These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

- BattleShip -
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2017-03-16 15:35:55 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
And fix battleship sized guns so they can hit things easierstop hitting so easily and give them role bonuses. YES!
I want more battlecruisers and battleships in the game. ME TOO! We have enough frigates and /could use more\ cruisers /too\.

I doodled a bit on your post.


This bit is important: People see clearly that battleships underperform when compared to combat battlecruisers. Battleships have a bit more DPS and hit points, but are much slower and have WAY more trouble hitting targets. People think "oh I have the perfect solution! Obviously, the reason battlecruisers dominate is because of their tracking (true), so if battleships get more tracking they will be fixed!!

IF BATTLESHIPS GET MORE TRACKING, THEY WILL ONCE AGAIN JUST BE EXPENSIVE BATTLECRUISERS

What to do? Give them something different. They already have a pretty significant DPS advantage, they can use modules that cost a lot of powergrid. CCP is moving in the right direction by adding heavy modules. (We could use a few medium or cruiser modules!) Give battleships the staying power to make their dominance count for something. Give them truly battleship-sized shield extenders and armor plates, so big that battlecruisers can't fit them. Increase their base hit points a bit, too. They already have the ability to fit giant armor repairers and shield boosters.

I'd go so far as to cut T2 cruiser logi down to using medium modules and then give people a logi battleship for the big ones. Giant fleets of battleships that sit there mostly immobile holding ground and using logi webs to reinforce their defense should not be getting repaired by cruisers. They should have battleships doing that. Battleship logi would be much less mobile but much more tenacious. Cruiser logi should have shorter range and considerably lower repair rate.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2017-03-16 15:56:11 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

What to do? Give them something different. They already have a pretty significant DPS advantage, they can use modules that cost a lot of powergrid. CCP is moving in the right direction by adding heavy modules. (We could use a few medium or cruiser modules!) Give battleships the staying power to make their dominance count for something. Give them truly battleship-sized shield extenders and armor plates, so big that battlecruisers can't fit them. Increase their base hit points a bit, too. They already have the ability to fit giant armor repairers and shield boosters.



There isn't enough grid left to fit modules any bigger already.
A8ina
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2017-03-16 16:25:35 UTC  |  Edited by: A8ina
What about if Armor and Shield extenders are restricted in class for Frigates-Destroyers-Cruisers-BattleCruisers-BattleShips-CapitalShips Idea
A8ina
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2017-03-16 16:35:21 UTC
What about narrowing the gap in between Battle-Ships and Capital Ships Idea
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2017-03-16 17:24:11 UTC
It has been a while since I've been "in the know" but these are the problems I remember with battleships as far as null sec alliances go:

1. 125 mb/s droneboats (ishtar specifically) putting out battleship dps with battleship projection
2. jump fatigue on jump freighters (hard to seed markets)
3. carrier sentry blobs being silly

I'm not sure of current null sec meta, but I know that they've tried to make changes to 3 with fighter changes and splitting off logistics. I see that they have made changes to ishtars, so I'm not sure of the current status of 1. I'm not sure about 2, but it may be murky with fozzysov.

Battleships still do what they do well though. T3 cruisers haven't replaced them in incursions, ratting, or L4 missions. The problem is that the game meta is all about avoiding fights you can't win, which is where the battleship is weak.

Navy battleships do need to get looked at though, most of them are bad choices for everything.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2017-03-16 18:07:36 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
It has been a while since I've been "in the know" but these are the problems I remember with battleships as far as null sec alliances go:

1. 125 mb/s droneboats (ishtar specifically) putting out battleship dps with battleship projection
2. jump fatigue on jump freighters (hard to seed markets)
3. carrier sentry blobs being silly

I'm not sure of current null sec meta, but I know that they've tried to make changes to 3 with fighter changes and splitting off logistics. I see that they have made changes to ishtars, so I'm not sure of the current status of 1. I'm not sure about 2, but it may be murky with fozzysov.

Battleships still do what they do well though. T3 cruisers haven't replaced them in incursions, ratting, or L4 missions. The problem is that the game meta is all about avoiding fights you can't win, which is where the battleship is weak.

Navy battleships do need to get looked at though, most of them are bad choices for everything.


1. The Ishtar is no longer the monster it used to be. It was put back into it's HAC place and is not taking BS spots in potential doctrines.

2. JF fatigue is not enough to stop pirate BS fleet from being a thing so seeding is not the problem.

3. Carrier sentry blobs no longer exist since carrier can't use sentries anymore.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2017-03-16 18:16:59 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
It has been a while since I've been "in the know" but these are the problems I remember with battleships as far as null sec alliances go:

1. 125 mb/s droneboats (ishtar specifically) putting out battleship dps with battleship projection
2. jump fatigue on jump freighters (hard to seed markets)
3. carrier sentry blobs being silly

I'm not sure of current null sec meta, but I know that they've tried to make changes to 3 with fighter changes and splitting off logistics. I see that they have made changes to ishtars, so I'm not sure of the current status of 1. I'm not sure about 2, but it may be murky with fozzysov.

Battleships still do what they do well though. T3 cruisers haven't replaced them in incursions, ratting, or L4 missions. The problem is that the game meta is all about avoiding fights you can't win, which is where the battleship is weak.

Navy battleships do need to get looked at though, most of them are bad choices for everything.


1. The Ishtar is no longer the monster it used to be. It was put back into it's HAC place and is not taking BS spots in potential doctrines.

2. JF fatigue is not enough to stop pirate BS fleet from being a thing so seeding is not the problem.

3. Carrier sentry blobs no longer exist since carrier can't use sentries anymore.


I'm glad to see 1 and 3 go, those were cancer to the game.

But if 2 isn't a factor anymore and we have pirate battleship blobs, then I'm not sure what the thread is about.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2017-03-16 18:47:32 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
It has been a while since I've been "in the know" but these are the problems I remember with battleships as far as null sec alliances go:

1. 125 mb/s droneboats (ishtar specifically) putting out battleship dps with battleship projection
2. jump fatigue on jump freighters (hard to seed markets)
3. carrier sentry blobs being silly

I'm not sure of current null sec meta, but I know that they've tried to make changes to 3 with fighter changes and splitting off logistics. I see that they have made changes to ishtars, so I'm not sure of the current status of 1. I'm not sure about 2, but it may be murky with fozzysov.

Battleships still do what they do well though. T3 cruisers haven't replaced them in incursions, ratting, or L4 missions. The problem is that the game meta is all about avoiding fights you can't win, which is where the battleship is weak.

Navy battleships do need to get looked at though, most of them are bad choices for everything.


1. The Ishtar is no longer the monster it used to be. It was put back into it's HAC place and is not taking BS spots in potential doctrines.

2. JF fatigue is not enough to stop pirate BS fleet from being a thing so seeding is not the problem.

3. Carrier sentry blobs no longer exist since carrier can't use sentries anymore.


I'm glad to see 1 and 3 go, those were cancer to the game.

But if 2 isn't a factor anymore and we have pirate battleship blobs, then I'm not sure what the thread is about.


It's about epople who think BS should be the be all end all solution to God know what and so pretend BS aren't viable and then people look around for anything that might be the reason why. Battleships as a class are usable. The T1 lineup is currently in an odd spot meta wise but still usable in some case. The abundance of pirate BPC has put the faction ones in a bad spot tho. They are clearly inferior to pirates ones but rarely worth the money because the LP they require to get are better used on many other stuff so nobody sink them into BS.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2017-03-16 18:48:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Frostys Virpio wrote:
There isn't enough grid left to fit modules any bigger already.

There is on the Maelstrom if you fit autocannons (in fact it's hard to find a way to use it all), but battleships could use a slight increase in powergrid along with all these things. Their current values were made many years ago way back when the only thing battleships spent powergrid on were the guns.



A8ina wrote:
What about if Armor and Shield extenders are restricted in class for Frigates-Destroyers-Cruisers-BattleCruisers-BattleShips-CapitalShips Idea

Howabout no. Give us an X-Large shield extender that costs 1800MW and a 3200mm armor plate that costs 3000MW and you won't need to restrict them. Is it possible to fit one to a battlecruiser? Yes. Is that a bad thing? NO, NO IT ISN'T.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#30 - 2017-03-16 18:52:05 UTC
t3 battleships solve everything even universe it self.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
#31 - 2017-03-16 19:07:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Aihaken
Mina Sebiestar wrote:
t3 battleships solve everything even universe it self.

I would like to think so, but as we've seen CCP is horrible at implementing new balanced features (T3D, Rorqual, Fighters). This isn't a criticism per say, but their track record speaks for itself. So T3Bs would become the new meta/doctrine and run amok for 1-2 years until CCP figures out how to un-f*ck them. During which time life will become miserable for everyone else. Meanwhile, wormholers everywhere rejoice!

Don't believe me? Just wait until these new CONCORD ships are made available (they'll be equivalent to a $400 investment, so if you think they're going to be subpar you can guess again).
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2017-03-16 19:22:56 UTC
Drake Aihaken wrote:


Don't believe me? Just wait until these new CONCORD ships are made available (they'll be equivalent to a $400 investment, so if you think they're going to be subpar you can guess again).


They won't be anywhere as powerful as you think a 400$ investment would bring because it's not a 400$ investment but a gift. Chances are most will stay docked 100% of the time until CCP make them more available than one batche.
Drake Aihaken
CODE.d
#33 - 2017-03-16 19:44:24 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
They won't be anywhere as powerful as you think a 400$ investment would bring because it's not a 400$ investment but a gift. Chances are most will stay docked 100% of the time until CCP make them more available than one batche.

You could be right. This could also be testing the waters for future microtransactions involving unique ships, modules, etc. Look, null-sec is so wealthy it can buy whatever it wants anyway, so EVE is already effectively Pay2Win for certain elite groups. Microtranscations just level the playing field for everyone else not space rich.

There are two ways to expand your revenue: Increase the number of players or find new ways of offering new value-added services for your existing membership. This is typically where F2P leads, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that this might be in the cards for the near future.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#34 - 2017-03-16 21:17:48 UTC
Drake Aihaken wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
They won't be anywhere as powerful as you think a 400$ investment would bring because it's not a 400$ investment but a gift. Chances are most will stay docked 100% of the time until CCP make them more available than one batche.

You could be right. This could also be testing the waters for future microtransactions involving unique ships, modules, etc. Look, null-sec is so wealthy it can buy whatever it wants anyway, so EVE is already effectively Pay2Win for certain elite groups. Microtranscations just level the playing field for everyone else not space rich.

There are two ways to expand your revenue: Increase the number of players or find new ways of offering new value-added services for your existing membership. This is typically where F2P leads, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that this might be in the cards for the near future.


There is a slight difference in blobbhh to win and pay to win.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
A8ina
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2017-03-17 00:30:48 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
And fix battleship sized guns so they can hit things easierstop hitting so easily and give them role bonuses. YES!
I want more battlecruisers and battleships in the game. ME TOO! We have enough frigates and /could use more\ cruisers /too\.

I doodled a bit on your post.


This bit is important: People see clearly that battleships underperform when compared to combat battlecruisers. Battleships have a bit more DPS and hit points, but are much slower and have WAY more trouble hitting targets. People think "oh I have the perfect solution! Obviously, the reason battlecruisers dominate is because of their tracking (true), so if battleships get more tracking they will be fixed!!

IF BATTLESHIPS GET MORE TRACKING, THEY WILL ONCE AGAIN JUST BE EXPENSIVE BATTLECRUISERS

What to do? Give them something different. They already have a pretty significant DPS advantage, they can use modules that cost a lot of powergrid. CCP is moving in the right direction by adding heavy modules. (We could use a few medium or cruiser modules!) Give battleships the staying power to make their dominance count for something. Give them truly battleship-sized shield extenders and armor plates, so big that battlecruisers can't fit them. Increase their base hit points a bit, too. They already have the ability to fit giant armor repairers and shield boosters.

I'd go so far as to cut T2 cruiser logi down to using medium modules and then give people a logi battleship for the big ones. Giant fleets of battleships that sit there mostly immobile holding ground and using logi webs to reinforce their defense should not be getting repaired by cruisers. They should have battleships doing that. Battleship logi would be much less mobile but much more tenacious. Cruiser logi should have shorter range and considerably lower repair rate.


I like your constructive approach to the issue relating to my post .
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2017-03-17 05:34:04 UTC
A8ina wrote:
I like your constructive approach to the issue relating to my post.

Oh really? =)

A8ina wrote:
T3 Battle Cruisers do equal /or higher\ DPS & Alpha as well as range and Tracking as Battleships, but their speed and agility makes them more suited for Blitzkrieg attacks; but their speed can be used as a defensive tactic to rival the Battleships HP /defense\ , therefore making them more equally effective in Fleet battles/while being superior at getting in and out of them, all for a /LOWER PRICE TAG\.

Well you going to say BS have better chance if they get remotely repaired but usually most of the BS pOp on the first Fleet barrage
You can't say battleships have a defensive advantage with logi on the field when even a medium fleet of attack battlecruisers can alpha a battleship off the field.(Which is why I'm arguing for more hit points!)

The Battleships still need some love to set them apart!!X

Editing posts is fun.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2017-03-17 08:41:36 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
It's about epople who think BS should be the be all end all solution to God know what and so pretend BS aren't viable and then people look around for anything that might be the reason why. Battleships as a class are usable. The T1 lineup is currently in an odd spot meta wise but still usable in some case. The abundance of pirate BPC has put the faction ones in a bad spot tho. They are clearly inferior to pirates ones but rarely worth the money because the LP they require to get are better used on many other stuff so nobody sink them into BS.


I would agree for the most part. BB's are appropriate when damage projection and tank are useful, but mobility is not. Otherwise you're using the wrong tool for the job.

But I think 3 things should happen:
1. Review T1 battleships. They don't all have to have equal use, but make sure they all have a reasonable niche.
2. Rebalance T3 cruisers. Address the OP subsystems, fix the UP subsystems.
3. Fix navy battleships (or any navy ship for that matter, but focus on navy battleships). They're terribly bad right now, and many of them are functionally flawed so they're worse than the T1 versions.
4, Punch and Pie. Yum

Other than that I'm fine with how things are.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#38 - 2017-03-17 11:12:33 UTC
Ersahi Kir wrote:
....But I think 3 things should happen:
1. Review T1 battleships. They don't all have to have equal use, but make sure they all have a reasonable niche.
2. Rebalance T3 cruisers. Address the OP subsystems, fix the UP subsystems.
3. Fix navy battleships (or any navy ship for that matter, but focus on navy battleships). They're terribly bad right now, and many of them are functionally flawed so they're worse than the T1 versions.
4, Punch and Pie. Yum

Other than that I'm fine with how things are.


1. Only Big Miker and a few other know how to fly them properly, not CCP's fault

2. agreed or better delete them

3. You meant fix navy battleship pricetags

4. I like pi, it's 3.142356... - ouuuh you pie, never mind.. (my hips Sad)

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
A8ina
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2017-03-17 14:41:09 UTC
What about targeting changes around 50's for Cruiser Class & 60's for B-Cruiser Class So BattleShips Class has superiority on targeting range around 100's and an increase of L-Weapons range to accommodate the targeting range. Idea
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2017-03-17 16:33:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ersahi Kir
elitatwo wrote:
Ersahi Kir wrote:
3. Fix navy battleships (or any navy ship for that matter, but focus on navy battleships). They're terribly bad right now, and many of them are functionally flawed so they're worse than the T1 versions.


3. You meant fix navy battleship pricetags


No, fix the ships themselves.

Tempest Fleet - complete garbage
Typhoon Fleet - split weapon bonuses are bad. This use to have the highest damage of any missile platform at 8.25 effective launcher, but lost a lot paper DPS because of bad application. With the barghest sporting 9 effective launchers it's bad on every level. The only advantage it has is 125 mb of unbonused drones, but that doesn't make up for it being unimpressive.

Megathron Navy - I don't know anyone who would consider a regular megathron to a navy megathron as an upgrade path. You either go to a vindicator or a kronos. Even if it only cost 10m extra to get a navy megathron I doubt it would be worth it.
Domi Navy - just what everyone wants, split weapon bonuses on what is possibly the best T1 battleship. If they copied and pasted the bonuses from the T1 domi it would be top shelf with the extra mid, as it stands it's laughably bad.

Apocalypse Navy - decently useful. Probably the best navy battleship right now.
Armageddon Navy - no idea, doesn't look bad but doesn't get a lot of play either (my exposure to this ship is limited)

Raven Navy - It use to be a good ship that was a reasonable upgrade from a T1 raven. It's still ok, but the 9 effective turret barghest overshadows it now.
Scorpion Navy - it has a small window of being good for lower sp characters. Once someone starts maxing out enough skills it falls off hard to the golem, rattlesnake, and barghest.

The problem with these ships isn't the cost compared to T1 battleships, it's that these ships often fail to be upgrades to them.
Previous page123Next page