Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Kestral Anneto
The Founding Four Fidelas Constans
93
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 10:47:20 -
[1] - Quote
Ok, so i'll start this off by saying im a huge battleship fanboi, I would love nothing more than to see huge battleship fleets burning paths through New Eden. Now, we all know that isn't going to happen, because battleships are to slow and to vulnrable to bombing. So whats the point of bringing new battleships into the game? why not fix the ones that are in already? Im not complaining, as ive said, the "moar battleships" the better, it just seems like a bit pointless from where im sitting. They will release these new hulls, there will be a bit of an uptick, then it will go back to Cruisers Online when people release "oh hey, we can get BS EHP from a T3 and roughly the same DPS in a HAC". As unless they give Battleships a jumpdrive and a point defense system against bombs, they will, sadly, be PvE boats (in my opinion). I'd actaully like a dev response to this as to why they have elected to introduce new hulls rather than fix the existing ones, but any info would be appreciated. I could be entirely wrong and CCP are doing something completely out of the box to bring battleships back to big fleet fights, in which case bravo and encore!
This picture is getting spread until Fozzie come down and rolls back the FozzieSov
http://puu.sh/j0jX9/92e94d8a2d.jpg
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16399
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 11:05:28 -
[2] - Quote
Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kestral Anneto
The Founding Four Fidelas Constans
93
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 11:12:37 -
[3] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.
equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.
This picture is getting spread until Fozzie come down and rolls back the FozzieSov
http://puu.sh/j0jX9/92e94d8a2d.jpg
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16399
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 11:18:39 -
[4] - Quote
Kestral Anneto wrote:
equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.
Thats only an issue with large shield fleets.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Kestral Anneto
The Founding Four Fidelas Constans
93
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 11:35:17 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kestral Anneto wrote:
equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.
Thats only an issue with large shield fleets.
and two races use use shields are defence, so its rather unbalanced to have half of the battleships unable to be used in PvP without being as vulnrable to bombs as the other half. They could change how the bombs work so its flat damage minus resists, and doesn't take sig into account.
This picture is getting spread until Fozzie come down and rolls back the FozzieSov
http://puu.sh/j0jX9/92e94d8a2d.jpg
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16399
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 12:13:35 -
[6] - Quote
Kestral Anneto wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kestral Anneto wrote:
equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though.
Thats only an issue with large shield fleets. and two races use use shields are defence, so its rather unbalanced to have half of the battleships unable to be used in PvP without being as vulnrable to bombs as the other half. They could change how the bombs work so its flat damage minus resists, and doesn't take sig into account.
Not using them in large scale fleet combat is not the same as being unable to use them in pvp. Just about every battleship you just tossed away are fantastic at solo/small gang work.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
11266
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 14:32:05 -
[7] - Quote
EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5418
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 14:46:29 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.
Kestral Anneto wrote:equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though. Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
371
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 15:24:11 -
[9] - Quote
Webvan wrote:EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking.
Such as docking them and disembarking, then doing stuff in the station not involving walking in circles and sitting on a crappy space couch?
Wait, maybe this kind of reply was too early. Are we still considered dissident hipsters if we want alternative gameplay introduced? I'm not very social so its hard to read what the mob is thinking sometimes. |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
11268
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 15:30:06 -
[10] - Quote
Kuronaga wrote:Webvan wrote:EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking. Such as docking them and disembarking, then doing stuff in the station not involving walking in circles and sitting on a crappy space couch? Wait, maybe this kind of reply was too early. Are we still considered dissident hipsters if we want alternative gameplay introduced? I'm not very social so its hard to read what the mob is thinking sometimes. Only if we could blap the couch with the ship guns, buddy. heh Rephrase: things to do in the ship. ...like out in space.... pew
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
|
Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
371
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 15:44:52 -
[11] - Quote
Webvan wrote:Kuronaga wrote:Webvan wrote:EVE doesn't need new ships. It needs things to do with ships. Another OP blap-blap machine is not forward thinking. Such as docking them and disembarking, then doing stuff in the station not involving walking in circles and sitting on a crappy space couch? Wait, maybe this kind of reply was too early. Are we still considered dissident hipsters if we want alternative gameplay introduced? I'm not very social so its hard to read what the mob is thinking sometimes. Only if we could blap the couch with the ship guns, buddy. heh Rephrase: things to do in the ship. ...like out in space.... pew
Not really interested then.
EVE combat is layered deeply enough for my taste. Making it "deeper" is fairly counter-productive and just leads to more uncontrollable variables and randomized outcomes rather than skill driven outcomes. More rock paper scissors, less thunder dome, and so on. Wasn't a fan of the building our own stargate ideas either. If space was smaller, maybe, but people are cowardly enough as it is with the current amount of space in the game. Giving them more places to run away to isn't going to increase interaction.
There are things they can still do, I'm sure, but at this point its iterating on the existing concepts. Existing concepts haven't been exciting for ten years, and iteration only makes it feel fresh for a small period of time. Fozzie Sov replaced pinata with whack-a-mole. Not a very compelling argument for someone like me to care about Sov suddenly. And if its only purpose was to satisfy the people who do already enjoy it, then that's also a problem because it leads to a 0% growth. |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
11269
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 15:56:11 -
[12] - Quote
Er things to do with/in/at/under/behind/around/of ships. Not "more space". lol? Not couches either... Not even if you could strap a rocket launcher on one.
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback
371
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 16:04:30 -
[13] - Quote
You're just mad because you haven't got one. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16403
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 17:25:50 -
[14] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote: Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS?
Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5425
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 17:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
The current way signature works is that high-sig guns do lower damage against low-sig targets. This is utterly preposterous - larger guns should always do more damage against smaller ships. Smaller ships already have significant damage mitigation against larger vessels by dint of their superior speed and manouverability.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1796
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 17:57:59 -
[16] - Quote
Why people asume it's about new BS.
Akrasjel Lanate
Member of Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Citizen of Solitude
|
Kestral Anneto
The Founding Four Fidelas Constans
93
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 18:12:21 -
[17] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Why people asume it's about new BS.
because the Amarrian Empress said it was the hull of a new navy battleship being laid down, of the abaddon class.
http://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/world-news/navy-announce-imperial-keel-laying-ceremony-empress-confirmed-to-attend/
This picture is getting spread until Fozzie come down and rolls back the FozzieSov
http://puu.sh/j0jX9/92e94d8a2d.jpg
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10844
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 18:18:26 -
[18] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:The current way signature works is that high-sig guns do lower damage against low-sig targets. This is utterly preposterous - larger guns should always do more damage against smaller ships. Smaller ships already have significant damage mitigation against larger vessels by dint of their superior speed and manouverability. Ehh no, you just killed armour brawling frigates off , the way Sig resolutions work is fairly important from keeping the meta "shields or go home"
=]|[=
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16726
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 18:24:09 -
[19] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote: Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles.
What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Darth Terona
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
132
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 19:06:38 -
[20] - Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by looking at the imperial issue Armageddon, the new battleships must be some kind of prize. Not something everyone is going to have. So kinda mutes the point op.
Well point still valid but delivery is off |
|
Amber Solaire
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
48
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 19:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
If any new Battleships are needed, then some newer faction ones are well overdue
By that, I mean Pirate Factions, not Mordu etc |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10848
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 20:21:34 -
[22] - Quote
Darth Terona wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but by looking at the imperial issue Armageddon, the new battleships must be some kind of prize. Not something everyone is going to have. So kinda mutes the point op.
Well point still valid but delivery is off Might be , might not be though, might just be fluff for "tactical" battleships ala the desies
=]|[=
|
Darth Terona
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
132
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 20:38:34 -
[23] - Quote
Ooooo |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3833
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 20:41:03 -
[24] - Quote
There was mention of subsystems. I'm not sure if it will be a ship for players though, it might just be some NPC thing.
Oh god.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
292
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 20:55:07 -
[25] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote: Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles. What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?
Not speaking for him but many feel the role of the T3 variants should be versatility. not more powerful and more versatile.
p.s. illl note my general complaint that losing SP should never happen for any reason.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
189
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:25:19 -
[26] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote: Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
You mean like my blaster mega that will overpower a thorax in DPS? Sorry but T3 are way overpowered and always have been. They should not have the firepower and maneuvering of a t2 cruiser with the tank of a battleship coupled with a low sig and be cap stable while doing it. They need to be dragged down to the level of cruisers with t2 cruisers being better than t3s in their specialized roles. What do you see the reason for T3s being if not the tank?
it is a swiss army knife it can do all T2 roles decent, but a T2 specific hull would kick it`s A S S that is how it should be maybe a somewhat advantage on resists or tank but not a OP ship that pretty much defeats everything right off the bat
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:48:37 -
[27] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf. Kestral Anneto wrote:equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though. Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances.
^^ this. Why in the hell would anyone nerf T3s further? The tengu just got nerfed, and so did the proteus. Battleships need a buff. T3s are fine.
It would be a huge mistake to break a whole line of ships in order to try and fix another.
BTW, battleship fleets are already a thing - both PL and NC. use TFIs. |
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
189
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:33:19 -
[28] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf. Kestral Anneto wrote:equates to the same thing, really. although i would be more ameanable to a T3 nerf if im honest. Battleships do need some way to defned against bombs though. Nerfing T3 will not accomplish a revitalisation of battleships, it'll just make T3 cruisers a wasted skill investment. What would make battleships a reasonable choice in combat is some sort of scale-based damage modifier system for larger ships, such that smaller weapon systems simply don't do quite as much damage regardless of resistances. ^^ this. Why in the hell would anyone nerf T3s further? The tengu just got nerfed, and so did the proteus. Battleships need a buff. T3s are fine. It would be a huge mistake to break a whole line of ships in order to try and fix another. BTW, battleship fleets are already a thing - both PL and NC. use TFIs.
T3s are fine OMG plz clarify how you imagine that a cruiser with BS tanks and BC DPS is fine and on top of that they have huge fitting options and are versatile and have huge cap too they are clearly OP if you REALY think they are fine you are high.
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
514
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:33:23 -
[29] - Quote
Darth Terona wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but by looking at the imperial issue Armageddon, the new battleships must be some kind of prize. Not something everyone is going to have. So kinda mutes the point op.
Well point still valid but delivery is off
Well, it won't be an AT13 ship. Phantasm and Succubus look-a-likes are already listed on the market with ATXIII logos. Maybe it'll be handed out in some event. First to kill a Drifter BS gets one; good luck with that!
Could just be lore fluff that may mean practically nothing at all.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
29
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:42:31 -
[30] - Quote
Kestral Anneto wrote:baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf. equates to the same thing, really.
No, it really doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |