These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

large ships vs smaller ships

Author
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#1 - 2016-01-04 23:32:20 UTC
One thing is baffling me, is that in this game, a battleship can be taken Down by a gang of frigs. Ive even been part of taking Down a battleship With 6 T2 frigs.

Just the huge size of the battleship, would suggest that it should wear a armor that would refuse any frig, destroyer or some crusers, since they couldnt be able to fit large enough guns to even penetrate a battleship. Also, due to the size, Battleship should be able to have, in addition to their large hislots, have a large array of med and small gunslots...

If this was "humans" from Earth that colonized New Eden, they would bring some "history" from Earth, which indicated that battlleship didnt only pack large guns, but a Collection og smaller guns to.

This should also apply to battlecruisers that couldnt be penetrated by frigs or some destroyers (T1)... and cruisers would have better protection against frigs... ect ect


Tho Electronic warfare should all ships be vunerable to...


So... make battleships what they should be... a allround battleship...
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-01-04 23:51:29 UTC
Roll
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2016-01-05 00:07:55 UTC
Oh honey...
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#4 - 2016-01-05 00:11:22 UTC
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.
Bobb Bobbington
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#5 - 2016-01-05 00:21:21 UTC
Yea, and what about "bigger isn't always better?" Don't pull the "that's what everybody says", because they're right. You can't just **** with game balance because it's not "realistic".

This is a signature.

It has a 25m signature.

No it's not a cosmic signature.

Probably.

Btw my corp's recruiting.

Iain Cariaba
#6 - 2016-01-05 00:24:27 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.

Ok, try this:

Even during the height of the Naval Battleship era they understood that ships of that size needed support ships. Today's modern carriers, the ship that ended the age of the battleship, have multiple aircraft types, multiple defensive weapon emplacements, and are always at the middle of thier battle group. So:
Quote:
If this was "humans" from Earth that colonized New Eden, they would bring some "history" from Earth, which indicated that battlleship needs a ******* escort.

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2016-01-05 00:25:21 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.


Please explain why we should return to a game where you win by dropping supers, and can only be fought by a larger number of supers.
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#8 - 2016-01-05 00:33:24 UTC
Bobb Bobbington wrote:
Yea, and what about "bigger isn't always better?" Don't pull the "that's what everybody says", because they're right. You can't just **** with game balance because it's not "realistic".



Well the game Balance aint right when u rarely see any battleships in pvp Battles..... as now, battleships aint much in use in null... sometimes u can see them in low
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#9 - 2016-01-05 00:33:38 UTC
Oh dear lord, another, "BUT REAL LIFE! WORLD WAR II!!!1!" thread.

If you want to go with that model, fine...

So about how many stealth bomber torps to end a battleship under this bold new "Because real life!" game design? One volley?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#10 - 2016-01-05 00:40:22 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.

Ok, try this:

Even during the height of the Naval Battleship era they understood that ships of that size needed support ships. Today's modern carriers, the ship that ended the age of the battleship, have multiple aircraft types, multiple defensive weapon emplacements, and are always at the middle of thier battle group. So:
Quote:
If this was "humans" from Earth that colonized New Eden, they would bring some "history" from Earth, which indicated that battlleship needs a ******* escort.

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?



well.... the battleships.... from ww1 to present time, are fitted to deal With attacks from big and small ships... and from planes. They dont use their main guns to shoot down planes...... and yes, they had and they have, support ships.... But they rarely was sunk by small ships... lets dive into history abit.... in the Lifetime of the MTB's, they have only managed to sink 1 battleship... all nations togheter that had MTB's.

Destroyers, might had a better chance, but when they came to Close, the was at big risk by being hit by both large and small guns on the defending battleship.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#11 - 2016-01-05 00:40:45 UTC
Consider for a moment, that current real-world militaries no longer depend on battleships as the mainstay of their power. After WWI, battleships no longer were the re premier powerhouse of a navy.

Considerably, the American Navy switched focus to carriers using fighter planes and other smaller ships packing high-impact weaponry as their primary anti-ship weapons. Battleships became relegated to escort missions and used as seaborne artillery platforms.

A more recent example, is the Iranian Navy's doctrine of using multiple, smaller attack craft, loaded with torpedoes and bombs in order to combat the larger ships used by the US.

It's fair to say that EVE is much more lenient on BS defenses against smaller craft. Mostly in the form of tank and electronic warfare.
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#12 - 2016-01-05 00:43:16 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.


Please explain why we should return to a game where you win by dropping supers, and can only be fought by a larger number of supers.



Why shouldnt it... as now, most supers and caps are useless, since systems and station can be taken out With frigs... EVE is now, in nullsec a frigate game.... nothing else
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2016-01-05 00:46:47 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.


Please explain why we should return to a game where you win by dropping supers, and can only be fought by a larger number of supers.



Why shouldnt it... as now, most supers and caps are useless, since systems and station can be taken out With frigs... EVE is now, in nullsec a frigate game.... nothing else



Answer the question. Why should we go back to the bad old days of a nullsec with all of two groups in it.
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#14 - 2016-01-05 00:58:37 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.


Please explain why we should return to a game where you win by dropping supers, and can only be fought by a larger number of supers.



Why shouldnt it... as now, most supers and caps are useless, since systems and station can be taken out With frigs... EVE is now, in nullsec a frigate game.... nothing else



Answer the question. Why should we go back to the bad old days of a nullsec with all of two groups in it.


Those days are gone anyways, players from the big assosiations are scatterd around, in New alliances, New corps and the old strings are fading away. And not to forget the decline in playerbase.... null is pretty desolate.... you can fly thru many regions off null in a T1 frig and not be taken by a gatecamp or a bubble.... 2 years ago, all bordergates was guarded... now they owners dont bother, cuz there are no threats... and no inhabitant.

So.... its to late to go back to the old days, even if CCP changed the game back, there aint enogh players to make null alive again.
Sigras
Conglomo
#15 - 2016-01-05 08:34:51 UTC
Here's the problem...

When "Bigger" = "Better" then "Biggest" = "Best"

In a PvP game there should not be a "best" because if there is then everyone just does that and the game stagnates.

I understand that's probably what is best for you, but I would rather have what's best for the game instead of what's best for you.
Goatman NotMyFault
Lubrication Industries
#16 - 2016-01-05 09:15:05 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Here's the problem...

When "Bigger" = "Better" then "Biggest" = "Best"

In a PvP game there should not be a "best" because if there is then everyone just does that and the game stagnates.

I understand that's probably what is best for you, but I would rather have what's best for the game instead of what's best for you.



Refere to sizeable Battles the last year where that is the issue.... where battleship was the major force.... I havent found a big Battle in null which include a majority of battleships.

In a set situsation, following EVE rules of Battle, a little frigate can take Down a battleship, lets say Hyperion, 1,5km long... (With a moron fit and moron player)... its like wrecking a car With a peagun...
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#17 - 2016-01-05 11:08:22 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Here's the problem...

When "Bigger" = "Better" then "Biggest" = "Best"

In a PvP game there should not be a "best" because if there is then everyone just does that and the game stagnates.

I understand that's probably what is best for you, but I would rather have what's best for the game instead of what's best for you.



Refere to sizeable Battles the last year where that is the issue.... where battleship was the major force.... I havent found a big Battle in null which include a majority of battleships.

In a set situsation, following EVE rules of Battle, a little frigate can take Down a battleship, lets say Hyperion, 1,5km long... (With a moron fit and moron player)... its like wrecking a car With a peagun...


If you give me enough time I could take your car to pieces with only a spanner, same thing in eve. In the several minutes it takes your whale-like beast to cry it's last breath you could have got your own backup. You died 6v1, I honestly don't know what you expect? To be a one-man wrecking ball for the low cost of 200m?

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#18 - 2016-01-05 15:36:19 UTC
Extremely vague proposal: Check
Comparing EVE gameplay to real world naval ships: Check
Clueless on game balance: Check
Didnt search for the same topic thats been proposed regularly: Check

Congrats, you failed to use the search feature and have created another "BS should kill everything thread"

As someone who uses BS fairly frequently from a solo perspective, youre wrong. They can be overwhelmed, but thats true of any ship. Id say missile BS are quite viable. Same with drone BS. Its the turret BS that are suffering, minus the vindicator and mach, but thats because they have a way control range/transversal. In terms of fleet fights, you have bombers, akin to submarines/uboats which will devastate a BS fleet. So until more counters are developed, or bombs nerfed, you will likely not see many fleets.

Hears a hint, fit a BS for specific engagements and try to find those engagements as best as you can. Sometimes it means baiting, or purposely being aggressive to get the fight, but ive killed groups of t3ds with a typhoon amd wiped out 7 frigs in a 14man gang with a HAM drake. But its because i fit directly to counter smaller ships and would be at a disadvantage to bigger ships. These are the sacrifices and choices you make when flying bigger ships. Do you want max tank and dps? Ok, you will pay for it in application. Do you want max application and dps, then you sacrifice tank. Etc etc.
SetSail ForEpicFail
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2016-01-05 16:18:45 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
[quote=Bobb Bobbington]rarely see any battleships in pvp Battles.....



machariels and rattlesnakes. just saying
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#20 - 2016-01-05 16:58:39 UTC
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Goatman NotMyFault wrote:
and the brassban of "no it will change my game" is here again :D


Feel free to come With some tought why it is such a bad idea... or good idea for those that really want to insult the forumusers here.

Ok, try this:

Even during the height of the Naval Battleship era they understood that ships of that size needed support ships. Today's modern carriers, the ship that ended the age of the battleship, have multiple aircraft types, multiple defensive weapon emplacements, and are always at the middle of thier battle group. So:
Quote:
If this was "humans" from Earth that colonized New Eden, they would bring some "history" from Earth, which indicated that battlleship needs a ******* escort.

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?



well.... the battleships.... from ww1 to present time, are fitted to deal With attacks from big and small ships... and from planes. They dont use their main guns to shoot down planes...... and yes, they had and they have, support ships.... But they rarely was sunk by small ships... lets dive into history abit.... in the Lifetime of the MTB's, they have only managed to sink 1 battleship... all nations togheter that had MTB's.

Destroyers, might had a better chance, but when they came to Close, the was at big risk by being hit by both large and small guns on the defending battleship.


You can't compare EVE battleships to real world WW2 battleships. There is no comparison.

Also, I don't know what history you are reading, but battleships were sunk and destroyed on several occasions in WW2. Sunken BS that come to mind: Bismarck, Tirpitz, Arizona, Oklahoma, Prince of Wales, & Yamato.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_battleships

Real world Battleships were rendered obsolete with the advances in Carrier design and missile technology.
123Next page