Battleships disadvantaged through gimmick balances


(Stitch Kaneland) #1

Not sure if this belongs here or general discussion. Please move if GD is a better fit.

We have seen several additions or balance passes that have included gimmicks or new modules to create new gameplay mechanics (command dessies and booshing) or questionable, potentially lazy changes to fix a ship class (ADCU for assault ships/HACs). Alone, in a vacuum i wouldn’t say these things are necessarily bad (new mods and mechanics are great), but looking at the bigger picture it seems there is too much focus on making small ships overly fast, tanky (heavy tackle) and projecting damage. While also having inherent damage reduction against larger weapons by just being small. Or, in the case of command dessies, moving entire fleets with a destroyer.

When we look at the MJD on battleships, the 1000m+ long ship full of sensors, armor, cap etc, it can only jump itself. Yet a dessie, a fraction of the size, jumps an entire fleet? Why was the jump field generator not incorporated into a larger ship, like a battlecruiser (command ships already existed) or battleship? Spreading the abilities of ships across sizes is good, otherwise a stack-up issue arises against the other ship classes, especially battleships.

TO BE CLEAR I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH BOOSHING AS A MECHANIC. I think its great and gives options in fleets and to catch kiters. My issue is the fact they put it on a destroyer class ship.

On its own, the MJDF isnt a huge deal, the fact theyre on a dessie that is absurdly fast and tanky is problematic, especially against battleships. A battleship/battlecruiser chasing a battleship with mwd/mjd is somewhat easily counterable as their speeds are comparable. A CD chasing a battleship is not easily countered, not to mention, itll bring friends along with it. Combined with booshing marauders/brawling BS off gates/stations, most times they cant even lock it in time to prevent the boosh.

If the MJDF were on a battleship or battlecruiser, these things wouldnt be a problem. A battleship could lock a another BS or BC before a boosh happens. They would be tanky, but its to be expected of a battleship/battlecruiser and their speed would of been comparable (still faster, but not 3k/s fast).

We still could of had command dessies in their current form for link duty, just without the MJDF.

Do i expect or want CCP to remove the MJDF from Command dessies? Absolutely not as theyre already well used and solidified in their various positions. Just pointing out some reasons that by adding these gimmicks, CCP is forcing battleships and some battlecruisers/command ships into even smaller niche uses and gaining disadvantages by simply being large.

Now, with yesterday’s update, we have the ADCU. A new gimmick module that increases resistances to near invulnerable levels on assault frigs and HACs. Also all AF have a speed/mass/cap buff as well as some getting fitting tweaks and new traits. Arguably, if they didnt give this gimmick module and just changed what they did, AF would be in a much better place (maybe with more fitting/trait/slot tweaks on other AF) than before.

Now we have a couple new potential problems. AF dominating in 1v1s in FW due to 18s of near invulnerability and battleships being rendered incapable of doing anything when tackled (except maybe neuting your tackle off). 18s is a LONG time in a solo fight, and is more than enough time to heavy tackle a battleship, press the invuln button and let your blob handle the rest. In my experience, most of my solo “wins” exist because of that window that exists between your tackle and fleet. Or killing your scram and using an MJD before additional scrams land.

I dont think its necessarily breaking of how i play, but yet another disadvantage to add to battleships. A disadvantage that was NOT needed nor intended to an already lacking ship class. Yet when CCP keeps balancing with gimmick modules instead of stat/slot rebalances, this is the effect it seems.

Now, to flip this topic. Lets look at how battleships are often engaged and how something like an ADCU would make a lot more sense on them as opposed to a frigate/cruiser, at least as far as gimmick modules go. Currently carriers and dreads will decimate battleships, and its often a fun past-time to drop caps on that solo battleship for lulz. Alternatively, they may bring a large gang to overwhelm you. In either case, something akin to an ADCU would actually be very useful to a battleship. A single carrier drops you? Use the ADCU to have time to tank the initial volley and lock the fighters to MAYBE allow you to defang or limit damage before time runs out. A HAW dread may be harder, but maybe gives you a chance to reposition or attempt an escape. Against a larger gang trying to overwhelm, youd gain some breathing room to reload a cap booster, AAR or catch the rep cycle when youre at 20% structure. Even in fleets, it could be useful in bombing runs or alpha strikes (as you have more buffer to survive the initial primary). Maybe give it some additional bonuses, like a 100% scan res and SS bonus to help in targeting or preventing jams during that time. Basically a make or break module to really allow a battleship to be just that, something that will create battles.

Im not implying that battleships should get a gimmick module. More stating that CCP needs to stop trying to balance small (all) ships with gimmick modules and introducing new ships/mechanics in the smaller ship line when there is room and a NEED for those same things in larger ships that actually make sense both in lore and reason.

TL;DR: by always focusing on introducing new modules, tactics and gimmicks on smaller ship classes (frigs, dessies, cruisers), battleships inherit more disadvantages for no reason.


(Tristan Valentina) #3

Personally I am hoping we see an expansion in the BS ship line soonish that includes some of these interesting small ship mechanics. The small ship game in EVE Online is finally getting to a great place so I am hoping we will see an expansion of the larger sub caps that expand what they can do and the dominating power that a line of battleships should have on the battlefield. What tells me this… basically nothing but I remember at some fanfest conversation talking with a fabled dev that was talking about ventral mounted weapons and an orgasm so crisp took place that it will be branded on to my mind forever. How do I counter a Destroyer at 100km from my battleship. I shoot it with a MAC gun and turn it into bits.


(elitatwo) #4

Like the “i-must-be-immune-to-ewar-at-all-times-because-I-am-so-bad-at-pvp-that-i-need-no-ebil-ewar-on-me-bastion” module or the let’s make all minmatar ships un-killable with prototype-shield-boosters, so they can use neuts, only neuts, and give all minmatar ships 5785736746736758292 utility highslots to fill with zee neuts because without neuts they cannot win and minmatar is zee only shippies in EVE.


(Stitch Kaneland) #5

Eh, the golem is just as strong as the vargur with same abilities (no tracking to boot). Also, dreads have seige which does the same thing (as far as EWAR is concerned). Marauders having it isnt a big deal as a single carrier or dread will handle 90% of marauders. Maelstrom is ok, but has no neuts and is ungodly slow, so its easier to get under its guns.

Minmatar are all about utility and being flexible. Their whole line is that way. To compensate they lack the EHP/buffer of dedicated armor or shield ships. Though id like to move a high to a mid on the fleet phoon and give the fleet pest 10% tracking and damage. But i suppose thats for a different topic.


(Alex Dujev) #6

I agree with OP


(Luscius Uta) #7

Probably the biggest reason why Battleships are currently non very popular is their warp speed. Just the thought of travelling 15 jumps with a Battleship gives me pain. Of course the Machariel doesn’t have that problem and you get to see it more often.

Another problem is their volume - I wish it would get reduced to 30,000 m^3 so you could place two of them in a DST. That would of course allow you to put more of them inside a Jump Freighter and would increase the chance of nullsec Battleship fleets becoming popular again.


(Stitch Kaneland) #8

Theyre not popular because they get blobbed hard or have caps dropped on them anytime they roam. There are only a handful of BS that get any use through null doctrines atm. Warp speed plays some role im sure, but i dont mind it too much. If BS warp speed is buff, then all other ships warp speed would need to go up too. Otherwise there wont be much difference between BS and cruiser warp speeds.


(Makshima Shogo) #9

Would be nice if warp speeds where a lot closer in general lets say cruisers had 4au/s and bc’s had 3.6au/s and bs had 3.2au/s or something would be great.


(Old Pervert) #10

Echoing thoughts, as well as adding my own:

  1. Battleships are simply too slow. This slowness gets them blobbed way too easily. Bombing fleets for example cream their pants when they find battleships. They need to warp faster.
  2. Battleships lack the EHP to stand up to capitals, which, given their current proliferation, are almost 100% certainly going to get dropped on battleships. They need at least double their current buffer, perhaps triple. Active tanks are fine.
  3. They lack the ability to apply damage to pretty much everything smaller than a battlecruiser… even then nano fits will run them into the ground. “Bigger is not better” is important but “smaller is not better” should not be true either. It is. Small ships have virtually every advantage over big ships. They need a better answer to small ships than neuts and grapplers. Fixing the “Large Small” guns may be a good start here (dual heavy pulse lasers, as an example). Their damage is fine, give them much better tracking. Given the sacrifice of their higher damage and subsequent vulnerability to other battleships, being able to face-■■■■ a frigate/dessie feels like a fair trade.

(Alex Dujev) #11

I think this is not bad


(Alex Dujev) #12

Only reconsidering damage mechanics the way I see here. Factors to remove: tracking, velocity


(Makshima Shogo) #13

If bs’s had triple the hp more speed and perfect tracking they would just be broken, speed + a good buff to hp sounds decent but not tracking (Large drones already have way to much tracking for their size, needs some tracking nerf) they would need support from webbing huggin + target painters so they don’t become overpowered in solo/small gang


(Stitch Kaneland) #14

While i agree with this, heavy drones and large turret tracking are 2 completely different things. Drones can orbit their target, mitigating some of the issues with turret tracking (when a small ship orbits a turret battleship. Also, heavies are used on ishtar/VNI and other various non battleship sized drone boat. VNI/Ishtar are both tracking bonused for heavies. So if may not just be heavies tracking well, but the fact those ships are super common.

Also, the guns that he mentions are the smaller tier battleship guns, like dual 425mm, dual heavy pulse lasers and electron blasters. Youd do less damage but gain significantly more tracking.


(Old Pervert) #15

No… that would break pvp. Simply increasing the tracking would be a good start. Removing the concept of tracking is shortsighted and utterly stupid.

Please do note there is a substantial difference between “perfect” and “much better”. Right now they can’t hit anything. Even with a grappler, it’s touch and go.


(Makshima Shogo) #16

Their tracking atm is fine, try and fight a macherial on SISI and tell me that they cant track you xD one turned my assault frig into swiss cheese from 19k away no webs.


(Old Pervert) #17

You mean… the only battleship you can reliably expect an alliance to have as a doctrine? The one that already has 2 of the 3 things that I originally said battleships need?


(Makshima Shogo) #18

Tracking isn’t one of them thou, their speed up’s their tracking because they can sling shot better so speed alone for battle ships will help with tracking a further tracking bonus on top will make them very strong.


(Old Pervert) #19

I dare say it is.

Unless you’re talking about giving them ~cruiser sublight speeds (which would be insane) even a faction fitted nano nightmare can’t slingshot a frigate or destroyer.

Speed would make them much less painful because they’d be able to better deal with things like washboarding in null, but it wouldn’t help their combat abilities in any truly measurable way.


(Makshima Shogo) #20

Bs’s have a 24km neut thou which is massively powerful in reducing enemy transverse(angular) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aur2_H4BSXQ ((14minutes) in the video it shows large guns with no tracking bonus able to kill small ships becuase of the power of neuts), If anything all battle ships should have their turrets and bonus’s adjusted to have at least 1 utility high for a neut each it would up their viability a lot.

Its funny because a lot of the smaller ships are getting utlity high’s that don’t need them like the retribution and wolf and then big ships that need them tornado, abandon, zealot, don’t get them xD Utility high is unfortunately much more effective as ship size increases as point range stays the same between classes, an alternative which could be cool is that point range scales with class size so frigate scram could be 7k long point 15k, cruiser scram 10k point 24k, battle ship scram 15k battle ship point 30k.

Would be a lot more interesting because then a neut on a frig will actually be able to hit within its scram range giving it a lot more effectiveness, and battle ships will have a better time kiting because they can scram frigs before they get in range to scram back, numbers could always be adjusted thou.


(Old Pervert) #21

I’d be on board with that. The bolded part of where I started was asking for better tools, and I stand by that - ensuring they have a utility neut would be enough to really help them. Another option would be to increase the viability of fitting an MJD on them (it’s very useful, but sometimes less useful than an AB or MWD). By forcing a hostile to come in for a scram, the grappler could also be useful against many more ships.

I’m not advocating that, just saying options exist for adding counter-play.