EVE Search - Death of the Battleship

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Death of the Battleship

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rigel 17th	Posted - 2010.01.18 21:05:00 - [1] In EVE balance is always what is strived for to make the game what it is. But since Dominion I am seeing what the repercussions to this latest change has made. Prior to Dominion we had the Doomsday device that made blobs a little more manageable, but since, blob is the word. I have watched 300 or more T2 ships roll in a do what normally took strategy and the use of all resources to accomplish. Now anyone can put together a fleet of 300 and steam roll through a system. You no longer need battleships in the game since they have a minimal use except for mission running. HACS and Logistic ships is pretty much what any conquering fleet needs in EVE today. Since Dominion I have seen things that normally would not have been considered. I watched personally as 2 Titans were cyno'd in to kill a CNR on a gate. With the latest love from CCP the Titans are now the 800 lb gorilla on the field and if you have more than 2 you can set the tone. So Titan jump bridge, 250 + HACs and its Alians with Hicks yelling "Game over, Man!" So what do I propose, balance, nothing more. I would like to see Battleships be able to counter blobs. The armor and shield tanking I believe is balanced. It is the weapon systems that need to tweaked up. Suggestions that I have are: 1.Allow battleships to launch Bombs. Except these bombs would equal the distance of a standard torp. The cap could be limited to allow no more than 3 Bombs launched per battleship. The damage factor can be played with so that the screamers in blobs won't be so loud but it would put battleships back into the PVP game. 2.Create a FLAK ammo for missile and gun boats. The area burst of the round if fired into a blob would definitely create damage. Also a added benefit would be for shooting at gate areas in the possible chance of hitting a cloaked ship. 3.Create a T3 Ammo for battleships so that a HACS signature would not give it a better advantage. These are my suggestions just off the hip. If others can come up with a better solution please do so. I am all for getting more players to play and cooperate in the game. But again, balance is what EVE is about.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.01.18 21:24:00 - [2] ugh
mchief117	Posted - 2010.01.18 21:42:00 - [3] Originally by: darius mclever ugh quite a lot of though in that one there ill have to try and do more SO ya i agree with the fact that the BS is know looking more and more like a waste. ironicaly in my alliance we have Restricted the use of BS in fleet ops unless its your only ship. BC and crusers are the main fleet components. considering that BS are supposed to be the Biggest thing since the dread im surprised that they can be esaly taken out by virtualy any thing smaller than them.
McEivalley Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.18 21:49:00 - [4] Originally by: darius mclever ugh /signed. Editing your watchlist
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.01.18 21:55:00 - [5] ok. the longer version. seems the TL;DR was too short. BS fleets where never meant to pwn everything. can hac fleets massacre BS fleets? sure. can hac fleets be decimated by BS fleets. sure. it all matters if each side can use their advantages. hell TRI ****d a carrier with battlecruiser. should we nerf battlecruiser? should we buff carriers? and you mention titans as counter to hac fleets. thats kind of lol. Last but not least i wonder what regions get taken by hacs atm. stuff i mostly see are BS heavy fleets and caps ships.
Rigel 17th	Posted - 2010.01.19 00:57:00 - [6] You know I can understand the concerns that ships may or may not be out of balance. So the first thing to address a claim, when I talked about Titans being used to kill a battleship. Here is the kill mail on that one. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=9175684 So would this be considered an overkill? Would this tactic have been considered by rational pilots before Dominion? My only concern is instead of getting carebears out of empire this is going to drive more back to empire. So is the answer we just have titan fights? Or what is the counter? Battleships once had the power if in a group to take on a Titan, but now, I do not think so. HACS were a good strike first fleet but now they are being used instead for blob effect since doomsday is no longer around.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.01.19 01:04:00 - [7] bubble hacs, drop bomb, dead hacs bubble hacs, drop your BS fleet into the middle of them, dead hacs. not sure where your problem is. and you claimed that titans where good counter to hac blobs in the past. and i doubt that.
Rigel 17th	Posted - 2010.01.19 01:22:00 - [8] Edited by: Rigel 17th on 19/01/2010 01:23:07 Quote: and you mention titans as counter to hac fleets. thats kind of lol. So is that still LOL? So back to the issue of Battleships needing love, prior to Dominion your battleship had to be able to take a DD strike. Now the going trend is since DD has been done away with, Battleships have been relegated to the no important pile, especially if they are used in conjunction with Titans. Because the signature effect is so low it causes the HP ratio to be skewed now when it comes to a HAC shooting a battleship verse a Battleship shooting a HAC.
King Rothgar Imperial Slave Hunter Society	Posted - 2010.01.19 02:48:00 - [9] I'd love to go 1v1 with your hac with one of my BS's. In fact, I'd be more than happy with a 3v1. -----------------------------------------------------
Nemesis Factor Caldari RennTech BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2010.01.19 03:31:00 - [10] I do think we need more remote AOE weapons to break up blobs. All we really have are bombs, but we need more options for more conventional ships. ~/~ Sultan of Buruni

darius mclever	Posted - 2010.01.19 03:52:00 - [11] Originally by: Nemesis Factor I dont think we need more remote AOE weapons to break up blobs. Fixed it for you. If we learned one things from the old DD "we dont need more AoE weapons". try to beat them with creativity.
Reggie Stoneloader JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative	Posted - 2010.01.19 04:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Rigel 17th Alians with Hicks yelling "Game over, Man!" Hudson, actually. Battleships are cheaper than HACs, and boosting the ship to make it the most powerful alone and in groups would just give you blobs of battleships and logistics instead of blobs of HACs and logistics, which is of course what we had before. Superior manpower is and should be an important factor in cooperative online games. You say, "anyone can put together a fleet of 300", but that's absolutely untrue. I'd guess that there are fewer than 50 organizations in EvE that can do that on short or even substantial notice, and such groups tend to eventually collapse under their own weight, due to poor morale, lack of organization or loss of territory and membership. At their azimuth, a group like that is very powerful, and they influence the world we all play in, but they wax and wane with regularity. Should it be impossible to form an entity with such overwhelming manpower? Should a smaller group be able to compete with a larger one? What keeps the big group from just sending in ten guys at a time, tagging in fresh troops as they get chewed up? How can you make having more dudes a disadvantage in a given engagement? Having all those dudes is definitely a disadvantage in the long run, as you have to manage the ridiculous drama and shenanigans that a team of that scale inevitably generates, but when the drones come out and the ECM starts humming, you're being rewarding for all the dues you paid in recruiting, logistics and FCing up to that point. It makes no sense to nerf the reward that players receive for their dedication and effort just because a few dudes who got to the same system after five minutes of planning can't beat the blob in a stand-up fight. ====================== Crusades: Security Status
Sepheir Sepheron Caldari BAHRAM Military	Posted - 2010.01.19 04:53:00 - [13] Originally by: King Rothgar I'd love to go 1v1 with your hac with one of my BS's. In fact, I'd be more than happy with a 3v1. Hope you're joking. XD 3 HACs would devastate any one sub-capital ship just because of the range and tracking difficulty. Most HAC fire from 20km+ and move faster than your BS making it impossible to track them with anything other than drones... And if you're fighting people like me those are quickly dissolved.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2010.01.19 05:04:00 - [14] not very smart are you op? With the removal of AOE DD, battleships are truly the mainstay of any major fleet. Cheap, effective and powerful in numbers. HACs are also more viable now because there is no longer a fear of getting your gang of >150mil non-insurable ships wiped out with the press of a button. This is a good thing. Don't like the "blobs" that are fleets? Outnumbered? Get a bomb squad together. Get some good dictor pilots. Bubble those annoying hacs when they land on grid and bring in the bombers. Those paper thin HACs will die real fast. This post simply wreaks of whining if you ask me. What you ask for (anti-blob) is already in game. Learn to use existing tactics. _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
King Rothgar Imperial Slave Hunter Society	Posted - 2010.01.19 06:30:00 - [15] Originally by: Sepheir Sepheron Originally by: King Rothgar I'd love to go 1v1 with your hac with one of my BS's. In fact, I'd be more than happy with a 3v1. Hope you're joking. XD 3 HACs would devastate any one sub-capital ship just because of the range and tracking difficulty. Most HAC fire from 20km+ and move faster than your BS making it impossible to track them with anything other than drones... And if you're fighting people like me those are quickly dissolved. Clearly you are unfamiliar with Mr. Megapulse. You aren't going to break the tracking on those at 20km. Go to 2km and you might, but I've got all sorts of nasty things I can do to you at that range to ruin such plans. But you are right about one thing, HAC's are faster. On the higherarchy of ships it's HAC<BC<CS<BS in terms of raw combat power. But HAC's do have far greater mobility so they are really good at running away from a fight. Hence the vagabond's overwhelming popularity. It's terrible at killing things, but it can get away from practically anything. -----------------------------------------------------
DrDooma	Posted - 2010.01.19 07:43:00 - [16] Please correct me if iÆm wrong but your argument is that 2 titans and 250 hacks and logistics will win any battle. I wish I had time to cross post ænerf bombersÆ thread that argues that 20 bombers can kill anything. Then just grab some popcorn, sit back and watch you two argue the point.
Grut The Protei	Posted - 2010.01.19 08:00:00 - [17] Edited by: Grut on 19/01/2010 08:01:52 Sooo A sniper HAC is 160mil. A sniper apoc is ~ 15-20 mil if you skip rigs. The apoc does 100 more dps with far higher volley at twice the range. It also has twice the ehp. It also outdamages the zealot down to 35km if the apocs sitting still and the zealots at max transversal. Am I missing something? Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
Bumkin Blackwater USA Inc. Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.01.19 08:11:00 - [18] ******ed ideas in teh OP. I have always thought a flak style gun would be good on caps/supercaps to replace the smartbombs. but on a battleships? no
Arronicus Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.19 08:41:00 - [19] so op is complaining about battleships, and trying to present new ideas for em, however, most of the replies here seem to miss the fact that he is presenting ideas to try to fix what he thinks is a problem. All your rants prove, is you didnt take time to read the whole post before complaining. Myself on the other hand... OP, you think battleships lack a suitable role, and are easily replaced by hacs, so you propose, that they instead be changed into heavily tanked bombers. However, having a bomber that you CANT instapop, isnt bad enough, you want them to be able to fire bombs the range of a standard torp (roughly 64km). While i applaud your decision to try to flesh out a new idea to solve what you see as an issue, i dont think much thought was put into the important part, the solution itself. you want to give a ship that you think has no role, the role of a very fragile t2 frigate. This is akin to fixing moms by giving them doomsdays.
Nnamuachs Caldari Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance	Posted - 2010.01.20 04:59:00 - [20] had an almost equal BS+logi (2-3 logis) 40ish man fleet against a hac+logi (4-6 logis) 40ish man fleet. just the alpha from our bs fleet was enough to drop the hacs without them getting time to recieve assistance... its all about how you fight the good fight, the hac fleet took much heavier losses.

Tylara duChelm	Posted - 2010.01.20 07:21:00 - [21] I started a thread about this recently. My solution was to make in game battleships a bit more like historical ones. This means essentially 3 sizes/banks of guns. The main guns (16" guns on an Iowa class) the secondary guns (5.6" guns on the Iowa) and the tertiary, a wide variety of AA/small caliber guns. For it to work, the BS would need bonuses on each tier of weaponry. . . slightly more damage for the big guns, a slight tracking bump on medium, and a massive tracking bump on the light guns. This would let a BS effectively engage any ship smaller than it making them the big bad monster of a ship they're supposed to be. Being able to easily tag nearly any ship would reduce the effectiveness of the blobs.
Misanthra	Posted - 2010.01.20 07:32:00 - [22] Been in 2 null sec crews in recent months...seen the usual fleet calls for BS's to pos bash (to include the new stuff)...have not seen one for 300 HAC's. What crew are you rolling with that hac's a pos bash?
FarosWarrior Amarr Sonnema	Posted - 2010.01.20 20:46:00 - [23] Originally by: Tylara duChelm I started a thread about this recently. My solution was to make in game battleships a bit more like historical ones. This means essentially 3 sizes/banks of guns. The main guns (16" guns on an Iowa class) the secondary guns (5.6" guns on the Iowa) and the tertiary, a wide variety of AA/small caliber guns. For it to work, the BS would need bonuses on each tier of weaponry. . . slightly more damage for the big guns, a slight tracking bump on medium, and a massive tracking bump on the light guns. This would let a BS effectively engage any ship smaller than it making them the big bad monster of a ship they're supposed to be. Being able to easily tag nearly any ship would reduce the effectiveness of the blobs. when do people playing EVE understand that it's CCP's intention NOT to make a ship that wtfpwns everything because it has big small and medium guns (BTW even though they're not trying to, they sometimes fail) cheers, Faros "As long as we're jammed we might as well throw those 1400mm's at them" Charlie Fodder, Clear Skies
Tylara duChelm	Posted - 2010.01.20 22:35:00 - [24] Originally by: FarosWarrior Originally by: Tylara duChelm I started a thread about this recently. My solution was to make in game battleships a bit more like historical ones. This means essentially 3 sizes/banks of guns. The main guns (16" guns on an Iowa class) the secondary guns (5.6" guns on the Iowa) and the tertiary, a wide variety of AA/small caliber guns. For it to work, the BS would need bonuses on each tier of weaponry. . . slightly more damage for the big guns, a slight tracking bump on medium, and a massive tracking bump on the light guns. This would let a BS effectively engage any ship smaller than it making them the big bad monster of a ship they're supposed to be. Being able to easily tag nearly any ship would reduce the effectiveness of the blobs. when do people playing EVE understand that it's CCP's intention NOT to make a ship that wtfpwns everything because it has big small and medium guns (BTW even though they're not trying to, they sometimes fail) Because CCP has always followed through on what it has said. CCP isn't god. If a good arguement can be made for (or against) something they're willing to change their minds about things. My biggest gripe about Eve players is running to the weak arguement of "But CCP said * 5 years ago!!!" or whatever arbitrary duration you wish to quote. Do you work for CCP? No? They're fully capable of speaking for themselves. They have devblogs and the like just for that. 8 turret slots: if you dedicate some slots to wtfpwn smaller ships you aren't as effective against ships your own size. It is STILL a balancing act.
Valharu	Posted - 2010.01.20 23:46:00 - [25] Personally, I have thought all along that in the descriptions it should just say guns or missiles, not any particuliar size of the weapon. That way you truely could make an escort class BS, BC, Cruiser by putting a smaller tier weapons on them and the bonuses still working. And the balance would be that you are no longer as effective against your own Class of ships while using lesser weapons. And still no matter what weapon you put on a ship, your not going to be as fast or as agile as the ship beneath you. But you now have more versatility in the making of your ships and what they can do without building a whole new class of ships or weapons for the game.
Total Disaster Caldari THE GRAIL SEEKER5	Posted - 2010.01.21 15:03:00 - [26] Originally by: Valharu Personally, I have thought all along that in the descriptions it should just say guns or missiles, not any particuliar size of the weapon. That way you truely could make an escort class BS, BC, Cruiser by putting a smaller tier weapons on them and the bonuses still working. And the balance would be that you are no longer as effective against your own Class of ships while using lesser weapons. And still no matter what weapon you put on a ship, your not going to be as fast or as agile as the ship beneath you. But you now have more versatility in the making of your ships and what they can do without building a whole new class of ships or weapons for the game. Apocalypse Frig-Wreckage?


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.