| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Foxicity
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
110
   |
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:24:47 -
[1] - Quote
After the recent mobility nerf/buff I've heard many people express that battleships are not as PVP-viable compared to HACs, Command Ships and T3s that apply damage much more flexibly and with greater mobility.
Do you agree or disagree that something is wrong? If you think something is wrong with battleships, what would you change to improve them?
In my limited experience, they seem underutilized by basically everyone. Sometimes I see one playing station games. Whether they have a problem isn't for me alone to decide, but I personally don't want to fly one. I'll kick this off with my own thoughts, but consider these secondary to the larger discussion of battleship PVP viability:
1) The addition of MJDs indicated CCP felt battleship mobility was too low. I don't personally like MJDs, I think they feel cheap. I do acknowledge they make things interesting, but the mechanic just doesn't give me good vibes. You know, "surprise, they got away". I think they need mobility in some other form, but I'm at a loss for exactly how to do that.
2) Battleships with drone damage bonuses can use mediums/lights to efficiently counter frigates and cruisers. With the relative scarcity of battleship-sized targets in my own experience, that leaves large-turret-battleships in an uncomfortable place. If drone battleships can drone-down to hit smaller targets while keeping bonuses, why can't turreted battleships gun-down and keep their bonuses in the same manner? For quick comparison, a small-rail medium-drone Dominix deals 373 paper dps with good drone tracking, whereas a small-rail medium-drone Megathron deals 293 paper dps without bonused tracking from drones or guns. If it were allowed to apply its rate of fire and tracking bonus to small railguns, it would deal 338 paper dps with better application. This is not to say such a change would be balanced, but is intended to highlight the imbalance between drone-battleships and turreted battleships in dealing with medium and small targets.
Please, share your thoughts on battleship viability and my opinions. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
611
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:30:04 -
[2] - Quote
from what i see battle ships are to be used to bash structures caps and other battle ships and not much else
the thing is that we can amass so many people that we can do these things in smaller ships that have more utility
Fuel block colors
|
Antillie Sa'Kan
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
881
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:31:22 -
[3] - Quote
This issues surrounding battleships have more to do with bombs than the fact that battleships are slow. The ability of T3 cruisers to reach battleship sized EHP totals, range, and damage levels while still retaining cruiser sized signature, application, and speed doesn't help either. |
Orange Something
Shadow Garrison
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:41:46 -
[4] - Quote
Battleships definitely need some love.
Between bombers being a thing and the warpspeed changes BSs have been reduced to nothing but PvE boats and structure bashers. Atm, there is no real reason to PvP in a BS when HACs and T3 cruisers exist (aside from smartbombing), and that kinda sucks.
I'd love to suggest a way to bring 'em back into PvP, but I genuinely cannot think of a good idea that would buff them just enough. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3350
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 23:54:21 -
[5] - Quote
What if rather than buffing battleships, bombs got the nerf?
Reduce bomb resistances and EHP so that you can't launch as many at once. |
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp.
Mordus Angels
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:14:36 -
[6] - Quote
For one I'd fix some of the stooopid hull buffs. I'm looking at you maelstrom, and hype
secondly Ishtars and T3s are just better.
give all drone boats a kick in the bandwidth, and and make T3 actually something interesting. or remove them these ships are dumb
thirdly they simply do not do enough DPS to justify their god awful application.
give them more speed, just worse acceleration. and stright op more DeeePS. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:29:54 -
[7] - Quote
T3 cruisers , HAC's, ABC's, some faction cruisers .. there are so many alternatives that under most circumstances are better all round for the task.
solutions
- T3 cruisers need tank and dps nerfs, especially the T2 resists
- HAC's, mainly ishtar and cerberus offer lots of dps and high resists/low sig/good speed mainly ishtar needs the nerfs
- ABC's offer battleship dps at a lower cost with more mobility .. pushed to T2 might help with this and slight dps nerf
- faction cruisers like gila, VNI offer plenty of dps and tank with low sig and mobility.. some nerfs here needed
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/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:51:13 -
[8] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:What if rather than buffing battleships, bombs got the nerf?
Reduce bomb resistances and EHP so that you can't launch as many at once.
Would help a few battleships, but not all. If there weren't bombs apoc, napoc, mega, domis and baddons would probably be more common, but legions, prots and tengus in particular would still be better, while ishtars and eagles would still be a lot more flexible. Shield battleships would still be terrible and armor would really only be useful for total commitment on reinforce timers; if anyone else is using anything faster the fight is theirs to lose as they can just primary dictors and moonwalk off grid. |
Godfrey Silvarna
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
239
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:09:49 -
[9] - Quote
Battleships are used for roles where no other ship to fill that role exists.
For example, in Wormholes the only two battleships you will see in PvP are Armageddon and Bhaalgorn, because no smaller ship does energy neutralizing that well. For every other role in a fleet, there is a cruiser that does it better. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2238
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:28:34 -
[10] - Quote
i know power creep and all, but im more in favour of buffing BS and BC ehp and dps along side some mentioned nerfs.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
|
|
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:32:37 -
[11] - Quote
Foxicity wrote:After the recent mobility nerf/buff I've heard many people express that battleships are not as PVP-viable compared to HACs, Command Ships and T3s that apply damage much more flexibly and with greater mobility.
Do you agree or disagree that something is wrong? If you think something is wrong with battleships, what would you change to improve them?
In my limited experience, they seem underutilized by basically everyone. Sometimes I see one playing station games. Whether they have a problem isn't for me alone to decide, but I personally don't want to fly one. I'll kick this off with my own thoughts, but consider these secondary to the larger discussion of battleship PVP viability:
1) The addition of MJDs indicated CCP felt battleship mobility was too low. I don't personally like MJDs, I think they feel cheap. I do acknowledge they make things interesting, but the mechanic just doesn't give me good vibes. You know, "surprise, they got away". I think they need mobility in some other form, but I'm at a loss for exactly how to do that.
2) Battleships with drone damage bonuses can use mediums/lights to efficiently counter frigates and cruisers. With the relative scarcity of battleship-sized targets in my own experience, that leaves large-turret-battleships in an uncomfortable place. If drone battleships can drone-down to hit smaller targets while keeping bonuses, why can't turreted battleships gun-down and keep their bonuses in the same manner? For quick comparison, a small-rail medium-drone Dominix deals 373 paper dps with good drone tracking, whereas a small-rail medium-drone Megathron deals 293 paper dps without bonused tracking from drones or guns. If it were allowed to apply its rate of fire and tracking bonus to small railguns, it would deal 338 paper dps with better application. This is not to say such a change would be balanced, but is intended to highlight the imbalance between drone-battleships and turreted battleships in dealing with medium and small targets.
Please, share your thoughts on battleship viability and my opinions.
A few thoughts here since you took the time to post. I do agree that t1 battleships are kind of meh for a number of reasons, but I don't think that CCP needs to go so far as to introduce a concept like downgunning or secondary batteries to make them work. A handful of tweaks to their on-grid performance would easily bring them to the point where bombs weren't such a hard counter and HACs weren't such stiff competition. T3s will probably be nerfed, but judging by the t3 destroyers and ishtar tweaks I don't think it's going to be very severe.
Battleships aren't completely useless though; they're still a lot of fun to fly, and if you've got links and implants you can mitigate many of their downsides and use manual piloting to do some truly amazing things. It takes a lot to make them powerful, but if you want to take the time and risk you can bring a lot of power to bear against an opposing gang. Tools that people think of as defensive, like the MJD and neut, can become offensive in the right circumstances, and allow you to line up the perfect shots.
|
Foxicity
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
110
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 01:53:54 -
[12] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:A handful of tweaks to their on-grid performance would easily bring them to the point where bombs weren't such a hard counter and HACs weren't such stiff competition.
Please, go on. What do you think they need? |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 02:31:17 -
[13] - Quote
Foxicity wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:A handful of tweaks to their on-grid performance would easily bring them to the point where bombs weren't such a hard counter and HACs weren't such stiff competition. Please, go on. What do you think they need?
I think for most stats they should probably see a 10-20% increase. Speed, native HP, cap regen, applied or raw dps etc. Endurance is a region that they suffer quite a bit in as they consume cap booster charges extremely fast relative to cruisers or frigates that rely on cap boosters, so I'd like to see a considerable increase in cargo capacity. Shield battleships could use quite a bit more ehp or a reduction in their sig rads, as they're not only extremely vulnerable to bombs, but are very easy to score perfect hits on, and are very hard to rep, even with shield logi landing at the onset of the cycle. It's pretty variable, with some stats only needing a smaller adjustment and others need a slightly larger one. James Baboli has written a pretty good thread where I and others go in to detail about suggestions to improve t1 battleships already, so I won't go in to terrible detail here except to say that I think that any buff should be fairly general, relatively moderate, and across the board.
Even adding enough survivability to endure one more bomb wave, or a enough to survive one or two more seconds under opposing alpha, or enough speed to get out of a bubble two seconds faster is a significant improvement. Bear in mind that they're also just t1 ships
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14686
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:34:51 -
[14] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
- T3 cruisers need tank and dps nerfs, especially the T2 resists
Nerf is inbound in the next "few months".
Harvey James wrote:
- HAC's, mainly ishtar and cerberus offer lots of dps and high resists/low sig/good speed mainly ishtar needs the nerfs
Cerb is fine as the the other HACs. Ishtar requires a nerf in the form of losing the sentry drones.
Harvey James wrote:
- ABC's offer battleship dps at a lower cost with more mobility .. pushed to T2 might help with this and slight dps nerf
ABCs lack the tank.
Harvey James wrote:
- faction cruisers like gila, VNI offer plenty of dps and tank with low sig and mobility.. some nerfs here needed
Ships are fine.
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Would help a few battleships, but not all. If there weren't bombs apoc, napoc, mega, domis and baddons would probably be more common
It takes over 100 bombs to kill our megathron fleet.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14686
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:37:42 -
[15] - Quote
Foxicity wrote:After the recent mobility nerf/buff I've heard many people express that battleships are not as PVP-viable compared to HACs, Command Ships and T3s that apply damage much more flexibly and with greater mobility.
These same people didn't fly BS before the mobility changes. BS have not been in wide use for solo/small gangs since CCP killed the 8 heatsink Geddon and cavalry Raven.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
612
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 05:50:29 -
[16] - Quote
Godfrey Silvarna wrote:Battleships are used for roles where no other ship to fill that role exists.
For example, in Wormholes the only two battleships you will see in PvP are Armageddon and Bhaalgorn, because no smaller ship does energy neutralizing that well. For every other role in a fleet, there is a cruiser that does it better.
you forgot panther but that's probably because he is only on your overview long enough to blap targets of opportunity lol
Fuel block colors
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
The Kadeshi
1158
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 06:50:15 -
[17] - Quote
You can give BS as much love as you want it won't fix the one and only problem they have and which is always going to make them unfeasible in small scale or solo: players. As soon as they see a BS roam around alone, they flock to it and hammer it into the ground with the same vigor and enthusiasm as if it was an expensive capital. |
Claud Tiberius
Fidelas Constans
91
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 06:50:33 -
[18] - Quote
Guys I think you are missing the bigger picture.
Do you see a problem with viability between T1 ships? From frigate to battle ship, they all have their place and generally-speaking, the larger ships dominate the smaller ones.
The same structure is placed within the T2 ship range (with the exception of the Ishtar perhaps, because its OP) thus its not simple to just compare T1 against T2. Although some attributes may be similar between T1 and T2 ships, there are usually many other differences such as costs, bonuses, fitting, contributing skills, etc.
So T1 BS and T2/T3 Cruisers have their place.
I think its more appropriate to ask: Why are T2/T3 Crusiers so popular? The answer to that is:
Well the Ishtar/Tengu is OP.
They're more flexible than Command and Marauder ships.
They're much easier to train than for Command or Marauder ships.
They're much more useful (less specialized) than Command and [much more useful than] Marauder ships.
They're very popular, which means there's more of them on the market, cheaper to buy, easy to fit and more accepted within fleets.
For the most part, EVE is going to stay like that because this is what players want.
If you are still wondering why T1 BS are not as popular as HAC/T3, its because of various reasons, including:
BS are not well accepted in T3/HAC fleets.
BS are risky investments for a battlefields that are populated by T3/HAC fleets (not to mention, Capitals).
So what I would do is improve Marauders and Command ships (or make them more accessible to players) in hoping that it will reduce the number of T3/HAC.
Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.
|
Helios Panala
19
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 12:05:38 -
[19] - Quote
Tier 3 Battleships!
That is the entirety of my "idea" for PvP viable Battleships. |
Gremoxx
The Ostrogoths
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:07:59 -
[20] - Quote
BS are not bad or worse, they are in some cases better than other PvP boats.
Its all down to Cost v usability
The cost of well fitted BS v decent fitted HAC or SC.
Alliance SRP will pay for HAC or SC, it will cost less and you can use HAC on all ops.
Bring down the cost of buying + fitting BS and SRP-¦s will start directing everyone into BS. |
|
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
340
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:18:42 -
[21] - Quote
Buff large remote reps on battleships so everyone uses RR battleship gangs again! :D
In seriousness though, battleships can still be effective. They're just not always the right tool for the job, and that gets them some bad rep, from people using BS when they should have used a T3, or ishtar.
The Law is a point of View
|
Antillie Sa'Kan
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
883
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:32:34 -
[22] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Buff large remote reps on battleships so everyone uses RR battleship gangs again! :D
In seriousness though, battleships can still be effective. They're just not always the right tool for the job, and that gets them some bad rep, from people using BS when they should have used a T3, or ishtar.
The problem is that you should, or at least can, pretty much always use a T3 or Ishtar. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
806
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:34:17 -
[23] - Quote
Make BS hulls immunt to local. They show up on D-scan, but not in local. Their lack of speed and manueverability are balanced by thier showing up on Dscan but not visible in local. They would also need to be overlooked by the jump in the last hour counters that the map displays.
What content this would generate.
Think it through folks. There are just soooo many plusses to this. So many intersting tactics. So many interesting options. Think of the expertise, planning and just everything for hiding your BS hammer fleet from the unsuspecting eyes of your victims. Then, once the hammer falls, the party is on. It's not like you can just race home after an engagement. |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
346
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:38:06 -
[24] - Quote
I think they need some sort of love in form of a rolebonus.
One idea:
"Heavy Reactor" - All bonuses for overloading modules get doubled. Also, 50% more heat damage gets applied. |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
346
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 15:54:23 -
[25] - Quote
...or another rolebonus for Battleship Droneboats: Can use Sentry Drones
Sorry Ishtar pilots, it was fun as long as it lasted. You had your fun and i'm sure it gets borring anyway to fly the same ship again and again and again....  |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
807
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:05:18 -
[26] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Buff large remote reps on battleships so everyone uses RR battleship gangs again! :D
In seriousness though, battleships can still be effective. They're just not always the right tool for the job, and that gets them some bad rep, from people using BS when they should have used a T3, or ishtar.
Here's the deal. When a gang is looking through it's hangar looking for a fleet to go roam with, they go with squishtars. Super squishy tanks, but the average risk averse eve tool just wants to drop his dps and kite out to safety. The problem with a BS is that if you undock in one you could lose it. There is a lot of focus on looking and being 'good' on the kb end of things and not a lot of emphasis on risking stuff and having fun doing it.
Your suggestion to buff RR kind of underlines this. Keep the ship as is and improve its survivability. Your average RR domi ball right now can dominate a comperable size squishtar fleet. Buffing them just unbalances a module and creates different problems. If you increased RR module effectiveness folks won't mothball their squishtars or their T3 and all hop in BS. It's a big slow expensive ship that is easy to hold down once catch you it.
Risk aversion is why BS don't see more use. There are just so many ships w/ greater survivability and mobility out there. Examining the standard cloaky wh T3 fleet. Their dps is borderline pathetic, BUT they are easy to keep alive w/ the 5 guardians/bassi that came along for the ride. Folks aren't going to just give that up.
Ishtars are picked over BS because they can drop sentries and run. Take the sentries away and they become a balanced HAC and they will return to normal status. T3 monster tank w/ molehill sig radius is why they get the nod over BS.
Buffing BS RR would just unbalance other parts of the game. It won't encourage BS fleets to become popular. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:04:00 -
[27] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
- T3 cruisers need tank and dps nerfs, especially the T2 resists
Nerf is inbound in the next "few months". Harvey James wrote:
- HAC's, mainly ishtar and cerberus offer lots of dps and high resists/low sig/good speed mainly ishtar needs the nerfs
Cerb is fine as the the other HACs. Ishtar requires a nerf in the form of losing the sentry drones. Harvey James wrote:
- ABC's offer battleship dps at a lower cost with more mobility .. pushed to T2 might help with this and slight dps nerf
ABCs lack the tank. Harvey James wrote:
- faction cruisers like gila, VNI offer plenty of dps and tank with low sig and mobility.. some nerfs here needed
Ships are fine.
ishtar should keep sentries otherwise it becomes too samey as gila, smallerbay. reduced bonuses, specific damage bonuses too heavies and sentries at 7.5% are better options.
ABC's do lack the tank.. but the battleship dps they put out reduces the need for battleships too be used (point of the thread)
VNI and gila putting out 900dps or more also makes using battleships much less desirable..
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/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Juan Mileghere
Incident Command
Southern Star Dominion
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:12:03 -
[28] - Quote
Gremoxx wrote:BS are not bad or worse, they are in some cases better than other PvP boats.
Its all down to Cost v usability
The cost of well fitted BS v decent fitted HAC or SC.
Alliance SRP will pay for HAC or SC, it will cost less and you can use HAC on all ops.
Bring down the cost of buying + fitting BS and SRP-¦s will start directing everyone into BS.
I think that most BSes are cheaper than T3s by far and HACs depending on the HAC and region.
BSes need a look after T3 and Ishtars(and more importantly sentries), I'm not saying a change but take some time and take a look at usage, BSes still are great at Neuting and Smartbombing, fairly cheap and newbie friendly at T1 and durable with good DPS at that price. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14704
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:17:23 -
[29] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
ishtar should keep sentries otherwise it becomes too samey as gila, smallerbay. reduced bonuses, specific damage bonuses too heavies and sentries at 7.5% are better options.
Frankly, I would like the see sentries removed entirely as they cause no end of issues from the ishtar to the domi to the unkillable carrier blobs alphaing subcaps.
Harvey James wrote:
ABC's do lack the tank.. but the battleship dps they put out reduces the need for battleships too be used (point of the thread
They are no good in a fleet engagement and in a BS vs ABC the BS will out last it.
Harvey James wrote:
VNI and gila putting out 900dps or more also makes using battleships much less desirable..
You can neuter such ships and they pay a heavy price for that firepower.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:16:14 -
[30] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
ishtar should keep sentries otherwise it becomes too samey as gila, smallerbay. reduced bonuses, specific damage bonuses too heavies and sentries at 7.5% are better options.
Frankly, I would like the see sentries removed entirely as they cause no end of issues from the ishtar to the domi to the unkillable carrier blobs alphaing subcaps. Harvey James wrote:
ABC's do lack the tank.. but the battleship dps they put out reduces the need for battleships too be used (point of the thread
They are no good in a fleet engagement and in a BS vs ABC the BS will out last it. Harvey James wrote:
VNI and gila putting out 900dps or more also makes using battleships much less desirable..
You can neuter such ships and they pay a heavy price for that firepower.
sentries should be removed from carriers for sure, along with the logi and link bonuses.. leave them to supers
ABC's .. in a decent sized fleet perhaps , especially if mobility isn't an issue , but in small skirmishes ABC's can be more useful
VNI and gila are used over battleships often in small fleets because the mobility, lower sig better applied damage etc...
weaknesses aren't as much as you suggest .. unless im missing something, also i speak from a small fleet engagement scenario generally rather than 0.0 large fleets.
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/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |