Player Features and Ideas Discussion

As i pointed out already in the other thread.. ONLY on Spreadsheets ONLINE.


REAL PVP scenario, where ships are not sitting static at 500 meters from you Machariel has higher dps due to 2 things, superior.. FAR superior falloff and one more low slot. Vargur same thing, MASSIVELY superior falloff and other bonuses more than compensate for the spreadsheet difference. The fleet tempest have about same dps as the tempest on an armor build ( don't think many do shield fleet tempests) because of extra low slot.

The tempest is the ONLY battleship with ALL bonuses focused on damage. It is natural it shoudl have a high damage, finnaly. THe machariel is still intact on its role.

The only thing that needs some touch is the fleet tempest. I suspect CCP will give it a 7th turret and leave the bonuses as it is. Make it better for fleet warfare. (around 11.6 effective turrets, but with higher alpha strike)

The role of BS will be greater as soon as a certain cruiser hull family stop being so damn good at everything or it's counter finally get brought up to a good level. The battleship's food is not on the battlefield in probably 90% of engagements. If it was, they would be seen as more useful and get more use.

They don't need a new role, they need their role to be relevant again and that comes with BC not being so god damn sub-par.

My heart goes with you, when wanting these to endure so.

But as you so pointed out, the game has changed the cruisers into ships of surpassing value.

I believe I hear you rightly, when I understand you to say that you would see the cruisers diminished to their previous standings.

Should we so quickly move to reject possible alternative solutions, without due consideration?


I would be just as happy to fly a BS in a new role, not dependent on being valued in the same relationships to other subcaps as in the past.

Cruiser being better than BS in a stand off engagement is not a problem as long as something can eat those cruisers and that something is eaten by BS. At that point, you have counterplay available. The order in which it resolve could be reversed but it need to go around in some kind of loop so there is no be-all end all hull.

Battleship being countered by the speed of cruisers is OK as long as there is something on another hull type, most likely BC, that makes them good at countering cruisers while also not good at hunting BS.

The food chain must not have a "top". If it does, the meta will go to that and counters will become absurd.

Name a role then. Name any role for battleships, as a whole, you like except mainline combatant, and I will give you the reasons they should not be that.

I am not entirely for shoe horning them with one simple methodology, but this thread is about making them a viable combat ship for pvp that is worth flying all the way to a target at the speeds that CCP has set for them, or to make them worth the cost in performance to move at a speed that players deem reasonable with the tools CCP provided. Thus everything from new modules which allow them to combat cruisers better and larger buffer modules to statistics tweaks to bonus changes is on topic. Repurposing them as something at a class level to something other than DPS focused is one of 2 things which aren't IMO. The only other is a straight repeal of warp speed changes.

As for exclusively about "powercreeping" new BS/BC ones to restore the previous relative power, I will repost a section of the original post that defines the topic of this thread as I see it.

I am stating that across the class they are all supposed to be different variations on this theme. They already are so on all succesful iterations.



Real world comparisons fall flat because we happen to be playing with knife-range fighting submarines in space, with gauze blindfolds on.

As for diversifying my approach to more mirror cruisers. Look at the spreadsheet. Look at how the attack battleships and combat battleships fall out on it. That proposal divides battleships into two fairly different categories of the same class, with a different focuses on each. This is similar to the attack/combat focused splits across the board, which is at the most extreme in battlecruisers but maintained everywhere except destroyers (where the continued lack of hulls makes it hard to have significant baseline to draw attack/combat lines against)

The spreadsheet is where my thinking is. The comments reflect my opinions of other people's thinking, and my related but tangental ideas which happen to get brought up here before either dying or being fleshed out into their own proposal.

If you still want to draw comparisons against real world, please do so on your own soapbox. This thread happens to be my soapbox to peddle my brand of battleship changes and listen to first runs of other changes. If you refuse to post actual content on your idea here, like the continued request for what it is you see as a potential role for the class overall other than mainline DPS ships, then please take your ideas elsewhere.

Yep. This should stay front page material for the time being.

How would you justify the differing build costs on the battleships if we followed this method? The only price CCP controls is the mineral cost, which means that to give a cost increase or reduction requires a mineral change, rather than just a change in some arbitrary price.

Also, can you clarify the 2nd part of your post? To paraphrase it, as I understand it, "Give us reduced versions of pirate hull bonuses on t1 battleships" which begs the question of why, and what bonuses to what hulls.

If you point me at where I nerfed the cap, I'd be glad to remedy this.

In regards to pricing I meant to change the amount of minerals required to build each ship, the build price before the changes they made I thought were perfectly fine, as currently battleships are pretty cheap, especially the like of the Geddon and Scorpion. In regards to the old tier 3 battleships I don't see why they need to cost more to produce than the other battleships when they specifically wanted to remove tiers in the first place, I fail to see how reducing their price and bringing the others up to equal levels introduces tiers again.

With the bonus's I don't mean having the exact same bonus's (and having certainly different base stats) but rather pirate battleships even in the current cruiser meta have been powerful in some situations where you rarely ever see the t1 variants.

Look at the ships like the Nightmare's bonus to afterburner speed, or the Machs bonus to fall-off, the Vindis bonus to webs and the Bhaals bonus to neuts. They are all very powerful bonus's and far exceed the typical 5%-7.5% you find on the t1 hulls. If regular t1 battleships had fairly high (but not as high as current pirate battleships) bonus in variety that I believe could work, to keep the pirate variations different and slightly more powerful they could keep the higher % bonus's and the role bonus.

I don't have any specific idea on what bonus's the t1 variants could get, I'm just thinking their actual bonus's could have a higher % and more variad approach to what they bonus, rather than just dps and tank more ewar and manoeuvrability as well.