EVE Search - Battleship PVP Viability

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Battleship PVP Viability

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.

Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 23	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:25:54 - [31] - Quote 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.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1087	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:28:43 - [32] - 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.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 23	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:35:44 - [33] - Quote Harvey James wrote: 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 well yeah. this game is lol gallente ATM, I'm just saying battleships offer a lot of things ABC don't. namely a 24km neut. and 5-10 times the tank depending on fit
W0lf Crendraven Doctrine. FEARLESS. 262	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:35:50 - [34] - Quote Scan ress and warp speed are the deciding factors, and agility is to bad.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 822	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:36:01 - [35] - Quote So sentries should only be in BS w/ the bandwidth to use them and that's it. Baltec1 is right. They cause more problems than they are worth. That being said, keeping them in BS may be one of the niche things that breaths some life back into them. BS become the only platform that can deploy sentry drones and are immune to local = BS become an interesting PVP option.
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 340	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:38:44 - [36] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: 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. Wow, was definitely kidding about buffing RR. Excellent reading comprehension. The 'In seriousness' following it wasn't a good indicator that it was a joke? You should also look into your alliances. I guess I have a different perspective on battleships because we don't just use them, we use vindi's and bhaalgorns, mach's, Blops, all the super shiny ones that most people wouldn't even think of bringing into a fight. So yes, I stand by my statements, BS are definitely still viable. There are times one should use a T3 for it's survivability, times to use an ishtar to harass a larger/heavier opponent, and times to use a fleet of bhaalgorns and vindi's for their face grape damage and other fun stuff. It's also well noted that T3's are broken as crap, and well noted that their day is coming... soon *TM. That doesn't mean battleships are out of place, only that T3's and ishtars are currently broken. The Law is a point of View
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:46:29 - [37] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: Scan ress and warp speed are the deciding factors, and agility is to bad. I have a megathron that warps and aligns faster than cruisers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 822	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:52:50 - [38] - Quote I haven't used a bhallgorn since..... the day before yesterday. Mine is a cap stable shield version without a ship scanner. It totally rocks and all my corpies totally hate the fit.... until they want a carriers cap removed, then it's ok to have. The last 2 BS I lost were a pair of pve nightmares I dropped into and ishtar fight to save a bud's vargur. It was a bad idea, but I was already in them, so.... Maybe we are twins seperated at birth? As far as ishtars and T3. I'm in what may be the only wh corp in eve that doesn't like to use either one of them. I like the no BS in local and the only sentry drone platform idea. Not everyone can cope w/ losing billion isk battleships in pvp.
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 340	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:54:53 - [39] - Quote Small add in: Sentries are a huge PITA. They should be restricted to certain classes and above. The ishtar would be nearly fixed if it couldn't use sentries. But as long as sentries are in game(ignoring the debate of whether they should or not) carriers should still have them, because carrier and carrier. Sentries removed from all hulls below battleship would be a huge step in the right direction. The Law is a point of View
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 823	Posted - 2015.01.28 18:59:05 - [40] - Quote baltec1 wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: Scan ress and warp speed are the deciding factors, and agility is to bad. I have a megathron that warps and aligns faster than cruisers. I have an IQ of 163 and an 'average' peen of 10.328 inches. Oh... sorry, I thought this was going in a different direction. He's still right Baltec1. Of course you can make your mega do amazing things, but at a price. I can put a higs rig on my mega and make it so slow that you wouldn't notice I was getting away. Now all 3 of us have correct statements. I'm just not sure what you and I are trying to prove.

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1087	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:12:00 - [41] - 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:33:53 - [42] - Quote Harvey James wrote: 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 Sometime in the next few months. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:36:24 - [43] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: baltec1 wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: Scan ress and warp speed are the deciding factors, and agility is to bad. I have a megathron that warps and aligns faster than cruisers. I have an IQ of 163 and an 'average' peen of 10.328 inches. Oh... sorry, I thought this was going in a different direction. He's still right Baltec1. Of course you can make your mega do amazing things, but at a price. I can put a higs rig on my mega and make it so slow that you wouldn't notice I was getting away. Now all 3 of us have correct statements. I'm just not sure what you and I are trying to prove. The drawbacks are not all that great anymore. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:05:01 - [44] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. Actually, under the best circumstances (with max boosts) it takes 165 bombs to kill a baltec megathron with it's micro warp off and about 103 with MWDs on. It drops to 69 bomb sans MWD and a few less with MWD off without boosts. Also, this assumes that you're using max boosts, which is not the case if you're using t3 boosters. For the best case scenario you're looking at 28 waves of bombs of six bombs. For a medium size bomb group launching staggered 4 wave runs you'd need about 7 runs to completely wipe a mega fleet, if they keep their wing, squad, and fleet boosters alive the entire fight. Absolute worst case, a single large bombing run could wipe your entire fleet. Compare that with say, a tengu under bast case circumstances, which takes 593 bombs to destroy with t2 gear, or an eagle which takes about 315 bombs. All of this also ignores what's happening to your megathrons when you get hit by a bomb run, too. One of the biggest advantages of bombing is that it augments the ability of a DPS wing to chew through primaries for two reasons. First, it lowers the EHP pool and critical mass of DPS required to alpha an opposing fleet and second bomb waves break discipline. Each successive bomb wave makes the problem worse, and under continuous pressure your fleet will fall apart. We know this, everyone knows this. It doesn't fit your narrative about being a special snowflake though. Like your arguments centered on a megathron that tracks as well as electron blasters (it doesn't because of math) or your mega that aligns and warps as fast as cruisers (this one can happen, but it's not doing much else,) it's just a red herring. You never post any fits or anything else, just some quip about how you can do it and no one else can.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:19:41 - [45] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Actually, under the best circumstances (with max boosts) it takes 165 bombs to kill a baltec megathron with it's micro warp off and about 103 with MWDs on. It drops to 69 bomb sans MWD and a few less with MWD off without boosts. Also, this assumes that you're using max boosts, which is not the case if you're using t3 boosters. For the best case scenario you're looking at 28 waves of bombs of six bombs. For a medium size bomb group launching staggered 4 wave runs you'd need about 7 runs to completely wipe a mega fleet, if they keep their wing, squad, and fleet boosters alive the entire fight. Absolute worst case, a single large bombing run could wipe your entire fleet. Compare that with say, a tengu under bast case circumstances, which takes 593 bombs to destroy with t2 gear, or an eagle which takes about 315 bombs. All of this also ignores what's happening to your megathrons when you get hit by a bomb run, too. One of the biggest advantages of bombing is that it augments the ability of a DPS wing to chew through primaries for two reasons. First, it lowers the EHP pool and critical mass of DPS required to alpha an opposing fleet and second bomb waves break discipline. Each successive bomb wave makes the problem worse, and under continuous pressure your fleet will fall apart. We know this, everyone knows this. It doesn't fit your narrative about being a special snowflake though. Like your arguments centered on a megathron that tracks as well as electron blasters (it doesn't because of math) or your mega that aligns and warps as fast as cruisers (this one can happen, but it's not doing much else,) it's just a red herring. You never post any fits or anything else, just some quip about how you can do it and no one else can. We never lost a baltec fleet to bombs nor any other armour battleship fleet. If they are so vulnerable then why is it that we use Domi fleet as our sledgehammer? Go find where I said nobody can do what I do with battleships. Feel free to explain how exactly Using a single rig slot and two nano reduces a ship to being useless. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1532	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:34:12 - [46] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Actually, under the best circumstances (with max boosts) it takes 165 bombs to kill a baltec megathron with it's micro warp off and about 103 with MWDs on. It drops to 69 bomb sans MWD and a few less with MWD off without boosts. Also, this assumes that you're using max boosts, which is not the case if you're using t3 boosters. For the best case scenario you're looking at 28 waves of bombs of six bombs. For a medium size bomb group launching staggered 4 wave runs you'd need about 7 runs to completely wipe a mega fleet, if they keep their wing, squad, and fleet boosters alive the entire fight. Absolute worst case, a single large bombing run could wipe your entire fleet. Compare that with say, a tengu under bast case circumstances, which takes 593 bombs to destroy with t2 gear, or an eagle which takes about 315 bombs. All of this also ignores what's happening to your megathrons when you get hit by a bomb run, too. One of the biggest advantages of bombing is that it augments the ability of a DPS wing to chew through primaries for two reasons. First, it lowers the EHP pool and critical mass of DPS required to alpha an opposing fleet and second bomb waves break discipline. Each successive bomb wave makes the problem worse, and under continuous pressure your fleet will fall apart. We know this, everyone knows this. It doesn't fit your narrative about being a special snowflake though. Like your arguments centered on a megathron that tracks as well as electron blasters (it doesn't because of math) or your mega that aligns and warps as fast as cruisers (this one can happen, but it's not doing much else,) it's just a red herring. You never post any fits or anything else, just some quip about how you can do it and no one else can. We never lost a baltec fleet to bombs nor any other armour battleship fleet. If they are so vulnerable then why is it that we use Domi fleet as our sledgehammer? Go find where I said nobody can do what I do with battleships. Feel free to explain how exactly Using a single rig slot and two nano reduces a ship to being useless. 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?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:38:58 - [47] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1087	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:45:28 - [48] - 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:51:35 - [49] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1087	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:56:16 - [50] - 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.

Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:59:22 - [51] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: baltec1 wrote: 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. Actually, under the best circumstances (with max boosts) it takes 165 bombs to kill a baltec megathron with it's micro warp off and about 103 with MWDs on. It drops to 69 bomb sans MWD and a few less with MWD off without boosts. Also, this assumes that you're using max boosts, which is not the case if you're using t3 boosters. For the best case scenario you're looking at 28 waves of bombs of six bombs. For a medium size bomb group launching staggered 4 wave runs you'd need about 7 runs to completely wipe a mega fleet, if they keep their wing, squad, and fleet boosters alive the entire fight. Absolute worst case, a single large bombing run could wipe your entire fleet. Compare that with say, a tengu under bast case circumstances, which takes 593 bombs to destroy with t2 gear, or an eagle which takes about 315 bombs. All of this also ignores what's happening to your megathrons when you get hit by a bomb run, too. One of the biggest advantages of bombing is that it augments the ability of a DPS wing to chew through primaries for two reasons. First, it lowers the EHP pool and critical mass of DPS required to alpha an opposing fleet and second bomb waves break discipline. Each successive bomb wave makes the problem worse, and under continuous pressure your fleet will fall apart. We know this, everyone knows this. It doesn't fit your narrative about being a special snowflake though. Like your arguments centered on a megathron that tracks as well as electron blasters (it doesn't because of math) or your mega that aligns and warps as fast as cruisers (this one can happen, but it's not doing much else,) it's just a red herring. You never post any fits or anything else, just some quip about how you can do it and no one else can. We never lost a baltec fleet to bombs nor any other armour battleship fleet. If they are so vulnerable then why is it that we use Domi fleet as our sledgehammer? Go find where I said nobody can do what I do with battleships. Feel free to explain how exactly Using a single rig slot and two nano reduces a ship to being useless. No you havent, because you don't need bombers when you can simply use tengus to obliterate baltec megas, and for reasons stated above, if you had cared to read them, bombs don't need to obliterate your fleet to be the reason you've lost a fight. Also KBs are that -> way to see how much carnage bombers can unleash on domis (which are much more vulnerable to bombs than megas). See HED-GP and F4R2 for details. Two nanos on a mega is a naked align time of 8 seconds, which is about 2-3 seconds longer than most naked t1 cruisers, and a single hyperspatial is a warp speed of 2.4 au/sec. Tell the whole story about implants if you're going to imply their use. If you actually want a megathron to warp and align as fast as cruisers that aren't using nanos it's more like 3 nanos and 3 hyperspatials. Even then, are you following primaries or applying DPS as quickly as the cruisers in your gang? What happens when you try to make up for these deficiencies too? Quote: Go find where I said nobody can do what I do with battleships. So you want me to quote basically every reply you've ever posted in a battleship thread? That the problem is the pilots? That people aren't innovative enough? The implication here is that you are innovative and no-one else is, in a game where we're now talking about hyperdunking, petes, pos bowling exploits, wrecking balls, and all of the other crazy stuff that follows from the sandbox experience.
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:00:45 - [52] - 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. At least we kind of agree on this.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:02:22 - [53] - Quote 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. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1532	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:07:11 - [54] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: So you want me to quote basically every reply you've ever posted in a battleship thread? That the problem is the pilots? That people aren't innovative enough? The implication here is that you are innovative and no-one else is, in a game where we're now talking about hyperdunking, petes, pos bowling exploits, wrecking balls, and all of the other crazy stuff that follows from the sandbox experience. When he says the problem is the pilot, I'm pretty sure he means he is willing to make sacrifice for it while other player seem to be locked in a mentality preventing them from making such sacrifice.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1532	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:08:07 - [55] - Quote Harvey James wrote: 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. You mean like Tach?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1087	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:08:36 - [56] - 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.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14709	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:10:43 - [57] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Two nanos on a mega is a naked align time of 8 seconds, which is about 2-3 seconds longer than most naked t1 cruisers, and a single hyperspatial is a warp speed of 2.4 au/sec. I have said it many times, EFT lies. When burning gates I keep up with harpies and leave cruisers trailing behind. There has been a few times I winded up as the fleet scout simply because I burned ahead of the fleet. Bullet Therapist wrote: Tell the whole story about implants if you're going to imply their use. If you actually want a megathron to warp and align as fast as cruisers that aren't using nanos it's more like 3 nanos and 3 hyperspatials. Implants dont take up slots on your ship. Bullet Therapist wrote: Even then, are you following primaries or applying DPS as quickly as the cruisers in your gang? What happens when you try to make up for these deficiencies too? Its a simple rule, if it dies before I lock it they didn't need my firepower. If I lock it they need my firepower. Quote: Go find where I said nobody can do what I do with battleships. So you want me to quote basically every reply you've ever posted in a battleship thread? [/quote] Feel free to go find where I said nobody can do what I can. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Ines Tegator Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc. 544	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:37:00 - [58] - Quote 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. Overhaul Dscan! Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
Foxicity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 110	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:06:26 - [59] - Quote 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.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1087	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:33:20 - [60] - 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.

Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.01.28 23:18:46 - [61] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I have said it many times, EFT lies. When burning gates I keep up with harpies and leave cruisers trailing behind. There has been a few times I winded up as the fleet scout simply because I burned ahead of the fleet. Implants dont take up slots on your ship. Its a simple rule, if it dies before I lock it they didn't need my firepower. If I lock it they need my firepower. Feel free to go find where I said nobody can do what I can. Quote: I have said it many times, EFT lies. When burning gates I keep up with harpies and leave cruisers trailing behind. There has been a few times I winded up as the fleet scout simply because I burned ahead of the fleet. Yep, EFT doesn't tell the whole picture; but it's certainly closer to the truth than your anecdotes are. You've always had a hard time answering posts that directly refute your statements with hard math, and this is a pretty characteristic response. Quote: Implants dont take up slots on your ship If you're talking about implants, lets talk about what we can do with implants then, and when players are actually going to use implants or how we should consider them when discussing ship balance. If we're going to fly a megathron with ascendancy implants, shouldn't we then start talking about harpies with snakes or halos? Quote: Its a simple rule, if it dies before I lock it they didn't need my firepower. If I lock it they need my firepower. So in the 12 seconds that it takes you to lock a cruiser primary that isn't killed by your entourage the opposing gang's logi isn't doing anything? And how's your warp speed fit megathron going to fare applying dps to your primary? What about in the 18 seconds or so it will take you to lock a frigate? When you've considered gun tracking, your applied DPS is going to weigh in at about the same or less than a cruiser, with the added penalty of having to fly with expensive implants and a long period of no damage at all. The net sum here is negative. Quote: Feel free to go find where I said nobody can do what I can. I stand by this statement because I feel that it's implied by many of your statements. I don't think that you're a bad person, and I don't dislike you, but I do dislike what you do sometimes in this forum. You like to retort against other people's posts with half truths that fail to encompass the totality of the situations they're describing. I admire you for sticking to your guns and trying to make battleships work but when you write something like sacrificing one rig and two lows to get cruiser warp speeds isn't a big deal what are we supposed to think? No, losing a few slots doesn't cripple your ship, but you're not actually able to align as fast as cruisers. Your response: EFT lies. Your not actually getting the performance you claim, and to make up the deficit you have to use ascendancy implants, and when I point this out, your retort is to say that they don't take up ship slots. The reality is that very few players are going to risk using ascendancy implants on their megathrons to be able to warp at cruiser speed while participating in nullsec PVP and trying to make a convincing case based on their use is flawed. Your megathron is still largely ineffective as a part of the gang you're in and is essentially ornamental. Should CCP take implants into consideration when they balance ship? Of course they should, and I'm sure that they already do, but that isn't what anyone is really even talking about here. The argument is that for a given investment, that smaller ships perform similar roles to battleships, that they overlap strongly with what battleship do best, and that they do other things that battleships cannot do without having the drawbacks associated with larger ships.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 576	Posted - 2015.01.29 02:18:48 - [62] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: If you're talking about implants, lets talk about what we can do with implants then, and when players are actually going to use implants or how we should consider them when discussing ship balance. If we're going to fly a megathron with ascendancy implants, shouldn't we then start talking about harpies with snakes or halos? So in the 12 seconds that it takes you to lock a cruiser primary that isn't killed by your entourage the opposing gang's logi isn't doing anything? And how's your warp speed fit megathron going to fare applying dps to your primary? What about in the 18 seconds or so it will take you to lock a frigate? When you've considered gun tracking, your applied DPS is going to weigh in at about the same or less than a cruiser, with the added penalty of having to fly with expensive implants and a long period of no damage at all. The net sum here is negative. about the implants....its a players choice to use or not use. ccp balances with them in effect. They have to. For the 90 players who cba to run them because of cost or they want the more say shooty or tanky ones...there will be those 10 who will run them. CCP has to cover all the bases in balance. This assumes implants. And fleet boosters. And drugs. CCP seems to forget about wh effects as they sometimes create some interesting math bugs when wh effects take ccp's math and just tear it apart so will give you that ding to my theory on how ccp balances. Make 90 who won't run certain implants happy, you make the 10 who do really happy. And then the 10 becomes 20, then 30...as the fun (or op factor possibly) becomes apparent. Not all in eve are looking to be on the eve version of forbes richest person list nad have the massive wallet. 300 mil just sitting there, they spend it on fun stuff that could even be lost in pvp. In my more active richer days I was like this. 40-50 mil in shield and prop mods alone on a 20 mil pvp frigate...wth, its only isk. for the second part....why is your bs killing cruisers in the first place. Your tackle and fast dps should be doing that. Baltec is spot on.....if the inty and say 2 hacs for fast dps can drop the target fast, let them. BS is there for the tanked to hell stuff. And if really wanting to kill the cruiser and you tackle and fast dps is not breaking tank so good...there you are later on to help. Or sacrifice some mids to run more sebo scan res. Believe a hardwire for this but not 100% sure. Right tool for the job the take away. Or run machs. I recall some of the space richer players in a home I was in loving a good ole fashioned mach roams. Not sure how good they are these days though, if they suck now someone please correct me.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2298	Posted - 2015.01.29 03:01:15 - [63] - Quote Battleships were already only slightly more powerful than battlecruisers, and only slightly less mobile. Now the mobility gap has increased so I'd like to see an increase in the power gap. I feel like a large part of it is that while battleships do indeed shoot harder, they do not possess enough more tank than battlecruisers to match with their larger sig radius and lower mobility. Now I don't feel any large sweeping changes are needed, just some small buffs here and there. One very significant change for the better would be to add a larger shield extender and armor plate that can only reasonably be equipped by battleships. They don't get the chance to spend much of their leftover powergrid on hit points, and the large shield extender and 1600mm plate don't grant a whole lot more than the 15% bonus from a rig or module. It'd be nice if there were more upper-end subcap modules that could really stretch the limits of battleship fitting space, allowing them to pull the same tricks that cruisers already do with lower-end battleship modules. Here's a short list of possible candidates due for a larger size: shield extender armor plate remote rep modules capacitor booster charge capacitor battery CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.01.29 03:21:08 - [64] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: about the implants....its a players choice to use or not use. ccp balances with them in effect. They have to. For the 90 players who cba to run them because of cost or they want the more say shooty or tanky ones...there will be those 10 who will run them. CCP has to cover all the bases in balance. This assumes implants. And fleet boosters. And drugs. CCP seems to forget about wh effects as they sometimes create some interesting math bugs when wh effects take ccp's math and just tear it apart so will give you that ding to my theory on how ccp balances. Make 90 who won't run certain implants happy, you make the 10 who do really happy. And then the 10 becomes 20, then 30...as the fun (or op factor possibly) becomes apparent. Not all in eve are looking to be on the eve version of forbes richest person list nad have the massive wallet. 300 mil just sitting there, they spend it on fun stuff that could even be lost in pvp. In my more active richer days I was like this. 40-50 mil in shield and prop mods alone on a 20 mil pvp frigate...wth, its only isk. for the second part....why is your bs killing cruisers in the first place. Your tackle and fast dps should be doing that. Baltec is spot on.....if the inty and say 2 hacs for fast dps can drop the target fast, let them. BS is there for the tanked to hell stuff. And if really wanting to kill the cruiser and you tackle and fast dps is not breaking tank so good...there you are later on to help. Or sacrifice some mids to run more sebo scan res. Believe a hardwire for this but not 100% sure. Right tool for the job the take away. Or run machs. I recall some of the space richer players in a home I was in loving a good ole fashioned mach roams. Not sure how good they are these days though, if they suck now someone please correct me. It wasn't me that said I was bringing a megathron to a cruiser fleet. In any event it looks like you're trying to argue that ships should be balanced as if players were using implants, drugs and links all the time. It's something that should be taken into consideration to prevent run-aways, but any ship should be viable for a range of PVP scenarios without boosts, drugs, or implants- as most ships cruiser and down already are. In any event, it works both ways. If we dictate that battleships need to have implants to function, why cant cruisers? Halo sets are cheap enough that tengu or ishtar pilots can equip them, so why don't they? The answer is that they don't need to. Tengus are tanky enough and can survive enough bombs that they're no longer the weak point in their fleet. Battleships do excel in certain roles, and I'm not trying to argue that they don't, but for many of the roles that they probably should excel a little more at, the game mechanics keep them restrained. When you start looking at how much of a role that signature radius and speed scale tanking as ship size moves down, you notice how poorly the dps and tank of battleships scales on the opposite end. Speed and signature radius scale multiplicatively, and when you start to include other factors like lock time, align time and endurance scaling you understand that after a certain point they begin to be insurmountable. Some battleships are still pretty good. It shouldn't come as a surprise though that the ones that are considered the best can do something that mitigates, at least in part, their biggest weaknesses. You made an example of the mach, well, why it so good? Because it's freaking fast, so fast and nimble that with active piloting you're able to put it's weapon's chief disadvantage- tacking, on the back burner for long enough to make a difference. The vindicator? A similar scenario, 90% webs are insanely powerful. The barghest can use it's bonus on RLMLs, which, as I've abused it heavily, can assure you is absolutely nuts. Just don't get crazy here and try to twist my words into something they're not or slide off down the semantic slope. I don't think battleships are useless, I just think that they're less useful than they should be. They don't need a titanic buff, just enough to keep up with the rest of the t1 pack. That's it. Nothing wild about it.
Zekora Rally U2EZ 5	Posted - 2015.01.29 03:27:39 - [65] - Quote Battleships need an all round 30% buff to their main weapon dps. That will bring most battleships to the 1300-1700dps range which is acceptable for terrible everything apart from tank.
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 340	Posted - 2015.01.29 04:20:15 - [66] - Quote Zekora Rally wrote: Battleships need an all round 30% buff to their main weapon dps. That will bring most battleships to the 1300-1700dps range which is acceptable for terrible everything apart from tank. Blanket statements like this don't work. At all. That drastic of an increase will also make battleships way OP for a T1 hull. That's dread DPS numbers out of siege. That being said, it's impossible to see if there really is a 'problem' with battleships while T3's and ishtars/sentries are so borked. Yes, I said borked. Personally, most of them are fine. A few need a few tweaks, but most of them are pretty close to the right direction. All these proposed buffs with trying to make BS able to go toe to toe with broken ships in a fleet battle also run the risk of making battleships way OP in small gang. No ship can really be properly balanced while others are so exceptionally out of balance. The Law is a point of View
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14719	Posted - 2015.01.29 05:35:31 - [67] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Yep, EFT doesn't tell the whole picture; but it's certainly closer to the truth than your anecdotes are. You've always had a hard time answering posts that directly refute your statements with hard math, and this is a pretty characteristic response. Its not hard maths its just you spouting rubbish as you have zero experience with such ships and setups. The very fact that I have a green light to take such battleships in strategic frigate fleets alone should tell you that my ships don't slow down their fleets. Bullet Therapist wrote: If you're talking about implants, lets talk about what we can do with implants then, and when players are actually going to use implants or how we should consider them when discussing ship balance. If we're going to fly a megathron with ascendancy implants, shouldn't we then start talking about harpies with snakes or halos? No because they don't fit them. The whole point of harpy fleet is that it is cheap and disposable. Also my point is that implants dont take up ship slots. You only need one rig and two lows to pull off speeds fast enough to keep up with cruisers (you can get away with just one nano) So, the ship itself is not gimped like you say. Bullet Therapist wrote: So in the 12 seconds that it takes you to lock a cruiser primary that isn't killed by your entourage the opposing gang's logi isn't doing anything? And how's your warp speed fit megathron going to fare applying dps to your primary? What about in the 18 seconds or so it will take you to lock a frigate? When you've considered gun tracking, your applied DPS is going to weigh in at about the same or less than a cruiser, with the added penalty of having to fly with expensive implants and a long period of no damage at all. The net sum here is negative. I might miss the first target but after that I have the secondary locked and from then onwards I do just fine. My damage application is fine because I adapt to whatever the fleets range is. That is the key difference between me and you. You dont adapt you just give up without trying. Bullet Therapist wrote: I stand by this statement because I feel that it's implied by many of your statements. Dont care what you feel, I never said those words. Anything anyone pulls off in EVE is possible to do by everyone if they put in the time and effort to learn. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14719	Posted - 2015.01.29 05:46:14 - [68] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Your not actually getting the performance you claim I couldn't take my ships on the fleets I do if I couldn't match them. If you spent more time actually flying these ships and testing new fits like I do rather than sitting there doing nothing other than looking at EFT and decrying impossible you would have a lot more success. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 33	Posted - 2015.01.29 05:58:42 - [69] - Quote Excuse me, but what is all about? i completelly missed the thread's subject ((
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14719	Posted - 2015.01.29 06:05:07 - [70] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: Excuse me, but what is all about? i completelly missed the thread's subject (( People who dont fly battleships are trying to tell people who do fly them they are wrong about battleships being fine. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 181	Posted - 2015.01.29 07:56:22 - [71] - Quote Search for James Baboli's "making battleships worth the warp"... Its a thread about this exact topic which is so well researched and mathed that i have actually forwarded it to corbexx who forwarded it to the guys at CCP....
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 33	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:35:08 - [72] - Quote FireFrenzy wrote: Search for James Baboli's "making battleships worth the warp"... Its a thread about this exact topic which is so well researched and mathed that i have actually forwarded it to corbexx who forwarded it to the guys at CCP.... i'm glad you've picked it up to the higher level so we would finally have battleships back to the game for good !
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 33	Posted - 2015.01.29 09:38:41 - [73] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Tiddle Jr wrote: Excuse me, but what is all about? i completelly missed the thread's subject (( People who dont fly battleships are trying to tell people who do fly them they are wrong about battleships being fine. Battleclinic must be leaking into the internet again. now i see what's going on here, so looks like an old school bs concept came to the end of it's life and you no longer able to do anything to anyone while flying battleship, that's pretty said if that's true but hey, i still have few battleships in the pocket and the do perfeclty well what i want them to do somebody wrong that's for sure
Ines Tegator Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc. 544	Posted - 2015.01.29 10:14:45 - [74] - Quote Foxicity wrote: 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. Pretty much this. After tiericide I whipped up some Apoc small gang support fits, and they get some very impressive numbers. 1200 m/s, 8s align, 6-800 dps with good application (enough to hit cruisers). Definately enough to keep up with a cruiser gang (though not a nano gang) while bringing a lot of firepower, range, and tank. Just adding one of these to the fleet is a force multiplier, since it can hammer anything that's even lightly tackled and it's not going to focus fired off the field. I've never used any of those fits though, because one of two things will happen if I take it out. Either we won't get fights, cause noone will engage with a BS around, or the fight will escalate to a level where a BS is just a free kill. So in spite of CCP specifically making some of the battleships REALLY well suited to it (they called them Attack Battleships), they still aren't getting used much. The one thing a BS can never be allowed to do is the one thing that keeps it out of pvp: the ability to control the engagement. Honestly I'm ok with that. When I said earlier the problem was not with the hull, I meant that the ship is fine. It's place in the meta game is complicated, and there's no way to change that and keep it balanced. I'd rather have it stay balanced, and only brought out for specific engagements then have it be OP. Overhaul Dscan! Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
Paynus Maiassus Capital Munitions 225	Posted - 2015.01.29 10:29:09 - [75] - Quote Battleships are fine. Nerf T3s.
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 33	Posted - 2015.01.29 10:45:13 - [76] - Quote T3's are fine (except railgus) so nerf ishtars and railgus and bombers
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14725	Posted - 2015.01.29 11:13:01 - [77] - Quote Tiddle Jr wrote: T3's are fine (except railgus) so nerf ishtars and railgus and bombers They all need a nerf. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Icarus Able Revenant Tactical 536	Posted - 2015.01.29 11:22:07 - [78] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: 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. Stupid hull buffs? Im guessing you are talking about active rep. Do you actually ever PvP? Active Maels and Hypes are the most common BS to see in small scale PvP.
Swiftstrike1 Swiftstrike Incorporated 863	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:13:47 - [79] - Quote I would like to see MJDs changed to actually behave like (micro) jump drives. i.e. when you activate one you get a list of cynos to choose from, but their range is limited to your current solar system. This would certainly make MJDs more offensive and with multiple cynos in the same system it could make BS significantly more 'agile'. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 26	Posted - 2015.01.29 13:46:19 - [80] - Quote Icarus Able wrote: Tusker Crazinski wrote: 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. Stupid hull buffs? Im guessing you are talking about active rep. Do you actually ever PvP? Active Maels and Hypes are the most common BS to see in small scale PvP. I've seen an active hype once, and have never seen an active Mael or a maelstrom for that matter in low or null. and that active hype, we killed it with 2 T1 cruisers, a corm, a crow, and a Scythe Fleet Issue. anyway particularly in the case of the maelstrom, in a fleet or small gang with logi the active repping buff become useless, resist is just good for both local and remote tanking. if the mael had a tracking, falloff, resist, or hell even a TP buff I think the ship would just be better all around.

Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 830	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:14:53 - [81] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: baltec1 wrote: W0lf Crendraven wrote: Scan ress and warp speed are the deciding factors, and agility is to bad. I have a megathron that warps and aligns faster than cruisers. I have an IQ of 163 and an 'average' peen of 10.328 inches. Oh... sorry, I thought this was going in a different direction. He's still right Baltec1. Of course you can make your mega do amazing things, but at a price. I can put a higs rig on my mega and make it so slow that you wouldn't notice I was getting away. Now all 3 of us have correct statements. I'm just not sure what you and I are trying to prove. The drawbacks are not all that great anymore. That's not true. I rarely get a second date.
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:30:12 - [82] - Quote Where to begin? Lets start with math. baltec1 wrote: Its not hard maths its just you spouting rubbish as you have zero experience with such ships and setups. The very fact that I have a green light to take such battleships in strategic frigate fleets alone should tell you that my ships don't slow down their fleets. Apparently it is if you can't understand the difference between six and eight. So what is a faster align time? Six or eight seconds? The only rubbish here is your ad hominem attack against my credibility as a battleship pilot, which is at worst unverifiable, and a pretty sad refutation. I've been a battleship enthusiast for some time now; but don't worry, you don't have to take word for it, but you do have to put your alignment time lie on the shelf. baltec1 wrote: No because they don't fit them. The whole point of harpy fleet is that it is cheap and disposable. Also my point is that implants dont take up ship slots. You only need one rig and two lows to pull off speeds fast enough to keep up with cruisers (you can get away with just one nano) So, the ship itself is not gimped like you say. No, they don't, but you tout your arguments as if the only thing a player has to do to make battleships compete is sacrifice a few modules for mobility. It's just a talking point for you that conceals the truth that a player looking to tag along in a megathron to a cruiser fleet without impairing the cruiser gang's warp speed needs to invest in an implant set. It doesn't sound so striking or stark when you wave the pricetag of the implants in players faces. So say what you mean next time, like three slots and six (very expensive) implants, instead of three slots, ok? Also, for the record, I've not said that sacrificing slots for mobility is gimping the fit, I've only pointed out the half truth you're telling. baltec1 wrote: I might miss the first target but after that I have the secondary locked and from then onwards I do just fine. My damage application is fine because I adapt to whatever the fleets range is. That is the key difference between me and you. You dont adapt you just give up without trying. The locking speed formula (more math ) is locktime = 40000/(scanres * asinh(sigrad)^2). Even with ideal target calling, the cycle time of your weapons, fluid nature of fleet fights against small ships, and the tendancy of FCs to order orbit distances are still going to prevent you from applying substantial DPS. Your megathron isn't going to be able to react fast enough to a target's range of potential orbits to establish a transversal course before it becomes un-ideal. Reacting to immediate threats like dictor warpins is less possible, and with poor target calling you're left ineffectual. I don't know for sure if baltec1 is your only pvp toon, but if his track record is exemplary, I would say that the string of zeros I see under the category of 'damage done' speaks for itself of this front. Digging through the KBs a little more, it's easy to see how few cases you actually get a shot off in. Yeah, you get a big hit here and there, but for the most part you don't, so stop the BS. Again, you don't know anything about my relationship with battleships, other than I care about them. I certainly understand what kind of problems a battleship is likely to face on grid, so it stands to reason that I'd also be able to find a way to circumvent them. My reactions and refutations to your posts are in part derived from my own experiences in battleships, despite your repeated drumbeat that I or others have 'zero experience.' Lastly, baltec1 wrote: Dont care what you feel, I never said those words. Anything anyone pulls off in EVE is possible to do by everyone if they put in the time and effort to learn. I couldn't take my ships on the fleets I do if I couldn't match them. If you spent more time actually flying these ships and testing new fits like I do rather than sitting there doing nothing other than looking at EFT and decrying impossible you would have a lot more success. I find this is a problem across the entire range of ships, people just don't try or think for themselves and simply use whatever the FOTM ship and fit is out there. Anything outside of this narrow view to them is wrong and impossible. Whelp, take a look at the above. You're visionary and everyone else is stupid is the gist of it. They're two contradictory statements that came from the same fingertips. So which is it? That you're a visionary and no-one else is or that you never said that? The truth, baltec, is that there are plenty of intelligent, capable, and innovative players involved in this game, and no matter what you think of me, if there's a good way to utilize an existing ship class, once the secret gets out, everyone will soon know about it. Take a look at the beam navy slicers that have been flying around the last few days. Word spreads, this time via TMC and EN24, and people take notice. You've been standing on your soap box for a long time now and I haven't seen people lining up to follow your advice. So where are the battleship support groups in cruiser and frigate gangs and why is it that you're the only one making claims about megathron superiority in your cruiser fleets? Could it be that the friends that you play with like having a megathron as a hood ornament? Maybe, it's fun to have a little flair once and a while. Virtually every bash or fun fleet I've been a part of over the last three years has been bolstered by a morale drake, even if it's not the smartest choice. Are you a good enough player that you pay attention and execute fleet commands quickly enough to not at least have a negative impact on your fleets? Sure, it's possible. If you're not really hurting the fleets that you're a part of or causing trouble for them, no-one reasonable is going to care if it makes people happy.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1535	Posted - 2015.01.29 14:54:46 - [83] - Quote The truth is probably along the lines of "not enough people are really willing to burn the ascendency set required to make it work".
Starrakatt Hunter Killers. Forsaken Asylum 205	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:01:21 - [84] - Quote First, I agree that rebalancing T3 and Sentries will help a lot BS (and BC to a point) viability in most fields. I am also of teh school that think BS and BC are sadly under used since the nerfs combined with everything else's buff. I am following these threads, even if not participating much. And YES, I used to fly BCs and BSs not that long ago, almost never now. Now about Baltech1. Baltech1 is, I believe, an intelligent person, and I believe he can manage some counter-intuitive stuff with his pet Megas, albeit with very expansive implants and/or mods and possibly some fitting sacrifices to make it work. Fine. However if you need 6 extremely expensive implants to make a BS worth it's salt, something is obviously wrong. Maybe if you would step down your Pedestal of Patronizing Smug and stop calling everyone else bad an unimaginative, people would actually listen to what you say. Antagonizing 'everyone' by your atitude is just making 'everyone' ignore your opinion. But if you are merely a troll, you will ignore this, and be even less relevant. My 2 cents. Forsaken Asylum's ways
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14733	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:04:37 - [85] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: That's not true. I rarely get a second date. You should stop eating them when you take them out for a "meal" Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14734	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:24:04 - [86] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Apparently it is if you can't understand the difference between six and eight. So what is a faster align time? Six or eight seconds? The only rubbish here is your ad hominem attack against my credibility as a battleship pilot, which is at worst unverifiable, and a pretty sad refutation. I've been a battleship enthusiast for some time now; but don't worry, you don't have to take word for it, but you do have to put your alignment time lie on the shelf. Feel free to ask any CFC FC about what happens when I fly a mega in a harpy fleet and we start burning. Bullet Therapist wrote: No, they don't, but you tout your arguments as if the only thing a player has to do to make battleships compete is sacrifice a few modules for mobility. It's just a talking point for you that conceals the truth that a player looking to tag along in a megathron to a cruiser fleet without impairing the cruiser gang's warp speed needs to invest in an implant set. It doesn't sound so striking or stark when you wave the pricetag of the implants in players faces. So say what you mean next time, like three slots and six (very expensive) implants, instead of three slots, ok? Context. You said in order to warp and align fast enough to keep up with the ship cannot do anything else, this is not true and the ship only uses one rig slot and 1-2 lows. Bullet Therapist wrote: The locking speed formula (more math ) is locktime = 40000/(scanres * asinh(sigrad)^2). Even with ideal target calling, the cycle time of your weapons, fluid nature of fleet fights against small ships, and the tendancy of FCs to order orbit distances are still going to prevent you from applying substantial DPS. Your megathron isn't going to be able to react fast enough to a target's range of potential orbits to establish a transversal course before it becomes un-ideal. Reacting to immediate threats like dictor warpins is less possible, and with poor target calling you're left ineffectual. What you just described isn't what happens in these fleets. Bullet Therapist wrote: Again, you don't know anything about my relationship with battleships, other than I care about them. I base it on the fact that in your posting you show a lack of in game knolage and you base your entire argument on what EFT tells you. Bullet Therapist wrote: Whelp, take a look at the above. You're visionary and everyone else is stupid is the gist of it. They're two contradictory statements that came from the same fingertips. So which is it? That you're a visionary and no-one else is or that you never said that? The truth, baltec, is that there are plenty of intelligent, capable, and innovative players involved in this game, and no matter what you think of me, if there's a good way to utilize an existing ship class, once the secret gets out, everyone will soon know about it. Take a look at the beam navy slicers that have been flying around the last few days. Word spreads, this time via TMC and EN24, and people take notice. You've been standing on your soap box for a long time now and I haven't seen people lining up to follow your advice. So where are the battleship support groups in cruiser and frigate gangs and why is it that you're the only one making claims about megathron superiority in your cruiser fleets? Could it be that the friends that you play with like having a megathron as a hood ornament? Maybe, it's fun to have a little flair once and a while. Virtually every bash or fun fleet I've been a part of over the last three years has been bolstered by a morale drake, even if it's not the smartest choice. Are you a good enough player that you pay attention and execute fleet commands quickly enough to not at least have a negative impact on your fleets? Sure, it's possible. If you're not really hurting the fleets that you're a part of or causing trouble for them, no-one reasonable is going to care if it makes people happy. Now think of what a battleship that isnt custom built for a cap stable, perma AB, highly mobile frigate fleet can do. I stand by my words, anyone can do what I do. You however cannot because you have decided that you cannot. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 34	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:48:20 - [87] - Quote Now I don't post on forums often, but I am bored in class and saw this thread. First off, baltec1 is ~that guy~ in fleets who despite being told things will argue endlessly how you are bad and he is correct. So with that out of the way, since he appears to be an EFT master/fitting guru, let's check his fit. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42350895/ Yep. 4 CPRIIs, 2 Nanos, Shield fit, 0 Tracking, and only 34,000 damage taken with logistics. Yeah, Ishtar literally has better stats than your fit in EVERY regard, hell a Drake would do better. Sorry, that's really bad. So yeah, you can align as fast as cruisers, but you are also effectively worthless to the fleet and I could solo that terrible fit with a Merlin. And before you bring "ranking" into the argument, Baltec1, as I know you will because you are merely grasping at straws now, 80% of your kills are POS modules and the least amount of people I've seen on a mail in your killboard is 11. Your experience with this game is simply not enough to be making arguments for or against a ship/balance issue. Sorry. Go back to ratting in Deklein. Now to solve the actual issue. Battleships need a buff to EHP/DPS and/or Warp Speed. OR Battleships need a 3200mm plate, which lets them hit similar levels of armor while being able to fit either, better resists, more DPS, better application, or more mobility mods (Inertia Stabs for align?). Shield Battleships need an X-Large shield extender. The issue is that the largest tank mods in this game are aimed at cruisers/BC, and BS are forced to use cruiser sized EHP mods and only gain large guns as a benefit over Battlecruisers, while having similar DPS and FAR worse application.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14736	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:22:37 - [88] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Now I don't post on forums often, but I am bored in class and saw this thread. First off, baltec1 is ~that guy~ in fleets who despite being told things will argue endlessly how you are bad and he is correct. So with that out of the way, since he appears to be an EFT master/fitting guru, let's check his fit. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42350895/ Yep. 4 CPRIIs, 2 Nanos, Shield fit, 0 Tracking, and only 34,000 damage taken with logistics. Yeah, Ishtar literally has better stats than your fit in EVERY regard, hell a Drake would do better. Sorry, that's really bad. So yeah, you can align as fast as cruisers, but you are also effectively worthless to the fleet and I could solo that terrible fit with a Merlin. And before you bring "ranking" into the argument, Baltec1, as I know you will because you are merely grasping at straws now, 80% of your kills are POS modules and the least amount of people I've seen on a mail in your killboard is 11. Your experience with this game is simply not enough to be making arguments for or against a ship/balance issue. Sorry. Go back to ratting in Deklein. I will just point out that you have no idea why she was fit like that and you have no idea how she died. This fit (now outdated) is my Harpy fleet fit and is fitted in order to match said fleet. The requirements are cap stable with the MWD running, fast enough to keep up with alignments, 3au warp speed and 80km range. She died due to me not broadcasting for reps (welp) and has a track record of 285 days active service. In the last two years we have not faced any real threat so most of the engagements were over uncontested towers. I have spent 5 years running BS and mostly only BS in fleets they had no right in being in. KB tell you a ship died, they tell you nothing of what is happening in a fight or what has happened over the years which is why we dont care about them. In fleet I am infact that guy who keeps the moral high and helps wherever I can when asked. I just call out bullshit on the forums when I see it. Now, are there other battleships that can do better in a harpy fleet? Yes. But I choose to use the megathron because for me it is fun to push my favorate ship into doing new and outlandish things. Do I care what my KB looks like when they eventually die? Clearly not. Perhaps if people spent more time having fun with new fits rather than stressing over what their KB looks like they would have more success. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 34	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:14:02 - [89] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Now I don't post on forums often, but I am bored in class and saw this thread. First off, baltec1 is ~that guy~ in fleets who despite being told things will argue endlessly how you are bad and he is correct. So with that out of the way, since he appears to be an EFT master/fitting guru, let's check his fit. https://zkillboard.com/kill/42350895/ Yep. 4 CPRIIs, 2 Nanos, Shield fit, 0 Tracking, and only 34,000 damage taken with logistics. Yeah, Ishtar literally has better stats than your fit in EVERY regard, hell a Drake would do better. Sorry, that's really bad. So yeah, you can align as fast as cruisers, but you are also effectively worthless to the fleet and I could solo that terrible fit with a Merlin. And before you bring "ranking" into the argument, Baltec1, as I know you will because you are merely grasping at straws now, 80% of your kills are POS modules and the least amount of people I've seen on a mail in your killboard is 11. Your experience with this game is simply not enough to be making arguments for or against a ship/balance issue. Sorry. Go back to ratting in Deklein. I will just point out that you have no idea why she was fit like that and you have no idea how she died. This fit (now outdated) is my Harpy fleet fit and is fitted in order to match said fleet. The requirements are cap stable with the MWD running, fast enough to keep up with alignments, 3au warp speed and 80km range. She died due to me not broadcasting for reps (welp) and has a track record of 285 days active service. In the last two years we have not faced any real threat so most of the engagements were over uncontested towers. I have spent 5 years running BS and mostly only BS in fleets they had no right in being in. KB tell you a ship died, they tell you nothing of what is happening in a fight or what has happened over the years which is why we dont care about them. In fleet I am infact that guy who keeps the moral high and helps wherever I can when asked. I just call out bullshit on the forums when I see it. Now, are there other battleships that can do better in a harpy fleet? Yes. But I choose to use the megathron because for me it is fun to push my favorate ship into doing new and outlandish things. Do I care what my KB looks like when they eventually die? Clearly not. Perhaps if people spent more time having fun with new fits rather than stressing over what their KB looks like they would have more success. Essentially all I have seen from you on this thread is "Battleships are viable if you gimp them to the stats of a T1 cruiser, they don't need changes.". Obviously they are not fine if you need to gimp them to make them useful. And I seem to recognize you stating that your super awesome viable in fleet megathron fit had 2 nanos and a warp speed rig, which that lossmail has. So let's just say that's your "super sekrit" fit. Your efficiency versus POS mods really has no bearing on whether or not BS are viable anymore, sorry little goon.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1536	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:18:14 - [90] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Essentially all I have seen from you on this thread is "Battleships are viable if you gimp them to the stats of a T1 cruiser, they don't need changes.". Obviously they are not fine if you need to gimp them to make them useful. And I seem to recognize you stating that your super awesome viable in fleet megathron fit had 2 nanos and a warp speed rig, which that lossmail has. So let's just say that's your "super sekrit" fit. Your efficiency versus POS mods really has no bearing on whether or not BS are viable anymore, sorry little goon. If that was his only PvP toon, he hasn't shot anyone since december. Imma be he has alts.

Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 36	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:36:03 - [91] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Essentially all I have seen from you on this thread is "Battleships are viable if you gimp them to the stats of a T1 cruiser, they don't need changes.". Obviously they are not fine if you need to gimp them to make them useful. And I seem to recognize you stating that your super awesome viable in fleet megathron fit had 2 nanos and a warp speed rig, which that lossmail has. So let's just say that's your "super sekrit" fit. Your efficiency versus POS mods really has no bearing on whether or not BS are viable anymore, sorry little goon. If that was his only PvP toon, he hasn't shot anyone since december. Imma be he has alts. Goons haven't left Deklein since December. Additionally Baltec1, how much does your morale tank, and how much damage does it deal? How viable is your morale tank in fleet vs fleet combat since you finally acknowledge your fit isn't for combat but rather for "morale"?
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 90	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:43:32 - [92] - Quote Enough that he was always on this toons watchlist, even if he wasn logi or leadership. Keeping the odd man in the fleet alive is a challenge, almost as much as keeping the FC and boosters alive, and it IS a morale boost. First time I saw him in alpha fleet we were told "Don't say anything, he's more likely to survive than you are" and the FC was right.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1536	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:05:04 - [93] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Essentially all I have seen from you on this thread is "Battleships are viable if you gimp them to the stats of a T1 cruiser, they don't need changes.". Obviously they are not fine if you need to gimp them to make them useful. And I seem to recognize you stating that your super awesome viable in fleet megathron fit had 2 nanos and a warp speed rig, which that lossmail has. So let's just say that's your "super sekrit" fit. Your efficiency versus POS mods really has no bearing on whether or not BS are viable anymore, sorry little goon. If that was his only PvP toon, he hasn't shot anyone since december. Imma be he has alts. Goons haven't left Deklein since December. Additionally Baltec1, how much does your morale tank, and how much damage does it deal? How viable is your morale tank in fleet vs fleet combat since you finally acknowledge your fit isn't for combat but rather for "morale"? I'm pretty sure his "morale boost" comment was geared to ward you calling him "that guy" in fleets about supposedly arguing over anything for bad reasons.
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 36	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:43:40 - [94] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Essentially all I have seen from you on this thread is "Battleships are viable if you gimp them to the stats of a T1 cruiser, they don't need changes.". Obviously they are not fine if you need to gimp them to make them useful. And I seem to recognize you stating that your super awesome viable in fleet megathron fit had 2 nanos and a warp speed rig, which that lossmail has. So let's just say that's your "super sekrit" fit. Your efficiency versus POS mods really has no bearing on whether or not BS are viable anymore, sorry little goon. If that was his only PvP toon, he hasn't shot anyone since december. Imma be he has alts. Goons haven't left Deklein since December. Additionally Baltec1, how much does your morale tank, and how much damage does it deal? How viable is your morale tank in fleet vs fleet combat since you finally acknowledge your fit isn't for combat but rather for "morale"? I'm pretty sure his "morale boost" comment was geared to ward you calling him "that guy" in fleets about supposedly arguing over anything for bad reasons. Have you seen this thread? It's like 50% Baltec1 arguing that because his Battleship is able to have similar stats to a Cruiser that they are fine and balanced. Cool story, then why should I fly a battleship just to intentionally gimp every minor advantage it affords?
Ines Tegator Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc. 545	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:52:06 - [95] - Quote Let's see what we are talking about here. Here's a fit I just threw together, intended for small gang use. To summarize, it can't keep up with a HAC, costs about the same as a HAC, but brings a LOT more tank, ewar resistance, and projection. [Apocalypse, Apocalypse fit] Large Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Damage Control II Reactive Armor Hardener Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Warp Disruptor II Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Large Energy Metastasis Adjuster I Large Energy Metastasis Adjuster I Large Low Friction Nozzle Joints I 8.14 sec Align 1140 m/s 51.5k EHP 652 DPS at 21.7km+12.5 520 DPS at 60.6km+12.5 0.0754 tracking 477.7 overheated Reps/sec (that's BEFORE the reactive has adapted) 86.3 Sensor Strength 214m Isk (eft estimate) Swap the repper for a 1600mm plate and you get 64k EHP. On the whole though, the repper is worth more EHP, as long as you live longer then 30 secs or so, which shouldn't be hard with that much HP. This fit is not meant for a fleet with logi, the tank would look much different in that case. Overall, not bad. I could definately see having a couple of these along in a HAC or cruiser gang. It'd be right at home in a BC gang. Definately no spot for it in a nano gang. This has the speed to keep up (barely), the range to hammer EWAR and Logi, and the sensor strength to make a Falcon cry. It's DPS is only barely above a HAC or BC, but the combination package is a very mean beast indeed. What it brings to gang is instead sustainability- it won't get focused off the field quickly, and will keep dishing out a lot of pain at anything in range to engage you. So, if the question is "Can BS be used in fleets?" The answer is yes. If the question is, "SHOULD BS be used in fleets?", the answer is complicated. Not all fleets will need what a BS brings. Overhaul Dscan! Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 37	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:03:37 - [96] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: Let's see what we are talking about here. Here's a fit I just threw together, intended for small gang use. To summarize, it can't keep up with a HAC, costs about the same as a HAC, but brings a LOT more tank, ewar resistance, and projection. [Apocalypse, Apocalypse fit] Large Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Damage Control II Reactive Armor Hardener Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Warp Disruptor II Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Large Energy Metastasis Adjuster I Large Energy Metastasis Adjuster I Large Low Friction Nozzle Joints I 8.14 sec Align 1140 m/s 51.5k EHP 652 DPS at 21.7km+12.5 520 DPS at 60.6km+12.5 0.0754 tracking 477.7 overheated Reps/sec (that's BEFORE the reactive has adapted) 86.3 Sensor Strength 214m Isk (eft estimate) Swap the repper for a 1600mm plate and you get 64k EHP. On the whole though, the repper is worth more EHP, as long as you live longer then 30 secs or so, which shouldn't be hard with that much HP. This fit is not meant for a fleet with logi, the tank would look much different in that case. Overall, not bad. I could definately see having a couple of these along in a HAC or cruiser gang. It'd be right at home in a BC gang. Definately no spot for it in a nano gang. This has the speed to keep up (barely), the range to hammer EWAR and Logi, and the sensor strength to make a Falcon cry. It's DPS is only barely above a HAC or BC, but the combination package is a very mean beast indeed. What it brings to gang is instead sustainability- it won't get focused off the field quickly, and will keep dishing out a lot of pain at anything in range to engage you. So, if the question is "Can BS be used in fleets?" The answer is yes. If the question is, "SHOULD BS be used in fleets?", the answer is complicated. Not all fleets will need what a BS brings. Vexor Navy Issue out performs that Apoc. Faster, same DPS to better ranges, same buffer, half the sig, half the cost, only thing it loses is 40 sensor strength. Which really doesnt matter all that much.
Foxicity Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 112	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:06:23 - [97] - Quote Ines, thank you for your in-depth analysis. The things you highlighted clearly show that a battleship can bring a totally different flavor to a fight than 'comparable' cruisers. You did forget to share the scan resolution/lock time. Personally I would consider at least one tracking computer, since extra range will help with your inability to dictate, and a little more tracking makes you that much more mean. But the heat sink is suitable.
Biron Soringard Absurdity of Abstractions Did he say Jump 6	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:31:48 - [98] - Quote As a lowsec dweller, battleships are fine in this area. Sure, they're overshadowed a lot by Tech 3's and Ishtars, but I still see them on a regular basis. They're not exactly good for roaming about in all the time, but for ops where the field need be held, they're still solid. As for Tech 3's and Ishtars... yeah. Ishtars need to lose sentry drones, and Tech 3's need to not be sig-tanking battleships. The Proteus in lowsec meta is OP as hell. 170k EHP no links no slaves, 20k optimal and falloff around 50k plus 620 DPS with CNAM, a 50mbit drone bay for even more damage or ECM drones, a utility mid, and a long point that goes out to 40+ if you use faction with no links. Beam Legions can blap through logi with ease, and get 2-ish utility mids, depending on fitting. I think the Loki is the most well balanced of all of them, actually. Its a bit lackluster on applied DPS, but that's mainly projectiles. Arty web Lokis are a possibility, but I've not tinkered with one since the medium long-range weapon tweaks to see if they're better or worse than previous setups. I won't talk about Ishtars. Their issues are pretty much universal between low/null from my perspective.Eitherway I think that if Tech 3's and Ishtars were brought into line, Battleships would be a much more powerful alternative. They'd still need web ships to help them apply their damage, or target painters in some situations. But, I think that most fleets should need some form of support ships other than Logistics to help them reach their full potential. I also think that the T2 resist profile is a big reason for why HACS and Tech 3's are chosen over battleships in small gang situations, where attrition and alpha aren't as much of an issue, and holding reps is a much more important factor.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 206	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:44:18 - [99] - Quote Battleships need almost twice as long to move from system to system compared to a t2 cruiser platform, say ishtar + Bridging a fleet over vast distances is no more ==> BS suck now. Pirate faction battleships are still interesting thx to their special bonuses. But that's pretty much it ...
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 254	Posted - 2015.01.30 00:54:43 - [100] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Stuff At this point it's so feeble that you're just disagreeing do disagree and you don't have anything new to add.. Your statements are debunked and your lies have been exposed and are free here for anyone else to read and I'm not going to just bash your for the sake of making you look stupid. Like I said before I'm sorry to pick on you or anyone else here because I hate the idea of hurting anyone else's feelings; so I'm sorry if anything I've said made you or anyone else get hot over the issue. I do agree with you that t3s desperately need to be brought in line, that ishtars might be too versatile, and that if bombs were tweaked that the health of the battleship class as a whole would improve. Given CCPs track record with t3 destroyers and ishtars though, and their reluctance to nerf bombers in a meaningful way, I'm not holding my breath on the chance that t3 cruisers are going to get nerfed too hard. Even then, members of the pirate cruiser and HAC line still strongly overlap with the battleship class, while having few of the disadvantages. T1 battleships will probably remain in their third chair status for a while longer, but that isn't to say (and I've never said) that they're a useless class. They're just less useful than they should be for the drawbacks that their use can incur, and the cost of mitigating those drawbacks to a tolerable degree is too high. Some battleships are quite good. I adore the pirate line, and frequently abuse two of them, and I'm happy with the performance of three of the faction battleships.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14739	Posted - 2015.01.30 01:08:27 - [101] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Have you seen this thread? It's like 50% Baltec1 arguing that because his Battleship is able to have similar stats to a Cruiser that they are fine and balanced. Cool story, then why should I fly a battleship just to intentionally gimp every minor advantage it affords? How about you look past the mods needed for the cap stability when flying with a harpy fleet? [Megathron, Nano cruiser gang] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Large Core Defense Field Extender I With a set of mid grades and a ws-615 you get .45au faster than a cruiser. Its a shield rax on steroids. The same can be done for every other BS out there if you want them to warp like a cruiser. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Ines Tegator Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc. 547	Posted - 2015.01.30 01:53:49 - [102] - Quote Foxicity wrote: Ines, thank you for your in-depth analysis. The things you highlighted clearly show that a battleship can bring a totally different flavor to a fight than 'comparable' cruisers. You did forget to share the scan resolution/lock time. Personally I would consider at least one tracking computer, since extra range will help with your inability to dictate, and a little more tracking makes you that much more mean. But the heat sink is suitable. Richard wrote: Vexor Navy Issue out performs that Apoc. Faster, same DPS to better ranges, same buffer, half the sig, half the cost, only thing it loses is 40 sensor strength. Which really doesnt matter all that much. Why'd you have to ruin it. Aren't they like, characteristically different or something? I WANT TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT BATTLESHIPS. Sorry. Lock time is 10.9 secs vs a cruiser. 6.8 secs with a single sebo. Not great, but acceptable within the fit's intended role. Tracking is good enough to function while fleet mates are providing the tackle. It would obviously not be able to apply it's dps and die a fiery death if solo. Lets look at the VNI. Turns out Mr Party Pooper is pretty damn close to being right. There are some important limitations though. Quote: [Vexor Navy Issue, Vexor Navy Issue fit] Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Reactive Armor Hardener Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Warp Disruptor II [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Garde II x5 I honestly couldn't figure out what to put in those high slots. CPU is too limited for small guns. I don't fly VNI's, I was simply trying to match the numbers to my Apoc example as Richard said was possible. So take with a grain of salt. 621 DPS at 30km+18 5.51s Align 1482 m/s Sensor Strength 24 3.6s lock time vs a cruiser 54.9k EHP .0738 Tracking 101m Isk Compared to the Apoc, EHP is moderately lower (at almost 1k effective reps/sec with the overheated Ancillary burst tanking, surviving for 30 secs means another 30k EHP. Buffer Apoc without the repper was another 15k EHP, for 65k total). Align is notably faster, lock time is Lots faster. Range is half and resistance to ewar is fully 1/4. It doesn't have the range flexibility - it's drone bay only has room for a single set of sentries. It also can't move during battle without leaving it's sentries behind - viable, but risky. For the same reason, it can't replace sentries that are destoryed unless it goes without light drones, making itself vulnerable to frigates and cruisers. Lastly, it can't "up fit." Remember that this is in comparison to a BS that was specifically fit to be compatible with cruiser gangs. BS are capable of much more DPS or Tank in fits that are specced to those purposes. With those limitations, flying one or the other is obviously not going to be the same. But the raw stats are, in fact, pretty comparable. BS still has more sustain, and more flexibility. It's also much more expensive. Based on those tradeoffs, I'd say there's a meaningful choice in picking one or the other, without one being clearly dominant. This is a good place to be. Remember also that this is compared to specialized small gang BS fit, and BS as ship class have additional roles they can fill beyond small roams. Overall, I think BS are really in a good place. The balance problem, if there is one, is with sentry drones. I think putting a BS size weapon system (heavy drones) on cruisers is the mistake, and they should probably be gently nerfed. Probably by taking the drone tracking bonuses off the Hulls, which would leave cruisers with their raw stats but leave BS with their distinct advantage in application and flexibility. Overhaul Dscan! Make your own rules - Noobs to Null / Casual Vets Corp
Ronny Hugo Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 86	Posted - 2015.01.30 04:01:05 - [103] - Quote How big EHP would battlesips need at their current price range before they would be worth their slow pace?
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 549	Posted - 2015.01.30 08:25:03 - [104] - Quote Ronny Hugo wrote: How big EHP would battlesips need at their current price range before they would be worth their slow pace? Nonononono, you are going this the wrong way. Your question should be, how should the pricetag ona battleship look like to be worth while gimp- errm using and the answer is: Tier 1: 89.000.000m Tier 2: 108.000.000m Tier 3: 140.000.000m isk and the base ehp be brought up to tier 3. There we go. Then a few tweaks that fit the lore not the band(aid) of developers.. Battleships fixed. signature
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 38	Posted - 2015.01.30 09:39:09 - [105] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Have you seen this thread? It's like 50% Baltec1 arguing that because his Battleship is able to have similar stats to a Cruiser that they are fine and balanced. Cool story, then why should I fly a battleship just to intentionally gimp every minor advantage it affords? How about you look past the mods needed for the cap stability when flying with a harpy fleet? [Megathron, Nano cruiser gang] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Large Core Defense Field Extender I With a set of mid grades and a ws-615 you get .45au faster than a cruiser. Its a shield rax on steroids. The same can be done for every other BS out there if you want them to warp like a cruiser. I think at this point I give up on trying to explain simple game mechanics to you. You have no idea what on earth you are talking about. So let's try once more. If you need to gimp the tank of BS down to that of a cruiser yet still get out performed by a HAC at half the SP/ISK cost and you need billions of isk worth of implants, you have proven yourself wrong and everyone else right. Thank you for proving to Eve that BS are not viable.
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 38	Posted - 2015.01.30 09:44:33 - [106] - Quote Ronny Hugo wrote: How big EHP would battlesips need at their current price range before they would be worth their slow pace? 200k EHP should be easily achievable IMO. Now before people freak out about the insane tank numbers, anti-BS dreads will be a counter.
HiddenPorpoise Under Dark Sins of our Fathers 315	Posted - 2015.01.30 09:51:34 - [107] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: I think at this point I give up on trying to explain simple game mechanics to you. You have no idea what on earth you are talking about. So let's try once more. If you need to gimp the tank of BS down to that of a cruiser yet still get out performed by a HAC at half the SP/ISK cost and you need billions of isk worth of implants, you have proven yourself wrong and everyone else right. Thank you for proving to Eve that BS are not viable. Actually pull that fit up. Don't even put implants on, just look. Not even saying it's good. I still just say extra large buffer choices and slight base hp increase.
Anthar Thebess 845	Posted - 2015.01.30 10:32:09 - [108] - Quote Battleships need love. Every one know this. From the start battleship Vs hac/ T3 What is working: - battleship is slow , cruizer sized ships are fast - mass of a battleship, and his size blocks big relocation of fleets - while fast moving cruisers can travel easily by gates and wormholes What is not working : - battleships should out match T3 Cruisers and hacs on battlefield - battleship survivability should be grater than T3 Cruisers and hacs What is partially working - battleship alpha doctrines , you can still get more alpha strike if shooting big target. How this can be fixed. It cannot be without big nerf or big buff to one of the ship classes. For example one of the most annoying ships in eve : ISTHAR Possible fix that i see : - reduce Heavy drone bandwidth to 20mb/s - reduce Ishtar and Vexor navy drone bandwidth to 100mb So they still can deploy 5 hvy drones, but only 4 sentry drone - so 5 sentry drones will be only viable on the battleship class. Tech 3 cruisers. Probably the hardest to re-balance - you can easily store ammo , depot and extra subsystem and mods in cargo bay. So you can travel few regions in a nullified ship, and refit it to combat 1j from destination. But this is not only the issue, next is resistance profile, so you can get on Tech 3 cruiser EHP bigger from most of the battleships, while still having very small signature. What is more important - this high resistances allow for much bigger survivability as your logistics needs to fix much less shied or armor. People use this ships not only for PVP , so lets try something very nasty. Due to wormhole nature , tech 3 cruisers outside wormhole space are penalized and receive -40% less remote aid. So remote armor repairs, remote shield transporters, energy one give you 40% less. This don't impact local repair systems. Why this? Because those ships are used all around eve not only on big fleet engagements. But also, for hunting, exploration, ratting, taxi, hauling etc. The issue is in abusing them for fleet pvp, so lets only hit this aspect , and at the same time mess with other broken mechanic. Logistic ships.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 836	Posted - 2015.01.30 12:30:36 - [109] - Quote You guys just need to let go of the hole bandwith shinanigans w/ the ishtar. The problem is that it drops sentries AND runs. That whole 'only 4 sentries' just reduces the problem by 20% It doesn't fix the problem. It's the whole treat the symptoms or cure the disease thing. Their high dps is a symptom. Other HACs have high dps, but they are not OP. Ishtar has high dps and kites away. Other (not OP HACs) have high dps (deimos for example) but are not OP. It's the drop and run combo that is OP. Taking sentries away from cruiser hulls gets rid of the drop and run issue. They would still be able to drop heavy drones, but would need to hang around and web/scram their prey to apply the big damage. I think this would help BS pvp viability. Making sentries BS only and making them un assignable would create a unique operation mode for BS. If an FC wants instant sentry damage - he needs to bring a BS fleet. It preserves the sentry drone and creates a niche for the BS to get them out there on the field. Keep in mind what makes the sentry so attractive. It has zero travel time to get in range of it's target. That does a couple of things. You can't just turn on some smart bombs and get rid of the - you have to boat over to them and then smartbomb them, which isn't a small thing to do. You don't get 10 seconds (this varies down in a short range brawl and can get silly when heavies chase a fast target) or more from engagement time until your drones get into damage dealing range of their target. These features make assigning sentries attractive to FC and somewhat problematic on the game balance end. I think making them BS only would be sweet. It would instantly fix the whole cruiser sentry imbalance. It would bring the ishtar in line w/ other HACs by forcing it to actually tackle opponents if it wants to properly apply heavy drone dps. (The vexor and navey vexor would take a good lumping, but they would still be T1 cruisers doing BS damage if a pilot were willing to actually engage via scram/web - kiting vexors would no longer be as attractive). Taking sentries away from capital ships would also get rid of some balance issues (ok, server crushing archons issues), but I'm not sure CCP could justify 'no sentries' on carriers just based on what carriers are, but taking the assign function away from the drone itself would do wonders also. Then there is the whole large null block influence on CCP decisions that has worked to make/keep some aspects of the game quite silly and unintersting. So - Sentries as BS only weapons would be great for BS (and other stuff). Sentries as BS and above with no ability to assign them out ot others would be a lesser option, but would still have a lot of good impact on the game.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 722	Posted - 2015.01.30 13:58:53 - [110] - Quote baltec1 wrote: [Megathron, Nano cruiser gang] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Large Core Defense Field Extender I With a set of mid grades and a ws-615 you get .45au faster than a cruiser. Its a shield rax on steroids. The same can be done for every other BS out there if you want them to warp like a cruiser. Talos does it better, btw.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14743	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:04:51 - [111] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: I think at this point I give up on trying to explain simple game mechanics to you. You have no idea what on earth you are talking about. So let's try once more. If you need to gimp the tank of BS down to that of a cruiser yet still get out performed by a HAC at half the SP/ISK cost and you need billions of isk worth of implants, you have proven yourself wrong and everyone else right. Thank you for proving to Eve that BS are not viable. Do please tell us how the above is no good. If you dont want to fit implants and a warp speed rig then dont, you dont have to go 3au to be effective. We have ships such as the pest that can fit like the old cane only bigger everything. We have the RHML phoon and raven, The geddon and its powerful neuts, The scorpion and its ECM, The duel rep hyperion the can and does wipe out entire gangs. We then have the likes of the geddon with can solo small fleets of cruisers and the panther which a lot of people love. Moving up we have the rattle which can be fitted to destroy just about anything and the likes of the vindi and mach. The vast bulk of complaints are around T3 and the ishtar, all of which are horribly overpowered. Battleships are fine, its these ships that are broken. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14743	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:20:43 - [112] - Quote afkalt wrote: Talos does it better, btw. It doesn't have the CPU. It also has less than half the buffer and has less tracking (mega can fit up to two more TE than the talos) . Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 722	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:24:17 - [113] - Quote The ones I run with have 34k EHP, plenty. Tracking of 0.07 with void is plenty because we roll it in fleets with hard tackle. It also has the massive advantage of looking more engagable, which appears to be 85% of eve roaming pvp these days.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9583	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:33:04 - [114] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: I think at this point I give up on trying to explain simple game mechanics to you. If the choice is listening to a fairly famous EVE pilot (Baltec) who has proven (by actually playing the game) that he knows what he's doing or some F&I theory crafters of....lets call it "less notoriety" (lol)....well, all i can say is "Hail Baltec"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14745	Posted - 2015.01.30 14:40:15 - [115] - Quote afkalt wrote: The ones I run with have 34k EHP, plenty. Tracking of 0.07 with void is plenty because we roll it in fleets with hard tackle. It also has the massive advantage of looking more engagable, which appears to be 85% of eve roaming pvp these days. You underestimate the drive most have to tackle that battleship. Grab yourself a solo rhml raven, people will tackle themselves for you Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Antillie Sa'Kan KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 894	Posted - 2015.01.30 15:24:01 - [116] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: If the choice is listening to a fairly famous EVE pilot (Baltec) who has proven (by actually playing the game) that he knows what he's doing or some F&I theory crafters of....lets call it "less notoriety" (lol)....well, all i can say is "Hail Baltec" I am not personally qualified to debate the finer points of PVP with BS hulls but what Baltec is saying does make sense on several levels. I am going to have to go with Jenn aSide on this one.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 836	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:40:20 - [117] - Quote Antillie Sa'Kan wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: If the choice is listening to a fairly famous EVE pilot (Baltec) who has proven (by actually playing the game) that he knows what he's doing or some F&I theory crafters of....lets call it "less notoriety" (lol)....well, all i can say is "Hail Baltec" I am not personally qualified to debate the finer points of PVP with BS hulls but what Baltec is saying does make sense on several levels. I am going to have to go with Jenn aSide on this one. I dunno, when the FC says harpy fleet and the guy shows up in a mega.... Do we really want to encourage that sort of behavior from everyone? I think the guy should be used as an example and handled accordingly. We have to stick the the doctrine or chaos will run rampant. Baltec1 reminds me of the cat in that video I saw. The one where the little toy boy dog gets some extra extra strange. I don't think this kind of behavior should be encouraged. (I didn't actually see the video - one of the F&I experts described it to me)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1537	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:50:20 - [118] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Antillie Sa'Kan wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: If the choice is listening to a fairly famous EVE pilot (Baltec) who has proven (by actually playing the game) that he knows what he's doing or some F&I theory crafters of....lets call it "less notoriety" (lol)....well, all i can say is "Hail Baltec" I am not personally qualified to debate the finer points of PVP with BS hulls but what Baltec is saying does make sense on several levels. I am going to have to go with Jenn aSide on this one. I dunno, when the FC says harpy fleet and the guy shows up in a mega.... Do we really want to encourage that sort of behavior from everyone? I think the guy should be used as an example and handled accordingly. We have to stick the the doctrine or chaos will run rampant. If the ship follows the guideline of the fleet and it's approved by the FC, there is no chaos. If other fleet emmber ask question, the FC can always call special snowflake rule and if someone says he want to be one, tell him the implant/fits requirement and see if he's willing to stand within the guideline. The funnyest situation will be if everyone want and can do it and you end up with a fleet of megathron.
Aiyshimin Shiva Furnace 384	Posted - 2015.01.30 17:32:09 - [119] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Antillie Sa'Kan wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: If the choice is listening to a fairly famous EVE pilot (Baltec) who has proven (by actually playing the game) that he knows what he's doing or some F&I theory crafters of....lets call it "less notoriety" (lol)....well, all i can say is "Hail Baltec" I am not personally qualified to debate the finer points of PVP with BS hulls but what Baltec is saying does make sense on several levels. I am going to have to go with Jenn aSide on this one. I dunno, when the FC says harpy fleet and the guy shows up in a mega.... Do we really want to encourage that sort of behavior from everyone? I think the guy should be used as an example and handled accordingly. We have to stick the the doctrine or chaos will run rampant. If the ship follows the guideline of the fleet and it's approved by the FC, there is no chaos. If other fleet emmber ask question, the FC can always call special snowflake rule and if someone says he want to be one, tell him the implant/fits requirement and see if he's willing to stand within the guideline. The funnyest situation will be if everyone want and can do it and you end up with a fleet of megathron. If a ship doesn't contribute anything to the fleet, it is accepted on some other reasons. Like in baltec's case. I think it's cool that he always flies a Mega, and it's certainly fun for him and his group. However it doesn't have much to do with the discussion about viability of battleships in PVP.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14749	Posted - 2015.01.30 17:42:36 - [120] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Antillie Sa'Kan wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: If the choice is listening to a fairly famous EVE pilot (Baltec) who has proven (by actually playing the game) that he knows what he's doing or some F&I theory crafters of....lets call it "less notoriety" (lol)....well, all i can say is "Hail Baltec" I am not personally qualified to debate the finer points of PVP with BS hulls but what Baltec is saying does make sense on several levels. I am going to have to go with Jenn aSide on this one. I dunno, when the FC says harpy fleet and the guy shows up in a mega.... Do we really want to encourage that sort of behavior from everyone? I think the guy should be used as an example and handled accordingly. We have to stick the the doctrine or chaos will run rampant. We dont, It is something that has evolved over the last five years. It started out with just going on roaming gangs but when an attempt was made to headshot VFK after the NC fell an all hands on ** call was made. In the fighting we were running short on drakes so I was forced to adapt my Megathron for drake fleet. I honed the fit and when we went on the offensive it just came along for the ride. Fast forwards a few years to the fountain wars and my most well known mega (diplomatic incident) carved out a reputation for being unkillable with it often being the last man standing and managing to get back home. After that everyone just expects to see me in one and a good few see it as a luck charm. It also makes a difference in moral when a fleet that has suffered heavy losses finds out the Mega has survived. There has been a few times when the mega did die that the fleet I was with all donated isk to get a new one including the time when they paid for a navy mega. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship**

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14750	Posted - 2015.01.30 17:57:25 - [121] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: If a ship doesn't contribute anything to the fleet, it is accepted on some other reasons. Like in baltec's case. I think it's cool that he always flies a Mega, and it's certainly fun for him and his group. However it doesn't have much to do with the discussion about viability of battleships in PVP. Having to adapt and fly my battleships in such drastic ways means I have learned how to get the most out of them. Most people would Just hang up the keys to their favorate ship and fly the current fotm fleet ship. I dont blaim them, they want to win. With me however, I see it as a challange. I will spend however long it takes to adapt what the new doctrine requires. This has given my knolage of battleships that allows me to get the most out of them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9594	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:21:21 - [122] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: If a ship doesn't contribute anything to the fleet, it is accepted on some other reasons. Like in baltec's case. I think it's cool that he always flies a Mega, and it's certainly fun for him and his group. However it doesn't have much to do with the discussion about viability of battleships in PVP. Having to adapt and fly my battleships in such drastic ways means I have learned how to get the most out of them. Most people would Just hang up the keys to their favorate ship and fly the current fotm fleet ship. I dont blaim them, they want to win. With me however, I see it as a challange. I will spend however long it takes to adapt what the new doctrine requires. This has given my knolage of battleships that allows me to get the most out of them. Translation: just because most people suck and can't think their way out of a wet paper sack doesn't mean there is a problem with the class, it means people need to suck less. I hope I got that right
Gabriel Karade Noir. Suddenly Spaceships. 217	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:41:22 - [123] - Quote I'd be interested in seeing more creativity with the lowest tier of large turrets i.e. 'dual' weapons (signature benefits/burst fire/medium ammo e.t.c e.t.c) The addition of the RHML shows there is scope to play around with weapons that, fluff wise at least, are supposed to be multiple cruiser weapons bolted together... War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14750	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:52:31 - [124] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: baltec1 wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: If a ship doesn't contribute anything to the fleet, it is accepted on some other reasons. Like in baltec's case. I think it's cool that he always flies a Mega, and it's certainly fun for him and his group. However it doesn't have much to do with the discussion about viability of battleships in PVP. Having to adapt and fly my battleships in such drastic ways means I have learned how to get the most out of them. Most people would Just hang up the keys to their favorate ship and fly the current fotm fleet ship. I dont blaim them, they want to win. With me however, I see it as a challange. I will spend however long it takes to adapt what the new doctrine requires. This has given my knolage of battleships that allows me to get the most out of them. Translation: just because most people suck and can't think their way out of a wet paper sack doesn't mean there is a problem with the class, it means people need to suck less. I hope I got that right More or less, Im trying to be a bit more diplomatic. Honestly if people worried less about their KB record and did more experimenting they would have a lot more fun. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14750	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:57:08 - [125] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: I'd be interested in seeing more creativity with the lowest tier of large turrets i.e. 'dual' weapons (signature benefits/burst fire/medium ammo e.t.c e.t.c) The addition of the RHML shows there is scope to play around with weapons that, fluff wise at least, are supposed to be multiple cruiser weapons bolted together... You can do some rather interesting things with with these weapons. Im currently looking into fits that give very high tracking (for a battleship) that would allow turret BS to deal with cruisers and frigates. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 549	Posted - 2015.01.30 19:47:15 - [126] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: I'd be interested in seeing more creativity with the lowest tier of large turrets i.e. 'dual' weapons (signature benefits/burst fire/medium ammo e.t.c e.t.c) The addition of the RHML shows there is scope to play around with weapons that, fluff wise at least, are supposed to be multiple cruiser weapons bolted together... Pweese noo.. The next time I hear someone say 'burst' I will make it my next mission to 'burst' into someones office and start yeling people signature
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4055	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:42:43 - [127] - Quote Give Combat Battlecruisers and Battleships a secondary weapons array equivalent to half the number of turrets or launchers rounded up, to a maximum of five (each takes the place of a T3 subsystem slot in the fitting window). This does not apply to Attack Battlecruisers or Command ships. CPU and powergrid are not increased to offset these additions, and hull bonuses may or may not apply to secondary weapons. GÇó Combat Battlecruisers: Secondary weapon slots are limited to light weapons (only) GÇó Battleships: Secondary weapon slots are limited to medium weapons (only) Examples: GÇó Drake gains 3x light launcher slots; Drake Navy Issue gains 4x light launcher slots GÇó All Marauders gain 2x light launcher or 2x light turret slots (Marauder bonuses should probably be revised to extend to medium weapon systems as well) GÇó Armageddon, Typhoon and Typhoon Fleet Issue all gain 3x medium launcher and 3x medium turret slots (but are still limited to a maximum combination of 5) GÇó Scorpion Navy Issue gains 3x medium launchers and 2x medium turret slots I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14753	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:53:19 - [128] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Give Combat Battlecruisers and Battleships a secondary weapons array equivalent to half the number of turrets or launchers rounded up, to a maximum of five (each takes the place of a T3 subsystem slot in the fitting window). This does not apply to Attack Battlecruisers or Command ships. CPU and powergrid are not increased to offset these additions, and hull bonuses may or may not apply to secondary weapons. GÇó Combat Battlecruisers: Secondary weapon slots are limited to light weapons (only) GÇó Battleships: Secondary weapon slots are limited to medium weapons (only) Examples: GÇó Drake gains 3x light launcher slots; Drake Navy Issue gains 4x light launcher slots GÇó All Marauders gain 2x light launcher or 2x light turret slots (Marauder bonuses should probably be revised to extend to medium weapon systems as well) GÇó Armageddon, Typhoon and Typhoon Fleet Issue all gain 3x medium launcher and 3x medium turret slots (but are still limited to a maximum combination of 5) GÇó Scorpion Navy Issue gains 3x medium launchers and 2x medium turret slots This would make them horribly overpowered. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4056	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:06:27 - [129] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This would make them horribly overpowered. First and foremost, run the numbers before passing judgement. These will definitely have an impact on any fitting where CPU and/or powergrid is already tight (particularly Combat Battlecruisers). Second, in the vast majority of instances these secondary turrets or launchers will be unbonused (there are a few exceptions like the Rattlesnake and Barghest). Finally, since light and medium weapons will incur inherent range limitations (again, generally-speaking) - they'll only generally come into play at close ranges. The addition of a few medium or light weapon systems won't be enough to necessarily turn the tide when facing superior numbers, but it does give Combat Battlecruisers and Battleships at least a chance to extract themselves from these kind of predicaments. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aiyshimin Shiva Furnace 385	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:07:30 - [130] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Having to adapt and fly my battleships in such drastic ways means I have learned how to get the most out of them. Most people would Just hang up the keys to their favorate ship and fly the current fotm fleet ship. I dont blaim them, they want to win. With me however, I see it as a challange. I will spend however long it takes to adapt what the new doctrine requires. This has given my knolage of battleships that allows me to get the most out of them. Like I said, it's a very cool thing you do and I fully understand the added value for your personal game experience. I respect your persistence and fittings, and you get tons of extra points for the hull choice. It's just not the topic we're discussing. I maintain that the game balance should allow battleships to be fitted and flown as battleships, not as battleships trying very hard to be Harpies. Currently the meta favours speed (on-grid) over the natural qualities of battleships, and my interpretation is that it's because battleships just don't have quite enough of their natural qualities to make the trade-off worthwhile. Unfortunately all the latest new ship additions just reinforce the speed meta over staying power and raw damage with poor application.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14755	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:55:13 - [131] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: baltec1 wrote: Having to adapt and fly my battleships in such drastic ways means I have learned how to get the most out of them. Most people would Just hang up the keys to their favorate ship and fly the current fotm fleet ship. I dont blaim them, they want to win. With me however, I see it as a challange. I will spend however long it takes to adapt what the new doctrine requires. This has given my knolage of battleships that allows me to get the most out of them. Like I said, it's a very cool thing you do and I fully understand the added value for your personal game experience. I respect your persistence and fittings, and you get tons of extra points for the hull choice. It's just not the topic we're discussing. I maintain that the game balance should allow battleships to be fitted and flown as battleships, not as battleships trying very hard to be Harpies. Currently the meta favours speed (on-grid) over the natural qualities of battleships, and my interpretation is that it's because battleships just don't have quite enough of their natural qualities to make the trade-off worthwhile. Unfortunately all the latest new ship additions just reinforce the speed meta over staying power and raw damage with poor application. The most effective killing machine is the wreakingball/boot fleet. It is by far the slowest both in terms of warp speed and on grid but it will slaughter anything else in whatever numbers you wish to bring. You might see a lot of cruiser sized doctrines about right now but the battleship still forms to core of our subcap fleet in a war. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 39	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:59:55 - [132] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: baltec1 wrote: Having to adapt and fly my battleships in such drastic ways means I have learned how to get the most out of them. Most people would Just hang up the keys to their favorate ship and fly the current fotm fleet ship. I dont blaim them, they want to win. With me however, I see it as a challange. I will spend however long it takes to adapt what the new doctrine requires. This has given my knolage of battleships that allows me to get the most out of them. Like I said, it's a very cool thing you do and I fully understand the added value for your personal game experience. I respect your persistence and fittings, and you get tons of extra points for the hull choice. It's just not the topic we're discussing. I maintain that the game balance should allow battleships to be fitted and flown as battleships, not as battleships trying very hard to be Harpies. Currently the meta favours speed (on-grid) over the natural qualities of battleships, and my interpretation is that it's because battleships just don't have quite enough of their natural qualities to make the trade-off worthwhile. Unfortunately all the latest new ship additions just reinforce the speed meta over staying power and raw damage with poor application. Just give up. It's like teaching a rock how to fish. Seriously Baltec, you have yet to address the fact that your Mega has the stats of a T1 cruiser. Why should I fly it over a t1 cruiser?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14755	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:01:12 - [133] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: First and foremost, run the numbers before passing judgement. A vindi with 4 med blasters coupled with its bonused webs will shred frigates. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14755	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:03:36 - [134] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Seriously Baltec, you have yet to address the fact that your Mega has the stats of a T1 cruiser. Why should I fly it over a t1 cruiser? Show me a t1 cruiser with 1200 DPS and 65k buffer tank. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 39	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:04:48 - [135] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: First and foremost, run the numbers before passing judgement. A vindi with 4 med blasters coupled with its bonused webs will shred frigates. But why should I fly that over a vigilant? Its half the cost and bonused for medium guns? Or is it the 10% bonus to "Morale" that you are equating into your calculations? You are quite possibly the least qualified person to speak about balance, yet it seems with standard Goon tradition you just can't stop posting after having been wrong on every single aspect.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14756	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:30:34 - [136] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: baltec1 wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: First and foremost, run the numbers before passing judgement. A vindi with 4 med blasters coupled with its bonused webs will shred frigates. But why should I fly that over a vigilant? Its half the cost and bonused for medium guns? Or is it the 10% bonus to "Morale" that you are equating into your calculations? You are quite possibly the least qualified person to speak about balance, yet it seems with standard Goon tradition you just can't stop posting after having been wrong on every single aspect. The bare hull costs the same as a fully fitted megathron and it is not a t1 cruiser. Ill ask again, show me a t1 cruiser that can pump out 1200 dps and sports a 65k tank Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 39	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:38:27 - [137] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: Seriously Baltec, you have yet to address the fact that your Mega has the stats of a T1 cruiser. Why should I fly it over a t1 cruiser? Show me a t1 cruiser with 1200 DPS and 65k buffer tank. Ok. Let's start with the fact that your fit does not even remotely do 1200 dps. Not even REMOTELY. You should probably look at your metrics in game or in EFT before you start spouting non-sense on the forums. But because I'm not sure the goons teach you how to use out of game tools, I did it for you. http://i.imgur.com/okJHW4M.png 530 dps @ 36+30 71k ehp with 2.61km signature 225m Cost. Thats uh.... less than half of your quoted 1200 dps. Now here are some realistic substitutes. Brutix http://i.imgur.com/LG349C2.png 555 Dps to the same range as your Megathron 57k EHP @2.23k Sig 76m Cost Wow, like 1/3rd the price and you lose 10k ehp. Damn, better fly that mega for the 3 times the price and 10k more EHP! Drake http://i.imgur.com/ZwaBJNE.png 450 dps to 47km (It should really be 550dps because I forgot to put drones in) 80k EHP@ 2.06k Sig 66m 1/4th the price and you gain 10k ehp, 12km of Optimal, lose the speed, but for each mega you could get 4 of theses and I bet one of them could solo your terrible megathron fit. Vexor Navy Issue http://i.imgur.com/kkFlsnS.png 750 dps @ Infinite because OP 39k EHP @ 1k Sig. 116m. Half the cost of a mega,but similar defense to your fit due to a much reduced Sig radius, (and if you swap the rigs for EM) it will survive under logi no problem. So you lose some raw EHP, gain the reduced Sig, 500m/s speed, and 200 more dps, with the option to still do 550dps to the end of lock range with curators/bouncers. Im not even going to link any HACs in here because we all know they are better than BS except for Baltec1, and he really isn't worth that much effort.
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 39	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:39:16 - [138] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: baltec1 wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: First and foremost, run the numbers before passing judgement. A vindi with 4 med blasters coupled with its bonused webs will shred frigates. But why should I fly that over a vigilant? Its half the cost and bonused for medium guns? Or is it the 10% bonus to "Morale" that you are equating into your calculations? You are quite possibly the least qualified person to speak about balance, yet it seems with standard Goon tradition you just can't stop posting after having been wrong on every single aspect. The bare hull costs the same as a fully fitted megathron and it is not a t1 cruiser. Ill ask again, show me a t1 cruiser that can pump out 1200 dps and sports a 65k tank I'll ask once again, how many times has your brain been concussed to think that your mega fit puts out 1200 dps?
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14756	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:43:26 - [139] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: I'll ask once again, how many times has your brain been concussed to think that your mega fit puts out 1200 dps? How about looking at the right fit? We are talking about my nano cruiser fit not my harpy fleet fit. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 255	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:44:53 - [140] - Quote baltec1 wrote: [quote=baltec1] The most effective killing machine is the wreakingball/boot fleet. It is by far the slowest both in terms of warp speed and on grid but it will slaughter anything else in whatever numbers you wish to bring. You might see a lot of cruiser sized doctrines about right now but the battleship still forms to core of our subcap fleet in a war. So what's happening in R-ZUOL isn't a war then? Because I didn't see many battleships there. Mostly harpies, bombers, tengus, eagles and ishtars. Also, the wrecking ball relies on the archon, which doesn't even need to have subcap support to be effective. And for the record, this is what tracking and signature radius mean in a fleet context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJYQ7_w0oEs

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14756	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:49:17 - [141] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: baltec1 wrote: [quote=baltec1] The most effective killing machine is the wreakingball/boot fleet. It is by far the slowest both in terms of warp speed and on grid but it will slaughter anything else in whatever numbers you wish to bring. You might see a lot of cruiser sized doctrines about right now but the battleship still forms to core of our subcap fleet in a war. So what's happening in R-ZUOL isn't a war then? Because I didn't see many battleships there. Mostly harpies, bombers, tengus, eagles and ishtars. Also, the wrecking ball relies on the archon, which doesn't even need to have subcap support to be effective. And for the record, this is what tracking and signature radius mean in a fleet context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJYQ7_w0oEs No that is not a war. That is a deployment of the US TZ from goonfleet who are looking for "gud fights". It is not a CFC war deployment. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 255	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:51:21 - [142] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: baltec1 wrote: [quote=baltec1] The most effective killing machine is the wreakingball/boot fleet. It is by far the slowest both in terms of warp speed and on grid but it will slaughter anything else in whatever numbers you wish to bring. You might see a lot of cruiser sized doctrines about right now but the battleship still forms to core of our subcap fleet in a war. So what's happening in R-ZUOL isn't a war then? Because I didn't see many battleships there. Mostly harpies, bombers, tengus, eagles and ishtars. Also, the wrecking ball relies on the archon, which doesn't even need to have subcap support to be effective. And for the record, this is what tracking and signature radius mean in a fleet context. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJYQ7_w0oEs No that is not a war. That is a deployment of the US TZ from goonfleet who are looking for "gud fights". It is not a CFC war deployment. Well spin it how you want, but CFC isn't using battleships to win fights.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14756	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:57:38 - [143] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: Well spin it how you want, but CFC isn't using battleships to win fights. Why would we? Its a small deployment a long way from our supply lines so hauling a load of battleships out there is far more effort than it warrents. The only reason we took that system was because someone in FCON got the final shot in while the INIT. dreadnoughts were flipping the station. We are literally grinding their space to the ground with 200 guys and accidentally taking space we don't want. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 39	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:09:37 - [144] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: I'll ask once again, how many times has your brain been concussed to think that your mega fit puts out 1200 dps? How about looking at the right fit? We are talking about my nano cruiser fit not my harpy fleet fit. Everyone just ignore the talking pile of rocks.
Richard Stallmanu Stallmania Keep Calm and Carrion 39	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:11:26 - [145] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: Well spin it how you want, but CFC isn't using battleships to win fights. Why would we? Its a small deployment a long way from our supply lines so hauling a load of battleships out there is far more effort than it warrents. The only reason we took that system was because someone in FCON got the final shot in while the INIT. dreadnoughts were flipping the station. We are literally grinding their space to the ground with 200 guys and accidentally taking space we don't want. "We are farming POS mods for points/KB Efficiency"
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 255	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:15:44 - [146] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: Well spin it how you want, but CFC isn't using battleships to win fights. Why would we? Its a small deployment a long way from our supply lines so hauling a load of battleships out there is far more effort than it warrents. The only reason we took that system was because someone in FCON got the final shot in while the INIT. dreadnoughts were flipping the station. We are literally grinding their space to the ground with 200 guys and accidentally taking space we don't want. The point is that we use doctrines to win fights. A deployment isn't a trivial affair, even if it's something that designed to simply engender content, and players use the ships that win fights. It makes sense not to risk strategic assets like supercarriers to RF a random system, but the SRP and deployment headache to move battleships vs harpies or even ishtars isn't terrible as even a deployment to western curse is relatively easy to stage in to. It's not like the harpies and ishtars are coming from all the way up in dekein. A winning doctrine is a winning doctrine, and even if it's a hard one to move you'd never think twice about going through the trouble if it gives you a better chance. Besides, good fights didn't stop the CFC from using them against BL, which never credibly threatened CFC sov in any way.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4056	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:25:14 - [147] - Quote baltec1 wrote: A vindi with 4 med blasters coupled with its bonused webs will shred frigates. Considering it's close to a billion-ISK in hardware, I would hope so... But this also assumes you're not dealing with say a small force of Garmurs that can out-range and out-tackle said setup. I'm sure there are more than a few other frigates that would fit the criteria, but the Garmur stuck out foremost in my mind. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14758	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:27:03 - [148] - Quote Bullet Therapist wrote: baltec1 wrote: Bullet Therapist wrote: Well spin it how you want, but CFC isn't using battleships to win fights. Why would we? Its a small deployment a long way from our supply lines so hauling a load of battleships out there is far more effort than it warrents. The only reason we took that system was because someone in FCON got the final shot in while the INIT. dreadnoughts were flipping the station. We are literally grinding their space to the ground with 200 guys and accidentally taking space we don't want. The point is that we use doctrines to win fights. A deployment isn't a trivial affair, even if it's something that designed to simply engender content, and players use the ships that win fights. It makes sense not to risk strategic assets like supercarriers to RF a random system, but the SRP and deployment headache to move battleships vs harpies or even ishtars isn't terrible as even a deployment to western curse is relatively easy to stage in to. It's not like the harpies and ishtars are coming from all the way up in dekein. A winning doctrine is a winning doctrine, and even if it's a hard one to move you'd never think twice about going through the trouble if it gives you a better chance. Besides, good fights didn't stop the CFC from using them against BL, which never credibly threatened CFC sov in any way. The harpies did come from Dek. This deployment is indeed a trivial affair. Its a holiday to us, much like IRC space was (we called it the game reserve). We aren't using Domi fleet because frankly, we don't need a sledgehammer. We want to get fights, not to grind them into dust. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Mina Sebiestar Mactabilis Simplex Cursus 826	Posted - 2015.01.31 01:24:14 - [149] - Quote id give em smaller gun sigs to better land their dmg if that will do it then A mobility lock speed increase to keep up w meta B tank DPS and advanced utility buffs to make em worth of battleship name I am not sure following meta is right choice tho. under adv utility ad develop modules for them area of effect modules like distortion field generators = if enemy booster/s is not within field no boost are received to ships within field. stasis web generator = cant be stacked 20% speed drop (like drone) Warp drive inhibitor = warp drive charge(align) +100%(random figure) cant be stacked . etc etc etc
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 344	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:45:13 - [150] - Quote Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: baltec1 wrote: Richard Stallmanu Stallmania wrote: I'll ask once again, how many times has your brain been concussed to think that your mega fit puts out 1200 dps? How about looking at the right fit? We are talking about my nano cruiser fit not my harpy fleet fit. Everyone just ignore the talking pile of rocks. As said before, Baltec is well known and widely respected for his use of megathron's in particular in all kinds of ways. Who are you exactly? As also said before, it comes down to tools for the job: Use the ishtar if you don't want to fight, use the T3 if you need to survive long enough to reduce incoming DPS or need to hit smaller stuff, use a battleship if you have a big slow target that just needs tons of DPS, use faction battleships and caps if you want to break morale, etc, etc. The largest 'problem' with battleships is, and has been for quite some time, the sentry drone problem and T3's: CCP Ytterbium: Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line. It doesn't necessarily means nerfing them to oblivion and beyond, but making sure that each subsystem configuration has a use and they don't overlap on other ships by making them different in role and purpose. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1889852#post1889852 Only after those two issues are resolved can you really see what needs or doesn't need done with BS. Yes, I'd like to see their price tag come back down a bit, yes, I'd like to see their HP buffed slightly, but their biggest problems are not their problems, but other ships that overlap way too aggressively into their role. Those ships need fixed. The Law is a point of View

Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 579	Posted - 2015.01.31 03:40:39 - [151] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Yes, I'd like to see their price tag come back down a bit, yes, I'd like to see their HP buffed slightly, but their biggest problems are not their problems, but other ships that overlap way too aggressively into their role. Those ships need fixed. Stop it, you may cause an outbreak of reason here...and we can't have that. Player ship ant tactics choices and shifted to certain ships because of buff or plain ole lemming effect as in the case of t3's a few recipes were found to be kick ass and t3 not touched in a while. Its gonna happen. Countering that with a counter buff is not always the solution....sometimes it becomes power creep. Now we have several "op" ships running around. Now the pick on Baltec crap....guessing these people have never seen when Goons really really wants that space. I have. They will get to see lots of BS'. And people. I too have seen when 800 goons opt to spam local to give the node a workout. Some of them even put up really good ascii pics or local chat that rates a genuine damn this guy is pretty damn good at trash talk. The desire to roam in BS I never got either. A) its not what they were meant for. B) ever before the nerfs they had....they sucked at it imo C) no one said these have to be eve's end game like ships... Some like me went I got my basic fleet BS, now lets go back to the ships that I liked flying the most. Just we got lucky here...ccp has been buffing the crap out of sub BS of late. Or players have found recipes to spice this up a lot.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 550	Posted - 2015.01.31 04:45:02 - [152] - Quote baltec1 wrote: The bare hull costs the same as a fully fitted megathron and it is not a t1 cruiser. Ill ask again, show me a t1 cruiser that can pump out 1200 dps and sports a 65k tank Gila signature
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14761	Posted - 2015.01.31 05:06:06 - [153] - Quote elitatwo wrote: baltec1 wrote: The bare hull costs the same as a fully fitted megathron and it is not a t1 cruiser. Ill ask again, show me a t1 cruiser that can pump out 1200 dps and sports a 65k tank Gila Also a pirate ship. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page]

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