These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ideas for battleships

Author
Lugh Crow-Slave
#81 - 2017-02-11 16:29:01 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Don't worry, the second the nerf thread pops up it will gather more salt than the Sifto salt mine.


Oh almost certainly, but I expect most of it to be in the form of people arguing over what CCP should nerf or change and trying to preserve the most OP characteristics of T3Cs the same as what was seen in the first round of T3D nerfs.



just wait i grantee one of the main arguments will be


"you have to risk SP so they are not really unbalanced"
Cade Windstalker
#82 - 2017-02-11 16:40:46 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Don't worry, the second the nerf thread pops up it will gather more salt than the Sifto salt mine.


Oh almost certainly, but I expect most of it to be in the form of people arguing over what CCP should nerf or change and trying to preserve the most OP characteristics of T3Cs the same as what was seen in the first round of T3D nerfs.



just wait i grantee one of the main arguments will be


"you have to risk SP so they are not really unbalanced"


And if that's not the first thing CCP removed when they were discussing the rebalance of the class I'll be shocked... you can't even claim that it's much of a time loss anymore since you can inject it back.
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2017-02-12 08:15:52 UTC
Not sure if this thread is about battleships or T3's rebalance. I understand T3's need a rebalance but don't really feel that is why people don't fly battleships solo in lowsec.

I have a hype and Domi fit up but they gather dust, I feel this is more to due with align times, warp speed and lack of targets I may be tempted to use them locally but a fifteen jump roam is probably not going to happen.

Back to the OP, the first question is should a battleship be able to face that scenario, one player fighting four or five others is hard to balance for.

Is this more about general balancing rather than new modules.

I expect certain battleships to have a chance in that situation namely Domi, Hype, Geddon, typhoon maybe.

These ships have extensive drone bays and spare highslots or are known to mix highslots, even when you consider point defence options the hype actually has a missile hardpoint you could fit a RLML in.

Rebalancing so all battleships to have spare 25m3 bay or at least one spare high slot is an option but then making all battleships essentially the same may make for a more dull range of ships. Some are clearly designed for solo small gang and others for more fleet style full rack of guns and max ehp.

If you fit for tank and DPS i.e top tier guns for anti battleship work then should you be able to fight smaller ships ? Rebalancing the lower tier weapons may be an option and forces some sacrifice in fit choices.

As for EHP, again on cruisers and frigates they elect to sacrifice larger guns for more tank, 1600mm plate power grid usage however does not really require this. A 2400mm option using a couple thousand power grid or more may buff EHP while still requiring choices. Still not sure higher EHP battleships would make for more fun gameplay.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#84 - 2017-02-12 10:57:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
the reason T3s will always come up in a BB balance thread is simple

they have the tank of a BB they have the DPS of a BB

they have the sig speed application and mass of a cruiser

when all that is the case there is 0 advantage a BB has over a t3 cruiser
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#85 - 2017-02-12 13:13:11 UTC
As mentioned, its not that they can't solo in low with a battleship that people are bothered about, its that T3's do a battleships job (fleet fights and heavy brawls) better than most battleships. This leaves little reason to use them and if we want to make them more viable, it will probably mean doing something with T3C's.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#86 - 2017-02-13 17:55:28 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


And if that's not the first thing CCP removed when they were discussing the rebalance of the class I'll be shocked... you can't even claim that it's much of a time loss anymore since you can inject it back.


It was never much of a loss anyway, big fights tend to happen once a weekend so the time is there.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#87 - 2017-02-13 18:02:29 UTC
Arcturus Ursidae wrote:
Not sure if this thread is about battleships or T3's rebalance. I understand T3's need a rebalance but don't really feel that is why people don't fly battleships solo in lowsec.

I have a hype and Domi fit up but they gather dust, I feel this is more to due with align times, warp speed and lack of targets I may be tempted to use them locally but a fifteen jump roam is probably not going to happen.

Back to the OP, the first question is should a battleship be able to face that scenario, one player fighting four or five others is hard to balance for.

Is this more about general balancing rather than new modules.

I expect certain battleships to have a chance in that situation namely Domi, Hype, Geddon, typhoon maybe.

These ships have extensive drone bays and spare highslots or are known to mix highslots, even when you consider point defence options the hype actually has a missile hardpoint you could fit a RLML in.

Rebalancing so all battleships to have spare 25m3 bay or at least one spare high slot is an option but then making all battleships essentially the same may make for a more dull range of ships. Some are clearly designed for solo small gang and others for more fleet style full rack of guns and max ehp.

If you fit for tank and DPS i.e top tier guns for anti battleship work then should you be able to fight smaller ships ? Rebalancing the lower tier weapons may be an option and forces some sacrifice in fit choices.

As for EHP, again on cruisers and frigates they elect to sacrifice larger guns for more tank, 1600mm plate power grid usage however does not really require this. A 2400mm option using a couple thousand power grid or more may buff EHP while still requiring choices. Still not sure higher EHP battleships would make for more fun gameplay.


Problem with T3 cruisers is they will match a battleship in raw EHP, match a surprising amount in effective firepower, will be faster and will be cap stable. On top of this though is the tripple whammy of having battleship EHP with the sig of a cruiser and the speed of a cruiser. This means that a t3c will tank a lot more than a battleship as it will mitigate a lot more of the incoming firepower.

This is why T3 fleets get chosen over battleship in a war, they are simply better at being a battleships than battleships.
Cade Windstalker
#88 - 2017-02-13 20:21:20 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It was never much of a loss anyway, big fights tend to happen once a weekend so the time is there.


Yup, which is why I'm pretty sure they're going to remove it. It was meant to be a big penalty that would dissuade use of the ships and it absolutely didn't work because there are thousands of players with enough SP that they just don't care about losing a few hundred thousand SP every weekend.

baltec1 wrote:
Problem with T3 cruisers is they will match a battleship in raw EHP, match a surprising amount in effective firepower, will be faster and will be cap stable. On top of this though is the tripple whammy of having battleship EHP with the sig of a cruiser and the speed of a cruiser. This means that a t3c will tank a lot more than a battleship as it will mitigate a lot more of the incoming firepower.

This is why T3 fleets get chosen over battleship in a war, they are simply better at being a battleships than battleships.


Don't forget the cherry on top which is that they can do all that and bring about 70% of the utility of a specialist Cruiser at the same time for fairly little trade-off in the other attributes in most cases.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#89 - 2017-02-13 22:02:33 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It was never much of a loss anyway, big fights tend to happen once a weekend so the time is there.


Yup, which is why I'm pretty sure they're going to remove it. It was meant to be a big penalty that would dissuade use of the ships and it absolutely didn't work because there are thousands of players with enough SP that they just don't care about losing a few hundred thousand SP every weekend.

baltec1 wrote:
Problem with T3 cruisers is they will match a battleship in raw EHP, match a surprising amount in effective firepower, will be faster and will be cap stable. On top of this though is the tripple whammy of having battleship EHP with the sig of a cruiser and the speed of a cruiser. This means that a t3c will tank a lot more than a battleship as it will mitigate a lot more of the incoming firepower.

This is why T3 fleets get chosen over battleship in a war, they are simply better at being a battleships than battleships.


Don't forget the cherry on top which is that they can do all that and bring about 70% of the utility of a specialist Cruiser at the same time for fairly little trade-off in the other attributes in most cases.


The ultimate fuckery is having logi tengu, booster tengu, combat tengu all lead by an FC tengu that has bonused probes. Selecting targets goes out the window.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#90 - 2017-02-13 22:23:07 UTC
What about marauders? I would think they would get more ehp and dps than t3s.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#91 - 2017-02-13 22:42:23 UTC
Cearain wrote:
What about marauders? I would think they would get more ehp and dps than t3s.


Raw repping power but not more EHP.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#92 - 2017-02-13 22:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Marauders don't have much more dps than standard battleships (and the extra dps comes from being able to fit less tank mods) and don't usually get big ehp tanks,

They are more built around projection and active reps.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Cade Windstalker
#93 - 2017-02-13 23:43:15 UTC
Cearain wrote:
What about marauders? I would think they would get more ehp and dps than t3s.


Battleship-tier EHP was sort of intended to be the cap on sub-caps without severe trade-offs (like Bastion on Marauders) because otherwise you quickly end up with one ship being pretty much 'the best' at a whole mess of things, and that's not good for the game. See: Tech 3 Cruisers...
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2017-02-14 00:43:05 UTC
T3C aren't the only ships able to fit oversized mods (particularly batteries) and permatank:

[Deimos]

5x Heavy Neutron Blaster II, charge of choice.

1x 50MN MWD of choice
1x Large Compact Pb-Acid Capacitor Battery (or something shinier)
1x Web, 1x Scram

1x Medium Repper of choice
1x Explosive Hardener of choice
1x EANM of choice
3x [damage/application/nanofiber/DCU]

1x ACR II
1x [other rig]

[Drones]

3x magstab would put that at 700 DPS from guns alone with void. It's not quite cap stable. It's easily able to run L4s.

You wouldn't want to use that against, say, a properly brawl fit battleship now.

Or, let's talk about this Nomen I threw together because I didn't feel like yoloing through low (or taking 20 jumps through high) to chase an escalation in a PvE-fit Nightmare:

[Omen Navy Issue, PvE-oriented]

4x Heavy Pulse II
1x [utility high]

1x 10MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner
1x Large Compact Pb-Acid Cap Battery
1x Stasis Web

2x Heat Sink II
2x EANM II
1x Medium Armor Repper II
1x Cap Power Relay II
1x EM Armor Hardener (II or better)

1x ACR I
1x Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
1x Energy Locus Coordinator II

[Drones]

Total cost: about 76M ISK. It can apply 280 DPS at about 40km with scorch, before drones.

(This is not a newbie-friendly fit)

Or you could build a Zealot about the same way, and apply around 450 DPS at 39km or 600 at at 14km (partly because you don't need the power relay), and does have the fit space for MWD.

-tl;dr the problem with battleships is more because smaller ships can use battleship-sized mods better than they can.

A signature :o

Cade Windstalker
#95 - 2017-02-14 14:47:06 UTC
Fitting a Large Cap Battery isn't the same thing as fitting an oversized prop mod... it's way less powerful and way easier to do.

Mods aren't supposed to be size locked, mods trade off fitting space for a benefit, different mods require different amounts of fitting space. This is all entirely intentional, the problem with battleships is not that some ships can fit battleship sized tank or cap mods.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#96 - 2017-02-14 18:11:52 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
~snip~

-tl;dr the problem with battleships is more because smaller ships can use battleship-sized mods better than they can.



Now try making those fits on their T3 equivalents. See how they're better in every way?

Large cap batteries are as much battleship mods as large shield extenders or 1600mm plates, all of which are standard on any cruiser fitting.

The problem with battleships is T3 cruisers. Oversized mods have nothing to do with it.
Brok Haslack
9624968
#97 - 2017-02-20 22:41:11 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
i can't wait to see all the ppl come out and defend "how balanced T3s actually are"


Almost all of the discussion I've seen in the last... two years or so(?) has been in agreement that T3s are OP. The last holdouts were a few T3D players, but even most of those were either trolls or people who felt that the T3Ds should be left as-is and other things buffed up to their level.

I've yet to see someone seriously try and defend T3Cs as anything other than the OP little monsters that they are and that includes every single wormhole player I've talked to so far.

Most of the actual flaming/debate comes when you try to actually figure out how to balance T3-anything. Some people want them removed from the game (unrealistic), others want the cost massively increased but the ships left more or less as they are (bad idea IMO), and then there's about twenty different flavors of "make my change ccpls senpai" for which there is not a large enough tub of popcorn in the world.



I haven't got a problem with a seriously high-end T3 Cruiser taking out a T1 Battleship. I expect said T3 to have trouble with a t2 Battleship, for obvious reasons.

As for T3 Battleships the Modular Toy would be loved by many a suffering Bowhead Pilot. And no, I do not expect said T3 Battleship to be cheap.
Cade Windstalker
#98 - 2017-02-21 00:04:58 UTC
Brok Haslack wrote:
I haven't got a problem with a seriously high-end T3 Cruiser taking out a T1 Battleship. I expect said T3 to have trouble with a t2 Battleship, for obvious reasons.

As for T3 Battleships the Modular Toy would be loved by many a suffering Bowhead Pilot. And no, I do not expect said T3 Battleship to be cheap.


This both completely misses the issue with T3Cs and the idea behind T2 Battleships.

T2 Battleships are, like all other T2s, specialized ships. The two currently available options are Marauders which are PvE and local tank specialists, and Black Ops Battleships which are mobile covert jump bridges and bling-mobile specialists. Okay for real they're gank specialists, but neither is in any position to beat up on even a well fitted HAC let alone a T3C. That's not the issue here. Faction Battleships are the "T1 but better" and still don't have the combination of speed, HP, and utility that make T3Cs so dangerous, except maybe for the Machariel and there's literally a guy who put a desire to nerf the Mach in his CSM campaign profile because it's become so ubiquitous in Null Sec fleet fights.

The main issue with T3Cs is that they can tank about as much as a battleship while being faster and having more utility.

Also CCP have said, categorically, that they aren't doing T3 Battleships, for what I hope are reasons obvious to you and everyone else.
CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#99 - 2017-02-21 01:16:16 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
to be honest the fact that a BB can deal with a frigate at all is more than they need. Right now a properly supported BB can one shot a frigate. Its seems that rather than BBs being under powered they just are no the tool for the job you want them to be

What does BB stand for
Dark Lord Trump
0.0 Massive Dynamic
Pandemic Horde
#100 - 2017-02-21 01:36:07 UTC
CMDR-HerpyDerpy Hurishima wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
to be honest the fact that a BB can deal with a frigate at all is more than they need. Right now a properly supported BB can one shot a frigate. Its seems that rather than BBs being under powered they just are no the tool for the job you want them to be

What does BB stand for

Battleship. It's a military term.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!