EVE Search - Freshly tested on Sisi - not just about blasterships! BS are dead.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Freshly tested on Sisi - not just about blasterships! BS are dead.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Wrayeth Trans Eve Organization	Posted - 2008.10.24 15:55:00 - [31] Originally by: Bronson Hughes Um, no. Solo battleships have always been vulnerable to getting killed by small numbers of smaller ships, even solo HACs if flown well; the upcoming speed changes just make that vulnerability much more pronounced. Um...you haven't fought well-fitted and well-piloted battleships 1-v-1 in cruiser/HAC much, have you? Barring EW, I can guarantee you that I can kill or run off any cruiser-class ship in the game on TQ even with a lowly tempest. Quote: Battleships are designed around fighting other battleships, anything bigger than they are, or things at very long ranges. This makes no sense. If battleships are only supposed to fight ships of the same class or larger, then why even use them? If you follow this logic down the train and apply it to cruisers, that means they are supposed to shoot ships of equal or larger size, meaning that they shouldn't be able to effectively engage frigates, thus making frigates the ultimate ship class (i.e. invulnerable to cruisers and BS). As such, there's no point in flying anything larger than a frig, despite the fact that the larger ships cost more and take more skills. I'd elaborate more, but I have to leave for work five minutes ago. TL;DR - Your biases are showing. Cheap, disposable ships should not be solopwnmobiles. Larger, more expensive and skill-intensive ships have some justification in that area as they're not anywhere near as easily replaceable.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.10.24 16:03:00 - [32] I did point this out in the blaster thread, if an un-fit stabber can survive while webbed at 1-2km vs. the best tracking Battleship in the game with perfect skills, then all close range Battleships are HAC meat (no afterburner required). Medium range Battleships aren't solo boats so, meh.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.10.24 17:11:00 - [33] The only reason I've been posting for as long as I have about this issue is that I'm trying to head off what will be a huge problem for blaster pilots before it hits TQ. The thing is, the devs are so goddamn stupid that they're just going to let it happen anyway, ignoring what we're telling them, and it's going to take months, if not years, of a lot more people complaining before anything gets done about it. Once again the devs are sacrificing all other aspects of gameplay for larger group game design and 0.0 warfare. Everything else is a distant second. You can't make a bigger '**** you' than this for all the players not in 0.0.
Shura Arashi Akatsuki .	Posted - 2008.10.25 10:58:00 - [34] coming back to the game after training gallente BS to 5, i feel ass**d... getting my name changed after 3 years because now it was too offensive, best 15Ç spend ever -.- better get this ** fixed, a dual webbed cruiser should melt in seconds to a BS (like on live).
Destructor1792 Minmatar Malicious Intentions	Posted - 2008.10.25 11:42:00 - [35] Well i managed to do a pest setup which was pretty damn nasty & slaughtered just about anything that got close to it.. although 2.5bill total cost sort of means it'll never be flown on the live server! 1 v 1's are pretty much dead on TQ though so for a truer reflection you should try a 1v1 then jump in a cpl more bods to join in the fun.. then see what results you get ______________________________________ Bringing The Fun Back I Have No Fear, Fear is for the WEAK
Tac Ginaz The Righteous Few	Posted - 2008.10.25 15:50:00 - [36] This is great news. Think about it. Right now people are used to blobs of battleships for everything.. frigates and cruisers and battlecruisers were always 'mostly useless' for the 'real work'. Now, a battleship will HAVE to rely on its support craft (cruisers, frigates) to keep it alive while it fights other BS's.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.25 17:08:00 - [37] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 25/10/2008 17:12:51 "Adapt or Die!" is not the slogan for this patch. It is now "Gang or Die!" Originally by: Tac Ginaz This is great news. Think about it. Right now people are used to blobs of battleships for everything.. frigates and cruisers and battlecruisers were always 'mostly useless' for the 'real work'. Now, a battleship will HAVE to rely on its support craft (cruisers, frigates) to keep it alive while it fights other BS's. What? a gang of nothing but BS will still kill small stuff with ease. With three webs on target its not going anywhere. The web nerf doesn't make small stuff any more viable in gangs, it only nerfs the solo BS pilot. The only "support craft" the battleship needs to rely on is other battleships. Smaller support are only needed when you want to tackle and gank something that will not engage willingly.
Kaahles Jion Keanturi Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2008.10.25 17:17:00 - [38] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter "Adapt or Die!" is not the slogan for this patch. It is now "Gang or Die!" finally some true words. Stop whining about solo pvp beeing dead. It's not entirely but it is very very very hard to get something working which is just perfect because this is a mmo whichs indicates that teamwork will give you the highest chacne of success. If you want to solo around go play freelancer or another game with a single player mode.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.25 17:24:00 - [39] I play a PVP game, not a co-op game. Multiplayer does not equal co-op.
Wrayeth Trans Eve Organization	Posted - 2008.10.25 18:31:00 - [40] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter I play a PVP game, not a co-op game. Multiplayer does not equal co-op. I don't mind that other people don't play solo. I understand that 1v1 is dead and that solo means 1v2+, and I enjoy that type of play. What CCP is doing will destroy the type of solo play I enjoy. I don't like blobbing up and ganking stuff. I don't like roaming around looking for an NPCing noob on a trial account to gank. I enjoy finding a small group of PVPers and engaging them on my terms. This. I enjoy flying with my buddies, but I also enjoy the challenge of soloing...and the best fights are always the ones where you're outnumbered and outgunned and come out on top anyway.

Shard Merchant Minmatar	Posted - 2008.10.25 19:07:00 - [41] Quote: A small ship caught within webber range of a close range weapon BS is supposed to die, and fast. Your entire post, made irrelevant in one line. I've probably used blasters an order of magnitude more than you, and I wouldn't agree to this statement. For the past five years, larger ships have had an easier time hitting small targets than they should. You're lucky these changes are marginal and fairly inconsequential. I would've made the class differences in EVE far more pronounced.
Praxis1452 the united	Posted - 2008.10.25 21:28:00 - [42] Edited by: Praxis1452 on 25/10/2008 21:28:46 Originally by: Shard Merchant Quote: A small ship caught within webber range of a close range weapon BS is supposed to die, and fast. Your entire post, made irrelevant in one line. I've probably used blasters an order of magnitude more than you, and I wouldn't agree to this statement. For the past five years, larger ships have had an easier time hitting small targets than they should. You're lucky these changes are marginal and fairly inconsequential. I would've made the class differences in EVE far more pronounced. Making class changes more pronounced generally turns into A kills B which kill C which kills A. Noone wants to play rock, paper, scissors. Ships should be able to do multiple things at once. Certain tactics might favor certain ships such as close range BS being able to kill double webbed cruisers. Close Range BS with the best tracking for BS guns ingame should be able to kill double webbed cruisers. Megathron has got tracking bonus but 1 web, hyperion 2 web, no bonus. Either way they should die.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.25 23:19:00 - [43] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 25/10/2008 23:20:06 Originally by: Shard Merchant Quote: A small ship caught within webber range of a close range weapon BS is supposed to die, and fast. Your entire post, made irrelevant in one line. I've probably used blasters an order of magnitude more than you, and I wouldn't agree to this statement. For the past five years, larger ships have had an easier time hitting small targets than they should. You're lucky these changes are marginal and fairly inconsequential. I would've made the class differences in EVE far more pronounced. If BS should be incapable of hitting smaller stuff, then the smaller stuff should not be able to deal any real damage to the BS. Also, capital ships should be incapable of hitting BS. Or we could just leave things the way they are, where a smaller ship will get ripped apart if it comes into web range of a BS, but the battleship is unable to catch the smaller ship if it doesnt want to come into range.
Vanthropy Minmatar	Posted - 2008.10.25 23:42:00 - [44] Ships have roles, get over it. Damage scaling is important. There are trump cards in eve... a rapier + a solo battleship(tm) will destroy a small gang of cruisers
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.10.26 01:10:00 - [45] The main issue is. PEopel stil do not accept the idea of usign AB in battleships. Tha woudl fix most fo problem since a scrammed or webbed cruiser wil be easily speed compensated by a n AB BS. But no one wants to leave their MWD at home why? Al boils down to the whole bad idea of bubbles! MAke bubbles appear in overview (the dictor ones too) and make them easier to hit and kill. That shoudl make killign the boubles the usual tactics nto runnign from them. That makes other fittign possible and enable more chances for BSs to operate.
Xenomorphea Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.26 01:32:00 - [46] Originally by: Bronson Hughes Originally by: Wrayeth Also, for the record, the entire point of larger ship classes has always been to trump those classes smaller than themselves. Without this capability they become pointless. When a freaking tech 1 cruiser can beat down a BS fit for short range and supported by perfect skills without resorting to EW, there's something seriously, seriously wrong. Um, no. Solo battleships have always been vulnerable to getting killed by small numbers of smaller ships, even solo HACs if flown well; the upcoming speed changes just make that vulnerability much more pronounced. Battleships are designed around fighting other battleships, anything bigger than they are, or things at very long ranges. Aside from blaster-ships, the overall purpose of battleships shouldn't change much post nano-nerf. If the entire point of a battleship really was to trump smaller ships, battleship weapons would have much better tracking/scan resolution or explosion velocity/explosion radius. But that would make any battleship a solopwnmobile, which CCP usually tried to avoid. Not quite true: a battleship has always vulnerable to NANO-GANGS, fast frigates and cruisers/HACs orbiting/kiting outside web range. And the possible counter to that is heavy neutralizers (to shut down their MWD) and Warrior II drones (to scare them away), in combination with stasis webifiers (if they fall within it, they are toast). There has never been a case of ANY ship smaller than battleship class that gets impunely into web and neut range of a BS blasterboat and survives the day. If you are in web range, and if you do not manage to get back out, you are dead. That includes interceptors - I killed enough of those in my BS, and as an Inty pilot I have also been on the receiving end and know that to fall into web range = insta-death. That is the way it has always been, it is logical, and is -- in the opinion of many of us -- the way it is supposed to work, as it also justifies training 2 years to get perfect skills to fly a battleship. You cannot negate a large, poweful and high SP requiring ship the option of killing smaller ships once you are fitting specific modules (stasis webifier, ev. in combination with neuts) designed to slow down a smaller target so that your poor tracking large guns can finally land some hit. The current state is cruiser class and smaller ships are completely invulnerable to BS turret fire once orbiting close, even without using an AB and in spite of 1-2 webifiers, leaving as the only counter-offensive light drones (which can be popped easily). I can use a T1 fitted thorax to kill any T2 rigged battleship (except missile boats?), and I do not think this is right at all. And let's stop bringing up the "your corp or gang members" argument ... not all of us can or want to fly in a gang all the time, and solo PvP should be a viable solution in all ship classes. Now it looks like the only option will be small ships, as they can pwn anything else, while the contrary (which would make more sense) is not true anymore. Cheers, Xeno
Heloise ChateauBriande	Posted - 2008.10.26 02:39:00 - [47] Xenomorphea, Thanks for doing this testing. It sounds as if things are not yet properly balanced. I agree with you that a T2 BS with good skills, short range weapons and cruiser neutralizing modules should be favored in a fight against a cruisers and / or a frigate. I'm guessing and hoping that CCP isn't finished yet with the balancing. - Helo
Brayiel The Double Cross	Posted - 2008.10.26 02:42:00 - [48] Oneiros / Scimitar + Tracking links they'll make short work of orbiting HAC's
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.26 02:44:00 - [49] Originally by: Brayiel Oneiros / Scimitar + Tracking links they'll make short work of orbiting HAC's /facepalm Second battleship with a web, that'll make short work of orbiting HACs. There is no reason whatsoever to grab a logistics when another BS does the trick just fine. Focus webbing / droning / neuting (if you have them) murders smaller ships easily.

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2008.10.26 02:51:00 - [50] Edited by: CCP Nozh on 26/10/2008 02:51:50 Originally by: Xenomorphea web range = insta-death. That's not how we envision close range combat. To quote my blog: "Currently when youÆre webbed itÆs pretty much game over unless youÆre doing more DPS or have a better tank. The 90% speed reduction makes combat too static and predictable when webifiers have been applied. To address this, webifiers in our proposed changes have been reduced in effectiveness down to between -50% and -60%." Blasters are no exception to this. Battleships will yes have a harder time hitting smaller targets, that is how we (game design) intend it to be. So are battleships useless in solo combat? Far from it, being the larger ship still has many benefits: The ability to actually fit smaller weapons to fend of smaller targets Drones High HP, which gives you time to assess the situation and make appropriate actions More cap which allows them to neutralize smaller targets pretty easily More slots that allow you to take EW counter measures etc. I also suggest you try out the new agility changes on Singularity which make battleships a lot less sluggish (they actually feel better than on TQ). Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


Strill	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:13:00 - [51] Edited by: Strill on 26/10/2008 03:13:19 Quote: The ability to actually fit smaller weapons to fend of smaller targets umm... I'll try to be polite, but was that a joke? It's certainly one of the silliest things I've heard. Quote: More slots that allow you to take EW counter measures People use EWAR on unbonused ships after the EWAR nerf? That's the first time I've ever heard of it.

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:22:00 - [52] Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 26/10/2008 03:13:19 Quote: The ability to actually fit smaller weapons to fend of smaller targets umm... I'll try to be polite, but was that a joke? It's certainly one of the silliest things I've heard. Quote: More slots that allow you to take EW counter measures People use EWAR on unbonused ships after the EWAR nerf? That's the first time I've ever heard of it. No joke. Heat + ECM on unbonused ships. Smaller targets with less sensor strength and more time (HP) to actually get a cycle in. Makes sense to me. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:22:00 - [53] WTB BS with bonuses for medium weapons. Oh wait, that's just a BC/Command.

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:26:00 - [54] Originally by: Soporo WTB BS with bonuses for medium weapons. Oh wait, that's just a BC/Command. Which is why I used "fend off". Also more time (HP buffer) to apply said weapons. I'm not saying BS should all just fit undersized weapons, I'm saying it's an option. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:26:00 - [55] Quote: In the Hyperion vs. Sacrilege test, Hyperion could not move anyway, as MWD was shut down by the Warp Scrambler. Still Hyperion vs. dual webbed orbiting Sac, faction AM, 0% hits. It's not just about trying to run away it's about reducing transversal. Something 95% of BS pilots understand but never put to use unless they get in nano HACs. Also there are things like tracking computers and enhancers which are typically ignored which help alleviate the problem. Not wanting to fit a module to make you more effective against smaller ships is YOUR decision. Also since all the whining seems to indicate MWDs are pointless you can simply remove it from the list of mandatory mods and toss the TC/E on there. Although if you really think MWDs will still be useless you need a lot more than a TC/E to help you win. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:29:00 - [56] Well in regards to fitting undersized weapons, it sacrifices your main objective (doing lots of DPS) in order to account for just one possible poor scenario. If you keep sacrificing your main objective to handle more and more obscure scenarios you end up being no good in any one scenario.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:50:00 - [57] Originally by: CCP Nozh So are battleships useless in solo combat? Far from it, being the larger ship still has many benefits: The ability to actually fit smaller weapons to fend of smaller targets Drones High HP, which gives you time to assess the situation and make appropriate actions More cap which allows them to neutralize smaller targets pretty easily More slots that allow you to take EW counter measures etc. Why would you not simply fly a command ship or even a battlecruiser instead? Also, while I'm quite flexible on fits, fitting sub-size unbonused weapons to "fend off" enemy ships is where most of us draw the line. Take a peek around the killboards, have a look at how others are doing it then test these common fits against your unique ideas to find out whether or not they stand up to actual in-game use. Try to involve test-pilots who are as close as possible to equally skilled (SP wise) in the relevant skills and familiar with their chosen ship and fit. Alternatively get someone from the database team to run a query that provides you with the most successful ships and fits as far as kill/death ratios go, it'll be weighted by public opinion but it's still a good starting point.
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.10.26 03:54:00 - [58] Quote: 1. HYPERION VS. SACRILEGE 2. ABADDON VS. SACRILEGE 3. GEDDON VS. DEIMOS um... Hacs are harder to train then battleships. Hacs are kind of by definition maneuverable battleships. So if they use that maneuverability as an advantage... as they should... On tq right now.. I could load up an ishtar and epic pwn any of your battleships 1v1. Orbit at 20km going 2km/s and u have no chance. I just scanned your hyperion on sisi... you dont even use tech 2 damage control... not even best named. Your character isnt on ineve.net but I suspect you arent that strong in the tracking skills... even with 2 webs and blasters should not necessarily pwn but you should hit.
Xenomorphea Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.26 04:15:00 - [59] Originally by: Jason Edwards Quote: 1. HYPERION VS. SACRILEGE 2. ABADDON VS. SACRILEGE 3. GEDDON VS. DEIMOS um... Hacs are harder to train then battleships. Hacs are kind of by definition maneuverable battleships. So if they use that maneuverability as an advantage... as they should... On tq right now.. I could load up an ishtar and epic pwn any of your battleships 1v1. Orbit at 20km going 2km/s and u have no chance. I just scanned your hyperion on sisi... you dont even use tech 2 damage control... not even best named. Your character isnt on ineve.net but I suspect you arent that strong in the tracking skills... even with 2 webs and blasters should not necessarily pwn but you should hit. You are wrong on so many things ... I only use 2 types of Damage Control: the Tech II type, or the "Internal Force Field Array I" when CPU is tight, which IS best named. And even if I were using a crap damage control (and I know I was not), it is completely irrelevant to our discussion. My character has over 38 mil SPs, all PvP, and all Gallente except for the last weeks were I started cross training Amarr. I do not fly capitals: all my SPs are aimed to maximize BS (including Marauder) and HAC skills. The only gunnery skill I do not have on V is large blaster spec, which is at IV. As for the Ishtar orbiting at 20 and killing the BS - who argues that? You can do that with a Curse as well, or wiht a Vagabond, and should be that way. What I wrote (and please read carefully again) is that HAC or Cruiser should NOT remain invulnerable once at OPTIMAL for the BS, and within web range. Do you understand the difference? Cheers, Xeno
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.10.26 04:28:00 - [60] Edited by: Jason Edwards on 26/10/2008 04:29:13 Originally by: Xenomorphea [ As for the Ishtar orbiting at 20 and killing the BS - who argues that? You can do that with a Curse as well, or wiht a Vagabond, and should be that way. What I wrote (and please read carefully again) is that HAC or Cruiser should NOT remain invulnerable once at OPTIMAL for the BS, and within web range. Do you understand the difference? Cheers, Xeno From the looks of things... they were orbiting you... they cant have been going fast if double webbed... I'm sorry but things dont seem to be matching up. Even if using worst web... 50%... Deimos is going to be going 50-75m/s depending on if they have armor rigs or nanofits. That's pretty damn slow. On top of that... why arent you flying away so that you can get better tracking from your guns? Deimos has 3 mid slots, 1 ab/mwd 1cap booster... so max 1 webber... which also sucks. So why cant you fly away? Get 5km-10km away and you're going to hit for full effect. Sorry but I seem to see your tactics as bad. Not the ship. You fit 2 webs and the enemy has at most 1... yet you cant control distance?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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