open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Battleship class needs a buff.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.03 13:49:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 13:50:08
Supercaps will still be wrecking them after the fighter-bomber nerf and battlecruisers(Drakes, obviously)/armored hacs are more useful in subcap fleets.

I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same. Double their mineral requirements for construction too if balance is an issue.

TheMahdi
Posted - 2010.12.03 13:57:00 - [2]
 


Sessym
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.03 13:57:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 13:50:08
Supercaps will still be wrecking them after the fighter-bomber nerf and battlecruisers(Drakes, obviously)/armored hacs are more useful in subcap fleets.

I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same. Double their mineral requirements for construction too if balance is an issue.


That's a bit excessive, don't you think? Uhm... 1/10?

Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:05:00 - [4]
 

Why would it be? I don't see the problem with it.

Sessym
Amarr
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:10:00 - [5]
 

Well, others do Laughing

Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:11:00 - [6]
 

Are you sure? I'd like to know what their reasoning would be.

1600 RT
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:14:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 13:50:08
Supercaps will still be wrecking them after the fighter-bomber nerf and battlecruisers(Drakes, obviously)/armored hacs are more useful in subcap fleets.

I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same. Double their mineral requirements for construction too if balance is an issue.


battleships are fine

Kai Yuen
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:15:00 - [8]
 

Double the HP is certainly excessive. I'd be happy with a little more hp and a better align time, maybe even some more top speed. Battleships are fat and slow, so they can't catch anything and they can't run from anything. Super carriers only compounded the issue.

Jovan Geldon
Gallente
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:18:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
I don't see the problem with it.


I think that says more about you than *we* ever could...

Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:21:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Jovan Geldon
I think that says more about you than *we* ever could...


I notice how people are taking the time to point out how screwed up the originator of the idea is, but no reasons why the idea sucks.

Cpt Cosmic
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:22:00 - [11]
 

we do not need another indirect arty nerf! Rolling Eyes

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:22:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 13:50:08
Supercaps will still be wrecking them after the fighter-bomber nerf and battlecruisers(Drakes, obviously)/armored hacs are more useful in subcap fleets.

I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same. Double their mineral requirements for construction too if balance is an issue.


Hi. That would be horrifically overpowered, and doubling the mineral cost is hilarious.

Notice that I have used the same number of facts and numbers as you have in your post.

Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:25:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 14:26:15
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
we do not need another indirect arty nerf! Rolling Eyes


I said at the start that their damage should be doubled too, so please calm down.

Originally by: Malcanis
Hi. That would be horrifically overpowered, and doubling the mineral cost is hilarious.


But wouldn't it be fun?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:34:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
But wouldn't it be fun?
No.

If SCs are still mass-murdering BSes after the change, then the problem still is with the SCs, and thus it's those ships that need to be changed.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:35:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 13:50:08
Supercaps will still be wrecking them after the fighter-bomber nerf and battlecruisers(Drakes, obviously)/armored hacs are more useful in subcap fleets.

I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same. Double their mineral requirements for construction too if balance is an issue.


Do you actually play EVE, or do you only play EFT?

I am leaning towards the latter because you got no clue what you are talking about, for many many reasone.

Sure, i don't mind a slight BS buff, but making the pwn mobiles and obsoleteing all other classes is not the way Rolling Eyes

VanNostrum
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:35:00 - [16]
 

That is very interesting, please tell us more

Zyress
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:45:00 - [17]
 

I think Battleships are fine in pve, but I never see them in pvp anymore, they need some sort of adjustment, or like you say the super carriers do.

Natasha Hec
Gallente
University of Caille
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:50:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 13:50:08
Supercaps will still be wrecking them after the fighter-bomber nerf and battlecruisers(Drakes, obviously)/armored hacs are more useful in subcap fleets.

I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same. Double their mineral requirements for construction too if balance is an issue.


Sounds good im looking forward to my slaved vindicator having 600k ehp

Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:54:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Natasha Hec
Sounds good im looking forward to my slaved vindicator having 600k ehp


Exactly! You could actually pvp in losec or 0.0 with it and you wouldn't be certain to lose it immediately to a gank squad of battlecruisers.

Meili Liu
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:12:00 - [20]
 

Perhaps the reason some of the other posters find your proposed changes "excessive" are because one thinks of a reasonable buff/nerf as being something in the +/-10% range, not the +/-100% range? The Hawk recently got its damage bonus boosted from +5% to +10%, and +2 MW, which is already a significant change. It's simply good, prudent game engineering to make gradual, incremental changes. Doubling the hit points and damage of battleships across the board could wildly disrupt the entire balance of the game, which you may personally find desirable (or at least amusing), but which would negatively impact the EVE experience for many other experienced players who have developed their playstyle on reasonable expectations of the current standards. If you want battleships to be more powerful, start asking for maybe +10% in a few areas, crunch some numbers, and then carefully observe the results. Repeat as many times as needed.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:12:00 - [21]
 

Quote:
I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same.


Say hi to my 400k EHP Abaddon with 1600 dps out to 45km.

My friend 20k alpha Tempest would also like to make friends with you.

(No, haha, 1/10)

Natasha Hec
Gallente
University of Caille
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:14:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Natasha Hec on 03/12/2010 15:15:23
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same.


Say hi to my 400k EHP Abaddon with 1600 dps out to 45km.

My friend 20k alpha Tempest would also like to make friends with you.

(No, haha, 1/10)


Imagine adding slaves to that abaddon nothing like a bs with the ehp of a carrier

edit. To OP my last comment wasn't being serious, I don't support this change and it would basically obsolete pretty much every ship type

Artemis Rose
Clandestine Vector
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:23:00 - [23]
 

How you can't see a problem with 2K DPS BSes with 300K EHP says volumes on your understanding of game balance. Sorry, it "would be fun" its not a valid argument.

Go away and take your ideas kthx.



Amanda Mor
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:27:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Arthur Frayn
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/12/2010 13:50:08
Supercaps will still be wrecking them after the fighter-bomber nerf and battlecruisers(Drakes, obviously)/armored hacs are more useful in subcap fleets.

I think all battleships need their hitpoints and damage doubled with all other ships remaining the same. Double their mineral requirements for construction too if balance is an issue.


Ahhhhh, I see what you've done here - make some wildly outlandish 100% buff suggestion so that you move the "acceptable" and "reasonable" buff level to 5-10%, all for a ship class that doesn't need a buff at all! Well done, but the Republican Party has been pulling this trick in the US for years now, it's too obvious.

Mimiru Minahiro
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:37:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 03/12/2010 15:38:22
Originally by: Amanda Mor
Ahhhhh, I see what you've done here - make some wildly outlandish 100% buff suggestion so that you move the "acceptable" and "reasonable" buff level to 5-10%, all for a ship class that doesn't need a buff at all! Well done, but the Republican Party has been pulling this trick in the US for years now, it's too obvious.


Give credit where credit is due. The Republicans got the idea from the communist regimes of the mid-20th century. While obvious, it is still an effective strategy (strangely enough).

Also BS need no across the board buffs.

William Cooly
Sol Enterprises
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:42:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: William Cooly on 03/12/2010 15:42:17
Role of a battleship in EVE:

To have roughly twice the DPS of the class/classes below it. (They do)
To have roughly twice the raw hitpoints of the class/classes below it. (They do)
To operate at longer ranges better than other classes. (They do)
To be slow enough to balance these advantages with the vulnerability of not being able to disengage from a fight. (Exceptions the Machariel and Typhoon, first is rare enough and expensive enough to compensate, second is more difficult to fly)

So what exactly is the problem here?

Moroccan Tourist
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:52:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Moroccan Tourist on 03/12/2010 15:57:40
i think forum poasters need seriously a buffYARRRR!!

Ulstan
Posted - 2010.12.03 16:21:00 - [28]
 

The problem is super carriers, not BS.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.12.03 16:33:00 - [29]
 

Supercarriers are fine. I mean, look at how little EHP the Nyx and Hel have, and how small the drone bay is on the Hel and Aeon! And the bonuses on the Hel. WTF.

TBH, Supercarriers need about a 40% boost just to justify their cost! They cost like 10-20B isk so it should take at least 30B ISK worth of ship hulls to kill one!

-Liang

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2010.12.03 16:34:00 - [30]
 

Quote:
Imagine adding slaves to that abaddon nothing like a bs with the ehp of a carrier


With a modest faction fit, getting 700k EHP isn't that hard with this ridiculous buff.
With a really absurdly expensive fit and slaves, it hits over a million.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only