Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts The Harlequin's
354
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 11:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
I find it sad to see battleships are condemned as Lvl 4 mission runners or 0.0 huge fleet battles. Or more precisely, that battleships have all but, no use in small gang warfare.
On the other hand I understand the need for all ships to have a use from game perspective. (Although I think there should be a thing like e-war resistance according to size, like guns only the other way around, bigger ships being stronger in e-war resistance than smaller ships where smaller ships have easier application than bigger ships, but this isnGÇÖt about that)
I think I might have a idea to make Battleships more interesting for small warfare and make fleets more diverse, without directly affecting solo PVE and huge fleets battles, in a way becomes unbalanced.
Looking at Naval fleets, battleships where kings of the sea, until the arrival of the modern aircraft carriers, though usually surrounded by a fleet of frigates, cruisers and the like for protection and support. Unfortunately this doesnGÇÖt work in EVE, (you could come an end bringing logies, Recons, t3, command ships ect, but thay will make the battleship obsolete) though I what if we could mimic the effect in game.
What IGÇÖm suggesting is a bit like fleet bonuses and or command links, though in this case it should be a bonus, towards your Battleship
I suggest creating a group of modules each for a class of ships, (frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battle cruiser, leaving capitals out for now) that gives a boost to a battleship in the same fleet, within a certain area (on grid would probably be easiest, within a few kilometres better). There should probably a max number of ships that can support a single battleship or a stacking bonus per ship of the same category.
LetGÇÖs say a Battleship got a application bonus because of a frigate in itGÇÖs group that gives it a bonus, or getting a capacitator bonus from a battles cruiser (both because they sacrifice a slot) to name an example. It would get more interesting to bring a battleship in a small group, make it more interesting to have more diverse fleet lay-outs and donGÇÖt effect solo mission running and will be to fragile for Capital fleet battles.
I havenGÇÖt worked this through past the initial idea face, but IGÇÖm interested to see if it has some backing from the community and or devs, or if someone sees a major flaw and pushes it in the trash can within seconds.
|
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
292
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 11:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hmm, I find it sad that Stealth Bombers are reduced to running with Cov Ops and are used for AFK Cloaking, bombing runs and plexing...
Battleships are over used in blobs (which are pvp btw) and you want to boost them for small gang pvp cause it makes them not better at blobbing ????.
And there are enough pilots out there using BS effectively in solo and samll gang PvP. If you don't and your 'statistics' don't show it, how sad. BS are good as they are and don-¦t you dare meddle with fleetboost
Cheers Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Edwin McAlister
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
30
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 11:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
im sorry sir, but i have to disagree with you
the biggest reason we dont see more battleships , is simply cost to build them / cost to buy them
just looking at tritanium alone to build the following ships: Dominix = 11.5 million tritanium Vexor = 600k tritanium Tristan = 23k tritanium
i could build 500 tristan's for every 1 Dominix roughly, or almost 20 vexor's for that same Dominix
as for market in buying them, Dominix goes for 190 mil give or take a bit depending on were ya go Vexor goes for 10 mil give or take Tristan goes for 500k give or take
i could have over 380 tristans for 1 Dominix, or 19 vexor's for 1 dominix
IF they were to cut the mineral cost in manufactureing battleships in half, then yea, might see more battleships lets also not forget the costs in fitting a battleship vs that of a frigate or cruiser, even the modules require vastly more minerals compared to their smaller counterparts |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
292
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 12:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
The cost of course plays a role too, for some maybe the only role. I on the other hand don't consider the costs for a ship for solo or small gang PvP, since I am not doing it regularly and count the ship as 'loss' the moment I start thinking about fitting it for PvP.
That's the reason I accumulate wealth anyway, not to have to look at the price tag of a soon-to-be-lost ship. I fly what I want, always, and the pricetag is not included in that (my) evaluation. Fun is, purpose is, encounters are and mates are.
I see the price as a hinderance for some, maybe more then just some, but not for all. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Edwin McAlister
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
30
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 12:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
true to some extent,
my main pvp experience was over with RvB for about a month, i loved it, (IRL military duties prevented me from continueing that for a bit however).. not uncommon for player to burn thru a dozen ships or more in 1 night
i would love to see more battleship brawls in small scale of 10-20 ships per side, but the cost to do it more then once a month for the average casual part time player eh, |
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts The Harlequin's
354
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 12:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Hmm, I find it sad that Stealth Bombers are reduced to running with Cov Ops and are used for AFK Cloaking, bombing runs and plexing...
A stealth Bomber is a specialized (T2) ship, don't think that is a proper ship to compare with an entire ship category.
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Battleships are over used in blobs (which are pvp btw) and you want to boost them for small gang pvp cause it makes them not better at blobbing ????. Cheers
because the strength is depended on the number of smaller ships supporting it,( and sacrificing a fit slot for it) much less need for that when blobbing, than when you are roaming.
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:And there are enough pilots out there using BS effectively in solo and samll gang PvP. If you don't and your 'statistics' don't show it, how sad. BS are good as they are and don-¦t you dare meddle with fleetboost Cheers
I must admit that my conclusions come from observations from my self and other people here and online, I hardly ever see a battleship in a small gang.
As for the fleet boost, as I see it, it would work along side the fleet boost. |
Edwin McAlister
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
30
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 12:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
the fleet boost idea might cause issues... already enough of the community is ranting and raveing at times about on grid / off grid boosts from commandships (or T3 cruisers)
want more battleships to blow up, gotta find a way to make them more economical to be blown up,
it simply comes down to money and resources for the majority |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
871
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 13:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
perhaps adding links too T1 battleships might work .. much like T1 battlecruisers do .. but really T1 command links need too be a shorter train for younger pilots .. by the time you train links normally you can fly a command ship Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
292
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 13:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote: A stealth Bomber is a specialized (T2) ship, don't think that is a proper ship to compare with an entire ship category.
..because the strength is depended on the number of smaller ships supporting it,( and sacrificing a fit slot for it) much less need for that when blobbing, than when you are roaming.
Well, the first was just a hint against intended purpose and use. Just because you don't see many, or assumed manby aren't used in PvP, doesn't mean BS have to be used in all PvP circumstances. If they don't show the right features for the players needs. One other issue might be navigational flexibility and that translates to warp speed, align time etc. I have seen a lot of fleets where a BS would have to fit 2 warp speed rigs to be allowed in, which would screw too much with their fitting.
Its more then just price or power projection, its the syle of the fleet, purpose of the roam, location etc... more things to consider then just, 'hey, they are used less - must be weakness'.
And to get to the blob, ecverything that will support 1-2 BS in a small gang via frigs etc, as suggested, will be multiplied by blob using just a few frigs for that exact purpose which leads again to the "1 ship boosting 20% of 255 opther ships" fleet boost issue; nhancing that already as unbalanced perceived effect.
Quote:As for the fleet boost, as I see it, it would work along side the fleet boost. Which ius the big problem as mentioned.
Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts The Harlequin's
354
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 14:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote: One other issue might be navigational flexibility and that translates to warp speed, align time etc. I have seen a lot of fleets where a BS would have to fit 2 warp speed rigs to be allowed in (and those were pure cruiser fleets, not even friges beyond tackle), which would screw too much with their fitting.
Its more then just price or power projection, its the style of the fleet, purpose of the roam, location etc... more things to consider then just, 'hey, they are used less - must be weakness'.
That is exactly why I'm suggesting this, navigational flexibility is one of the main issues with battleships and small gang warfare. I don't think price has to much to do with it, if small gangs can afford falcons and the like they can afford a battleship.
in the vision I have it would serve the fleet to bring a battleship for it being the boosted ship in there fleet, call it a command ship.
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote: And to get to the blob, everything that will support 1-2 BS in a small gang via frigs etc, as suggested, will be multiplied by blobs using just a few frigs for that exact purpose which leads again to the "1 ship boosting 20% of 255 opther ships" fleet boost issue; enhancing that already as unbalanced perceived effect.
I don't think I have made clear to you what I mean. the frigate would use a fitting slot (haven't thought about which one) for a module that links to 1 specific battleship in the fleet, giving it a certain bonus.
it would mean that 5 or 6 ships are needed to boost 1 battleship to its full potential, which would mean 6 other mods they don't have. so which and how many ships you would have sacrificing a slot for a mod that boosts the one battleship would be entirely dependent on the purpose and the style of the fleet.
|
|
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 14:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Hmm, I find it sad that Stealth Bombers are reduced to running with Cov Ops and are used for AFK Cloaking, bombing runs and plexing... Battleships are over used in blobs (which are pvp btw) and you want to boost them for small gang pvp cause it makes them not better at blobbing ????. And there are enough pilots out there using BS effectively in solo and samll gang PvP. If you don't and your 'statistics' don't show it, how sad. BS are good as they are and don-¦t you dare meddle with fleetboost Cheers
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but when was the last time you saw a blob? Battleships are not over used, they're barely used at all. The only battleships that see consistent use are drone boats and blops. I've got a feeling that if you could blops with a cruiser sized hull too you'd never see battleships used. Ishtars, crows, lokis, archons, and harpies are over used.
Back to the OP the BS doesn't need a boost from having other ships on grid. Forcing fleet diversity in this manner is artificial, and people will come to resent having to do it. With the current system there's a clear choice when bringing a limited number of people to a field and what benefits can be had by it already. There are already force multipliers with benefits and drawbacks to their use.
Battleships just need a bit more strength in the category that they should be strong. DPS, tank, and endurance is what they're supposed to bring to the field but they really don't bring enough to justify their slow lock times, speed, warp speed, poor sig tank, and poor tracking. |
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
578
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Large ships like battleships need support from smaller ships. This makes them good in large fleets and bad in small gangs. Different hull sizes have different roles. You don't raid an ESS with battleships and you don't engage a defended POS with frigates.
Now take a guess which type of PVP is more common these days (and more fun) with no major nullsec wars going on. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:Large ships like battleships need support from smaller ships. This makes them good in large fleets and bad in small gangs. Different hull sizes have different roles. You don't raid an ESS with battleships and you don't engage a defended POS with frigates.
Now take a guess which type of PVP is more common these days (and more fun) with no major nullsec wars going on.
You take down POSs with dreads and carriers, you do all of the above with ishtars. You Fight wars with ishtars and archons. Battleships don't fill the role they're intended to. Moreover, archons don't need the support of smaller ships. |
SanSoucis
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
forcing other players to take ships on the field just so they can use their boosting modules so the battleship can become uber, without any other uses for their ships would be bad imho. every ship should have its own niche in the battlefield but eve is a really old game where year after year a lot of ships have been added just so "because we need to give something new to the players" and a lot of "balance" has been brought just as kee-jerk reaction, there's no grand vision about how every single ship should merge and have its place in the game anymore. |
LT Alter
Ouroboros Research and Development
124
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 16:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
Battleships are useful in small gang pvp. I use them for small gang stuff all the time. Examples? Geddon is a game changer for a small engagement, hyperion really doesn't work outside of a small gang engagement, scorp is another huge force multiplier for a small gang engagement, typhoon is plenty useful in small gang too.
This idea of yours is not only not needed (and based on a bad assumption) but would create problems on a large scale. Fleet bonuses are already controversial as it is, there is good reason for it too. They are huge force multipliers, and adding them to battleships is just a down right bad idea. |
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us
90
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 17:58:00 -
[16] - Quote
Battleships. Yeah they're expensive but HACs are too. They're slow, and the only benefit they have over HACs anymore is a little bit more tank. Out DPSed by HACs/ABCs, outrun by anything smaller, Worse damage application than anything but ABCs. Really they're basically useless against anything but themselves. Perhaps you could have some smaller ships go and lock down a couple frigs with webs, and paint the hell out of the thing... but you might as well have just brought a HAC instead. Also due to their high cost and low mobility, they're much less likely to be able to get away if someone bridges a interdictor or something onto your fleet. Most of them have literally no way of taking out interceptors once their (unbonused) drones go down (yes domis, i know). If 2 fleets come across eachother, 1 has a couple of BSes w/Hacs/logi, and 1 has all Hacs/logi. The HAC team will just focus down the escorts with their superior application, and leave the BSes for last. The whole time the BSes ineffectually attempt to damage their attackers.
Also there already is gear to boost a battleship. You could paint targets for them, or you could fire up some of the most rarely used mods, tracking links, they do infact exist, but even putting 5 of them on a battleship won't bring its damage application anywhere near a single HAC. Honestly, these "balance passes" over the past couple years just seem to have been buffing the small hulls, and when the BS pass came along, there wasn't any equivalent buff to the hulls. RHMLs might be nice if HMs weren't garbage. the socalled "smaller higher tracking" guns that each lineup has (usually the smallest caliber in each size class) are worthless because the slightly higher tracking doesn't offset the fact that you're under damaging compared to T1 cruisers probably. Drones are great, but only a couple ships can use them effectively. It would be nice if a couple BSes had bonuses for med guns (I mean we have BCs with big guns, why not a bs with little guns) so you might suprise a fleet by having a BS with great application. But that'll likely never happen.
Hurricane and Harbinger's bonuses used to work on small guns didn't they, thought they did, small arty cane was actually pretty great to throw into a BC gang because it would melt ceptors. |
Antillie Sa'Kan
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
579
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:You take down POSs with dreads and carriers, you do all of the above with ishtars. You Fight wars with ishtars and archons. Battleships don't fill the role they're intended to. Moreover, archons don't need the support of smaller ships. This is more of a problem with Archons and Ishtars than a problem with battleships. Also battleships are perfectly capable of taking down a POS if you don't want to get dropped by large capital fleets looking for dread kills. Not everyone is part of one of the two big coalitions and thus able to (relatively) safely field dreads for every POS bash. |
CW Itovuo
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
31
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 01:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
It's all about the speed, or lack thereof.
CCP went Jonestown Cool-Aid too far w/ the changes to warp speed. RIP Battleships.
Battleships are now relegated to home system use or cyno/jumpbridge range.
Roaming? Like going to the dentist for a root canal and they're fresh out of Lidocaine.
Mid-Grade Ascendancy implants aren't too bad pricewise, but for the same iskies, I'll always use a Snake or Slave set. Warp-faster implants don't do **** when you're engaged in combat.
I choose not to gimp my Battleships fit w/ Hyperspacial Velocity Do-Dads - doing so belies the purpose of said ship, which is bring overwhelming tank/DPS to a fight. |
GreenSeed
1103
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 02:13:00 -
[19] - Quote
its all about gun signature... 400 sig guns are terrible, they are also terrible on pve, but people will be people and they love playing battleship captain. |
Emma Muutaras
State War Academy Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 02:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
the reason why we (my corp/alliance) don't use battleships is a simple
1: Unless its a drone boat you struggle to apply full dps on anything smaller than a cruiser.
2. There massive sig makes them take full damage from just about everything which kinda negates the larger tank they can fit
3. There to god dam slow 2au/s warp speed along with the time to slow down/speed up i mean dam a Iteron mark v warps faster
4. takes forever to lock targets, unless you add sensor boosters which if you do your using a mid slot that could have been used for something else
so the question becomes why use a battleship when i can grab a Ishtar which can fit a battleship sized weapon that can hit stuff (sentry drones). has a much lower sig so can negate a lot of the damage through sig/speed tanking true its Ehp is lower but hey with the ability to sig/speed tank the effective tank is probably similar to a battleship that takes full damage from everything. Is a lot faster both in terms of warp speed and non warp speed. can lock targets quite a bit faster than a battleship.
so again i ask why would i want to fly a battleship (even ratting i find a Ishtar a lot more effective) |
|
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
41
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:51:00 -
[21] - Quote
Emma Muutaras wrote:the reason why we (my corp/alliance) don't use battleships is a simple
1: Unless its a drone boat you struggle to apply full dps on anything smaller than a cruiser.
2. There massive sig makes them take full damage from just about everything which kinda negates the larger tank they can fit
3. There to god dam slow 2au/s warp speed along with the time to slow down/speed up i mean dam a Iteron mark v warps faster
4. takes forever to lock targets, unless you add sensor boosters which if you do your using a mid slot that could have been used for something else
so the question becomes why use a battleship when i can grab a Ishtar which can fit a battleship sized weapon that can hit stuff (sentry drones). has a much lower sig so can negate a lot of the damage through sig/speed tanking true its Ehp is lower but hey with the ability to sig/speed tank the effective tank is probably similar to a battleship that takes full damage from everything. Is a lot faster both in terms of warp speed and non warp speed. can lock targets quite a bit faster than a battleship.
so again i ask why would i want to fly a battleship (even ratting i find a Ishtar a lot more effective)
The State War Academy / Caldari state doesn't use battleships!? |
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
41
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 06:24:00 -
[22] - Quote
But on a more practical note, I think the idea of battleships being like they are in real life is a pretty idea. Sadly, the pretty idea doesn't really fit the context of eve very well, in my opinion.
The single driving reason why battleships are lesser used in small gang warfare is logistics boats (which are nonexistent in naval warfare). In a small gang, a battleship is no stronger than a cruiser, because neither a ship with 50k ehp nor a ship with 200k EHP will die, as long as their logistics can support them. This fact alone is why the conscious gang of pilots chooses smaller ships: why use a slow, expensive ship, when a fast, cheap ship will perform just as well?
This is also, of course, the very same reason why battleships are more useful in larger fleet battles. When you scale up, eventually the incoming damage becomes so great that a large buffer is required to give logistics enough time to lock you and land reps.
Thus, your potential solution does not address the issue, it simply implements a kind of "magic" in an attempt to circumvent it. BUT, I'm not entirely sure the issue is as present as you think it is. What would make more sense to increase the use of battleships in small gang warfare is the increase of potential of battleship local tank. CCP has made (successful!) efforts to implement this recently, the most notable being bastion. Even without bastion, a hyperion is a force of its own in a small gang.
But, that's only half the battle. Ideally, a true battleship in the pretty idea of a naval battleship is the ability to support and carry a fleet. A battleship should be the center of gravity of a fleet, and the driving force. In actuality, this already exists in eve, and it's the capitals in a battleship fleet. And it's the supers in a capital fleet. And it's the titans in a super fleet.
So yeah. True battleships exist in eve. They're just not battleships. That's my dissertation for this evening. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1533
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:05:00 -
[23] - Quote
Edwin McAlister wrote:im sorry sir, but i have to disagree with you
the biggest reason we dont see more battleships , is simply cost to build them / cost to buy them
just looking at tritanium alone to build the following ships: Dominix = 11.5 million tritanium Vexor = 600k tritanium Tristan = 23k tritanium
i could build 500 tristan's for every 1 Dominix roughly, or almost 20 vexor's for that same Dominix
as for market in buying them, Dominix goes for 190 mil give or take a bit depending on were ya go Vexor goes for 10 mil give or take Tristan goes for 500k give or take
i could have over 380 tristans for 1 Dominix, or 19 vexor's for 1 dominix
IF they were to cut the mineral cost in manufactureing battleships in half, then yea, might see more battleships lets also not forget the costs in fitting a battleship vs that of a frigate or cruiser, even the modules require vastly more minerals compared to their smaller counterparts
Completely wrong. We fly ships that are very very rare to be under 1 bil isk.. and we almsot never use battlehsips. Knwo why? BEcause they had their mobility HALVED whenof the warp changes, and received NOTHING in return. THey are 99% of time not worth the extra time it takes to move them "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
293
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:11:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: ... Knwo why? BEcause they had their mobility HALVED whenof the warp changes, and received NOTHING in return. THey are 99% of time not worth the extra time it takes to move them How about a warp acceleration/deceleration rig with -15% T1 and -25% T2 time reduction that only comes in 'Large' ? Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1533
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: ... Knwo why? BEcause they had their mobility HALVED whenof the warp changes, and received NOTHING in return. THey are 99% of time not worth the extra time it takes to move them How about a warp acceleration/deceleration rig with -15% T1 and -25% T2 time reduction that only comes in 'Large' ?
That is dumb (sorry) know why? Because you are just tryign to NEUTRALZIE thing. Make the ships even more euqla an their differences more irrelevant. No that is not the path. The path is REJOICING on the differences. Battleships are slow to move? OK.. great just make them WORTH that speed!!
Your rig idea would just cancel PART of their speed disadvantage at a cost of roughly 50% their EHP (by not usign the rigs properly)... final result a ship that is weaker than anythign that could already fly at 3 au sec.. therefore irrelevant.
The path to balance with diversity is not homogenization.. its specialization with costs (nto monetary cost) balanced by capabilities. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
248
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:23:00 -
[26] - Quote
It's a bit radical, but why not just let them fly at 3AU/s? And BCs too.
Far as I'm concerned so long as inty/frigates are much quicker, that's good enough for me. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
293
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:33:00 -
[27] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: ... Knwo why? BEcause they had their mobility HALVED whenof the warp changes, and received NOTHING in return. THey are 99% of time not worth the extra time it takes to move them How about a warp acceleration/deceleration rig with -15% T1 and -25% T2 time reduction that only comes in 'Large' ? That is dumb (sorry) know why? Because you are just tryign to NEUTRALZIE thing. Make the ships even more euqla an their differences more irrelevant. No that is not the path. The path is REJOICING on the differences. Battleships are slow to move? OK.. great just make them WORTH that speed!! Your rig idea would just cancel PART of their speed disadvantage at a cost of roughly 50% their EHP (by not usign the rigs properly)... final result a ship that is weaker than anythign that could already fly at 3 au sec.. therefore irrelevant. The path to balance with diversity is not homogenization.. its specialization with costs (nto monetary cost) balanced by capabilities. Hahaha, you said halved and nothing in return, I offer the option to get the 'half' back and you say 'no', op or whatever ... just funny. And as far as I remember, BS have more slots then C and BCs for example, you still gain something over those hulls, even if the rest would be reduced to the same theoretical values-¦-¦. And every implementation that makes them 'worth' the disadvantages, would create more incentive to use them in blobs anyway not a shift to smaller gangs... just to bigger gangs. So back to you.
Just thought I trow it in. No need to reply -¦-¦. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1533
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:36:00 -
[28] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: ... Knwo why? BEcause they had their mobility HALVED whenof the warp changes, and received NOTHING in return. THey are 99% of time not worth the extra time it takes to move them How about a warp acceleration/deceleration rig with -15% T1 and -25% T2 time reduction that only comes in 'Large' ? That is dumb (sorry) know why? Because you are just tryign to NEUTRALZIE thing. Make the ships even more euqla an their differences more irrelevant. No that is not the path. The path is REJOICING on the differences. Battleships are slow to move? OK.. great just make them WORTH that speed!! Your rig idea would just cancel PART of their speed disadvantage at a cost of roughly 50% their EHP (by not usign the rigs properly)... final result a ship that is weaker than anythign that could already fly at 3 au sec.. therefore irrelevant. The path to balance with diversity is not homogenization.. its specialization with costs (nto monetary cost) balanced by capabilities. Hahaha, you said halved and nothing in return, I offer the option to get the 'half' back and you say 'no', op or whatever ... just funny. And as far as I remember, BS have more slots then C and BCs for example, you still gain something over those hulls, even if the rest would be reduced to the same theoretical values-¦-¦. And every implementation that makes them 'worth' the disadvantages, would create more incentive to use them in blobs anyway not a shift to smaller gangs... just to bigger gangs. So back to you. Just thought I trow it in. No need to reply -¦-¦.
if you cannto udnerstand by my anwer why your idea is irrelevant.. then you do nto deserve more attention.
Think the following. the govenrment double your taxes.. and does nto invest anythign in return .. you complain.. they offer you to return about half of that increase back to you.. You get happy with that?
If you get happy with that.. I have some patche s of land in heaven I would like to sell to you. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
293
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:46:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:if you cannto udnerstand by my anwer why your idea is irrelevant.. then you do nto deserve more attention.
Think the following. the govenrment double your taxes.. and does nto invest anythign in return .. you complain.. they offer you to return about half of that increase back to you.. You get happy with that?
If you get happy with that.. I have some patche s of land in heaven I would like to sell to you. Ac/deceleration pre change: 5 sec Ac/deceleration post change: 10 sec Ac/deceleration post change with 2x T2 rigs: 5 sec ..... is my math wrong ?
How do I get half of the double back ? I get all of the double back. Nothing changes except maybe a few % interest lost, assuming I am good at investing. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Shaklu
Mass Effect Enterprises Dark Knights of Eden
7
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 13:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
I wonder how much they would get used if remote repping went away.. I mean.. if there were no logistics, and only local reps, give battleships a nice boost to their tank and repping.. It would be a bit more realistic, and would make battleships really nice.. I don't see that ever ever happening, however :P |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |