| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
   |
Posted - 2010.12.07 03:57:00 -
[1]
As frequent battleship solo/small gang flier, probing is never a problem for me since cloak is pretty much required. A solo battleship cannot survive without cloak+MWD. Not unless you play in stupid way
ECM is a typical problem, but it's not too bad, especially since batleships have high natural sensor strength.
Tracking is also not an issue. There are webs, scrambles, smart piloting to keep traverse low. Both ECM and tracking have been unchanged since battleship era.
Battleships used to be cool, but not anymore, what changed? 2 things:
1) The Great Nano Nerf happened - partly thanks to short sighted whiners like DHB WildCat here, who made a big rant about his nano-Mach and ended up getting everyone nerfed.
Solo and small gangs rely on speed more than anyone else. The Great Nano Nerf took a big chunk out of small gang strength for everyone, and in battleships in particular since no amount of mods and implants can give you significant edge over the enemy cruise gang.
2) proliferation of caps and supercap. There are so many of them it's ridiculous. And every noob in a farmer Raven can fit a cyno and be safe knowing that when he lights up, his friendly titan bridge or carrier fleet will immediately appear from 15 jumps away.
If you just try roaming in battleship now, you'll get hot dropped within 2 hours for certain. Even if you fly some expensive t2 or t3 ship, they'll hotdrop you just cause they got nothing better to do.
And CCP in the infinite stupidity never thought of adding some kind of mobile cyno jammer to counter such easy and lame tactic.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.07 05:17:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: DHB WildCat
Ephemeron is somewhat right about the nano nerf. It did eliminate funny set-ups for battleships that were fun to fly and unique.
Also Ephy.... remember I didnt why about the nano nerf. I was its biggest exploiter! My nano CNR would have ****d your nano mach 8) lol!
Doubt it, as my nano Machs were built to sustain tank at least 700 dps and there was room for 1 heavy neut. Unless you tricked our your CNR specifically for dealing with nano machs, it'd be dead for sure
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 02:31:00 -
[3]
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.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:50:00 -
[4]
Quote:
what would the result be if the range on medium weapons were reduced, say by 30%, or the battleship weapons range increased by 30%, so that battleships had the range advantage and thus positioning would become important. or heavy escort to tackle for the battleships?
It would have significant impact on cruiser/bc PvP tactics, not just against battleships, but against all ships.
There are 2 main cruiser tactics - get in under web/scramble range, or stay at the disruptor range. The effectiveness of orbiting at disruptor range would be considerably reduced.
Increasing battleship range by 30% would not help battleships hit their targets any better, due to tracking. It'd only have impact on sniper setups. And battleships already dominate the sniper tactics.
Overall these changes would make people fly more battleships, but only cause cruiser/bc get a huge nerf.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 19:59:00 -
[5]
Anyway, on further examination it appears that battlecruisers start sharing the role of battleships. These 2 ship types basically have same abilities:
1) high damage potential
2) strong tank potential
3) lots of high, medium, and low slots
The only part where battleship is clearly advantaged over battlecruiser is snipe range. But at medium and close range, battlecruiser is much more desirable.
Combine that little fact with all the other minor annoying issues - like being most vulnerable to bombs, fighters, hot drops, gate camps, and difficulties hitting targets for full damage (which is high in theory but much less in real combat).. what you get in the end is that battleship becomes irrelevant. Just a cheap farming ship or expensive faction toy for eccentric pvpers.
Battleship is no longer the backbone of fighting force.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:45:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Ephemeron on 09/12/2010 21:47:15
Originally by: Moir Mukkula
I think a few in this thread are missing what the problem with probing is.
If you have to engage on a certain grid (station/gate/SBU/IHub/POS etc) the prober can sit cloaked on that grid with probes deployed and positioned. Once the BS start to drop out from warp he can probe them down within seconds, warp to them and provide a warpin at optimal range against the BS fleet. They can have a dic/cyno/whatever on them before they've even had time to (start) align out.
I see that's a valid problem for sniper battleships. And sniping is about the only advantage bs has over other ship classes.
I never play sniper games myself so I don't see it as much of a problem. But yea, scanning should take a little more time than a few seconds.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:54:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Cutslawn2
DHB and some others in Burn Eden were in unprobable Mach's today, hitting at over 160-200km out instapoping bc's... think BS's need a nerf to be honest.
As I said, sniping is the only thing left that BS can do better than other ships.
I want BS to be effective in close range.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 19:20:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Target Painter
Edited by: Target Painter on 10/12/2010 13:56:56
Originally by: Joss56
With basis ratio of 2.26 i can't see how you can make an Machariel improbable, i'm not saying it's impossible but i would like to see his fit/implants.
Look at it holistically. Halo implants, X-Instinct boosters, a Gallente T3/CS providing sensor strength bonuses, local and projected ECCM. Avoiding shield rigs and extenders. It's not just about what's on your ship or in your head, you can boost performance to an absurd degree if you look at the gang as a whole and not as individuals.
if someone puts that much money and team effort into making 1 ship unscannable, surely they deserve it?
It's a none issue. Scanning is too good already, allowing you to get bs sniper warp point in seconds.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 20:01:00 -
[9]
Damage is definitely disappointing. Especially now that bc, t2, and t3 are so widely used and they all have comparable 'real' damage output. The differences in damage output are just not significant enough to consider seriously when choosing a ship to fly.
When choosing a ship to fly (generic PvP, not specialized ship), first thing you ask is how fast and agile you want to be, then you consider your tank (speed and sig radius is part of tanking ability) then you consider tackling ability (scan res, slots for tackle gear), and only after all that you consider damage output.
Costs also enter consideration, while bs is pretty cheap after insurance, the cost of rigs makes it comparable to t2
How exactly do we want to differentiate battlecruisers from battleships in PvP?
aside from long range sniper setups, are battleships batter than battlecruisers in any way?
I suppose ability to fit heavy neut is a definite advantage, but that's just 1 thing. How many advantages does BC have over battleship? sig radius, scan res, shield recharge rate (while having comparable buffer), agility, speed, very low usage of cap by MWD - major advantage in combat. BS MWD is a a ***** to keep running.
Damage output of BC against other battleships may be lower than damage output of battleship against battleship. But since majority of targets are non-battleships, the average across the board damage out of battlecruiser is often higher or equal to that of battleship.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 00:27:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Emperor Cheney
I hear Battleships make great macro ratters though, can OP confirm?
Only Ravens specifically
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 00:33:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim
Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim on 12/12/2010 22:51:04
Uh-oh it looks like somebody is unhappy his solopwnmobile got nerfed. l2p noob and get more than 1 ship.
[Edit]and don't take my battleships away from me!
Ability of 1 player to beat superior forces by use of tactics and specialized equipment is what drives people to excel in the game. It promotes elite players, allows "heroes" to exist. When you need a gang to achieve anything great in PvP, you are just a pawn, easily replaceable by any other nameless pawn.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 19:36:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ling Vyr
1 bs vs 3 people in fancy high tech ships the BS looses , ok.
But 3 vs 3 , who winns against 3 tech2 BS ?
What happens in that situation is that the 3 smaller ships keep tailing the 3 slower battleships until their buddies arrive - which in any decent alliance is under 5 minutes. The slow bs get no kills if they can't trick the smaller ships into coming to web/scramble range.
3 bs without any tacklers is kinda dumb.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 23:45:00 -
[13]
Quote:
The only thing that really needs happening is a Higher Insurance recovery from BS`s to encourage more use, but besides drakes being cheaper than BS`s, we see these Alli`s who have money and whale on these fleets.
The insurance payout is completely offset by cost of large rigs. That makes battleships cost just as much as HACs and recons to lose in battle.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 01:15:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Emperor Cheney
Originally by: Kail Storm
Please explain to PL`s WildCat and Evokes Abby fleets how bad they are against DrakeTrains.
Yep. This whole thread is a joke.
Try bring a BS and a couple friends in any other ship to 0.0 and we'll see how well you do. Have you tried roaming in BS in 0.0? let me know if the first hot drop happens within 1 hour or 2 hours.
The thread topic is an exaggeration but it was prompted by something real.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 19:42:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Ephemeron on 14/12/2010 19:43:18
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 14/12/2010 19:35:48
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Battleships have been largely obsoleted except in semi large fleet environments.
Well, god forbid ships are used for what they are meant to do.
A battleship is not a roaming ship, it really is that simple.
On that note, armor BCs arent the greatest roaming ships either, shield BCs and especially shield HACs do that way better.
Okay, but why is the life expectancy of a battleship in PvP - generic across the board - is less than life expectancy of a BC or HAC?
Battleship is the easiest sub-cap ship to tackle.
It is easiest to catch and hold for the blob to come by and pound it to death.
It is easiest to probe down.
It is most susceptible to bomber strikes
It is most vulnerable sub-cap to capitol attacks - particularly fighters and bombers
It is easiest target to hit - both due to lack of speed and large sig radius - you can always deal your full damage to a battleship
Why does battleship have to be such an easy punching bag?
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 20:19:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Emperor Cheney
Quote:
Okay, but why is the life expectancy of a battleship in PvP - generic across the board - is less than life expectancy of a BC or HAC?
Because HACs and BC's have the speed to decide when and where to engage, while a BS doesn't.
That's what this thread is really about - a lot of whines that battleships can't turn on a dime. Well, that sucks. It sucks that you can't fly alone with a battleship safely. It sucks you can't move through enemy territory in a battleship safely. It sucks a small gang can't be perfectly safe in battleships. But that's how it is - you roll with the big guns, you lose the ability to dictate the exact terms of the battle.
I don't think battleships need any radical changes.
The main thing for me right now, as battleship pilot, is to have some kind of counter to hot drops. Battleships are favorite hot drop targets.
The other important thing is that the relationship between BC and BS has to be re-examined. Seems like those 2 are too close to each other - especially on tanking ability. And also pretty close on damage output - vs smaller targets. The slot layouts are pretty similar - both BC and BS enjoy many slots. Perhaps an extra slot for battleship wouldn't be such a bad thing.
I remember long time ago there were a lot more battleships and less BC. Now it seems like a third of battleship pilots switched to BC. And a third became cap pilots - after all the cap fleets keep growing and growing non stop. And when cap pilots want to jump into something fun, they gonna pic a HAC not a battleship. Cause in gang warfare, group of HACs is almost always better than group of BS. BS just lost a lot of its appeal for anything other than sniping and farming
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 21:38:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Ephemeron on 14/12/2010 21:40:09
nm
since we all agree that BS is the easiest target to catch and hit ever, why not make up for it with increased damage output from battleships? At least against BCs
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 20:05:00 -
[18]
Originally by: dAhAmbUrglA
Before mentioning bs pvp, I'll restate that for general pve (anoms, l4s) there is no ship like a battleship, you won't get a battlecruiser or HAC or even t3 that can run sanctums or l4s faster than a properly fit marauder/faction bs, a tengu might outdo a t1 bs sometimes.
I notice a distinct pattern of farmers switching from Ravens to Tengus. It's actually a bit surprising to fly thru 0.0 and get a glimpse of a Tengu on scanner before it cloaks up, system after system, where there used to be Ravens just months ago.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.20 19:23:00 -
[19]
The more I think about the whole cap fleet mobility idea and cyno mechanics, the more I realize it was a bad idea. CCP could have thought of something better.
The basic idea of long range instant teleportation of military units wrecks havoc on strategy and tactics.
Battleships are effected most by it simply cause they are easiest ships to tackle. But any expensive ship that's tackled for more than 5 seconds suffers the same vulnerability.
|
| |
|