These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battleship rebalence what happened - CCP care to comment?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-04-06 11:34:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:


And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy?

Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch.


Come at me bro

Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP Shocked

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2015-04-06 12:42:16 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP Shocked


From start to finish it was an adventure of pure hilarity.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#63 - 2015-04-06 15:36:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
March rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:


And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy?

Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch.


Come at me bro

Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP Shocked


A trap by CCP for all turret players.

The Raven may not have a bonus to RLML, but it does have one for RHML.

There is no turret equivalent of the Rapid ML concept.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_Heavy_Pulse_Laser_I (Battleship-sized)

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Quad_Afocal_Light_Maser_I (Cruiser-sized)

They could fix the above two examples that no one ever uses, by reducing the BS one to 165 m signature resolution, and to 70 m for the Cruiser version. Tracking is gud.

Perhaps I should lobby for this. vOv

Thoughts?

P.S. Thread poasted in F&Is section ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread

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

[Cruisers Online]
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#64 - 2015-04-06 17:46:59 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:


And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy?

Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch.


Come at me bro

Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP Shocked


A trap by CCP for all turret players.

The Raven may not have a bonus to RLML, but it does have one for RHML.

There is no turret equivalent of the Rapid ML concept.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_Heavy_Pulse_Laser_I (Battleship-sized)

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Quad_Afocal_Light_Maser_I (Cruiser-sized)

They could fix the above two examples that no one ever uses, by reducing the BS one to 165 m signature resolution, and to 70 m for the Cruiser version. Tracking is gud.

Perhaps I should lobby for this. vOv

Thoughts?

P.S. Thread poasted in F&Is section ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread


I already use the undersized large turrets for their better tracking. Duel 250 rails are great at wrecking cruisers.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#65 - 2015-04-06 18:09:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Tracking difference for fleet engagements should be negligible, as CCP math™ makes it easier to hit, the more the targets are farther away. Smile

I'm trying to revive Close-Medium range engagements on battleships in a cruiser-filled world. Smile

Don't suggest Typhoons, Ravens, Domis or Armageddons, because one thing unites most of them: RHLMs and Drones.

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

[Cruisers Online]
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#66 - 2015-04-06 20:30:16 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Tracking difference for fleet engagements should be negligible, as CCP math™ makes it easier to hit, the more the targets are farther away. Smile

I'm trying to revive Close-Medium range engagements on battleships in a cruiser-filled world. Smile

Don't suggest Typhoons, Ravens, Domis or Armageddons, because one thing unites most of them: RHLMs and Drones.


Literally just went point blank on a cruiser fleet with blasters. Did just fine.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#67 - 2015-04-07 16:24:20 UTC
I'm still working on a player run balance pass over in F&I and trying to get more support for that.
Would love to see people hit up that thread, and a link to it is in my sig.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
To mare
Advanced Technology
#68 - 2015-04-07 19:16:18 UTC
what if webs where slightly influenced by ship mass?
that would mean a web used by a BS on a smaller ship would slow the target more than a small ship webbing a big one (wich make no sense anyway). this would help BS damage application at least in the short ranges.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2015-04-08 10:03:58 UTC
Benedictus de Suede wrote:
Much effort is currently put into balance this game. A dont question the fact that a balanced game is important but rather the way CCP does it.

Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to **** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options.
1) Throw the **** a side and invent something new and better or..
2) Improve it to be competitive
This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE?

Tweaking every asset in the game consumes time. Time that could be spent on delivering even more depth and content to the game.
My suggestion is straight forward - buff the stuff that are "out of balance" and let the rest be.

Today I looked at the zKillboard and did a little comparison regarding how efficient the different Battleships and Cruisers are in the game. Eff. based on reported kills and losses.

Battleships Standard
90 % - Rokh
90% - Tempest
89% - Abaddon
88% - Hyperion
88% - Apocalypse
88% - Armageddon
88% - Typhoon
87% - Megathron
84% - Maelstrom
84% - Scorpion
79% - Dominix
73% - Raven
85% - Mean efficiency

Faction Battleships
95% - Armageddon Navy Issue
94% - Typhoon Fleet Issue
94% - Tempest Fleet Issue
92% - Apocalypse Navy Issue
91% - Megathron Navy Issue
83% - Dominix Navy Issue
76% - Scorpion Navy Issue
66% - Raven Navy Issue
89% - Mean efficiency

Most ships are balanced pretty well but some (the bottom 3) still need SERIUOS buffing right?
Btw the Ishtar, according to zKillboard, have the lowest efficency (89%) and it got nerfed???
HAC ships look very well balanced so I can´t see a need to rebalance them at all.
In general if you also look at the other cruisers; Gallente could use some buffing and Caldari even more to bring them up to the Minmatars and Amarrs very even scores.

CCP - care to comment?



Seriously these numbers are not reelvant right now. Why? because battleships became a NICHE usage. People use them for PVP only on the very very ultra specific scenarios where they are sure to win, that is why they have that efficiency. In real terms playing, battleships are RARE as PVP boats because they are HORRIBLY WEAK when takign the account the time they take to arrive on combat.


For example, the tempest is one of the worse battleships, but has some specific niche application in pvp that ensure its vicotyr (no blaster cruiser or BC will EVER defeat a tempest), and is NEVER EVER used in PVE. The raven navy issue is used a LOT in PVE, and when pve players are PVPEd upon, they tend to explode in little bits.

That is the main reason why you see the disparity. In reality, the raven navy issue is MASSIVELY stronger than the tempest on several, if not most scenarios. The normal raven is even right now one of the FEW battleships beign used in large scale in fleet fights. A type of combat were there is large mortality. The tempest and hyperion are ONLY used in very small scale PVP, where people tend to engage only when they are sure of victory.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2015-04-08 10:08:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Tracking difference for fleet engagements should be negligible, as CCP math™ makes it easier to hit, the more the targets are farther away. Smile

I'm trying to revive Close-Medium range engagements on battleships in a cruiser-filled world. Smile

Don't suggest Typhoons, Ravens, Domis or Armageddons, because one thing unites most of them: RHLMs and Drones.


Literally just went point blank on a cruiser fleet with blasters. Did just fine.



If the cruisers are sleeping yes.. if they are awake and capable players (That means people that think by themselves instead of waiting for FC orders) they will mostly evade before they are trapped. And that is ok...


But almost all battleships could get a boost in survivability. THe fact that they are so much larger and track so much worse than cruisers means that in the majority of the scenarios they apply DPS less efficiently and have less staying power ( in a scenario with logis) than t2 and t3 cruisers.

One thing that I think ccp is missing a chance is on the entosis link. If CCP made them have less range that would help battleships by reducing the influence of mobility on at least soem scenarios.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2015-04-08 10:11:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Amanda Guido wrote:


And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy?

Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch.


Come at me bro

Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP Shocked


A trap by CCP for all turret players.

The Raven may not have a bonus to RLML, but it does have one for RHML.

There is no turret equivalent of the Rapid ML concept.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_Heavy_Pulse_Laser_I (Battleship-sized)

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Quad_Afocal_Light_Maser_I (Cruiser-sized)

They could fix the above two examples that no one ever uses, by reducing the BS one to 165 m signature resolution, and to 70 m for the Cruiser version. Tracking is gud.

Perhaps I should lobby for this. vOv

Thoughts?

P.S. Thread poasted in F&Is section ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread


I already use the undersized large turrets for their better tracking. Duel 250 rails are great at wrecking cruisers.



I just wish ccp would nto double penalize smaller tier of turrets. The High trackign ones shoudl have shorter range as drawback.. and same DPS.

So I would make the 3 tiers as:

1- LOW fittings Standard range, Low DPS
2- Normal Fittings, Smaller range, Normal DPS
3- Normal Fittings, Longer range, Normal DPS.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#72 - 2015-04-08 19:48:56 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:



I just wish ccp would nto double penalize smaller tier of turrets. The High trackign ones shoudl have shorter range as drawback.. and same DPS.

So I would make the 3 tiers as:

1- LOW fittings Standard range, Low DPS
2- Normal Fittings, Smaller range, Normal DPS
3- Normal Fittings, Longer range, Normal DPS.


Thankfully you are not CCP.

I already get the blasters to track frigates and fighters well enough with the smaller grade large blasters, I do not need more tracking in them.