So when is the “March” release? We are 10 days in and still don’t have a date listed…
Soon™
That would be telling…
…
…
…
Some things are just too opsec for us line members to be told until formup.
…
1 Like
Indeed…loose lips sink ships, people.
Well, keep in mind that the ‘March’ release is also the ‘Winter’ release.
So if it’s not this Tuesday, then next Tuesday… is literally the last full day of Winter.
Kinda cutting it close there, ain’t they?
You might be right about more people engaging with the recent PvE if the rewards were better, however, EVE PvE gameplay and content still needs to improve. It needs to be more engaging, more immersive and more fun. Most of it is dreary at best. Some of it is profitable, but a lot of it is still dull.
While CCP has started to add some improved PvE, if the new stuff is just re-skinned standard mechanics, with a weak story, then yeah, the rewards really need to be good. If it’s not fun, then all you’re left with is whether or not it’s profitable.
1 Like
Personally, Jump Fatigue is ■■■■ and the devs seem bent on punishing people for seeking out content. Having just been on the end of loosing a marauder to 10 Sc’s whilst trying to get a good fight, I say again, the act of seeking out content shouldn’t be punished but the ease to how someone can stick a ■■■■■■■ cyno onto a ship and project force needs reimagining. I’m sick of this game, the people complaining about it being stagnant and yet those are the players making it dull by playing with “i-win” buttons. If the devs had anything about them and some balls they would rip the arse out of the cyno mechanic and rebuild it from the bottom up.
1 Like
Or it can be accepted and recognized that BS roaming fleets just arent practical, as intended.
BCs make a reasonable option, if you want heavier support than cruisers.
If BS roams became practical, this would benefit larger orgs vs smaller orgs with cruiser based doctrines.
BS can be deployed rapidly via jump bridges and/or from ships capable of carrying them in their holds for other capsuleers to deploy out of.
As to warp speed, theoretically CCP could increase everythings AU by 1, up to BS.
This however has an indirect effect on the relevance of alignment times, and benefits aggressors as being able to arrive faster, before defenders have time to call up their own support.
Yes please increase warp speeds a bit, and also:
This would make battleship’s quality of life so much better, also it wouldn’t feel slow for battlecruisers.
1 Like
I dont think roaming BS fleets would be a “good thing”.
Leads to power-creep and the further obsoletion of cruisers/BC.
I have to agree the cyno mechanic’s are causing stagnation, people are too fearful to wage war in a game that is fueled by war : / sad times indeed.
2 Likes
So you come into someone’s home to disrupt their downtime, and complain when they use enough force to deter a repeat?
I mean, everyone says they want content, but they want it on their terms, and when the other guy doesn’t oblige, they bitch up a storm. That goes both ways in your example.
1 Like
Not really sure how jump bridges help roaming gangs and honestly, fatigue slows down “rapid deployment”. As for “ships capable of carrying them in their holds for other capsuleers to deploy out of”, a carrier can fit two [2] battleships in its ship maintenance bay, so if your deploying that way you’re better off just using carriers and forget the battleships. Then you also have the problem of getting the “capsuleers” to the carriers to board the 2 battleships they have moved. Again you’re better off just using carriers.
BC’s make quite reasonable roaming doctrines - Until you run into a defence fleet with battleship support. Defenders pretty much always have the advantage over roaming gangs, as long as they have half reasonable intel they can be waiting for roamers, fully prepared.
Battleships having a slightly faster warp speed would benefit aggressors (roaming gangs) no more than it would defenders, it would simply mean aggressors could reasonably take battleships on roams to fight the inevitable battleship defence fleet they are going to run into.
It would benefit aggressors, because even if AU is increased, it doesnt change the response time for defenders to deploy. I said that in my previous post.
Someone suggested A bonus to ABs for HACs. I like this idea, as the -50% sig bloom for MWDs isn’t as big an advantage as I suspect it once was. A blanket +25% AB speed would ensure you’re not competing with Sansha fleets for AB dominance, while still making AB fits more attractive to PvP activity, and give the class something that no other ship class really has. It would re-enforce the theme of high mobility and manoeuvrability that the HACs already have.
Which doesn’t matter in the slightest, whether a roaming battleship can complete a 25AU warp in 12.5 seconds or 11 seconds isn’t going to affect defender response time in that system. nb; not exact travel times, example only…
What it does do is cut a little time off each warp so battleships are not so painfully slow to take out on roams in the first place.
Any half decent defence fleet knows roamers are coming well before they get to XXX system, where they are going to try to engage the roamers. So roaming battleships going 1 AU faster in warp really changes nothing. Except over 4 or 5 jumps, the defenders will have a few seconds less to prepare.
This is of course good for defenders too, having their battleship defence fleet able to warp to XXX faster, will greatly help with defending against roaming gangs.
Maybe BS arent intended to be taken out for roaming in the first place.
And its not “a little”.
From 2 to 3AU is a 50% increase.
2 to 2.1, would be “a little”.
At 3 they would warp as fast as cruisers do now.
However, ammo bays would be easier to balance as it means not having to give ships very large cargo bays which can have detrimental effects.
Personally, I would give all combat capable or combat oriented ships ammo bays that were fairly large and cut their cargo holds down to a minimum. Then there would just be the exploration ships that would be the outliers that require large cargo bays.
Still doesnt address deployables, loot, nanite, scripts, boosters, drugs, extra mods to switch between using a depot. Significantly reducing battleship cargo is bad no matter if they have an ammo bay or not.
What detrimental effects would exist by giving BS larger cargo bays? Mining battleships? There are far more detrimental effects by reducing it than increasing it.
1 Like