that mean CCP is actually getting ready to nerf these ships?


We can only hope.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#75 - 2015-07-09 23:11:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Does that mean CCP is actually getting ready to nerf these ships?


We can only hope.


NAY, not while I'm still maxing out Gallente Subs for my Rail Proteus.
Matt Faithbringer
YOLO so no taxes please
#76 - 2015-07-10 06:50:30 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
It's still weird that a BS-web does as much as a frig-web. If there was something cool to be done, then webbing a ship that is heavier than your own should result in less webstrength - unless you're flying a dedicated light/heavy tackle ship like an assault frigate, for example. Wanted to say interceptor but they're well off just being fast and blocking mwds.

So derptron webs BS, it moves 30% slower, CBC webs BS, it moves 50% slower, AF/BS or cap webbing a BS - full 60%. That'd be really cool and put CBCs back on the table as the sluggish, tackly brawling cruisers.


You could even reverse the effect. BS webs frigate - 1.5% effectiveness == 90% web; would help defend against frigates
Matt Faithbringer
YOLO so no taxes please
#77 - 2015-07-10 06:56:43 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Logi? No hulls.


ehm, nestor anybody?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#78 - 2015-07-11 13:00:09 UTC
Matt Faithbringer wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:

Logi? No hulls.


ehm, nestor anybody?


( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#79 - 2015-07-11 20:44:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.


No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.


And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.


Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:

Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.

I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Sleepaz Den
Artificial Memories
#80 - 2015-07-11 22:09:44 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.


No. T3 cruisers should have cruiser EHP.


And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.


Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:

Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.

I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.


That seems off-topic.

The impact of ehp-subs for pve just isn't there, mind that the only T3 seeing use in pve is a loki, and does really fine without one.

c4 solo tengus are a thing of the past since the RR-fixes, duo still works and entirely relies on range to tank sites, and they don't utilize buffer for that. C4 RR tengus don't even need an LSE, just the 4k-ish cruiser base hp. c5 tengus can be flown with LSEs albeit they also aren't necessary unless escalating. c6 you really want more buffer, but still far from supp screening buffer.
The total ehp is not a concern for pve-purposes. Buffersubs and their impact is a thing for pvp, and its opppressive performance subtracts from diversity.