|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
4908
   |
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I don't think Battleships are supposed to be able to hold their own in a fight. If you look at how battleships were used in history, they were expensive ships that needed an escort of smaller ships to protect them. They were particularly vulnerable to crappy torpedo boats.
In history, battleships were mostly just a way for a nation to show off how powerful they were. The battleships themselves were actually pretty pointless and crap.
By WW II this was the case. Prior to the introduction of the aircraft carrier, Battleships were pretty much an I-win button.
They shouldn't be an I-win button in EVE, because I-win buttons break the game. Battleships have their niche and they're heavily used within it. Soloing around and pwnsaucing is not that niche.
MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
5442
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I don't think Battleships are supposed to be able to hold their own in a fight. If you look at how battleships were used in history, they were expensive ships that needed an escort of smaller ships to protect them. They were particularly vulnerable to crappy torpedo boats.
In history, battleships were mostly just a way for a nation to show off how powerful they were. The battleships themselves were actually pretty pointless and crap.
By the middle of WW II yes, but for about a hundred years prior to that, Battleships were the pre-nerf Titans of the seas. If you had the most and the biggest then you were the top dog because they could shoot further and hit harder than anything else. As soon as carriers were able to hit harder and further than that, battleships became obselete.
Battleships in EVE aren't really the equivalent of naval battleship; Dreadnaughts or maybe even Titans are. EVE battleships more closely fill the role of cruisers. But because EVE ships don't really have layered weapon systems, any comparison is inexact at best.
They're not solopwnmobiles, and a damb good thing two. What they are good at is being relatively mobile, whilst having more EHP x DPS x range than anything else that can move about the grind. Obviously they need some weak points otherwise no one would use anything else.
If the OP thinks battleships are obselete for fleet combat, then he is simply wrong. There was a ~15 month interval when first AHACs and then Drake Army doctrines were superior to BS doctrines, but post-Titan nerf, the Hellcat-fitted Abaddon convincingly destroys Drakes, and the Foxcat-fitted (Na)Apoc convincingly destroys Tengus.
battlships are still powerful and relevent.
MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
5450
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 11:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ken 1138 wrote:Schalac wrote:Yes, the fact that a raven has an effective EHP of 45-50k while a drake has almost the same EHP and far better damage projection coupled by the fact that the drake costs 1/3 the price of the raven is just plain sad. A 50% role bonus to BS weapons wouldn't even come close to fixing that and with the talked about changes to the drake it will gain an even bigger advantage in real DPS compared to the raven. I said this years ago before the whole drake bandwagon and people just laughed. Now we are seeing an upcoming drake buff and unless CCP does something to fix BS torps and cruise you might as well just delete the raven from the database and start over. Pretty much this. I can tank a battleship better than a drake for example but then the drake will out DPS (with T2 guns no less) my battleship which is just ridiculous for 4 times the value. Logically it should be a real threat for the drake having more DPS and Tank. It shouldn't plow into fleets like some people have said in this thread but not be the sitting duck it is.
It's pretty easy to make a BS that both outdamages and out-EHPs a Drake.
Start with an Abaddon with 8x Megapulse II, a 1600mm plate, a DCU II and 2 heatsinks
for funsies, you can make one that out-DPSs, out EHPs and is faster too. (Hint: Typhoon)
MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
5450
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 11:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:I wish that ships were given 'lesser' highslots in particular for the battleship, in junction with it's current high slots to add more guns / different launchers leave the bonuses off said guns launchers and yeah. Be the giant gunboat I always imagined to be and like such ships in war destroyed by that one bomber or balls to the wall fighter.
But honestly until we get more modular methods of destroying ships I wouldn't support such a change, and think a less cap intensive ship would be a good start to those ships. But looking about everything I can only see them increasing their stats anyway given this past revamp.
A simpler way of doing this would be to make turrets like the Dual 250mm Railgun actually more like a pair of 250mm railguns instead of a very substandard single 350mm, and to introduce short-range varients, so Battleships could fit "Dual Heavy Neutron Blasters".
MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
5452
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 12:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
The trouble with your plate/extender HP values is that they give far too little consideration to the benefit of passive regeneration.
Perhaps we could consider giving extenders a shield regeneration rate penalty to reduce the effect on passive tanks.
MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
|
|
| |
|