These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make battleships and battlecruisers worth the warp! 2.0

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#221 - 2014-11-20 09:34:14 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
james,

I agree with most of this. Good work putting it together and good analysis. here's my 5c.


Warp speed
From my POV, one of the biggest problems with BS and BCs is the warp speed. It just takes so long to even land on grid...its a good 5 seconds between when you saunter on to grid and when you can even begin to lock a target...with your crappy native 100mm scan res. All your targets are now either kiting, have you scrammed, are gone, or you are suffering EWAR, neuts, DPS before you can even begin affecting things. Compare this to any frigate or most cruisers warping on to grid - you just appear as if by magic where you need to be, and can begin affecting the outcome of the battle instantly.

This infers that scan res and the warp onto grid is at least as important as the warp velocity. Even if the current warp velocity stays the same, the entry and exit from grid should be sped up significantly, so that BS and BC can begin making an impact.

in wormhole fights, we prefer Enyos because it's faster from wormhole to fight over any engagement warp, and we try to leave BCs and BS at home because the stupid warp speed of the slowest ship munting up everyone else's warp speeds. This costs us so many kills even when we want to bring a Geddon along.

*snipped other valid points*


I agree entirely with this, to the point of creating another thread for a slight tweak on this idea, with the warp lockup of controls ending as soon as you are under your ships max velocity. Show it some love here

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#222 - 2014-11-20 09:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Thing is, I can live with the 2AU/s warp speed on battleships but I cannot live with the time we appear on grid and are still in the process of slowing down when ceptors or other stuff is already kiting us, waiting to lock us and we start locking target but the second we can lock something to shoot at, we are going down Sad


Pretty much can agree with this, slowing down on grid is a pain, you are there, but you can't do anything for a while...



But hta is the WHOLE concept of warp speed changes. And the warp speed changes were GREAT for tactical gameplay. The only bad thing is, Battleships lsot 50% of their effective mobility (and BC roughly 25%) and they di not got more powerful to compensate.



Makeing everythign warp fast again is HORRIBLE homogenization and lazy work.


Battleships shoudl still take logner to get to the battlefield. But the battle comms should sound " Fast.. we need to get rid of those ewar ships and tackle before their battleships arrive on grid!!" " Their battleships are here, the battleships are here, spread and get as much trasnversal as you can.. ahhhhhhhhhhhhrrhrhhhhgghhh!!!!"

Nowaydays is..." Point this point. that.. . I got him" " LOOOL They are bringing battleships!" " WTF? Are they idiots?? LOL" "Wiii freee kills!!!"

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Sentenced 1989
#223 - 2014-11-20 09:56:48 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Thing is, I can live with the 2AU/s warp speed on battleships but I cannot live with the time we appear on grid and are still in the process of slowing down when ceptors or other stuff is already kiting us, waiting to lock us and we start locking target but the second we can lock something to shoot at, we are going down Sad


Pretty much can agree with this, slowing down on grid is a pain, you are there, but you can't do anything for a while...



But hta is the WHOLE concept of warp speed changes. And the warp speed changes were GREAT for tactical gameplay. The only bad thing is, Battleships lsot 50% of their effective mobility (and BC roughly 25%) and they di not got more powerful to compensate.



Makeing everythign warp fast again is HORRIBLE homogenization and lazy work.


Battleships shoudl still take logner to get to the battlefield. But the battle comms should sound " Fast.. we need to get rid of those ewar ships and tackle before their battleships arrive on grid!!" " Their battleships are here, the battleships are here, spread and get as much trasnversal as you can.. ahhhhhhhhhhhhrrhrhhhhgghhh!!!!"

Nowaydays is..." Point this point. that.. . I got him" " LOOOL They are bringing battleships!" " WTF? Are they idiots?? LOL" "Wiii freee kills!!!"


You need to read again the stuff you quoted...
It's not how long the warp takes to get there, it's about how long after you are seen on grid it takes for your ship to slow down to get control over your ship.

Battleships currently arrive on grid slowly, and even then you get to a point where you ship is under his 100% sublight speed and will only travel about 300-800 more meters, but you still don't have control to start locking stuff and rest.

The Incursion Guild

Epic Arc Guide
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#224 - 2014-11-20 14:03:43 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Thing is, I can live with the 2AU/s warp speed on battleships but I cannot live with the time we appear on grid and are still in the process of slowing down when ceptors or other stuff is already kiting us, waiting to lock us and we start locking target but the second we can lock something to shoot at, we are going down Sad


Pretty much can agree with this, slowing down on grid is a pain, you are there, but you can't do anything for a while...



But hta is the WHOLE concept of warp speed changes. And the warp speed changes were GREAT for tactical gameplay. The only bad thing is, Battleships lsot 50% of their effective mobility (and BC roughly 25%) and they di not got more powerful to compensate.



Makeing everythign warp fast again is HORRIBLE homogenization and lazy work.


Battleships shoudl still take logner to get to the battlefield. But the battle comms should sound " Fast.. we need to get rid of those ewar ships and tackle before their battleships arrive on grid!!" " Their battleships are here, the battleships are here, spread and get as much trasnversal as you can.. ahhhhhhhhhhhhrrhrhhhhgghhh!!!!"

Nowaydays is..." Point this point. that.. . I got him" " LOOOL They are bringing battleships!" " WTF? Are they idiots?? LOL" "Wiii freee kills!!!"


You need to read again the stuff you quoted...
It's not how long the warp takes to get there, it's about how long after you are seen on grid it takes for your ship to slow down to get control over your ship.

Battleships currently arrive on grid slowly, and even then you get to a point where you ship is under his 100% sublight speed and will only travel about 300-800 more meters, but you still don't have control to start locking stuff and rest.


A "buff" to warp deceleration would be cool on those slower ship. Leave everything warp related the same but just give a boot to how fast you exit the "warping" mode so you can control your ship.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2014-11-20 14:07:01 UTC
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Sentenced 1989 wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Thing is, I can live with the 2AU/s warp speed on battleships but I cannot live with the time we appear on grid and are still in the process of slowing down when ceptors or other stuff is already kiting us, waiting to lock us and we start locking target but the second we can lock something to shoot at, we are going down Sad


Pretty much can agree with this, slowing down on grid is a pain, you are there, but you can't do anything for a while...



But hta is the WHOLE concept of warp speed changes. And the warp speed changes were GREAT for tactical gameplay. The only bad thing is, Battleships lsot 50% of their effective mobility (and BC roughly 25%) and they di not got more powerful to compensate.



Makeing everythign warp fast again is HORRIBLE homogenization and lazy work.


Battleships shoudl still take logner to get to the battlefield. But the battle comms should sound " Fast.. we need to get rid of those ewar ships and tackle before their battleships arrive on grid!!" " Their battleships are here, the battleships are here, spread and get as much trasnversal as you can.. ahhhhhhhhhhhhrrhrhhhhgghhh!!!!"

Nowaydays is..." Point this point. that.. . I got him" " LOOOL They are bringing battleships!" " WTF? Are they idiots?? LOL" "Wiii freee kills!!!"


You need to read again the stuff you quoted...
It's not how long the warp takes to get there, it's about how long after you are seen on grid it takes for your ship to slow down to get control over your ship.

Battleships currently arrive on grid slowly, and even then you get to a point where you ship is under his 100% sublight speed and will only travel about 300-800 more meters, but you still don't have control to start locking stuff and rest.



And you need to read again MY post. The whole warp changes is EXACLTY about that. The deacceleration is the MAJORITY of the change in the warp speed changes.

The time to be able to lock after you stop is EXACLTY the same on all classes. You feel it wors ein the battleship because you have already spent all your patience in the de-acceleration and then your scan resolution is low and you take 20 seconds to lock.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#226 - 2014-11-20 18:19:33 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And you need to read again MY post. The whole warp changes is EXACLTY about that. The deacceleration is the MAJORITY of the change in the warp speed changes.

The time to be able to lock after you stop is EXACLTY the same on all classes. You feel it wors ein the battleship because you have already spent all your patience in the de-acceleration and then your scan resolution is low and you take 20 seconds to lock.

Straight up wrong. Deceleration from warp is a factor of warp speed as expressed in the formula in this devblog.

To summarize, decelleration rate = warpspeeed divided by 3, with a maximum value of 2, while acceleration into warp is a straight factor of warpspeed.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#227 - 2014-11-20 18:53:51 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And you need to read again MY post. The whole warp changes is EXACLTY about that. The deacceleration is the MAJORITY of the change in the warp speed changes.

The time to be able to lock after you stop is EXACLTY the same on all classes. You feel it wors ein the battleship because you have already spent all your patience in the de-acceleration and then your scan resolution is low and you take 20 seconds to lock.

Straight up wrong. Deceleration from warp is a factor of warp speed as expressed in the formula in this devblog.

To summarize, decelleration rate = warpspeeed divided by 3, with a maximum value of 2, while acceleration into warp is a straight factor of warpspeed.


So can we get the devs to edit it a bit for slower ships so we can get control of our slow behemoth a bit faster than currently? We already enter warp slower because of align time, accelerate into warp slower, arrive later because we can't warp as fast. Give us a hand break or something. Or change it so we get control back of our ship around 75% max speed instead of 25%.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2014-11-20 19:02:03 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And you need to read again MY post. The whole warp changes is EXACLTY about that. The deacceleration is the MAJORITY of the change in the warp speed changes.

The time to be able to lock after you stop is EXACLTY the same on all classes. You feel it wors ein the battleship because you have already spent all your patience in the de-acceleration and then your scan resolution is low and you take 20 seconds to lock.

Straight up wrong. Deceleration from warp is a factor of warp speed as expressed in the formula in this devblog.

To summarize, decelleration rate = warpspeeed divided by 3, with a maximum value of 2, while acceleration into warp is a straight factor of warpspeed.


So can we get the devs to edit it a bit for slower ships so we can get control of our slow behemoth a bit faster than currently? We already enter warp slower because of align time, accelerate into warp slower, arrive later because we can't warp as fast. Give us a hand break or something. Or change it so we get control back of our ship around 75% max speed instead of 25%.



If you do that you get back to the pre warp changes. and faster ships will also deaccelerate slower than now. And all the gains of a more diverse and tactical interesting field are lost.

I still defend, battleships should get all that time to reach the battlefield. But when they reach.. THERE SHOULD BE REPAYMENT.

One of the ways to achieve that is add a 4th rig slot on the battleships. The ones wanting more speed can put a warp rig. Others that are ok with being slugish, but want more power can add a different rig. In fact I woudl even give them total of 5 rigs for that purpose.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#229 - 2014-11-20 19:04:19 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And you need to read again MY post. The whole warp changes is EXACLTY about that. The deacceleration is the MAJORITY of the change in the warp speed changes.

The time to be able to lock after you stop is EXACLTY the same on all classes. You feel it wors ein the battleship because you have already spent all your patience in the de-acceleration and then your scan resolution is low and you take 20 seconds to lock.

Straight up wrong. Deceleration from warp is a factor of warp speed as expressed in the formula in this devblog.

To summarize, decelleration rate = warpspeeed divided by 3, with a maximum value of 2, while acceleration into warp is a straight factor of warpspeed.



Are you UNABLE To read dammit? That is exaclty what I am saying. The deacceleration is THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE WARP SPEED CHANGES!! NEED I Write in a larger font for you guys understand?

THAT MAY NOT CHANGE. because would undo almost completely the warp changes effects!!! The time AFTER deacceleration is EXACTLY the same for all ships, between 1 and 2 seconds depending on the server ticks.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#230 - 2014-11-20 19:14:49 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And you need to read again MY post. The whole warp changes is EXACLTY about that. The deacceleration is the MAJORITY of the change in the warp speed changes.

The time to be able to lock after you stop is EXACLTY the same on all classes. You feel it wors ein the battleship because you have already spent all your patience in the de-acceleration and then your scan resolution is low and you take 20 seconds to lock.

Straight up wrong. Deceleration from warp is a factor of warp speed as expressed in the formula in this devblog.

To summarize, decelleration rate = warpspeeed divided by 3, with a maximum value of 2, while acceleration into warp is a straight factor of warpspeed.


So can we get the devs to edit it a bit for slower ships so we can get control of our slow behemoth a bit faster than currently? We already enter warp slower because of align time, accelerate into warp slower, arrive later because we can't warp as fast. Give us a hand break or something. Or change it so we get control back of our ship around 75% max speed instead of 25%.



If you do that you get back to the pre warp changes. and faster ships will also deaccelerate slower than now. And all the gains of a more diverse and tactical interesting field are lost.

I still defend, battleships should get all that time to reach the battlefield. But when they reach.. THERE SHOULD BE REPAYMENT.

One of the ways to achieve that is add a 4th rig slot on the battleships. The ones wanting more speed can put a warp rig. Others that are ok with being slugish, but want more power can add a different rig. In fact I woudl even give them total of 5 rigs for that purpose.


How do you expect to make your enemy pay after you landed if half the ship in EVE can probably align and warp out between the time you appear on grid and when you effectively can get a lock?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#231 - 2014-11-20 19:24:32 UTC
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#232 - 2014-11-20 19:42:58 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


I completely agree, battleships have a clearly intended design to hold a range advantage, raw damage advantage, and raw hitpoint advantage. Those are what I would focus on and make them excel in. That way they remain safely out of the fast attack category, but still quite capable and effective from a defensive perspective.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#233 - 2014-11-20 21:08:47 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


So they made them for station games and close travel highsec pve, awesome..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#234 - 2014-11-20 21:14:05 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


I completely agree, battleships have a clearly intended design to hold a range advantage, raw damage advantage, and raw hitpoint advantage. Those are what I would focus on and make them excel in. That way they remain safely out of the fast attack category, but still quite capable and effective from a defensive perspective.


Range is only valuable to a point when anything over 150km is vulnerable to a prober.

Raw hit point is not all that useful if you can get the same or better effective hit point thanks to better resist profile and sig/speed tanking ability on smaller ships.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#235 - 2014-11-20 21:42:30 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


So they made them for station games and close travel highsec pve, awesome..

I believe they are moving forward in stages.

We are still waiting to see, I believe, what they intend to do with the BS class.

In many ways they are either useless and / or broken until this other proverbial shoe drops.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#236 - 2014-11-20 21:43:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


I completely agree, battleships have a clearly intended design to hold a range advantage, raw damage advantage, and raw hitpoint advantage. Those are what I would focus on and make them excel in. That way they remain safely out of the fast attack category, but still quite capable and effective from a defensive perspective.


Range is only valuable to a point when anything over 150km is vulnerable to a prober.

Raw hit point is not all that useful if you can get the same or better effective hit point thanks to better resist profile and sig/speed tanking ability on smaller ships.


Semantics, while true, those are ways to circumvent those advantages. The fact that they exist is a point in favor of how they are balanced advantages.

Not all fleets have scan probe capable ships, and for the ones that do there are methods for getting around that.

As for raw hit points, I'm not sure what precisely you're saying. If you're saying battleships would need more resists then that would be an unprecedented advantage from a T1 hull, but then if you're saying other ships can match a hitpoint advantage with resists then that's really the point of what I said.

As for sig/speed tanks that's supposed to be a counter anyways, ewar can help mitigate or remove that advantage though.

As I said, that's really just semantics. I'm not sure what the point of that was other than to be combative for combative's sake.

Schrodinger's Hot Dropper

The Fate of Forum Alts

Guaranteed Success
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#237 - 2014-11-20 23:26:10 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:


So what's the problem? Tracking and gun resolution. Even if a gun can track appropriately, the sig resolution of the gun still means that against low-sig opponents it lands a fraction of the DPS. Get in at 500 on a BS without webs on you and you can passive tank in shield in an armour ship.

Solution: Fix large gun tracking, across the board. I'd say you need gun res increased 50% and tracking +15% across the board. There's no fear of 1350DPS Navy Geddons when you're in a sig tanking setup.

BS EHP/Sig
The 'give BS 10-30% more EHP" idea is flawed, i think. It does nothing except allow their use in larger fleets where they can survive long enough to land reps from logi. In any other situation, they just take 10-30% longer to die when outclassed by ishtar/gila/Nexor fleets they can't hit, can't track and can't apply DPS to.

I won't say no to more EHp, but i won't use a ship that's got a sig the size of a whale, slow as mud, and incapable of projecting and applying DPS, no matter how much EHP it has.

Like I said, properly constructing doctrines basically boils down to sig, ehp, damage projection and damage application. EHP is good, but without any other benefits, BS will remain where they are - mostly useless.


I think this is in line with my thinking for the most part. The only reason that I mention EHP so often is that it's a good way of ensuring that battleships have some method compensating against the larger dps that they're always going to take in a fight. The low EHP/sig ratio of battleships, particularly shield battleships is a big problem in fleet engagements, particularly in null where bombs are a concern. For armor ships the concern is landing reps in time. Armor comes at the end of the rep cycle, and while it might not seem like a long time, until you consider its an extra few seconds while a ships is taking 35k dps.

Personally, rather than a large bonus to tracking, I'd like to see a substantial increase to battleships dps, with a moderate increase in tracking. The reason I say this is because a straight up tracking increase would help the greatly against other subcaps, but it wouldn't help to make them a good choice for other tasks, like pos bashing or super takedowns.

In any event I think its part of a whole package of making them more viable across the board. I think that they should have uses in every part of space, and that selecting a battleship as a doctrine, small gang, or solo work should constitute a choice with benefits and draw backs. To make this happen, I believe that they need changes to both their offensive and defensive characteristics.

Anyhow I'm glad you posted and I enjoyed reading your input, so thanks.
Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#238 - 2014-11-20 23:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


I was pretty surprised that they started talking about power creep at about the same time they gave HACs a 50% role bonus to MWD signature radius penalty. I think power creep has been happening all along and now they can either go back, or balance the rest of the ships that haven't benefited from it accordingly.

Battleships and combat battlecruisers were on their way out during the t2 rebalance, long before the warp speed changes. If anything, the warp speed changes at least provide a catalyst for creating some new roles among the heavier elements of the subcaps.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#239 - 2014-11-21 14:07:13 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


I was pretty surprised that they started talking about power creep at about the same time they gave HACs a 50% role bonus to MWD signature radius penalty. I think power creep has been happening all along and now they can either go back, or balance the rest of the ships that haven't benefited from it accordingly.

Battleships and combat battlecruisers were on their way out during the t2 rebalance, long before the warp speed changes. If anything, the warp speed changes at least provide a catalyst for creating some new roles among the heavier elements of the subcaps.

Them discussing power creep was, I would suggest, a big clue from the devs that this rebalance was going to change things, and not simply creep boost everything up a notch.

Did the cruisers overtake the roles of the BS class? Effectively.
Is that an example of power creep? NO.
That is an example of displacement.

Power creep would only occur, in this context, if they were to simply increase the power of the BS class to maintain it in it's former position above cruisers.

Instead, they have further indicated that the BS role would be changing.
Not only have the cruisers picked up the BS role in roams, but the BS has been made less attractive in that role by the warp changes.

The BS class has been staged to evolve into something new.
Like in a job, before it was promoted, it's replacement was prepared and put in place.

I believe the smart ISK is on CCP giving this class something new, at least to subcaps.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#240 - 2014-11-21 14:10:26 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The devs should be fully aware of the dangers power creep holds to the game.

When they made cruisers overtake the roles previously held by the BS class, and made the BS clearly less desirable for faster roams with the warp speed changes... that was not some oversight or mistake on their parts.

Clearly, they are intending the BS class to have a role where these changes are no obstacle.


I was pretty surprised that they started talking about power creep at about the same time they gave HACs a 50% role bonus to MWD signature radius penalty. I think power creep has been happening all along and now they can either go back, or balance the rest of the ships that haven't benefited from it accordingly.

Battleships and combat battlecruisers were on their way out during the t2 rebalance, long before the warp speed changes. If anything, the warp speed changes at least provide a catalyst for creating some new roles among the heavier elements of the subcaps.

Them discussing power creep was, I would suggest, a big clue from the devs that this rebalance was going to change things, and not simply creep boost everything up a notch.

Did the cruisers overtake the roles of the BS class? Effectively.
Is that an example of power creep? NO.
That is an example of displacement.

Power creep would only occur, in this context, if they were to simply increase the power of the BS class to maintain it in it's former position above cruisers.

Instead, they have further indicated that the BS role would be changing.
Not only have the cruisers picked up the BS role in roams, but the BS has been made less attractive in that role by the warp changes.

The BS class has been staged to evolve into something new.
Like in a job, before it was promoted, it's replacement was prepared and put in place.

I believe the smart ISK is on CCP giving this class something new, at least to subcaps.


It would be cool if CCP could confirm such theory so people could theory craft on what those new roles could be and how it would work/be balanced instead of trying to see how the square peg can be modified to fit in the current round hole.