These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#481 - 2015-04-03 22:45:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Rovinia wrote:
Why not just give Battleships a Role bonus?

Something like "Heavy Reactor" - All bonuses for overloading modules get doubled.


Very gud idea - borrow it from T2 Transport haulers.

In their case it's, "100% bonus to the benefits of overheating Afterburners, Microwarpdrives, Local Repair Modules, and Resistance Modules".

Module type can be limited to DPS, tank-related modules. Perhaps a Typhoon/Tempest could get prop-related OH benefit bonuses. Blink Along with that, a Battleship role bonus of "20-30% reduction in module heat damage amount taken." or something.

Thoughts? Smile

I personally think it's a super-clean, slick, non-OP, non-raw Solution.

P.S. I'm not a Nanite Repair Paste manufacturer.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Humang
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#482 - 2015-04-04 10:42:32 UTC
I agree with the more DPS & TANK for battleships opinion, and I really like the overheat role bonus in there just a flat bonus to overheat amount/duration or some kind of racial alignment.

It is kind of silly that in most instances its better to rock a T3 for tank/dps than a BS (looking at you prote)

AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#483 - 2015-04-04 14:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
in terms of the on grid boosting thing, well when they can, they will fix that, it will boost combat bc's usefulness a little, especially if they remove neutral boosting from war dec's.
they would also benefit if they moved attack bc's into there own T2 class thus opening up those 4 slots for half of the combat bc's, especially useful for the combat bc's that aren't very tank based like the cane, brutix, harbinger and maybe drake could get away from the brick role into a more chunky caracal role.

i also think reducing the sig radius of bc's would help bring them closer too cruisers much like they are doing with the warp speed buff.
it seems too me that cruisers have now reached a place at least at the top end of them that they have been overbuffed a little,
HAC's low sig combined with high T2 resists need scaling back a bit, some cruisers have higher dps than most bc's have which is just plain wrong... looks at gila, vexor, VNI, -2 slots for all droneboats pls.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#484 - 2015-04-06 08:31:06 UTC
Cross posting from the battlecruiser warp speed change thread

In response to the battlecruiser warp speed change: A great start, and it makes them much more competitive, as it is much more than an 8% speed increase over medium warps due to the way acceleration is tied to warp speed.

I also think that the biggest issue with battlecruisers is a slightly higher than warranted sticker combined with a oversized mass and sig, with a generous agility modifier. All of these are fcould be fixed with fairly minor changes that break few fits, but make CBCs more competative

I would love to see something about the following:
5% or so mineral reduction
cut the sig to around the 200 mark for CBCs, with about the same split from a base sig of 250. drop maybe 5-10 sig on the ABCs as well, for a much smaller change to these ships which currently perform much better.
Drop the mass about 7% and tweak agility to compensate, which makes nanos and other agility equipment more effective, as well as 10mn props.
nudge base lock range and scan resolution up a touch for CBCs, because they can't take advantage of the MMJD without using a mid scripted for lock range or 2 lows even with perfect skill, and should have more room for avionics considering the much greater size with only moderately more fittings and weapons.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#485 - 2015-04-06 14:37:55 UTC
Humang wrote:
I agree with the more DPS & TANK for battleships opinion, and I really like the overheat role bonus in there just a flat bonus to overheat amount/duration or some kind of racial alignment.

It is kind of silly that in most instances its better to rock a T3 for tank/dps than a BS (looking at you prote)

I'm hoping the t3 balance pass that is incoming, on top of the quick and dirty tank nerfs for everything but the loki, make the last statement untrue.

That said, the DPS part of the DPS + TANK option is complicated to do in a balanced fashion, as adding more DPS to the large guns also pushes more damage onto the ABCs, while adding more damage bonii or stepping up existing damage bonuses makes some ships ridiculous. It may also skew PVE figures even, which while secondary to PVP balance, is a moderate concern for any raw DPS increases.

This is why my favored approach to a balance pass is mostly skewed towards agility, cap, avionics (sensors and CPU) and a bit more tank, with very little increase in raw DPS, but more ability to go without SeBos and such. All of these would make battleships more dynamic once they land on grid, without making them retardedly face melting. A bit of the above with a cut to mineral requirements of a few percent, and they come much closer to the isk for effectiveness curve for the t1 hulls, and the faction hulls are a hair over at the current lows.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#486 - 2015-04-06 15:17:35 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
This is why my favored approach to a balance pass is mostly skewed towards agility, cap, avionics (sensors and CPU) and a bit more tank, with very little increase in raw DPS, but more ability to go without SeBos and such. All of these would make battleships more dynamic once they land on grid, without making them retardedly face melting. A bit of the above with a cut to mineral requirements of a few percent, and they come much closer to the isk for effectiveness curve for the t1 hulls, and the faction hulls are a hair over at the current lows.

Yes, but this breaks the cruiser meta game - so we know it's not going to happen. Battleships (and battlecruisers) suffer in so many areas for so many reasons that they need a complete overhaul from the ground up, which includes everything you listed in addition to a massive overhaul on large weapon damage application.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#487 - 2015-04-06 15:42:39 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
This is why my favored approach to a balance pass is mostly skewed towards agility, cap, avionics (sensors and CPU) and a bit more tank, with very little increase in raw DPS, but more ability to go without SeBos and such. All of these would make battleships more dynamic once they land on grid, without making them retardedly face melting. A bit of the above with a cut to mineral requirements of a few percent, and they come much closer to the isk for effectiveness curve for the t1 hulls, and the faction hulls are a hair over at the current lows.

Yes, but this breaks the cruiser meta game - so we know it's not going to happen. Battleships (and battlecruisers) suffer in so many areas for so many reasons that they need a complete overhaul from the ground up, which includes everything you listed in addition to a massive overhaul on large weapon damage application.

I think this question needs to be asked, before more suggestions for the BC / BS classes are placed here.

Considering the range and scope, dominated by cruisers at the large end of the sub-cap models, is there really any meaningful room left for the BS class?
This assumes that the BC class can survive purely as support, assuming they are not going to be in demand in other ways for sub-caps.

I believe the BS class may need to define a new area for themselves, possibly one not represented in the game now.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#488 - 2015-04-06 16:04:16 UTC
Another elegant proposed solution to BC-BS survival in cruiser meta: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread

Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#489 - 2015-04-06 16:04:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I think this question needs to be asked, before more suggestions for the BC / BS classes are placed here.

Considering the range and scope, dominated by cruisers at the large end of the sub-cap models, is there really any meaningful room left for the BS class?
This assumes that the BC class can survive purely as support, assuming they are not going to be in demand in other ways for sub-caps.

I believe the BS class may need to define a new area for themselves, possibly one not represented in the game now.

It's a valid question. Due to their associated cost, their lack of damage application (not raw DPS), sensor ability (both offensive and defensive), mobility and speed - outside of PvE I'm not sure where they fit in now (since SOV is going in a different direction).

I like the suggestion above to turn some of the large weapons into rapid versions similar to rapid heavy missile launchers, and I think that could be a huge improvement. Other ideas would be to give them a +2 fixed warp core strength so they can't be tackled by a sole small ship in addition to buffing their overall sensor resolution. A 15-25% buff in EHP would make a huge difference as well. And last but not least, a bump in warp speed from 2.0 to 2.5 AU/s (T2 Battleships would get 2.7 AU/s). Since Battlecruisers will now be able to achieve 2.7 AU/s this makes it a bit more interesting.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#490 - 2015-04-06 21:59:08 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Another elegant proposed solution to BC-BS survival in cruiser meta: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread

Blink


Interesting. I like the concept, and will say more about it in that thread, but the weapons are proven to be fairly good in total on the ABCs. I'm not sure about repurposing the existing turrets, but as the usage is so low, this might be the right answer.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#491 - 2015-04-06 22:02:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Well, Rapids exist - why not this. P

Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Roll

Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#492 - 2015-04-06 22:14:18 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Well, Rapids exist - why not this. P

Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Roll

Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png


I agree with this idea, I like this idea and support this idea. I prefer to create new dedicated modules for this idea though, and otherwise differ with you on how it should be implemented for best results.

I don't think it negates the need for a comprehensive look at the stats and bonuses applied to the hulls themselves.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#493 - 2015-04-07 01:12:50 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Well, Rapids exist - why not this. P

Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Roll

Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png



I wouldn't mind if battleships guns would get changed to 275m signature resolution instead of 400m they have now and a 50% tracking buff and put it on SiSi and see what happens.

If you don't like it, don't release it.

Another gimmick could be that 100mn mwds would be immune to scrams so that at least some battleships could at least try to slingshot something smaller.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#494 - 2015-04-14 20:14:47 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Well, Rapids exist - why not this. P

Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Roll

Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png



I wouldn't mind if battleships guns would get changed to 275m signature resolution instead of 400m they have now and a 50% tracking buff and put it on SiSi and see what happens.

If you don't like it, don't release it.


I would love to see this and other similar major game balance changes that require find and replace level of database changes tested on the public test server fairly often. I may even propose such a thing.

Quote:

Another gimmick could be that 100mn mwds would be immune to scrams so that at least some battleships could at least try to slingshot something smaller.

No. Consistency in mechanics is a good thing. Maybe, maybe, a variant T2 similar to polarized weapons with this sort of thing for a drawback, but not straight up immunity to x because size y.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#495 - 2015-04-14 22:40:02 UTC
Well, seeing as how Battlecruisers and Command Ships are getting a warp speed bump - I don't see why we couldn't also hike the warp speed of Battleships a bit as well.

• T1 and Faction Battleships ... 2.0 AU/s » 2.2 AU/s
• T2 Marauders and Black Ops ... 2.2 AU/s » 2.5 AU/s
• Nestor ... 2.5 AU/s » 2.7 AU/s
• Machariel ... 3.0 AU/s (no change)

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#496 - 2015-04-15 01:28:17 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Well, seeing as how Battlecruisers and Command Ships are getting a warp speed bump - I don't see why we couldn't also hike the warp speed of Battleships a bit as well.

• T1 and Faction Battleships ... 2.0 AU/s » 2.2 AU/s
• T2 Marauders and Black Ops ... 2.2 AU/s » 2.5 AU/s
• Nestor ... 2.5 AU/s » 2.7 AU/s
• Machariel ... 3.0 AU/s (no change)


Maybe. maybe. Still my least favorite way to fix them, but this is mostly because I do have ascendancies in already.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#497 - 2015-04-22 14:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons.

This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR.

Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats.

Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc.

*...and then create a Highslot Stasis Webifier with 85% velocity reduciton, 11 km range and 1375 MW PG requirement - only fittable to glorious Battleships. TwistedTwistedTwisted

*The last part may not be necessary.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#498 - 2015-04-22 14:48:10 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons.

This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR.

Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats.

Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc.

*...and then create a Highslot Stasis Webifier with 85% velocity reduciton, 11 km range and 1375 MW PG requirement - only fittable to glorious Battleships. TwistedTwistedTwisted

*The last part may not be necessary.


A serpentis hull giving 50% bonus to that 85% would send your ship flying backward...
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#499 - 2015-04-22 14:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
is a fair point - can be left at 60% with perhaps more range, or be unbonused by the Vindi. I miss the standard 90% webs Sad

Do focus on the main proposal, though.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#500 - 2015-04-22 19:01:01 UTC
I'll make a big update to the public spreadsheets and post a summary here in a couple days.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp