EVE Search - Battleship rebalence what happened - CCP care to comment?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Battleship rebalence what happened - CCP care to comment?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
March rabbit Federal Defense Union 1582	Posted - 2015.04.06 11:34:23 - [61] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Amanda Guido wrote: And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy? Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch. Come at me bro Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15581	Posted - 2015.04.06 12:42:16 - [62] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP From start to finish it was an adventure of pure hilarity. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 158	Posted - 2015.04.06 15:36:29 - [63] - Quote March rabbit wrote: baltec1 wrote: Amanda Guido wrote: And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy? Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch. Come at me bro Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP A trap by CCP for all turret players. The Raven may not have a bonus to RLML, but it does have one for RHML. There is no turret equivalent of the Rapid ML concept. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_Heavy_Pulse_Laser_I (Battleship-sized) https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Quad_Afocal_Light_Maser_I (Cruiser-sized) They could fix the above two examples that no one ever uses, by reducing the BS one to 165 m signature resolution, and to 70 m for the Cruiser version. Tracking is gud. Perhaps I should lobby for this. vOv Thoughts? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15581	Posted - 2015.04.06 17:46:59 - [64] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: March rabbit wrote: baltec1 wrote: Amanda Guido wrote: And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy? Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch. Come at me bro Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP A trap by CCP for all turret players. The Raven may not have a bonus to RLML, but it does have one for RHML. There is no turret equivalent of the Rapid ML concept. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_Heavy_Pulse_Laser_I (Battleship-sized) https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Quad_Afocal_Light_Maser_I (Cruiser-sized) They could fix the above two examples that no one ever uses, by reducing the BS one to 165 m signature resolution, and to 70 m for the Cruiser version. Tracking is gud. Perhaps I should lobby for this. vOv Thoughts? P.S. Thread poasted in F&Is section ( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread I already use the undersized large turrets for their better tracking. Duel 250 rails are great at wrecking cruisers. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 169	Posted - 2015.04.06 18:09:33 - [65] - Quote Tracking difference for fleet engagements should be negligible, as CCP mathGäó makes it easier to hit, the more the targets are farther away. I'm trying to revive Close-Medium range engagements on battleships in a cruiser-filled world. Don't suggest Typhoons, Ravens, Domis or Armageddons, because one thing unites most of them: RHLMs and Drones. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15582	Posted - 2015.04.06 20:30:16 - [66] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Tracking difference for fleet engagements should be negligible, as CCP mathGäó makes it easier to hit, the more the targets are farther away. I'm trying to revive Close-Medium range engagements on battleships in a cruiser-filled world. Don't suggest Typhoons, Ravens, Domis or Armageddons, because one thing unites most of them: RHLMs and Drones. Literally just went point blank on a cruiser fleet with blasters. Did just fine. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 500	Posted - 2015.04.07 16:24:20 - [67] - Quote I'm still working on a player run balance pass over in F&I and trying to get more support for that. Would love to see people hit up that thread, and a link to it is in my sig. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
To mare Advanced Technology 398	Posted - 2015.04.07 19:16:18 - [68] - Quote what if webs where slightly influenced by ship mass? that would mean a web used by a BS on a smaller ship would slow the target more than a small ship webbing a big one (wich make no sense anyway). this would help BS damage application at least in the short ranges.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2043	Posted - 2015.04.08 10:03:58 - [69] - Quote Benedictus de Suede wrote: Much effort is currently put into balance this game. A dont question the fact that a balanced game is important but rather the way CCP does it. Some stuff get buffed while some get nerfed. In general I think nerfing stuff is a bad approach which also tends to ** people off. If a weapon system or a ship is inferior to another you basically have two options. 1) Throw the a side and invent something new and better or.. 2) Improve it to be competitive This is the way hardware & weapon systems evolves in real life, why shouldn't this simple logic work in EVE? Tweaking every asset in the game consumes time. Time that could be spent on delivering even more depth and content to the game. My suggestion is straight forward - buff the stuff that are "out of balance" and let the rest be. Today I looked at the zKillboard and did a little comparison regarding how efficient the different Battleships and Cruisers are in the game. Eff. based on reported kills and losses. Battleships Standard 90 % - Rokh 90% - Tempest 89% - Abaddon 88% - Hyperion 88% - Apocalypse 88% - Armageddon 88% - Typhoon 87% - Megathron 84% - Maelstrom 84% - Scorpion 79% - Dominix 73% - Raven 85% - Mean efficiency Faction Battleships 95% - Armageddon Navy Issue 94% - Typhoon Fleet Issue 94% - Tempest Fleet Issue 92% - Apocalypse Navy Issue 91% - Megathron Navy Issue 83% - Dominix Navy Issue 76% - Scorpion Navy Issue 66% - Raven Navy Issue 89% - Mean efficiency** Most ships are balanced pretty well but some (the bottom 3) still need SERIUOS buffing right? Btw the Ishtar, according to zKillboard, have the lowest efficency (89%) and it got nerfed??? HAC ships look very well balanced so I can-¦t see a need to rebalance them at all. In general if you also look at the other cruisers; Gallente could use some buffing and Caldari even more to bring them up to the Minmatars and Amarrs very even scores. CCP - care to comment? Seriously these numbers are not reelvant right now. Why? because battleships became a NICHE usage. People use them for PVP only on the very very ultra specific scenarios where they are sure to win, that is why they have that efficiency. In real terms playing, battleships are RARE as PVP boats because they are HORRIBLY WEAK when takign the account the time they take to arrive on combat. For example, the tempest is one of the worse battleships, but has some specific niche application in pvp that ensure its vicotyr (no blaster cruiser or BC will EVER defeat a tempest), and is NEVER EVER used in PVE. The raven navy issue is used a LOT in PVE, and when pve players are PVPEd upon, they tend to explode in little bits. That is the main reason why you see the disparity. In reality, the raven navy issue is MASSIVELY stronger than the tempest on several, if not most scenarios. The normal raven is even right now one of the FEW battleships beign used in large scale in fleet fights. A type of combat were there is large mortality. The tempest and hyperion are ONLY used in very small scale PVP, where people tend to engage only when they are sure of victory. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2043	Posted - 2015.04.08 10:08:38 - [70] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Tracking difference for fleet engagements should be negligible, as CCP mathGäó makes it easier to hit, the more the targets are farther away. I'm trying to revive Close-Medium range engagements on battleships in a cruiser-filled world. Don't suggest Typhoons, Ravens, Domis or Armageddons, because one thing unites most of them: RHLMs and Drones. Literally just went point blank on a cruiser fleet with blasters. Did just fine. If the cruisers are sleeping yes.. if they are awake and capable players (That means people that think by themselves instead of waiting for FC orders) they will mostly evade before they are trapped. And that is ok... But almost all battleships could get a boost in survivability. THe fact that they are so much larger and track so much worse than cruisers means that in the majority of the scenarios they apply DPS less efficiently and have less staying power ( in a scenario with logis) than t2 and t3 cruisers. One thing that I think ccp is missing a chance is on the entosis link. If CCP made them have less range that would help battleships by reducing the influence of mobility on at least soem scenarios. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 2043	Posted - 2015.04.08 10:11:00 - [71] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: March rabbit wrote: baltec1 wrote: Amanda Guido wrote: And your plan when even a couple frigates warp in on you and get under your guns? How do you plan to get yourself out of that one big guy? Let me tell you, your billion dollar BS will go down in flames as a 30 million isk frigate pilot laughs and oogles at the killmail without a scratch. Come at me bro Light missile on a Raven? THAT'S A TARP A trap by CCP for all turret players. The Raven may not have a bonus to RLML, but it does have one for RHML. There is no turret equivalent of the Rapid ML concept. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_Heavy_Pulse_Laser_I (Battleship-sized) https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Quad_Afocal_Light_Maser_I (Cruiser-sized) They could fix the above two examples that no one ever uses, by reducing the BS one to 165 m signature resolution, and to 70 m for the Cruiser version. Tracking is gud. Perhaps I should lobby for this. vOv Thoughts? P.S. Thread poasted in F&Is section ( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread I already use the undersized large turrets for their better tracking. Duel 250 rails are great at wrecking cruisers. I just wish ccp would nto double penalize smaller tier of turrets. The High trackign ones shoudl have shorter range as drawback.. and same DPS. So I would make the 3 tiers as: 1- LOW fittings Standard range, Low DPS 2- Normal Fittings, Smaller range, Normal DPS 3- Normal Fittings, Longer range, Normal DPS. "If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!" For the rest hire PoH \| Recruitment
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15584	Posted - 2015.04.08 19:48:56 - [72] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: I just wish ccp would nto double penalize smaller tier of turrets. The High trackign ones shoudl have shorter range as drawback.. and same DPS. So I would make the 3 tiers as: 1- LOW fittings Standard range, Low DPS 2- Normal Fittings, Smaller range, Normal DPS 3- Normal Fittings, Longer range, Normal DPS. Thankfully you are not CCP. I already get the blasters to track frigates and fighters well enough with the smaller grade large blasters, I do not need more tracking in them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20250912/0614
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.