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)
EternalDark	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:00:00 - [1] Eve Online is the pinnacle of the team based MMO. Due to this fact CCP has continued to tweak their creation to perpetuate this style of game play. This post is not designed to criticize this approach as I love the community that has been built up around this team oriented approach to game play. However, there is one particular pitfall that has become obvious to me. The Battleship and its Fundamental Flaw: Have you ever wondered why your BS is being blown out from under you by a single assault cruiser? Or why that harpy is tanking your cruise missiles? Here is the answer to those questions. Currently Battleships are very underpowered. Not in terms of firepower, electronics capabilities, or tanking, but in terms of defensive capabilities against smaller ships. Battleships have great offensive capabilities against smaller ships (a.k.a. sniping). What they lack is a class of guns that protects them from smaller ships in close. So the question is how do you boost a battleshipÆs defenses without unbalancing the game and making frigates and cruisers useless in a tackling and assault role? Bellow is my answer to this predicament. Please read it over and let me know what you think, but keep your minds open as changes in Eve always perpetuate the fun we have. The easiest way to balance this problem is to give battleship pilots a large gun class that deals decent, but not insane damage to smaller ships. We are all familiar to the high tracking dual 425mm, and 650mm auto canons. So I will use them as an example. This type of gun uses short range high tracking and rate of fire to pummel other battleships and under the right circumstances cruisers in up close and personal combat. Only small changes would be required to expand, and specialize this class of weapons. The simple steps for anti cruiser defense: -Switch from large ammo to medium ammo constraints. -Increase rate of fire to 2 X that of their base medium gun counterpart. -Apply the base guidelines of a medium gun. Rate of fire, damage, tracking, falloff, and range will all stay the same as a medium gun. What you have is a large gun that does 2x the damage of a medium gun, and offers roughly 1/4th the firepower of a cruiser by sacrificing one high slot on your Battleship. The list: Gallante: - Dual heavy electron blaster I - Dual heavy ion blaster I - Dual heavy neutron blaster I - Dual 200mm railgun I - Dual 250mm railgun I Minmitar: - Dual 425mm autocanon I - Dual 650mm autocanon I - Dual 720mm artillery I Amarr: - Dual medium pulse laser I - Dual medium beam laser I Caldari: - Dual heavy missile launcher I The next segment will answer the question: Why is this harpy slowly killing my tempest while he tanks my cruise missiles? I have given some examples of anti cruiser defenses for battleships. Below is a list of similar weapons intended for anti frigate defense, and the reasons that they should come into being. With the introduction of interceptors and assault frigates; we have also seen the rise of fast moving, and hard hitting, gank squads. The missile changes nerfed the last defense against these squads, and rightly so. However, I think some middle ground is worth exploring. A single assault frigate should not be able to tackle down a battleship indefinitely. While a squad of professional frigate pilots could easily end a battleship within a few minutes. The following is my easily implimentable answer. The simple steps for anti cruiser defense: -Switch from large ammo to small ammo constraints. -Increase rate of fire to 4X that of their base small gun counterpart. -Apply the base guidelines of a small gun. Rate of fire, damage, tracking, falloff, and range will all stay the same as a small gun.
EternalDark	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:00:00 - [2] The list: Gallante: - Quad 75mm railgun I - Quad 125mm railgun I - Quad 150mm railgun I - Quad light electron blaster I - Quad light ion blaster I - Quad light neutron blaster I Minmitar: - Quad 125mm autocanon I - Quad 200mm autocanon I - Quad 250mm artillery I - Quad 280mm artillery I Amarr: - Quad small pulse laser I - Quad small beam laser I Caldari: - Quad rocket launcher I - Quad standard missile launcher I What you have is a large gun that does 2x the damage of a small gun and offers roughly 1/2th the firepower of a frigate by sacrificing one high slot on your battleship. *Note that Quad rocket launcher I, and Quad standard missile launcher I will not be allowed to fire the defender missile for obvious reasons. ThatÆs it, post your thoughts and comments and let me know what you think of my proposal. ûEternal Dark.
Nostradamu5	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:08:00 - [3] Interesting Faulty testing kept me from delivering the "Logic Editor" earlier. I was using my own post and it kept blanking everything out.
Sentani	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:08:00 - [4] read the 1st lines and then just gave up... IF you want defence against smaller ships... bring a friend in a small ship... this is a MMO game after all... and BS isnt supose to win against everything... its not a flaw its a feature /Sent
Azuriel Talloth	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:09:00 - [5] I like it, and always thought it should be this way. A high slot on a Battleship is obviously larger than a high slot on a Frigate if it can fit guns 10 times the size. And clearly there should be an option to fill that space with lots of small guns firing at small targets. The fact that it's half implemented already with modules such as Assault Launcher (cruiser sized, but fires Standard missiles) and Dual Railguns shows that it would not imbalance things if fully implemented. "Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated."
Azuriel Talloth	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:11:00 - [6] Originally by: Sentani read the 1st lines and then just gave up... IF you want defence against smaller ships... bring a friend in a small ship... this is a MMO game after all... and BS isnt supose to win against everything... its not a flaw its a feature If you can't be bothered to read past the first line then why do you think your reply is a valid counter argument? Some people just prefer to speak rather than listen I guess. "Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated."
Einheriar Ulrich	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:14:00 - [7] Interesting idea ED, This model mimmics other kind of module tradeoff, but let you keep a usefull module online. So Say I. Einheriar Ulrich of the Bloodline of Einheriar. **Minion Of VOTF**
Rthor	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:18:00 - [8] This is a problem at what range? Above 10km or below?
Garreck	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:27:00 - [9] Or fit a couple of heavy nos and don't forget to launch your drones? A single battleship is going to die to a properly balanced strike fleet of cruisers and frigs. A LOT of balance work has gone into making this a possibility, and this is exactly how it should be. I just don't see why there have been all these cries about how horrible the battleship is as a class lately. A frigate that gets hit by 2 heavy nos is dead in the water. A cruiser that gets hit by 2 heavy nos will soon be dead in the water. And unless I'm terribly mistaken, every battleship has the capability of carrying 6 heavy drones...that's all the point defense you could need right there, particularly if your target no longer has any cap to mwd or tank. Some pretty basic things battleship pilots can do to prevent losing their "underpowered" investment: First and foremost...don't get caught alone! A battleship is not meant for solo combat. CCP has gone to great lengths to make it a low-mobility, highly-durable, hard hitting firepower platform. They are meant to be the backbone of fleet strength, not solo "win" buttons. Don't fly a battleship unless you can fit the right kit. "Right" in this case being anti-frig/anti-cruiser defense. If you can't use heavy nosferatu and at least 6 heavy drones, you've no business flying a battleship. (This goes for any vessel, really. If you can't kit it properly, you don't need to be flying it.) Understanding your strengths as a battleship...go with those strengths. Do whatever you must to keep your targets at range. This means keeping your battleship off of warp-in vector and immediately turning AWAY from approaching cruisers and frigs at best speed and forcing them to chase you. Where ever you are, have an escape route. Be aligned already, in case a group of frigs or cruisers does just warp in on top of you. You see 'em coming out of warp to close for comfort, and you get the heck out of dodge. Your ideas make sense, but there's already plenty that a battleship can do to keep itself safe from cruisers and frigs. If you turn a battleship into a beast that can use all the advantages of a battleship (lots of hitpoints, plenty of means to tank) and add to it the ability to kill smaller class vessels with the same efficiency of those smaller class vessels, you're going turn the battleship back into the only vessel worth training for and flying. Garreck Aeternus Crusade Aku. Soku. Zan.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:28:00 - [10] Edited by: j0sephine on 19/09/2005 21:30:23 "The simple steps for anti cruiser defense: - Switch from large ammo to medium ammo constraints. - Increase rate of fire to 2 X that of their base medium gun counterpart. - Apply the base guidelines of a medium gun. Rate of fire, damage, tracking, falloff, and range will all stay the same as a medium gun. What you have is a large gun that does 2x the damage of a medium gun, and offers roughly 1/4th the firepower of a cruiser by sacrificing one high slot on your Battleship." The simple thing that throws the wrench in this whole idea is, the damage difference between medium and large turrets is ~35% If you create a gun that does twice the damage of medium turret, you're basically creating something that's mega pulse laser on steroids -- over 50% higher damage than what the equivalent range turret can dish out, combined with superior tracking. Which allows to easily outdamage current large turrets at equal ranges, before you even factor in the superior tracking. If you thought gankageddons were a problem, try to imagine them with 50% damage boost, and shooting both battleships and cruisers with ease.

Shadowsword	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:37:00 - [11] Originally by: j0sephine The simple thing that throws the wrench in this whole idea is, the damage difference between medium and large turrets is ~35% If you create a gun that does twice the damage of medium turret, you're basically creating something that's mega pulse laser on steroids -- over 50% higher damage than what the equivalent range turret can dish out, combined with superior tracking. Which allows to easily outdamage current large turrets at equal ranges, before you even factor in the superior tracking. If you thought gankageddons were a problem, try to imagine them with 50% damage boost, and shooting both battleships and cruisers with ease. His numbers are obviously off, but I like the idea. In fact, I proposed it in the lab forum 6-8 months ago. Carefull balancing would have to be made, to prevent tacklers to become useless, but that's still a very good idea. I never liked how small turrets were fully effectives against anything while large turret users had to make hard choices, depending of what they wanted to hit.
Jezala	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:38:00 - [12] That's a pretty innovative suggestion you have there ED. I like it b/c it fills in the gap in BS offensive abilitly agianst frigs & cruisers. Furthermore, it would expand gameplay and open up some new and creative ship configurations.
Malachi Nefzen	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:38:00 - [13] 6x quad rocket launchers! FTW!
Slater Dogstar	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:41:00 - [14] I like the idea of being able to fit several skmall guns in a larg high slot. It would make fighting a battleship interesting. Every Time You Use A Warp Stab Ovyer Kills A Puppy!!!
Shadowsword	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:45:00 - [15] Originally by: Garreck Or fit a couple of heavy nos and don't forget to launch your drones? A single battleship is going to die to a properly balanced strike fleet of cruisers and frigs. A LOT of balance work has gone into making this a possibility, and this is exactly how it should be. I just don't see why there have been all these cries about how horrible the battleship is as a class lately. A frigate that gets hit by 2 heavy nos is dead in the water. A cruiser that gets hit by 2 heavy nos will soon be dead in the water. And unless I'm terribly mistaken, every battleship has the capability of carrying 6 heavy drones...that's all the point defense you could need right there, particularly if your target no longer has any cap to mwd or tank. Some pretty basic things battleship pilots can do to prevent losing their "underpowered" investment: First and foremost...don't get caught alone! A battleship is not meant for solo combat. CCP has gone to great lengths to make it a low-mobility, highly-durable, hard hitting firepower platform. They are meant to be the backbone of fleet strength, not solo "win" buttons. Don't fly a battleship unless you can fit the right kit. "Right" in this case being anti-frig/anti-cruiser defense. If you can't use heavy nosferatu and at least 6 heavy drones, you've no business flying a battleship. (This goes for any vessel, really. If you can't kit it properly, you don't need to be flying it.) Understanding your strengths as a battleship...go with those strengths. Do whatever you must to keep your targets at range. This means keeping your battleship off of warp-in vector and immediately turning AWAY from approaching cruisers and frigs at best speed and forcing them to chase you. Where ever you are, have an escape route. Be aligned already, in case a group of frigs or cruisers does just warp in on top of you. You see 'em coming out of warp to close for comfort, and you get the heck out of dodge. Your ideas make sense, but there's already plenty that a battleship can do to keep itself safe from cruisers and frigs. If you turn a battleship into a beast that can use all the advantages of a battleship (lots of hitpoints, plenty of means to tank) and add to it the ability to kill smaller class vessels with the same efficiency of those smaller class vessels, you're going turn the battleship back into the only vessel worth training for and flying. The core of your argument is that heavy Nos pwn small targets. Do you realise that it's like a pre-patch Raven user saying to a turret BS pilot "You have 2 missile slots, use Torps to kill frigs and stop whining about balance"? Heavy Nos will eventually be nerfed, too (fully effective against anything), the only reason I don't want them t obe yet is because there's currently no viable alternatives.
EternalDark	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:48:00 - [16] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 19/09/2005 21:34:33 If you create a gun that does twice the damage of medium turret, you're basically creating something that's mega pulse laser on steroids -- over 50% higher damage than what the equivalent range turret can dish out, combined with superior tracking. Which allows to easily outdamage current large turrets at equal ranges, before you even factor in the superior tracking. If you thought gankageddons were a problem, try to imagine them with 50% damage boost, and shooting both battleships and cruisers with ease. edit: oh, and: "What you have is a large gun that does 4x the damage of a small gun and offers roughly 1/2th the firepower of a frigate by sacrificing one high slot on your battleship." How's a gun that does the same damage 4 turrets on frigate do, equivalent of half of frigate firepower? You'll be hard pressed to find enough frigates with 4 turret hardpoints, let alone 8... --;; Battleships do not get small gun bonuses like frigates do, moving on.
Ikvar	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:52:00 - [17] Originally by: EternalDark Have you ever wondered why your BS is being blown out from under you by a single assault cruiser? Or why that harpy is tanking your cruise missiles? Here is the answer to those questions. No, I pack drones just for that eventuality, ever heard of them? Originally by: James Lyrus Complaining about PvP & Pirates in EVE is like complaining about the mines in minesweeper.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.09.19 21:58:00 - [18] 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)
Rthor	Posted - 2005.09.19 22:07:00 - [19] Would that one high slot gun have to be able to alone break a tank on an assault frigate to satisfy you?
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2005.09.19 22:51:00 - [20] Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 19/09/2005 22:52:00 I was thinking about this problem earlier when fitting a ship, and its not as easy as dumping in dual and quad based guns to solve it. Take 250mm Railgun I (cruiser gun), compared to Dual 250mm Railgun I (battleship gun). 250mm: 40 cpu, 225 grid 10 cap 24k optimal 2.75x 6.38s 0.023 rad/s 28.45 DPS dual 250mm: 55 cpu, 1250 grid 15 cap 24k optimal 1.5x 5.85s 0.0175 rad/s 12.21 DPS This is just base stats with no skills or bonuses. So not only does the cruiser gun track 32% faster, its a lot easier to fit and at battleship V the 25% dmg bonus still comes nowhere near. This makes it more viable to fit cruiser or frig guns, which is something most people are horribly turned away from.. despite it being very effective. Because medium ammo does 24 damage and large does 48.. if these dual guns were made to have identical rof/mod as the cruiser gun their DPS would be twice as good.. but as a tradeoff you'd have to use a lot more fittings and cap, and suffer slightly worse tracking. To me that sounds OK, but then you would have Megathrons going around with the firepower of three Thoraxes fitted with five of the biggest cruiser guns. It just sounds like they'd be better anti-BS weapons than a solution against cruisers, because of the tracking. My favorite solution is to: 1. Give them identical tracking, identical rof, identical range, only 25% more dps, dont change fittings. 2. Increase the differences in sig radius between frig/cruiser/bs and modify the cruiser and bs tracking to match it. The end result is, all dual/quad weapons would have a role in pvp. The biggest cruiser and bs guns would stand no chance of hitting anything small with the new signature/tracking scale difference. Even if you loaded tracking comps and sniped a mwding frig. The dual guns would have the tracking, you could fit more of them than a cruiser, and you'd get a bonus because they are large guns. To offset that, your damage against other battleships is mediocre, your range is far shorter, and they're not as easy to fit as cruiser guns. Example: A cruiser with 5 turret slots doing 28 dps per gun VS a battleship with 7 turret slots doing 35 dps per gun (140 total vs 245 total). Thats about 1 battleship = 1.75 cruisers. Your suggestion on stats screw up balance because if each dual gun is just a straight up 2x of its cruiser gun.. then 7x dual heavy neutrons will do more dps than 7x mega ions, but be a lot easier to fit and have a lot more tracking. Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning.

Mercade	Posted - 2005.09.19 23:23:00 - [21] I thought most people wanted to turn this game away from being battleship-centered. These changes to me suggest far more capabilities to battleships then they deserve. IT would eliminate diversity in this MMO just as allowing someone with time to be both a mage, tank, healer and scout in any other fantasy based MMO. The paper rocks scissor approach to balancing is far more rewarding then a straight out linear progression because that suffers greater grind suggestion as people choose only to compete in 1 "Required" ship type. I would even go so far as to suggest that with the lack of tracking in Heavy Nosferatu and their linear strenght progression Battleships are capable of wielding some of the most deadly tools for anti frigate/cruiser weaponry available and such tools have nearly no counter that is effective. Webification Nosferatu Drones As I've suggested in the past I feel that a move in the other direction, developing tracking on Nosferatu to make Large nosferatu only effective vs extremely slow or arrested targets but deadly in such situations would give frigates a greater capability to survive around battleship which would diversify fleet types. Yes 5 frigates may kill a battleship. But the argument that 1 persons 100million ISK is worth more then 5 people's coordination and gaming scheduling can be easily disproven as 5 people in BS will destroy 5 people in 5 cruiser or 5 frigs or AF's or anything. Also implementing webification systems that reverse their current style, and have close, mid and long range would be better. Allow 33% speed reduction up to 45km. 50% at 15km and 90% at 5km. Same fitting acapabilities. This would impair a close range setup none and long range setups would be enhanced slightly. Allowing a cruiser gang to arrest a solo target at range with teamwork but a single battleship not instantly kill all speed of a ship inside web range. A blasterthron would be very capable, even possibly using 2 webifiers, a mid and close. The mid to assist it's tackle the low to take over in the actual arrest. Drones I also feel should be more greatly dispered in their damages respective to sizes. A step in self sufficiency will only break the cooperative bonds in this game. I vote no for all above suggestions of the OP
Zanner	Posted - 2005.09.19 23:46:00 - [22] Ummmm....if you fly a Battleship by yourself, BUY yourself some friends in frigs. BSes are not that expensive and are designed to take on LARGE threats. If you feel a 200K frig is a threat then go pilot a Assault Frig or HAC. Battleships should never travel alone unless in Empire. my two
Karash Amerius	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:00:00 - [23] If you played during beta or starting up May 2003, then you know how overwhelmingly bland EVE was as far as PVP. No one did ANYTHING WITHOUT A BATTLESHIP. That does not equal a balanced game, nor equal any fun to a wide swath of players at different skill levels. (and it should be mentioned that drones sucked bad back then too). The way it is now is great, and with the new logistic cruisers coming, its only going to get better.
Suze'Rain	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:06:00 - [24] I've been saying that a BS-sized heavy launcher (and preferably a BS sized dual or possibly triple rocket launcher) would be superb for months... mostly BS size capacity, as well, of course. I think quad rocket would be unbalancing in terms of DPS, however. in all a well thought out post, though it'd need some work in a few areas for balance.
DeMundus	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:07:00 - [25] when u get up close u get "under the range" of most guns, this is a battleship we are talking about - if u want defense against smaller ships(cruisers) fit medium guns or get some support - but the problem is relly only with cruisers that gets close range, right? A zealot cant hit propperly under 10 km I hear - might be wrong. And drones takes(even large 1's) takes care of frigs with ease... wich imo is wrong. Thx DeM
Tovarishch	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:10:00 - [26] Giving battleships a reliable answer to groups of small ships is taking a step backward... in my opinion. One of the aspects of EVE that I enjoy is the fact that ships have their roles... there are not ships that are offer 'do-it-all' advantages (with the possible exception of the Dominix). This is exactly why the missile changes were implemented - because missiles offered a solution to most any given situation. The pre-path Raven could handle most any situation very well. It never offered the highest DPS... but it could wipe out group of frigates and cruisers... while also doing considerable damage to battleships. This proposed solution will recreate that situation. Yes, the dual/quad turret/launcher idea would mean that any given battleship would be fitting 'smaller' weapons... but they would be increasing their damage output against most ship types by sacrificing only a bit of range. If these changes were implemented the days of groups made up exclusively of battleships would return... and cruisers and frigates wouldn't be nearly as useful as they are currently. Look at ships as tools that are to be chosen for a particular situation... not as increasing levels of power. - Frigates/Interceptors/Assault Frigates - tacklers and frigate/cruiser defense and escort... also of great value when moving from location to location is of high priority. - Cruisers/HACs/Destroyers/Battlecruisers - in numbers they can pose a threat to most any class ship and provide excellent support for fleets. - Battleships - pose a threat to cruisers, battleships, dreadnaughts and stations. Removing the need for escorts (along with giving any class of ship equality with most other classes) will only serve to remove the weaknesses that force people to coordinate and work together. A 'do-it-all' solution will be an answer that every player will gravitate toward... thereby removing diversity from the game.
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:23:00 - [27] Hi ED, your idea is interesting to say the least, but imagine the damage that a Tempest could do with the equivalent of 24 720mm IIs (double damage and double RoF) and the term "Gankageddon" would take on a whole new meaning. I think the easiest was to resolve the issue would be to change the bonuses by removing the weapon class. Taking the Tempest as an example that would mean changing Quote: "5% bonus to *Large Projectile* Turret firing speed and *Large Projectile* Turret damage per level." to Quote: "5% bonus to *Projectile* Turret firing speed and *Projectile* Turret damage per level." The same would also apply to medium and small bonuses. If you then want to fit small or medium weapons of the correct type then you still get the ship bonuses but sacrifice the damage dealing ability of large weapons (or medium if you fit small ones to a cruiser). -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Borzoi	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:31:00 - [28] Edited by: Borzoi on 20/09/2005 00:32:12 To make this happen, or something similar, i belive CCP has to implement special slots/hardpoints Take a Megathron and its 7 turret, 2 missile hardpoints, with these new modules .. it would look like this. 7 Turret 2 Missile 2 Point Defence Turret 2 Point Defence Missile These would be hardpoints and not new slots. Or something like that, im sure you understand what i mean. ...
Mercade	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:34:00 - [29] Though the logic of fitting multiple small guns in the same slot a battleship has as a frigate may seem logical it won't = fun. Next frigates and cruiser pilots will want to be able to fit on 1 gun of a higher class if they use up all their slots. Then we can have frigates and cruisers in little groups sniping gates also :P /sarcasm fun /end sarcasm
Benilopax	Posted - 2005.09.20 00:52:00 - [30] Ive read this throughly i still feel the original idea is best anti frig guns like a flak cannon is a good idea.

MWEI	Posted - 2005.09.20 01:55:00 - [31] BS kills cruisers Cruiser kills Smaller ships Smaller ships kills intys Intys kills BSs its not exactly always that way but thats how it generally works. If you make it into BS kills All then nobody would uses anything else would they?
Kyle Chimko	Posted - 2005.09.20 02:06:00 - [32] From what i am seeing i am quite confident in the understanding that this is not a question of how to allow battleships more options for antifrig or anticruiser but infact a question of what type of game eve should be. Should eve be the type of game where teamplay is important or not? I supose with this change would mean that if one chose to do so they would be able to singleplayer eve till their hearts content in the bigest Ship which can win againts everything. I hope that if they ever implement this they will make sure it is ballanced as i dont want "I Win" buttons flying around. --
Fidelis Deus	Posted - 2005.09.20 02:11:00 - [33] Theres something called a "Nosferatu" and drones which do the job quite well.
Farjung	Posted - 2005.09.20 03:15:00 - [34] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Take 250mm Railgun I (cruiser gun), compared to Dual 250mm Railgun I (battleship gun). 250mm: 40 cpu, 225 grid 10 cap 24k optimal 2.75x 6.38s 0.023 rad/s 28.45 DPS dual 250mm: 55 cpu, 1250 grid 15 cap 24k optimal 1.5x 5.85s 0.0175 rad/s 12.21 DPS This is just base stats with no skills or bonuses. So not only does the cruiser gun track 32% faster, its a lot easier to fit and at battleship V the 25% dmg bonus still comes nowhere near. I'm not seeing how you're getting from damage mod of 2.75x and RoF of 6.38s to 28.45 dps. By my calc (2.75 * 24 / 6.38) that's 10.35 dps. Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis
David Corbett	Posted - 2005.09.20 03:56:00 - [35] Edited by: David Corbett on 20/09/2005 03:58:15 I'm interested by the proposition that this would nerf teamplay in EVE. An anti-frigate battleship - i.e. one fitted with specialized antifrigate guns - should be almost completely useless against another battleship. Indeed it'll destroy easily a smaller ship, but an anti-battleship battleship - the kind of things that small fast frig fleets tend to own solo - would blow it out of space with ease. Thus, you'd preserve rock-paper-scissors, as it were... I really don't see any pesuasive argument as to why an advanced, hundred-thousand tonne killing machine worth easily 500 times that of the average frigate shouldn't be better at killing frigates than said frigate. Oh, sure, a BS will make a better antifrigate ship than the average frigate already by far - but certainly not that much better. Now of course I wouldn't be asking for an "I win button" for these battleships; just, I think that there should be specialized frigate/cruiser killing vessels specifically designed for that purpose. T2 Battlecruisers would be excellent for that, IMO; I find destroyers too small and fragile to be impressive antifrigate vessels. Now I am not talking abiout battleship fittings this way. Yes, I know they exist - nosferatus, webifiers, and drones tend to make short work of frigates. I'm talking about specific, purpose-built ships and equipment to encourage greater variety and specialization in EVE to further teamplay.
Einheriar Ulrich	Posted - 2005.09.20 04:28:00 - [36] Just equip NOS on your ship use drones, missiles, and a web NP, against larger packs you could have problem if your not tanked. But your most certainly asking for trouble flying around in a BS by yourself. You dont need an anti frig,cruiser bs.... Cruiser are good for hunting frigs, so are battlecruisers. AF take out intys as well. So Say I. Einheriar Ulrich of the Bloodline of Einheriar. **Minion Of VOTF**
David Corbett	Posted - 2005.09.20 04:46:00 - [37] Originally by: Einheriar Ulrich Just equip NOS on your ship use drones, missiles, and a web NP, against larger packs you could have problem if your not tanked. But your most certainly asking for trouble flying around in a BS by yourself. You dont need an anti frig,cruiser bs.... Cruiser are good for hunting frigs, so are battlecruisers. AF take out intys as well. Oh absolutely. I acknowledged that in my post itself; and yes, flying around solo in a battleship IS asking for trouble (as it should be!). But I was thinking that specialist battleships might bring more in terms of teamplay ... could be interesting? Up to the devs of course.
Commisar	Posted - 2005.09.20 06:23:00 - [38] Problem : Bs cant kill a frigate or a cruiser. Solution : Assault mode : Bs functions as we know it. Support mode : Tracking and rof increases while damage modefier decreases. Result : A bs that can kill frigates and cruisers.
Avon	Posted - 2005.09.20 08:27:00 - [39] Edited by: Avon on 20/09/2005 08:27:37 I don't really think it is an issue tbh. Can BS's kill frigates & cruisers easily? Yes. Do players fit them to do so? No. Ergo: The players are faulty, not the ships. Unfortunately I can't see a way for CCP to repair the players. ______________________________________________ Pay or pray..er..prey..yeah, pray you aren't prey. Er, just pay.
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.09.20 08:27:00 - [40] Why do people do posts like this? Are they clueless, or just trolling. EVE needs weaker big ships, not stronger ones. The game balance is messed up enough as it is. I guess if people like Eternal did the balance, you would be able to solo 10/10 complexes in a single BS, and easily kill 40 elite frigates

Kunming	Posted - 2005.09.20 08:46:00 - [41] Originally by: Sentani read the 1st lines and then just gave up... Lol ditto. You start with saying that EVE is teamplay and all, then make a hyprocritical statement about how battleships should be the be-all-end-all ship and there should be no need for smaller ships and no more good organised frigate packs that are mainly teamplay material.. Intercepting since BETA
Tar om	Posted - 2005.09.20 08:49:00 - [42] Edited by: Tar om on 20/09/2005 08:51:13 Originally by: MWEI BS kills cruisers Cruiser kills Smaller ships Smaller ships kills intys Intys kills BSs its not exactly always that way but thats how it generally works. If you make it into BS kills All then nobody would uses anything else would they? Inties kill BS, noone flies cruisers, BS are obsolete. HAC rule the earth. Battleships should have the ability to destroy anything they come up against, as long as its in small groups. I have no problem with 6+ inties taking down a BS but a group of three should be running away fast. Why? because I've trained millions of SP to get my BS working properly, thats why :) One good thing that frig packs do is keep BS pilots equipping tanks. Not that I'm very happy about having to tank a tempest - but hey, risk is its own reward when you're playing this game :) If I'm worried about a frig pack I'll take my phoon. Tar om -- We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
Loka	Posted - 2005.09.20 08:50:00 - [43] Well this isnt a problem we have since last week. I think the current system is not too bad. But i would like to see is something like a Module, which gives your ship a armor or shield value. Let me explain. It could be something like the 1600mm armor enhancer, but i wont give you any additional armor/shield, but would make them harder to penetrate. Let me explain my idear. I like the fact that BS is not the one&only ship in space, it was a few months ahead. But i dislike the fact seeing 2 cruiser or 4 frigates kill a BIG BS. My solution? Introduce Modules changing Armorvalue and introduce Armor Piercing stat on weapons. Small weapons have only light Armor piercing stats Medium weapons have only medium Armor piercing stats Large weapons have large Armor piercing stats. I dont know if it should be a fixed stat of the ships or a module you have to fit. But the lighter AP weapons will do less dmg to high AP values. Like: Weapon with AP1 will do full dmg to AP1 armor/shield Weapon with AP1 will do half dmg to AP2 armor/shield Weapon with AP1 will do 1/4 dmg to AP3 armor/shield Weapon with AP2 will do full dmg to AP1 armor/shield Weapon with AP2 will do full dmg to AP2 armor/shield Weapon with AP2 will do half dmg to AP3 armor/shield Weapon with AP3 will do full (or double?) dmg to AP1 armor/shield Weapon with AP3 will do full dmg to AP2 armor/shield Weapon with AP3 will do full dmg to AP3 armor/shield I mean a swarm of bees can kill a elefant, but it will need a huge amount of them. I would first try such a system, before messing around with the dmg/tracking/rof or something else. ED was right, the defense of the BS is too weak compared the offense of smaller ships. The offense options BS have are fine, dont mess with them yet. _________________________ Dead or Alive
M3ta7h3ad	Posted - 2005.09.20 09:01:00 - [44] As loads of people have mentioned prior to me. No to the suggestions, just No. Dont fly a BS if you are unable to fly it in a fleet. Its meant to be a flagship, it is meant to be vulnerable but a big hitter for the larger targets, use your af/frig/hac escorts to take out the frigates along with your NOS and Drones. Either change down a class (BC can capably take out anything from Frig to BC, they cost less and you dont require a fleet to be protected). The bonus with the fleet thing is that you should also consider packing logistic ships, Get them boosting your shields and using EW and you'll be sorted in most encounters. So in short, stop whining when you get ganked moving through 0.0 in what surmounts to a big bullseye, change down to something a bit nippier/harder to hit. How many battleships in RL(tm) do you see packing smaller guns to take out faster moving frigates? Answer: None, they rely on their battlegroup/escorts.

Oveur	Posted - 2005.09.20 09:01:00 - [45] 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! _____________________________ "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?"

Azuriel Talloth	Posted - 2005.09.20 09:05:00 - [46] Case Closed "Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated."
Avon	Posted - 2005.09.20 09:21:00 - [47] 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! Could it be that Oveur will win the forums today? This post is a likely contender. ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Christopher Scott	Posted - 2005.09.20 10:20:00 - [48] Edited by: Christopher Scott on 20/09/2005 10:20:54 I remember when CCP first released the concept and backround behind battleships. They were meant to be the Dreadnaughts of today. Very big. Very Bad. Very expensive and very few. A capitol ship that owned up to it's name, and was not only a testament to a fleet's power, but their intimidating presence. Then the everyone wanted a battleship, and whined, whined, whined! Then came increases in making money, and increases in the insurance system. That way, everyone could afford a battleship, and maintain one at the cost of a handful of cruisers. The reason why a battleship is nothing like a real battleship should be, and was promised to be, is because the players sold their soul to the developers. What EVE needed, was a filler class between battleship and cruiser. What people wanted, was a battleship. The implementation of battlecruisers was way too late to fix what had already been done. I played this game at a time where frigates and cruisers made up the field. Every ship and class had its place, and the fighting was very close up and intense. It was the best combat, and most fun I've ever had in this game. About every vet I have heard or talked to agree that early castor and pre-castor was the best PvP this game ever had, especially with smaller ships. I deeply feel sorry for anyone who plays this game without ever experiencing that beginning chapter of EVE.
Jaabaa Prime	Posted - 2005.09.20 10:20:00 - [49] 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 True and the changes made were for the general good of EVE PvP. Originally by: Oveur Alternative suggestions: Check out small and medium guns (They are quite a valid choice, as pointed out in the thread). TBH I would love to see the size/type bonus being changed to just a type bonus. Then when you fit small/medium weapons to a BS then you aren't completely gimped (see my earlier post for an example). Originally by: Oveur Check out Drainers/Nosferatus. Check out Drones. Check out Smartbombs. Check out Webifiers. Check out gasp flying with a friend! Agreed, fleets (even small ones) are a MUST when flying a battleship about. -- Intergalactic Teeth Pullers "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2005.09.20 10:27:00 - [50] The best way to defend a battleship against smaller ships... Fly with an escort group. Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori

hired goon	Posted - 2005.09.20 10:36:00 - [51] Originally by: Oveur Check out gasp flying with a friend! In a MMOG? LIES! On another note, don't ravens bonus cover all launchers, including but not limited to, standard and assault?
Azuriel Talloth	Posted - 2005.09.20 10:40:00 - [52] Originally by: hired goon Originally by: Oveur Check out gasp flying with a friend! In a MMOG? LIES! On another note, don't ravens bonus cover all launchers, including but not limited to, standard and assault? No "Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated."
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.09.20 11:37:00 - [53] With all the ways a BS can kill big ships as well as small ships, I would say that BS is to strong currently. Which is why I dont get the idea of T2 BS at all. You still have BS soloing all level 4 missions for example, so BS is still the best solo-and-own-everything ship. If anything, CCP should make BS more vulnerable to small ships.
Loka	Posted - 2005.09.20 11:41:00 - [54] Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle With all the ways a BS can kill big ships as well as small ships, I would say that BS is to strong currently. Which is why I dont get the idea of T2 BS at all. You still have BS soloing all level 4 missions for example, so BS is still the best solo-and-own-everything ship. If anything, CCP should make BS more vulnerable to small ships. You sacrifice firepower for the defense against Frigs. Why overpowered? A BS able to kill Frigates wont stand a chance against a BS setuped to kill BS only. _________________________ Dead or Alive
Mortuus	Posted - 2005.09.20 11:44:00 - [55] BS already kill small ships and cruisers with ease. Why add to it. Fit a few nos, some large guns or med guns. Tank, Web, drones...Kiss them goodbye. Did this with a Typhoon, would have killed a Zealot, Thorax, Rupture, Raptor, Crusader and Vigil had the HAC and Ruppy not had WCS's on. Was a great fight vs ATUK though. Why do they need a boost when they can do it if set up correctly anyway?
Agnar Koladrov	Posted - 2005.09.20 11:47:00 - [56] Originally by: MWEI BS kills cruisers Cruiser kills Smaller ships Smaller ships kills intys Intys kills BSs its not exactly always that way but thats how it generally works. If you make it into BS kills All then nobody would uses anything else would they? Cruiser kill things smaller...yeah thats how it is now. But cruiser are the middelground/mainstay of a fleet, capable of assaulting anything somewhat bigger and smaller then there selfs. It is rediculous that cruisers are seen in the role of only hitting on smaller targets. Just look at todays navy`s, and in every other war, every army had there thing that could kill bigger/equal/smaller targets, multirole.
Graznos	Posted - 2005.09.20 12:15:00 - [57] Well, it might be okay to make battleships have some better anti-frigate defenses, if they were very, very rare. But as it is, I'm flying one with just under 2 months game time. By sheer virtue of how easy they are to get ahold of, they do not deserve immunity against anything and should be, as in all sci-fi and naval combat... fleet support vessels and long range bombardment.
Lisa Run	Posted - 2005.09.20 12:20:00 - [58] Edited by: Lisa Run on 20/09/2005 12:20:42 Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle If anything, CCP should make BS more vulnerable to small ships. Think not. A single bs is already vulnerable to little ships. One good jammer, some intis and assault frigs and the bs dies. If the bs starts drones they are shot down first. I've seen it.
Shadowsword	Posted - 2005.09.20 12:26:00 - [59] 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.
Rufus Roughneck	Posted - 2005.09.20 12:44:00 - [60] The whole question is irrelevant to pve anyway, as in pve, killing the frigs is easy for a BS these days.


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

Gariuys	Posted - 2005.09.20 21:21:00 - [91] Originally by: Natasha Kerensky 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 = $$$$$$$$$$$ i want bang for my buck!! frigs = $ battleship = $$$$$$$$$ godmode = $$$$$$$?????? ~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~ A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool
Drutort	Posted - 2005.09.21 07:51:00 - [92] I would like to point out to those who say dronesà well drones are not high slots last time I checked, so plz focus on the proposed ideas and why you would agree/disagree and or if you have anything useful to contributeà TBH every bigger more expensive ship will always carry a anti smaller gun or whateverà its just practical itÆs a DUH type of thingà in the worst case scenario you want to have it regardless, you wouldnÆt want to let something like this be the down fall of your ship. Its practical and a no brainer but yet, itÆs a hard concept for some to see why people have always wanted it. As far as exploiting or balancing issues, those are other topics and probably should not be focusedà main focus is on the concept at hand, the exploit/abuse balancing can be handled easy once there is something on the drawing board support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo my PhotoBlog
Jorev	Posted - 2005.09.21 09:50:00 - [93] The real problem is the damage output of interceptors and some AFs/HACs. Battleships are balanced against T1 ships, but T2 ship like a claw or a taranis costs 7m...12m nicely equipped and their evasive abilities are combined with insane DPS rates. HACs are at least balanced with their high price tags. Interceptors aren't.
EternalDark	Posted - 2005.09.21 13:02:00 - [94] Edited by: EternalDark on 21/09/2005 13:02:31 Oveur killed this thread some time ago. CCP wants to go the teamwork rout with bs's. My idea was sort of a ballance point for the overpowered abilities of sniper ships. Personally as a caldari veteran I would love to see turret ships damage capped, aka no more sniping. But moving on ill probably just sell my caldari character as ive waited years for ccp to make them worthwhile to fly and they are still worthless in most respects. Close the thread its dead.
HUGO DRAX	Posted - 2005.09.21 13:11:00 - [95] Originally by: EternalDark Edited by: EternalDark on 21/09/2005 13:02:31 Oveur killed this thread some time ago. CCP wants to go the teamwork rout with bs's. My idea was sort of a ballance point for the overpowered abilities of sniper ships. Personally as a caldari veteran I would love to see turret ships damage capped, aka no more sniping. But moving on ill probably just sell my caldari character as ive waited years for ccp to make them worthwhile to fly and they are still worthless in most respects. Close the thread its dead. There is a fix for snipers. an easy fix.
Avon	Posted - 2005.09.21 13:12:00 - [96] Originally by: EternalDark Edited by: EternalDark on 21/09/2005 13:02:31 Oveur killed this thread some time ago. CCP wants to go the teamwork rout with bs's. My idea was sort of a ballance point for the overpowered abilities of sniper ships. Personally as a caldari veteran I would love to see turret ships damage capped, aka no more sniping. But moving on ill probably just sell my caldari character as ive waited years for ccp to make them worthwhile to fly and they are still worthless in most respects. Close the thread its dead. Caldari ships decide the battle... ...assuming they are still there at the end :/ ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Christopher Scott	Posted - 2005.09.22 01:45:00 - [97] Originally by: Avon Caldari ships decide the battle... That used to be true, before a couple of T2 sniper ships could kill another battleship in a fraction of a second.
Jorev	Posted - 2005.09.22 01:47:00 - [98] There's no urgency on part of CCP to address most pressing Caldari flaws: Agilty, Weight, Pitiful DPS, Subpar tanking. Why does it take a year to release a tech2 BCU? Why is it not a priority?
Hanns	Posted - 2005.09.22 03:02:00 - [99] 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! lolzor gogo Oveur Originally by: Oveur I'll get right to the point! The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile
ElCapitan	Posted - 2005.09.22 03:21:00 - [100] you whiny people are forgetting somehting - losing t2 kitted interceptor or assault frig costs almost as much as losing a battleship (insurance costs wise). And nos+web on a battleship will get any smaller ship killed fast.

Nyxus	Posted - 2005.09.22 04:53:00 - [101] Battleships need more surviveability. Smaller ships do a stupidly high amount of dps right now. I ubertanked a scorp once and had 18 frigs (tech1 and 2) kill me over a period of 3 or 4 minutes. It was EPIC! With that in mind.... Increase ship HP Place a Sig Radius cap on weapons so small guns don't go into "permanent wrecking" mode on larger sig ships I have seen a single ceptor take out a BS in under 45 seconds to a minute. It wasn't fun on either side really. If there is no difficulty, there is no sense of accomplishment. A ship fighting another 10 times it's size should feel like an epic fight. David vs Goliath. Right now it just feels like "meh" or another 30 second BS killmail. Nyxus
Loka	Posted - 2005.09.22 07:55:00 - [102] Edited by: Loka on 22/09/2005 07:55:11 Originally by: ElCapitan you whiny people are forgetting somehting - losing t2 kitted interceptor or assault frig costs almost as much as losing a battleship (insurance costs wise). And nos+web on a battleship will get any smaller ship killed fast. Megathron Platinum = 31 mil 7x 425mm II = 7 * 6mil each = 42mil 2x sensorbooster II + 2x Tracking CPU II = 4x 1mil each = 4 mil 6x Tech 2 dmg mods or Tracking Enhancer = 6x 1mil = 6mil suma sumarum = 31 + 42 + 4 + 6 = 83mil loss on a Tech 2 fitted BS. The BS itself is replaced, but the item and insurance is lost. Now tell me ElCapitan what for ueber commander items you use on your Ceptor to loose 83 mil isk per kill. Even without any Mods, you will loose 31 mil isk insurance. 2 times as much as any ceptor incl fitting. I dunno where everyone is comming up that loosing a BS is void in this game or is no loss at all. Because my wallet is shrinking each time i would loose such a such by this ammount of money. _________________________ Dead or Alive
Band Zior	Posted - 2005.09.22 08:16:00 - [103] Originally by: ElCapitan you whiny people are forgetting somehting - losing t2 kitted interceptor or assault frig costs almost as much as losing a battleship (insurance costs wise). And nos+web on a battleship will get any smaller ship killed fast. As Loka eloquently pointed out, no, not even close. Way to NOT make a valid point. ---------- Richard Simmons in Space
Everbane	Posted - 2005.09.22 09:51:00 - [104] Originally by: Jorev Why does it take a year to release a tech2 BCU? Why is it not a priority? They're too busy making the godly, cheap as chips, insta warping, insta jumping, frigates even more invulnerable. Real men fly BS.
LukAsh	Posted - 2005.09.22 09:54:00 - [105] Originally by: Oveur DEAR GOD THE WEAPONS HAVE DRAWBACKS!!!!!! Wanting to be a jack of all trades has drawbacks. Simple as that. Hehe basically I agree with you. I think the way it is now is rather good, but could use some improvements. BS should use small guns against frigs ! BS should use medium guns agains cruisers ! BS should use big guns against other BS ! This is the way it should be, Im with you 100%. But there is one thing which makes this impossible - amount of turret high slots on BS's. You would have prolly around 16 to have some kind of defence against frigs and cruisers and still be able to fight a BS to some degree... I know that will never happen. Here is my idea (if someone already havn't posted something similar). BS's have big turret bays (hardpoints) and its obvious that in one turret bay it is possible to fit only one of those huge BS size guns, more just wouldn't fit. But now imagine how stupid does a single small laser looks in that huge turet bay ! If there is so much space why can't I mount more than one small turret there?? Im sure my techincians could somehow manage this crazy idea Would need some balancing but you can: - drop up to 4-8 small turrets (damage output would need most balancing here) of the same kind into one BS size slot (now you sacrificed one high slot but you deal damage with 'one' slot as 1-2 t2 frigs do, and have a tracking/range on that gun, which can actually hit a fast frig sometimes. -drop ut to 2-4 medium turrtes of the same kind... And now we have simple 'point defence'. Also there would have to be a limit (or maybe not) to the amount of 'point defence' slots. Depending on the DOT (so the big guns still would have higher DOT than the 'point defence' ones). A BS which can sacrifice one high slot, can now fight effectively against 1-2 frigs. More would still kick the c**p out of BS becouse this point defence slot can only target and shoot one ship at a time. Still that BS would only 'sacrificed' one slot, so still would be effective in combat. ___ My Tech2 BPC market clicky WTS: Providence freighters (1,4B) WTB: R&D Character clicky WTB: +5 WIL Implant
Nifel	Posted - 2005.09.22 10:16:00 - [106] Originally by: Loka Edited by: Loka on 22/09/2005 08:36:35 Edited by: Loka on 22/09/2005 07:55:11 Originally by: ElCapitan you whiny people are forgetting somehting - losing t2 kitted interceptor or assault frig costs almost as much as losing a battleship (insurance costs wise). And nos+web on a battleship will get any smaller ship killed fast. Megathron Platinum = 31 mil 7x 425mm II = 7 * 6mil each = 42mil 2x sensorbooster II + 2x Tracking CPU II = 4x 1mil each = 4 mil 6x Tech 2 dmg mods or Tracking Enhancer = 6x 1mil = 6mil suma sumarum = 31 + 42 + 4 + 6 = 83mil loss on a Tech 2 fitted BS. The BS itself is replaced, but the item and insurance is lost. Now tell me ElCapitan what for ueber commander items you use on your Ceptor to loose 83 mil isk per kill. Even without any Mods, you will loose 31 mil isk insurance. 2 times as much as any ceptor incl fitting. I dunno where everyone is comming up that loosing a BS is void in this game or is no loss at all. Because my wallet would suffer a hard hit each time i would loose such a ship. Insurance payout: 100+ million Netto: 100 - 83 = 17 million over Rough price for a claw with fittings: 10+ million Insurance premium cost: 600k Insurance payout: ~2.5million Netto: 2.5 - 0.6 - 10 = -8.01 million "We wield swords for the sound of laughter that used to be there long ago."

Eris Discordia	Posted - 2005.09.22 10:22:00 - [107] Thread has ran its course, please re read the wise words of Oveur and come to terms with it. I ♥ my pink dreadnought of pwnage You spin me right round, baby.

Farjung	Posted - 2005.09.22 10:22:00 - [108] Originally by: Nifel Originally by: Loka Edited by: Loka on 22/09/2005 08:36:35 Edited by: Loka on 22/09/2005 07:55:11 Originally by: ElCapitan you whiny people are forgetting somehting - losing t2 kitted interceptor or assault frig costs almost as much as losing a battleship (insurance costs wise). And nos+web on a battleship will get any smaller ship killed fast. Megathron Platinum = 31 mil 7x 425mm II = 7 * 6mil each = 42mil 2x sensorbooster II + 2x Tracking CPU II = 4x 1mil each = 4 mil 6x Tech 2 dmg mods or Tracking Enhancer = 6x 1mil = 6mil suma sumarum = 31 + 42 + 4 + 6 = 83mil loss on a Tech 2 fitted BS. The BS itself is replaced, but the item and insurance is lost. Now tell me ElCapitan what for ueber commander items you use on your Ceptor to loose 83 mil isk per kill. Even without any Mods, you will loose 31 mil isk insurance. 2 times as much as any ceptor incl fitting. I dunno where everyone is comming up that loosing a BS is void in this game or is no loss at all. Because my wallet would suffer a hard hit each time i would loose such a ship. Insurance payout: 100+ million Netto: 100 - 83 = 17 million over Rough price for a claw with fittings: 10+ million Insurance premium cost: 600k Insurance payout: ~2.5million Netto: 2.5 - 0.6 - 10 = -8.01 million Eh? You're forgetting the cost of the new battleship in that sum. Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.