Make Battleships Great Again

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
81

That does nothing to alleviate slow warp issue it “feels” like you are constantly in TiDi just without it showing in top left corner BS 2.0au is disaster and couple that with nothing short but PAIN of align AND mobility and you get battleships of today… undesirable.

Battlecruisers were supposed to be ships that bridge that au gap from cruisers to battleships but were quickly pulled toward cruiser AU speeds in order to make them more usable along with plethora of other buffs…

So battleships remained even further isolated in their “life in a constant TiDi”, workarounds in fittings can be used but to extent of band aid at best because you need to

Improve warp speed
improve mobility
attempt to make large caliber guns not miss a planet.

^choose one,not to mention all of those modifications reduce battleship to something less making you wonder why not just not be in one and avoid fuss.

Out side of those few things left to consider is “CCP math” that is ahem less than stellar at times, same math that say “if you take tempest battleship and bury it 2km in side of planet pull trigger on those howitzers it can still miss said planet” and the fact they are ppl and ppl do stupid things like my self do…

…simply put they went too far(too low) on battleship warp nerf.

2 Likes
82

At 2AU, yes, for most…

Too bad, too sad.
They will catch up eventually.

83

Any reason why you (at least appear to) support battleships warping so slowly? Explain.

1 Like
84

Explain/elaborate please.

What do you want changed on BS, and why?

85

I thought I elaborated. They nerfed BS to make them warp more slowly. I want the nerf either reverted, or at least softened, i.e. I want BS to warp faster.

I assume you want BS to remain slow-warping? Do you have a reason or a rationale for this (not a challenge, just an honest question)?

1 Like
86

All core fleet ship should based on “outnumbered” principle.
For example:
2-4 frig should be able to take down 1 cruiser (average)
4-5 cruisers should be needed to take down 1 BS.
2-3 BS should be needed to take down a dread.
4-5 BS should be needed to take down 1 carriers.
Except for extreme niche ship (like t3d/c),
It’s look like it isn’t the same anymore between cruiser/BS/Carrier. W/o the EHP that BS ship has, i doubt anyone would want to use BS anymore since BC/Cruiser has a bit lesser dps with far better speed taking, and cheaper.

Cost correlation is wildly off.

87

Why do you want that?

88

I’ve already explained. It’s dumb to warp slower because I’m in a battleship, there’s no particularly good reason for this nerf, it affects ‘quality of life’ and makes using battleships un-fun and tedious for no particularly good reason, people don’t want you in fleets because you warp slower than they do, blah blah blah.

Battleships were fine when they warped faster, and as far as I know, nobody ever asked for this nerf or argued for it.

Why do you want BS to warp slow? I guess you’ll just ask me more questions now, in response.

1 Like
89

Honestly, my “perfect solution” would be a completely mixed doctrine.

Carriers, for example, have fleet hangers. But they’re vulnerable to getting defanged, and they’re vulnerable to dreads. So Carriers use their fleet hangers to store consumables for the fleet.

Dreads and Faxes also attend, in whatever numbers make sense, again storing consumables for the fleet.

Caps need support. Which is where the battleships come in. Nice good long range guns for defanging other capitals, nice good guns for taking on other battleships. Not so good at dealing with smaller ships though.

So that’s where cruisers and battlecruisers come in. You bring them for utility, you bring them for mobility. They can engage smaller stuff, and apply some hellishly good ewar to the stuff that they can’t directly engage.

Then you’ve got destroyers to protect your fleet from frigates, and frigates for fast-tackle… be they interceptors for their obvious tackling advantages, AFs for their obvious increases in survivabiltiy, or ewar frigates if you want their obvious utility.

Just once I’d like to see that kind of comp not get hard-countered by a “lets just bring 150 of the same ship”.

EDIT:
Since I should want to say more on the topic:

  1. Critical mass is essential to winning a fight. Disparate doctrines lack critical mass in any particular area. Homogonized fleets with a few snowflakes in 'gorns, recons, etc will maintain critical mass much longer.
  2. Battleships are too god damned slow to bring anywhere. Roams need to move faster because nobody wants to spend 3 hours going through empty space trying to find a good fight. Blue space is another possible problem, albeit one that can be argued as self-inflicted.

Capitals are in a fantastic price-point right now. They’re an expensive loss, but really not that bad. On the other hand, supers and titans are waaaay out of whack. A Titan roaming with the battlegroup, for example, would immediately mitigate the travel issues that battleships face. Fleet anchors on the titan(s), cyno ships move up, titan bridges subcaps and (super)caps jump themselves.

That said, NOBODY would be stupid enough to roam with a titan, cause they’d get blobbed by 50 of them. Critical mass.

1 Like
90

Oi Vey thats a Necro.

Topic moved to Player features and Ideas Discussion.

~Buldath

91

Not the first time it got necro’d either. Still, a lot of discussion on the topic.

92

Each ship has a role… But CCP has ignored the fact that said ‘roles’ are only a ‘role’ when there is a fleet of varying composition.

In eve, there are 100 man ceptors… or 100 man T3… or 100 man Caracal.

Roles are irrelevant in Eve Online. It’s an F1 monkey simulator where blobbing is literally the only path to victory.

93

Pigeon holing most ships into ‘roles’ is not good, i.e. mandating that BS should only be good for PvE, or Capships should only be good at structure-bashing, etc. So, generalized combat ships should not have strongly defined ‘roles’ except for the role of ‘general combat.’

However, it is clear that some ship types have roles, and I’m fine with that - for instance, ewar ships, logistics ships, industrial/freighers, mining, etc.

1 Like
94

first iteration of jump fatigue this wasn’t a problem but now fatigue no longer even pretends to prevent this

they can and they do

capital drops are not the main reason people don’t use BBs

95

In general I disagree with that.

Consider battleships. Their “role” should be “battle lines” as it were. They’d be tanky, they’d be spanky. They’d have projection. Their mobility is a trade-off for tank, and the trade-off for the projection is their application against smaller targets (<=cruiser).

These are both fine, on-grid. They should travel faster, but meh that’s a different can of worms.

Another good example would be destroyers. They should be picket ships. They should be intended to keep the small ■■■■ off of your slow-movers.

Or frigates. They should be intended to harass the slow-movers. They do an excellent job of this now. An assault frigate squad for example will have no trouble killing a battleship… nor should they.

But if you add destroyers to the mix, now your frigates are going to get spanked by the destroyers. This is generally the case as well.

So now you add some cruisers to handle the destroyers while the frigates handle the battleships (cruisers of course helping with the BS after the D are dead).

Which is where battlecruisers come in, providing hefty fire support against cruisers. The whole while, your battleships are either providing utility against small ships (neuts, grapple/web) or are slugging it out with other battleships. Or they’re supporting against capitals.

Speaking of, roles are clearly defined for caps as well.

Dreads and Titans are meant for sieging and anti-cap. (Super)Carriers are meant for anti-subcap. Faxes are meant for logistics/

2 Likes
96

dreads and titans are just good for noping what ever you need noped cap or sub cap. supper carriers are similar just with extra nope to sub caps and carriers are there for you to look like your helping but really you should be in a super or a dread.

1 Like
97

In reality, exactly true. Their “Roles” however, if they actually fit them properly, would be that. They don’t fit their roles.

Supers are kind of a mixed bag with their heavy bombers; they will shove a 12 inch dick down the throat of a capital ship. But the guns on heavy fighters will make short work of battleships. Everything else makes sense… Titans bring massive EHP to the game, along with phenomina and the ability to not be sieged.

98

true i would like to see HAW removed fighters given better sensors and carriers a bigger bonus to superiority than supers. i think that could solve most of the capital balance issues

1 Like
99

Fully agree with this. Dreads need to go back to being anti-cap and anti-structure. Carriers providing superiority is basically what they are now when you get into big fights, so bonus them for it.

I’d also like to see them have much lower dps but be able to apply to frigates → cruisers much more effectively than they can now, leaving supers to take care of BC/BS with their heavy fighters.

Basically make a light fighter squad have roughly the same offensive potential as a destroyer.

1 Like
100

bouncing them to superiority would already help their anti frig/desi. currently after damage reduction you can get ~300 near perfect applied DPS put of superiority on a thanny/nid. just very few people realize this. but it all becomes mute if they are just jammed out unless you have them in mass numbers.

not sure if they should be made less effective against BC/BB but considering they are already pretty meh against them not much would change.