Thats a 1AU buff to BS, but only a 0.6 AU buff to other hulls.
Why that difference?
Because BS are the slowest subcap. Now the modules and rigs would come to play because hulls wouldn’t have build-in fast warp speed.
What about Machariel, for example?
Travels at 4AU then?
It would be travelling 0.4 AU faster than T1 cruisers then, rather than at same speed as now.
Also BS can fit those same modules/rigs.
why on 4 AU, if they are traveling at 3 AU, same as crusier, then after the change they would travel 3,6 AU.
Why do you want to narrow the warp speed differential between ships?
Shouldnt it remain constant?
Furthermore if Mach travels at 3.6 after change, that is a -0.4AU differential to the full +1AU increase on other BS.
because in current state smaller ships are way to fast, even without warp modules and rigs. Warp speed and alignment are inseparable. Smaller hulls align faster and warp faster. It would be good to have slow align and slow warping BS if they have the power to justify it, but this is EvE nobody wants “bigger is better” and BS can be taken down by frigate.
What do you mean by constant?
It the same as today, Mach travels as fast as cruiser so after the change it would be the same. Point of +1AU increase is they won’t suddenly become uncatchable because they still align significantly slower than other hulls.
200 years ago in 1817 a Frigate was a 5th rate ship by the Royal Navy, it had between 24-44guns on ONE gun deck and an average speed of 12kn under full sail in favorable winds.
The French navy during the same time used light 5th rates which were classed as “Corvettes”. Which were nothing more than lighter gunned frigates. Instead of having 18-24lb guns they had 9-12lb guns. Thus being a bit more agile and weatherly.
Fast forward 100 years to 1917. We were in the end of the first World War. We had dreadnought class of ships, which were lumbering gun platforms, battleships which were almost identical to dreadnoughts. Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, and Destroyers.
Battleships and dreadnoughts were slow, lumbering powerful ships. But were vulnerable to fast attack ships like torpedo boats.
Eve models its ship classes on the WWI standard. Which oddly enough is what most space games seem to use, even Star Trek and Star Wars.
1 Like
well i guess thats when naval warfare was at its peak in terms of strategy and technology
after ww1 aircraft carriers made naval warfare irrelevant
Very true.
I personally think we should just use the ship rating system of the 19th century.
“What is game balance?”
You seem to have taken what was said out of context and assumed that literally the only metric used was the damage graph. You’ve also rather erroneously assumed that A. nothing but Battleships was used in Structure Bashes, and B. structure damage made up some massively significant portion of Battleship damage done.
If you look at the Dreadnought damage bar, a class that generally only shot Capitals and Structures, you’ll note that it’s significantly smaller than the Battleship damage graph which suggests that it’s not nearly as big of a chunk as you seem to think it is.
If you look at the zKill stats for Battleships they’ve been pretty consistently high, but not amazing, among ship classes for like the last 10 years.
Basically your argument here is essentially to insult CCP with no data to back it up and then assume that’s going to change anything… Somehow I don’t see this as a winning strategy. 
This isn’t how warp travel works in Eve. If you read through the lore the Eve warp-drives are something akin to a 5-dimensional lubricant. The more mass you’re trying to push past where physics normally goes “nope! F-no!” the harder that is to do and the slower the ship goes. The actual engines play a fairly minimal part in actual warp travel, they just provide the initial push and have zero impact on warp acceleration or velocity, that’s why there are different rigs and modules for sub-light velocities and warp speed.
Strictly speaking Dreadnoughts at the turn of the 20th century were a type of Battleship, not a separate class. Dreadnought battleships were large, heavily armored, and had turreted guns as opposed to the sponson or barbette mounted guns on all Pre-Dreadnought Battleships.
They also weren’t that vulnerable to small ships in practice, because early Torpedoes had terrible range and both pre and post-Dreadnought battleships had so many smaller guns that a small boat or destroyer would have to be very lucky indeed to get close enough to launch a successful torpedo attack.
Most games are really just borrowing the sizes though, not the roles or any of the capabilities.
Most games go with what the ship classes sound like size-wise rather than anything actually historical, let alone basing their capabilities on anything historical. Partly that’s because there wasn’t actually much of a standard for these class names between nations, partly they’ve changed over time, partly because no one really cares, and partly because when you actually look into what the various ships were used for most of them wouldn’t be much fun to play as.
Destroyers and/or Frigates in WW2, for example, were mostly used as pickets, to escort convoys, and for coastal defense. The only case I can find in all of WW2 where a Destroyer sunk a Battleship through Torpedoes was the Fuso at the Battle of Leyte Gulf and that was effectively an ambush, with 28 Destroyers and the Destroyers had 6 Battleships and 4 Heavy Cruisers that they were supporting which did the majority of the fighting after the initial torpedo volleys.
Most of the things actual historical Destroyers and Cruisers did would have been done better by a Battleship (especially by WW2), but those larger ships were relatively rare and expensive. The exception to this pretty much being sub hunting, since the smaller ships were somewhat harder to torpedo and could more easily maneuver to deploy depth charges.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.