These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

So, new battleships eh?

First post
Author
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-07-19 10:47:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kestral Anneto
Ok, so i'll start this off by saying im a huge battleship fanboi, I would love nothing more than to see huge battleship fleets burning paths through New Eden.
Now, we all know that isn't going to happen, because battleships are to slow and to vulnrable to bombing. So whats the point of bringing new battleships into the game? why not fix the ones that are in already?
Im not complaining, as ive said, the "moar battleships" the better, it just seems like a bit pointless from where im sitting. They will release these new hulls, there will be a bit of an uptick, then it will go back to Cruisers Online when people release "oh hey, we can get BS EHP from a T3 and roughly the same DPS in a HAC". As unless they give Battleships a jumpdrive and a point defense system against bombs, they will, sadly, be PvE boats (in my opinion).
I'd actaully like a dev response to this as to why they have elected to introduce new hulls rather than fix the existing ones, but any info would be appreciated. I could be entirely wrong and CCP are doing something completely out of the box to bring battleships back to big fleet fights, in which case bravo and encore!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2 - 2015-07-19 11:05:28 UTC
Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2015-07-19 11:12:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.


equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2015-07-19 11:18:39 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:


equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.


Thats only an issue with large shield fleets.
Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2015-07-19 11:35:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Kestral Anneto wrote:


equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.


Thats only an issue with large shield fleets.


and two races use use shields are defence, so its rather unbalanced to have half of the battleships unable to be used in PvP without being as vulnrable to bombs as the other half. They could change how the bombs work so its flat damage minus resists, and doesn't take sig into account.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#6 - 2015-07-19 12:13:35 UTC
Kestral Anneto wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kestral Anneto wrote:


equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.


Thats only an issue with large shield fleets.


and two races use use shields are defence, so its rather unbalanced to have half of the battleships unable to be used in PvP without being as vulnrable to bombs as the other half. They could change how the bombs work so its flat damage minus resists, and doesn't take sig into account.


Not using them in large scale fleet combat is not the same as being unable to use them in pvp. Just about every battleship you just tossed away are fantastic at solo/small gang work.
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#7 - 2015-07-19 14:32:05 UTC
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#8 - 2015-07-19 14:46:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.


Kestral Anneto wrote:
equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
#9 - 2015-07-19 15:24:11 UTC
Webvan wrote:
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.



Such as docking them and disembarking, then doing stuff in the station not involving walking in circles and sitting on a crappy space couch?


Wait, maybe this kind of reply was too early. Are we still considered dissident hipsters if we want alternative gameplay introduced? I'm not very social so its hard to read what the mob is thinking sometimes.
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#10 - 2015-07-19 15:30:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Webvan
Kuronaga wrote:
Webvan wrote:
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.



Such as docking them and disembarking, then doing stuff in the station not involving walking in circles and sitting on a crappy space couch?


Wait, maybe this kind of reply was too early. Are we still considered dissident hipsters if we want alternative gameplay introduced? I'm not very social so its hard to read what the mob is thinking sometimes.

Only if we could blap the couch with the ship guns, buddy. heh
Rephrase: things to do in the ship. ...like out in space.... pew

Yes, very general point. I know how to post a thread in the ideas forum to be promptly ignored by CCP like the same 500 identical threads that came before it.

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
#11 - 2015-07-19 15:44:52 UTC
Webvan wrote:
Kuronaga wrote:
Webvan wrote:
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.



Such as docking them and disembarking, then doing stuff in the station not involving walking in circles and sitting on a crappy space couch?


Wait, maybe this kind of reply was too early. Are we still considered dissident hipsters if we want alternative gameplay introduced? I'm not very social so its hard to read what the mob is thinking sometimes.

Only if we could blap the couch with the ship guns, buddy. heh
Rephrase: things to do in the ship. ...like out in space.... pew



Not really interested then.

EVE combat is layered deeply enough for my taste. Making it "deeper" is fairly counter-productive and just leads to more uncontrollable variables and randomized outcomes rather than skill driven outcomes. More rock paper scissors, less thunder dome, and so on. Wasn't a fan of the building our own stargate ideas either. If space was smaller, maybe, but people are cowardly enough as it is with the current amount of space in the game. Giving them more places to run away to isn't going to increase interaction.

There are things they can still do, I'm sure, but at this point its iterating on the existing concepts. Existing concepts haven't been exciting for ten years, and iteration only makes it feel fresh for a small period of time. Fozzie Sov replaced pinata with whack-a-mole. Not a very compelling argument for someone like me to care about Sov suddenly. And if its only purpose was to satisfy the people who do already enjoy it, then that's also a problem because it leads to a 0% growth.
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#12 - 2015-07-19 15:56:11 UTC
Er things to do with/in/at/under/behind/around/of ships. Not "more space". lol?
Not couches either...
Not even if you could strap a rocket launcher on one.

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
#13 - 2015-07-19 16:04:30 UTC
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#14 - 2015-07-19 17:25:50 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#15 - 2015-07-19 17:53:00 UTC
The current way signature works is that high-sig guns do lower damage against low-sig targets. This is utterly preposterous - larger guns should always do more damage against smaller ships. Smaller ships already have significant damage mitigation against larger vessels by dint of their superior speed and manouverability.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#16 - 2015-07-19 17:57:59 UTC
Why people asume it's about new BS.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Kestral Anneto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-07-19 18:12:21 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Why people asume it's about new BS.


because the Amarrian Empress said it was the hull of a new navy battleship being laid down, of the abaddon class.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/world-news/navy-announce-imperial-keel-laying-ceremony-empress-confirmed-to-attend/
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#18 - 2015-07-19 18:18:26 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
The current way signature works is that high-sig guns do lower damage against low-sig targets. This is utterly preposterous - larger guns should always do more damage against smaller ships. Smaller ships already have significant damage mitigation against larger vessels by dint of their superior speed and manouverability.

Ehh no, you just killed armour brawling frigates off , the way Sig resolutions work is fairly important from keeping the meta "shields or go home"
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#19 - 2015-07-19 18:24:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Andreus Ixiris wrote:

Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.


You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?

Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.



What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Darth Terona
Fancypants Inc
Pandemic Horde
#20 - 2015-07-19 19:06:38 UTC
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by looking at the imperial issue Armageddon, the new battleships must be some kind of prize.
Not something everyone is going to have. So kinda mutes the point op.

Well point still valid but delivery is off
123Next pageLast page