These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What sov could have been (battleship buff idea)

Author
Worthy Angel
Lilith LLC
#1 - 2016-08-22 19:20:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Worthy Angel
I know that the current sov system was set up in order to give the "little guy" a chance to own sov instead of just alliances with capitals, but as some have noted, it doesn't always produce enormous, exciting fights like the old sov system did. If we were still in the old sov system with structure grinding, what if the fix had simply been a battleship buff instead?

To me, the major distinction between a group that owns a system or two and one that owns an entire region of space is mobility. The more space you own, you either need:

a) More troops to defend that space.
b) More mobility to rapidly move the troops you do have to the fight.

Capital ships fit this second criteria, allowing groups which own large sectors of space to easily defend it all. However, if you only control a small area of space, that mobility goes somewhat to waste. This is where I think battleships could have filled the void that the new sov system attempted to solve.

To me, this would have looked like a buff to battleship damage, with a corresponding nerf to application. This would have helped fix the old sov system in two ways. First, battleships become the premier sub-capital structure grinders for those who can't afford dreads. Second, they would be the subcapital answer to capital ships, making dropping a large group of capitals onto a fleet of battleships not necessarily a good economic choice. Specifically, with insurance, a fleet of T1 battleships outfit with T2 and/or meta gear would have been very affordable for even a small organization, but would have been able to bring tremendous firepower to defending small areas of space, especially against capital ships. I emphasize small, since their lack of mobility would make them suboptimal for defending large areas of space, which would require the mobility of capital ships.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that battleships should be as good as dreads. I would see the comparison as follows:

Dread:
-Significantly more expensive.
-Significantly higher DPS and range (w/ siege).
-More mobile (via jump drive).
-Worse against subcapitals.

Battleship:
-Fairly cheap with insurance.
-Lower DPS and range.
-Less mobile.
-Better against subcapitals.

This being said, I would expect battleships to be significantly more cost efficient than dreads, such that a handful of pilots in battleships could do the DPS of a dread and have the equivalent HP of a dread, for 1/5 of the cost and much less SP required, but you would need 5 pilots instead of just 1.

EDIT: Removed EHP buff suggestion. I don't want to turn battleships into mini-dreads.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#2 - 2016-08-22 20:20:40 UTC
Worthy Angel wrote:
Dread:
-Significantly more expensive.
-Significantly higher DPS and range (w/ siege).
-More mobile (via jump drive).
-Worse against subcapitals.

Battleship:
-Fairly cheap with insurance.
-Lower DPS and range.
-Less mobile.
-Better against subcapitals.


What part of this is untrue today?
Worthy Angel
Lilith LLC
#3 - 2016-08-22 20:58:16 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Worthy Angel wrote:
Dread:
-Significantly more expensive.
-Significantly higher DPS and range (w/ siege).
-More mobile (via jump drive).
-Worse against subcapitals.

Battleship:
-Fairly cheap with insurance.
-Lower DPS and range.
-Less mobile.
-Better against subcapitals.


What part of this is untrue today?

Nothing, the only difference would be that battleships would have higher dps against bigger things and the same dps against everything else. The idea was to convey that this balance would remain true.
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#4 - 2016-08-22 21:01:23 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:


What part of this is untrue today?



from the EHP boost buried in the post they seem to be asking for a half assed baby dread. Half assed as they just want EHP....and not the usual uber weapon option I have seen in somewhat related threads before as well lol.


Thing is as I recall EHP buffs something ships and BS had in the past and were problematic. In that it made the grindy as hell to kill stuff. So CCP cut back some EHP way back and again over time later on .
Worthy Angel
Lilith LLC
#5 - 2016-08-22 21:08:34 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Zhilia Mann wrote:


What part of this is untrue today?



from the EHP boost buried in the post they seem to be asking for a half assed baby dread. Half assed as they just want EHP....and not the usual uber weapon option I have seen in somewhat related threads before as well lol.


Thing is as I recall EHP buffs something ships and BS had in the past and were problematic. In that it made the grindy as hell to kill stuff. So CCP cut back some EHP way back and again over time later on .

The focus of the post is supposed to be the dps increase, not the EHP buff, which isn't nearly as necessary except to combat bomber fleets.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2016-08-22 21:27:22 UTC
So how much EHP do you want your 2000 DPS battleships to have?

And what is the counter to them if you want them to ignore bombs? HAW dreads? Fighters?
Worthy Angel
Lilith LLC
#7 - 2016-08-22 21:28:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Worthy Angel
Danika Princip wrote:
So how much EHP do you want your 2000 DPS battleships to have?

And what is the counter to them if you want them to ignore bombs? HAW dreads? Fighters?

Reread my post, I had removed the EHP buff from the suggestion prior to your post.

Also, they would really only have 2000 DPS against structures and capital ships. DPS wouldn't change against everything else.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2016-08-22 21:33:06 UTC
...How do you see that working then?

And Why?
Worthy Angel
Lilith LLC
#9 - 2016-08-22 21:39:44 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
...How do you see that working then?

And Why?

The whole point would be, under the old sov system, it would have given small groups that only wanted to hold a handful of systems an effective and cheap-ish way to defend their space without using capital ships, by giving them a way to defend against capital ships without having their own. It would have worked by reducing the cost-benefit of bringing capitals in to fight a large group of battleships, since the capital group would lose more isk than the battleship group, ideally speaking. Might not make a difference to corporations with unlimited funds, but it would have been a start.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2016-08-22 21:55:24 UTC
The old system is dead and gone. Fozziesove is a new kind of awful, but it's what we have.

2000 DPS BS wouldn't have saved dominion sov, tracking dreads/titans and fighters would still have annihilated them, and the big two at the end of that system had unlimited funds.

They also had the subcap power to smash a battleship gang even if they didn't feel like bringing the capitals out for once.

Welpfleets were already a cheap way to take on caps with subs, but tbh, if you couldn't stump up for a couple of caps yourself, you probably couldn't even afford ihubs, let alone a battleship gang.

And if you can afford a large battleship gang, you can afford a capital gang. You do realise literally anyone can build capital ships in lowsec stations in complete safety, right?

How would your 2000 DPS battleships not work against other subcaps anyway? Would you give them unsieged dread application, thus making them nothing but 200mil isk pos bashers when 60mil of bombers would do the job better?
Worthy Angel
Lilith LLC
#11 - 2016-08-22 22:04:17 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
The old system is dead and gone. Fozziesove is a new kind of awful, but it's what we have.

2000 DPS BS wouldn't have saved dominion sov, tracking dreads/titans and fighters would still have annihilated them, and the big two at the end of that system had unlimited funds.

They also had the subcap power to smash a battleship gang even if they didn't feel like bringing the capitals out for once.

Welpfleets were already a cheap way to take on caps with subs, but tbh, if you couldn't stump up for a couple of caps yourself, you probably couldn't even afford ihubs, let alone a battleship gang.

And if you can afford a large battleship gang, you can afford a capital gang. You do realise literally anyone can build capital ships in lowsec stations in complete safety, right?

How would your 2000 DPS battleships not work against other subcaps anyway? Would you give them unsieged dread application, thus making them nothing but 200mil isk pos bashers when 60mil of bombers would do the job better?

Simple compensate the boosted damage with worse application, so you do about the same equivalent DPS against subcaps, but more against capitals and structures. It's a pretty simple concept...
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2016-08-22 22:09:45 UTC
...So you want them to be expensive pos bash ships and little else then?

Or would they just require a huginn to apply their 2000 DPS to cruisers?


Either you nerf them to the point of being literally useless against anything that isn't a pos/capital, and therefore just flat out delete ratting/mission/incursion BS, or you just bring along one or two support ships and all of a sudden you have a huge pile of dps that applies just fine.

But this is all theorycrafting over a suggestion that wouldn't work to save a sov system that has already been removed and simply isn't coming back.(And they're still worse at structure grinding than an equivilent isk outlay in stealth bombers, the real poor man's structure grinding tool.)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2016-08-23 00:04:57 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
...So you want them to be expensive pos bash ships and little else then?

Or would they just require a huginn to apply their 2000 DPS to cruisers?


Either you nerf them to the point of being literally useless against anything that isn't a pos/capital, and therefore just flat out delete ratting/mission/incursion BS, or you just bring along one or two support ships and all of a sudden you have a huge pile of dps that applies just fine.

But this is all theorycrafting over a suggestion that wouldn't work to save a sov system that has already been removed and simply isn't coming back.(And they're still worse at structure grinding than an equivilent isk outlay in stealth bombers, the real poor man's structure grinding tool.)

Or you just leave the battleship and two support at home and you bring 3 cruisers that'll not only apply more dps but will be able to hit stuff that comes to attack them and won't be a big floating pinata.

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..... :)

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#14 - 2016-08-23 21:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Or you just leave the battleship and two support at home and you bring 3 cruisers that'll not only apply more dps but will be able to hit stuff that comes to attack them and won't be a big floating pinata.



This wouldn't fix that. it make it worse. As even for PvE t3 would edge out BS. Even pve tengu is just decent in this realm. Many BS options exist that are better. Even quick and sleezy BS ratter kills could hit a slump on roams.


Since I am not sure how OP plans to make a bS that shoots structure as well as ships. CCP resolved this question with dreads. XL weapons and ammo stat control.

CCP can't tweak the BS weapons/ammo to kill BS, caps and structure well that I can see and not be imba.

Guns don't even factor in sig even for damage beyond tracking calculations.

And no fair or clear way to apply to missiles. ccp has even had issues finding a happy medium with phoenix even. And phoenix is in theory only supposed to shoot caps and structure. At worst of times....take cap, not be in special mode and move around and voila....half ass speed tank the phoenix lol.

Raven/scorpion shooting BS, caps, and structure well? balance nightmare really.

Missiles (and guns) would be almost a gun/ammo based change the only way to do this. For the people leery of the dreaded t3...this could be something else even worse. It be uber ABC and stealth bombers (if ammo/launcher based....they'd get the same torp setup as raven) the new, well renewed, hate. Both got their hate in the past, some new BS class weapons changes...potentials for new and exciting cheap fun abound really.

Either event....the BS op is trying to save would be probably be worse off really.
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2016-08-24 21:09:03 UTC
T3 bs with capital guns then hello high sec grind and gank!

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016

Starrakatt
Celtic Anarchy
Dead Terrorists
#16 - 2016-08-24 22:07:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Starrakatt
Or just make up a new BS class that can fit XL weaponry, like the ABC.

These Battleship would not be much more than (VERY) expensive gun platforms for structure bash and Capital ganks.

Also solves the problem of dealing with Hisec structures.
Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote:
T3 bs with capital guns then hello high sec grind and gank!

-10 gankers, chased by the faction police and every loot hungry players in system, in Battleships, with 45m guns apiece?

Yes, YES, bring them. Big smile
Lugh Crow-Slave
#17 - 2016-08-25 02:34:18 UTC
Completely remove SOV

system upgrades are based on structures in them and nothing else