EVE Search - The Battleship: It's Fundamental Flaw (Long)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Battleship: It's Fundamental Flaw (Long)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

Oveur	Posted - 2005.09.20 13:04:00 - [61] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Oveur I'll get right to the point! Thread summed up: Battleships need bigger, better anti-frig/cruiser weapons. Answer: No, Battleships intentionally have weaknesses against these ships. Reasoning: The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile Alternative suggestions: Check out small and medium guns (They are quite a valid choice, as pointed out in the thread). Quite valid, yes, if you use them in numbers. Say for example that you're attacked by 4 interceptors: One turret is pretty negligible. Two turrets, you might force one of the attacking interceptors to flee, before you're cut in pieces by the others. 3 turrets, and you have a slim chance to survive the engagement, but then you're gimped if another BS come along. I understand that BS shouldn't be solo pwnmobile, as you said, but I think that you should be able to have a good anti-frig capacity at the price of reduced chance to win against an anti-BS battleship. Right now, you don't have a reduced chance, you have zero chance. Speaking of guns, what choice have you, really? -blasters and autocanons = not enough range. -pulse lasers: not enough range to cover effectively the 15-20km range window. -artilleries: not enough damage to be worth it. -railguns: suffer from tracking agsint any non-webbed target, so it doesn't cover effectively the 10-20km range. -beam lasers: Your only real choice. Originally by: Oveur Check out Drainers/Nosferatus. Does that mean that CCP think the efficiency of heavy nos against small targets is fine as it is? I'm not asking for a nerf here, more for a buff of others modules to have a viable alternative... Originally by: Oveur Check out Drones. Drones whose light and medium variants still do a lot less damage to small targets than heavy drones. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around? IMHO light and med drones should be buffed at lot. Originally by: Oveur Check out Smartbombs. Very limited range, destroy loot cans, dangerous to use in empire, now of very limited use against missiles, and, most of all, a cap usage and damage per cap ratio that make it unusable as anything else than a pod-popping weapon. Originally by: Oveur Check out Webifiers. I consider webs as a must have of nearly every BS setup, but slowing down an interceptor or AF isn't going to matter much if you don't have something effective to hit it with. Originally by: Oveur Check out gasp flying with a friend! I'd fly more often with friend if the current pve mechanics weren't discouraging it (no shared mission rewards, loot and bounties making it not worth hunting in groups). For pvp, it's another thing entirely. DEAR GOD THE WEAPONS HAVE DRAWBACKS!!!!!! Wanting to be a jack of all trades has drawbacks. Simple as that. _____________________________ "There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"

sonofollo	Posted - 2005.09.20 13:06:00 - [62] u guys seem to be forgetting jack of all trades can also be good allrounds not good at anything specific but still able to cover a wide range of situations in group situations that make u a valuable asset.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.09.20 13:12:00 - [63] Oveur, dont troll around Argue with him, or dont answer at all -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
EternalDark	Posted - 2005.09.20 13:45:00 - [64] Sigh I go to bed and wake up to Oveur trolling my thread : P. A couple of things although its meaningless now that my thread has been smacked upside the head with the nerfbat. First and most important. It was not my intention to make bs's wtfpawnmobiles, able to go around solo ganking everything. I wanted to make it more interesting for groups of frigs and cruisers out there, makeing them actually have to adapt and use something more then just speed and damage to stay allive ohhh nooos! We might have to use an ew frig with tracking disruptors ohh nooos! we have no imagination and this looks to hard to gank ohhh nooo! My suggestion was intended to give the player more options when fitting his/her ship. Its year three and Eve gets a lil boring sometimes. Last, all the naysayers will be crying back here to this thread when tomb's new npc changes come out. I will be laughing my ass off. Can I trade in my Caldari character for a gallante one now?
Shadowsword	Posted - 2005.09.20 14:07:00 - [65] Originally by: Oveur DEAR GOD THE WEAPONS HAVE DRAWBACKS!!!!!! Wanting to be a jack of all trades has drawbacks. Simple as that. I wasn't hoping a dev would bother to answer my post. One has, and I feel...disappointed. Speaking of drawbacks, what is the drawback of the Heavy Nos? There seem to be a misanderstanding. I am NOT asking for a be-all-end-all turret setup, nor do I want a ship that would be both a Gankageddon and a Retribution in the same hull. What I think is that a dedicaced ship should be very good at something, while a jack-of-all-trade should be decent at both, but . YOU seem to think that a jack-of-all-trade should be only mediocre at both.
Garreck	Posted - 2005.09.20 14:38:00 - [66] You folks are wanting to introduce a weapon to make the Battleship a "jack-of-all-trades." But that's not the 'intended' role for the battleship. CCP is trying to encourage a 'don't-get-caught-out' mentality with battleships...that is, don't fly them solo. Use escorts. And, of course, use the already mentioned anti-cruiser/frig weapons. Right now, if there is a group of cruisers and frigs flying around, you pretty much need to go after them with a group of cruisers and frigs. To introduce "point-defense" weapons on battleships, you could go after such a group with a single vessel and have a reasonable expectation of victory. Which would defeat the whole purpose of about 2 years' worth of balancing efforts. Garreck Aeternus Crusade Aku. Soku. Zan.
Chowdown	Posted - 2005.09.20 14:57:00 - [67] Originally by: EternalDark Can I trade in my Caldari character for a gallante one now? I'll do swapsies, I hope you like Charisma :) Unbeleivable amount of disrespect and smack in this thread, anyone would think these people have achieved half as much as u ED
Aitrus	Posted - 2005.09.20 15:02:00 - [68] Originally by: Oveur I'll get right to the point! Thread summed up: Battleships need bigger, better anti-frig/cruiser weapons. Answer: No, Battleships intentionally have weaknesses against these ships. Reasoning: The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile Alternative suggestions: Check out small and medium guns (They are quite a valid choice, as pointed out in the thread). Check out Drainers/Nosferatus. Check out Drones. Check out Smartbombs. Check out Webifiers. Check out gasp flying with a friend! Can dual weapons be altered to perform closer in line to the gun they're related to? (I.E. Dual Heavy Pulse laser roughly equivalent to Heavy Pulse Laser) So that we can get our ship bonuses on smaller sized guns? You'd be giving up raw firepower for tracking and small ship defense. Personally, I think that if we're expected to use sized down guns on ships, the ship bonuses should apply to all size turrets. That, or give us turrets that fulfill the "next size down" role without actually downsizing.
Katyan Silverspear	Posted - 2005.09.20 15:08:00 - [69] seriously oveour, your a offical from ccp. be constructive or dont post at all! you give all these so called solutions, some one gives constructive comments against it and all you do is answer with a negative flaming attitude? seriously...
Garreck	Posted - 2005.09.20 15:16:00 - [70] Originally by: Katyan Silverspear seriously oveour, your a offical from ccp. be constructive or dont post at all! you give all these so called solutions, some one gives constructive comments against it and all you do is answer with a negative flaming attitude? seriously... The devs have listened to years worth of crying about the battleships to bring them to where they are now (killable by packs of cruisers and/or frigs.) Now people want that to be undone. If he gets a little...flabbergasted, maybe that's why. These requests are, frankly, rediculous. The counterpoints to Oveurs posts are asking to fundamentally change the role of the battleship in combat. Fit webbers. Fit heavy Nos. Fit heavy drones. These are already-existing 'point-defense' weapons that work perfectly well. Some would say too well. And, of course, don't be caught alone in a battleship. Garreck Aeternus Crusade Aku. Soku. Zan.

Rak'Kabal Kain	Posted - 2005.09.20 15:21:00 - [71] People need to learn how to make a good setups. web + nos + drones = dead tackler
Rak'Kabal Kain	Posted - 2005.09.20 15:25:00 - [72] After reading the other 2 pages... Oveur 4tw
Nafri	Posted - 2005.09.20 17:46:00 - [73] Originally by: Garreck Originally by: Katyan Silverspear seriously oveour, your a offical from ccp. be constructive or dont post at all! you give all these so called solutions, some one gives constructive comments against it and all you do is answer with a negative flaming attitude? seriously... The devs have listened to years worth of crying about the battleships to bring them to where they are now (killable by packs of cruisers and/or frigs.) Now people want that to be undone. If he gets a little...flabbergasted, maybe that's why. These requests are, frankly, rediculous. The counterpoints to Oveurs posts are asking to fundamentally change the role of the battleship in combat. Fit webbers. Fit heavy Nos. Fit heavy drones. These are already-existing 'point-defense' weapons that work perfectly well. Some would say too well. And, of course, don't be caught alone in a battleship. Its just that people also always asked for designated anti frigate ships. Thy intruduced destroyers, which really sucks in that area. Destroyers are not even remotly close to what CCP promised about them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
HUGO DRAX	Posted - 2005.09.20 18:03:00 - [74] lol. Battleships should have escort against smaller ships. Its not a a solution to all PvP. A B-52G is a big ugly beast that can destroy targets from afar but all it takes is 1 F-16 for example to take it down. BS are the big B52s of space and require the support ships along with them for best results. A Solo BS in war or 0.0 is a bad idea.
Silver Bird	Posted - 2005.09.20 18:21:00 - [75] Oveur 4tw! If people would read the Features and Ideas the Dicussion forum they might have noticed many threads that already cover these issues in some depth. One such thread covers some of the issues that currently exist with battleship escorts.
Drutort	Posted - 2005.09.20 18:24:00 - [76] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 19/09/2005 21:59:28 "Battleships do not get small gun bonuses like frigates do, moving on." They do get bonuses to large guns though, and you're asking for large gun with firepower of 4 small ones. Such gun would receive the bonus of battleship, which is more than enough to match the bonus regular frigate gets to the small turret. So no, not "moving on" yet... (not to mention a typical bonus to small turret damage is 25% tops, 50% for some tech.2 frigates. Nowhere near 100% that'd be required to get that 'half of frigate firepower' thing) your focusing again on numbers more so on the concept and the idea its self, I think many people said that this should have been in the game. and to fix some of your concerns about abuse of these weapons, all it would take is a new name for hi slot... something of anti frig/cruiser slot... like launcher slot atm... and limit the BS to the proper numbers and you have now fixed the issues maybe something along the lines of 1-3 restrain of such weapon fitting. Everyone knows that regardless of what RL warfare you speak of, the concept of protecting the bigger ship vs the smaller counter parts has always been there, and of course you always saw that at a minimum number (thus the req for limitation of 1-3 for example) support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo my PhotoBlog
ThrawnTseng	Posted - 2005.09.20 18:31:00 - [77] Originally by: Oveur DEAR GOD THE WEAPONS HAVE DRAWBACKS!!!!!! Wanting to be a jack of all trades has drawbacks. Simple as that. A nother self-loving and completly idiotic post that dont answer any of the falid points that were mentioned. I wished we could bann and delet posts from "him" like he do with the other forum trolls.
Garreck	Posted - 2005.09.20 18:50:00 - [78] Originally by: ThrawnTseng Originally by: Oveur DEAR GOD THE WEAPONS HAVE DRAWBACKS!!!!!! Wanting to be a jack of all trades has drawbacks. Simple as that. A nother self-loving and completly idiotic post that dont answer any of the falid points that were mentioned. I wished we could bann and delet posts from "him" like he do with the other forum trolls. Actually, he answered the points quite directly. Battleships have drawbacks. As does being a jack-of-all-trades. Try not to let "hurt feelings" blind you to the validity of his statement. Garreck Aeternus Crusade Aku. Soku. Zan.
danneh	Posted - 2005.09.20 18:51:00 - [79] Agreed on most things.
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.09.20 19:03:00 - [80] Edited by: DrunkenOne on 20/09/2005 19:04:54 Originally by: Chowdown Originally by: EternalDark Can I trade in my Caldari character for a gallante one now? I'll do swapsies, I hope you like Charisma :) Unbeleivable amount of disrespect and smack in this thread, anyone would think these people have achieved half as much as u ED No offense, ED rules, but just because hes "achieved a lot" doesnt make this idea any less stupid. BS can easilly kill frigs/hacs. EASILLY. People just set it up for killing BS. Small/med guns, double web, multiple plates, armor tank, heavy nos/neuts, and lots of drones will kill any 2 HACs, and prolly kill 5-6 inty packs. But guess what? You suck vs other BS. FIT FOR THE TASK FFS. Though I do hope they introduce quad light neutrons, as the dps of a blasterthron would be amazingly ridiculous. Or quad med pulse II, rofl an apoc with 7 damage mods and 8 of those would be like 2x gankas.

TheMoog	Posted - 2005.09.20 19:10:00 - [81] Originally by: ThrawnTseng Originally by: Oveur DEAR GOD THE WEAPONS HAVE DRAWBACKS!!!!!! Wanting to be a jack of all trades has drawbacks. Simple as that. A nother self-loving and completly idiotic post that dont answer any of the falid points that were mentioned. I wished we could bann and delet posts from "him" like he do with the other forum trolls. Actually, Oveur brought very good means to counter frigates, all of them work wonder if use in complement of a brain. Almost any BS out there has 1 or 2 empty Hi slot, fit a heavy NOS, or 1-2 120mm rail, and bring drones and you won't have problems. And yes, a gankageddon fitted for 120km optimal SHOULD die to 3-4 intys. You have to choose, you kill BS well, or you kill frigates well, not both.
Shiner BockBeer	Posted - 2005.09.20 19:26:00 - [82] Interesting arguments on both sides, but the thing I don't see being addressed, (and which makes this change impractical) is this: ROF bonuses contribute heavily to client/server lag. Remember that interceptors used to have a bonus of 25% ROF per level, this was removed in favor of a damage bonus, which gaves the same damage over time without the horrifying lag problems. In theory your proposed change is a good idea, but its just not practical in this game. So I would side with those who argue against turning the BS back into the only ship worth flying.
Arnold Swartzenegger	Posted - 2005.09.20 19:38:00 - [83] Drones, in my opinion, are for taking out things you CAN'T hit with a bs. Every BS in the game can carry at least six heavy drones, which is more than enough to kill a frig or cruiser in no time. Also, if you have an open mid slot, try a webber! You'd be surprized how your large blasters hit a stabber going 20 m/s. Basically, the game is made so that nothing is truly impossible, and everybody can be killed somehow. All you have to do is figure out what works against the small ships, and use it.
Tsual	Posted - 2005.09.20 19:48:00 - [84] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Garreck Its just that people also always asked for designated anti frigate ships. Thy intruduced destroyers, which really sucks in that area. Destroyers are not even remotly close to what CCP promised about them. Might be that Destroyers also need teamwork and are not solo pwn em all for frigats. (one short range/one long range, both nos, one warp scramblre, one energy destabilizer, ok just daydreaming.) -------------------------------------- Haanem ulwei, utnazhiram Hal'sha'roh mahiraam Hor'thul. The Universe is everything, the creation Hal'shah and the destruction Hor'thul.
Borzoi	Posted - 2005.09.20 20:09:00 - [85] Nerf Nos to be size dependent, introduce ED's modules, make new types of hardpoints, open up for type bonus instead of size bonus. ...
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.09.20 20:23:00 - [86] Originally by: Oveur DEAR GOD THE WEAPONS HAVE DRAWBACKS!!!!!! Wanting to be a jack of all trades has drawbacks. Simple as that. Besides, Trench Run Disease is cool "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Natasha Kerensky	Posted - 2005.09.20 20:27:00 - [87] Originally by: Tar om Why? because I've trained millions of SP to get my BS working properly, thats why :)Tar om dont forget teh moneh!!!! frigs = $ battleships = $$$$$$$$$$$ i want bang for my buck!!
Gift	Posted - 2005.09.20 20:36:00 - [88] Battleships are fine as is, it's the frigs that are completely unbalanced...NERF'EM!
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2005.09.20 20:37:00 - [89] NOS + drones . - Gob (also known as Admiral Goberius)
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.09.20 21:19:00 - [90] An interesting idea indeed. If you worry about excessive damage from the Dual or Quad guns, just adjust the damage mod on them down a bit, bring them in line with their frigate and cruiser cousins. Sacrificing a portion of the damagepotential of a high slot for defensive capability against small ships is an acceptable tradeoff. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: 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.