open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked The Elimination of the Battleship from EVE.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (14)

Author Topic

Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises
Babylon Project
Posted - 2010.12.07 15:39:00 - [61]
 

Mostly well said, although some replies are obviously idiotic. Combining WildCat's and Liang's posts makes for a nice description of the issues of the battleship class:

- A BC can project damage better on more types of targets at short/medium range for a better price, than a BS.

BC mods are generally around the same price, rigs weighing in a hefty sum for BS (this is one of the downsides of the introduction of medium and small rigs, it made smaller ships a better price choice). Add the hull price and you end up with a BS that is easily double the price of a BC, which generally has a hard time getting double the dps, let alone double the EHP and a far lower ability to project damage on smaller or even moving same size targets, with an added lack of mobility.

I completely agree with the call for double sized drone bays, imho this should have been done at the introduction of drone bandwidth. And yes ecm drones should then be nerfed (quite?) a bit too.

The web nerf was a good thing, but BS are hurt by this a lot. Already being slow and less agile, already having lower tracking, being up against even BCs which benefitted a lot from the medium rigs giving the same benefits a lot cheaper means it's easier for anything smaller to get away even if they were foolish enough to get too close. Add to that the amount of tackle that can reach outside even 25km heavy neut range (faction items, cs/t3 gang mods etc) and you know that your BS is gonna be crap.
A little tracking tweak should be ok.


Logi's, another thing close to my heart, should probably be less effective (but not useless by far). Armour RR at the start same as shield yes please. But how about having a sort of signature effect on RR too. A logi with large RR would do less RR on a fast moving lower signature target perhaps. Something could be done here. This would also relatively strengthen a BS with logi support gang.


Caps.. well this is a tricky one. Basically if you want caps to be less useful vs subcaps, the reverse should also be true. I'm not sure we would want this. You can't make caps (a lot) more expensive since there are already so many around. Yes, nerf FBs into the ground vs subcaps (a lot more than on recent sisi builds), perhaps even vs normal caps. The fact that so many groups in eve can drop multiple SCs on basically anything is getting to be very annoying. Maybe increase the running cost of supercaps, additional fuel etc (although again, making things more expensive just makes the non rich blobs more annoyed when people still drop them in dozens). Titan DD should cost 100m to fire I suppose, bridging should also cost more etc etc, again, targetting the rich just makes what they're doing more exclusive and annoying.


Also, don't bring in faction bs or bc-fit tempests into a discussion about the position of BS in the game today, 12k alpha mwd buffered machariels have nothing to do with BS.

Enduros
Desard's Nation
Cha0s Theory
Posted - 2010.12.07 15:56:00 - [62]
 

Rebalancing the tracking/sig/range on the small calibre BS guns to hit cruiser sized targets would be nice. Right now the only reason why anyone would want to fit them is fitting issues. Even when tackled by dedicated ships, targets still get under your guns.

And a sensor resolution bumb across the BS would help some.

As for carrier being dropped on BS fleets. Fit each bs with 1 smartbomb.

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2010.12.07 15:59:00 - [63]
 

Battleships are fine and should not solo in most circumstances.

Nice troll post. I can only assume that because it is completely stupid.

Qui Binder
Dead Pilots Society
Posted - 2010.12.07 16:24:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
-snip-
Basically it boils down to mobility. Battleships don't have it, and they don't bring much more to the table than the things that do have it.

-Liang

That's it IMO. It's why I don't like flying BS. They're too slow to align, too slow to get into warp, too slow burning back to the gate, and too slow to burn to the enemy. A Machariel is an exception but most people can't afford or properly fit a Mach (myself included). There are a few roles where a BS works but most of the time, some other ship can do it better (and cheaper).

Enduros
Desard's Nation
Cha0s Theory
Posted - 2010.12.07 17:25:00 - [65]
 

Here's an idea... lol

Make ships be tractor-beamable (spellcheck approves:P), pulling speed and strength be dependent on the mass of the ship vs target. Small, medium and large beams will need to be added though.

Or let beams give you some added velocity when approaching the target, again bonus depending on mass and velocity. Say an MWDing BS could catch up to a MWDing cruiser or BC.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.12.07 17:29:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Enduros
Say an MWDing BS could catch up to a MWDing cruiser or BC.


I think it would make a lot of sense for all ships to have the same absolute top speed, but that their acceleration curves should be dramatically different. I'd also like to see locking range and scan res normalized now that we have sig res/sig resolution/explo velocity/explo radius. But, while that may be a fun game, it wouldn't be Eve.

-Liang

Rastigan
Caldari
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.12.07 17:33:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Rastigan on 07/12/2010 17:33:46
Originally by: DHB WildCat

Problem - Probing. Yes Battleships are the longest hitting sub cap ships in the game. However a prober can literally probe down a Battleship and be on top of it before it can get out of warp and turn around to warp out. Thus bringing the rest of the fleet ontop of the snipers.
Solution - Nerf the living crap out of probing. It is very overpowered. Make the time it takes to scan longer. Make it so that people have to work to get a position on snipers and thus a sniping BS fleet would be viable again.

Probing is easy when you know exactly where the ship is, its not easy when you dont. How about not having the entire sniping fleet in one place ?

Waxedpannylines
Posted - 2010.12.07 17:55:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Greymoon Avatar
The Battleship is fine as it is.
The easy solution to those troublesome ECM boats out there is to mount 1-2 Sensor Backup Arrays of a type that is different from your ships racial type. ECM jockeys instinctively jam you based on the racial type your flying, they will try to jam you out, be unsuccessful, and then start having to guess what will work after the shock, surprise, and disbelief wears off. This buys you precious seconds to primary him.

Tactics change over time, people find ways to counter what currently works, and they change again. The Battleship is much more flexible than anything smaller. More slots means more options.


That would work fine and all for shield ships but do you think an armor tanker is gonna want to waste precious lowslots on sensor backup arrays when he could be fitting tank or dmg mods. Currently the only tactic I see people using at the moment is to either fly a drake or abbadon. That is not how the game shoulf be played.

Corporal Punishment08
NosWaffle
Nostradamus Effect
Posted - 2010.12.07 18:02:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: DHB WildCat

Problem - Locking time. Takes for ever to lock a ship unless you specifically use spots needed for other modules to lock faster.

Solution - Eliminate res based locking and make a baseline lock of a few seconds reguardless the ship... or just boost battleship locking time. Lets face it, if you roleplay you know the battleship has the most syphistacated* (spelling 8)) electronic sysytems around! They would be able to do just as well if not better than any other ship in the fleet.



What about a gang of snipers? They lock a BB from 150km out in a few seconds? Instapopped. same with a Falcon, Scorpion, etc. You need to fit your ship for the role you intend. If you intend to use a Battleship to take out other battleships, you're good. If you intend a battleship to pick on smaller targets, you can still do this, but you gotta fit sensor boosters. This is true for everything in EVE. Fit the ship to meet the role.

Originally by: DHB WildCat


Problem - Shield tanking > Armor tanking. However most ships period armor tank. Thus making a shield tanked "drake" fleet with scimis more efeective than armor fleets.
Solution - Make armor RR rep at the beginning of the cycle like shield ones. No reason they have to be different. At the same time lets nerf the logi ships a little bit. Two logis should not be able to tank a ship from 10 people.




You're proposing to make all ships equal. I would say things are farely well balanced as is, even with all ships not being equal.

Originally by: DHB WildCat


Problem - Probing. Yes Battleships are the longest hitting sub cap ships in the game. However a prober can literally probe down a Battleship and be on top of it before it can get out of warp and turn around to warp out. Thus bringing the rest of the fleet ontop of the snipers.
Solution - Nerf the living crap out of probing. It is very overpowered. Make the time it takes to scan longer. Make it so that people have to work to get a position on snipers and thus a sniping BS fleet would be viable again.




I would say probing is fine. As is, without full skills, it's hard to probe down any ship. Players should be rewarded for putting all that time towards probing.

Originally by: DHB WildCat


Problem - Capital ships.... seriously this is completely out of control! I am in a corp of 20 people. We all have Mom's and some of us even have titans. It is too easy to build these things and they are too cheap for their abilities.
Solution - Make them more expensive! Fighters / Fighter bombers should not be able to hit sub caps period! A mom should not be a solo pwn mobile like it is! DD - Make sig based... again too many titans are dropped on lone Battleship becasue it insta pops them and is so cheap to fire the device that it isnt even a factor concidered in firing the divice.




The problem here is that there's too much money floating around out there. Players just have so much money now adays. Noobs come in to a corp, and the first thing they're told is to train up their drone skills so they can get in to a supercarrier asap.
They won't even know how to fly the ship, but they'll have it. That's why there's so many supers dying these days. the loss of a capital ship used to cripple an alliance. Now it doesn't even dent a corporation.

DHB WildCat
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.07 18:15:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Tryaz
I'm sorry but this entire thread is ridiculous and if CCP give any of these suggestions serious consideration I'll be disappointed in them.

Among the most ridiculous whines and sugggestions:

Battleships to track frigates without support
- have you lost your mind? Of course a ship that size should not be able to track a frigate! Everything has to have a place and if a frigate can't navigate safely around a BS then what's the point in them.... Also, what's to stop you supporting your BS with a ship operating tracking links?

Battleships to fit CovOps Cloaks. The clue is in the name genius: there is absolutely NOTHING covert about a hulking great battleship! So you can't warp cloaked, deal with it.

I could go on for a long time but I'd just get boring. To sum up I have nothing but contempt for the original post on this thread.
Why do you expect to be able to operate a BS or many BS' without any support at all? How arrogant are you?

Stop crying over the weaknesses in the BS and augment your fleet to plug those holes: and if you can't do this then you don't deserve to win any fights.

WISE UP


Please dont confuse my tracking issue ideas with hitting frigs. Lets begin with being able to hit tackled BC's and Cruisers first.

Also where does anyone say anything about a cov-ops cloak on a BS?

Please stay on topic and not try to derail it with stuff noone said. Thank you

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.12.07 18:57:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 07/12/2010 18:59:22

Originally by: DHB WildCat

Please dont confuse my tracking issue ideas with hitting frigs. Lets begin with being able to hit tackled BC's and Cruisers first.



Battleships hit properly tackled cruisers just fine, in fact they are doing too much damage already once a cruiser hull target is locked down in my opinion.


Edit: I said something about cov ops cloaks, but merely to point out how utterly ridiculous the "give all BS 3 extra slots and drop all drawbacks like scan res and speed" idea was.

General Trajan
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2010.12.07 19:56:00 - [72]
 

i may be just kicking rocks on this, but i don't think battleships is the issue at all. it's really about how the combined forces of the drake and super mommy blobs are causing a rift in the EVE space time continuum. just no other counter to them at all. just more drakes and more nyx!

SC are too powerful. in a blob they cannot be denied! the only blob (other than an opposing nyx blob) that's supposed to counter is a dread fleet. and who wants to see a billion isk dread pop in one volley? dreads need more hitpoints and or more damage potential and not more collecting dust in stations. SC bombers should not be able to hit anything below a cap at all. that's what it's mini-blob of fighters are supposed to do.

drakes! drakes! and m0ar drakes! they are cheap, great tank for a T1 BC and because of this everybody is sad now (you don't think caldari chars get sick of flying this damn ship too?). so the drake has always had the upper hand on all the other BCs when it comes to fleet action. we all just didn't know it until now! so is it not time to add more fitting room on amarr BCs with longer range when using beams and actually make rails matter on BCs as well (good lord! a fleet of brutixs with rails to reach ouch and touch some drakes Shocked )? more to this of course, but you can see what i'm getting at.

-boost other racial BCs for fleet range battle to compete with drake blob
-boost dreads to help counter nyx blobs


Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2010.12.07 23:02:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: DHB WildCat
Problem - Tracking Issues... Lets face it. A battleship has a VERY hard time tracking ships that are even webbed and scrammed! You litterally cannot hit them.

Solution - Boost tracking and missile stats to better have a chance to hit a tackled target. Yes they shouldnt be able to hit a non tackled target, but a webbed / scrammed / painted should be hit by a Battleship.... Not for full damage mind you, but a Battleship should not miss a webbed / scrammed target either.

Problem - Capital ships.... seriously this is completely out of control! I am in a corp of 20 people. We all have Mom's and some of us even have titans. It is too easy to build these things and they are too cheap for their abilities.

Solution - Make them more expensive! Fighters / Fighter bombers should not be able to hit sub caps period! A mom should not be a solo pwn mobile like it is! DD - Make sig based... again too many titans are dropped on lone Battleship becasue it insta pops them and is so cheap to fire the device that it isnt even a factor concidered in firing the divice.


Summary: The problem with Battleships is that they cannot hit smaller ships. But the problem with Capitals is that they can hit smaller ships.

Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2010.12.07 23:23:00 - [74]
 

Ah good to see some ‘revisionist’ history being passed around.

Smaller ships did perfectly fine even when the last remaining ‘proper’ solo BS (i.e. Blasters/AC’s) were viable due to 90% webs. Even then, they [solo BS] were not solopwnmobiles due to mobility issues and vulnerability to getting caught, oh and getting EW’d to death. In fact in the run up to the speed changes they weren’t very popular at all – most people plumping for turbocharged nano-HAC’s.

“blah blah Battleships shouldn’t fly solo” – then pray tell, what is the point of a Large blaster, with a comparable range to most cruiser weapons and need to fully grapple a target to hit it?...

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2010.12.08 01:55:00 - [75]
 

Battleships are fine. They fill a role.. thick-skinned, lotta guns.. and they fill that role very well. Those two principles combined are going to naturally equate to slow fat ass targets. Working as intended. So what if they require some support ships in certain scenarios?

I think the pilots that fail at using them are what needs a fix rather than BSs themselves. People locked in 2-4 year old cookie fits, not willing to adapt. Not willing to understand the changes around them, and some of them have nothing to do with game mechanics that cause the biggest influence!

Solo PvP in a BS is just being ignorant to the fact that there are more people in the game now, more experinced people knowledgable on game mechanics, and that null and to a much larger degree, lowsec.. is a whole lot more organized than years past. This is a very important aspect.

Whats going to happen when you make them faster, track better.. then people are going to ***** about how useless BCs and some cruisers are. And the cycle continues until the most dreaded outcome possible...

Vanilla.

Bland. Boring. The thing I fear most happening to EVE.. it gets dumbed down to the point of complete 'balance' where everything ends up feeling like the 'one ship, one gun for all' clause.

Battleships are fine. Use them differently if the old ways don't work, adapt or die as people say. Focus for fixes in other areas.. local-chat change, ECM change, new mods that help influence BS prowess in the field.

Why dumb down the game with 'simple' fixes that just end up breaking something else? When there is better options that add more diversity, style, color, flavor to the game.

If your leaders tell you to do something a certain way, and fails repeatedly.. perhaps you should question the leaders ability to lead and be innovative to victories, rather than question and demand CCP make changes to fill your own personal voids.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.08 02:31:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Umega
Battleships are fine. They fill a role.. thick-skinned, lotta guns.. and they fill that role very well. Those two principles combined are going to naturally equate to slow fat ass targets. Working as intended. So what if they require some support ships in certain scenarios?
BC fit exact same 'role' that you described.

Originally by: Umega
I think the pilots that fail at using them are what needs a fix rather than BSs themselves. People locked in 2-4 year old cookie fits, not willing to adapt. Not willing to understand the changes around them, and some of them have nothing to do with game mechanics that cause the biggest influence!
Some of the people here, me included, have flown 500+ battleships, scoring thousands of kills using battleships over the last 5 years. I think our opinions should count for something, and certainly not dismissed in such careless fashion.

Originally by: Umega
Solo PvP in a BS is just being ignorant to the fact that there are more people in the game now, more experinced people knowledgable on game mechanics, and that null and to a much larger degree, lowsec.. is a whole lot more organized than years past. This is a very important aspect.
First, it's important to note that the main focus of this thread is on gangs, not solo battleships. Second, the problems of flying battleships in gangs have nothing to do with the experience of the enemy. They have to do with the game changing patches CCP introduced over the years.

Originally by: Umega
Whats going to happen when you make them faster, track better.. then people are going to ***** about how useless BCs and some cruisers are. And the cycle continues until the most dreaded outcome possible...

Vanilla.
It is possible that in their attempt to fix battleship balance, CCP takes their favored sledge hammer approach and completely unbalances the game in opposite direction. However, the point of this thread is not to discuss failure of CCP to do the job right.

Originally by: Umega
Battleships are fine. Use them differently if the old ways don't work, adapt or die as people say. Focus for fixes in other areas.. local-chat change, ECM change, new mods that help influence BS prowess in the field.
Looking at your history on battleclinic it's hard to see how you'd know much about proper uses of battleships. And the fact that you want ECM change, which is currently a non-issue, makes you even less credible. Especially since you push the idea of "adapt or die" at same time.

Originally by: Umega
Why dumb down the game with 'simple' fixes that just end up breaking something else? When there is better options that add more diversity, style, color, flavor to the game.

CCP already dumbed down the game quite a bit over the years. And it is precisely because of their dumbing down of the game that we have this problem. Most reasonable solutions would involve undoing the damage done by CCP. Making the game more hardcore and interesting to serious gamer.

Artemis Rose
Clandestine Vector
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2010.12.08 02:47:00 - [77]
 

To sum up this thread so far.

WAAAHHH WAAHHHH GIVE ME BACK MY SOLO PWNMOBILE. WAAAAHHHH. IF YOU DISARGEE WITH ME I WILL BRING UP YOUR KB STATS N00B. WAAAHHH

Alright, to the point.

EVE ships in general can only deal with ships in their own ship class or larger (even partially true for captials, because they really need their support fleets of smaller ships to really shine). It should be that way for game balance.

Maybe Battleships could use a DPS increase to make the sacrifice of mobility from smaller hulls a little more attractive, but they certainly shouldn't get a bonus to the ability to project their DPS onto smaller targets. They should be used as the slow, heavy hitters of a well rounded gang of support ships (much like capitals/supers are used now)

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2010.12.08 03:21:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Umega
Battleships are fine. They fill a role.. thick-skinned, lotta guns.. and they fill that role very well. Those two principles combined are going to naturally equate to slow fat ass targets. Working as intended. So what if they require some support ships in certain scenarios?
BC fit exact same 'role' that you described.

Originally by: Umega
I think the pilots that fail at using them are what needs a fix rather than BSs themselves. People locked in 2-4 year old cookie fits, not willing to adapt. Not willing to understand the changes around them, and some of them have nothing to do with game mechanics that cause the biggest influence!
Some of the people here, me included, have flown 500+ battleships, scoring thousands of kills using battleships over the last 5 years. I think our opinions should count for something, and certainly not dismissed in such careless fashion.

Originally by: Umega
Solo PvP in a BS is just being ignorant to the fact that there are more people in the game now, more experinced people knowledgable on game mechanics, and that null and to a much larger degree, lowsec.. is a whole lot more organized than years past. This is a very important aspect.
First, it's important to note that the main focus of this thread is on gangs, not solo battleships. Second, the problems of flying battleships in gangs have nothing to do with the experience of the enemy. They have to do with the game changing patches CCP introduced over the years.

Originally by: Umega
Whats going to happen when you make them faster, track better.. then people are going to ***** about how useless BCs and some cruisers are. And the cycle continues until the most dreaded outcome possible...

Vanilla.
It is possible that in their attempt to fix battleship balance, CCP takes their favored sledge hammer approach and completely unbalances the game in opposite direction. However, the point of this thread is not to discuss failure of CCP to do the job right.

Originally by: Umega
Battleships are fine. Use them differently if the old ways don't work, adapt or die as people say. Focus for fixes in other areas.. local-chat change, ECM change, new mods that help influence BS prowess in the field.
Looking at your history on battleclinic it's hard to see how you'd know much about proper uses of battleships. And the fact that you want ECM change, which is currently a non-issue, makes you even less credible. Especially since you push the idea of "adapt or die" at same time.

Originally by: Umega
Why dumb down the game with 'simple' fixes that just end up breaking something else? When there is better options that add more diversity, style, color, flavor to the game.

CCP already dumbed down the game quite a bit over the years. And it is precisely because of their dumbing down of the game that we have this problem. Most reasonable solutions would involve undoing the damage done by CCP. Making the game more hardcore and interesting to serious gamer.


Ahhh one of the folks that is completely confused on the difference between 'Dumb and OP' and 'Dumbed Down'. Because its not like there was a major hole in the game concerning BSs vs smaller class years ago. Rolling Eyes

Somal Thunder
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.12.08 03:37:00 - [79]
 

Only thing I agree on is how bloody cheap capitals are.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.12.08 03:43:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Somal Thunder
Only thing I agree on is how bloody cheap capitals are.


This should have been fixed when they changed rigs by making capital sized and supercap sized ones.

Having capital rigs at 5x the cost of current large rigs, supercapital ones at 25x the cost of current larges wouldnt hurt.

Anubis Xian
Ministry of War
Posted - 2010.12.08 04:44:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
I said something about cov ops cloaks, but merely to point out how utterly ridiculous the "give all BS 3 extra slots and drop all drawbacks like scan res and speed" idea was.


There is no such thing as extra slots, especially when talking about BS compared to BC. And I didn't see anyone saying to 'drop all drawbacks like scan res and speed' anywhere.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.12.08 05:05:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 08/12/2010 05:05:08
Originally by: Anubis Xian

There is no such thing as extra slots, especially when talking about BS compared to BC. And I didn't see anyone saying to 'drop all drawbacks like scan res and speed' anywhere.


So you dont remember your own post on page 1 where you suggest a buff in scanres by 100%, increased dronebays across the board, and a modular jump drive?

TradeHat
Posted - 2010.12.08 07:51:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: TradeHat on 08/12/2010 07:51:06
You are wrong
Battleships track abing hacs just fine if your smart enough.

Jayme Meladi
Posted - 2010.12.08 08:09:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Jayme Meladi on 08/12/2010 08:14:24
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Somal Thunder
Only thing I agree on is how bloody cheap capitals are.


This should have been fixed when they changed rigs by making capital sized and supercap sized ones.

Having capital rigs at 5x the cost of current large rigs, supercapital ones at 25x the cost of current larges wouldnt hurt.


Anybody who advocates making capital ships and super capital ships more expensive have pretty much no clue how much money/mining a mega alliance can actually do.

The game is at a point where cost is simply not an issue. Titans are not cost effective to justify having 30 of them in the same alliance but people do it anyway because they can. Cost doesn't matter.

I always hated the inception of super capitals and capital ships... Those ships + sov mechanics have made a huge mess of things. Introducing only carriers probably would have been more than enough. Gives drone *****s a good option while still being vulnerable to sub-cap ships there by relegating them to the logistics ships they were meant to be.

No need for dreads/moms/titans at all really.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.12.08 08:35:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
I think it would make a lot of sense for all ships to have the same absolute top speed, but that their acceleration curves should be dramatically different....

"Sir, we are catching them. Oh crap we overshot the target, estimated time to course correction - 3 minutes *sigh*"
Good idea, would make for some interesting scenarios for sure .. will have to make safeguards to avoid nano-kiting BS though.

Dronebay sizes should most definitely be revisited, long overdue. They added an extra variable with the bandwidth and then seems to have forgotten about it Sad

Pet Project:
Allow weapon bonuses to apply to all weapons of a given type (ex. Abaddon: +5%/Lvl to S/M/L lasers). Provides a potential solution to all the tracking woes.

Out of box thought (read: contentious):
Add a modifier to insurance cost/payout based on how much a given ship is used (ex. Drake would have insurance like pre-change T2 hulls thanks to spamming).

Kireiina
Posted - 2010.12.08 09:09:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: Kireiina on 08/12/2010 09:12:02
There's lots of null-sec alliances using battleship heavy fleets. They are actually having a resurgence given they're an excellent counter to drakes (eg. PL is spending a lot of time in abaddons).

Ships not being able to one shot everything smaller than them is part of what keeps the strategic space interesting. And this has been extended with the latest change to fighter bombers which restricts them from being used effectively against sub-caps.

Yes, super-cap proliferation is making sup-caps strategically meaningless. If you cannot counter the enemies super-caps, or at least the possibility of threat so they keep them off the field, then fly something you don't care too about losing (eg. drakes).

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.08 09:51:00 - [87]
 

Quote:
Introducing only carriers probably would have been more than enough. Gives drone *****s a good option while still being vulnerable to sub-cap ships there by relegating them to the logistics ships they were meant to be.

No need for dreads/moms/titans at all really.

Then carriers would be the best ships.

Now however with both carriers and dreads it is reasonably balanced. In general dreads > carriers, carriers > BS, BS > dread. Because dread is imo pretty much the best balanced capital ship by far, simply because it cannot possibly hit a sub cap in siege.

Captain Nares
Posted - 2010.12.08 09:51:00 - [88]
 

Hello mr. Butthurt!!

Srsly I see more problem in Drake than in BS class.

Jayme Meladi
Posted - 2010.12.08 10:04:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
Introducing only carriers probably would have been more than enough. Gives drone *****s a good option while still being vulnerable to sub-cap ships there by relegating them to the logistics ships they were meant to be.

No need for dreads/moms/titans at all really.

Then carriers would be the best ships.

Now however with both carriers and dreads it is reasonably balanced. In general dreads > carriers, carriers > BS, BS > dread. Because dread is imo pretty much the best balanced capital ship by far, simply because it cannot possibly hit a sub cap in siege.


I find that carriers can be destroyed easily enough with sub cap ships, not only can they be easily tackled but their primary form of DPS is relatively easy to destroy with proper coordination.

I wouldn't be against dreads being in the game with carriers because as you said, they fill a role very well and don't over reach...the issue would be that keeping dreads in the game gives CCP an excuse to keep the ******ed sov mechanics in place because of high dps siege dreads eating at stations.

Either way CCP would never have the balls to take away super caps so it's wishful thinking anyway.

Sid Zero
State Wh0re Academy
Posted - 2010.12.08 10:05:00 - [90]
 

I have determined via critical in-depth analysis of the situation, and subsequent calculations, that increasing the base damage of all BS weapons by 11.7%, would result in optimal balance, without disrupting current game mechanics.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (14)

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