EVE Search - Make battleships and battlecruisers worth the warp! 2.0

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Make battleships and battlecruisers worth the warp! 2.0

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Shaklu Relentless Terrorism Already Disbanded 42	Posted - 2015.04.01 14:56:32 - [481] - Quote Rovinia wrote: Why not just give Battleships a Role bonus? Something like "Heavy Reactor" - All bonuses for overloading modules get doubled. That would give these slow ships some more flexibility in "Mexican standoff" situations. You could tank more, be faster or deal more damage (still for a limited amount of time) according to the situation you are in. Battlecruisers on the other side suffer most from the Offgrid-Booster mechanic. If that could get fixed, they would be in a fine place because for their ability to field links in cheap and expendable ships for the fleet. I dunno, I kinda feel like fixing the foundation is a better idea then putting a bandaid on the roof. I would love to see more battlecruisers though, they're cool.
Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4672	Posted - 2015.04.01 15:06:08 - [482] - Quote I have the impression that the BS class needs to be more capital oriented. The cruisers have become the dominant force in sub-caps, and this point seems reinforced with each new update. Battleships don't necessarily need much more additional firepower, but I think they do need a big boost to their EHP. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2405	Posted - 2015.04.01 15:22:11 - [483] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Shaklu wrote: In my opinion Battleship tank and damage should be doubled, or made to be closer to 15-20% of a Dreadnaught. This. This. This. This. This. There is a too big of a gap between Battleship and Carrier/unsieged Dread damage. I think the damage is okay because battleships are way easier to move around and are a lot cheaper than capitals. Maybe they could use a small buff to damage, definitely should out-DPS attack battlecruisers and strategic cruisers though! But I think they should shine with more HP. I'd go for a major increase to battleship HP, at minimum 50% more than current. That will give them an edge as a solid rock that can stick around in a heavy fight. I would have given attack battlecruisers medium weapons. A full rack of 8 mediums with two weapon bonuses would make them plenty competent as an ambush ship. They don't need larges, that just makes them encroach upon battleship utility. A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 101	Posted - 2015.04.01 16:44:36 - [484] - Quote If you want to go non-RAW way, the perfect thing for battleships already exists - it's called Bastion module. A lesser version of it could be devised for tech 1 battleship use. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2015.04.03 22:45:12 - [485] - Quote Rovinia wrote: Why not just give Battleships a Role bonus? Something like "Heavy Reactor" - All bonuses for overloading modules get doubled. Very gud idea - borrow it from T2 Transport haulers. In their case it's, "100% bonus to the benefits of overheating Afterburners, Microwarpdrives, Local Repair Modules, and Resistance Modules". Module type can be limited to DPS, tank-related modules. Perhaps a Typhoon/Tempest could get prop-related OH benefit bonuses. Along with that, a Battleship role bonus of "20-30% reduction in module heat damage amount taken." or something. Thoughts? I personally think it's a super-clean, slick, non-OP, non-raw Solution. P.S. I'm not a Nanite Repair Paste manufacturer. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Humang Awakened Ones 86	Posted - 2015.04.04 10:42:32 - [486] - Quote I agree with the more DPS & TANK for battleships opinion, and I really like the overheat role bonus in there just a flat bonus to overheat amount/duration or some kind of racial alignment. It is kind of silly that in most instances its better to rock a T3 for tank/dps than a BS (looking at you prote) AFK cloaking thread Summary - Provided by Paikis Good Post Etiquette - Provided by CCP Grayscale
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1115	Posted - 2015.04.04 14:04:20 - [487] - Quote in terms of the on grid boosting thing, well when they can, they will fix that, it will boost combat bc's usefulness a little, especially if they remove neutral boosting from war dec's. they would also benefit if they moved attack bc's into there own T2 class thus opening up those 4 slots for half of the combat bc's, especially useful for the combat bc's that aren't very tank based like the cane, brutix, harbinger and maybe drake could get away from the brick role into a more chunky caracal role. i also think reducing the sig radius of bc's would help bring them closer too cruisers much like they are doing with the warp speed buff. it seems too me that cruisers have now reached a place at least at the top end of them that they have been overbuffed a little, HAC's low sig combined with high T2 resists need scaling back a bit, some have higher dps than most bc's have which is just plain wrong. 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 sentries. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 490	Posted - 2015.04.06 08:31:06 - [488] - Quote Cross posting from the battlecruiser warp speed change thread In response to the battlecruiser warp speed change: A great start, and it makes them much more competitive, as it is much more than an 8% speed increase over medium warps due to the way acceleration is tied to warp speed. I also think that the biggest issue with battlecruisers is a slightly higher than warranted sticker combined with a oversized mass and sig, with a generous agility modifier. All of these are fcould be fixed with fairly minor changes that break few fits, but make CBCs more competative I would love to see something about the following: 5% or so mineral reduction cut the sig to around the 200 mark for CBCs, with about the same split from a base sig of 250. drop maybe 5-10 sig on the ABCs as well, for a much smaller change to these ships which currently perform much better. Drop the mass about 7% and tweak agility to compensate, which makes nanos and other agility equipment more effective, as well as 10mn props. nudge base lock range and scan resolution up a touch for CBCs, because they can't take advantage of the MMJD without using a mid scripted for lock range or 2 lows even with perfect skill, and should have more room for avionics considering the much greater size with only moderately more fittings and weapons. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 494	Posted - 2015.04.06 14:37:55 - [489] - Quote Humang wrote: I agree with the more DPS & TANK for battleships opinion, and I really like the overheat role bonus in there just a flat bonus to overheat amount/duration or some kind of racial alignment. It is kind of silly that in most instances its better to rock a T3 for tank/dps than a BS (looking at you prote) I'm hoping the t3 balance pass that is incoming, on top of the quick and dirty tank nerfs for everything but the loki, make the last statement untrue. That said, the DPS part of the DPS + TANK option is complicated to do in a balanced fashion, as adding more DPS to the large guns also pushes more damage onto the ABCs, while adding more damage bonii or stepping up existing damage bonuses makes some ships ridiculous. It may also skew PVE figures even, which while secondary to PVP balance, is a moderate concern for any raw DPS increases. This is why my favored approach to a balance pass is mostly skewed towards agility, cap, avionics (sensors and CPU) and a bit more tank, with very little increase in raw DPS, but more ability to go without SeBos and such. All of these would make battleships more dynamic once they land on grid, without making them retardedly face melting. A bit of the above with a cut to mineral requirements of a few percent, and they come much closer to the isk for effectiveness curve for the t1 hulls, and the faction hulls are a hair over at the current lows. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4323	Posted - 2015.04.06 15:17:35 - [490] - Quote James Baboli wrote: This is why my favored approach to a balance pass is mostly skewed towards agility, cap, avionics (sensors and CPU) and a bit more tank, with very little increase in raw DPS, but more ability to go without SeBos and such. All of these would make battleships more dynamic once they land on grid, without making them retardedly face melting. A bit of the above with a cut to mineral requirements of a few percent, and they come much closer to the isk for effectiveness curve for the t1 hulls, and the faction hulls are a hair over at the current lows. Yes, but this breaks the cruiser meta game - so we know it's not going to happen. Battleships (and battlecruisers) suffer in so many areas for so many reasons that they need a complete overhaul from the ground up, which includes everything you listed in addition to a massive overhaul on large weapon damage application. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Nikk Narrel Moonlit Bonsai 4682	Posted - 2015.04.06 15:42:39 - [491] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: James Baboli wrote: This is why my favored approach to a balance pass is mostly skewed towards agility, cap, avionics (sensors and CPU) and a bit more tank, with very little increase in raw DPS, but more ability to go without SeBos and such. All of these would make battleships more dynamic once they land on grid, without making them retardedly face melting. A bit of the above with a cut to mineral requirements of a few percent, and they come much closer to the isk for effectiveness curve for the t1 hulls, and the faction hulls are a hair over at the current lows. Yes, but this breaks the cruiser meta game - so we know it's not going to happen. Battleships (and battlecruisers) suffer in so many areas for so many reasons that they need a complete overhaul from the ground up, which includes everything you listed in addition to a massive overhaul on large weapon damage application. I think this question needs to be asked, before more suggestions for the BC / BS classes are placed here. Considering the range and scope, dominated by cruisers at the large end of the sub-cap models, is there really any meaningful room left for the BS class? This assumes that the BC class can survive purely as support, assuming they are not going to be in demand in other ways for sub-caps. I believe the BS class may need to define a new area for themselves, possibly one not represented in the game now. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 159	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:04:16 - [492] - Quote Another elegant proposed solution to BC-BS survival in cruiser meta: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4323	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:04:57 - [493] - Quote Nikk Narrel wrote: I think this question needs to be asked, before more suggestions for the BC / BS classes are placed here. Considering the range and scope, dominated by cruisers at the large end of the sub-cap models, is there really any meaningful room left for the BS class? This assumes that the BC class can survive purely as support, assuming they are not going to be in demand in other ways for sub-caps. I believe the BS class may need to define a new area for themselves, possibly one not represented in the game now. It's a valid question. Due to their associated cost, their lack of damage application (not raw DPS), sensor ability (both offensive and defensive), mobility and speed - outside of PvE I'm not sure where they fit in now (since SOV is going in a different direction). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 494	Posted - 2015.04.06 21:59:08 - [494] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Another elegant proposed solution to BC-BS survival in cruiser meta: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread Interesting. I like the concept, and will say more about it in that thread, but the weapons are proven to be fairly good in total on the ABCs. I'm not sure about repurposing the existing turrets, but as the usage is so low, this might be the right answer. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 176	Posted - 2015.04.06 22:02:53 - [495] - Quote Well, Rapids exist - why not this. Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png ( -í° -£-û -í°)
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 494	Posted - 2015.04.06 22:14:18 - [496] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Well, Rapids exist - why not this. Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png I agree with this idea, I like this idea and support this idea. I prefer to create new dedicated modules for this idea though, and otherwise differ with you on how it should be implemented for best results. I don't think it negates the need for a comprehensive look at the stats and bonuses applied to the hulls themselves. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 621	Posted - 2015.04.07 01:12:50 - [497] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Well, Rapids exist - why not this. Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png I wouldn't mind if battleships guns would get changed to 275m signature resolution instead of 400m they have now and a 50% tracking buff and put it on SiSi and see what happens. If you don't like it, don't release it. Another gimmick could be that 100mn mwds would be immune to scrams so that at least some battleships could at least try to slingshot something smaller. signature
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 508	Posted - 2015.04.14 20:14:47 - [498] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Well, Rapids exist - why not this. Double standards all around: Droneboats with 1-3 more bonuses per hull vs. other turret ships, missile ships with RL/HMLs, while turrets enjoy 400m/125m sig res. Really explains this graph of PvP damage done by shiptype, segmented by weapon types - http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png I wouldn't mind if battleships guns would get changed to 275m signature resolution instead of 400m they have now and a 50% tracking buff and put it on SiSi and see what happens. If you don't like it, don't release it. I would love to see this and other similar major game balance changes that require find and replace level of database changes tested on the public test server fairly often. I may even propose such a thing. Quote: Another gimmick could be that 100mn mwds would be immune to scrams so that at least some battleships could at least try to slingshot something smaller. No. Consistency in mechanics is a good thing. Maybe, maybe, a variant T2 similar to polarized weapons with this sort of thing for a drawback, but not straight up immunity to x because size y. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4350	Posted - 2015.04.14 22:40:02 - [499] - Quote Well, seeing as how Battlecruisers and Command Ships are getting a warp speed bump - I don't see why we couldn't also hike the warp speed of Battleships a bit as well. GÇó T1 and Faction Battleships ... 2.0 AU/s -+ 2.2 AU/s GÇó T2 Marauders and Black Ops ... 2.2 AU/s -+ 2.5 AU/s GÇó Nestor ... 2.5 AU/s -+ 2.7 AU/s GÇó Machariel ... 3.0 AU/s (no change) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 510	Posted - 2015.04.15 01:28:17 - [500] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Well, seeing as how Battlecruisers and Command Ships are getting a warp speed bump - I don't see why we couldn't also hike the warp speed of Battleships a bit as well. GÇó T1 and Faction Battleships ... 2.0 AU/s -+ 2.2 AU/s GÇó T2 Marauders and Black Ops ... 2.2 AU/s -+ 2.5 AU/s GÇó Nestor ... 2.5 AU/s -+ 2.7 AU/s GÇó Machariel ... 3.0 AU/s (no change) Maybe. maybe. Still my least favorite way to fix them, but this is mostly because I do have ascendancies in already. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp

Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 408	Posted - 2015.04.22 14:24:01 - [501] - Quote Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, even RR. Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats. Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1713	Posted - 2015.04.22 14:48:10 - [502] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons. This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR. Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats. Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc. ...and then create a Highslot Stasis Webifier with 85% velocity reduciton, 11 km range and 1375 MW PG requirement - only fittable to glorious Battleships. The last part may not be necessary. A serpentis hull giving 50% bonus to that 85% would send your ship flying backward...
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 408	Posted - 2015.04.22 14:51:44 - [503] - Quote is a fair point - can be left at 60%. I miss the standard 90% webs Do focus on the main proposal, though. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 542	Posted - 2015.04.22 19:01:01 - [504] - Quote I'll make a big update to the public spreadsheets and post a summary here in a couple days. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4359	Posted - 2015.04.22 19:33:57 - [505] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Maybe. maybe. Still my least favorite way to fix them, but this is mostly because I do have ascendancies in already. As do I, but I think bringing the warp speed a bit closer to cruisers would solve at least one interim aspect of Battleships. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 543	Posted - 2015.04.22 20:00:08 - [506] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: James Baboli wrote: Maybe. maybe. Still my least favorite way to fix them, but this is mostly because I do have ascendancies in already. As do I, but I think bringing the warp speed a bit closer to cruisers would solve at least one interim aspect of Battleships. I really don't. If brawling was the main meta, or they were all balanced around 150m hull cost (with currentish mineral prices) or they could all lock out to 100km with max skills and no mods, maybe. as it is, they aren't particularly competative for their price. They are outdone in many aspects, especially in the realms of: Tanking T3s mount similar raw HP numbers as most armor battleships if double or triple plated, and have much better mitigation. HACs can be pushed to similar raw HP numbers as battleships, and again have much better mitigation. RAW DPS: Ishtars can about match dominix damage. Brawler HACs in general come fairly close to BS damage levels if shield fit, or lightly tanked in armor. Damage Application: Most battleships can't apply full DPS to PVP fit cruisers without landing a scram, 2x web and 2-5xTP. Those that can are what is still mostly used, like domis. Utlity: Except for neuts, you get more EWAR on field for the same isk with cruisers or frigates, and better ability to apply it where it needs to be (better agility to catch or keep tackle, better lock speed to apply longer range ewar like damps or ECM). Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 419	Posted - 2015.04.23 10:37:20 - [507] - Quote What James said is correct. Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons. This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR. Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats. Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc. What do you people think of this idea? // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 642	Posted - 2015.04.23 11:34:08 - [508] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: What James said is correct. Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Some random thought on increasing BS utility/survivability: Halve the number of Turrets/Launcher Hardpoints and compensate with a Damage Role bonus. This is being done to T3 Destroyers, albeit for different reasons. This frees up the precious Highslots for Neuts, Smartbombs, better OH performance, even RR. Success stories: Marauders, Nightmare, Bhaalgorn, and all Battleship drone boats. Tempest would have a total of 3 Turrets, Apoc - 4, etc. What do you people think of this idea? No that doesn't solve the problems they are facing. As I said before, if you hit nothing no amount of dps will help you. And since battleships got reduced in performance and doubled in price they are not worth undocking. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 419	Posted - 2015.04.23 12:33:41 - [509] - Quote Yes, I agree that it started way back with the change from 90% to 60% Stasis webifiers, among other things. However, more slots for Neuts would render Battleships more effective, as seen in the case of drone boats which don't have to sacrifice DPS for this most essential utility tool against cruisers. A Highslot battleship-only Stasis webifier with Officer web ranges would also be a pleasant addition. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 759	Posted - 2015.04.23 17:31:24 - [510] - Quote Moving probes around quick and efficiently is a fun part of the minigame and a part where I can outdo my competition due to my higher/lower player skill, be it combat scanning or scanning for cosmic sigs. I dont want it gone, -1 RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.