Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
160
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 07:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why are battleships considered so terrible?
I understand that they are slow lumbering beasts of things, but why not use them on defense where holding the battlefield is more important and mobility less so?
It cant be because of the terrible tracking of large guns because the tier 3 battlecruisers seems pretty popular, but I keep reading things like "lolzbattleships" and wonder to myself, "why?" |
Jude Lloyd
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
433
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 07:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Why are battleships considered so terrible?
I understand that they are slow lumbering beasts of things, but why not use them on defense where holding the battlefield is more important and mobility less so?
It cant be because of the terrible tracking of large guns because the tier 3 battlecruisers seems pretty popular, but I keep reading things like "lolzbattleships" and wonder to myself, "why?"
What's a "Battleship"? Heretic Army Warlord and Diplomat Host of Frigfest http://judelloyd.blog.com/ http://kbarmy.heretic-army.biz/
|
Jude Lloyd
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
433
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 07:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
But in all seriousness, I don't use them because I'm a lowsec pirate who wants some mobility during fights where I'm most likely up against a FW blob.
Not sure what the rest of Eve's excuse is... Heretic Army Warlord and Diplomat Host of Frigfest http://judelloyd.blog.com/ http://kbarmy.heretic-army.biz/
|
terzslave
RedStar Enterprises RED Citizens
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 07:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Also because they're not cost effective in a fight. |
Nihi Lismus
A Lone Wolf Inc.
60
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 08:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Depends on the Fleetdoctrine. There are a few (Hellcats / Alpha-Maels) where the backbone of the fleet are BSs. But more populare are fleet setups like the Drake-Army. Lower costs, faster to skill, easier to fly.
Next step would be the Tengu-Army
(another reason for the Drake-Armys was/is, that flying rockets generating Lag. The Plan was, to lag-out the enemys Turret-BSs and Logis) |
Jude Lloyd
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
433
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 08:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nihi Lismus wrote:Depends on the Fleetdoctrine. There are a few (Hellcats / Alpha-Maels) where the backbone of the fleet are BSs. But more populare are fleet setups like the Drake-Army. Lower costs, faster to skill, easier to fly.
Next step would be the Tengu-Army
(another reason for the Drake-Armys was/is, that flying rockets generating Lag. The Plan was, to lag-out the enemys Turret-BSs and Logis)
Oh you're talking about blob warfare...
I think he was asking about PVP.
I might be wrong of course. Heretic Army Warlord and Diplomat Host of Frigfest http://judelloyd.blog.com/ http://kbarmy.heretic-army.biz/
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1058
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 08:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Roaming in battleship(s) is a bit sucky, and risky due to low mobility. To me that's the main reason for not flying them more. If we have a fight in our home system, I'm very happy to field a triple-plate Mega or neut Domi. I even have an ultra-ganky NDomi waiting for such an opportunity :)
Battleships still combine high dps with staying power and do it relatively cheaply. A buffer Proteus also reaches the same magical 1000dps zone with even more EHP, but if I can choose between risking a T3 or a fully insured T2-fitted battleship that will do the job, choice is easy. Also the drone dmg amps made Domis very, very strong and few ships can compete with their dps.
I see tr3 BCs as very different from battleships, Talos is more like a cruiser to me, it does not fill the same purpose to me. Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Executive Outcomes
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 09:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
My nano-phoon moves like a BC, has more ehp, 1000dps, 2 heavy neuts, and makes you smile when you land on a T3 who thought he could... whats not to love? - Nulla Curas |
Caitlyn Tufy
Refuge of Hope
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 09:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Why are battleships considered so terrible?
Because people are sheep, they read something and follow it to the letter. Put nearly any ship in the game into the right hands and I assure you it'll murder just about anything with a proper fit and use.
Nihi Lismus wrote:But more populare are fleet setups like the Drake-Army. Lower costs, faster to skill, easier to fly.
(another reason for the Drake-Armys was/is, that flying rockets generating Lag. The Plan was, to lag-out the enemys Turret-BSs and Logis)
One of the most famous Drake fleets, the goon one, performs a very specific role with a very specific fit. That fleet would be severely weakened without a Malestrom with with heavy alpha strike ability, but most people just ignore that and whine on about the Drakes. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
657
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 11:16:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Why are battleships considered so terrible?
I understand that they are slow lumbering beasts of things, but why not use them on defense where holding the battlefield is more important and mobility less so?
It cant be because of the terrible tracking of large guns because the tier 3 battlecruisers seems pretty popular, but I keep reading things like "lolzbattleships" and wonder to myself, "why?"
Those are from another age back when dinosaurs where kings of the hill. Bonuses, weapon systems, slots layout, base speed, base ehp and agility/mass are horrible and only work in some circumstances like with some Pirate Battleships. You can succeed with those, they can be very nasty in fact when you think about how many players and often older ones are horrible at fitting their ships and flying them. Then you can put a super vid on youtube how powerful battleships are. brb |
|
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
52
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 11:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Why are battleships considered so terrible?
I understand that they are slow lumbering beasts of things, but why not use them on defense where holding the battlefield is more important and mobility less so?
It cant be because of the terrible tracking of large guns because the tier 3 battlecruisers seems pretty popular, but I keep reading things like "lolzbattleships" and wonder to myself, "why?" Battleships are still very relevant, just look at what CFC did to Raiden with their Alpha Maelstrom Doctrine not long ago. flavor of the month builds will come & go but the battleship is still the staple of any alliance fighting in Null. Do yourself a favor, stop listening to idiots that dont know what their talking about. |
Altessa Bank
Too Stoned To Fly
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
In my opinion, in small skirmishes, BSs are fairly useless in close range fighting (Mobility/tracking). Though some BSs have the capability to **** in close range affairs i.e. Machariel. BSs can also be used as a long range battery platform in gate camps w/ tackle, and are also a huge part in laying siege to a POS. Yes, some people use Dreads to do that, but its good to have a BS/BC complement, and rep support just incase of a counter attack. BSs just fit more different roles for different fights. For the most part. People rely on the mobility and steady firepower of Battle Cruisers (cost efficient for combat pilots) and T3 Cruisers (Wealthy combat pilots). Thats my two cents. |
Ryder 3vyn
State Navy
17
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Xpaulusx wrote:stop listening to idiots that dont know what their talking about. wat |
Fleet Warpsujarento
Caldari's Pride - Factional Warfare Cadet School
150
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
They're too fat for small gang.
The better part of small gang PvP is catching smaller forces that you can smash, and running away from bigger forces that can crush you, and BS aren't very good at that because of how slow they are. |
Noisrevbus
197
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
I'm not sure who you have been listening to, because Battleships are some of the best ships in the game.
They are represented in all scales and forms of gameplay, and they are still reasonably affordable.
One of them may not adapt to all situations that can arise, but as a class they are very allround and powerful.
- If you roam you have everything from active tanked or asb-boosting variants to shield buffered nano BS. - If you drop or do close-region roams (as in lowsec) you also have many plated setups to choose from. - If you fleet BS are still central components of any competent political actor (Maels, Baddons and Rokhs).
The only thing they can't do, which is a bit of a "duh" is do small nano roams that rely on outrunning BC. They can be fast as BC, but not magnitudes faster. I'm not sure what logic you'd apply to demand they'd be that on the other hand. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
236
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 15:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote: The only thing they can't do, which is a bit of a "duh" is do small nano roams that rely on outrunning BC. They can be fast as BC, but not magnitudes faster. I'm not sure what logic you'd apply to demand they'd be that on the other hand.
The pest and phoon (and navy editions) can both be easily made faster than a typical bc. |
Chimpy B
The Philosophy Of Two
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 15:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Battleships are perfect for L4 missions.
They have higher dps than any T2 cruiser, and more tank ability.
They are relatively cheap, too.
But like all T1 ships they have low base resistances and only 1 set of bonuses, so I guess that's the reason they aren't popular. |
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Executive Outcomes
195
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 15:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Noisrevbus wrote: The only thing they can't do, which is a bit of a "duh" is do small nano roams that rely on outrunning BC. They can be fast as BC, but not magnitudes faster. I'm not sure what logic you'd apply to demand they'd be that on the other hand.
The pest and phoon (and navy editions) can both be easily made faster than a typical bc.
ChromeStriker wrote:My nano-phoon moves like a BC, has more ehp, 1000dps, 2 heavy neuts, and makes you smile when you land on a T3 who thought he could... whats not to love?
- Nulla Curas |
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
53
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 15:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
People don't like to fly Battleships because they're not MWD-rocketship frigate-tracking neut beasts like a hurricane or instant-win-ezmode-faceroll like a Drake. They take skill and tactics to fly, something few people have, including myself.
"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins |
Noisrevbus
198
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 15:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Noisrevbus wrote: The only thing they can't do, which is a bit of a "duh" is do small nano roams that rely on outrunning BC. They can be fast as BC, but not magnitudes faster. I'm not sure what logic you'd apply to demand they'd be that on the other hand.
The pest and phoon (and navy editions) can both be easily made faster than a typical bc.
Did you miss the logic?
That first quote does not say they are slower, it says they are as fast (as, within the same magnitude), but not magnitudes faster.
If a Drake go 1100m/s and a nano Pest goes 1300m/s: then yes, it's faster but it's still within the same tier of speed.
An Interceptor on the other hand go 5000m/s and that's an entirely different magnitude.
Those 200m/s do not alter the way you approach the ship in any way. They act and handle like BC, or slow Cruisers.
With the upside ofc. that they have more firepower and utility on equal tank and mobility.
I presume your nano Phoon do not rush sniper Talos and crush 100km on them, or am i wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |