Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
263
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 04:39:00 -
[61] - Quote
Battleships aren't weak, they just rely too much on gimmicky tactics to remain viable. Heavy Neuts are a big one... and they don't even have the desired effect much of the time since most ships that are dangerous to a BS are already either neut proof or just dance outside neut range. Battleship close range weapons should be able to reasonably hit smaller ships.
This is why the BC is superior to the BS in every way (except pure EHP and long range damage projection) right now, medium weapons are far more effective against frigates and always 100% effective (on paper) against anything large enough to be a threat to the BC.
That said, I'm not sure how to fix BSes except maybe to give them more options in dealing with smaller ships, such as larger drone bays, more than 8 hi slots... *shrug*
One old idea I had was sort of like the Marauder idea (half the weapons with 100% weapon damage bonus):
Weapon slots have class categories:
Light, Medium, and Heavy
A Tempest would be changed sort of like this:
It would have 3 turrets and 2 launchers that could be Heavy (BS) weapons. The 3 turrets would have a 100% dmg bonus. The other 3 turret and 2 launcher slots would become Medium (BC/Cruiser) locked with 50% dmg bonus. It would lose 30% of its powergrid.
So at the end of the day you could have a Tempest like this:
3x 800mm II (x2 dmg), 3x 425mm II (x1.5 dmg), and either 2 Torps/Cruise (x2 dmg)or 2 Heavy/HAssault (x1.5 dmg)or a combination of the two.
The secondary system bonuses could (and maybe should) be less than the primary system:
Torps/Cruise get 50% Dmg and HM/HAM get 25% dmg.
Anyway, it is a rambling idea, but I've thought all ships should work that way really (two tiers of weapons), even to the point of Dreads and Titans using BS weapons for point defense.
|
Ken 1138
Enslave. Persona Non Gratis
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 07:59:00 -
[62] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:I think something that was said to me recently sums it up:
"Why fly a battleship when you can get the same EHP from a T3 and have a tiny sig? And if you're worried about money BC's are much better value"
BS's do need a serious balance. I think one major improvement would be to change neuts to cycle more often but for equally less energy neuted. i've had single NOS frigs be fully active against my twin heavy NEUT tempest (even with staggered cycle). Webs dont counter frigs anymore and neither do heavy neuts. Drones die to easily and smartbombs are pretty much designed to troll... but not good for a straight up fight.
Exactly. |
Arazel Chainfire
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
138
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 05:00:00 -
[63] - Quote
Ken 1138 wrote:Maeltstome wrote:I think something that was said to me recently sums it up:
"Why fly a battleship when you can get the same EHP from a T3 and have a tiny sig? And if you're worried about money BC's are much better value"
BS's do need a serious balance. I think one major improvement would be to change neuts to cycle more often but for equally less energy neuted. i've had single NOS frigs be fully active against my twin heavy NEUT tempest (even with staggered cycle). Webs dont counter frigs anymore and neither do heavy neuts. Drones die to easily and smartbombs are pretty much designed to troll... but not good for a straight up fight. Exactly.
Because no matter how hard you try, your BC/T3 can't actually match the DPS AND EHP of a battleship. Yes, you can have your T3 with a godawful brick of a tank. And it has minimal DPS. Any attempt to bring the DPS up to battleship numbers drastically reduces your tank. BC's have no hope of having the same EHP as BS's - the best is the drake, and that maxes out around 70-80k EHP. All non-failfit PvP BS's have more than 100k EHP. And a BC is a perfectly valid target for a BS - its fat enough that BS weapons will hit for close to full damage all the time, and none of the BC's really have the agility to get in under a BS's guns, unless said BS is longrange fit (in which case, another BS could do the same thing). Now, BC's have the advantage in mobility, and in hitting cruiser sized and smaller targets - which means that BC's don't need to commit as much as BS's do. But once one side commits BS's, then its all over for someone, and pilot skill and fittings determine whether it was the BS's that finished it. Unless vastly outnumbered, it usually is.
Now, can you take 1 BS against 1 BC or 1 T3 and expect to win? No, they would either get in under the guns and kill it, or gtfo in which case the BS is left holding the field. Put 10 people on each side? This really comes down to piloting, target calling, and who has more logi's, but generally the BS's will win, or at least drive off the smaller ships. Can the BS's give chase? Not really - which is as it should be. But when it is important that you hold the field, and there are similar numbers, battleships are going to be what hold the field for you. And as the numbers in fleet go up, the abilities of the battleship to hold the field go up as well. And no, teir 3 BC's didn't replace BS's, because they are too squishy to hold the field.
So when is holding the field important? Pos Bashing. Sov Grinding. Cap/supercap rescuing. And assuming that both sides brought equal or near equal numbers, guess which side is going to hold the field? The battleships. When is holding the field NOT important? Skirmishing. Small gang work. "solo PvP". And guess what... battleships don't work well here. Is this a problem? NO. Battleships have their role, and they do it just fine.
Would I object to them rebalancing battleships? No. But I would object to making them actually able to chase down smaller vessels. Battleships are designed for, and should be used for fleet warfare. Stick with smaller ships for roaming - thats what those are designed for.
-Arazel |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 05:25:00 -
[64] - Quote
Holy ****.
This thread bought a clue. Good post. |
Ken 1138
Enslave.
9
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 14:49:00 -
[65] - Quote
bump |
Maeltstome
The Burning Red
141
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 10:08:00 -
[66] - Quote
Arazel Chainfire wrote:Ken 1138 wrote:Maeltstome wrote:I think something that was said to me recently sums it up:
"Why fly a battleship when you can get the same EHP from a T3 and have a tiny sig? And if you're worried about money BC's are much better value"
BS's do need a serious balance. I think one major improvement would be to change neuts to cycle more often but for equally less energy neuted. i've had single NOS frigs be fully active against my twin heavy NEUT tempest (even with staggered cycle). Webs dont counter frigs anymore and neither do heavy neuts. Drones die to easily and smartbombs are pretty much designed to troll... but not good for a straight up fight. Exactly. Lots of stuff
A T3 WILL beat a battleship simple because it can get under it's guns and turn the BS's damage into a fraction of what it could be. T3's do enough damage to overpower any non super-faction active BS tank and have enough mitigation and EHP to survive until the BS is dead.
You seriously underestimate the power of having a tiny sig radius, all the damage equations mean that anything sub 250 sig takes tiny damage from a BS size weapon if they are moving at any speed.
The only Thing that counters it is 90% webs, which is basically a vindicator/Vigilant/Daredevil |
Ezra Tair
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
97
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 17:42:00 -
[67] - Quote
A major reason is that BS take damage every bit was easy from frigate weapons as BS weapons. As previous posters have already stated, if you want to effectively engage a BS, you should have to engage with BS sized weapons.
250DPS from a frig sized weapons is the same as 250 DPS from a BS sized weapons.
An example is this is a free to play game called World of Tanks. If that game worked like eve, the biggest best armored ships in the game would fear the smallest light tanks.
If eve worked like world of tanks, BS would not be able to easly deal with smaller threats, but they could effectively ignore them as well. |
Denuo Secus
70
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 17:59:00 -
[68] - Quote
Ezra Tair wrote:....If eve worked like world of tanks, BS would not be able to easly deal with smaller threats, but they could effectively ignore them as well.
Works in magical 1v1 land only. In EVE as well, a frig cannot harm a BS (damage wise). But it can disrupt a BS's ability to fight equally sized targets. Getting rid of (hard) tackle and ewar frigs is important. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
250
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:03:00 -
[69] - 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.
Umm, no, prior to the introduction of Aircraft carriers, battleships were rightfully feared. No single surface vessel could stand against one. Smaller cruisers and destroyers would be blown out of the water before they got in range. Their escorts were needed to give them eyes and ears, basically as armed scouts, to determine where the BS could be brought to greatest effect (not to mention, what they can do to shore defenses, and the number of marines they could carry).
Torpedo boats, en masse, could overwhelm a BS, but only under certain conditions, such as at night, or if a BS was in an archipelago area, close to shore, where the torpedo boats could appear already very close to the BS. Out on the open ocean, a fleet of torpedo boats would get destroyed by a BS.
The problem was... almost no Naval battles have ever been fought in the open ocean - fleets would encounter each other near strategic locations like island naval bases, and then you have those damn subs and aircraft... the BS was obsolete... Then on top of that, you had the development of guided missiles, where even a cruiser (tiny in comparison), could launch anti ship missiles over the horizon that packed a big enough warhead to disable or destroy the BS...
Prior to, and during WWI, the BS was king of the open ocean, and very dangerous to coastal areas. It did need screening forces when near the coast to protect from torpedo boats... but it could handle a mere handful of them.
The problem is in EVE, just 1 cruiser, or even 1 frigate, is enough to do in a lone battleship. It doesn't even take a several frigates or a few cruisers. 1v1 BSs just lose (except perhaps certain passive tanks that a frig can't get through, or maybe a drone boat like the domi with enough drone upgrades to allow them to kill frigs - i think a rattler could survive many 1v1s, but the enemy will just escape) |
Stegas Tyrano
GLU CANU Open Space Consultancy
60
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
Instead of boosting the BS so it becomes better solo, why not give it a fleet bonus to smaller ships classes. Thereby encouraging players to take on escorts, as it should be. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5442
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 19:05:00 -
[71] - 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." |
Nylith Empyreal
Crowbar Industries. Rebel Alliance of New Eden
187
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 00:23:00 -
[72] - Quote
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. "Oh, you can't help that," said the troll: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" -ásaid the forumwarrior. "You must be," said the troll, "or you wouldn't have come here." |
YuuKnow
Inner 5phere
480
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 01:52:00 -
[73] - Quote
Comparing Eve to real life naval combat is fail. Eve in a lot of ways behaves more like air-combat priniciples than naval prinicipals in terms of speed, range, maneuverability, and escapability.
There are three factors that limit Bships in solo combat. One is slowness. Survivability in Solo combat hinges on maneverability many times and if your not fast, your dead. The other is tankability... yes the armor hitpoints are high, but the resist are very low compared to the T2 Bships, cruisers they will face. All the extra slots will go into trying to achieve the same tank that the T2 cruisers and T2 BCs get inherently. The third is accuracy. Large guns have such vunerability to close orbiting targets that when coupled with their slow maneuverability makes them easy to defeat.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
247
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 10:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
I think the problem is that battleships don't have enough tank. Battleship tank modules are frequently fit onto battlecruisers (except for the large armor repairer which sucks anyway). Here's my proposal, which comes with zero changes to current battleships:
X-Large Shield Extender 3200mm Armor Plate 6400mm Armor Plate
and fix the X-Large Shield Booster and Large Armor Repairer such that the LAR repairs at a good rate and the X-L SB isn't as easy to fit to a battlecruiser. (the second one is less of a problem) -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Maeltstome
The Burning Red
142
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 11:33:00 -
[75] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I think the problem is that battleships don't have enough tank. Battleship tank modules are frequently fit onto battlecruisers (except for the large armor repairer which sucks anyway). Here's my proposal, which comes with zero changes to current battleships:
X-Large Shield Extender 3200mm Armor Plate 6400mm Armor Plate
and fix the X-Large Shield Booster and Large Armor Repairer such that the LAR repairs at a good rate and the X-L SB isn't as easy to fit to a battlecruiser. (the second one is less of a problem)
So now they just take longer to die.
The issue is that the web nerf effectively turned battleships into pointless ships - the megathron is the only one who can hit small targets due to its huge tracking bonus.
The whole binary thing of being webbed or not being webbed, imo, was a stupid reason to change webs. A frigate with an afterburner could still sit under a battleships guns even when webbed - so i don't see where the issue was. I do agree that battleship active tanking needs a buff, but they still lack in other area's. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
247
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 11:39:00 -
[76] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:The issue is that the web nerf effectively turned battleships into pointless ships - the megathron is the only one who can hit small targets due to its huge tracking bonus.
The whole binary thing of being webbed or not being webbed, imo, was a stupid reason to change webs. A frigate with an afterburner could still sit under a battleships guns even when webbed - so i don't see where the issue was. I do agree that battleship active tanking needs a buff, but they still lack in other area's. That's a ship size issue. Aside from drones, destroyers don't do a lot less damage than battlecruisers, while battlecruisers don't do a lot less damage than battleships. But battleships still have the best DPS. You use them on easy-to-hit targets. I think it could be said that battlecruisers hit frigates too well and that is perhaps where the real problem lies.
Dunno if any of you know this, but every day, large nullsec fleets of battleships blast each other to bits, shoot at POSes, and harrass sov owners. Battleships just aren't popular in small gangs. And why should they be? -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5450
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 11:42:00 -
[77] - 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 -
[78] - 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." |
Alara IonStorm
3808
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 11:56:00 -
[79] - Quote
Eh, I am not so big on them needing more tank or accuracy. Heavy Neuts and Drones should be enough, besides those defenses everything else should be handled or helped by a support fleet. Tank is already strong along with range and DPS.
I think an XL Shield Extender is in order but it should just be called Large. Small = Unseless > Medium = Frigate / Dessie, Large = Cruiser and up.
I would prefer they changed all the Large to Medium / All the Medium to Small along with buffing the Current small. and introduce a new Large.
Small T2 = 900 HP, 10 Grid / 25 CPU +7 Sig Medium T2 = 2700 HP, 165 Grid / 46 CPU +30 Sig Large T2 = 3900 HP, 1250 Grid / 95 CPU +125 Sig
Then do the same for Plates.
400mm = 1000 HP, 12 Grid / 17 CPU Mass of a Meta 4 200mm =137500 800mm = 3000 HP, 230 Grid / 28 CPU Mass of a Meta 4 800mm =1375000 1600mm = 4800 HP, 1500 Grid / 35 CPU Mass of a T2 1600mm = 3750000
This kind of thing for XL-Shield Boosters and 100MN's as well.
That is beside the point though, what I think is the absolute main thing that will do the most good for Battleships is simple. Their MWD's. Lessen the Cap Drain so they can run somewhere between a Cruiser and a Battlecruiser and get the Heavy Cap Booster off as a near necessary module. Most of them can even pull an extra web / painter / TC out of that too. It helps active tanks like the Hyperion be less in a bind for Cap and Mobility.
Finally the last thing they should do is boost up the Scan Res to slightly below Battlecruiser. 160-200 Max Skill. Not a fast lock time on Frigates and Destroyers but a solid lock time on Cruisers and manageable on Frigates.
The finishing touch would be about 3000 new Grid to each one to accommodate Battleship Sized Fitting to mods that were ambiguous.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
5452
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 12:27:00 -
[80] - 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." |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
247
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 12:40:00 -
[81] - Quote
I'd rather reduce battlecruiser scan resolution than increase that of battleships. Battlecruisers are some of the largest sub-caps out there, they shouldn't be able to so easily lock frigates in less time than the frigate can align to warp. That should be a feat reserved for sensor-boosted tier 1 battlecruisers at minimum. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Alara IonStorm
3809
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 12:48:00 -
[82] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I'd rather reduce battlecruiser scan resolution than increase that of battleships. Battlecruisers are some of the largest sub-caps out there, they shouldn't be able to so easily lock frigates in less time than the frigate can align to warp. That should be a feat reserved for sensor-boosted tier 1 battlecruisers at minimum. They already can not lock a Frigate in less time then it takes to warp. It takes a Tier 2 Battlecruiser on average about 7 Seconds to get a lock on a Shield Frigate not running their MWD, takes a Frigate between 2.5-4 Seconds to Warp. They will probably bring the Tier 3's in line with the Tier 2's for Scan Res anyway. Battlecruiser Scan Res is fine for Tier 1 / 2
Lowering Battlecruiser Scan Res doesn't help Battleships with 90-120 Scan res one bit. It isn't about catching things it is about getting lock in time to do anything at all.
Malcanis wrote: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. Well regen would mostly stay the same on current Medium / Small Hulls, a targeted nerf to some Battleships base Recharge would an ample solution and maybe to a couple of the smaller hulls. Don't want to destroy Passive tanking entirely, but reign it in sure for ships like the Rattler which would use the new Extenders. |
Marcus Henik
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 03:54:00 -
[83] - Quote
Hold off judgement till after teiricide. That being said, I would like to see races other than caldari get ew battle ships. It would be nice to see a Amar bs that uses bonuses drones and neuts or disrupters, a gal bs that gets a bonus to point range and damps, and a Minnie ship that rocks a web/painter bonus. |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
148
|
Posted - 2012.12.12 05:00:00 -
[84] - Quote
Moondancer Starweaver wrote:Isn't that one of the next steps in rebalancing, I mean i assume they would continue next year with Battle Cruisers and Battleships to round out all of the tech one rebalancing.
Sure. But CCP's stance seems to be that there was a lot wrong with smaller hulls that needed fixing, and not a lot wrong with large (subcap) hulls such as BC and BS, so they are unlikely to change much.
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1652
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 12:42:00 -
[85] - Quote
Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns
capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah! COME AT ME BRO
I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION |
Kiteo Hatto
Equanimity Order
388
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 12:47:00 -
[86] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns
capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah!
Yes lets make highsec ganking possible with 1 ship. I mean what could POSSIBLY go wrong. "That's okay it annoys me when people pile on new definitions to the word sandbox every time CCP does something they don't like." - Alara IonStorm GD is where 60% of threads make you dumber and 10% which provide you with entertainment, the remaining 30% is a mix of both. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
265
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 12:53:00 -
[87] - Quote
If and when battlecruisers gets toned down a little and CCP will have a look into making all battleships equal in strength with unique roles I am sure battleships will see a better use. Currently you can make battlecruisers with about the same dps and EHP with better mobility.
Currently the real only advantage of battleships are heavy neuts and Large Gun range... |
Renier Gaden
Marvin the Martian's Militia Anarchy.
44
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 19:28:00 -
[88] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Honestly I think the best thing CCP could do for Battleships is take a peak at their MWD's. Cap Booster is pretty much mandatory unless you are sitting still. Just letting them run for the time frame of a BC's MWD would be a big buff. Probably could take a second quick peak at sensor strength as well, bring it somewhere in between BC and current, 140-160ish average max skill.
After that it is all about Tier Work and flushing out the slots and bonuses in the rebalance.
Ancillary Micro Warp Drives? It would free up that cap booster slot. |
Fehnrail
The Day Watch
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 19:28:00 -
[89] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns
capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah!
No, but going in exactly the opposite direction might be a good start.
Tier 3 style battleships with 50% role damage bonus to medium weapons and high sensor resolution, paying for it with speed (50-70 m/s top). That way they aren't the ultimate ganker's wet dream that outclasses everything, but rather a pretty stationary anti-cruiser platform (that is really damn good at it) with a lot of toughness. |
Maeltstome
The Burning Red
143
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 19:47:00 -
[90] - Quote
Fehnrail wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Give us a new 'tier-3 BC' style battleship that sports over sized guns
capital guns on a sub-cap ship hells yeah! No, but going in exactly the opposite direction might be a good start. Tier 3 style battleships with 50% role damage bonus to medium weapons and high sensor resolution, paying for it with speed (50-70 m/s top). That way they aren't the ultimate ganker's wet dream that outclasses everything, but rather a pretty stationary anti-cruiser platform (that is really damn good at it) with a lot of toughness.
People seem to think that under-sized weapons are the best idea for battleships. This is hideously wrong.
battleships can hit other BS and BC's perfectly, and cruisers with tackle on them. The issue is that battleships cant tank. DPS in this game has been going up and up for a long time - and people are fitting more damage mods than ever. battleships die so quickly that's its barely worth brigning them into a fight - avoiding damage is much more preferable right now.
I am the last person who wants to see this game turn into slug-fest online, i love mobility. But i's also like to see battleships be really worthwhile flying. I think it lies with battleship active tank and fixing the cycle time of large neuts. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |