Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mishra Ninghor
The Scarlet Storm
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 10:10:00 -
[31] - Quote
Better battleships have already been built. They're called Naga, Oracle, Tornado and Talos. Not slow as ****, not booring as **** and they bring the cowbell you need. |
Syrias Bizniz
Carnivore Company To be Announced.
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 12:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
The newer and better battleships you mentioned are so good, where you had to use 30-40 Maelstroms earlier to alpha a battleship, now you would need 15-20 Rokhs to alpha your Tier 3 battlecruisers! |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
236
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 15:37:00 -
[33] - Quote
biggest issue I have is that going up one size in guns results in a mere 33% increase in DPS... for massive penalties in tracking and sig res (and cap use for hybrids/lasers).
What I'd really like to see, is the loss of size specific bonuses.
That armageddon of yours... imagine if you could fit medium size lasers, and still get the ROF bonus.... you'll only do 75% the max DPS of a Armageddon with large guns, and you'll have reduced range... but much better ability to hit small targets...
Imagine the surprise when a frigate lands on top of a mega, and finds the mega sporting 7 Light Neutron Blasters with +7.5% tracking & +5% damage per level...
Then Imagine what happens to that mega when another mega lands at 10km, and starts pounding it with mega neutron blasters -> 77% more DPS, 10km falloff, 7.2 km optimal vs 2.5km falloff, 1.5km optimal - 4x better falloff, 4.8x better optimal - that mega fit with small guns gets blown out of the water.
Its balanced, and makes battleships more versatile |
Bernard 2007
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 15:46:00 -
[34] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:biggest issue I have is that going up one size in guns results in a mere 33% increase in DPS... for massive penalties in tracking and sig res (and cap use for hybrids/lasers).
What I'd really like to see, is the loss of size specific bonuses.
That armageddon of yours... imagine if you could fit medium size lasers, and still get the ROF bonus.... you'll only do 75% the max DPS of a Armageddon with large guns, and you'll have reduced range... but much better ability to hit small targets...
Imagine the surprise when a frigate lands on top of a mega, and finds the mega sporting 7 Light Neutron Blasters with +7.5% tracking & +5% damage per level...
Then Imagine what happens to that mega when another mega lands at 10km, and starts pounding it with mega neutron blasters -> 77% more DPS, 10km falloff, 7.2 km optimal vs 2.5km falloff, 1.5km optimal - 4x better falloff, 4.8x better optimal - that mega fit with small guns gets blown out of the water.
Its balanced, and makes battleships more versatile
No it's not ;) It makes battleships solowtfpwnmachines with medium and small weapons because they're tank is scaled so that they are unkillable by smaller crafts. Right now battleships are in general very very well balanced. You have guns to fight slow ships, powergrid enough to fit large neuts (especially if you downsize guns a bit), and drones to handle smaller targets. |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 15:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:biggest issue I have is that going up one size in guns results in a mere 33% increase in DPS... for massive penalties in tracking and sig res (and cap use for hybrids/lasers).
What I'd really like to see, is the loss of size specific bonuses.
That armageddon of yours... imagine if you could fit medium size lasers, and still get the ROF bonus.... you'll only do 75% the max DPS of a Armageddon with large guns, and you'll have reduced range... but much better ability to hit small targets...
Imagine the surprise when a frigate lands on top of a mega, and finds the mega sporting 7 Light Neutron Blasters with +7.5% tracking & +5% damage per level...
Then Imagine what happens to that mega when another mega lands at 10km, and starts pounding it with mega neutron blasters -> 77% more DPS, 10km falloff, 7.2 km optimal vs 2.5km falloff, 1.5km optimal - 4x better falloff, 4.8x better optimal - that mega fit with small guns gets blown out of the water.
Its balanced, and makes battleships more versatile This or, we need more modules like the assault launchers. Where they are cruiser sized weapons that fire frig sized ammo. Imagine a blaster setup that is a BS weapon but fires cruiser size ammo and has almost cruiser class blaster tracking. With long range weapons this isn't so much a big deal because with enough range tracking becomes less of an issue, but with up close weapons I think it would be a great addition to the game. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
Bernard 2007 wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote: Its balanced, and makes battleships more versatile
No it's not ;) It makes battleships solowtfpwnmachines with medium and small weapons because they're tank is scaled so that they are unkillable by smaller crafts. Right now battleships are in general very very well balanced. You have guns to fight slow ships, powergrid enough to fit large neuts (especially if you downsize guns a bit), and drones to handle smaller targets.
They'd only be "solowtfpwnmachines with medium and small weapons" against cruiser sized craft and smaller- and those smaller ships would still easily be able to disengage, and the BS's fitted with undersize weapons would get wtfpwned by tier 3 BCs and BS's fitting large guns.
ie, if they fit to kill small ships, they can, but then they lose to big ships. If they fit to stand their ground with BS's, then the smaller ships will easily kill them (as now).
There is still no fit that can beat or equal every other sub cap, they still can't chase smaller size targets and keep them tackled, but they can take more punishment to compensate (and one risks a whole lot more resources when using them) |
MHayes
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 18:56:00 -
[37] - Quote
All battleships need a buff. |
Tornii
SkREW CREW Local Down
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 08:33:00 -
[38] - Quote
I think battleships do need to be buffed a bit in terms of mobility. Not to be more viable for solo, but for small/medium gangs. Small gang PVP would benefit from another ship class participating in it. "If the essence of life is information carried in DNA, then society and civilization are just colossal memory systems." |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4908
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:22:00 -
[39] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I don't think Battleships are supposed to be able to hold their own in a fight. If you look at how battleships were used in history, they were expensive ships that needed an escort of smaller ships to protect them. They were particularly vulnerable to crappy torpedo boats.
In history, battleships were mostly just a way for a nation to show off how powerful they were. The battleships themselves were actually pretty pointless and crap.
By WW II this was the case. Prior to the introduction of the aircraft carrier, Battleships were pretty much an I-win button.
They shouldn't be an I-win button in EVE, because I-win buttons break the game. Battleships have their niche and they're heavily used within it. Soloing around and pwnsaucing is not that niche. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
174
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:33:00 -
[40] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:
What really killed Battleships? Well besides reluctance, Missiles. Missiles could penetrate the toughest Armor in ways Torpedo's and Cannons could not, out ranged guns 2-5 times and ended most Armored Warfare at sea. Ships today are not heavily armored relying on missile countermeasures instead, Guns currently are not a big deal most ships are armed with one light Duel Purpose Gun. Anti-Ship Missiles killed Battleships in the modern age, reluctance to use them killed them in the past age.
While the analysis of range of missiles vs guns is more or less correct the assumption that an anti ship missile is more effective against a large warship compared to high caliber guns is incorrect. An armor piercing 16 inch shell fired from an iowa weighed more than 2600 lbs and impacted at velocities that only soviet and few other nations anti ship cruiser missiles come close to. To put it simply, a 2600lb + anti ship round is more powerful than a 2000lb guided bomb which is significantly more powerful than a harpoon or other comparable missiles.
Furthermore, the development and proliferation of extremely effective anti missiles systems present in large numbers on the worlds leading warships is pushing nations such as the US and others to develop large caliber EM guns to counter these type of defenses. While the "stopping power" of these EM guns may not be comparable to a harpoon or 16 inch shell, the range and more importantly flight time will more than make up for this. These guns also have the added benefit of not requiring explosive propellant significantly improving survivability compared to large gun warship of the past. The day of gun based nuclear powered war ships may very well be upon us. |
|
Alara IonStorm
3289
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 15:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: While the analysis of range of missiles vs guns is more or less correct the assumption that an anti ship missile is more effective against a large warship compared to high caliber guns is incorrect. An armor piercing 16 inch shell fired from an iowa weighed more than 2600 lbs and impacted at velocities that only soviet and few other nations anti ship cruiser missiles come close to. To put it simply, a 2600lb + anti ship round is more powerful than a 2000lb guided bomb which is significantly more powerful than a harpoon or other comparable missiles. Furthermore, the development and proliferation of extremely effective anti missiles systems present in large numbers on the worlds leading warships is pushing nations such as the US and others to develop large caliber EM guns to counter these type of defenses.
While a round would do more damage it will have trouble hitting a small moving warship even if that warship is even in range while missiles cover 3-6 times the distance and are launchable from a hull 1/40th the weight and very difficult to hit.
It has been a while since I looked at this stuff and you are right about 16" Shells power but it is very obsolete in both range and accuracy while requiring a much larger hull and more expensive hull to fire from, while a tiny 30m long craft can fire a half dozen missiles for 1/100th the price tag.
Even with missile defenses like the ones that worked so well in a Falklands the cost of building an maintaning a fat battle platform like a single Iowa sized ship would cost more then an entire fleet of small Missile Ships that would be much more effective. That is why Navies have switched to these smaller Missile Hulls that can put out most of the firepower at a 1/40th the weight.
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: While the "stopping power" of these EM guns may not be comparable to a harpoon or 16 inch shell, the range and more importantly flight time will more than make up for this. These guns also have the added benefit of not requiring explosive propellant significantly improving survivability compared to large gun warship of the past. The day of gun based nuclear powered war ships may very well be upon us.
That is a ways off to a reusable coil platform but I have been keeping up with Coil Gun Technology and it does look promising. The Zumwalt seems to be being designed around incorporating this future warfare philosophy with its 155mm Guns.
A big part of the Zumwalt is on the USMC request though. Losing the Iowa's meant they lost real beach cover with the navy using small scale artillery. Planes and Missiles have trouble laying down the kind of general fire support they need especially since launching an attack on a specific target costs half a mil to a million dollars a shot compared to 9 big guns leveling everything in front of you whether you know where the mortars are coming from or not.
They were a big part of getting these new Destroyers to have big guns. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
194
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 16:41:00 -
[42] - Quote
I like flying battleships as they are, but they do need some love. The problem is where to put that love.
-Better tracking would be nice, but then they become overpowered against smaller ships. this would not be balanced.
- A 50% damage boost would also be nice, but again they would become the only ships worth flying. It would still be hard to hit smaller ships but when you do connect they are gone in one shot. I really can't see this being balanced.
- more mobility would be nice but really would not change much. And would not be fitting for what the class was meant to be.
The big fix I would think would make battleships much more viable for PVP without making them overpowered against other ships is more a targeting sensor buff. More sensor strength. Battleships should be almost impossible to jam. smaller ships already have an advantage by being harder to track and hit, and when hit only take partial damage due to there small sig radius. There is no reason for a battleship to be so easy to jam.
When battleships were the primary null sec PVP ships the most popular counter was ECM drones. Why? Because battleships are so easy to jam. Why do you never see Marauders in PVP? It is not the cost as T3 cruisers are about the same and are popular. It is because they are even easier to jam than their T1 counterparts. A massive buff the sensor strength at least 3-4 times what they currently have, will go a long way to making battleships more viable in smaller scale PVP.
Add a small boost to base targeting range, faster lock times, and maybe a small boost to capacitor, power grid, and CPU and they will be much better ships, without adding anything to make them more powerful, or harder to kill. It will just give them the means to apply their damage more effectively, and consistently.
These changes may be small but I really do not think battleships need much to gain more PVP viability. In a lot of ways they are very balanced. For a buff to sensor strength to make a difference it will have to be huge. They need to be almost impossible to jam. They would be a great counter to the so popular heavy ECM that drove battleships out of much null sec PVP over the past few years. They used to be much more widely used, but they dropped off once ECM drones became a must have in null sec PVP. I do not want to see ECM get nerfed, it certainly has its place, but at least give this one class a sensor strength buff that will make ECM ineffective.
This would at the same time remove the one thing that makes Marauders useless in PVP. It does not matter what damage they can do if they can not target or hit anything. They do enough extra damage over T1 battleships to make them worth the extra money. Just not when their computers are so weak they can not apply that damage in a PVP situation. It is time to bring the ECM age to an end.
|
Zimmy Zeta
Paramount Commerce
1225
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 16:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:biggest issue I have is that going up one size in guns results in a mere 33% increase in DPS... for massive penalties in tracking and sig res (and cap use for hybrids/lasers).
What I'd really like to see, is the loss of size specific bonuses.
That armageddon of yours... imagine if you could fit medium size lasers, and still get the ROF bonus.... you'll only do 75% the max DPS of a Armageddon with large guns, and you'll have reduced range... but much better ability to hit small targets...
Imagine the surprise when a frigate lands on top of a mega, and finds the mega sporting 7 Light Neutron Blasters with +7.5% tracking & +5% damage per level...
Then Imagine what happens to that mega when another mega lands at 10km, and starts pounding it with mega neutron blasters -> 77% more DPS, 10km falloff, 7.2 km optimal vs 2.5km falloff, 1.5km optimal - 4x better falloff, 4.8x better optimal - that mega fit with small guns gets blown out of the water.
Its balanced, and makes battleships more versatile
Why not simply let some of the already exising weapons live up to their name? Make those dual lasers for example have the same range and tracking as their medium-sized counterparts, just with dps and cap-use adjusted. So a geddon with 7 Dual heavy lasers would effecvtively be carrying 14 medium lasers...
On second thought, this would be vastly OP.
On third thought, it still would be friggin awesome. -.- |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
174
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 20:15:00 -
[44] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Even with missile defenses like the ones that worked so well in a Falklands the cost of building an maintaning a fat battle platform like a single Iowa sized ship would cost more then an entire fleet of small Missile Ships that would be much more effective. That is why Navies have switched to these smaller Missile Hulls that can put out most of the firepower at a 1/40th the weight.
That is a ways off to a reusable coil platform but I have been keeping up with Coil Gun Technology and it does look promising. The Zumwalt seems to be being designed around incorporating this future warfare philosophy with its 155mm Guns.
A big part of the Zumwalt is on the USMC request though. Losing the Iowa's meant they lost real beach cover with the navy now only using small scale artillery. Planes and Missiles have trouble laying down the kind of general fire support they need especially since launching an attack on a specific target costs half a mil to a million dollars a shot compared to 9 big guns leveling everything in front of you whether you know where the mortars are coming from or not.
They were a big part of getting these new Destroyers to have big guns.
Coils guns are most probably not going to be the first generation and the damage to the "rails" on the latest iterations of the tech is significantly less than earlier models. There is also a smaller scale railgun system more or less ready for deployment that is capable of being fit onto many nations destroyers. These smaller scale railguns are designed to intercept incoming missiles by releasing a cloud of debris the instant before impact. With muzzle velocities close to mach 7, this new generation of railgun will be even more effective than the top notch cwis systems of the past.
As for the fawlklands disaster, the level of missile defense on the limited number of warships that saw action are no where near what modern navies have. The Goalkeeper (gau-8) which is arguably the mot advanced close in weapon system in the world is almost exclusively fit to British ships and I'm going to assume this significant improvement in missile defense was a result of transport ships being hit during the falklands war. As computers and radars get better the chance at identifying and destroying incoming missiles is becoming significantly larger. The end result is either to make missiles faster and more stealthy (lots more cash) or to start looking at new avenues of defeating these defenses, enter the railgun.
The railgun, once fully realized will be able to hit warships at similar ranges as modern over the horizon missiles (100 to 200 miles) like the harpoon however the per shot cost will be significantly smaller while also reducing travel time by close to a favor of 5. The main issue i see is how destructive these rounds will actually be considering that most warships are a honeycomb of water tight compartment meaning that 1 or 2 perforations at the waterline will probably not be lethal to the ship as a whole.
Anyway, back on topic... I think that battleships could use a small ehp boost across the board. This can either be achieved by a modest increase to resistances or a raw hp buff. The lack of t2 resistances ontop of large sig and slow speed means that they are significantly less survivable than t3s or t2s in larger logi supported fleets.
|
Exploited Engineer
Creatively Applied Violence Inc.
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 20:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:-Better tracking would be nice, but then they become overpowered against smaller ships. this would not be balanced.
Simple: Increase the weight of the targets signature vs. the turrets signature resolution.
In fact, making a modifier of its own instead of just a factor in the tracking formula would be my suggestion. Fewer frigate instapops at 80km.
|
Ginger Barbarella
State War Academy Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 20:53:00 -
[46] - Quote
Dread Pirate Pete wrote:Battleships are EHP bricks with guns attached. They sit statically and shoot. They are for fleet engagements and need support craft or they will be outmanoeuvred. You're not supposed to run around with one unsupported, no matter what lvl4s have taught you. ;)
Ahhh... :) I wish POS bashing would come back into vogue... :) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
784
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 23:54:00 -
[47] - Quote
There's hardly anything wrong with battleships (as a whole) that cannot be fixed by simply nerfing some overpowered stuff introduced over last years. On the other hand, starting another power creep coil is never a good solution. 14 |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
176
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:There's hardly anything wrong with battleships (as a whole) that cannot be fixed by simply nerfing some overpowered stuff introduced over last years. On the other hand, starting another power creep coil is never a good solution.
It's already been started Ditching the power creep half way only fucks things up further than following through and trying to make the best of it.
|
pyr8t
S0 L337 1T HURTS
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:36:00 -
[49] - Quote
Battleships are broken.
It's a problem when there's virtually few reasons to select a battleship over a battle-cruiser. When a single frig, cruiser, or T3 can solo you--while all you can do is sit and watch--things are not balanced. It's completely non-nonsensical. If anything, such 1v1 engagements should be a draw.
Battleships desperately need a total re-balance and re-think with the current state of the game. I'd personally like to see drastically higher tank and resists on these ships. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:37:00 -
[50] - Quote
pyr8t wrote:Battleships are broken.
It's a problem when there's virtually few reasons to select a battleship over a battle-cruiser. When a single frig, cruiser, or T3 can solo you--while all you can do is sit and watch--things are not balanced. It's completely non-nonsensical. If anything, such 1v1 engagements should be a draw.
Battleships desperately need a total re-balance and re-think with the current state of the game.
There are plenty of reasons to use a battleship, assuming you have the support available. |
|
pyr8t
S0 L337 1T HURTS
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:41:00 -
[51] - Quote
Onictus wrote:There are plenty of reasons to use a battleship, assuming you have the support available.
You can say that about any ship in the game. What's your point? You can also fly a shuttle, assuming you have the support available.
Wow. Thank you for that insight.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:42:00 -
[52] - Quote
pyr8t wrote:Onictus wrote:There are plenty of reasons to use a battleship, assuming you have the support available. You can say that about any ship in the game. What's your point? You can also fly a shuttle, assuming you have the support available. Wow. Thank you for that insight.
Ok send BCs against battleships with equal numbers see who wins.
|
Alara IonStorm
3295
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:50:00 -
[53] - Quote
Onictus wrote:pyr8t wrote:Onictus wrote:There are plenty of reasons to use a battleship, assuming you have the support available. You can say that about any ship in the game. What's your point? You can also fly a shuttle, assuming you have the support available. Wow. Thank you for that insight. Ok send BCs against battleships with equal numbers see who wins. Shuttles apparently. |
Ken 1138
Enslave. Persona Non Gratis
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 16:16:00 -
[54] - Quote
[/quote]
Ok send BCs against battleships with equal numbers see who wins. [/quote]
With everything i've read so far, my orginal post still stands and i'm glad to see many agree.
But with that comment logic would dictate larger, stronger ships should have a good chance to win that battle to the point that being scrammed shouldn't be much of a worry. Following what you've said previously even you're aware that's not the case.
I never intended to have battleships with the DPS and tanks of a dread like some seem to think. Considering the base cost of a battleship hull and how much gets put into modules. 4 times the price doesn't mean 4 times the effectiveness with battleships. A T3 cruiser can be mad expensive but being the (highly qualified) space jack of all trades that it is, it certainly earns it's keep for example.
The Micro Jump Drive to be added from what i gathered is a "bail-out!" button for big ships but that's not much of an improvement and i'm sure it will take up a valuable mid or low slot. |
Ken 1138
Enslave. Persona Non Gratis
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 01:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
pyr8t wrote:Battleships are broken.
It's a problem when there's virtually few reasons to select a battleship over a battle-cruiser. When a single frig, cruiser, or T3 can solo you--while all you can do is sit and watch--things are not balanced. It's completely non-nonsensical. If anything, such 1v1 engagements should be a draw.
Battleships desperately need a total re-balance and re-think with the current state of the game. I'd personally like to see drastically higher tank and resists on these ships.
Thank you! Glad to see someone else that sees this oversight on this class of ship. Next question is will CCP make any attempt to fix this? New frigs and destroyers are nice and all. Because i can't remember when a new or drastically changed battleship has added to eve online and i've been playing for years.
|
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 06:49:00 -
[56] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:biggest issue I have is that going up one size in guns results in a mere 33% increase in DPS... for massive penalties in tracking and sig res (and cap use for hybrids/lasers).
What I'd really like to see, is the loss of size specific bonuses.
That armageddon of yours... imagine if you could fit medium size lasers, and still get the ROF bonus.... you'll only do 75% the max DPS of a Armageddon with large guns, and you'll have reduced range... but much better ability to hit small targets...
Imagine the surprise when a frigate lands on top of a mega, and finds the mega sporting 7 Light Neutron Blasters with +7.5% tracking & +5% damage per level...
Then Imagine what happens to that mega when another mega lands at 10km, and starts pounding it with mega neutron blasters -> 77% more DPS, 10km falloff, 7.2 km optimal vs 2.5km falloff, 1.5km optimal - 4x better falloff, 4.8x better optimal - that mega fit with small guns gets blown out of the water.
Its balanced, and makes battleships more versatile
I have long supported this idea, it's balanced because it makes BS better against small ships at the loss of value against other battleships. Though I would extend it to allow cruisers to do the same w/frigate guns.
The two classic complaints against this are: Everybody will fly battleships (not really as the small guns don't make them more agile or faster) small ships have the GTFO factor working in their favor.
The other complaint is that it allows senior players to dominate newer players, which they always can anyway, but what's the use of sticking with eve and training ships that take long to master anyway?
This simple change wouldn't make battleships overpowered, as you are trading off quite a bit for effectiveness against smaller ships, but would add in some nasty fitting options and make the typical AF/Intercepter pilot worry about more than "I wonder how many heavy neuts he has?" Imagine the shock of tackling a ratting raven in an AF and discovering he's got 6 bonused Assault Launchers. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 09:13:00 -
[57] - Quote
I don't think you need to change that much.
Biggest problem is it bulk. there is almost no way to escape a gatecamp unless you're with more than the attacker, sure there is a roll as a large fleet ship, it should be the battle ships doing orbital bombarments in dust.
But since we're taking examples from maritime history, it took a lot of effort and ships to bring the Bismark down. EVE battlesship can be tackled to easy.
Personaly I'd rather see a size diference in tackling devices or a warp strenght bonus on larger ships, somehow it matters what mass you have for speed and agillity, but it doesn't matter of you want to block or jam it. It would be good news i you needed a cruiser size web and disrupter to tackle a Battlesship or just do way less effect in a frigate.
Real physics could help as well, in that situation you should have the ability to just ram a ship while you burn to the gate an damaging it if a Battleship hits something smaller, I know it will be hard to hit a frigate but if it should occur you should ravage it, bubbles is an entirly other problem.
When you look at Eve usuage of ships, solo and in small groups largely depends on survivability, frigates, destroyrs and Cruisers are agile and fast (they can pass al the smaller and less profecional Gatecamps, Most Battlecruisers get nano's and are made more agile and faster. Capitals have jumpdrives and are more or less E-war proof.
Without a low,nil, wh survival mechanism they will only be used in large fleet battles, structure ramming and PvE Highsec. In that way they are like deep space transports, an other ship class that hoplessly fails it's purpose, since the smaller Cargobay Blokade runners and the Jump feighters have far greater survivability.
Fix Jumpgate survivability and give them a change (not free ticket out) survive a gank and it will be used more often |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9957
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 09:55:00 -
[58] - Quote
Khoul Ay'd wrote:Look at BSs and their equivalents throughout history; arrays of different sized guns to deal with different sized threats. And most important, awe-inspiring when they'd roll onto the field of battle. Why should EVE be so different? Because EVE is a game where game balance and good gameplay design takes precedence over capabilities and realism. Battleships in EVE work differently because it's good design; because it leaves them vulnerable to a wide array of ships; because it ensures that they are not be-all, end-all of ships; and because paper-scissors-rock balancing demands it. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
239
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:04:00 -
[59] - Quote
Veryez wrote:Verity Sovereign wrote:What I'd really like to see, is the loss of size specific bonuses.
That armageddon of yours... imagine if you could fit medium size lasers, and still get the ROF bonus.... you'll only do 75% the max DPS of a Armageddon with large guns, and you'll have reduced range... but much better ability to hit small targets...
Imagine the surprise when a frigate lands on top of a mega, and finds the mega sporting 7 Light Neutron Blasters with +7.5% tracking & +5% damage per level...
Then Imagine what happens to that mega when another mega lands at 10km, and starts pounding it with mega neutron blasters -> 77% more DPS, 10km falloff, 7.2 km optimal vs 2.5km falloff, 1.5km optimal - 4x better falloff, 4.8x better optimal - that mega fit with small guns gets blown out of the water.
Its balanced, and makes battleships more versatile I have long supported this idea, it's balanced because it makes BS better against small ships at the loss of value against other battleships. Though I would extend it to allow cruisers to do the same w/frigate guns. The two classic complaints against this are: Everybody will fly battleships (not really as the small guns don't make them more agile or faster) small ships have the GTFO factor working in their favor. The other complaint is that it allows senior players to dominate newer players, which they always can anyway, but what's the use of sticking with eve and training ships that take long to master anyway? This simple change wouldn't make battleships overpowered, as you are trading off quite a bit for effectiveness against smaller ships, but would add in some nasty fitting options and make the typical AF/Intercepter pilot worry about more than "I wonder how many heavy neuts he has?" Imagine the shock of tackling a ratting raven in an AF and discovering he's got 6 bonused Assault Launchers.
Yes, I agree, I'd do the same with cruisers/BCs - I didn't mean to imply this would only apply to BS bonuses... I would make all bonuses, on all ship types, ignore weapon size. It wouldn't just apply to fitting "undersize" guns on a hull... If you can manage to tweak your PG enough to allow you to fit an oversize weapon... then that oversize weapon gets a bonus as well - although this would gimp fitting so much that I can't imagine any situation where it would actually be useful (whereas undersize fittings could be very useful - and should allow for better tank due to more pg being available, and less cap use for weapons that use cap) - unlike oversize prop mods. |
Maeltstome
the unified Negative Ten.
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 21:50:00 -
[60] - Quote
I think something that was said to me recently sums it up:
"Why fly a battleship when you can get the same EHP from a T3 and have a tiny sig? And if you're worried about money BC's are much better value"
BS's do need a serious balance. I think one major improvement would be to change neuts to cycle more often but for equally less energy neuted. i've had single NOS frigs be fully active against my twin heavy NEUT tempest (even with staggered cycle). Webs dont counter frigs anymore and neither do heavy neuts. Drones die to easily and smartbombs are pretty much designed to troll... but not good for a straight up fight. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |