Nah, its that you didnt skill C/BC, and went right to BS for farming PvE.
Now you are annoyed you cant use them and the skill investment to roam as efficiently as with C/BC.
Too bad. Too sad.
If you want faster warp, use C/BC.
BS damage projection is fantastic and far exceeds C/BC.
(PS: A Muninn has 100km lock, and a Sleipnir only has 80km. Now THATS retarded)
Just maintain range. MJD makes this a laughing matter.
Hell, even one MJFG will move the entire BS fleet well outside the effective range of C/BCs.
BS dps/ehp is way above C/BC, as is drone bandwidth as a tertiary weapon system.
Speed related restrictions, also AU, are a necessary tradeoff.
TLDR:
What you want, is to make C/BCs obsolete, so you can roam with BS level dps/ehp.
The sub-cap ship stat cascade is scalar, such that the difference between a Frigate and Cruiser is smaller, than the difference between a Cruiser and a BS. The speed related stats on BS are the only element that is restricting them from wiping the table on C/BC fleets.
Your example is irrelevant as you chose two very different ships to compare, Muninn is a HAC that uses artillery while the Sleipnir is a command ship that execels at brawling.
Also no one asked for changes in BB speed, align time, or agility. People want faster warp speed, even if itās .5 faster.
Itās obvious that your scared for some reason, whether your a cap ratter or just donāt want your ā ā ā ā fit blingy ship caught, unless your taking jump bridges/ using Titan bridges; a fleet of Battleships moving 40+ systems is still going to take over 40 minutes to get from point A to point B. More than enough time for your carebear Intel to report it and for your alliance to drop itās cap umbrella.
Nonsense, a Sleipnir is an even better arty platform than a Munnin, except for that irrational target lock range. Slepinirs are not defacto brawlers. They have more than enough PG to run artillery, and benefit from the falloff bonus as would an AC ship.
No. BS AU speed was nerfed for good reason that does not need to be re-litigated.
This is nonsense.
I dont have a cap ratter, and they can be dealt with by C/BC just fine.
BS will arrive soon enough to bring the heavy guns, once the target has been pointed.
Even if AU is increased, sub-BS will still fly faster, and still be better for pointing a bling cap ratter.
if you think BS speed was nerfed because of damage projection then itās untrue. It was a part of warp speed revamp and has nothing to do what you posting. CCP just came to conclussion that BS should warp at 2 AU, it may have been 3 AU from the start.
I think command ships are balanced around links and if you bring a Caldari command ship with an information link, you get 110-ish km targeting range for 2 minutes.
And if you fly armor, bring an amarr command ship with an information link. The Damnation get 129km targeting range with an information link.
Yeah no CCP could say same for a BC warp speed instead they just up it closer to cruiser warp speeds.
Heaving combat oriented fits being compromised just to move ship at marginally faster speeds is bad design.
And it is never more true than with battleships, two billion isk and 2 or 3(depends how much isk more you want to waste) rig slots are needed to make 2.0 au warp above 4.0 au while say to make destro go 2 au more itās a pocket change to make it happen.
The problem with this is that a battleshipās strength is its tank and projection. Fitting mods to compensate for their warp speed detracts from their only strengths to compensate for a strategic weakness.
While I can certainly agree that the ability to transit fast enough to avoid getting bottled in by the residents of space is valuable, cutting off oneās arm to make them weigh less so they can move faster in a fight isā¦ self defeating.
Thatās being optimistic, any whoās fc a large fleet knows that you have to wait for stragglers or people how donāt listen or go afk.
Noting once again, anyone who has to travel 40+ system is BB fleet is going to take jump or Titan bridges if they can.
Whatever fear that increasing the warp AU of BB will result in them pawning other fleet comps/doctrine is misplaced.
@Salvos_Rhoska letās look at current fleets that one might come across.
Interceptor fleets, ( do I really need to explain )
T1/t2 desse fleets (there fast, fun and project well. Missile talwars shine with a small support fleet.)
Jackdaw fleets (tank well and can snipe from 80+ more with links and support fleet. )
Caracal fleets (self explanatory)
Assault Frigates, New ( with the new ADC, these fleets can wreak desse/cruiser fleets. Td3 will counter them)
Ferox, (you can bet your ass that every major alliance found a way to keep 250mm rails without lossing to much tank. Will still be meta, will still be used)
Hurricanes, ( I havenāt seen to many of them but I have flown in a few, lots of fun. Good tank and dps, quick too.)
Brutix, ( hull tank rail brutixs are a pain to kill and have a high engagement profile, highly versatile and can take many fights and various ranges.)
9.blops
Dread bombs. (If you have them and can replace, why the hell not. Goons does this fairly often.)
If I missed any please do tell, but anyone that already fields BB roams will still field them. By increasing their AU speed you wonāt suddenly have every alliance project fleets cuz the can do that already.
What increasing au speeds will do is benefit small gangs who roam past fw hoping that they wonāt get hot dropped by everyone and their mother.
Thatās because of how % bonus works. Getting a BS to warp 10% faster is just as cheap as getting a destroyer to warp 10% faster. The fact you want to go from 2 to 4 mean you want a 100% increase on one ship and then compare it to a small % increase on the other.
Battleships warp slower than cruisers because they flat out arenāt supposed to get places as fast as cruisers do.
Battleships need one of two things. Either increased warp speed, or more independence. Look at amarr battleships. 4 mid slots. Prop mod, booster, scram web/grappler. Huh. Canāt fit tracking mods. (Geddon is different because drones missiles and neuts. One of the very few decent battleships). You look at missiles. Basically guaranteed hits every salvo except in extreme circumstances ( torpedo vs stupid fast ceptors). Damage application is mitigated due to sig stats, but you can counter act this with painters, dog mods, etc. Hereās the real kicker tho. They get rapid launchers. Using the ammo type of the class of ships below them, so better application, at BB dps. Gun battleships donāt get this. They have another ace up their sleeve. Precision ammo. Guns donāt have this.
Guns have the tracking stat, comparable to sig stats for missiles. Missiles have launchers that are specifically designed to take out smaller ships, WITHOUT sacrificing dps (mag size can matter to a certain extent). Guns donāt have this. Missiles have PRECISION ammo, further improving application, with a hit to dps, which really wonāt matter because smaller ships canāt tank the incoming dps anyway. Guns donāt have this. The only real plus side to guns is that if and/or when you hit, they can hit like a truck. (Iām talking about BB guns/launchers)
Hereās an idea. Give gun based battleships similar ārapidā guns, or, give them precision ammo. To make sense in lore, ould name them ālightā ammo, ie light gamma crystal. Light meaning they have less mass, there for turrets donāt have to lug them around when tracking stuff.
Increasing the numbers involved may make balance more possible.
Say x2 or x4 damage, armor, shields, hull across the board on all ships.
This would allow for more room to evaluate ships balance and give ships there specializations without making everything nearly the same or way OP or way under powered.
I personally think CCP is trying to cram balance into numbers that are too small for the variations of ships in this game.
Battleships should be meaningful ships like the OP said, letās give them more room to fit in.
With guns, the enemy dog only matters if they have angular velocity. Find a way to reduce that (sniping) and how big they are actually doesnāt matter. Thatās why there is no ammo that improves tracking. But I agree that there is some space for that. Flakk type ammo could be interesting though and would be represented fairly well by an increase in tracking and decrease in damage. I would also like the ādualā version of guns to actually track like medium guns and allow us to get something like point defense weapons. There has been plenty of suggestions along those lines but the easiest is by far to trade one actually large weapon for one that represents a few medium weapons.
@Alopex-Lagopus
As for the suggestion to multiply everything by 2 or 4, that achieves literally nothing. If you want to buff something by 1%, you can do it regardless of if the number is 1 or 1 million. Thatās why we use decimal pointsā¦
that said i would love for them to add i guess we can call them āflackā missiles like the long range get AOE give short range flack. even at max level they do less damage than standard but have an AOE be a nice way to discourage anchoring
So by multiplying everything by 4, that does (not) make anything OP stand out more and anything under powered glaringly so?
If I recall correctly, larger numbers are easier to work with than smaller numbers and decimals.
Allowing for flat rounded numbers to be used in place of decimals and still leave room for balancing changes.
I could be wrong though.
100 x 4 = 400
Translates
10.5 x 4 = 42
Decimals could stil be used, but would be less necessary.
