These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing battleships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#21 - 2015-12-10 18:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
For turret BS tweak signature resolution of the low tier "dual" guns. Currently they have a sig resolution of 425. Meaning your target needs to have a sig near 400 to track decently. This can be mitigated through transversal, but is easier said than done in a BS. Biggest sig an MWD frig will have is around 180-200 with a full shield fit (MSE+extenders).

425mm Sig resolution = 425
425mm (medium size) sig resolution = 125

So sticking 2 medium guns together triples sig resolution? Must be all that duct tape.

What if we dropped sig resolution (on only low tier "dual" BS turrets) to say 250 sig resolution? This would allow them to easily track most MWD cruisers and be slightly better at tracking high sig mwd frigs. The sig resolution is still high enough to sig tank the guns if they get under them, but isnt quite as severe/one sided.

The usual counters are still available like inties and low sig mwd armor frigs

Missile BS are already in a much better place than turret BS since you dont need to compensate for tracking. My RHML typhoon and fleet phoon murder frigs/t3ds so missile ships already have options here.

Cruise missiles work well and torps are a bit hard to fit. I think fitting for cruise/torps need to be flipped. Rockets use less fitting than LM. HAMS use less fitting than HML but torps use more fitting than cruise. Seems a bit wonky, all other short ranged missiles use less fitting than long range.

Along with the fitting change, giving torps a touch more application would be good but needs to be balanced with bombers too.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#22 - 2015-12-10 19:00:49 UTC
my proposal from some while ago (re-do the 'lower tier' weapons):


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5548748#post5548748

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Vailen Sere
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2015-12-10 20:16:14 UTC
Trance Cendant wrote:
I think the way to save battleships is to make a few major changes to warp strength, scrams, and disruptors. Just like they are doing with supers, I think bigger ships should have more warp strength.

My two proposals: Frigates and destroyers have 1 warp strength, cruisers and battlecruisers have 2, and battleships have a strength of 3. This would make it to where a 300m isk BS can not be tackled by a 300k isk frigate. Yes the BS might not be able to kill it, but it can use its power advantage to warp away. It would take at least 3 frigs to tackle a BS if they have a single scram.

To make it even among ships of the same class, I also propose make all scrams and disruptors sized to thier class. A small scram has a strength of 1, a medium 2, and a large 3. A large can only be fit to a BS and so on. This would make it to where ships of equal size are always evenly matched, but the bigger ships get an advantage over the small ones when it comes to escaping.


The Ewar Niche for battleships resides with Scorpion/GheddonT1; Bhallgorn/Bhargest/Vindicator Pirate; and only Widow T2. It's missing gallente and minmatar T1 and T2, and Amarr T2 Ewar.

Addressing the lack of hull issue as opposed to modules might be easier as opposed to working on new modules and address fitting issues that would follow with all those medium/ large modules now affecting multiple hulls across sizes. Hull bonuses would be more in play to the current meta style as well.
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#24 - 2015-12-10 20:24:29 UTC
Mornak wrote:
Valacus wrote:
MJDs have a huge weakness, getting scrammed while spooling up puts the MJD on cooldown. You can do that without putting yourself in danger by using a flyby. I do it all the time, and even if I do get webbed/scrammed, I carry enough residual speed to kite out of range before I get brought down to a speed slow enough that the BS can hit me.

Target painter + web + scram + target being stupid is way too many situational advantages required just to hit a smaller ship. Even if battleships could punch down, without adequate tackle, your targets would still be able to escape because they control the range. The only difference is they wouldn't be able to evade your damage entirely by simply staying out of web range, which is extremely easy to do. Now they have to take damage if they want to point you at all, so they are at risk while tackling.

RHML are terrible at applying damage to frigates and mediocre when fighting cruisers. Granted, RHML are way better than any of the dual versions that turret based systems have, which still don't have the tracking required to effectively apply damage to ships a class underneath them. There aren't enough weapon systems like RHML and RLML. There needs to be more, and they need to be accessible by larger ships.

Drones are kiteable and easily so. Whenever drones stop to apply damage, they turn off their MWDs, so as soon as you see them go for damage, just move away again. Even if the drones are a threat to you, you can kill them yourself, or simply disengage. Yes, drones can be an effective punch down tool, but they're still limited and they should not be your one and only option.


Yeah, i get your point. But if you can easily kite drones and dive in for a scram when you see the MJD spoolup without getting tackled by web+scram... well, to me that sounds a lot like an ceptor or a frigate fitted to do a ceptors work. The sole purpuse of these ships is point and survive. Not even Cruisers are supposed get rid of them too easily.

If you give BSs a weaponsystem that can get rid of ceptors, then you'd have to gimp its damage to big targets quite a lot.

This is imho one of the main problems with RLML/RHML... there just to good against small stuff but still ok against equal size targets. Only if you know that you'll fight your size and up will other weaponsystems be an option. ...I for one dont remember the last time i saw a HAM Caracal in pvp (might change with missile guidence-things, not sure though).

You can already fit small/medium guns/launchers on BSs... the damage should be enough to kill a ceptor, but the guns underperform against anything close to your size.
A RLML Raven should be able to kill a ceptor in no time. You wont get through the tank of an active tanked BS though.

If a megathron has full bonused medium blasters, then it would do comparable DPS to a damage-fit Brutix (this is just an estimate, i'd have to check this to be sure).

So instead of ~1200-1300DPS with large guns you'd do ~900-1000DPS with mediums. So unless i need the Range of large guns, i would most like go with the medium ones most of the time, the damage application is just so much better.
On top of that, you'd have a huge amount of cpu/pg left for tank, double/tripple-prop and other nice things the large gun mega can not fit.

I think that would just "unbalance" things in the other direction and make 'traditional' BSs a rare sight...


Only interceptors shouldn't be able to tackle with impunity. RLML and RHML weapons are the only option for defending yourself against frigate sized ships, which means there needs to be MORE weapons like them, not less.

The reason RLML and RHML work against similarly sized targets is because people fly ships that fire them in packs, so your reload wall doesn't stop you from killing what you shoot at. Put enough ships on one target and it dies, especially if you synchronize your attacks and have a decent alpha. DPS isn't as meaningful in groups as synchronization and raw alpha strike. You also have high damage application, as opposed to HAM Caracals which have crap damage application, even against other cruisers. 50% of a little is better than 0% of a lot.

And just because you can fit medium sized guns or launchers on a battleship doesn't make it viable, because you don't carry over your gun bonuses that cruiser sized ships have, meaning a cruiser has both more alpha and more dps than you. Well, that isn't gonna cut it. Not even against frigates. If your gun bonuses did carry over, then you'd have cruiser damage on a battleship that you could apply to frigates and cruisers. The only battleship components you'd carry over is EHP and all the negative ones like lack of speed, huge sig, and abysmal lock time. Having battleships that can kill smaller ships around makes traditional battleships more viable, not less, because now there are battleship sized targets around to shoot. It's lack of battleship sized targets that make traditional battleships a rarity.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-12-11 01:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Trance Cendant wrote:
I think the way to save battleships is to make a few major changes to warp strength, scrams, and disruptors. Just like they are doing with supers, I think bigger ships should have more warp strength.

My two proposals: Frigates and destroyers have 1 warp strength, cruisers and battlecruisers have 2, and battleships have a strength of 3. This would make it to where a 300m isk BS can not be tackled by a 300k isk frigate. Yes the BS might not be able to kill it, but it can use its power advantage to warp away. It would take at least 3 frigs to tackle a BS if they have a single scram.

To make it even among ships of the same class, I also propose make all scrams and disruptors sized to thier class. A small scram has a strength of 1, a medium 2, and a large 3. A large can only be fit to a BS and so on. This would make it to where ships of equal size are always evenly matched, but the bigger ships get an advantage over the small ones when it comes to escaping.

A lone frigate could tackle the battleship by fitting 2 warp scramblers, or 1 scrambler and 1 disruptor. It seems like a good balance to me--a frigate can tackle a battleship but at a strong fitting cost and it must have prepared beforehand to do it.

I developed an idea very much like this a couple years back. Here's what I came up with, complete with all tweaks I have made since then, and I think it is pretty well balanced by now:

BASE SHIP WARP CORE STRENGTH
Small-rig ships have warp strength of 1 (can be tackled with 1 warp jam strength)
Medium-rig ships have warp strength of 2 (can be tackled with 2 warp jam strength)
Large-rig ships have warp strength of 3 (can be tackled with 3 warp jam strength)
Capital ships have much higher warp strengths which are specific to the type of capital ship


WARP DISRUPTORS AND SCRAMBLERS
small scrambler: 2MW // 20Tf // 8km // 3 jam strength - this is just enough to tackle a battleship that has no warp stabs
small disruptor: 4MW // 40Tf // 20km // 1 jam strength
medium scrambler: 30MW // 30Tf // 12km // 5 jam strength
medium disruptor: 60MW // 50Tf // 30km // 2 jam strength
large scrambler: 450MW // 40Tf // 18km // 7 jam strength
large disruptor: 900MW // 60Tf // 45km // 4 jam strength
mega scrambler: 6750MW // 50Tf // 27km // 12 jam strength (6 vs. subcaps)
mega diusruptor: 13500MW // 70Tf // 67.5km // 6 jam strength (3 vs. subcaps)
Any ship can fit an oversize scrambler or disruptor though it costs a lot of powergrid. Disruptors are especially expensive with powergrid and also cost a lot of capacitor so it is difficult to run an oversized disruptor. Tech 1 tackle frigates cannot easily fit a medium disruptor but it can be squeezed in, and their role bonus makes it far cheaper to run. Interceptors and interdictors will have a 50% reduction to power cost of tackle modules, and heavy interdictors will have a 98% reduction in powergrid cost of specifically mega scramblers/disruptors which are made for tackling capital ships.


WARP CORE REINFORCER
New active module with same fitting cost and penalties of Warp Core Stabilizer, but this module grants no bonus initially. When activated, it begins a 3-second cycle and at the end of the cycle it grants +1 warp strength. It then performs another cycle, at the end of which it upgrades to +2 warp strength. After this point, it will continue to cycle and use capacitor, remaining at +2 warp strength. If you overheat it, it will begin overheating no earlier than the start of the third cycle, and give +3 warp core strength at the end of the first overheated cycle.

Multiple warp core reinforcers must be queued separately, for instance if a Megathron with 8 WCR modules overheats and turns on all 8 modules at the same time, it will activate them one at a time, allowing each one to cycle twice before moving onto the next module. None of the modules will begin overheating until all queued modules have finished their first two cycles. The Megathron will start with +2 warp strength (battleships have a base of 3) and will gain +1 every 3 seconds for 72 seconds, maxing out at +26 (27 total) warp strength. These modules will barely survive overheating this long and will soon begin to fail, however if you overheat fewer modules you can maintain the overheat much longer.

This new module allows larger ships which have more low slots to gain a higher warp strength, but also forces them to take advantage of their higher hit points because they have to wait for the modules to come online. This means that ships will likely try to balance between WCR modules and buffer tank, and may also mix in WCS to get instant warp strength. This also means that armor tank ships do not get an unfair advantage in the use of these modules, as shield ships can make up for their lack of low slots by fitting more buffer tank which is crucial to have. Lastly, the time cost makes it difficult to use on small ships as they are less likely to be able to wait that long. Ultimately it's balancing warp strength bonuses to prevent unfairly benefiting small ships.

Capital WCR modules will have much higher fitting and capacitor cost, and will activate more slowly but will offer much more warp core strength. Battleships can fit these modules, though not easily. A battleship fit with these is potentially very difficult to tackle but will struggle to fit enough buffer tank and capacitor to make it worthwhile.

(to be continued)

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."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-12-11 01:35:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
MINIMUM TIME TO WARP
Each ship carries with it a minimum time to warp, this value being equal to half of the time it takes them to make a dry warp. The time begins ticking from the last time you either aligned to the target or chose to activate warp, including if you double-clicked in space within 5º of its direction. The timer simply checks when you last made a heading change of more than 5º and allows you to enter warp as long as your minimum time to warp has elapsed, and all other warp conditions are present.


PARTIAL WARP DISRUPTION
If you have more than half of the warp disrupt value you need, but less than all of it, the target will need to reach a higher percentage of their max velocity in order to enter warp. This amount is based on how close you are to fully jamming their warp. For instance, if they have a warp strength of 4 and you have a jam strength of 3, you increase their speed to warp halfway, or from 75% to 87.5% of max velocity. This also adjusts their minimum time to warp, so it'll help hold a ship in place even if it is using a cloak/MWD/web or other fast-warp trick.

When you have at least over half of the needed warp disruption strength on the target, as long as one of the modules used on the target is a scrambler, they will be unable to activate a micro warp drive or micro jump drive. If they have a high enough warp strength compared to your warp jam strength, they can still use the modules.


WARP-DISRUPTION BUBBLES
Anchored bubble generators have a disrupt strength of 1 for the tech 1 and tech 2, but there is a special tech 2 variant with a smaller radius and +2 disrupt strength. Multiple overlapping bubbles also increase the disrupt strength.

Interdictor and Heavy Interdictor disrupt probes have a disrupt strength of 3 (tech 1) or 4 (tech 2).

The focused warp disruption script for the HIC is no longer an infinite point, but it offers a very large disrupt value while also dividing the ship's warp core strength in half. A HIC alone is not enough to tackle a supercapital but works well as a team with a support fleet in tackling the supercapital.

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."
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-12-11 02:15:42 UTC
I say speed up BSs and BCs by 50m/s

I can has blogging skills!
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#28 - 2015-12-11 07:40:51 UTC
The Gream's POV for making BS better.

1: Scrap all T1 BS as they are and take them back to the design floor.
2: Introduce a Ewar BS for each empire - along with BS ship only Targeted AOE Ewar. These ships would be backed up by the a secondary faction weapon system.
3: Have one haul specialized in long range warfare, but still viable if fitted for close brawling.
4: Have one that has more open ended fitting room
5: Rebalance BS weapon systems
6: Make the dual/quad turrets more like RHML - provides a counter to cruiser sized ships.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2015-12-11 07:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
FT Diomedes wrote:
It would certainly shake things up and make for some interesting fits, but I think it opens up too much fitting space. I would prefer to see a change to the weapons' purpose while keeping fitting costs fairly similar.

For example, I might suggest changing railguns as follows:

425mm railguns - become the standard Hybrid battleship long range weapon. Designed primarily to hit other Battleships. Fires large ammo. Assume eight turrets gives 800 DPS at 40km with Navy Antimatter L at all Level V skills and three damage mods. Tracks like a 425mm railgun. Same turret resolution as a 425mm railgun.

350mm railguns - get renamed to Dual 250mm railguns. It fires two M charges each shot. Same fitting cost as 425mm railguns. Assume eight turrets gives 800 DPS at 20km with Navy Antimatter M at all Level V skills and three damage mods. Tracks like a 250mm railgun. Same turret signature resolution as a 250mm rail. Same cap usage as 425mm railgun.

Dual 250mm railgun - gets renamed to Quad 150mm railgun. It fires four S charges each shot. Same fitting cost as 425mm railguns. Assume eight turrets gives 800 DPS at 10km with Navy Antimatter S at all Level V skills with three damage mods. Tracks like a 150mm railgun. Same turret signature resolution as a 150mm rail. Same cap usage as a 425mm railgun.

Just throwing this out there - not emotionally invested in this idea. Thoughts? Totally OP? Too homogenized?

Could make for some interesting fits. You might even see someone decide that sacrificing some capability against a peer adversary was worth fitting six 425's and two Quad 150's.



This, but at the same time, not this...

My suggestion is really a matter of each ship class can fight down and up 1 class.

So (using pulse lasers as example) In this example, the modules names will flip plus add some, so that names better fit intent

Small
Gatling pulse - lowest damage, highest tracking, shortest range - frig v frig - unbeatable tracking
Light pulse - middle damage, middle tracking, middle range - frig v frig
Focused Medium pulse - highest damage, lowest tracking, longest range - frig v cruiser

Medium
Dual Light pulse - lowest damage, highest tracking, shortest range - cruiser v frig
Medium pulse- middle damage, middle tracking, middle range - cruiser v cruiser
Focused Heavy Pulse - highest damage, lowest tracking, longest range - cruiser v BC/BS

Large
Dual Medium pulse- lowest damage, highest tracking, lowest range - BS v cruiser/BC
Heavy Pulse - middle damage, middle tracking, middle range - BS v BS
Focused Giga Pulse - highest damage, lowest tracking, longest range - BS v cap/structure

Capital/extra large
New "high angle" / dual Heavy Pulse - lowest damage, highest tracking, shortest range - cap v BS
Giga Pulse - middle damage, middle tracking, middle range - cap v BS
Only thing after this is Doomsday weapons.

So, any ship fitted with any weapon will be able to fight any other ship, however, the higher you go in a class the more support you'll need to be effective.
This will not only allow ships to fight down a class, more effectively, but also allow classes to fight up more effectively.
So, it's not just "**** rolls down hill" to frigs.
Get 2-3 focused medium pulse and take out a cruiser, but might lose to a dual light cruiser
Same for cruiser v BS/BC and same for BS v cap.


This leads to the question of what to do with missiles, as they're the odd man out.
Though, drones would cause some headache as well.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2015-12-11 08:36:00 UTC
My biggest issue with battleships is I'm struggling to find an area where they really shine to offset their weaknesses.

Slow to warp
Slow to align
Slow to actually navigate
Slow to lock
Vulnerable to bombs
Need support to apply damage downwards (as do all ships, but as the biggest subcaps this gets more pronounced)
Easy to probe
Long range hulls can't snipe worth a damn because of probes and on grid warping

Their pros as I see them are:
Best subcap DPS
Hard to kill with triage (bombs not withstanding)
A few hulls have niche roles (bhaal, geddon, lowsec machariels)
Lots of fitting room for "weird" and "fun" fits.

I'm not sure how to fix it, in my view those pros don't outweigh the cons.

I mean, I love my battleships but they're very much "for local use only".
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2015-12-11 08:42:59 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
My biggest issue with battleships is I'm struggling to find an area where they really shine to offset their weaknesses.

Slow to warp
Slow to align
Slow to actually navigate
Slow to lock

Howabout holding a position? They're slow in a lot of ways, why shouldn't they be slow to remove from the field? Give them more hit points.

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."
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#32 - 2015-12-11 08:50:47 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
My biggest issue with battleships is I'm struggling to find an area where they really shine to offset their weaknesses.

Slow to warp
Slow to align
Slow to actually navigate
Slow to lock

Howabout holding a position? They're slow in a lot of ways, why shouldn't they be slow to remove from the field? Give them more hit points.



Won't fly any more with command dessies. Well, actually they will Lol


Seriously though, I don't know how to improve them without tipping it into battleships online.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2015-12-11 09:41:14 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Seriously though, I don't know how to improve them without tipping it into battleships online.

It's simple.


Here's what we see:


Battlecruiser attributes:
1 ##################
2 ##########
3 ######################
4 #############
5 ###
6 ################

Battleship attributes:
1 ######################
2 ##############
3 #########
4 ##
5 #######
6 ####################

People notice that some battleship attributes are slightly better than battlecruisers, while others are far worse.



Here's how most people respond:
"We should buff the far worse attributes so that battleships are no longer marginalized by battlecruisers"


But here's how you actually solve the problem:
"We should buff the things the battleship does well, because it doesn't do these things well enough to justify its drawbacks."

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."
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2015-12-11 10:03:32 UTC
You can't though. Because then you start stepping on Dread toes, especially now with the high angle stuff.

We also should consider than their relative sluggishness has been hit with a triple blow lately: warp speed (ok, not that "lately"), the rampant speed creed in smaller hulls and in the introduction of more (essentially ridiculous) smaller hulls and finally in null at least, the requirement for fast mobile fleets to fight the entosis war.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-12-11 10:44:57 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
You can't though. Because then you start stepping on Dread toes,

You're right, what was I thinking?



Battlecruiser
hit points #########
damage ######
speed #######################
range ###################################
tracking ###############################################################


Battleship
hit points ###############
damage #########
speed #############
range ################################################################
tracking #################


Dreadnought
hit points #################################################################################
damage #################################################################################
high-angle ###################
speed ###
range #########################################################
tracking #




You'll have to pardon my sarcasm at the top of the post, but I just don't see battleships stepping on the toes of dreadnoughts with some small changes to help increase their marginal differences over battlecruisers.

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."
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2015-12-11 12:36:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
... Allow battleships to use the micro jump field generator.

Really think about it.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union
Hatakani Trade Winds Combine
#37 - 2015-12-11 15:07:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Mornak
Valacus wrote:

Only interceptors shouldn't be able to tackle with impunity. RLML and RHML weapons are the only option for defending yourself against frigate sized ships, which means there needs to be MORE weapons like them, not less.

imho if you dedicate your ship and your fitting to that specific purpose it's ok if you are very very good at that. BSs are not good at everything, nothing in eve is supposed to be good at everything. choose a ship suited for the task.

ceptors dont "tackle with impunity", they are just very hard to kill unless you're in the right shiptype/size. What about arazus that damp you? falcons that jam you? snipers that shoot you from 200k? All of them can ruin your day and there is little you can do against it... unless you're prepared for it.

Valacus wrote:

The reason RLML and RHML work against similarly sized targets is because people fly ships that fire them in packs, so your reload wall doesn't stop you from killing what you shoot at. Put enough ships on one target and it dies, especially if you synchronize your attacks and have a decent alpha. DPS isn't as meaningful in groups as synchronization and raw alpha strike. You also have high damage application, as opposed to HAM Caracals which have crap damage application, even against other cruisers. 50% of a little is better than 0% of a lot.

they work just as well in small-gang/solo. They lack some DPS, but, as you correctly mentioned, the application is so much better that they outperform the other options in too many cases.

Valacus wrote:

And just because you can fit medium sized guns or launchers on a battleship doesn't make it viable, because you don't carry over your gun bonuses that cruiser sized ships have, meaning a cruiser has both more alpha and more dps than you. Well, that isn't gonna cut it. Not even against frigates. If your gun bonuses did carry over, then you'd have cruiser damage on a battleship that you could apply to frigates and cruisers. The only battleship components you'd carry over is EHP and all the negative ones like lack of speed, huge sig, and abysmal lock time. Having battleships that can kill smaller ships around makes traditional battleships more viable, not less, because now there are battleship sized targets around to shoot. It's lack of battleship sized targets that make traditional battleships a rarity.

Again, BSs do not have to fit every role in eve... you pick a ship for a given task. That's it.
If you want to solo a BS you don't ask for bigger guns for frigates, you choose a ship suited for the task.

Imho BSs are not in a bad place atm. They're not suited for every task, nor should they be.



PS: BSs have more slots than cruisers. Atm a raven with 6RLML and 3BCS does 368DPS with fury or 263DPS with precision, so "Well, that isn't gonna cut it. Not even against frigates." is just not true. But if you use this fit against BSs/BCs it will suck big time. Make your choice.
big miker
Frogleap Factories
#38 - 2015-12-11 16:11:46 UTC
Linna Excel wrote:
I say speed up BSs and BCs by 50m/s


Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile

While we are at it, remove t3 cruiser HP bonus subsystem. T2 ressist combined with HP bonus is dogshit.
Damnation is fine though.

Latest video: Ferocious 9.0 - Vertical Supremacy

Nano Naglfar!
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#39 - 2015-12-11 16:54:49 UTC
Mornak wrote:
Valacus wrote:

Only interceptors shouldn't be able to tackle with impunity. RLML and RHML weapons are the only option for defending yourself against frigate sized ships, which means there needs to be MORE weapons like them, not less.

imho if you dedicate your ship and your fitting to that specific purpose it's ok if you are very very good at that. BSs are not good at everything, nothing in eve is supposed to be good at everything. choose a ship suited for the task.

ceptors dont "tackle with impunity", they are just very hard to kill unless you're in the right shiptype/size. What about arazus that damp you? falcons that jam you? snipers that shoot you from 200k? All of them can ruin your day and there is little you can do against it... unless you're prepared for it.

Valacus wrote:

The reason RLML and RHML work against similarly sized targets is because people fly ships that fire them in packs, so your reload wall doesn't stop you from killing what you shoot at. Put enough ships on one target and it dies, especially if you synchronize your attacks and have a decent alpha. DPS isn't as meaningful in groups as synchronization and raw alpha strike. You also have high damage application, as opposed to HAM Caracals which have crap damage application, even against other cruisers. 50% of a little is better than 0% of a lot.

they work just as well in small-gang/solo. They lack some DPS, but, as you correctly mentioned, the application is so much better that they outperform the other options in too many cases.

Valacus wrote:

And just because you can fit medium sized guns or launchers on a battleship doesn't make it viable, because you don't carry over your gun bonuses that cruiser sized ships have, meaning a cruiser has both more alpha and more dps than you. Well, that isn't gonna cut it. Not even against frigates. If your gun bonuses did carry over, then you'd have cruiser damage on a battleship that you could apply to frigates and cruisers. The only battleship components you'd carry over is EHP and all the negative ones like lack of speed, huge sig, and abysmal lock time. Having battleships that can kill smaller ships around makes traditional battleships more viable, not less, because now there are battleship sized targets around to shoot. It's lack of battleship sized targets that make traditional battleships a rarity.

Again, BSs do not have to fit every role in eve... you pick a ship for a given task. That's it.
If you want to solo a BS you don't ask for bigger guns for frigates, you choose a ship suited for the task.

Imho BSs are not in a bad place atm. They're not suited for every task, nor should they be.



PS: BSs have more slots than cruisers. Atm a raven with 6RLML and 3BCS does 368DPS with fury or 263DPS with precision, so "Well, that isn't gonna cut it. Not even against frigates." is just not true. But if you use this fit against BSs/BCs it will suck big time. Make your choice.


You keep telling me BS don't have to fill every role in EVE, but you never tell me what role the actually do fill is. Right now battleships have one role, killing other battleships. Well that don't work, because there are no battleships to kill, thus there is no need to fly battleships at all. Expanding the battleship's role is the only way to bring it back. It needs a role other that isn't a self defeating, negative feedback loop. Even if battleships could fit to kill ship classes below them, that doesn't give battleships every role. It gives them ONE role, and that's to kill other ships.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2015-12-11 17:17:14 UTC
All of these ideas are terrible.

Battleships are fine, the reason why a lot of people think they are no good is because they don't take the time to learn to use them. For example;



Valacus wrote:



Only interceptors shouldn't be able to tackle with impunity. RLML and RHML weapons are the only option for defending yourself against frigate sized ships, which means there needs to be MORE weapons like them, not less.


I alpha'ed a MWDing bomber using citadel cruise missiles. Close range turret BS will also work on frigates if you fly and fit your battleship so it can do the job.


Valacus wrote:

And just because you can fit medium sized guns or launchers on a battleship doesn't make it viable, because you don't carry over your gun bonuses that cruiser sized ships have, meaning a cruiser has both more alpha and more dps than you. Well, that isn't gonna cut it. Not even against frigates.


One of the most fun ships I have ever flown was an armour buffer, rapid light missile spewing neut raven armed with a whole raft of tackle gear. Chewed up frigates like no tomorrow.


All battleships are viable and there are a lot of options for things to do with them from solo to small gang to fleet engagements. The only problem is frigate and cruiser pilots don't want to take the time and spend the isk learning how to fly battleships