These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

So, new battleships eh?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2015-07-22 15:26:23 UTC
Spc One wrote:
New amarr battleship ? what role is it for ?

Its role is to be a MacGuffin for Drifter/Empire lore. Also to be the start of an Epileptic Tree forest.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Amanda Guido
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2015-07-23 04:24:37 UTC
No, the game would not be world of BS if BS were made viable again. Three reasons. Cost, skill points, and mobility. Battleships should be slow, expensive and require loads of sp. But they should also do well what they are meant to do well. Stand and fight. As of now, they are slow, expensive, high reqs, and cant fight worth a damn.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2015-07-23 08:30:08 UTC
Amanda Guido wrote:
No, the game would not be world of BS if BS were made viable again. Three reasons. Cost, skill points, and mobility. Battleships should be slow, expensive and require loads of sp. But they should also do well what they are meant to do well. Stand and fight. As of now, they are slow, expensive, high reqs, and cant fight worth a damn.

Based on the last 10+ years if battleships were competitive then yeah it would be Battleships Online again. That's what happened in the past with all best of season ships including battleships.

As stated above as long as you can produce any ship in unlimited supply it will always be trained into and exploited until it's fixed, would you drive a average commuter car if for the same build cost you could get a luxery Range Rover. Skill points are not a barrier, neither is cost (especially for alliances, they could replace battleships forever they're so cheap). Additionally Battleships can't be fixed without making them mobile since warp, subwarp and agility are a major reason they're broken.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#124 - 2015-07-23 09:49:38 UTC
******* "broken battleships" [insert tears]

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Jenshae Chiroptera
#125 - 2015-07-23 10:53:22 UTC
Webvan wrote:
[insert tears]
*Inserts sharp frozen tears in the form of icicles into your skin*
We are aware of the solo exceptions.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2015-07-23 10:59:37 UTC
Webvan wrote:
******* "broken battleships" [insert tears]


this kind of thing are the exception, not the rule.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#127 - 2015-07-23 13:50:41 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
Webvan wrote:
******* "broken battleships" [insert tears]


this kind of thing are the exception, not the rule.


Thats because most people think that is the exception not the rule.
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#128 - 2015-07-23 19:23:08 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:

T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.


Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2015-07-23 19:45:47 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.


Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly?

The difference between BS 5 and cruiser 5 covers the SP of 3 sub skills at 5, the difference between large turret 5 and medium turret 5 account for the remaining 2 sub skills at 5. Beyond that any skill needed to inject a sub skill or make use of the ship in general applies it's benefits just as well if not moreso to a BS as much as a T3.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#130 - 2015-07-23 20:08:52 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.


Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly?


SP and isk mean nothing to people like me. Incidentally, tengu SP is on par with battleship as is its cost. Yes they are horribly overpowered.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#131 - 2015-07-24 06:16:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Ellendras Silver wrote:

T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.


Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly?


SP and isk mean nothing to people like me. Incidentally, tengu SP is on par with battleship as is its cost. Yes they are horribly overpowered.


Meh, CCP has got their hands full trying to rebalance the Ishtar (go, go Ishtar), so I doubt your dreams of a T3C nerf will happen anytime soon baltec1.

They need some adjustments yes, but not a crippling nerf as you desire.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#132 - 2015-07-24 08:56:27 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:


They need some adjustments yes, but not a crippling nerf as you desire.


Nerfing them down to cruiser stats would not cripple them, they would still be adaptable and powerful cruisers.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#133 - 2015-07-24 13:16:18 UTC
T3Cs with T2 power and more utility would be a better implementation, I feel.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2015-07-24 14:04:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:


They need some adjustments yes, but not a crippling nerf as you desire.


Nerfing them down to cruiser stats would not cripple them, they would still be adaptable and powerful cruisers.

T3D type on the fly adaptations would make sense.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#135 - 2015-07-24 14:16:01 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
... T3D type on the fly adaptations would make sense.
Instant warp cruisers wouldn't be broken! Roll

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#136 - 2015-07-24 15:12:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.


True... I got back into an old Proteus fit the other day, looked at half-a-million EHP and though "yeah, this ain't right".

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Kiandoshia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#137 - 2015-07-24 16:29:32 UTC
Webvan wrote:
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.


Nonsense. Every developer for every game ever can't be wrong =p
Chock Nurris
Cloakers
#138 - 2015-07-24 16:57:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Chock Nurris
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
... T3D type on the fly adaptations would make sense.
Instant warp cruisers wouldn't be broken! Roll

No more broken than covert ops fly through bubbles sporting 100k+ EHP 700dps cruisers. Actually they'd be a lot less broken.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#139 - 2015-07-25 06:07:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Wacktopia wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
[quote=Andreus Ixiris]


Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.


True... I got back into an old Proteus fit the other day, looked at half-a-million EHP and though "yeah, this ain't right".



Quit exaggerating. The highest EHP you can get with a Proteus with HG Slave set + links is 275k. Now if you're talking about bait fits, then yes a Proteus with triple 1600 steel plate II buffer with HG Slave Set + Links can reach around 500k EHP. But why the hell would anyone want to fit a Proteus this way??
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#140 - 2015-07-25 06:17:41 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
T3Cs with T2 power and more utility would be a better implementation, I feel.


I can agree with this as long as CCP get rid of the SP loss on death.

With the current SP loss on death and the 450-500 mill price tag, I feel that T3Cs are actually a little underpowered compared to the HACs. Then again I don't use the buffer subs or logi, so that could be the reason for my thinking.