For starters i definitely feel Battleships need a decent EHP increase for some more staying power on the field and a small buff to Most Large weapons. right now you can get around the same if more more Damage from most cruisers and battlecruisers sometimes more.
2 Likes
Honestly, they should expand upon tactical destroyers more. T3Ds already have defender missile launchers and are excellent battleship escorts. They can fast-lock dictors, they can shoot down bombs.
A homogenous fleet of battleships is bland, boring, and far too⌠static. Battleship fleets (any fleet, really) SHOULD be successful if it contains a strong mix of logistics, ewar support, destroyer support, and tackle cepter support. They should NOT be successful against a prepared opponent if itâs just your typical arty BB doctrine. That â â â â is so insanely boring. Yet, itâs also incredibly effective, so thatâs why itâs surviving.
2 Likes
To expand upon that, I feel like any fleet should comprise of many classes of ships.
Your fast tackle (cepters) should be able to catch something quickly, and then hand off tackle to assault frigates who can take the pounding with logi support. The frigates should be harrassing things, forcing logi to keep active reps spread across targets. Of course also providing logi and ewar, depending on fleet comp and FC.
Your destroyers should be busy dealing with frigates, because thatâs basically what theyâre there for, by shooting down their bombs, and just generally skirmishing with them.
Cruisers, being the workhorse class, should be doing everything. Applying damage to destroyers to protect their frigates, main-line reps, ewar support for the battlecruisers and battleships, and providing things like HIC utility.
Battlecruisers, being giant flying guns, should be flanking the cruisers or battleships. This of course would require that Eve have positional awareness and shield grids, allowing position to matter. Once theyâre in a position to light something up, it should die. The flip side is that BCs are generally pretty squishy. There are of course other roles such as command ships, which we all know how they should be used.
And then youâve got your battleships. The big guns. The things that can both take and give a serious pounding.
A fleet should comprise of all these things. That would be an incredibly fun fleet. A fleet where each class of ship supported each other class, filling a role within that fleet, essential to the success of the entire fleet.
A homogeneous fleet makes sense, it fits with the meta. Thereâs no value in such a diverse fleet, and plenty of value in an anchored up wrecking ball where everyone does what the FC says. So I know why it is how it is.
But breaking fleets up into vast and diverse things, splitting that command out to different wing leaders, would be incredibly fun.
1 Like
To add, in the middle of your mix, carriers. To me a carrier should not be able to jump on its own, a titan or jump bridge. But gate hopping a carrier with an escort fleet is more realistic. In the carrier, the fleet hangar can carry other ships that can be used if someone loses a ship. The carrier would be no closer than a 150km from the lead ship. A carriers fighters and bombers would suppliment its fleet and be able to help in its own protection.
Honestly, carriers have no niche. Theyâre irrelevant compared to supers, and are basically just the âwell if you canât fly a super, fill your fighter bay with superiority fighters and die quietly if you get primariedâ.
Iâd rather see them just get turned into faxes and be gone.
Capital ships having jump drives is good. Their sublight and warp mobility are horrifyingly terrible, and the kinds of mobility improvements youâd need to make gate travel something that doesnât result in the mass suicide of your fleet members, youâd break a lot of other â â â â .
The mobility issues that battleships have is a fraction of how bad caps have it insofar as mobility is concerned. Taking away jump drives would suck.
That said, intel showing everyoneâs cynos would be interesting. Would⌠âencourageâ cap fleets to move with subcap support where they donât have structures they can immediately dock in.
F. CCP nerfed the warp speeds and made everyone leave battleships
Financially speaking as CCP are not fixing the game, they are better off laying off staff.
powerless battleships are eve inventions to the world
You still here? I am sure WOW is looking for another ORC!
Maybe itâs time for Battleships to be considered capitals (which they are anyway), and given jump capability/fleet hangars.
1 Like
Congratulations, you just found the description of the typhoon!
Please let some more experienced pilots talk about balance.
You may be noticed that there are still a gajillion modules that need to be addressed and the the âenduringâ, âcompactâ, âscopedâ and ârestrainedâ treatment.
Then we delete triglavian ships and high angle weapons from the game and make fighters so terrible at subcap application that all those capital pve boat become pvp, anti-capital or structure ships as they once were.
Then and only then can our real battleships get a proper look at and better sensors and then we can discuss if triglavians can make an appearance again.
1 Like
Except no.
The Typhoon gets 6 launcher and 6 turret hardpoints with 7 high slots.
It only gets bonuses to large launchers (Cruise, Torp, Rapid Heavy), and no bonus to turrets, large or otherwise.
In my proposed change it would get 3 launchers and 3 turrets with 7 high slots, with double itâs current damage bonus to large launchers and a 1.5xish damage bonus to medium turrets.
So no, I did not describe the Typhoon, and youâre not as experienced as you think you are. Thanks!
Just stay from Caldari ships you know nothing about. The Caldari turret boat is called the Rokh.
And what you are proposing will not help EVE, the meta or anything else in EVE.
1 Like
I could see battleships getting some tweaks, but nothing on the scale of things being talked about here.
-
Warp speed. A while back I proposed a slight re-alignment of subcap warp speed. T1 Cruisers, Battlecruisers, and Battleships would all get +1 AU/s to their warp speeds (and T2 would be adjusted accordingly). So T1 cruisers would warp at 4 AU/s, T1 Battlecruisers would warp at 3.5 AU/s, and T1 Battleships would warp at 3 AU/s. This would create a nice, consistent decrease in warp speed for combat subcaps (0.5 AU/s per class size) and further differentiate larger subcaps, especially battleships, from capital ships, which would still warp at 1.5 AU/s or slower.
-
Battleships are still extremely vulnerable to bombers. The re-working of defender missiles as anti-bomb weapons has helped somewhat, but with Destroyers being the only platform they can be fitted to itâs not much trouble to clear the field of them before a bombing run. I would suggest somehow buffing the survivability of defender missile platforms. Not âevery battleship with a utility high slot can just fit a defender missile launcherâ buff, but âmore durable than destroyersâ buff. I have no particular suggestion on how to do this. (EDIT: Or, alternatively, consider slightly nerfing bomb effectiveness, but I much prefer leaving unprepared, undefended battleship fleets vulnerable to bombing.)
-
For far too long, battleships have lacked a consistent EWar platform lineup. Amarr and Caldari each have one EWar battleship, while Minmatar and Gallente donât. Smaller hull sizes all have one EWar platform per hull size, so remedying this would both help balance the overall subcap EWar lineup, plus offer up more durable EWar options. I donât have specifics in mind, but each race would get one new battleship: Minmatar and Gallente a dedicated EWar platform, Caldari a dedicated combat ship, and AmarrâŚwell maybe tweak the 'Geddon and add a combat ship or split EWar between the 'Geddon and the new hull.
Just some thoughtsâŚ
Waiting for you to make an actual argument.
Iâm usually the first one to swat down comparisons between EvE ships and historical naval combat vessels of Earth, but what youâre proposing is the exact opposite of historical battleship evolution. Youâre increasing logistical complexity (more ammo types to keep track of), youâre increasing tactical complexity (each set of weapons has different range and tracking), youâre introducing a whole new game mechanic for a single class of ship (how exactly do you limit a ship to four and only four large weapons when they have more than four weapon hardpoints?), youâre making battleships harder to balance (whatâs to keep players from skipping medium weapons and using light ones for the superior tracking?), and youâre doing it all in spite of the fact that battleships already have dedicated weapons to deal with smaller ships in the form of drones.
Hard no on this for multiple reasons.
1 Like
This is explained in my post⌠thereâs launcher and turret hard points. If you have 4/4 you canât fit 6 of one and 2 of the other.
What stops that now? Nothing. But the small weapons would be unbonused⌠just like in my proposed change.
Please read more carefully before replying. Thanks.
And again⌠NO! you are asking for another glass cannon like attack battlecruiser with capital sized weapons. Wich is ridiculous and useless as the dread gets the job done
Sorry if mixing topics here but could battleship love also be expressed through limiting lowsec from titans and supercarriers?
That is not such a bad idea.
1 Like