These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2016-11-12 23:24:26 UTC
Steffles wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Nope.

Now for the kicker...
Can you make it a covert ops cloaky logi?

Didn't think soBlink

(I can do both the Proti and Tengu as covops logi)

Can't rep when you're cloaked.

As a logi ship survivability is extremely important (needing to be within 10 to 15km means you can't warp out when you're about to pop if you're in a bubble, you'll likely be in optimal with the combat ships, you'll likely be in optimal of jams, scrams and disruptors). Range of reps are extremely important. Sig of 70 vs 150 is a very good trade off as is the range. Dead logi's can't rep. Cost is also important. So is losing a weeks training.

Injectors say hi. It's a choice between a week's worth of training or ~630M.

If you wanted to, you could pop an injector and be right back out with everything at V again.

A signature :o

Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2016-11-13 00:19:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Steffles wrote:

The reason nobody is flying them is because there is no T3C emergency and there is no need to have 150k ehp cruisers to counter your fantasy of the T3C emergency.


We dont want 130k ehp cruisers to counter T3C we want T3C to be cruisers, not pocket battleships.

Steffles wrote:

People are flying canes, cerbs, svipuls, T3's, rattles, bhargests, Caracals, Machs, etc etc. If Prots were so amazingly overpowered that's all we'd see in fleets but its not.


People flew all sorts of things back when cavalry ravens existed, back when titans had remote AOE doomsdays, back when the dram was god, back when nano was everything.



Steffles wrote:

T3's don't need to be nerfed to make battleships good again, battleships need to be buffed and made more mobile and they need better damage application (turret based RHML). That's it.


That's called power creep. You don't buff everything around the 4 overpowered ships you nerf the problem ships. Hence why T3D are getting the sledge hammer applied to their face.

They're not pocket battleships. As I've demonstrated they are in line with HP of battlecruisers, interdiction cruisers and some of the heavy assault cruisers and command ships which are also cruisers. You'd have to nerf those along with T3C's which would make them useless.

The issue is battleships not cruisers.

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

Zakks
CSR NAVY
Citizen's Star Republic
#163 - 2016-11-13 01:24:05 UTC
Command ships are not cruisers
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2016-11-13 06:05:19 UTC
Zakks wrote:
Command ships are not cruisers

Battlecruiser - cruiser fitting and cruiser mods. They are more cruiser than battleship.

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

Zirashi
Cyclical Destruction
#165 - 2016-11-13 06:45:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zirashi
I guess that makes Svipuls frigates.

You're trolling right? You understand battlecruiser is a class of ship size completely seperate from cruisers (despite the fact they use cruiser equipment) and not a role descriptor like "assault cruiser," right?
Zakks
CSR NAVY
Citizen's Star Republic
#166 - 2016-11-13 08:22:23 UTC
Steffles wrote:
Zakks wrote:
Command ships are not cruisers

Battlecruiser - cruiser fitting and cruiser mods. They are more cruiser than battleship.


TIL a Brutix is a cruiserShocked
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#167 - 2016-11-13 09:22:11 UTC
Steffles wrote:

They're not pocket battleships. As I've demonstrated they are in line with HP of battlecruisers, interdiction cruisers and some of the heavy assault cruisers and command ships which are also cruisers. You'd have to nerf those along with T3C's which would make them useless.

The issue is battleships not cruisers.


You are still using a ship class above cruisers to try and say cruisers that are pulling battleship stats are not overpowered.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2016-11-13 10:58:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Steffles wrote:

They're not pocket battleships. As I've demonstrated they are in line with HP of battlecruisers, interdiction cruisers and some of the heavy assault cruisers and command ships which are also cruisers. You'd have to nerf those along with T3C's which would make them useless.

The issue is battleships not cruisers.


You are still using a ship class above cruisers to try and say cruisers that are pulling battleship stats are not overpowered.

Nah not really. The onyx can get a battleship tank. Its a cruiser. The Eagle can get a battleship tank its a cruiser. Battlecruisers can get battleship tanks, actually as I demonstrated they get a hell of a lot more than both battleships and T3's yet theyr'e not battleships, they're mid way between battleships and cruisers if you like.

Admit you're wrong and we can move on to discussing fixing battleships, not nerfing T3's for no reason.

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#169 - 2016-11-13 14:02:04 UTC
Steffles wrote:

Nah not really. The onyx can get a battleship tank. Its a cruiser. The Eagle can get a battleship tank its a cruiser. Battlecruisers can get battleship tanks, actually as I demonstrated they get a hell of a lot more than both battleships and T3's yet theyr'e not battleships, they're mid way between battleships and cruisers if you like.

Admit you're wrong and we can move on to discussing fixing battleships, not nerfing T3's for no reason.


We already picked apart your shitfits. Literally nobody is agreeing with you here including CCP.
Dornier Pfeil
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#170 - 2016-11-13 14:30:04 UTC
I can't like your post (the button is missing?????) so I just have to say, SECONDED!

Asmodai Xodai wrote:
I don't know the T3C issues (oversized modules vs. "they're just inherently OP") well enough to have any opinion whatsoever. Would just like to say that I found the arguments presented by both sides interesting and engaging, and hope to see more of this kind of thing in the future.


Many thanks to all the people who put time and effort into their posts.
Darth Magus
The Lone Magus
#171 - 2016-11-13 14:35:29 UTC
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 are not very skilled with Battleships(player skill wise, not SP) - and know other "unskilled" players as well? Okay...

So why don't you re-phrase the question and start by asking something along the lines of: "where do BS shine the most?" Or "how to make most use of a BS?"

Instead you assume the world is wrong and whine for changes...
Gealbhan
Temeraria Praedonum
#172 - 2016-11-13 14:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Gealbhan
I have just under 90mil SP and I rarely fly a BS though I'm well skilled in flying one ( used to live in geminate region). I just don't feel the need to. Arrow
Darth Magus
The Lone Magus
#173 - 2016-11-13 15:06:02 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

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.


Oh, you're one of 'those people.' People who think that in order to have an opinion about something, you have to have direct personal experience with it. I've been told I can't have opinions on war (because I haven't fought in one), on management (because I haven't been a manager), on politics (because I haven't been the president of the USA) - on and on. And now on a class of unit in a game. Personally I think it's the height of ignorance.

It's obvious that I don't need to have flown a ship in order to have a balance opinion about it. I have two eyes, I can see, I can read, I have a brain, I can think, and that's all that's necessary. I don't think it's rocket science. There's obviously an issue.

My advice is, if you don't agree with my arguments, attack my arguments, but don't attack me or tell me I'm not allowed to have an opinion. It wouldn't work in a logic class, and it won't work here.


Bolding and re-quoting: "People who think that in order to have an opinion about something, you have to have direct personal experience with it."

Not sure who told you that and perhaps they did not specify (or your "conciousness" filtered it out) - but yes, in order to have a VALID OPINON (key word "valid") on something - you ought to have some experience with the subject matter.

You (as in any person) "can" have an opinion on anything you wish. Nobody should tell you otherwise. But that opinion of yours will not be valid without any experience - and everyone should be able to tell you that.

So having said that - yes, you may (you have the right to) have an opinion without having any experience, but everyone will see your opinion as invalid, unless backed by citations or personal experience.

The former will lead to people dismissing you "invalid" opinions, poking fun of you and perhaps worse...

Example use-case:

Brain surgery. You "may" definitely have an opinion on how its done or how it should be done (or improved), since you have eyes, ears, a brain and can read (as you've stated). But this opinion of yours will most likely be dismissed by any educated and logical person UNLESS you hold a certificate of a brain surgeon and have experience on the subject matter.

So PLEASE go get some experience with EVE Battleships - before trying to argue about validity of your opinions!

Nuff said.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2016-11-14 02:50:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Steffles
baltec1 wrote:
Steffles wrote:

Nah not really. The onyx can get a battleship tank. Its a cruiser. The Eagle can get a battleship tank its a cruiser. Battlecruisers can get battleship tanks, actually as I demonstrated they get a hell of a lot more than both battleships and T3's yet theyr'e not battleships, they're mid way between battleships and cruisers if you like.

Admit you're wrong and we can move on to discussing fixing battleships, not nerfing T3's for no reason.


We already picked apart your shitfits. Literally nobody is agreeing with you here including CCP.

"We" as in just you.

You gave no actual argument basically because you don't have one.

YOU are whinging about the T3 Proteus having some sort of uber tank @ 160k ehp yet I put up a T2 HAC that had 150k ehp, outranged your proteus by 30km optimal with the same guns and ammo, was faster yet your only criticism was it did 400 dps instead of 530 and had a slightly larger sig. You completely ignore that fact that being faster and having 30km more optimal with 0antimatter means its untouchable by your proteus. Your proteus is doing 30dps at 40k, while my eagle is doing 100dps.

I posted a T2 battlecruiser that blows your Proteus and T1 Battleship EHP out of the water at 190k ehp which pretty much destroys your argument that the T3 is overpowered because it can get battleship EHP. This T2 can get 40k ehp above the Proteus's.

I also pointed out that in the past when a ship or doctrine was overpowered that almost all large alliances and coalitions would use that ship or doctrine over any other (Drakes, Ishtar's etc) yet this apparantly overpowered ship is not even in the top three most used.

You're full of it.


Gealbhan wrote:
I have just under 90mil SP and I rarely fly a BS though I'm well skilled in flying one ( used to live in geminate region). I just don't feel the need to. Arrow

Basically because there are better, smaller, faster ships that will do the job

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#175 - 2016-11-14 09:38:08 UTC
Steffles wrote:

"We" as in just you.


Everyone in this thread says they are overpowered. CCP says they are overpowered. So yea, its just you.
Steffles wrote:

You gave no actual argument basically because you don't have one.


Aside from highlighting the a huge number of bonuses and examples of why we use them over battleships.

Steffles wrote:

YOU are whinging about the T3 Proteus having some sort of uber tank @ 160k ehp yet I put up a T2 HAC that had 150k ehp, outranged your proteus by 30km optimal with the same guns and ammo, was faster yet your only criticism was it did 400 dps instead of 530 and had a slightly larger sig. You completely ignore that fact that being faster and having 30km more optimal with 0antimatter means its untouchable by your proteus. Your proteus is doing 30dps at 40k, while my eagle is doing 100dps.

I posted a T2 battlecruiser that blows your Proteus and T1 Battleship EHP out of the water at 190k ehp which pretty much destroys your argument that the T3 is overpowered because it can get battleship EHP. This T2 can get 40k ehp above the Proteus's.


All of which are shitfits. They are either super easy to kill, easy to out maneuver or can't do any damage to an enemy fleet. You have been told this multiple times.

Steffles wrote:

I also pointed out that in the past when a ship or doctrine was overpowered that almost all large alliances and coalitions would use that ship or doctrine over any other (Drakes, Ishtar's etc) yet this apparantly overpowered ship is not even in the top three most used.


remote titan doomsdays were horribly overpowered and only used by a few dosen, yet they still got nerfed. An overpowered ship is an overpowered ship. That said the only t3c not in the top 10 killers list is the legion so there another thing you are wrong about.



Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2016-11-14 13:30:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Steffles wrote:

"We" as in just you.


Everyone in this thread says they are overpowered. CCP says they are overpowered. So yea, its just you.
Steffles wrote:

You gave no actual argument basically because you don't have one.


Aside from highlighting the a huge number of bonuses and examples of why we use them over battleships.

Steffles wrote:

YOU are whinging about the T3 Proteus having some sort of uber tank @ 160k ehp yet I put up a T2 HAC that had 150k ehp, outranged your proteus by 30km optimal with the same guns and ammo, was faster yet your only criticism was it did 400 dps instead of 530 and had a slightly larger sig. You completely ignore that fact that being faster and having 30km more optimal with 0antimatter means its untouchable by your proteus. Your proteus is doing 30dps at 40k, while my eagle is doing 100dps.

I posted a T2 battlecruiser that blows your Proteus and T1 Battleship EHP out of the water at 190k ehp which pretty much destroys your argument that the T3 is overpowered because it can get battleship EHP. This T2 can get 40k ehp above the Proteus's.


All of which are shitfits. They are either super easy to kill, easy to out maneuver or can't do any damage to an enemy fleet. You have been told this multiple times.

Steffles wrote:

I also pointed out that in the past when a ship or doctrine was overpowered that almost all large alliances and coalitions would use that ship or doctrine over any other (Drakes, Ishtar's etc) yet this apparantly overpowered ship is not even in the top three most used.


remote titan doomsdays were horribly overpowered and only used by a few dosen, yet they still got nerfed. An overpowered ship is an overpowered ship. That said the only t3c not in the top 10 killers list is the legion so there another thing you are wrong about.




People saying they are overpowered doesn't mean they are overpowered. Proof is required and you have supplied none. I supplied lots.

Again bonuses mean nothing. The ship as a whole needs to be looked at and it has been and its been proven to NOT be overpowered.

None of which are shitfits. None of which are super easy to kill, not easy to outmaneuver and can do more damage than your silly Proteus fit.

None are in the top 3. End of story. You're wrong but simply too biased or too salty about T3C's to admit it.

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#177 - 2016-11-14 17:39:12 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Steffles wrote:

People saying they are overpowered doesn't mean they are overpowered. Proof is required and you have supplied none. I supplied lots.


You provided a bunch of poorly fitted ships. I provided a ship that is better than the Imperiums megathron fleet mega on steroids. The issue is we have a cruiser pulling better than battleship stats, that is what makes the prot overpowered. I said before and I'll say it again, take away those bonuses and those stats a drastically reduced.



Steffles wrote:

Again bonuses mean nothing. The ship as a whole needs to be looked at and it has been and its been proven to NOT be overpowered.


When? CCP is also saying these ships are overpowered, they have been a joke for years now, everyone knows they are over powered including you. You just don't want your I win ships brought down to their correct level.
Steffles wrote:

None of which are shitfits.


All of your ideas are horribly flawed. Rapid lights vs a cane fleet? eagles with battleship sized sigs? using a rail navy brutis in web range? These are not sound plans.

Steffles wrote:

None are in the top 3. End of story. You're wrong but simply too biased or too salty about T3C's to admit it.


Its at number 4 on that list. The top rated ship that isn't a svipul (EVEs most glaringly overpowered ship), isn't the most popular tackle interceptor and not the most used dictor.
Zakks
CSR NAVY
Citizen's Star Republic
#178 - 2016-11-15 00:57:22 UTC
And the Loki is 5th.
Zakks
CSR NAVY
Citizen's Star Republic
#179 - 2016-11-15 01:08:31 UTC
Faction/Navy Battleships seem to be in a pretty good place, based on the KBs. Mach definitely dominates the class.

Perhaps one issue with battleships is similar to battlecruisers, in that there is no real T2 option. I think both classes could use some attention but will not likely see any real adjustments until well into 2017 or even 2018. Just too much going on in other areas right now for CCP to try and rebalance them.

Better to leave them underpowered for now until time can be spent to properly look at the whole class. Too easy to powercreep with BS.
Korhaka
Free Throbbing Veinal Penii For Spacmens
#180 - 2016-11-15 02:19:29 UTC
In the real world, there is a reason why we don't use battleships anymore. Why make this huge expensive battleship when any smaller ship can just launch a missile through the side and sink it just as easily. It is reasonable to expect as technology changes, combat doctrine would also change.