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.
|
|
Omega Capsuleer
Order of Cut-Throats
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 00:46:45 -
[31] - 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. Player generated content.
So think of new things to do with battleships. I am thinking of using mine like AirBnB. Another thought of mine is using them to blow up your salvage before someone pirates it from you.
We do not need new things, we just need to think of new ways to use the old things while CCP focuses in on...Stuff. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
528
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 01:22:42 -
[32] - 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?
I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?
The only advantage T3's will have is the ability to carry additional subs and refit on the fly, and of course the nullifier sub for getting through bubbles. That doesn't seem sufficient to justify their existence if you make them the second best option for everything else. I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks.
Why would people go to BS fleets over HAC's except in cases of a set piece battle unfolding right on their doorstep? |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
11291
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 01:26:09 -
[33] - Quote
Omega Capsuleer 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. Player generated content. So think of new things to do with battleships. I am thinking of using mine like AirBnB. Another thought of mine is using them to blow up your salvage before someone pirates it from you. We do not need new things, we just need to think of new ways to use the old things while CCP focuses in on...Stuff. Why do they need to only work on "stuff". Much of "player generated content" comes out of the sandbox systems. A bunch of codes or scripts or whatever to give players the tools to create and manage emergent game play. Look around, they are all around you helping you "think of new ways to use the old things".
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2281
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 02:18:10 -
[34] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?
The answer is you shouldn't. But that assumes you know you are doing cloaky hunting or armour brawling or..... The T3 should adapt on the fly much faster, Tactical Destroyers are a good example of this adaptation, though if they are truly OP or not is hard to judge with no T2 Assault Destroyers, only interdictors, to compare against.
As for the Battleship... Note 'Imperial Issue'. Look at the market, there are already two Imperial Issue Battleships. It's the same as the Tribal Edition etc, they are just fancy versions with higher stats of the current versions that get given out in a very limited number in some way. They wouldn't name a new T3 BS the same as an existing line like that, not to mention a new T3 Battleship would be utter crazyness when they haven't fixed Battleships and BC's place in the meta yet, or T3's being crazy OP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16411
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 04:31:53 -
[35] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I second this. It's an honest topic for debate. If you take away T3's insane tanking ability, why would I choose one over say, a Stratios, for cloaky hunting? Over an Eagle for fleet scraps? Over a Deimos or Sacrilege for armor brawling?
That's the point. For specialised jobs you should be wanting to use the t2 ships, t3s should not be the answer to everything. T3s should be adaptable cruisers, not pocket battleships.
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks.
They are not that much more skill intensive than t3s and mobility isn't everything.
Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Why would people go to BS fleets over HAC's except in cases of a set piece battle unfolding right on their doorstep?
In a slugging match BS fleets will generally win, it doesn't matter how long it takes to get somewhere, what matters is what happens when they arrive.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
935
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 05:42:37 -
[36] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote: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 I agree with the notion that specialized ships should be better, but saying that T3s should just perform T2 roles, but worse, is IMO wrong approach. If laser Legion is worse than Zealot, HAM Legion is worse than Sacrilege and Covops neut Legion is worse than Pilgrim, then there's no point in Legion at all - IF it keeps using existing mech.
There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing ships). |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2325
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:10:06 -
[37] - Quote
The reason there is no real way of differentiating ships is because there is no real cost factor in operating ships. If operating a super was prohibitive to owning tons of supers there wouldn't be tons of supers meaning no reason to nerf them. Likewise if battleships were prohibitive to operate except when they were absolutely needed on field then EvE wouldn't have become battleships online requiring resulting in excessive over nerfing.
Same goes for T3s, or Ishtars, or any other flavour of the meta. Unlike in real life where over demand means extreme price rises (petrol for vehicles is a good example or taxi plates) to operate there is no limiting resource in EvE preventing overuse of a particular ship.
When you nerf T3 it will simply result in a useless ship. If you fix battleships it will simply turn into best of meta battleship blobs online.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:23:08 -
[38] - 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 a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3? Just admit it, You want T3Cs obliterated from the game. Your opinions about T3 are just bias based on your personal dislike of them. CCP would be wise to never listen to your nonsense about T3s, or else they'll regret it. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:28:55 -
[39] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote: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
Sure, as long as they reduce their cost below that of a T2 cruiser and remove the SP loss on death and MAYBE someone will find a use for it, maybe.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
420
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:45:03 -
[40] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Andreus Ixiris]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. Rather than dragging them down to the level of cruisers perhaps it would be as effective (more effective with regard to battleship utilisation perhaps) to make them behave a little more like Battlecruisers (speed, warp speed, agility, sig). When Stategics were unveiled at FanFest they were refered to as Battlecruisers, perhaps reeastablishing that parity would be the best option. |
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:45:32 -
[41] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: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 I agree with the notion that specialized ships should be better, but saying that T3s should just perform T2 roles, but worse, is IMO wrong approach. If laser Legion is worse than Zealot, HAM Legion is worse than Sacrilege and Covops neut Legion is worse than Pilgrim, then there's no point in Legion at all - IF it keeps using existing mech. There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing specialized ships; they may be still comparable, but people won't use T3 just because if they will pay premium to do same job T2 can do for its T2 price).
I believe your concept on what a T3 should be is the most acute idea I've heard in the forums. A specialize ship that can perform many roles the same (NOT LESS) as their T2 Counters and have a sorta built in mobile depot like ability that can refit in space on the fly like a carrier. Have a 700 m3 cargo hold to be able to hold multiple subs & mods and having slightly less dps, but more tank than a HAC with no drone bays. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:51:40 -
[42] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote: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.
I guess you don't know a thing about neuts. All it takes is ONE heavy neut to cap out a T3C. No cap, no tank, = dead T3C. What? Cap Boosters you say, please. Just how long can a T3 hold up on heavy neut pressure with only a 280 m3 cargo bay, hmm?
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
936
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 07:55:24 -
[43] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3? Something T2 can't do. This is the only way to exist in EVE without stepping on anyone's toes while being useful. They already have an ability to completely change themselves by refitting subs in addition to refitting any other ship is capable of. New T3Cs can be developed around this general idea.
Sure, this won't be a fleet ship at this point. Not that they must be.
Daniela Doran wrote:Sure, as long as they reduce their cost below that of a T2 cruiser and remove the SP loss on death and MAYBE someone will find a use for it, maybe. SP loss, I'm ok if it goes away tbh. Just personal preference. Other than that, if T3s cease to be min/max material and become that "Swiss army ship" they were advertised as but never truly were, then their versatility will sure cost something over T2 ship they can mimic. The only thing I suppose must happen is subs price adjustment to ensure that having spare ones in cargohold (or better yet - in dedicated subsystems hold) is not a luxury or foolish endeavour, but standard way of flying new T3Cs. |
Sianca
Spessart Rebellen
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 08:18:48 -
[44] - Quote
I have a proposal, T3 are sleeper tec. optimized for j-space. Let T3 perform in J-space are the way they are now, if a T3 entering k-space it performs all at 50% to 70% (speed, resistance, dps). Tuned down to cruiser level. |
Aladar Dangerface
13. Enigma Project
191
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:30:10 -
[45] - Quote
Wait, new battleships? where did this come from?
I don't need twitter.
I'm already following you.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10856
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:32:28 -
[46] - Quote
Aladar Dangerface wrote:Wait, new battleships? where did this come from? CCP posted this , started the rumormill.
=]|[=
|
dor amwar
Interstellar Renegades Advent of Fate
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:35:17 -
[47] - Quote
Sianca wrote:I have a proposal, T3 are sleeper tec. optimized for j-space. Let T3 perform in J-space are the way they are now, if a T3 entering k-space it performs all at 50% to 70% (speed, resistance, dps). Tuned down to cruiser level.
have thought the same since introduced, came from there tech works there. t3 closed off a lot of roles for other existing ships for 2 reasons only: 1) someone thought it as a cool idea and, 2) ccp was needing to introduce new skills to keep keep high skill players interested. ccp has always been a bit schizophrenic about retaining old or recruiting new players, a difficult task as the spread/disparity between young and old increases. A new BS? no, thanks. |
Aladar Dangerface
13. Enigma Project
191
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:43:35 -
[48] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Aladar Dangerface wrote:Wait, new battleships? where did this come from? CCP posted this , started the rumormill. At work, site block :(
Can i get a tl:dr?
Edit: Nvm, suppose i could use my phone
I don't need twitter.
I'm already following you.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2282
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 10:55:36 -
[49] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
There are two options, one being making sure they are decent in hybrid configuration (for example, neut+HAM Legion), another is making sure T3s are something unique (for example, build them around existing concept of refitting and reconfiguring in space completely changing capabilities, but never exceeding ones of existing specialized ships; they may be still comparable, but people won't use T3 just because if they will pay premium to do same job T2 can do for its T2 price).
Solution 1 is the one that best fits the space CCP have said a T3 is meant to fill. If it does both roles at the same time at lets say.... 75% efficiency compared to the T2 specialist ship.... you then have 150% of both if you get two T3's, while only 100% of both if you go one specialist in each. Which means T3's become ideal for covering a large number of roles in a small gang, but a large fleet or a very purpose built gang you are going to see T2's as specialising is best when you have the numbers or only plan for one thing.
Unique roles are more suited to a specialist ship, being...... specialists and all that jazz. |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
936
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:00:20 -
[50] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Solution 1 is the one that best fits the space CCP have said a T3 is meant to fill. If it does both roles at the same time at lets say.... 75% efficiency compared to the T2 specialist ship.... you then have 150% of both if you get two T3's, while only 100% of both if you go one specialist in each. Which means T3's become ideal for covering a large number of roles in a small gang, but a large fleet or a very purpose built gang you are going to see T2's as specialising is best when you have the numbers or only plan for one thing.
Unique roles are more suited to a specialist ship, being...... specialists and all that jazz. This kinda makes sense, although I think there may be a way to somewhat make both solutions working together. I've made a proposal btw and I hope for some healthy discussion.
Meanwhile, back to battleships, I guess.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16415
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:17:53 -
[51] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote: What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?
Whats the point in t2 cruisers if T3 overpower them at their specialty?
Reducing them down to below t2 cruisers would not make them useless, they can still retain their adaptability and with the mobile depot they can swap to be something different on the fly like no other ship can. Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:39:41 -
[52] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote: What a bunch of bull that is. If T2 cruisers are better then T3Cs at anything then what's the purpose of T3?
Whats the point in t2 cruisers if T3 overpower them at their specialty? Reducing them down to below t2 cruisers would not make them useless, they can still retain their adaptability and with the mobile depot they can swap to be something different on the fly like no other ship can. Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
With the SP loss on death and the double price tag, I can see plenty of reasons to fly my Deimos over a Proteus or My Zealot over a Legion. My Legion has yet to leave Hi-Sec because of these risks while I've use both my Zealot and Deimos many times in WHs and null sec.
Now If CCP removes the SP loss on death and reduce the T3Cs price to the same level as HACs, then I'll have no argument about SOME of your proposed changes baltec1.
Why don't you make a thread with some figures on how you believe the T3Cs should be properly balanced (not reduced to redundancy) and let's see how the mass view these changes that you propose. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1046
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:43:04 -
[53] - 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.
you mean they need a way to somehow defend against bombs, which in turn were introduced into the game to counter blobs of battleships in the first line? In any nerf of bombs will allow BS blobs to rise, will simply render bombs a useless counter and greatly fail its purpose.
I kinda miss BS fleets but if I had a choice between blobs of T3 and blobs of BS I would rather pick the first. Popping a T3 is simply more satisfying due to its cost and skill loss for the pilot compared to a fully insured BS. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16415
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:47:36 -
[54] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote: With the SP loss on death and the double price tag, I can see plenty of reasons to fly my Deimos over a Proteus or My Zealot over a Legion. My Legion has yet to leave Hi-Sec because of these risks while I've use both my Zealot and Deimos many times in WHs and null sec.
Now If CCP removes the SP loss on death and reduce the T3Cs price to the same level as HACs, then I'll have no argument about SOME of your proposed changes baltec1.
Why don't you make a thread with some figures on how you believe the T3Cs should be properly balanced (not reduced to redundancy) and let's see how the mass view these changes that you propose.
Here is what CCP think should happen.
And I agree with them. I have no issue with getting rid of SP loss and it doesn't work. Price wise the market will naturally adapt to demand and prices will drop, if CCP need to fiddle with build costs per ship then so be it. In the end though these ships desperately need to be dragged into line as they cause the bulk of the ship balance issues.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Zero Conscience
DPS-K
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 11:50:06 -
[55] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:[quote=Daniela Doran] Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships.
all kinds of wrong. In the last few months BS hulls have poured into lowsec (possibly null too but im there less so i see less) - solo'ers and gangs. A few tweaks here and there and a mass of pew vids to educate the playerbase has made alot of difference. Yep tech 3 cruisers are powerful (multi skill requiring, expensive etc) and do still get roflstomped. The gaps between hulls are also being misreported. So a tengu will smash a mega (usually) assuming equal skill and the fact the mega got fit for all guns in highs no webs etc. WHAT A SUPRISE! but a brawler t1 BS should die to a Tengu that doesnt mess up.
Now take that same 'Gu against a Geddon (still t1 basic) or a Rattlesnake (still t1 but coloured :) ) or how about a good old Vindi? T3 survival drops sharrply huh? Of course we can counter each others arguments with statements like "Mebbbe i cant tackled tenguuu) - Which brings response "fly betterer?)
So. T3s rock BSs rock D3s are broke except Hecate.
Have a nice day |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16415
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 12:04:00 -
[56] - Quote
Zero Conscience wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Daniela Doran] Right now t3 either invalidate or overpower everything from t1 cruisers up to battleships. all kinds of wrong. In the last few months BS hulls have poured into lowsec (possibly null too but im there less so i see less) - solo'ers and gangs. A few tweaks here and there and a mass of pew vids to educate the playerbase has made alot of difference. Yep tech 3 cruisers are powerful (multi skill requiring, expensive etc) and do still get roflstomped. The gaps between hulls are also being misreported. So a tengu will smash a mega (usually) assuming equal skill and the fact the mega got fit for all guns in highs no webs etc. WHAT A SUPRISE! but a brawler t1 BS should die to a Tengu that doesnt mess up. Now take that same 'Gu against a Geddon (still t1 basic) or a Rattlesnake (still t1 but coloured :) ) or how about a good old Vindi? T3 survival drops sharrply huh? Of course we can counter each others arguments with statements like "Mebbbe i cant tackled tenguuu) - Which brings response "fly betterer?) So. T3s rock BSs rock D3s are broke except Hecate. Have a nice day
Tell me why a tengu, a cruiser, should have more EHP than a megathron but with a sig a quarter the size while moving almost six times faster.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lucius Kalari
Limited Power Inc It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 12:32:47 -
[57] - Quote
Battleships need a tracking, dps and tank buff as they're currently just big floating pinatas.
Hi, I'm Lucius Kalari and I'm .LIMP
LichReaper - according to zkill they probably wont make it past the undock
|
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
5430
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:20:52 -
[58] - Quote
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:I don't think battleships will see more use if T3's get nerfed. The reason battleships don't get used is because they are more skill intensive and most of all, their mobility sucks. This is precisely the reason that nerfing T3s to encourage use of battleships will not work - you'll just have another class of ships that people are just as reluctant to use in PvP. Battleships need a very serious change in how their damage application against smaller ships works.
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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16417
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:30:19 -
[59] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote: This is precisely the reason that nerfing T3s to encourage use of battleships will not work - you'll just have another class of ships that people are just as reluctant to use in PvP. Battleships need a very serious change in how their damage application against smaller ships works.
Lucius Kalari wrote:Battleships need a tracking, dps and tank buff as they're currently just big floating pinatas.
Battleship tracking is just fine.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:34:57 -
[60] - Quote
It could just as well be an AT price ship or the missing Abaddon Navy Issue. Than again Amarr was first on the D3 race so they might also get a T3 BS first if there should ever be one.
|
|
|
CCP Falcon
12220
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:37:34 -
[61] - Quote
Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game.
Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited.
CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Menero Orti
Jedran Space Services Manifest Destiny...
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:01:50 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited.
But what does this EVEN MEAN? :( Gee thanks for destroying our hopes |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2025
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:02:25 -
[63] - Quote
It was to be expected.
Menero Orti wrote:But what does this EVEN MEAN? :( Gee thanks for destroying our hopes One NPC ship.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Zappity
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
2373
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:04:45 -
[64] - Quote
Menero Orti wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. But what does this EVEN MEAN? :( Gee thanks for destroying our hopes It means that whoever wrote the article is disconnected from the actual game. The same thing happened with the skins news piece - sounded exactly like a dscan cloak or modifier but was just a skin. Disappointing. The articles should be vetted better I think.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Kalaratiri
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade
679
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:05:22 -
[65] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:It was to be expected.Menero Orti wrote:But what does this EVEN MEAN? :( Gee thanks for destroying our hopes One NPC ship.
Alternatively a single, limited edition ship like the Imperial Apocalypse and Armageddon.
She's mad but she's magic, there's no lie in her fire.
This is possibly one of the worst threads in the history of these forums. -á- CCP Falcon
|
Pytria Le'Danness
Placid Reborn
93
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:11:20 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game.
Ah, FINALLY I understand what the OP was so riled up about.
I was looking dev blogs, twitter and reddit up and down searching the source about those new battleships, and now I find someone just misread a in character article. You could say the whole thread is based on BS I guess |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2801
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:24:17 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. If I don't get a T2 Amarr BS hull out of this I am going to be absolutely livid. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2026
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:26:16 -
[68] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:If I don't get a T2 Amarr BS hull out of this I am going to be absolutely livid. Would this be a change on your natural disposition?
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1348
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:37:22 -
[69] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited.
Not quoting as a direct response. But just to provide some context for my post.
Blops rebalance is still overdue. I can't think of much that would fit the concept of a behind-the-lines skirmish BS better than a T3 reconfigurable. Barring that idea, a new or at least renewed blops BS concept would be welcome.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Bastion Arzi
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
220
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:42:29 -
[70] - Quote
new bs? whaaat? where? link me pls |
|
Mark Hadden
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
62
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:43:01 -
[71] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: Not quoting as a direct response. But just to provide some context for my post.
Blops rebalance is still overdue. I can't think of much that would fit the concept of a behind-the-lines skirmish BS better than a T3 reconfigurable. Barring that idea, a new or at least renewed blops BS concept would be welcome.
leave ma Black Ops alone - they are fine. |
Kestral Anneto
The Founding Four Fidelas Constans
96
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:52:10 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited.
but of course, why add new ships that are bigger than cruiser, when you can add smaller ships. After all, its not like we want people that actually want to fly bigger ships to have anything to get excited about, do we? not when we can reinforce the Cruisers Online that we currently have. It not like more than a few people see battles like B-R or RnK's videos and think, i want to fly those big ships, they get in game and then realise that there is exactly no point, because they will get rofl stomped by T2 or T3 cruisers. Champion. Seriously CCP, why not just remove anything bigger than a cruiser from the game? because thats what it feels like. the changes that you will be doing to battlecruisers will not be enough, nor will any changes to battleships or caps.
Apologies for that, it riles me up that the biggest assets in the game are getting neglected for things that should be considered throw away.
This picture is getting spread until Fozzie come down and rolls back the FozzieSov
http://puu.sh/j0jX9/92e94d8a2d.jpg
|
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:15:53 -
[73] - Quote
So the live event wasn't about a ship but about the Empress?
AT price ship, Navy Abaddon and a new titan class with empire allowance aren't ruled out yet |
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
329
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:33:12 -
[74] - Quote
Just more lolRP.
Which is sad cuz seeing how errybody uses T3s and T3Ds now people would actually use T3Bs.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2027
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:39:44 -
[75] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Which is sad cuz seeing how errybody uses T3s and T3Ds now people would actually use T3Bs.
If we get really lucky, we would have T3 everything and reach T1 levels of class balance. (With the training draw back obviously)
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3897
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:44:21 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited.
Well of course it wouldn't be a whole line of battleships. Why would you need a whole line of battleships when "a new flagship" is actually a cover story for warship engineered specifically to fight the Drifters, designed in cooperation with and with contribution from all four empires as well as independents such as the SoE and SoCT?
Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
|
|
CCP Falcon
12224
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:47:29 -
[77] - Quote
mynnna wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. Well of course it wouldn't be a whole line of battleships. Why would you need a whole line of battleships when "a new flagship" is actually a cover story for warship engineered specifically to fight the Drifters, designed in cooperation with and with contribution from all four empires as well as independents such as the SoE and SoCT?
You're a butte.
CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2807
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 17:44:35 -
[78] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote:If I don't get a T2 Amarr BS hull out of this I am going to be absolutely livid. Would this be a change on your natural disposition? I may seem extremely angry all of the time, but it's really just that I am very passionate.
The lack of a new Amarr thing would make me legit butthurt. |
Harrison Tato
Yamato Holdings
456
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 18:23:38 -
[79] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: I may seem extremely angry all of the time, but it's really just that I am very passionate.
So was Adolph. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 18:42:12 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:mynnna wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. Well of course it wouldn't be a whole line of battleships. Why would you need a whole line of battleships when "a new flagship" is actually a cover story for warship engineered specifically to fight the Drifters, designed in cooperation with and with contribution from all four empires as well as independents such as the SoE and SoCT? You're a butte. Oh c'mon, it's a standard trope, it's not like we didn't see this coming from a mile away.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11871
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 19:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:mynnna wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. Well of course it wouldn't be a whole line of battleships. Why would you need a whole line of battleships when "a new flagship" is actually a cover story for warship engineered specifically to fight the Drifters, designed in cooperation with and with contribution from all four empires as well as independents such as the SoE and SoCT? You're a butte. Oh c'mon, it's a standard trope, it's not like we didn't see this coming from a mile away.
Damn it, would people stop linking that damn site, I get stuck on it for hours at a time, which must be a trope in some kind of movie, brb going back to that site....
|
Altessa Post
Midnight special super sexy
157
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 19:04:08 -
[82] - Quote
Empress Jamyl might be mildly narcissistic, self righteous and a power monger but for her highness spaceships are serious business
On the internet, you can be whatever you want to be. It is amazing that so many people chose to be stupid.
|
Elinarien
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 19:33:50 -
[83] - Quote
Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.
Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.
Just a thought. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2810
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 19:59:41 -
[84] - Quote
Harrison Tato wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: I may seem extremely angry all of the time, but it's really just that I am very passionate.
So was Adolph. I wish I was that successful! |
|
CCP Falcon
12226
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 20:13:29 -
[85] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:Oh c'mon, it's a standard trope, it's not like we didn't see this coming from a mile away.
If you say so
CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon
Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10875
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 20:20:01 -
[86] - Quote
Harrison Tato wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: I may seem extremely angry all of the time, but it's really just that I am very passionate.
So was Adolph. Indeed
=]|[=
|
Dark Reignz
Four-Q
52
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 20:29:04 -
[87] - Quote
Meh but the news story says the most powerful armours and weaponry never seen before. I will be seriously peeved if its just another ship rebalance.
Troll Mode - ON
|
Dersen Lowery
Scanners Live in Vain
1712
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 20:37:03 -
[88] - Quote
They used the Abaddon as the hull for the Terran weapon, too. It seems to be their go-to hull for superweapons.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 20:38:22 -
[89] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Falin Whalen wrote:Oh c'mon, it's a standard trope, it's not like we didn't see this coming from a mile away. If you say so I didn't say so The Law of Conservation of Detail, says so.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
Rob Kashuken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
79
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 01:52:23 -
[90] - Quote
Wonder where this new thing will sit in terms of the other special flagship battleships, such as the Raven State Issue, Tempest Tribal Issue, Megathron Federate Issue and the two Imperial Issues - the Armageddon and Apocalypse |
|
stoicfaux
6154
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 02:33:34 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. Translation: the Drifters pwn the flagship and the Amarr write it (and its experimental tech) off as a failure. End of storyline/fluff.
The real question is whether the Empress survives politically after proving that once again she cannot protect her people from the Drifter threat.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 02:42:27 -
[92] - Quote
Harrison Tato wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: I may seem extremely angry all of the time, but it's really just that I am very passionate.
So was Adolph.
lol
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6727
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 04:01:21 -
[93] - Quote
A new super titan that will be rare and powerful, doubtless.
As a flagship, settle for nothing less than the ability to project a massive area of effect damage field though a cyno
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 04:10:06 -
[94] - Quote
Rob Kashuken wrote:Wonder where this new thing will sit in terms of the other special flagship battleships, such as the Raven State Issue, Tempest Tribal Issue, Megathron Federate Issue and the two Imperial Issues - the Armageddon and Apocalypse It's a MacGuffin. They won't release it just like they didn't release the Abaddon that fired the super-weapon at the battle of Mekhois. It's a one off plot driver that will be an Offscreen Moment of Awesome, an Epic Fail, Mock Guffin, or No Man Should Have This Power.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
Rob Kashuken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
79
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 07:03:09 -
[95] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:Rob Kashuken wrote:Wonder where this new thing will sit in terms of the other special flagship battleships, such as the Raven State Issue, Tempest Tribal Issue, Megathron Federate Issue and the two Imperial Issues - the Armageddon and Apocalypse It's a MacGuffin. They won't release it just like they didn't release the Abaddon that fired the super-weapon at the battle of Mekhois. It's a one off plot driver that will be an Offscreen Moment of Awesome, an Epic Fail, Mock Guffin, or No Man Should Have This Power.
Evidently trolling has found a new meta, so some good has come from this thread at least. |
Xerathul Muur
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 12:45:34 -
[96] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited.
but Amarr gave capsuleers the new shielding technology for their stations, why not a battleship?? |
stoicfaux
6154
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 12:50:54 -
[97] - Quote
The flagship's name will be the Auctoritas. According to google, Auctoritas is a Latin word and is the origin of English "authority".
Thus I declare the nickname for the ship to be: The Cartman.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
111
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 13:02:35 -
[98] - Quote
We've got T3 doctrines. We've got BS doctrines. They get used with similar frequency, for different situations. They're comparable, price wise, since the battleships that we tend to use are of the FACTION variety, and that's true of other big PvP oriented outfits in null.
The problem that you're trying to solve is called "mudflation". Several years ago, nobody would have been "dumb" enough to fly a billion isk BS into a fleet fight, and would have been trolled as an idiot if they did. Now, it's common.
So, what's pushed your T-1 battleship into irrelevance is time, and accumulated wealth. If you want to nerf something, figure out how to nerf that. |
Doctor Knuckles
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
139
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 13:41:18 -
[99] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Tell me why a tengu, a cruiser, should have more EHP than a megathron but with a sig a quarter the size while moving almost six times faster.
because it seems to me people keep comparing T3 pimp fit tanks + being susceptible to 3 to 5 days wasted training vs basic battleship fit's tank, or shitfit all dps filling those lows with magstabs and TEs, also ignoring BS dps, range, volley, heavy neuts, drones, mjd
put 30 proteus vs 30 tempests or machs, give those t3 pimp fits, links, and slaves, and still all that tank isn't gonna mean **** when they get volleyd off field. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
432
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:01:58 -
[100] - Quote
Elinarien wrote:Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.
Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.
Just a thought. Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.
Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
|
Anette Maricadie
Outer Rim Freelancing Inc
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:03:34 -
[101] - Quote
Elinarien wrote:Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.
Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.
Just a thought.
Finally, someone that makes sense. Looking at Large combat seagoing vessels from the past, they often are armed with a multitude of different calibers. From large anti-ship/artillery cannons down to anti-air guns and anything in between for varying ranges. The RHM launcher is all fine and dandy, but what about ships that can't fit launchers? Either additional high slots get provided to equip "secondary armament" or sig radius for large guns get lowered.
On the subject of T3BS, yeah, no. I'd rather have a second marauder in every faction, utilizing that faction's secondary weapon system. (Missile/drone for Amarr, Hybrid for Caldari, Drone for Gallente, Missile for Minmatar). You have these amazing battleship hulls that rarely get used, the Abaddon is by far my favorite model in the game, so why not use them?
About T3C vs BS: The only change that could be done to T3Cs is give them a "tactical mode" system like the dessies, where offensive mode boosts offensive subsystems, defensive boosts defensive and so on. This would entail A LOT of balancing work and is, I feel, unlikely to happen. On the other hand, changing battleships should be easier.
Another thing battleships would need is some protection from "lesser" ships, as those often do the same amount of raw dps or more in some cases. I'd suggest "bouncing". Give battleships a chance to "bounce" shots, like in the old days tanks would bounce smaller shells (before Sabot/shaped charge became a thing). I mean, I can hardly imagine a rocket doing any damage to such a thick armor unless it strikes a particular weak spot.
Just my 2 cents. |
Anette Maricadie
Outer Rim Freelancing Inc
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:11:25 -
[102] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Elinarien wrote:Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.
Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.
Just a thought. Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online. Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.
You're not wrong, but it shouldn't be an easy choice, whether or not to attack a BS. Yeah, there are battleship hulls that *CAN* defeat smaller ships, but also those that got major issues with it or downright can't.
I doubt Stitch (or anyone for that matter) wants Battleships to wreck face on everything it encounters. I personally don't want to see a BS dealing 1k+ deeps with it's main guns and another 1k deeps with its secondary guns. That.is.silly. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11877
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:22:51 -
[103] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Elinarien wrote:Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.
Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.
Just a thought. Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online. Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.
Perfectly well said. People ignore the past all the time, in this case they ignore WHY BSs made it to their current state compared to their 'solopwnmobile' beginnings. If you give battleships all the advantages people ask for, nothing else would be flown. It would be funny as hell if CCP nerfed the ishtar , and 10 years from now some clueless nub starts a thread about how Ishtars Suck and CCP really needs to buff them and sentry drones lol. It would be like Deja Vu.
As it is, players who are actually good can take single battleship hull and slaughter entire fleets of smaller ships even when those smaller ships are flown well. I wrote a lengthy post in another (train wreck) BS thread about my experience with another game and supposedly under used game items.
The TL;DR there is that if you buff something that is supposedly "underused" but that is useable by good players already, you create unbalanced monsters that those same good players can use to bludgeon the entire rest of the game world with. Imagine the Big Miker type solo BS pilot with one of these 'improved' battleships. it would be madness.
BSs are right where they need to be save maybe some minor tweaking like the Tempest just received. Doing more than that would be stupid.
|
Anette Maricadie
Outer Rim Freelancing Inc
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:31:23 -
[104] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Elinarien wrote:Perhaps an answer would be to give Battleships (and Marauders) additional hi-slots that can only be used to fit small-sized weapons - this way they're used as secondary armaments to deal with smaller vessels. I've always wondered by Battleships (and hence Dreadnaughts) don't have additional smaller secondary armaments to counter small fast moving vessels to reflect how large naval vessels deal with this problem in real life.
Of course I understand that drones fill that need, but maybe this is the time to consider re-working how larger-hulled ships deal with small-sized attackers.
Just a thought. Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online. Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles. Perfectly well said. People ignore the past all the time, in this case they ignore WHY BSs made it to their current state compared to their 'solopwnmobile' beginnings. If you give battleships all the advantages people ask for, nothing else would be flown. It would be funny as hell if CCP nerfed the ishtar , and 10 years from now some clueless nub starts a thread about how Ishtars Suck and CCP really needs to buff them and sentry drones lol. It would be like Deja Vu. As it is, players who are actually good can take single battleship hull and slaughter entire fleets of smaller ships even when those smaller ships are flown well. I wrote a lengthy post in another (train wreck) BS thread about my experience with another game and supposedly under used game items. The TL;DR there is that if you buff something that is supposedly "underused" but that is useable by good players already, you create unbalanced monsters that those same good players can use to bludgeon the entire rest of the game world with. Imagine the Big Miker type solo BS pilot with one of these 'improved' battleships. it would be madness. BSs are right where they need to be save maybe some minor tweaking like the Tempest just received. Doing more than that would be stupid.
That vid (and most other vids I've seen of a BS eliminating whole fleets of smaller ships) uses RHML, which obviously isn't THE solution. In my personal view, a battleship should ALWAYS win vs a single smaller ship in prolonged combat. Not decimate or alphastrike ships, that'd just frustrate everyone and lead to griefing. The least a battleship should do is be able to take a ridiculous amount of damage and not solely rely on drones (which can be easily killed on non-droneboats) or RHML to deal with smaller vessels.
*edit* thanks for that link btw, epic soundtrack. |
Caiman Graystock
Confederation Navy Research Epsilon Fleet
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:44:33 -
[105] - Quote
Much sadness was had nüî
I was definitely hoping the increased drifter threat would lead to the development of new Tech II battleships based on the Abaddon/Rokh/Hyperion/Maelstrom and that this was the kick off for that. I guess not. One day maybe?
|
stoicfaux
6158
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:46:34 -
[106] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.
Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.
On the other hand, why bother creating battleships if they can only kill other battleships?[1] It's a bit of the "Paris Hilton is famous because she's famous" paradox.
What role do battleships provides nowadays? Glorified EHP sponges? Range projection due to large guns? Structure bashing? For fighting cap ships?
[1] Battleships CAN kill smaller ships. A better question is whether you're simply better off flying a smaller ship to kill smaller ships (that require less isk and training time to get into, have less damage application problems, and can actually warp somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.)
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
432
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 15:28:00 -
[107] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote: Because EVE is not real life. Ship balance is important. Putting small and large weapons on a BS is silly. Why fly a frig, cruiser, dessie when you can fit a RHML/RLML typhoon FI to kill everything in a 50km radius while having 2 heavy neuts, MJD and 130k EHP. It would be insanely OP, and it would go from cruisers online to BS online.
Larger ships are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. Not solowtfpwn mobiles.
On the other hand, why bother creating battleships if they can only kill other battleships?[1] It's a bit of the "Paris Hilton is famous because she's famous" paradox. What role do battleships provides nowadays? Glorified EHP sponges? Range projection due to large guns? Structure bashing? For fighting cap ships? [1] Battleships CAN kill smaller ships. A better question is whether you're simply better off flying a smaller ship to kill smaller ships (that require less isk and training time to get into, have less damage application problems, and can actually warp somewhere in a reasonable amount of time.)
The BIGGEST issue with battleships is their natural prey doesnt exist anymore. That prey being battlecruisers. BS are not intended to be fit with RHML with rigors, TP, and webs as their normal loadout. That was created by others (including myself) to counter the masses of cruisers in a hull that can take the abuse while also offering utility that cannot be matched.
What BS offer is more than an EHP sponge. They offer utility and range combined with higher EHP. You cannot get heavy neuts on any other ship (except maybe a bastardized curse). Heavy neuts are the bane of most cruisers.
Using my typhoon FI as an example. Combining 2 heavy neuts with 900-1200dps and 130k EHP plus an MJD that obliterates t3d and most cruisers/HACs all the while being very hard to hold down is a powerful tool. Id say the MJD and heavy neuts alone are what make BS very useful.
If you were to fix battlecruisers so they arent utter **** (see my sig), except in niche' scenarios, then BS will have an alternate role, other than frontline fleet ship.
So right now, we have a huge influx of cruisers.
Cruisers are countered by more cruisers. This is bad. Battlecruisers should counter cruisers, but they dont, at least not in the current meta. It should be something like this:
Frigate = Frigate destroyer > frigate cruiser > destroyer BC > cruiser <--- is broken causing many issues BS > BC
The ship food chain is broken. Fix it, and then BS will be in a better position. Some tweaking of BS may be needed. An overhaul on all BS or point defense silliness is not.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2038
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 15:46:45 -
[108] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: It should be something like this:
Frigate = Frigate destroyer > frigate cruiser > destroyer BC > cruiser <--- is broken causing many issues BS > BC Many frigs > BS. Lest we forget.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Dersen Lowery
Scanners Live in Vain
1713
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 15:50:22 -
[109] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:That was created by others (including myself) to counter the masses of cruisers in a hull that can take the abuse while also offering utility that cannot be matched.
Well, now, there's another idea: rebalance them toward the massive versatility of the Dominix and the Armageddon. Give them all multiple utility highs and/or overlapping turret and missile hardpoints and rebalance the damage output around fewer turrets. Essentially, they'd be like baby Marauders, without bastion mode.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2038
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 15:52:00 -
[110] - Quote
Reinforcing the broken mechanics.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
432
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 16:12:35 -
[111] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote: It should be something like this:
Frigate = Frigate destroyer > frigate cruiser > destroyer BC > cruiser <--- is broken causing many issues BS > BC Many frigs > BS. Lest we forget.
8 hi slot smartbombing BS > many frigs
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
USS YORKTOWN
Quovis The Bastion
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 16:37:10 -
[112] - Quote
Damnit Falcon, get it togethor!
You may not be planning to, but you REALLY should. |
Jenshae Chiroptera
2040
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 16:56:16 -
[113] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: 8 hi slot smartbombing BS > many frigs *Any* frig? Specific example vs general design.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
u3pog
Ministerstvo na otbranata
666
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 23:36:46 -
[114] - Quote
When comparing Battleships to HAC's and T3's do you consider their price costs? How about skill wise? Do the math again and see why one is superior to another. |
Heron Crome
Loud'n'Proud
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 00:03:50 -
[115] - 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.
100% this! thats exactly what i miss in nearly every f... spaceship game!
Thats the main problem of bc / bs and pls guys tell me how can a handgun destroy a tank? Ok thats a strange comparison but that would make a balance between small ships and the big ones! |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2326
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 00:30:46 -
[116] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:That was created by others (including myself) to counter the masses of cruisers in a hull that can take the abuse while also offering utility that cannot be matched. Well, now, there's another idea: rebalance them toward the massive versatility of the Dominix and the Armageddon. Give them all multiple utility highs and/or overlapping turret and missile hardpoints and rebalance the damage output around fewer turrets. Essentially, they'd be like baby Marauders, without bastion mode. They primarily need mobility. Eve is a very mobile game. T1 battleships have not changed much since launch of 2003 other than to be made more gimped.
However the reality is nothing much will fix them because fixing them will break the rest of the game when everyone will just jump into BS if they perform well. What the game needs is a bottleneck for all ship types.
Perhaps a licence of manufacture sold by npcs. Let's say 100 are sold per week at base cost with a scaling cost for each addition licence. So Ishtars are flavour of the month, to create huge fleets of only Ishtars would artificially push the cost of Ishtars up to make them cost prohibitive.
The same would apply to battleships so fixing them so they're competitive would be possible without making them into the new EvE ship of necessity.
While artificial limits are seen as a bad thing they're everywhere in EvE, from limited sigs to limited asteroids. While it's possible for unlimited production of ships at base prices of minerals we'll always be seeing fleets of one dominant ship being fielded in EvE and the inability of the devs to create a game with a diversity of ships in fleet fights.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 05:06:30 -
[117] - Quote
Caiman Graystock wrote:Much sadness was had nüî
I was definitely hoping the increased drifter threat would lead to the development of new Tech II battleships based on the Abaddon/Rokh/Hyperion/Maelstrom and that this was the kick off for that. I guess not. One day maybe?
Such innovative creative thinking would be a first from CCP in a long while.
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 05:17:48 -
[118] - Quote
[quote=Stitch Kaneland]
What BS offer is more than an EHP sponge. They offer utility and range combined with higher EHP. You cannot get heavy neuts on any other ship (except maybe a bastardized curse). Heavy neuts are the bane of most cruisers.
Tee hehe, I'm actually playing around with heavy neut fitted Curses, but can't quite figure out how to make them useful for solo roams since they can't hold point at 80km.
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2047
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 12:47:33 -
[119] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:... Tee hehe, I'm actually playing around with heavy neut fitted Curses, but can't quite figure out how to make them useful for solo roams since they can't hold point at 80km. ... Depends. Need some capacitor to go to warp.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
287
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 13:11:54 -
[120] - Quote
New amarr battleship ? what role is it for ? |
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
793
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 15:26:23 -
[121] - Quote
Spc One wrote:New amarr battleship ? what role is it for ? Its role is to be a MacGuffin for Drifter/Empire lore. Also to be the start of an Epileptic Tree forest.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
Amanda Guido
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 04:24:37 -
[122] - Quote
No, the game would not be world of BS if BS were made viable again. Three reasons. Cost, skill points, and mobility. Battleships should be slow, expensive and require loads of sp. But they should also do well what they are meant to do well. Stand and fight. As of now, they are slow, expensive, high reqs, and cant fight worth a damn. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2329
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 08:30:08 -
[123] - Quote
Amanda Guido wrote:No, the game would not be world of BS if BS were made viable again. Three reasons. Cost, skill points, and mobility. Battleships should be slow, expensive and require loads of sp. But they should also do well what they are meant to do well. Stand and fight. As of now, they are slow, expensive, high reqs, and cant fight worth a damn. Based on the last 10+ years if battleships were competitive then yeah it would be Battleships Online again. That's what happened in the past with all best of season ships including battleships.
As stated above as long as you can produce any ship in unlimited supply it will always be trained into and exploited until it's fixed, would you drive a average commuter car if for the same build cost you could get a luxery Range Rover. Skill points are not a barrier, neither is cost (especially for alliances, they could replace battleships forever they're so cheap). Additionally Battleships can't be fixed without making them mobile since warp, subwarp and agility are a major reason they're broken.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
11432
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 09:49:38 -
[124] - Quote
******* "broken battleships" [insert tears]
Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2052
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:53:22 -
[125] - Quote
Webvan wrote: [insert tears] *Inserts sharp frozen tears in the form of icicles into your skin* We are aware of the solo exceptions.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Kestral Anneto
The Founding Four Fidelas Constans
97
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:59:37 -
[126] - Quote
this kind of thing are the exception, not the rule.
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
16429
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 13:50:41 -
[127] - Quote
Kestral Anneto wrote:this kind of thing are the exception, not the rule.
Thats because most people think that is the exception not the rule.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance
123
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 19:23:08 -
[128] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote: 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.
Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1528
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 19:45:47 -
[129] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: 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.
Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly? The difference between BS 5 and cruiser 5 covers the SP of 3 sub skills at 5, the difference between large turret 5 and medium turret 5 account for the remaining 2 sub skills at 5. Beyond that any skill needed to inject a sub skill or make use of the ship in general applies it's benefits just as well if not moreso to a BS as much as a T3. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16431
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 20:08:52 -
[130] - Quote
Murkar Omaristos wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: 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.
Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly?
SP and isk mean nothing to people like me. Incidentally, tengu SP is on par with battleship as is its cost. Yes they are horribly overpowered.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 06:16:19 -
[131] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murkar Omaristos wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote: 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.
Because a cheaply fit T3 costs more than the battleship and the battlecruiser combined, and requires way more training and support skills. Who is high here exactly? SP and isk mean nothing to people like me. Incidentally, tengu SP is on par with battleship as is its cost. Yes they are horribly overpowered.
Meh, CCP has got their hands full trying to rebalance the Ishtar (go, go Ishtar), so I doubt your dreams of a T3C nerf will happen anytime soon baltec1.
They need some adjustments yes, but not a crippling nerf as you desire.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16432
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 08:56:27 -
[132] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:
They need some adjustments yes, but not a crippling nerf as you desire.
Nerfing them down to cruiser stats would not cripple them, they would still be adaptable and powerful cruisers.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2071
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 13:16:18 -
[133] - Quote
T3Cs with T2 power and more utility would be a better implementation, I feel.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2332
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 14:04:21 -
[134] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniela Doran wrote:
They need some adjustments yes, but not a crippling nerf as you desire.
Nerfing them down to cruiser stats would not cripple them, they would still be adaptable and powerful cruisers. T3D type on the fly adaptations would make sense.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
2073
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 14:16:01 -
[135] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:... T3D type on the fly adaptations would make sense. Instant warp cruisers wouldn't be broken!
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow
Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
|
Wacktopia
Noir. No Not Believing
803
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 15:12:31 -
[136] - 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.
True... I got back into an old Proteus fit the other day, looked at half-a-million EHP and though "yeah, this ain't right".
Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together - -áFleet-Up.com
|
Kiandoshia
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2306
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 16:29:32 -
[137] - 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.
Nonsense. Every developer for every game ever can't be wrong =p |
Chock Nurris
Cloakers
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 16:57:08 -
[138] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:... T3D type on the fly adaptations would make sense. Instant warp cruisers wouldn't be broken! No more broken than covert ops fly through bubbles sporting 100k+ EHP 700dps cruisers. Actually they'd be a lot less broken. |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 06:07:02 -
[139] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=Andreus Ixiris]
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. True... I got back into an old Proteus fit the other day, looked at half-a-million EHP and though "yeah, this ain't right".
Quit exaggerating. The highest EHP you can get with a Proteus with HG Slave set + links is 275k. Now if you're talking about bait fits, then yes a Proteus with triple 1600 steel plate II buffer with HG Slave Set + Links can reach around 500k EHP. But why the hell would anyone want to fit a Proteus this way?? |
Daniela Doran
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 06:17:41 -
[140] - Quote
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:T3Cs with T2 power and more utility would be a better implementation, I feel.
I can agree with this as long as CCP get rid of the SP loss on death.
With the current SP loss on death and the 450-500 mill price tag, I feel that T3Cs are actually a little underpowered compared to the HACs. Then again I don't use the buffer subs or logi, so that could be the reason for my thinking.
|
|
Justin Cody
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
303
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 08:15:12 -
[141] - Quote
I just want a carrier escort battleship. Fighters in HS pl0x |
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
2635
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 09:16:36 -
[142] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. Maybe they're something MUCH MORE AWESOME then battleships . Winter is coming.....
DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !
|
Zimmy Zeta
Lisa Needs Braces.
58719
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 09:24:57 -
[143] - Quote
Tora Bushido wrote:CCP Falcon wrote:Not that I want to destroy the thread or anything, but the Amarr Empire announcing that they're going to build a new flagship based on a pre-existing hull doesn't mean that we're going to introduce a whole new line of battleships to the game. Just heading that off at the pass, before people get too excited. Maybe they're something MUCH MORE AWESOME then battleships . Winter is coming.....
New Amarrian flagship will have a Stellar Converter...you know you want it...it's what New Eden needs and deserves!
I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it.
Yes, I do feel bad about it.
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon That Escalated Quickly.
1619
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 10:00:53 -
[144] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Battleships don't need a buff T3 need a hefty nerf.
Oh is this the official Imperial point of view now?
T3 should be more expensive in production again. This would mitigate the fact that they are superior to other vessels flown by the 0815 line member (not pointing at anyone here).
T3s are derived from superior Alien tech so they should be better...but as I said also significantly more expensive.
TunDraGon is recruiting!
"Also, your boobs [:o] " -á
CCP Eterne, 2012
"When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
973
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 13:16:57 -
[145] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Oh is this the official Imperial point of view now?
T3 should be more expensive in production again. This would mitigate the fact that they are superior to other vessels flown by the 0815 line member (not pointing at anyone here).
T3s are derived from superior Alien tech so they should be better...but as I said also significantly more expensive. Because it worked so well for them initially. And for supers and titans, for that matter. And because fluff handwaves are important...
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |