These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So, new battleships eh?

First post
Author
Anette Maricadie
Interstellar Autonomous Services Inc.
#101 - 2015-07-21 14:03:34 UTC
Elinarien wrote:
Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.

Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.

Just a thought.


Finally, someone that makes sense. Looking at Large combat seagoing vessels from the past, they often are armed with a multitude of different calibers. From large anti-ship/artillery cannons down to anti-air guns and anything in between for varying ranges. The RHM launcher is all fine and dandy, but what about ships that can't fit launchers? Either additional high slots get provided to equip "secondary armament" or sig radius for large guns get lowered.

On the subject of T3BS, yeah, no. I'd rather have a second marauder in every faction, utilizing that faction's secondary weapon system. (Missile/drone for Amarr, Hybrid for Caldari, Drone for Gallente, Missile for Minmatar). You have these amazing battleship hulls that rarely get used, the Abaddon is by far my favorite model in the game, so why not use them?

About T3C vs BS: The only change that could be done to T3Cs is give them a "tactical mode" system like the dessies, where offensive mode boosts offensive subsystems, defensive boosts defensive and so on. This would entail A LOT of balancing work and is, I feel, unlikely to happen. On the other hand, changing battleships should be easier.

Another thing battleships would need is some protection from "lesser" ships, as those often do the same amount of raw dps or more in some cases. I'd suggest "bouncing". Give battleships a chance to "bounce" shots, like in the old days tanks would bounce smaller shells (before Sabot/shaped charge became a thing). I mean, I can hardly imagine a rocket doing any damage to such a thick armor unless it strikes a particular weak spot.

Just my 2 cents.
Anette Maricadie
Interstellar Autonomous Services Inc.
#102 - 2015-07-21 14:11:25 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Elinarien wrote:
Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.

Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.

Just a thought.

Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.

Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.


You're not wrong, but it shouldn't be an easy choice, whether or not to attack a BS. Yeah, there are battleship hulls that *CAN* defeat smaller ships, but also those that got major issues with it or downright can't.

I doubt Stitch (or anyone for that matter) wants Battleships to wreck face on everything it encounters. I personally don't want to see a BS dealing 1k+ deeps with it's main guns and another 1k deeps with its secondary guns. That.is.silly.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#103 - 2015-07-21 14:22:51 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Elinarien wrote:
Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.

Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.

Just a thought.

Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.

Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.


Perfectly well said. People ignore the past all the time, in this case they ignore WHY BSs made it to their current state compared to their 'solopwnmobile' beginnings. If you give battleships all the advantages people ask for, nothing else would be flown. It would be funny as hell if CCP nerfed the ishtar , and 10 years from now some clueless nub starts a thread about how Ishtars Suck and CCP really needs to buff them and sentry drones lol. It would be like Deja Vu.


As it is, players who are actually good can take single battleship hull and slaughter entire fleets of smaller ships even when those smaller ships are flown well. I wrote a lengthy post in another (train wreck) BS thread about my experience with another game and supposedly under used game items.

The TL;DR there is that if you buff something that is supposedly "underused" but that is useable by good players already, you create unbalanced monsters that those same good players can use to bludgeon the entire rest of the game world with. Imagine the Big Miker type solo BS pilot with one of these 'improved' battleships. it would be madness.

BSs are right where they need to be save maybe some minor tweaking like the Tempest just received. Doing more than that would be stupid.
Anette Maricadie
Interstellar Autonomous Services Inc.
#104 - 2015-07-21 14:31:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Anette Maricadie
Jenn aSide wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Elinarien wrote:
Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.

Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.

Just a thought.

Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.

Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.


Perfectly well said. People ignore the past all the time, in this case they ignore WHY BSs made it to their current state compared to their 'solopwnmobile' beginnings. If you give battleships all the advantages people ask for, nothing else would be flown. It would be funny as hell if CCP nerfed the ishtar , and 10 years from now some clueless nub starts a thread about how Ishtars Suck and CCP really needs to buff them and sentry drones lol. It would be like Deja Vu.


As it is, players who are actually good can take single battleship hull and slaughter entire fleets of smaller ships even when those smaller ships are flown well. I wrote a lengthy post in another (train wreck) BS thread about my experience with another game and supposedly under used game items.

The TL;DR there is that if you buff something that is supposedly "underused" but that is useable by good players already, you create unbalanced monsters that those same good players can use to bludgeon the entire rest of the game world with. Imagine the Big Miker type solo BS pilot with one of these 'improved' battleships. it would be madness.

BSs are right where they need to be save maybe some minor tweaking like the Tempest just received. Doing more than that would be stupid.


That vid (and most other vids I've seen of a BS eliminating whole fleets of smaller ships) uses RHML, which obviously isn't THE solution. In my personal view, a battleship should ALWAYS win vs a single smaller ship in prolonged combat. Not decimate or alphastrike ships, that'd just frustrate everyone and lead to griefing. The least a battleship should do is be able to take a ridiculous amount of damage and not solely rely on drones (which can be easily killed on non-droneboats) or RHML to deal with smaller vessels.

*edit* thanks for that link btw, epic soundtrack.
Caiman Graystock
Starways Congress
#105 - 2015-07-21 14:44:33 UTC
Much sadness was had 

I was definitely hoping the increased drifter threat would lead to the development of new Tech II battleships based on the Abaddon/Rokh/Hyperion/Maelstrom and that this was the kick off for that. I guess not. One day maybe?
stoicfaux
#106 - 2015-07-21 14:46:34 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:

Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.

Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.

On the other hand, why bother creating battleships if they can only kill other battleships?[1] It's a bit of the "Paris Hilton is famous because she's famous" paradox.

What role do battleships provides nowadays? Glorified EHP sponges? Range projection due to large guns? Structure bashing? For fighting cap ships?


[1] Battleships CAN kill smaller ships. A better question is whether you're simply better off flying a smaller ship to kill smaller ships (that require less isk and training time to get into, have less damage application problems, and can actually warp somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.)

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#107 - 2015-07-21 15:28:00 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:

Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.

Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.

On the other hand, why bother creating battleships if they can only kill other battleships?[1] It's a bit of the "Paris Hilton is famous because she's famous" paradox.

What role do battleships provides nowadays? Glorified EHP sponges? Range projection due to large guns? Structure bashing? For fighting cap ships?


[1] Battleships CAN kill smaller ships. A better question is whether you're simply better off flying a smaller ship to kill smaller ships (that require less isk and training time to get into, have less damage application problems, and can actually warp somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.)



The BIGGEST issue with battleships is their natural prey doesnt exist anymore. That prey being battlecruisers. BS are not intended to be fit with RHML with rigors, TP, and webs as their normal loadout. That was created by others (including myself) to counter the masses of cruisers in a hull that can take the abuse while also offering utility that cannot be matched.

What BS offer is more than an EHP sponge. They offer utility and range combined with higher EHP. You cannot get heavy neuts on any other ship (except maybe a bastardized curse). Heavy neuts are the bane of most cruisers.

Using my typhoon FI as an example. Combining 2 heavy neuts with 900-1200dps and 130k EHP plus an MJD that obliterates t3d and most cruisers/HACs all the while being very hard to hold down is a powerful tool. Id say the MJD and heavy neuts alone are what make BS very useful.

If you were to fix battlecruisers so they arent utter **** (see my sig), except in niche' scenarios, then BS will have an alternate role, other than frontline fleet ship.

So right now, we have a huge influx of cruisers.

Cruisers are countered by more cruisers. This is bad. Battlecruisers should counter cruisers, but they dont, at least not in the current meta. It should be something like this:

Frigate = Frigate
destroyer > frigate
cruiser > destroyer
BC > cruiser <--- is broken causing many issues
BS > BC

The ship food chain is broken. Fix it, and then BS will be in a better position. Some tweaking of BS may be needed. An overhaul on all BS or point defense silliness is not.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#108 - 2015-07-21 15:46:45 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
It should be something like this:

Frigate = Frigate
destroyer > frigate
cruiser > destroyer
BC > cruiser <--- is broken causing many issues
BS > BC
Many frigs > BS.
Lest we forget.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#109 - 2015-07-21 15:50:22 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
That was created by others (including myself) to counter the masses of cruisers in a hull that can take the abuse while also offering utility that cannot be matched.


Well, now, there's another idea: rebalance them toward the massive versatility of the Dominix and the Armageddon. Give them all multiple utility highs and/or overlapping turret and missile hardpoints and rebalance the damage output around fewer turrets. Essentially, they'd be like baby Marauders, without bastion mode.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Jenshae Chiroptera
#110 - 2015-07-21 15:52:00 UTC
Reinforcing the broken mechanics.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2015-07-21 16:12:35 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
It should be something like this:

Frigate = Frigate
destroyer > frigate
cruiser > destroyer
BC > cruiser <--- is broken causing many issues
BS > BC
Many frigs > BS.
Lest we forget.


8 hi slot smartbombing BS > many frigs Big smile
USS YORKTOWN
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2015-07-21 16:37:10 UTC
Damnit Falcon, get it togethor!

You may not be planning to, but you REALLY should.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#113 - 2015-07-21 16:56:16 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
8 hi slot smartbombing BS > many frigs Big smile
*Any* frig?
Specific example vs general design.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

u3pog
Ministerstvo na otbranata
#114 - 2015-07-21 23:36:46 UTC
When comparing Battleships to HAC's and T3's do you consider their price costs? How about skill wise? Do the math again and see why one is superior to another.
Heron Crome
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2015-07-22 00:03:50 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.


100% this! thats exactly what i miss in nearly every f... spaceship game!

Thats the main problem of bc / bs and pls guys tell me how can a handgun destroy a tank? Ok thats a strange comparison but that would make a balance between small ships and the big ones!
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2015-07-22 00:30:46 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
That was created by others (including myself) to counter the masses of cruisers in a hull that can take the abuse while also offering utility that cannot be matched.


Well, now, there's another idea: rebalance them toward the massive versatility of the Dominix and the Armageddon. Give them all multiple utility highs and/or overlapping turret and missile hardpoints and rebalance the damage output around fewer turrets. Essentially, they'd be like baby Marauders, without bastion mode.

They primarily need mobility. Eve is a very mobile game. T1 battleships have not changed much since launch of 2003 other than to be made more gimped.

However the reality is nothing much will fix them because fixing them will break the rest of the game when everyone will just jump into BS if they perform well. What the game needs is a bottleneck for all ship types.

Perhaps a licence of manufacture sold by npcs. Let's say 100 are sold per week at base cost with a scaling cost for each addition licence. So Ishtars are flavour of the month, to create huge fleets of only Ishtars would artificially push the cost of Ishtars up to make them cost prohibitive.

The same would apply to battleships so fixing them so they're competitive would be possible without making them into the new EvE ship of necessity.

While artificial limits are seen as a bad thing they're everywhere in EvE, from limited sigs to limited asteroids. While it's possible for unlimited production of ships at base prices of minerals we'll always be seeing fleets of one dominant ship being fielded in EvE and the inability of the devs to create a game with a diversity of ships in fleet fights.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#117 - 2015-07-22 05:06:30 UTC
Caiman Graystock wrote:
Much sadness was had 

I was definitely hoping the increased drifter threat would lead to the development of new Tech II battleships based on the Abaddon/Rokh/Hyperion/Maelstrom and that this was the kick off for that. I guess not. One day maybe?


Such innovative creative thinking would be a first from CCP in a long while.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#118 - 2015-07-22 05:17:48 UTC
[quote=Stitch Kaneland]

What BS offer is more than an EHP sponge. They offer utility and range combined with higher EHP. You cannot get heavy neuts on any other ship (except maybe a bastardized curse). Heavy neuts are the bane of most cruisers.


Tee hehe, I'm actually playing around with heavy neut fitted Curses, but can't quite figure out how to make them useful for solo roams since they can't hold point at 80km.


Jenshae Chiroptera
#119 - 2015-07-22 12:47:33 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
... Tee hehe, I'm actually playing around with heavy neut fitted Curses, but can't quite figure out how to make them useful for solo roams since they can't hold point at 80km. ...
Depends. Need some capacitor to go to warp.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#120 - 2015-07-22 13:11:54 UTC
New amarr battleship ? what role is it for ?