These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why Battleships?

First post
Author
Hal Morsh
Doomheim
#81 - 2016-11-08 00:45:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Only problem with battleships is the pilots trying to fly them.



I did almost pop an entire fleet of alts in thrashers. But I expected them to reload and chose the wrong resistances and ended up 1 volley short of them all before I popped and...

You can look up the killmaill, it seemed like a good idea at the time. It's a domi

Oh, I perfectly understand, Hal Morsh — a mission like this requires courage, skill, and heroism… qualities you are clearly lacking. Have you forgotten you're one of the bloody immortals!?

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#82 - 2016-11-08 02:35:11 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
I don't disagree about T3C's, but this is a battleships thread.


This wasn't addressed to me, but in retort, it's all related. One cannot talk about balance, without talking about balance 'relative to WHAT.' In this case, balance relative to other ships. So all other ships are fair game here, particularly frigates, cruisers, battlecruisers, etc.

If nothing else, at least I can be happy that most here seem to agree T3C's are out of whack.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2016-11-08 03:17:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Memphis Baas wrote:


I don't disagree about T3C's, but this is a battleships thread.


They are the reason so many complain about battleships. The ideas always wind up being to buff battleships to ever higher levels to beat the T3C, power creep is very bad. You need to whack to 4 problem ships not buff everything around them.

You simply need to give all ships a penetration rating against weapon sizes like this - Link. Mobility wise they also need a significant improvement.

OMG too stronk?? Not as stronk as the sig, speed and signature radius reductions that smaller ships get against larger weapons.

As for the T3C = too stronk, its rubbish. They're fine, as stated earlier with evidence which you failed to respond to, its the oversized modules that shouldn't be fit to smaller ships that are being fit to smaller ships, causing some of them to be OP.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#84 - 2016-11-08 05:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Two questions that need to be asked, and need to be answered, are 1) what is the intended role of battleships, if any, and 2) what is the current role of battleships, if any?

I can't answer #2. But I can answer #1. The answer is easy and obvious, and once given, will result in a bunch of wailing, gnashing of teeth, flaming, insults, etc.

Here's something obvious and easy that everyone has seen a million times:

F < D < C < BC < BS

Already some people are offended, because it obviously represents some kind of 'tierage' or 'progression' if you will (or in some people's minds, it represents 'bigger is better'). My only response is, if it is some kind of 'tierage' (something I neither confirm nor deny), I don't care, and it isn't bad. It is simply the obvious way things should be.

But before you have an automatic, no-think, closed-minded, knee-jerk reaction to this, let's think about and analyze it a bit more in depth. What if I told you that the above pictograph is not something that holds true from ANY AND ALL PERSPECTIVES, but only from a single perspective or point of view? Let's call the above perspective, or perhaps a better word - ROLE - the role of 'mano a mano' simple combat. What I mean by this is simply any two of the above ships in a STRAIGHTFORWARD (i.e. nothing fancy or exotic) fight to the death. We aren't talking things like maneuverability, speed, agility, cloaking, ewar, tackling, warping, stealth, or anything else. Just simple guns, tank, and facing off to see who wins. From such a perspective - 'mano a mano' or simple, straightforward combat - I submit that the above pictograph is obvious, desirable, and what we want. And in large measure, we probably have it, e.g. we probably already have F < D < C, and no one seems offended by that. They are only offended when we add battleships into the mix.

Now, let's look at the same pictograph but in reverse:

BS < BC < C < D < F

This could represent one of a number of other roles. Perhaps speed and agility. Perhaps warp speed. Perhaps ewar or stealth or covert ops or whatever else. And other pictographs could be drawn to represent other things. But the point is simply, a particular pictograph doesn't represent superiority IN ALL PHASES AND ROLES at ALL times. It represents superiority in a PARTICULAR phase or role at PARTICULAR time.

"YOU JUST WANT TIERAGE!" - I don't know that that's what I want, and I don't care either way. Also, we already have 'tierage,' you see. Frigates are the fastest and most maneuverable ships. Destroyers are the best ships at killing frigates. On and on. I don't think being dogmatic here ('tiers are bad!') serves us very well.

"YOU JUST WANT AN I-WIN BUTTON!" - How so? Are you implying that having the role I proscribed for battleships automatically means battleships always win all engagements all of the time? Why couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't a combined or mixed-arms approach be able to defeat battleships under such a regime? Let's say two teams could pick 5 ships. Team A picks 5 battleships, and team B picks, I dunno, 2 battleships and the rest a mixture of ewar, tackle, or whatever else. Why couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't that be made to work just fine?

"YOU JUST WANT ONE SHIP THAT DOES EVERYTHING!" - How so? I think we should want battleships to do one thing, and one thing well - straightforward, straight-up, 'mano a mano' combat. That should be it's role... 'all other things being equal' of course (pilots with equal skill, etc).

We currently have something like this tierage when it comes to 'mano a mano' combat, but the naysayers don't seem to mind ('...' means 'fill in the blank'):

BS < ... < F < ... < T3C

The naysayers only seem to mind when the above is rearranged to make more sense.
Wanda Fayne
#85 - 2016-11-08 05:53:38 UTC
wat?™

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Wanda Fayne
#86 - 2016-11-08 05:57:36 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
The answer is easy and obvious...


Okay, pick one battleship and describe what you would do to change it.

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#87 - 2016-11-08 06:33:56 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
The answer is easy and obvious...


Okay, pick one battleship and describe what you would do to change it.


There isn't any 'one' thing that pops into my head - a multitude of things pops into my head that could be tried. No doubt there would be issues with some things which would be proposed - some ideas would be worse, some ideas would be better. If I were being paid to fix it, I'd throw all my analysis and thinking talents into the problem and solve it. But since I'm not, I just have 'off the top of the head' recommendations, which, no doubt, are not thought entirely through.

The point with this thread is simply to point out the general problems and have all of us start thinking of solutions, rather than have me throw out particular solutions as flame-bait for trolls and other sorts to jump on.

However, a couple of 'obvious' things off the top of my head, with general comments:

1) I see no reason why a strategic cruiser would have more HP, EHP, etc. than a battleship. This needs to be fixed. Whether that means changing the strategic cruiser, or changing the battleship, I don't know. I'm pretty sure the T3C needs to be nerfed. Beyond that, I'm sure more tweaks to the battleship.

2) I see no reason why any single frigate would ever beat any single battleship within the role of that battleship ('mana a mana' straightforward, non-fancy, slug-it-out fight to the death combat) - ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL OF COURSE (piloting skills, fitting, etc). Several things could be proposed to fix this, and I don't know which one is right.

Perhaps like with tanks in the real world, light weaponry simply has no effect (machine gun bullets merely bounce off of tanks). This could mean small weapons do no damage to a battleship. Or perhaps battleships should be equipped with entirely separate slots for 'flak' type weaponry which would hurt frigs. Or perhaps the silliness with battleships not being able to track and hit frigates could simply be done away with, and the battleship merely aims, unloads a single volley, and the single frigate disappears.

As to the last thing, that's probably the easiest and most obvious solution, and I see nothing wrong with it off the top of my head. In real life singular bigger things stomp on singular smaller things. A frog stomps on an ant and merely kills it. However, singular big things can be swarmed or overwhelmed by lots of smaller things. Place the frog within a field covered with millions of ravenous ants, and the ants kill the frog. Similarly, place the singular battleship on grid with, I dunno, ten frigates, and maybe it goes down. Sure, it will aim and take one out, then aim and take another out, but all the while the others are orbiting and pounding away. And that's just 'mano a mano.' When you add ewar or tackle or whatever else into the mix, it tilts the field even more towards the frigs.

Those are just some rough thoughts off the top of my head.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2016-11-08 06:34:34 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Two questions that need to be asked, and need to be answered, are 1) what is the intended role of battleships, if any, and 2) what is the current role of battleships, if any?

I can't answer #2. But I can answer #1. The answer is easy and obvious, and once given, will result in a bunch of wailing, gnashing of teeth, flaming, insults, etc.

Here's something obvious and easy that everyone has seen a million times:

F < D < C < BC < BS

Already some people are offended, because it obviously represents some kind of 'tierage' or 'progression' if you will (or in some people's minds, it represents 'bigger is better'). My only response is, if it is some kind of 'tierage' (something I neither confirm nor deny), I don't care, and it isn't bad. It is simply the obvious way things should be.

But before you have an automatic, no-think, closed-minded, knee-jerk reaction to this, let's think about and analyze it a bit more in depth. What if I told you that the above pictograph is not something that holds true from ANY AND ALL PERSPECTIVES, but only from a single perspective or point of view? Let's call the above perspective, or perhaps a better word - ROLE - the role of 'mano a mano' simple combat. What I mean by this is simply any two of the above ships in a STRAIGHTFORWARD (i.e. nothing fancy or exotic) fight to the death. We aren't talking things like maneuverability, speed, agility, cloaking, ewar, tackling, warping, stealth, or anything else. Just simple guns, tank, and facing off to see who wins. From such a perspective - 'mano a mano' or simple, straightforward combat - I submit that the above pictograph is obvious, desirable, and what we want. And in large measure, we probably have it, e.g. we probably already have F < D < C, and no one seems offended by that. They are only offended when we add battleships into the mix.

Now, let's look at the same pictograph but in reverse:

BS < BC < C < D < F

This could represent one of a number of other roles. Perhaps speed and agility. Perhaps warp speed. Perhaps ewar or stealth or covert ops or whatever else. And other pictographs could be drawn to represent other things. But the point is simply, a particular pictograph doesn't represent superiority IN ALL PHASES AND ROLES at ALL times. It represents superiority in a PARTICULAR phase or role at PARTICULAR time.

"YOU JUST WANT TIERAGE!" - I don't know that that's what I want, and I don't care either way. Also, we already have 'tierage,' you see. Frigates are the fastest and most maneuverable ships. Destroyers are the best ships at killing frigates. On and on. I don't think being dogmatic here ('tiers are bad!') serves us very well.

"YOU JUST WANT AN I-WIN BUTTON!" - How so? Are you implying that having the role I proscribed for battleships automatically means battleships always win all engagements all of the time? Why couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't a combined or mixed-arms approach be able to defeat battleships under such a regime? Let's say two teams could pick 5 ships. Team A picks 5 battleships, and team B picks, I dunno, 2 battleships and the rest a mixture of ewar, tackle, or whatever else. Why couldn't, wouldn't, or shouldn't that be made to work just fine?

"YOU JUST WANT ONE SHIP THAT DOES EVERYTHING!" - How so? I think we should want battleships to do one thing, and one thing well - straightforward, straight-up, 'mano a mano' combat. That should be it's role... 'all other things being equal' of course (pilots with equal skill, etc).

We currently have something like this tierage when it comes to 'mano a mano' combat, but the naysayers don't seem to mind ('...' means 'fill in the blank'):

BS < ... < F < ... < T3C

The naysayers only seem to mind when the above is rearranged to make more sense.

F < D < C < BC < BS is not correct.

F D C BC BS = Balanced Fleet is more accurate.

Currently we have

F x 50 = Fleet
D x 50 = Fleet
C x 50 = Fleet
BC x 50 = Fleet
B x 50 = Fleet

The way the game was designed was that

F = tackle, they were supposed to tackle and support
D = anti frigate, they were supposed to be able to blap frigate support and also support
C = Fast damage and support, ecm, long heavy tackle, nuet, ecm (arazu, falcon, curse etc)
BC = Secondary fleet damage, anti-cruiser support, needed support from the below ships for tackle web nuet ecm
BS = Main damage ships

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#89 - 2016-11-08 06:51:12 UTC
Steffles wrote:

The way the game was designed was that

F = tackle, they were supposed to tackle and support
D = anti frigate, they were supposed to be able to blap frigate support and also support
C = Fast damage and support, ecm, long heavy tackle, nuet, ecm (arazu, falcon, curse etc)
BC = Secondary fleet damage, anti-cruiser support, needed support from the below ships for tackle web nuet ecm
BS = Main damage ships



And do you believe this is what we have now, i.e. are BSs actually 'main damage' ships? They can't hit much except other BSs, most things don't fear them....
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2016-11-08 08:36:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Steffles
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Steffles wrote:

The way the game was designed was that

F = tackle, they were supposed to tackle and support
D = anti frigate, they were supposed to be able to blap frigate support and also support
C = Fast damage and support, ecm, long heavy tackle, nuet, ecm (arazu, falcon, curse etc)
BC = Secondary fleet damage, anti-cruiser support, needed support from the below ships for tackle web nuet ecm
BS = Main damage ships



And do you believe this is what we have now, i.e. are BSs actually 'main damage' ships? They can't hit much except other BSs, most things don't fear them....

We're in total agreement on that.

There are a number of things that could be done. I prefer this because its neat and is the equal opposite of the sig, tracking, speed nerfs that largely make large weapons crap.

Battleships need to be able to move with a fleet. The nerfage CCP implemented against BC and BS for no apparant reason was a huge mistake. They were already underused at that stage and it just compounded the problem.

Battleships needs increased scan resolution. They have a terrible base scan and because sensor boosters are based on % of scan, a ship that gets 50% to scan res with a sensor booster and already has 1000 gets 1500 scan res while a ship like a battleship that has a base of 100 gets 150 with a sensor booster. The smaller ship gets 1000% more scan res than a battleship gets with the same module.... its stupid as hell. Same applies to cloaks. Lower res hurts more with a cloak than higher res. Battleship with 100 gets 70 (terrible) frigate with 1000 gets 700, still very decent.

Edit:

Then of course we have the issue with T2 Rigs.

Medium T2 Shield Extender Rig 24 million
Large T2 Shield Extender Rig 100 million

And then we have frigates running around with battleship mods on, cruiser outtanking battleships with XL battleship mods and battleship sized cap batteries while battleships are stuck fitting only battleship and lower sized mods.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

Keno Skir
#91 - 2016-11-08 09:47:46 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:

Your ideas would require so much after-the-fact fixes to everything else in the gameUgh


I doubt it, but if so, who cares? If it needs fixing, it needs fixing, and if it is important to do, it is important to do.

For me, the battleship issue is an intolerable situation. I know others who feel the same way. I've been able to train battleships for a long time, and have the skill books injected. I also have many support skills trained. But I have refused to train them. To me they are broken, and it simply isn't worth it. I'd like to see the issue fixed.


So you've formed balance opinions about a class of ships yo have never even flown, and are arguing with people who have?

That's...I don't even know what to call that.


what a time to be alive


Headshot.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#92 - 2016-11-08 09:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2016-11-08 10:13:37 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Found a couple of older threads where some folks seem to have noticed and agree with the problem:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=408646

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=424059


and the answers are pretty much the same so you have just made your own thread redundant, good luck getting a proteus to do 1500dps with 90% webs like my vindicator

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#94 - 2016-11-08 10:58:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Lan Wang wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Found a couple of older threads where some folks seem to have noticed and agree with the problem:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=408646

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=424059


and the answers are pretty much the same so you have just made your own thread redundant....


By my appraisal the answers aren't the same, at least not in the first link. That one looks to be 90% on 'my' side, 10% 'other' side. The other thread is more mixed.

EDIT: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=405534&find=unread
Keno Skir
#95 - 2016-11-08 14:41:58 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Found a couple of older threads where some folks seem to have noticed and agree with the problem:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=408646

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=424059


and the answers are pretty much the same so you have just made your own thread redundant....


By my appraisal the answers aren't the same, at least not in the first link. That one looks to be 90% on 'my' side, 10% 'other' side. The other thread is more mixed.


You don't have a "side", since you have never flown a BS. Pipe down and let me listen to the adults Roll
Wanda Fayne
#96 - 2016-11-08 15:07:08 UTC
Hmmm...

Let's try to illustrate this a different way.


Pick a battleship.
I will fit and fly that battleship.

Meet me in space with ANYTHING you choose to fly.

Let's have a duel.

No boosts, links, alts, logi or tricks.

Just 'mano a mano'.

By your whole thread it really should be no contest at all.

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Keno Skir
#97 - 2016-11-08 15:41:04 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Pick a battleship.
I will fit and fly that battleship.

Meet me in space with ANYTHING you choose to fly.


Had thought about this also Blink

(He'd never show tho..)
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2016-11-08 15:49:47 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Hmmm...

Let's try to illustrate this a different way.


Pick a battleship.
I will fit and fly that battleship.

Meet me in space with ANYTHING you choose to fly.

Let's have a duel.

No boosts, links, alts, logi or tricks.

Just 'mano a mano'.

By your whole thread it really should be no contest at all.


inb4 he shows up in a svipul

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Memphis Baas
#99 - 2016-11-08 16:06:43 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:

Pick a battleship.
I will fit and fly that battleship.
Meet me in space with ANYTHING you choose to fly.


This scenario hides one of the major reasons why battleships aren't more popular.

How about you fly the battleship and he flies whatever he wants, and both of you start in Jita and have to go to the deep end of Providence, with whoever gets there first being able to add to his fleet 1 friend/alt per every 10 minutes spent waiting for the other person.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2016-11-08 16:28:03 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:

Pick a battleship.
I will fit and fly that battleship.
Meet me in space with ANYTHING you choose to fly.


This scenario hides one of the major reasons why battleships aren't more popular.

How about you fly the battleship and he flies whatever he wants, and both of you start in Jita and have to go to the deep end of Providence, with whoever gets there first being able to add to his fleet 1 friend/alt per every 10 minutes spent waiting for the other person.


the op said PVP, not traveling

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*