These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2014-11-13 14:23:16 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
@ maraner: The t3 battleship thread I run is totally a coincidence. No ulterior motives here. Nope. Not me. Never.

In seriousness, I like the concept of t3 battleships, and of adding a 4th battleship in each race, but keep hearing that something like this is needed before making such proposals, and so this is my current proposal.


Maraner wrote:
Hope this thread gets some Dev attention.

There have been a number of long threads about the decline and fall of BS over the last year or so.

I really really hope this is not being done so that someone can release T3 battleships at some point.

The only BS hull I see these days tend to be NavPocs bridged from titans, c'mon CCP please please throw us a fricken bone here. Many of us love our BS fleets and roaming with them solo is almost impossibly slow, they need to fit in with other ship types and roam as mixed fleets.

Please Fozzie.

Plus give me back my megapulse geddon.



Quote:
T1 battleships are obsoleted by T3 cruisers. So let's make T3 battleships so "battleships" are useful again.


/facepalm.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#102 - 2014-11-13 15:42:06 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Point A: They aren't capitals, and capitals are a big problem with balance and have so many special case rules around how and when they can do what. Trying to make them behave like smaller capitals is bad.


1: Jump drives are pretty nice, but simply required the large nerf they just had to put their strategic mobility somewhere on the same chart as subcaps.
2: The EHP and DPS numbers pushed by even the less potent regular capitals are frankly a world apart from anything sub capitals can put out, with a t2 fit archon easily making a full million EHP with 4 tank modules and no rigs or implants, a number almost unassailable by battleships. Similarly, this same t2 fit can easily pump out 2K+ DPS, which is a number which requires perfect skills, faction modules and a pirate battleship to come close to with a subcap.
3: I have seen no officially published statements that battleships should be relegated to the dust, and several supporting the idea that while everything should have some sort of counter, every combat hull should be at least somewhat viable in most types of PvP.

Point A: Then tell CCP to get rid of jumping and bridging on the BlOps, and the bastion mode on Marauders.
The fact is, CCP has been making every Tech 2 battleship so far into something that relates to capitals.

1: But CCP gave the BlOps special rules to mitigate this, rather than a blanket effect on all jumping.
They also did the same for freighters. Each ship type has it's own perspective.

2: So, I am hearing that a lot of room exists between the two damage classes here. Enough to propose dealing damage at previously unconsidered ranges, be it distance or perhaps area affecting DPS.

3: I am not saying the BS should be mothballed, I am saying that CCP has evolved the cruiser to claim the role the BS has held in the past.
Like the cruiser, the BS is ready to fill a new role, something that the size class above them was known for.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#103 - 2014-11-13 16:00:30 UTC
Or people could use Target Painter hull bonus ships to give battleships nice DPS.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#104 - 2014-11-13 18:49:16 UTC
Subscribing...+1 OP.

BS and BC definitely need a LOT of love compared to how badly they are outclassed by literally everything smaller.

I suppose I don't really have any issue with the amount of dps they are capable of, but I agree, these are supposed to be huge, impressive ships-of-the-line, and currently they are just laughable.

Actually laughable is the perfect word. We see baltecs, we laugh. We catch some lone bs doing PVE, we laugh. We see a small gang trying to use BS, we laugh.

There is no reasonable application of battleship use in Eve online that does not cause us to laugh.

Whatever CCP does, they need to change it so that if you are flying something smaller, like hacs or cruisers or whatever, and you do encounter BS, you should not be laughing. Not. At. All.

But what do you do to a class of ship that is extremely vulnerable to small ships that can kite it while paralyzing its mobility, or getting the snot bombed out of it?

Give it some teeth.

I'm not going to spout 'boost EHP' although I do believe that is one thing in dire need. I'll suggest a few extreme changes (I get the best reactions out of those heheh)

- boost scan res significantly (these are huge ships its hard to believe it should take a year to lock a frig)
- resistance to webbing (they are slow enough already)
- resistance to warp disruptors: require several distruptors or one scram to tackle any BS (yes lots of people should now hate that it would now take lots of work to tackle a bs)
- no more class-size bonus for weapons. Ship bonuses now apply to all weapons, allowing for some BS to fit anti-tackle 'point-defense'

Just a few crazy ideas...
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#105 - 2014-11-13 19:01:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
SFM Hobb3s wrote:


- boost scan res significantly (these are huge ships its hard to believe it should take a year to lock a frig)

Just a few crazy ideas...


Lock time as a balancing factor is something that has irked me for a long time. I'm OK with there being a differential between subcap ship classes in lock speed, but I think in general the curve should be flattened quite a bit between all classes.
Legetus Shmoof Metallii
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#106 - 2014-11-13 19:16:03 UTC
Great thread. I love the Battleships in EVE, but EVE doesn't love them. From a new player perspective, what sounds cooler? A frigate or ZOMG BATTLESHIP IT IS A SHIP THAT BATTLES?!? When I started to look into EVE, flying a Battleship sounded like a really cool thing, that it is the end of the line, elite player ship of ultimate destruction. Sadly, as I learned from the many veterans who taught me about the game, the battleships just aren't that good. While heartbroken, I still admire the amazing design of them and the idea, no matter how poor they are in practice, and want to see them being brought up to snuff. One vet told me that I missed the battleship era of EVE, and while tengus are fun and all.... I wanna fly a Rokh!

Perhaps a buff here, new SOV mechanics that make the distance to fight smaller, and other buffs/needs to the meta, we'll see these behemoths roam

O tempora o mores!
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#107 - 2014-11-13 19:18:13 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:

I'm not going to spout 'boost EHP' although I do believe that is one thing in dire need. I'll suggest a few extreme changes (I get the best reactions out of those heheh)

- boost scan res significantly (these are huge ships its hard to believe it should take a year to lock a frig)
- resistance to webbing (they are slow enough already)
- resistance to warp disruptors: require several distruptors or one scram to tackle any BS (yes lots of people should now hate that it would now take lots of work to tackle a bs)
- no more class-size bonus for weapons. Ship bonuses now apply to all weapons, allowing for some BS to fit anti-tackle 'point-defense'

Just a few crazy ideas...


I would sort of agree to the scan res boost, pushing the general range of scan res to 160-190 base.

As for resistance to EWAR, I'm not really sure how to do this in a way which is not game breaking, and so I leave that to actual devs to comment on for feasability. It would also reduce the needed level of buffs to other stats I would be proposing substantially.

Class appropriate weapons buffs are good IMO. A specialized point defense weapon in each flavor of short range weapon is more fitting the sort of balance I would like to see. The concept is similar to the RHML, but with even more of a raw sustained DPS hit on turrets for the increased ability to apply their DPS to smaller targets.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#108 - 2014-11-13 19:26:16 UTC
Here is another thought, for what should be the ultimate sub-cap in my view.

Give it a three tiered set of high slots.
The middle and bottom sets being purely for launchers and / or turrets
The top tier for Big slot items, probably keep that the same.
This would include any and all utility or items which had no size specifications.

A middle tier, for medium size high slot weapons
A bottom tier, for small size high slot weapons

The historical examples we have, suggests that guns of many sizes were mounted on battleships.

Possible additional item, make available a sensor boost module that allowed improved lock time on smaller vessels.

Possible balance aspect, reduce tracking on large weapon systems so speed tanking is easier.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2014-11-13 19:42:03 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Here is another thought, for what should be the ultimate sub-cap in my view.

Give it a three tiered set of high slots.
The middle and bottom sets being purely for launchers and / or turrets
The top tier for Big slot items, probably keep that the same.
This would include any and all utility or items which had no size specifications.

A middle tier, for medium size high slot weapons
A bottom tier, for small size high slot weapons

The historical examples we have, suggests that guns of many sizes were mounted on battleships.

Possible additional item, make available a sensor boost module that allowed improved lock time on smaller vessels.

Possible balance aspect, reduce tracking on large weapon systems so speed tanking is easier.


I don't think that possible changes to the class need to be too far out of the box to fix battleships; tinkering with their current stats so their benefits are worth their drawbacks would suffice. Also, one of the problems that battleships have is that their weapons don't track even cruisers as well as cruiser weapons track frigates, so a further reduction in battleship weapon tracking speed only exacerbates an already class breaking flaw in their design.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#110 - 2014-11-13 19:51:58 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Here is another thought, for what should be the ultimate sub-cap in my view.

Give it a three tiered set of high slots.
The middle and bottom sets being purely for launchers and / or turrets
The top tier for Big slot items, probably keep that the same.
This would include any and all utility or items which had no size specifications.

A middle tier, for medium size high slot weapons
A bottom tier, for small size high slot weapons

The historical examples we have, suggests that guns of many sizes were mounted on battleships.

Possible additional item, make available a sensor boost module that allowed improved lock time on smaller vessels.

Possible balance aspect, reduce tracking on large weapon systems so speed tanking is easier.


I don't think that possible changes to the class need to be too far out of the box to fix battleships; tinkering with their current stats so their benefits are worth their drawbacks would suffice. Also, one of the problems that battleships have is that their weapons don't track even cruisers as well as cruiser weapons track frigates, so a further reduction in battleship weapon tracking speed only exacerbates an already class breaking flaw in their design.

No, I meant tracking for the large weapons specifically.

The medium and small weapons would be perfectly fine engaging ships like cruisers and frigates, respectively.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#111 - 2014-11-13 20:25:10 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=SFM Hobb3s]
Class appropriate weapons buffs are good IMO. A specialized point defense weapon in each flavor of short range weapon is more fitting the sort of balance I would like to see. The concept is similar to the RHML, but with even more of a raw sustained DPS hit on turrets for the increased ability to apply their DPS to smaller targets.



Instead of introducing yet more new modules, I was meaning that instead of a battleship receiving a buff to say, large lazors, it receives the same buff for ALL size lazors it can fit. It would be nice though, to get range buffs for smaller-class weapons.

So this means you can field a few battleships in your fleet that are fit with medium or small guns, and they can operate as anti-tackle/anti-bomber.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#112 - 2014-11-13 20:28:54 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=SFM Hobb3s]
Class appropriate weapons buffs are good IMO. A specialized point defense weapon in each flavor of short range weapon is more fitting the sort of balance I would like to see. The concept is similar to the RHML, but with even more of a raw sustained DPS hit on turrets for the increased ability to apply their DPS to smaller targets.



Instead of introducing yet more new modules, I was meaning that instead of a battleship receiving a buff to say, large lazors, it receives the same buff for ALL size lazors it can fit. It would be nice though, to get range buffs for smaller-class weapons.

So this means you can field a few battleships in your fleet that are fit with medium or small guns, and they can operate as anti-tackle/anti-bomber.

Give the medium / small guns each a separate lock time, to reflect that they are more agile weapons.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#113 - 2014-11-13 20:32:27 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=SFM Hobb3s]
Class appropriate weapons buffs are good IMO. A specialized point defense weapon in each flavor of short range weapon is more fitting the sort of balance I would like to see. The concept is similar to the RHML, but with even more of a raw sustained DPS hit on turrets for the increased ability to apply their DPS to smaller targets.



Instead of introducing yet more new modules, I was meaning that instead of a battleship receiving a buff to say, large lazors, it receives the same buff for ALL size lazors it can fit. It would be nice though, to get range buffs for smaller-class weapons.

So this means you can field a few battleships in your fleet that are fit with medium or small guns, and they can operate as anti-tackle/anti-bomber.

Give the medium / small guns each a separate lock time, to reflect that they are more agile weapons.

How in the hell do you implement this?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-11-13 20:40:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
[quote=Nikk Narrel]
The historical examples we have, suggests that guns of many sizes were mounted on battleships.
/quote]

Actually any ship post HMS dreadnaught had main battery (15" on laterbritish ships), secondary dual purpose battery (5" or so depending on the ship/navy) , and an array of smaller AA guns. The DP secondaries had fast tracking to allow for engagement of frigates and aircraft alike. I think they had their own faster tracking fire directors too.

I suggested before a high slot secondary battery which would basically be a pair of smaller turrets in the same slot (just calculate hits as one turret firing 2 shots for simplicity). The small turrets would only be BS fit but would have tracking appropriate to their size.

Ed: Maybe allow on bc that can fit BS size weapons too. An anti frig talos would be terrifying
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#115 - 2014-11-13 20:49:17 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=SFM Hobb3s]
Class appropriate weapons buffs are good IMO. A specialized point defense weapon in each flavor of short range weapon is more fitting the sort of balance I would like to see. The concept is similar to the RHML, but with even more of a raw sustained DPS hit on turrets for the increased ability to apply their DPS to smaller targets.



Instead of introducing yet more new modules, I was meaning that instead of a battleship receiving a buff to say, large lazors, it receives the same buff for ALL size lazors it can fit. It would be nice though, to get range buffs for smaller-class weapons.

So this means you can field a few battleships in your fleet that are fit with medium or small guns, and they can operate as anti-tackle/anti-bomber.

Give the medium / small guns each a separate lock time, to reflect that they are more agile weapons.

How in the hell do you implement this?

Actually, lock time is perhaps the wrong description.

I should have said tracking, and give them the same locking ability as a frigate (time to lock).
(Seriously, why would a smaller ship have a more powerful sensor suite than a bigger ship?)

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#116 - 2014-11-13 21:02:24 UTC
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
[quote=SFM Hobb3s]
Class appropriate weapons buffs are good IMO. A specialized point defense weapon in each flavor of short range weapon is more fitting the sort of balance I would like to see. The concept is similar to the RHML, but with even more of a raw sustained DPS hit on turrets for the increased ability to apply their DPS to smaller targets.



Instead of introducing yet more new modules, I was meaning that instead of a battleship receiving a buff to say, large lazors, it receives the same buff for ALL size lazors it can fit. It would be nice though, to get range buffs for smaller-class weapons.

So this means you can field a few battleships in your fleet that are fit with medium or small guns, and they can operate as anti-tackle/anti-bomber.

Except that then you have, say a navy geddon in a C6 wolf rayet..... pushing something insane for DPS and 750k EHP because other modifiers are module size dependent and this frees up so much power grid and much CPU, while at the same time, being fully stable.

It just isn't a good idea to do it that way, while using something similar to a module already in the game (RHML) and keeping the fittings cost and bonuses size appropriate is easy and simple.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#117 - 2014-11-13 21:27:06 UTC
What about specialized ammo type for large guns/launcher to use on small nimble target? Much higher tracking but also much reduced damage. The missile calculation is effectively doing this but it might be worth it to introduce a new high EV, low ER low DMG ammo. Gun system could have a similar type of ammo to "simulate" flak shells and such. A shotgun type of design for hybrid weapons and a non focused lens type for laser could finalize the roster for other weapon type.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#118 - 2014-11-14 03:11:56 UTC

As someone that went straight for battleship hulls getting into the game, and has slowly dialed back to other ships - If you're not doing PVE - there's almost no reason to fly a battleship.

I say almost because if you can get someone to pin a ship down, an Armageddon can murder the stuffing out of most other small/med/large ships with nuets and bonused drones (unless it's a buffer tanked mega..).

Aside from that one instance (where guns aren't in play), battleships are pretty awful. If they had double the EHP, similar resists, and an increase in damage (if not application), they would be worth sitting in. It wouldn't solve the mobility problem... but maybe that's the right problem to have with a battleship.

Making them great defenders, slow moving but powerful blocks, but vulnerable and easily picked apart (as they are now) if left unsupported.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#119 - 2014-11-14 09:07:11 UTC
Alrighty folks, Response roundup 4!

@ Nikk Narrel: This isn't the place for exotic solutions to the battleship concept. this is intended to bring them back to usable with as little new code as possible. Are some of your suggestions interesting? yes. Are most of them unworkable nightmares of single use coding? yes. You want to talk about inventive, completely out of the box solutions or adding new mechanics, you are welcome to get your own soapbox. I'd like to keep this more focused on making battleships viable without forcing a huge number of changes other than ship stats themselves.
@ Corraidhin Farsaidh: I'm probably going to fly along with a module like the RHML for each category of turret as well, and also a dedicated, low DPS high tracking t2 ammo type for Oh S*** moments when one is tackled by a frig gang in a battleship. Its gonna be pretty nasty to your DPS, but should solve being unable to ever kill a lone interceptor with proper precaution and a bit of luck. Hopefully CCP decides to implement one or the other
@Frostys Virpio: Re: tracking ammo : The same comment as above, but emphasis on sharing the credit for these two good implementations of the same basic concept (which technically exist already as dual whatevers, but don't actually have the sort of tracking required for this).

Re: drones balanced against other weapons: I currently put the same value on the drone + open high it replaces as a weapon I would a turret or launcher. If anything, the drones themselves need to be toned down more, but that combo of "still doing DPS" and "I can do this thing I picked that I'd normally lose a gun for" is pretty potent.
@ FireFrenzy: Thanks for bringing up scan res. Definately gonna get looked at. Sorry we aren't FC bros no more, but lets still chill and make some mad isk together some time.
@Maraner: Thank you for noticing the t3 battleship thread and calling me on having so many pet threads on battleships. Working on the others and some of the comments about how unusable battleships are is kinda what created this thread.
@ Zekora Rally: 30% more DPS is a bit much, and the issues are more nuanced than that. Also, making it an even 30% is hard because battleships vary so wildly in how they apply their damage and what their effective weapons count is.
@ elitatwo: Never fear, the scorpion has some interesting things planned for it. If I have my idea for it work out, it will be a viable heavy ECM platform, capable of mounting a credible shield tank with a rainbow of jams and thus high strength with the lows full of amps or being an unfocused beast blasting electromagnetic hashing at all of the things. The ECM burst is gonna be fun too.
@ Lugh Crow-Slave: See above re: scorpion. Also, thanks for good posting.
@ Lurifax: 12s flight time and HP drop help. I'm working on making it so the hulls have the base capability to take advantage of it.
@ Kagura Nikon: Re: damage and tank buff: I don't think straight tank and damage is the whole encillada here. Most of the issues are with them being too hard to get where they need to be, and then apply their existing fairly high damage. Some ships need more help than others though. Expect some of what you asked for, and some of what you didn't.

re: MJD changes: I like them, but would like to avoid more scope creep until I have this all sorted out. MJDs could use some help, as they are too situational.

Re: Nerfing logi: Not the place for it. While they need to be discussed, I ain't touching something as deeply wound in the various and sundry aspects of new eden as how to rep things.

Re: CBC bonus changes: While the RR bonus is interesting, I'd rather not see a third kind of drone ship become over powered. Thematic role bonuses to CBCs might be appropriate.
@ Bullet Therapist: Re: tactical (ongrid and aligning) mobility: Thank you! I don't play a whole lot in null, so remembering things like tactical warps rather than just strategic warps is huge. Expect some tactical mobility increases, so the curve is a bit flatter. Mostly this will come on attack battleships though, and they're currently and staying light on native buffer.
@ Arthur Aihaken: Yep. These very ships are a large part of why I say combat battlecruisers still need some love. If they are meant to MJD, then at least let them have the lock range to maintain a target currently in scram range at max skills. If they aren't meant to primarily rely on MJD, then why bother?
@ 13kr1d1: re: comments on game balance and fitting choices being real trade offs: Thanks. This is exactly what I have been trying to say to people for forever. The Card game analogy also fits another point, with higher cost for some of the more powerful, rare cards being constrained by designing them in such that while more powerful, they still fall fairly close to the common version in effect, just differing in strength.

re: warp speeds: The math is out there, and I posted most of the ways to get a t1 BS to 3.0 au/s in one of the whining threads about undoing the warp speed change a couple weeks ago.
@ SFM Hobb3s: I like the ideas, but right now am trying to fix them by going mostly inside the box first, and then doing the polishing with out of the box ideas. Would welcome a little more fleshing out of the tackle resistance concept into an idea, but thats not something that would be easy to implement or get right.
To be continued.......

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#120 - 2014-11-14 09:15:00 UTC
Response roundup 4.2

@ Legetus Shmoof Metallii: I'd rather not see them widely used for casual roams. I'd like to see them put in a place where they're mostly used as the intermediate hammer where you have an actual target and you send something in to break it. Or you have a roam hitting your ability to use your own space. you form up battleships, lay in some bait, and you go kick the snot out of someone. Not a high strategy weapon, but not something which is used for casual patrols or roams but for where you know there is a fight worth bringing a lot of firepower to.
@ Noxisia Arkana: yeah, the drones + neuts combo is especially nasty, and the combat battleship level tank, with almost attack battleship agility and the amount of free PG if you don't fit the thing for max DPS highslot weapons means the Armageddon is one nasty ship if it can get to grips with you.


REQUEST: Is there anyone who can and is willing to make pretty, medium complicated graphs happen as embedable images if I give you data sets to graph? I would be working on it myself but I'm having an acute attack of real life about a bunch of things.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp