These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Solo PVP among larger class ships?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#201 - 2014-03-19 18:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Prince Kobol wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
So .. uhm.. I've never flown a battleship, as I don't have the skills yet.
But this all sounds as if battleships are not meant for soloplay but more for fleets with other ships providing what they can't do themselves, so they can do what other ships cannot do as well.

Is that so wrong?

Edit: I should have said "are not meant to be as good in solo play". I suppose you can still get your fights if you use them with baiting tactics, maybe?

Its not a case of they're not meant for solo play. Its a case of buffs to smaller ships and nerfs to the battleship have made it pointless to use outside of the huge fleet fights which happen rarely and PVE.

Battleships initially were quite good solo, 2003 - 2007 but since then they've all but disappeared from null and low sec for daily PvP purposes.

I have been to every area of null and currently I'm in Stain and other than myself in my Typhoon, and a few PvE ratting BS I have seen one PvP battleship since I've been down there.

IMO they should be difficult to use but they should not be totally nerfed from the PvP game other than for large Goon fleet fights. Its a waste of a ship that is famous for being a heavyweight fighter and I think a lot of people would get a lot of pleasure from using them if they were viable in PvP.



Yes because Black Ops battleships are totally worthless and are never flown in null or low sec and when they are they only ever flown in blobs of 100 or more Roll



Well let's be honest here. I hear the term "blops drop" often but never heard of a solo blops.






Hehe, yup but you will find that it is usually a small number and not 100's like Infinity is trying to make out.

I'm not talking about Black Ops or Marauders. Black Ops don't have the locking issue because they're almost always cyno'ed in by a T3 tackler. They also don't have the mobility issue since they're almost always cyno'ed in by a T3 tackler....

Its not rocket science ffs :)

Edit: oh and if its not a T3, its a tanked recon (put that in before I get accused of lying by Kalrus)

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..... :)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#202 - 2014-03-19 18:10:24 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
IMO they should be difficult to use but they should not be totally nerfed from the PvP game other than for large Goon fleet fights. Its a waste of a ship that is famous for being a heavyweight fighter and I think a lot of people would get a lot of pleasure from using them if they were viable in PvP.

I couldn't agree more. As has been previously discussed:
• Give them all a base warp core strength such that they're not at risk of tackle from a single ship, ie: +2-3
• Increase their warp speed (but not warp acceleration speed) to that of a cruiser, ie: 3.0 AU/s
• Increase both their sensor strength (higher EW immunity) and scan resolution

Sounds good. I have no idea why there is so much resistance to it lol.


Because Battleships were changed for a reason (lol, just like Timers and everything else you think should be changed because you do't personally like it), to kill of the pre-2007 "solopwnmobiles". That's where the term solopwnmobile comes from IMO.

Battleships are perfect for their roles (Core Fleet Combat ships0 without overstepping the roles of smaller ships. As it should be, as CCP made it in 2007 after years of "make it to where you can fly and afford a BS, forget everything else..

The resistance to what you want comes from people not being short sighted and selfish about the needs of the game. Making Battleships in any way better for "solo" work (thus encroaching on smaller ships roles) is bad for the game. Any change to battleship class ships should be aimed at making them better Fleet ships. Period.

The only thing a Battleship should be able to solo is a single other player battleship....or a lvl 4 mission.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#203 - 2014-03-19 18:20:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
IMO they should be difficult to use but they should not be totally nerfed from the PvP game other than for large Goon fleet fights. Its a waste of a ship that is famous for being a heavyweight fighter and I think a lot of people would get a lot of pleasure from using them if they were viable in PvP.

I couldn't agree more. As has been previously discussed:
• Give them all a base warp core strength such that they're not at risk of tackle from a single ship, ie: +2-3
• Increase their warp speed (but not warp acceleration speed) to that of a cruiser, ie: 3.0 AU/s
• Increase both their sensor strength (higher EW immunity) and scan resolution

Sounds good. I have no idea why there is so much resistance to it lol.


Because Battleships were changed for a reason (lol, just like Timers and everything else you think should be changed because you do't personally like it), to kill of the pre-2007 "solopwnmobiles". That's where the term solopwnmobile comes from IMO.

Battleships are perfect for their roles (Core Fleet Combat ships0 without overstepping the roles of smaller ships. As it should be, as CCP made it in 2007 after years of "make it to where you can fly and afford a BS, forget everything else..

The resistance to what you want comes from people not being short sighted and selfish about the needs of the game. Making Battleships in any way better for "solo" work (thus encroaching on smaller ships roles) is bad for the game. Any change to battleship class ships should be aimed at making them better Fleet ships. Period.

The only thing a Battleship should be able to solo is a single other player battleship....or a lvl 4 mission.

Rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please link the patch notes or dev blog where it says these things.... you can't because they don't exist. Battleships have never been solopwnmobiles.

If what you are saying was even remotely true then Blops and Marauders would never have been introduced. Especially the Marauder which gets a 30k dps T2 tank, a 60k dps Deadspace tank, and a 100k dps officer tank with EW immunity and range bonuses to weapons.

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..... :)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#204 - 2014-03-19 18:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please link the patch notes or dev blog where it says these things.... you can't because they don't exist.


Nor do they need to. It's common sense and can be seen in CCPs design choices (same with carriers when Fighters were changed in 2009).

That's always been your problem. You want something to be a certain way (local, cloaks, timers, Battleships , whatever other personal preference) and ignore every reason why it should not be that way. You can't separate your personal wants from the realities of the situation, leading you constantly to argue with people about why things exist the way they do. Baltec (for example) is also a Battleship PVPr and don't seem to have the same problems you seem to with how battleships are.

You want Battleships to be better at soloing because you like to solo and want to do so in battleships. While you are entitled to want whatever you want, his is not a valid reason for change. Wiser people understand that the current battleship class meta is fine and appropriate for a game with multiple ship classes (the developers want to minimize overlap also).

You can keep whining about it (and everything else you cry about constantly, you really should have kept that 2009 promise to biomass), but the truth is that your problem is simply your selfish and narrow perceptions, not any problem with the game or it's balance/mechanics.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2014-03-19 18:40:16 UTC
i'm having trouble flying my augoror solo, it should be buffed so i can solo in it
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2014-03-19 18:54:07 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please link the patch notes or dev blog where it says these things.... you can't because they don't exist.


Nor do they need to. It's common sense and can be seen in CCPs design choices (same with carriers when Fighters were changed in 2009).

That's always been you problem. You want something to be a certain way (local, cloaks, timers, Battleships , whatever other personal preference) and ignore every reason why it should not be that way. you can separate your personal wants from the realities of the situation, leading you constantly to argue with people about why things exist the way they do. Baltec (for example) is also a Battleship PVPr and don't seem to have the same problems you seem to with how battleships are.

You want Battleships to be better at soloing because you like to solo and want to do so in battleships. While you are entitled to want whatever you want, his is not a valid reason for change. Wiser people understand that the current battleship class meta is fine and appropriate for a game with multiple ship classes (the developers want to minimize overlap also).

You can keep whining about it (and everything else you cry about constantly, you really should have kept that 2009 promise to biomass), but the truth is that your problem is simply your selfish and narrow perceptions, not any problem with the game or it's balance/mechanics.

More nonesense. I interpret "It's common sense and can be seen in CCPs design choices" as "I have no evidence or anything to support my statement of fact".

The rest of your post is just more personal attacks and more rubbish. Next.

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..... :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#207 - 2014-03-19 19:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Whether a ship is called a Battleship or a Proteus, or a Marauder or even an Ibis, its the capability of the ship that is important, not its name. To surmise that the name Battleship implies a certain solopwnmobile ability is really quite silly. Blops and Marauders are T2 equivalents of battleships and they're arguably very overpowered in what they're capable of.

Likewise the Proteus is capable of putting out 700dps covert ops cloaked, has a battleship tank, cruiser sig and speed.

A Stratios can manage 900 dps and its a cruiser.

As you saw in the vid if you watched it a Marauder can take on tens of ships solo and win.

The dev's stopped caring about solopwnmobiles years ago. What I think I and many other people want is not a solopwnmobile battleship but a battleship that can force an engagement, that doesn't have to only engage in consensual pvp. If we wanted consensual pvp we would play alliance wars and all turn up at the allotted hour in our alliance leader approved ships.

Increasing lock times to a level that is still below battlecruisers but allows a battleship to force an engagement would hardly result in a solopwnmobile.

Increasing warp speeds so that battleships could keep up with a gang would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Adding +1 warp core strength would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Implying that those changes would result in solopwnmobiles simply exposes you as a troll, and a poor one at that.

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..... :)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#208 - 2014-03-19 19:15:42 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

More nonesense. I interpret "It's common sense and can be seen in CCPs design choices" as "I have no evidence or anything to support my statement of fact".

The rest of your post is just more personal attacks and more rubbish. Next.


This is the traditional Iz cop out and it's pitiful. How about you link some evidence that we can talk about?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#209 - 2014-03-19 19:15:42 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:


Increasing lock times to a level that is still below battlecruisers but allows a battleship to force an engagement would hardly result in a solopwnmobile.

Increasing warp speeds so that battleships could keep up with a gang would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Adding +1 warp core strength would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Implying that those changes would result in solopwnmobiles simply exposes you as a troll, and a poor one at that.


Battleships are not ment to be able to used as heavy tackle ships which is what they would be used for if they can lock cruisers in the times you want. There are other ships whose job that is.

I can already get a battleship to warp as fast as assualt frigates, make them faster and it will be even easier to out warp the other ships. This means you can land battleship fleets in the same time as cruisers and not sacrifice very much if anything.

Adding a +1 to battleships would play all kinds of hell on the big fleets, they can already avoid long points as it is by fitting a mod in a valuable mid.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#210 - 2014-03-19 19:24:43 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Whether a ship is called a Battleship or a Proteus, or a Marauder or even an Ibis, its the capability of the ship that is important, not its name. To surmise that the name Battleship implies a certain solopwnmobile ability is really quite silly. Blops and Marauders are T2 equivalents of battleships and they're arguably very overpowered in what they're capable of.

Likewise the Proteus is capable of putting out 700dps covert ops cloaked, has a battleship tank, cruiser sig and speed.

A Stratios can manage 900 dps and its a cruiser.

As you saw in the vid if you watched it a Marauder can take on tens of ships solo and win.

The dev's stopped caring about solopwnmobiles years ago. What I think I and many other people want is not a solopwnmobile battleship but a battleship that can force an engagement, that doesn't have to only engage in consensual pvp. If we wanted consensual pvp we would play alliance wars and all turn up at the allotted hour in our alliance leader approved ships.

Increasing lock times to a level that is still below battlecruisers but allows a battleship to force an engagement would hardly result in a solopwnmobile.

Increasing warp speeds so that battleships could keep up with a gang would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Adding +1 warp core strength would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Implying that those changes would result in solopwnmobiles simply exposes you as a troll, and a poor one at that.


This is an example of a person not understanding that their idea could be wrong. It's magnified by the fact that the poster doesn't understand that what he wants would actually be bad for the game in general (mainly because it would allow one class of ship to encroach on the teritory of multiple other classes).

There is just no reason for it other than "Infinity ziona wants to be better able to solo in a battleship". it adds nothing to the game while taking away from it .

The an example would be "why would I fly this Brutix when I can just slap a sebo on a mega and lock faster, warp almost as fast AND have more EHP, range and DPS". Because that's what would happen if Infinity Zinoa was a short-sighted Developer instead of just a short sighted forum poster lol.

You can think "trolling" all you like, mainly because that's the fall back of every poster who has a bad idea about something and would rather accuse someone of trolling rather than do any bit of self-examination.
But I'm telling you the truth, what you want for battleships (and basically every other selfish thing you want ) would be bad for the game. Smart people do not and will not support it and I don't think for one second that CCP would be foolish enough to ever implement any of it.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#211 - 2014-03-19 19:33:14 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


I can already get a battleship to warp as fast as assualt frigates, make them faster and it will be even easier to out warp the other ships. This means you can land battleship fleets in the same time as cruisers and not sacrifice very much if anything.


This is a very important point. The problem with many Solo pvp posters is that their perspective is so narrow they don't understand (or care about) what the changes they want would do to other aspects of the game/meta.

Battleship class ships (with the possible exception of Marauders) are balanced by CCP with fleet warfare in mind, because they are fleet ships. Changes that would make them viable for Solo/small gang fights would make them overpowered (comepared to small ship fleet compositions) in fleet fights. Why use AHACs (I miss ahac fleets btw) when you could not make an "AbaddonHAC" fleet comp of resist bonused insurable ships that warps almost as fast, has more EHP, range and DPS ect ect?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#212 - 2014-03-19 19:35:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:


Increasing lock times to a level that is still below battlecruisers but allows a battleship to force an engagement would hardly result in a solopwnmobile.

Increasing warp speeds so that battleships could keep up with a gang would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Adding +1 warp core strength would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Implying that those changes would result in solopwnmobiles simply exposes you as a troll, and a poor one at that.


Battleships are not ment to be able to used as heavy tackle ships which is what they would be used for if they can lock cruisers in the times you want. There are other ships whose job that is.

I can already get a battleship to warp as fast as assualt frigates, make them faster and it will be even easier to out warp the other ships. This means you can land battleship fleets in the same time as cruisers and not sacrifice very much if anything.

Adding a +1 to battleships would play all kinds of hell on the big fleets, they can already avoid long points as it is by fitting a mod in a valuable mid.

lmao. Yeah because currently BC are used as heavy tackle ships right. You know the last time a command ship tried to tackle me for its gang was... never.... Complete nonsense. We already have heavy tackle and they're HIC's, they lock a hell of a lot faster than a BC and they're better tanks.

You cannot get a BS to warp as fast as an assault frigate. Base speed of a battleship is 2au. Base speed of an assault frigate is 5.5. With implants and rigs base speed of a battleship is 5au while the frig is 13au.

I don't care about big fleets. If you're in a big fleet and you're incapable of tackling a battleship you have more to worry about than an extra +1 warp str.

Edit: oh yeah and getting the BS to warp to 5au will set you back a good couple of billion isk in implants and rigs as well as nerfing the tank.

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..... :)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#213 - 2014-03-19 19:39:32 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:


You cannot get a BS to warp as fast as an assault frigate. Base speed of a battleship is 2au. Base speed of an assault frigate is 5.5. With implants and rigs base speed of a battleship is 5au while the frig is 13au.


LOL, so busy EFT warrioring he doesn't understand that Baltec was talking about getting a BS close to stock AF warp speed, not "13au" lol

Quote:

I don't care about big fleets.


Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about. A narrow and selfish perspective, one I'm glad this games makers don't share. You want only what you want and screw who it negatively affects.

This is why your ideas always get invalidated when examined by your gaming peers (us). You are you own worst enemy.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#214 - 2014-03-19 19:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Infinity Ziona wrote:

lmao. Yeah because currently BC are used as heavy tackle ships right. You know the last time a command ship tried to tackle me for its gang was... never.... Complete nonsense. We already have heavy tackle and they're HIC's, they lock a hell of a lot faster than a BC and they're better tanks.



The HIC is what I was getting on about. In order to catch cruisers before they can warp most of the time you need cruiser locking speeds, this puts BS in the same grouping as the ships built for heavy tackle.
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You cannot get a BS to warp as fast as an assault frigate. Base speed of a battleship is 2au. Base speed of an assault frigate is 5.5. With implants and rigs base speed of a battleship is 5au while the frig is 13au.


My Harpy fit mega warps slightly faster than the rest of the frigate fleet, No current fleets used by anyone make use of warp speed implants or rigs, with your idea you could get BS to warp as fast as cruisers rather easily and it would be used. Cruiser fleets cant afford to lose a rig as it eats too much into their tank.
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I don't care about big fleets. If you're in a big fleet and you're incapable of tackling a battleship you have more to worry about than an extra +1 warp str.

It doesn't matter if you don't care about fleets, This would impact the hundred thousand others who would care about big fleets. This is a fine example of what Jenn just said about you only wanting what is best for you.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#215 - 2014-03-19 19:46:48 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

This is an example of a person not understanding that their idea could be wrong. It's magnified by the fact that the poster doesn't understand that what he wants would actually be bad for the game in general (mainly because it would allow one class of ship to encroach on the teritory of multiple other classes).



Well, keeping on the topic here, how we equip our ships has more to do with "encroaching" on the role of the hull. Like I previously stated, the only real roles to be expected of the ships is in regards to empire-oriented fleet doctrines which are completely blown apart when a capsuleer pilots it. Take any hull and you'll see all kinds of "versions" for it created by the players. When wormholes were introduced the sleepers represented new challenges and in a year there were common wormhole fittings. When Incursion came, many a mission ship was lost that day but in a year specific incursion fittings evolved. Every hull has a PVP and PVe fit.

Does anybody complain when a T1 frigate with no scram bonus is set up for cheap tackle? Drakes: HM drakes tend to be found in missions and HML drakes were, before the nerf, good for the gank. A missile ship with shield bonus can... speed tank?

Does anybody complain when you find a solo corax on a nullsec gate? Dessies are almost cardboard.

What about stealth bombers? Hard to get a solo kill with one - they were designed to be used in groups (considering how bombs resist their own damage types - further implying that you have to use identical hulls of bombers in your bomber groups!) yet there are a lot of solo hunters out there. Are they encroaching?

I used to use a Cyclone for nullsec exploration and got into situations where nobody would expect to survive, and survived (though not always with loot).

To make matters more confused, we can rig our ships, further pushing them towards "encroachment".



Jenn aSide wrote:

The an example would be "why would I fly this Brutix when I can just slap a sebo on a mega and lock faster, warp almost as fast AND have more EHP, range and DPS". Because that's what would happen if Infinity Zinoa was a short-sighted Developer instead of just a short sighted forum poster lol.




Why would you fly the Brutix? Maybe because it's cheaper. Maybe you don't have or were not skilled to take advantage of a BS drone capability. Maybe you want to do more hit and run. I can think of many reasons.


But in the spectrum of reasons for ship choices, and the point of this thread, solo PVP is one of the activities where it's being pointed out that battleships are having the hardest time "encroaching' on.


If I recall properly, it was speed-tanking missile ships - drakes for example - that were being granted the title of "solopwnmobile".

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#216 - 2014-03-19 20:03:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

lmao. Yeah because currently BC are used as heavy tackle ships right. You know the last time a command ship tried to tackle me for its gang was... never.... Complete nonsense. We already have heavy tackle and they're HIC's, they lock a hell of a lot faster than a BC and they're better tanks.



The HIC is what I was getting on about. In order to catch cruisers before they can warp most of the time you need cruiser locking speeds, this puts BS in the same grouping as the ships built for heavy tackle.
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You cannot get a BS to warp as fast as an assault frigate. Base speed of a battleship is 2au. Base speed of an assault frigate is 5.5. With implants and rigs base speed of a battleship is 5au while the frig is 13au.


My Harpy fit mega warps slightly faster than the rest of the frigate fleet, No current fleets used by anyone make use of warp speed implants or rigs, with your idea you could get BS to warp as fast as cruisers rather easily and it would be used. Cruiser fleets cant afford to lose a rig as it eats too much into their tank.
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I don't care about big fleets. If you're in a big fleet and you're incapable of tackling a battleship you have more to worry about than an extra +1 warp str.

It doesn't matter if you don't care about fleets, This would impact the hundred thousand others who would care about big fleets. This is a fine example of what Jenn just said about you only wanting what is best for you.

You're not making sense Baltec.

Even if batleships were given 200mm, which is 50mm less than a BC they still would not be used for tackling anything other than caps which they can currently tackle anyway.

A HIC or a T3 is always going to be superior because of their small sig, high speed, high EHP and fast lock times. A BS with a sensor booster even at 200mm will only get 120mm from the sebo to 320mm. Less than a cruiser with no sebo so the argument is fallacy. That's discounting the HIC's infinite point.

There is nothing wrong with battleships being able to warp as fast as the rest of the fleet. They still won't keep up because they have double the align time.

Jenn has no idea what its talking about. Its simply parroting your line which is completely incorrect.

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..... :)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#217 - 2014-03-19 20:10:41 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You're not making sense Baltec.

Even if batleships were given 200mm, which is 50mm less than a BC they still would not be used for tackling anything other than caps which they can currently tackle anyway.

A HIC or a T3 is always going to be superior because of their small sig, high speed, high EHP and fast lock times. A BS with a sensor booster even at 200mm will only get 120mm from the sebo to 320mm. Less than a cruiser with no sebo so the argument is fallacy. That's discounting the HIC's infinite point.

There is nothing wrong with battleships being able to warp as fast as the rest of the fleet. They still won't keep up because they have double the align time.

Jenn has no idea what its talking about. Its simply parroting your line which is completely incorrect.



Battleships were already used as heavy tackle in the past, CCP gave us the HICs to fill that role. According to what you want, a BS that will lock a cruiser before it can flee would mean it would need the locking time of a cruiser.

BS are also more than able to keep up with frigate fleets when aligning, I have been doing it for years.

No its not incorrect, give battleships +1 and you will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy spreading points to stop an enemy fleet from warping by at the very least 50%. You comment of you not caring about fleets also provided evidence that Jenns comment on you not caring about others and only yourself was true.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2014-03-19 20:20:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

You're not making sense Baltec.

Even if batleships were given 200mm, which is 50mm less than a BC they still would not be used for tackling anything other than caps which they can currently tackle anyway.

A HIC or a T3 is always going to be superior because of their small sig, high speed, high EHP and fast lock times. A BS with a sensor booster even at 200mm will only get 120mm from the sebo to 320mm. Less than a cruiser with no sebo so the argument is fallacy. That's discounting the HIC's infinite point.

There is nothing wrong with battleships being able to warp as fast as the rest of the fleet. They still won't keep up because they have double the align time.

Jenn has no idea what its talking about. Its simply parroting your line which is completely incorrect.



Battleships were already used as heavy tackle in the past, CCP gave us the HICs to fill that role. According to what you want, a BS that will lock a cruiser before it can flee would mean it would need the locking time of a cruiser.

BS are also more than able to keep up with frigate fleets when aligning, I have been doing it for years.

No its not incorrect, give battleships +1 and you will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy spreading points to stop an enemy fleet from warping by at the very least 50%. You comment of you not caring about fleets also provided evidence that Jenns comment on you not caring about others and only yourself was true.

Battleships would never be used as heavy tackle with 200mm base scan res because there are better options in the cruiser class with much higher locking times.

200mm is not the locking time of a cruiser. Its less then the locking time of a battlecruiser. You don't need the scan res of a cruiser to lock a cruiser before it can warp out you need the locking time of a battlecruiser which is more than I'm proposing.

I don't care about your fleets because only a very small proportion of people engage in fleet warfare and there are lots of options available for fleets to tackle with. Pretending you couldn't scram a +2 battleship is just terrible. If you guys have trouble putting 3 points on a battleship then its not the game mechanics that are to blame. There are plenty of +3 scrams now and there are long range HICS, Arazu, bubbles, dictors....

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..... :)
Marsha Mallow
#219 - 2014-03-19 20:25:32 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
What I think I and many other people want is not a solopwnmobile battleship but a battleship that can force an engagement, that doesn't have to only engage in consensual pvp. If we wanted consensual pvp we would play alliance wars and all turn up at the allotted hour in our alliance leader approved ships.

Increasing lock times to a level that is still below battlecruisers but allows a battleship to force an engagement would hardly result in a solopwnmobile.

Increasing warp speeds so that battleships could keep up with a gang would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Adding +1 warp core strength would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.

Implying that those changes would result in solopwnmobiles simply exposes you as a troll, and a poor one at that.

If you want to solo in a BS, here's some suggestions
- Officer fit it. Link the fit in local. Howl abuse. Undock, redock, wait until they drift away if it's a blob then pick them off one at a time. Takes skill and patience, and inventive smack. This is why the Mack is so popular, because it's quite literally a whale. You don't actually need to officer fit either, just lie.
- Offer 1v1s, promise to bring a BC or lower, take a BS. <- You said you wanted nonconsensual
- Use a cloaky scout alt. <- Still solo play unless you use it in the fight
- Fit a cloak! It's a terrible thing to do (I used to do it all the time so I could hide from corpies threatening to gank me). As long as you don't die, no one will know >.>
- Use a carrier to jump stuff about and bypass bubbles/camps.
- Get yourself a titan and bridge yourself onto stuff.
- Use bubbles. And maybe a POS. Ohh and bookmarks. And cloaky scouts. You better be noting some of this down.
- Dec carebear corps in empire.

There are some unicorn like stories about people roaming in BS for weeks. Thing is most of the time those people are either exceptionally good or using an army of alts, and depending on where you are sometimes its simply hard to catch people on their own who can't call for help. If you refuse to do those things, please don't ask for gameplay buffs. Just don't. Nobody has to solo you either. If you're really annoying, chances are everyone will want to group hug you. It's your own fault.

Your proposal is to overpower solo gameplay just because you can't work any of that out, don't understand how larger groups would abuse it and don't care. Newsflash: if BS are unbalanced other people will use the mechanics to kill you too.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#220 - 2014-03-19 20:29:29 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Battleships would never be used as heavy tackle with 200mm base scan res because there are better options in the cruiser class with much higher locking times.


Cruisers back then would squish very easily, there was no such thing as a heavy cruiser.
Infinity Ziona wrote:

200mm is not the locking time of a cruiser. Its less then the locking time of a battlecruiser. You don't need the scan res of a cruiser to lock a cruiser before it can warp out you need the locking time of a battlecruiser which is more than I'm proposing.


Those times you put down for a cruiser to align and warp are not the times you will find in game.
Infinity Ziona wrote:

I don't care about your fleets because only a very small proportion of people engage in fleet warfare and there are lots of options available for fleets to tackle with. Pretending you couldn't scram a +2 battleship is just terrible. If you guys have trouble putting 3 points on a battleship then its not the game mechanics that are to blame. There are plenty of +3 scrams now and there are long range HICS, Arazu, bubbles, dictors....


And this just shows how little you know about fleet fights. Right now its one point per ship, now double the points needed on each ship, now triple it. Your idea would have a massive impact on fleet fights and would make BS fleets much harder to pin down. But you don't care about the group of players who engage in the most PVP by far.