These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Battleship Fights
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Winters Chill
Unitas Incorporated
#81 - 2015-02-28 23:56:02 UTC
In this meta, battleships should not fit damage modules.

If you add three damage upgrade modules to battleship (like nearly everyone does, ever!) and you know for a fact the typical roamer is a faction cruiser thats very fast. How does doing more damage actually help? If you can't hit him?

Compared to cruisers and frigates battleships put out a shed tonne of vanilla DPS, they don't need more damage, they need to be able to hit.

So if I was going to fit 'any races" battleship. I'd fit with the guns with the best tracking and I'd stick tracking enhancers, tracking computers and target painters (nasty if they are using MWD) on there. Also tracking implants can't hurt either (oh and the tracking booster, whatever its called).

Thats what I'd do.

Also battleship with tracking or falloff bonuses are probably were its at right now.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#82 - 2015-03-01 00:08:09 UTC
Winters Chill wrote:
In this meta, battleships should not fit damage modules.

If you add three damage upgrade modules to battleship (like nearly everyone does, ever!) and you know for a fact the typical roamer is a faction cruiser thats very fast. How does doing more damage actually help? If you can't hit him?

Compared to cruisers and frigates battleships put out a shed tonne of vanilla DPS, they don't need more damage, they need to be able to hit.

So if I was going to fit 'any races" battleship. I'd fit with the guns with the best tracking and I'd stick tracking enhancers, tracking computers and target painters (nasty if they are using MWD) on there. Also tracking implants can't hurt either (oh and the tracking booster, whatever its called).

Thats what I'd do.

Also battleship with tracking or falloff bonuses are probably were its at right now.



That actually seems pretty reasonable. Except where it doesn't. Which is everywhere.

What you are suggesting is that you do everything you possibly can to gimp a battleship into being an oversized, obese cruiser.

This is completely f***tarded. If you need a cruiser, fly a cruiser. Don't fly a battleship sh!tfit to hell to try and make it an expensive, bad cruiser. Just don't ever do that.

I'm glad you posted though, because now I have some idea of what these clowns are complaining about.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Kiryen O'Bannon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#83 - 2015-03-01 04:35:50 UTC
Glathull wrote:
Winters Chill wrote:
In this meta, battleships should not fit damage modules.

If you add three damage upgrade modules to battleship (like nearly everyone does, ever!) and you know for a fact the typical roamer is a faction cruiser thats very fast. How does doing more damage actually help? If you can't hit him?

Compared to cruisers and frigates battleships put out a shed tonne of vanilla DPS, they don't need more damage, they need to be able to hit.

So if I was going to fit 'any races" battleship. I'd fit with the guns with the best tracking and I'd stick tracking enhancers, tracking computers and target painters (nasty if they are using MWD) on there. Also tracking implants can't hurt either (oh and the tracking booster, whatever its called).

Thats what I'd do.

Also battleship with tracking or falloff bonuses are probably were its at right now.



That actually seems pretty reasonable. Except where it doesn't. Which is everywhere.

What you are suggesting is that you do everything you possibly can to gimp a battleship into being an oversized, obese cruiser.

This is completely f***tarded. If you need a cruiser, fly a cruiser. Don't fly a battleship sh!tfit to hell to try and make it an expensive, bad cruiser. Just don't ever do that.

I'm glad you posted though, because now I have some idea of what these clowns are complaining about.


You migh t be more convincing if you had cited a reason why his suggestion is bad. Using application modules rather than more damage modules makes perfect sense. This does not somehow turn it into an oversize cruiser, it means you can apply damage to cruisers - and for that matter, you'll likely have better application if you mean another battleship.

It seems you're just offended by the suggestion for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Eternal Father, King of birth, /Who didst create the heaven and earth, /And bid the planets and the sun/ Their own appointed orbits run; /O hear us when we seek thy grace /For those who soar through outer space.
Harrison Tato
Yamato Holdings
#84 - 2015-03-01 05:06:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Harrison Tato
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:
Glathull wrote:
Winters Chill wrote:
In this meta, battleships should not fit damage modules.

If you add three damage upgrade modules to battleship (like nearly everyone does, ever!) and you know for a fact the typical roamer is a faction cruiser thats very fast. How does doing more damage actually help? If you can't hit him?

Compared to cruisers and frigates battleships put out a shed tonne of vanilla DPS, they don't need more damage, they need to be able to hit.

So if I was going to fit 'any races" battleship. I'd fit with the guns with the best tracking and I'd stick tracking enhancers, tracking computers and target painters (nasty if they are using MWD) on there. Also tracking implants can't hurt either (oh and the tracking booster, whatever its called).

Thats what I'd do.

Also battleship with tracking or falloff bonuses are probably were its at right now.



That actually seems pretty reasonable. Except where it doesn't. Which is everywhere.

What you are suggesting is that you do everything you possibly can to gimp a battleship into being an oversized, obese cruiser.

This is completely f***tarded. If you need a cruiser, fly a cruiser. Don't fly a battleship sh!tfit to hell to try and make it an expensive, bad cruiser. Just don't ever do that.

I'm glad you posted though, because now I have some idea of what these clowns are complaining about.


You migh t be more convincing if you had cited a reason why his suggestion is bad. Using application modules rather than more damage modules makes perfect sense. This does not somehow turn it into an oversize cruiser, it means you can apply damage to cruisers - and for that matter, you'll likely have better application if you mean another battleship.

It seems you're just offended by the suggestion for no apparent reason whatsoever.


And you might suprise somebody which is always fun. You can't miss anyone hard enough to hurt them.
Kiandoshia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2015-03-01 05:29:36 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
Glathull wrote:


Fly more battleships. Lose them. Get completely owned in them. That will show CCP how much they need buffs.

Okay, that was sarcasm.

You know what will really really show CCP how much they need to buff BS? Just don't ever fly battleships. Never ever. Ever. At all. Don't even train for them.

That way, when you never fly them and don't even have the skills to fly them, everyone will always listen to you about how much they need buffs.

Dammit. Sarcasm strikes again. I gotta stop that.


I would fly battleships, i WANT to fly battleships, but between the ridiculas warp time (I can litrally go for a bio break while im warping across the bigger systems) and bomber spam, i may as well sit at Jita undock in a pimped golem.
Asking for the biggest sub-cap ship, which is supposed to be the most powerful ship, to actually BE the most powerful ship, isn't asking for to much.


The stupid thing is, they are the most powerful ship.. Powerful in tersm of damage output.. that's what CCP said. When they are out, they hurt... if they are used to that effect. The problem or at least the issue that the 'broad masses' have with battleships is that you can't move them anywhere, not on their own and most of the time not with anything else cause anything else just runs away from them or gets bored waiting for them.

I guess you could fly BS gangs with triage carriers though, until you run into a wall of Ishtar anyways.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#86 - 2015-03-01 10:35:15 UTC
Regarding the battleship damage chart presented here http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png as a link directly from here http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla

I notice that there are several different colours and that care is taken to directly avoid actually putting names on which ships those colours belong to. No efforts made to specifically cite examples of common usage.

I'm led to suspect that pirate faction battleships make up either the lions share or come in close second to more accessible ships like navy apocs and navy megathrons.

Just for *once* I'd really like to see a bulletpoint format list of things. Let me even provide an example:

Total percentage of pvp damage done by battleships = 100%
Navy apoc 14%
Navy thron 13.8%
Machariel 13%
Navy phoon 11%
-
-
-
Rokh 1%
Navy tempest 1%

Something like this would be much appreciated for the public because WE can see where the game is lacking by virture of raw performance alone. People *will always use the best tool available* and will even instruct you dutifully to train for ******* capitals and sentries as soon as you join their alliance because that's what they want and expect from you as a player. Or whatever. Obviously time and money are not considered valid obstacles to fleet engagements above a certain size but you can bet your left testicle noone is going to deliberately bring an underpowered ship for goodfeels in flying an underdog fleet comp and then wiping.
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#87 - 2015-03-01 11:14:26 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Regarding the battleship damage chart presented here http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png as a link directly from here http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla

I notice that there are several different colours and that care is taken to directly avoid actually putting names on which ships those colours belong to. No efforts made to specifically cite examples of common usage.

I'm led to suspect that pirate faction battleships make up either the lions share or come in close second to more accessible ships like navy apocs and navy megathrons.

Just for *once* I'd really like to see a bulletpoint format list of things. Let me even provide an example:

Total percentage of pvp damage done by battleships = 100%
Navy apoc 14%
Navy thron 13.8%
Machariel 13%
Navy phoon 11%
-
-
-
Rokh 1%
Navy tempest 1%

Something like this would be much appreciated for the public because WE can see where the game is lacking by virture of raw performance alone. People *will always use the best tool available* and will even instruct you dutifully to train for ******* capitals and sentries as soon as you join their alliance because that's what they want and expect from you as a player. Or whatever. Obviously time and money are not considered valid obstacles to fleet engagements above a certain size but you can bet your left testicle noone is going to deliberately bring an underpowered ship for goodfeels in flying an underdog fleet comp and then wiping.


i wonder how much of the damage done by BS's is just camping gates, rather than fleet engagements?
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#88 - 2015-03-01 11:20:08 UTC
Good luck getting that information. They'll cite being scared of revealing powerful combos and swinging everything in that direction (or similar). And then they turn the other cheek and tell you that they balance the game based on trends and that when a trend becomes too strong they adjust it to push it back down.

And frankly their information gathering process probably isn't that specific. I play on SISI for impressions of how the game functions purely from a combat perspective. TQ is another story, where you have a large 'civilian' population financially supporting a much smaller 'fighting' population, like a real country. The stronger your economy the more isk bloat your fit can afford.
Incestuous Criticism
#89 - 2015-03-01 13:15:12 UTC
Orlacc wrote:
You young punks! In my day we used Battleships to mine! (true story) And it was uphill both ways!


Yeah the ROKH was a great mining ship...
Nina Lowel
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#90 - 2015-03-02 06:49:08 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:
If you really want battleship fights, you need to find some low sec worth fighting over. Bombers can't pee in your cornflakes there, hot drops are very unlikely and a fortified battleship fleet could stand up to an Ishtar fleet with a proper doctrine.

Name that low sec? Nope, I go t nothing.



Because who cares about low sec? Don't want to fight? Dock up, nothing of harm can be done. Dock up in 0.0? SBU's and sov loss.
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2015-03-02 07:08:36 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Let's not also forget with the recent warp changes BS"s just simply suck to fly now from a roaming perspective.

Maybe, just maybe; not every ship is suited for roaming?

The battleship is meant to be deployed with a purpose. It is not some nimble butterfly who has the luxury of just zipping around just because. It is a hard hitting beast. It moves with a goal in mind, a target, for heavy defense of your home.

Roaming around is not what it does and most certainly does not need to have this changed.

Keep in mind that it not just affects you, but your enemies. It means that when they opt to bring cruisers and smaller to roam around and end up on your front door; you are able to enjoy undocking battleships to start sending hay-makers their way. All with the knowledge they can not snap their fingers and have their battleships zip over to match yours.

Granted the whole bombers thing needs to be addressed in an elegant way, but my point stands. The battleship is in a good spot when it comes to the mobility of other ships.

Another thing to consider is resetting some blues so you don't have to travel as far with your battleships to find targets. Or would that be just a bit too dangerous for you? Blink
Nina Lowel
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#92 - 2015-03-02 08:14:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nina Lowel
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Let's not also forget with the recent warp changes BS"s just simply suck to fly now from a roaming perspective.

Maybe, just maybe; not every ship is suited for roaming?

The battleship is meant to be deployed with a purpose. It is not some nimble butterfly who has the luxury of just zipping around just because. It is a hard hitting beast. It moves with a goal in mind, a target, for heavy defense of your home.

Roaming around is not what it does and most certainly does not need to have this changed.

Keep in mind that it not just affects you, but your enemies. It means that when they opt to bring cruisers and smaller to roam around and end up on your front door; you are able to enjoy undocking battleships to start sending hay-makers their way. All with the knowledge they can not snap their fingers and have their battleships zip over to match yours.

Granted the whole bombers thing needs to be addressed in an elegant way, but my point stands. The battleship is in a good spot when it comes to the mobility of other ships.

Another thing to consider is resetting some blues so you don't have to travel as far with your battleships to find targets. Or would that be just a bit too dangerous for you? Blink



Battleships serve no purpose. The moment they hit the battlefield they are probed, warped to at range for bombs and bombs launched before they can even get aligned out. They are a joke right now. Doesn't even take that many bombs either.

In Null, any type of engagement that matters is going to have a sizable wing of bombers which means battleships are worthless in any engagement that matters, it's really that simple.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#93 - 2015-03-02 09:19:56 UTC
Nina Lowel wrote:
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Let's not also forget with the recent warp changes BS"s just simply suck to fly now from a roaming perspective.

Maybe, just maybe; not every ship is suited for roaming?

The battleship is meant to be deployed with a purpose. It is not some nimble butterfly who has the luxury of just zipping around just because. It is a hard hitting beast. It moves with a goal in mind, a target, for heavy defense of your home.

Roaming around is not what it does and most certainly does not need to have this changed.

Keep in mind that it not just affects you, but your enemies. It means that when they opt to bring cruisers and smaller to roam around and end up on your front door; you are able to enjoy undocking battleships to start sending hay-makers their way. All with the knowledge they can not snap their fingers and have their battleships zip over to match yours.

Granted the whole bombers thing needs to be addressed in an elegant way, but my point stands. The battleship is in a good spot when it comes to the mobility of other ships.

Another thing to consider is resetting some blues so you don't have to travel as far with your battleships to find targets. Or would that be just a bit too dangerous for you? Blink



Battleships serve no purpose. The moment they hit the battlefield they are probed, warped to at range for bombs and bombs launched before they can even get aligned out. They are a joke right now. Doesn't even take that many bombs either.

In Null, any type of engagement that matters is going to have a sizable wing of bombers which means battleships are worthless in any engagement that matters, it's really that simple.


It would take over 100 bombs to bring down a baltec fleet. Only shield doctrines that use ships without a resist bonus are easy targets. The reason you dont see BS fleets is due to three things.

T3 being massivly overpowered
Ishtars abusing sentries ( not just sentry firepower but their better tracking)
logistics.

All three need to be sorted, the battleships themselves dont need any buffs.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#94 - 2015-03-02 11:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
One-part fix would be to relegate sentry use to battleship hulls - increase the volume of sentries and up battleships' dronebays.

1) Ishtar won't be able to sport more than 1 set of sentries, if a full set at all.
2) Sentries' damage and tracking stay the same
3) Battleships might sneak into the meta of fleet warfare again due to 1)

If bandwidth stays the same, then an Apocalypse battleship with its 50 Mbit/sec drone bandwidth, would be able to wield the same number of sentries as it does now - two. Smile

Someone lobby for this, because I'm le tired.

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

[Cruisers Online]
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2015-03-02 12:18:19 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
One-part fix would be to relegate sentry use to battleship hulls - increase the volume of sentries and up battleships' dronebays.

1) Ishtar won't be able to sport more than 1 set of sentries, if a full set at all....

btw: little offtopic here. Recently unpacked my old Gila (bought in 2010 and seen many different spaces since). Found that Gila can no more use heavy drones. Yes, i recall something about changes to drones.
So the question: how did it happen so Gila was 'changed' and Ishtar was not? For me it looks very strange.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kiandoshia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2015-03-02 12:23:45 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
One-part fix would be to relegate sentry use to battleship hulls - increase the volume of sentries and up battleships' dronebays.

1) Ishtar won't be able to sport more than 1 set of sentries, if a full set at all....

btw: little offtopic here. Recently unpacked my old Gila (bought in 2010 and seen many different spaces since). Found that Gila can no more use heavy drones. Yes, i recall something about changes to drones.
So the question: how did it happen so Gila was 'changed' and Ishtar was not? For me it looks very strange.


Basically, the Guristas ships were changed in such a way that they now receive bonuses to drones in their size class. The Worm has amazing light drones (2 of them), the Gila has amazing medium drones (2 of them) and the Rattlesnake has amazing heavy or sentry drones (2 of them) or a Gecko.
Commander Spurty
#97 - 2015-03-02 13:09:12 UTC
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
They need a significant boost in EHP or a significant boost to the damage they deal to smaller ships or a significant boost to the damage they deal to larger ships.

Preferably specific battleship hulls will specialize in each of these rolls.

A good practical example is the Rattlesnake: It's damage bonus is to MISSILES, not to Cruises or Torps. This allows it to project terrific firepower onto frigates if it chooses to fit rapid lights. This flexibility should be available to more battleships.


Where should they commence from?

- frigates and work up
- battle ships and work up and down
- Titans and work down

Asking as I favor such a balance, but it needs to follow some theory such as "1 trit = 1 hit point" math and distribution across hull, armor and shields

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Scira Crimson
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#98 - 2015-03-03 10:43:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Scira Crimson
I read that CCP stated, that they do no plan on changing the warp speed of battle ships because they want more tactical depth.
This sounds reasonable, but I still think that this is buying a small advantage with a big disadvantage.

A game needs to be fun and thus its important to keep up FLUID GAMEPLAY. Jumping throuh gates and warping, espacially with battleships, is the very definition of "not fun".

Its never a good idea to balance game mechanics around tediousness.

Why not change warp speeds to 10,9,8,7,6 (depending on ship classes) and balance the ships strengths and weaknesses elsewhere?

I am too new to make good suggestions for specific balance changes, but I think avoiding tediousness and lameness in any game is universally true for good game design.


Another point: Why should battleships not be slightly better overall than other ships? They have high costs.

When I get into fleet PvP one day I dont want to see only paper frigates which cost <20 mio, but I want to see player who invest into the win and be rewarded for their bravery.

And I dont want to play fleet PvP when it takes 2h until the fight actually starts... (and maybe those 2h are actually optimistic? :) )

High mobility and flow is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE for any good PvP game!

(if BS have only 2 AUs I could also play chess via mail... would basically be the same...)
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#99 - 2015-03-03 11:49:39 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Regarding the battleship damage chart presented here http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png as a link directly from here http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla

I notice that there are several different colours and that care is taken to directly avoid actually putting names on which ships those colours belong to. No efforts made to specifically cite examples of common usage.

I'm led to suspect that pirate faction battleships make up either the lions share or come in close second to more accessible ships like navy apocs and navy megathrons.

Just for *once* I'd really like to see a bulletpoint format list of things. Let me even provide an example:

Total percentage of pvp damage done by battleships = 100%
Navy apoc 14%
Navy thron 13.8%
Machariel 13%
Navy phoon 11%
-
-
-
Rokh 1%
Navy tempest 1%

Something like this would be much appreciated for the public because WE can see where the game is lacking by virture of raw performance alone. People *will always use the best tool available* and will even instruct you dutifully to train for ******* capitals and sentries as soon as you join their alliance because that's what they want and expect from you as a player. Or whatever. Obviously time and money are not considered valid obstacles to fleet engagements above a certain size but you can bet your left testicle noone is going to deliberately bring an underpowered ship for goodfeels in flying an underdog fleet comp and then wiping.


i wonder how much of the damage done by BS's is just camping gates, rather than fleet engagements?


Given that Napoc with Triage is an Ishtar hard counter for structure fights, it's probably mainly fleets for the first one. Machariel also works well in fleets right now. Not sure who is using the Mega Navy or Typhoon Navy though.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#100 - 2015-03-03 12:22:24 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Kestral Anneto wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Regarding the battleship damage chart presented here http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66946/1/STEVE_7.png as a link directly from here http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla

I notice that there are several different colours and that care is taken to directly avoid actually putting names on which ships those colours belong to. No efforts made to specifically cite examples of common usage.

I'm led to suspect that pirate faction battleships make up either the lions share or come in close second to more accessible ships like navy apocs and navy megathrons.

Just for *once* I'd really like to see a bulletpoint format list of things. Let me even provide an example:

Total percentage of pvp damage done by battleships = 100%
Navy apoc 14%
Navy thron 13.8%
Machariel 13%
Navy phoon 11%
-
-
-
Rokh 1%
Navy tempest 1%

Something like this would be much appreciated for the public because WE can see where the game is lacking by virture of raw performance alone. People *will always use the best tool available* and will even instruct you dutifully to train for ******* capitals and sentries as soon as you join their alliance because that's what they want and expect from you as a player. Or whatever. Obviously time and money are not considered valid obstacles to fleet engagements above a certain size but you can bet your left testicle noone is going to deliberately bring an underpowered ship for goodfeels in flying an underdog fleet comp and then wiping.


i wonder how much of the damage done by BS's is just camping gates, rather than fleet engagements?


Given that Napoc with Triage is an Ishtar hard counter for structure fights, it's probably mainly fleets for the first one. Machariel also works well in fleets right now. Not sure who is using the Mega Navy or Typhoon Navy though.


Phhon is a great anti cruiser platform. As for the mega...