|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
   |
Posted - 2015.01.28 00:29:54 -
[1] - 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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:04:00 -
[2] - 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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:16:14 -
[3] - 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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:28:43 -
[4] - Quote
Tusker Crazinski wrote:Harvey James wrote:
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
ABCs have no tackle defense what so ever, ontop of a bad tank to sig ratio which means anything and I mean anything gets within scram range you're dead. battleships have heavy neuts, heavy tanks, more slots and drones.
Talos's have light drones, and besides you would have the sense too bring some tackle with you
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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
i'd love too know when the T3 cruiser nerf is happening .. march, april, may?...
and if we get any input at all .. not much of that happening lately
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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:45:28 -
[6] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
It kinda ends up being go armor or go home tho. It takes over a hundred bombs to destroy a baltec but can the same be said about any non-armor boat?
Thats not entirely a battleship only problem and more of an issue with bombs themselves. I would love to see heavy sheild doctrines return but at the same time we all know it would become Mealstroms or go home again. 
an arty problem then
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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:56:16 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
an arty problem then
Nah, alpha will always be king and the maelstrom does it very well. As said, the biggest problem is the t3s and sentries. Deal with them and the entire ship lineup becomes healthier. Bombs could do with a tweek but it needs a great deal of care as they should still be viable.
yeah so reduce the alpha for some RoF , maybe a few other tweaks with the ship and then other ships might get used more.
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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:08:36 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:
yeah so reduce the alpha for some RoF , maybe a few other tweaks with the ship and then other ships might get used more.
Then you lose the thing that makes arty unique. Honestly the ship and weapon are fine as we do have a hard counter to it. Sheild battleships dont see much use in the large scale bloodbaths of sov fights but they do just fine in smaller scale fights that dont see bomber wings.
well theres a better balance too find than there currently is with arty's .. they don't need 11k alpha , rails do about 4k, so there is plenty of range too play with there.
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.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1087
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:33:20 -
[9] - Quote
Foxicity wrote:Ines Tegator wrote:Battleships are a *very* complicated issue that can't be resolved by simple nerfs/buffs. The problem is systemic and not related to the hulls themselves. At least, not completely. Some of the hulls are actually really attractive for small scale fleets now, after tiericide.
The #1 problem is that other ships are more attractive. Ishtar, I'm looking at you.
The #2 problem hasn't been mentioned yet - escalation. BS fleets are big shiny targets that look great on killboards. BS also have limited mobility, and are pretty easy to lock down in a bubble. This combination brings out the cynos. Goodbye battleship fleet.
With a BS (or even BC's), you commit to fighting or dying. When your enemy can hotdrop a cap fleet on you, that's a commitment that's not worth making. With the power projection nerfs, this may actually be addressed already. We can't honestly tell though because IshtarGäó. Let's keep things amicable guys, we're here for the BS discussion! (Not directed at you Ines) It's an interesting thing you suggest, Ines. If I'm reading it right, you think battleships are an appealing target to cruisers and caps because, while battleships can somewhat effectively combat the cruisers or capitals targeting them, they lack the 'true' mobility of cruisers or the cyno-mobility of capitals, leaving them with an awkward disadvantage. Thus, while their damage and tanking ability is commensurate with their cost, they end up being something of a 'white whale' for more-mobile fleets to tackle and destroy, or avoid.
which i suppose leads on to the next part of the battleship problem , capitals still have too much mobility and carriers at least are still too strong compared, without being hugely more expensive too field.
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.
|
|
|
| |
|