Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N
|
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. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
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?
0= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'So grab your guns.'
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
In the MMO world, EVE players are the left-handed lesbian mechanics.
|
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:05:00 -
[4]
Why would it be? I don't see the problem with it. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
Sessym
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:10:00 -
[5]
Well, others do
0= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'So grab your guns.'
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
In the MMO world, EVE players are the left-handed lesbian mechanics.
|
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:11:00 -
[6]
Are you sure? I'd like to know what their reasoning would be. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
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
V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N
|
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. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:22:00 -
[11]
we do not need another indirect arty nerf!
|
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.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N
|
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!
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? -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
Tippia
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. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
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
V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N
|
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. -- Eventus stultorum magister. |
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) _________________________________
ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS... |
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
|
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.
*** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
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. ---------------------------------------------- I don't have an alt, but there's a main that would be upset if he heard me say that... |
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? -
I troll stupid people. |
Moroccan Tourist
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:52:00 -
[27]
i think form poasters need seriously a buff
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 16:21:00 -
[28]
The problem is super carriers, not BS.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
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 -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
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. _________________________________
ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS... |
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 16:47:00 -
[31]
The removal of the AOE DD, and near instant on grid warp ins from probing, have also made BS less popular.
BC's and AHACS can go quick enough to avoid bad situations, BS really can't. When speed counts for so much, being slow is a huge handicap.
|
Asuka Smith
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 18:25:00 -
[32]
What the OP is trying to do is show how a buff like this would be ABSURD for a battleship, yet a Supercarrier is the exact same thing except with a carrier, no?
More minerals required to produce, more than double EHP/DPS... IMO supercarriers and titans were a mistake and should be simply removed from the game. They offer no positive gameplay elements.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 18:31:00 -
[33]
I have to laugh at the people who think doubling hp of BSes means that the ehp would be doubled for pvp fits.
Battleships were fine before capital ships.
Frankly the only buff I think they need is to overall slot count. Give them 3.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Mutant Caldari
Caldari Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:57:00 -
[34]
Just bring back Nano BS of the old days. Yeah I am a pirate. What are you gonna do about it? Killboard link is not allowed to be used in a signature.Applebabe
|
Mistress Ingrid
Minmatar Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 03:18:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Frankly the only buff I think they need is to overall slot count. Give them 3.
This.
Or find a way to allow bs to fit medium/small high slots with bonuses. Being able to trade large high slots for more medium/small slots would be cool too.
|
Proxyyyy
Caldari SniggWaffe GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 03:52:00 -
[36]
Battleships do need a boost! Blanket damage increase sounds good...
|
night sentry
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 05:22:00 -
[37]
Edited by: night sentry on 04/12/2010 05:23:36
agreed
bc pwns cruisers, destroyers and frigates. cruisers pwns destroyers and frigates. bs does not pwn bc, cruisers and frigates. WTF?!
The logical trend has been broken, this must be fixed!
My BS should do 2000dps with .1 rad tracking so i can hit those pesky frigates, so the balance of eve can be restored.
|
Harotak
Method of Destruction
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 06:06:00 -
[38]
My philosophy on battleships is that they are so slow and have such poor targeting speed that they can never catch anything small than them that doesn't want to be caught and then can never escape from anything smaller than them that doesn't want to let them go, so they should at least be able to properly defend themselves. IMO if you want to be able to get under a short-range battleship's turret tracking you should need some ewar (aka tracking disruptors) in order to do so. You SHOULD be able to reduce the damage you take from BS sized guns by orbiting with a small hull, but once you are down to around 30% of normal dps being applied it should be more difficult to evade the remaining 30%.
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 09:22:00 -
[39]
It is mostly the poor damage projection at close ranges and the sub standard agility and speed of BS what makes them a undesirable ship class today.
Also BCs are to cheap to rig since the rig patch.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Sphit Ker
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 09:48:00 -
[40]
oh my! I'm full of ideas about that!
I believe the problem with battleships is they are far too slow and clumsy.
Boosting they mobility without denaturing them is part of the solution. Maybe we can dissociate top speed from align time for warps and mass from acceleration rate and top speed? All these should be independent variables (are they not already?).
I'd give Battleships a far greater top speed. I'm thinking at least 500%. Yup, 575+ m/s Abaddons before speed mods. Acceleration rate stay very low yet it can reach an impressive top speed over time. OVER TIME. Disassociate speed from align time meaning it enter warp at 33% top speed instead of 75% (or what it takes to prevent really, really loooong aligns).
So, who's gonna be the first to state how stoopid I am for thinking this out?
The following statement is not my signature. The preceding statement is my signature. |
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 11:47:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Anubis Xian I have to laugh at the people who think doubling hp of BSes means that the ehp would be doubled for pvp fits.
Battleships were fine before capital ships.
Frankly the only buff I think they need is to overall slot count. Give them 3.
a standard abaddon w/o slaves would from 170K EHP to 270K EHP still too much of a boost imho
|
Korell Nova
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 12:20:00 -
[42]
"Battleships combined large size, powerful guns, heavy armour, and underwater protection with fairly high speed"-- taken straight from Encylopaedia Britannica.
Now nowhere there does it say that they are only allowed twice the armor/shield of a battlecruiser. We all know that EVE doesnt follow any known laws but can anyone actually give me a GOOD reason as to why battleships shouldn't be given the armor/shield boost that the OP suggested. Why shouldnt a bs fight be a slugging match between heavyweights, yes they would take longer to die, yes they might be able to actually survive quick gank attacks long enough for friends to come and help them, yes they might actually be a challenge to kill in some cases, why would that be a bad thing????
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 12:44:00 -
[43]
It's because a 100% tank and gank increase over a whole ship class which now just lacks in power in many occasions will be silly.
A 100% increase in tank would be silly. It now would be almost impossible for sub bs ships to do anything about them.
A 100% increase in gank would be silly. It now would, even with reduced damage due to sig/speed impossible to not get alpha'd in anything below BS.
A 10% increase in tank might be defendible, as might a 10% increase in gank. Increases just don't work in 100% increments. ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
Korell Nova
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 13:21:00 -
[44]
i agree thats increasing their gank by 100% would be idiotic, maybe 10% but tbh i dont think they even need that. But in no way would increasing their tank mean that they are untouchable by smaller targets it would just take them twice as long to get through it all and might actually give them a fighting chance (in some suitations) of winning.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 13:39:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn 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.
And for BS in the 80% of remaining cases where its not 0.0 blobs butting heads in Drake/HAC swarms?
Might work as a "fix" for BS viability in lag-town but would utterly ruin the class balance everywhere else. Poor idea.
|
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 14:45:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Rastigan on 04/12/2010 14:45:52 Battleships can already win or force to disengage any t1,t2,t3 ship class smaller than them, its more of getting FC's to commit to them and pilots with enough SP to use them properly...
There are already incredibly proven BS setups, 1200 DPS perma-running pos shot geddons and RR Dominix fleets, Apoc anti-support pulse ships, 1400mm Insta-Pests.
It also only takes a few neuting BS's with 2 logistics outrunning fighters to take out a capital ship.
|
Techno Panda
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 14:49:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Techno Panda on 04/12/2010 14:51:54 So a Well skilled and implanted Vindicator gets 300k EHP and 3.5k DPS.... You sir are a troll, and a bad one at that.
Edit: Go tell the Machariel its slow, I have terrible nav skills and it still outruns all my friends T3's with just an AB.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 15:07:00 -
[48]
Why would all fleets need to be battleship class ? I don't see what is wrong with fleets composed mostly of battlecruiser or (T2) cruiser hulls. Current situation is more or less fine, battleships are used just usually a bit different setups than few years ago, when 200 km was standard fleet engagement range. Nowadays it seems standard is roughly 100 km for battleship fleet and about 50-60 km for BC blobs.
The new probing system making it possible to get warpin on long range opponent in ~10 seconds and stealth bombers being good at nuking slow blobs have changed the battlefield and I'm not seeing all the changes as bad ones. Yes there are some problems, some FOTM stuff as well, but overall the situation in my opinion in fleet warfare is better than 2-3 years ago.
|
TimMc
Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 15:47:00 -
[49]
Battleships already win against anything else already. Only problem is you tend to not be able to lock before your targets run away.
Eg every time russians camp my station with hacs, recons and bcs we just undock in battleships. We grab 1 or 2, but the 10 others get away.
Battleships are fine, they just aren't fun.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |