EVE General Discussion

Apparently there is a maximum quote limit of 5. After the first quote, then, I have put your comments in italics.


I don't know anything about that fight, but I would point out that Svipuls are acknowledged by CCP to be overpowered and not working as intended. Nerfs are incoming. I'm fairly certain that your example says more about Svipuls than it does about battleships.


Lets look at your post a bit -

Battleships are not particularly intended to be solo - true or false? False initially, true after about 2004 or 2005.

This is an odd comment. I used the present tense. You acknowledge the current correctness of my point. Therefore it is true. None of this 'false initially' stuff.


What we're missing here though is a bit of perspective. Interceptors were never intended to be used solo. Nor were recons. Nor were dreadnaughts or carriers. You could say that none of the ships post 2004-5 were intended to be used solo but almost all are or can be except the battleship which will die extremely quickly due to its terrible mobility and inability to disengage (apart from ships like the Mach and to a lesser extent Typhoon and Tempest).

Even if what you say is true, all you have done is establish that the battleship is different from those other ship classes you mention. Which is entirely consistent with what I said in my earlier post. I get the impression that you are replying to the post you think I made, rather than the one you actually quoted.


In terms of your example you suggest to defeat a single frigate in a battleship due to it outrunning your tracking and unbonused drones you need to have an extra battleship... I think I'll leave that one right there as a great example of how terrible battleships are then.

Again, you seem to be responding to something other than what I posted. I did not say that a single frigate would 'defeat' a battleship - assuming any kind of active tank or passive regeneration, the frigate is unlikely to apply enough dps to destroy the battleship. And battleships have a variety of tools that they can use to destroy said frigate, assuming they have been fit to do so.

All I did was point out that a particular difficulty - being unable to bring your main armament to bear on a frigate in a close orbit - went away when you had more than one battleship. Which was the whole thrust of my argument; that battleships 'scale up' very well for fleet actions.


Battleships are not area of denial ships. Ships that are mobile, apply dps quickly and which are difficult to catch are area of denial ships. A Svipul fleet, a hurricane fleet, a cerb fleet are much more effective area of denial ships than a battleship, especially now in the Fozziesov era.

I've already made a point about the Svipul. I won't pretend to be experts on those kinds of fleets - possibly you are correct. But it does seem an unlikely claim. Can you support this with evidence? Can you link to any recent fleet actions in defense of a fixed point where a gang of Cerebi or Hurricanes defeated a similar sized fleet of battleships?


In short battleships don't have a role that cannot be performed by another ship as well or better.

I don't think you've actually supported this point.


There are a few battleships that can also perform well however that's not because of a particular battleship ability its because they have certain non-battleship abilties (speed, nuets, drones bonuses, utility highs not being required for battleship sized weaponry).

I think that you are confusing 'not all battleships are equally good' (which is true of any class of ship), and 'battleships have no role'.


In short the main reason you will find battleships in fleets is because of 1) t1 newb friendly and insurance 2) some faction ships like Machs don't suffer as badly from being a battleship because they have bonuses.

Your point about insurance is very interesting. From a resource management point of view, it certainly makes sense to bring a T1 battleship over a T2 cruiser, all other things being equal.


Frankly as things stand, a carrier with a networked sensor array or a HAW Dread are better battleships than battleships are. They can kill subcaps much better than battleships can in most cases. The last time I orbited a battleship with an AB Arazu at 30km it couldn't hit me. The last time I orbited a dread at 30km in an AB Lachesis it killed me in 2 volleys. Enuff said.

I don't think that anyone is going to disagree that capital ships are not stronger than battleships (or any sub capital, really). In fact, I went so far as to mention capital ships in the post you quoted. That is not the same as saying that battleships do not have a role in subcapital warfare. My understanding, from the battle reports that I read, and the doctrines that I have flown, is that they are used fairly heavily.

The 4 T3C invalidate way more than battleships. I think at the last count some 60+ ships were either invalidated or matched by T3C.

We are talking of a cruiser that gets more EHP than a battleship, a sig half the size, 3x faster, better tracking and more firepower all while being cap stable.

That is in no way balanced. Never mind battleships, how are AHACs supposed to compete with that?

I feel like battleships only need 3 things to be relevant in fleets again.
1. 10-15% more EHP
2. 10-15% more cap
3. (and this a long stretch) ability to use 10 drone to make them more effective at protecting them selfs from smaller ships.

Battleships should be a sub-cap fleet centerpiece. The issue now is mainly there lack of tank against smaller ships combined with relative inflexibility when it comes to using modules (as pointed out they cant use capital modules).
Hell, even if you just up them to 4 rigging slots and 500 adjustment it would go a long way to give them more flexibility.

Yeah give the Machariel 10-15% more EHP.

Very interesing discussion game wise and game development wise. And good and valid points made by the OP.

As I begun EVE I soon notices that a "battleship" in EVE is no battleship.

EVE ships evolve mostly around WWI naval warfare.

A dreadnought is a battleship with a armament of one large calibre. This was an fail idea of the British Navy. A battleship carries an mix a calibers in differnet batteries.

An aicraft carrier is a refit battleship, battlecruiser or even tanker hull with the ability to launch aircraft, an idea of the US Navy that was very successful in the pacific - due to better climate and seas than in the north atlantic.

So technically all cap - capital ships, are battleship or biuld on battleship hulls.

In EVE - a game I really love - a battleship is a heavy cruiser or armourd cruiser.

Today battleships and aircraf carriers are obsolete wepons of WW2.

In EVE battleships are in a bad place - not obesolte weapons, but weapons system in a dire need of role definition.

It is useless to copy WWI naval warfare too much.

EVE developers have started balancing EVE top down - good to see on the new cap meta modules that all have BPOs.

So the EVE battleship will get high angle weapons (HAW).

With HAWs an EVE battleship would be in a place where the heavy or armoured cruiser belongs.

So simply wait a bit.

07

T3C`s are in a very strong position which suits destroyers fine.

CCP is giving the two most owerpowered T3Cs a balance pass. I appreciate that. But destroyers are rightfully the bane of capital craft.

In real life torpedo boat destroyers had the exact role they may just soon recieve with D.I.C.K.S`s,. destroy vessels with high explosive weapons attacks (torpedo boats).

Technically a "covert ops" bomber is an destroyer too - you can call it a submarine but that really does not fit well. There are no real "sub" ships in EVE. A cloak is more of a smoke screen.

That would be a good way to balance cloaks btw - give them an proximity warning - but that is not the thread here.

If CCP desires to stay on the WWI naval topic large guns would need a kind of splash damage.

We all know that that will not work due to the powers of concord.

A possibility for large guns or missiles would be a new ammo type that would have the effect of a target painter - ergo more dps applied to small targets.

07

Oh... you're one of 'those people.' People who think their ignorance is as good as everyone else's knowledge.

Totally agree.



Mostly....... Agree

I see your point, i rather avoid increasing DPS as that will result in OP Battleships. I was mainly just thinking Battleships just need more flexability and greater tank, there DPS can be enhanced by target painters and other modules designed to slow/stop smaller ships. its just a matter of flexability of the BS or the fleet its with.

Fortunately, having no experience with informed opinions, what you think doesn't matter.