losing one fully fitted also costs less than a BC hull alone.

They are also 'just' T1 cruisers.
ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser.

ANSWER: Doesn't make any sense, so could result in another question regarding how you come to that conclusion.
(which in return would be recieving a similar answer so not going there.)

And I still disagree about the spending-more thing.

It's a low-skill investment choice of ship that cost-wise is pretty negligable.

cruisers are significantly faster and more agile than BCs, and cost way less than HACs. they're meant to add punch and tank to a frigate gang, in the same way that BSes add punch and tank to a BC gang, without sacrificing the 4-5s warp time that most frigate gangs use to stay mobile and ahead of the competition. losing one fully fitted also costs less than a BC hull alone.

alternatively, babydrakes (like caracals) are cheap and can fit long-range heavy missiles easily. three caracals is the equivalent of two drakes in terms of damage, and costs way less. it's also way, way more mobile, and allows for more fleet flexibility because of the agility and ability to kite.

also, a mwd-ing cruiser is usually up past 2km/s, whereas most BCs can't break 1400m/s. so it can function as a heavy tackle when you don't want to use (and lose) an assault ship.

a t2 fit rupture costs ~30m depending on how you fit it. how much do canes cost nowadays?

PS: Also "Lol" at a Cruiser being able to cover one aspect of a BC by making sacrifices .. they are faster and smaller but that is the extent of it, they can never, ever achieve same EHP or damage (would love to see the Ruppie fit that supposedly equals the Cane in damage though).

Battlecruisers as they are do everything cruisers do, but better. The reason crusiers are/will be viable are that cruisers can be fit to imitate BCs in a single particular aspect (Rupture can do Hurricane DPS if it sacrifices other things, for example), while being far cheaper.

If only Destroyers were more diverse, couldn't that be said about the Frigate/Destroyer relationship too?

@Petrus Blackshell

It would be good. But I am pretty sure it will die before I can have fun with it. And even faster if I sacrifice those little bits of tank.

Hmm... I suppose I was wrong, I can only make a reasonable Rupture fit go up to about 500 dps. Still, that's not bad for an 8 mil hull.

Let me present you the 733 dps Rupture:

[Rupture, New Setup 9]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x1
Hobgoblin II x4

Turrets: 459 DPS ( Overloaded : 528 DPS)
Missiles: 80 DPS ( Overloaded : 94 DPS)
Drones: 110 DPS

Dont look at EHP tho.

reasonable Rupture fit

Let me present you the 733 dps Rupture:

That will get killed by a single frigate. I could set up a Hurricane to do as much damage as a Sleipnir does, but that would be a bad idea because that ship would suck.

sure, but it's great for DPS in pve situations! =)

not that a tier-3 BC isn't better, but what the heck? fly something different for a change.

cruisers are significantly faster and more agile than BCs, and cost way less than HACs. they're meant to add punch and tank to a frigate gang, in the same way that BSes add punch and tank to a BC gang, without sacrificing the 4-5s warp time that most frigate gangs use to stay mobile and ahead of the competition. losing one fully fitted also costs less than a BC hull alone.

alternatively, babydrakes (like caracals) are cheap and can fit long-range heavy missiles easily. three caracals is the equivalent of two drakes in terms of damage, and costs way less. it's also way, way more mobile, and allows for more fleet flexibility because of the agility and ability to kite.

also, a mwd-ing cruiser is usually up past 2km/s, whereas most BCs can't break 1400m/s. so it can function as a heavy tackle when you don't want to use (and lose) an assault ship.

A Stabber will do over 2400 m/s with a mwd and no other speed mods, but there you go, its a winmater.

It also gets a speed bonus, is made of paper, and is an absolute failure of a ship. Hardly "winmater".

If you want to accuse ships of "Winmatar" status, at least use the right ones. Compare the Rupture to the Maller or the Moa.

Yeah but a Rupture with a mwd and no other speed mods does just under 1600 m/s and I was looking for an example of a T1 Cruiser that does over 2 k/m as stated in the post I was responding to.

Let me present you the 733 dps Rupture:

[Rupture, New Setup 9]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x1
Hobgoblin II x4

Turrets: 459 DPS ( Overloaded : 528 DPS)
Missiles: 80 DPS ( Overloaded : 94 DPS)
Drones: 110 DPS

Dont look at EHP tho.

The rupture has the powergrid for all that?

Yeah, just about. It's also the only cruiser that can fit a rack of its native guns, a prop mod, and a 1600mm plate without needing fitting mods. Yeah, that includes the Maller, which is supposed to be a buffer tanking laser platform. Problem?

Another problem with Armor Cruisers is that just to be considered passable they need a Battleship sized plate.

800mm and rigs still nerfs your speed lower then a Shield Cane while giving you far less HP. I really think if they want to fix Cruisers that has got to be something that needs to change.

Armor Cruisers being good without needing a Battleship plate is something to wish for.

50mm and 100mm plates are useless.

Frigates have 200mm as light plates (easy to fit), and 400mm as heavy plates (hard to fit).
Cruisers/BCs have 800mm as light plates (easy to fit), and 1600mm as heavy plates (hard to fit).
Battleships have... 1600mm plates (easy to fit)?

It's battleship sized plates that are missing. Slightly lower tank and fitting reqs for all existing plates, delete 50mm and 100mm plates, and add 3200mm and 6400mm plates. Now cruiser tank is easier, and battleships have a reason to fit non-maximum-size guns (in order to take care of their tank).

Oops... this isn't F&I...

*snip*

I only liked this post because it's the first post I've ever read from you where you don't mess up 'they're, there & their' (always makes me throw up a little despite failing at English myself).

The currrent problem with Tier2 BC's (and to a lesser extent Tier 1 BCs) is the fact that they use cruiser sized weapons and thus, are far too effective vs frigs and cruisers.

Their tank is fine, but they are dealing full damage against any ship equal or larger than them, their smaller cousins (cruisers) and still hit frigs and destroyers pretty well.

They should all receive a penalty on gun range, tracking and signature resolution or just fit be able to fit fewer large guns whilst doing the same overall DPS on paper. I've actually proposed that even before Tier3 BCs were even announced.

No they shouldn't.

The problems they have are wide spread. Armor Cruisers slower then Shield Battlecruisers that have to cram on 1600mm Plates is one thing. But the list goes on and on. When it comes down to it the issues have to do with speed, utility, bonuses, base stats, slot layout, damage and fitting. Some Cruisers have the problem some don't.

As long as Armor needs 1600mm Plates on tiny hulls to stay relevant you won't fix the speed issue.

Biggest thing they can do is remove Rig Penalties. Right away makes makes Armor Cruisers as fast as Shield BC. Extenders and Plates already handle Mass and Sig while Active is Cap vs Amount.

Either Tier 2 BCs need a nerf or every single ship around them needs a buff. The first option would be easier.

Yes - armor rig penalties are out of whack and need to be changed to something just as irrelevant as sig radius boost.

The speed issue is an entirely different topic an the reason why I think Minmatar need to be nerfed really hard in some area, because CCP obviously don't realize the impact of one race dictating engagement range at 100% efficiency, having the ability to deal damage outside of bonused scorch range or doing blaster-like DPS at short range.

Sig radius is pretty relevant.



Canes do around 180 DPS at 34km (bonused Scorch range) with autocannons and far less than the Brutix's 900 DPS at point-blank.

While cruisers are by far my favorite class of ships, I think things after almost right in terms of gameplay, the problem is economic. You see, I would take a gila or ishtar over a myrm, but a myrm over a vexor, this is a reasonable progression. The problem is that the vexor navy, gila, and ishtar are all so much more expensive than the myrm that from a cost standpoint the myrm makes more sense...... Simply put, either hacs/faction cruisers ought to be cheaper or battlecruisers ought to be more expensive.

As for HAC's, I think some of them need a rework, while others are certainly overpowered (Cerberus comes to mind here).

Let me present you the 733 dps Rupture:

[Rupture, New Setup 9]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x1
Hobgoblin II x4

Turrets: 459 DPS ( Overloaded : 528 DPS)
Missiles: 80 DPS ( Overloaded : 94 DPS)
Drones: 110 DPS

Dont look at EHP tho.

I think the main solution is going to come in the form of reduced relative cost while also granting a slight net performance buff across almost all cruisers. These suggestions are in addition the potential tier removal that we are all so eagerly waiting for,

1. Change cruisers to use small rigs, or change bcs to use large rigs.

2. Increase fitting on almost all t1 cruisers by a small margin... Both the thorax and omen should be able to fit a 1600mm plate with smallest guns (electrons or focused pulse) w/o the use of a fitting rigs or mods.

3. Increase scan resolution to allow for slightly slower locks than destroyers, but significantly faster than bcs. Idea is to make it almost impossible for a BC to exceed a cruisers lock time w/o significantly hindering fit.

4. Increase cruiser velocities and agility by a small margin as well as reduce cruiser sig by a very small margin. Idea is to make BCs universally slower than cruisers even when comparing nano bc vs buffer cruiser.

T2 cruisers... most need help, thats a whole different can of worms though.

You're kidding, right?

Canes do around 180 DPS at 34km (bonused Scorch range) with autocannons and far less than the Brutix's 900 DPS at point-blank.

4. Usually three rigs to the cruiser's two.

I can fit a solid cruiser for about 10M, maybe 15-20 if I'm going all out and running m4 instead of T2 for resources or something. That's less than the base cost of the hull alone for most BCs.

I would not use that fit, it is too vulnerable to small ships and the hurricane can deal that dps with ECM drones, double neut while also having much more EHP and better range + tracking due to tracking enhancers.

[Rupture, New Setup 9]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x1
Hobgoblin II x4

Turrets: 459 DPS ( Overloaded : 528 DPS)
Missiles: 80 DPS ( Overloaded : 94 DPS)
Drones: 110 DPS

Dont look at EHP tho.

Not true.... t2 fit and rigged cruisers cost you maybe 10m less to loose compared to an insured bc.

... and cruisers do not carry infantry.

Jokes aside BCs:

- Have good damage potential.
- Have enough staying power to apply said damage.
- Mobile(all setups have MWD) or have a good reach(Drake).
- Cost effective.

Now CCP promises to remove the tier system and all the Augrors, Arbitrators and Belicoses will have their slots, PG, CPU and bonuses to do their job.

But what about battle cruisers? Ok maybe my Omen gets enough PG to fit an MWD, Cap Booster, 800mm plate and a rack of FMPLs. But I stil willl:

- Have less damage potential than a Harbinger.
- Have not enough staying power.
- Lose more money per perfomance compared to a Battlecruiser if I get popped.

So basically I spend more resources(not only isk but logistics and time included) to achieve less output.

What is the niche of T1 cruisers? Where do they excel and outshine the ships of other classes?

OR

What should we do to make them viable alongside Main Battlecruisers?

EDIT: I'm not QQing about how overpowered BCs are and just ask the questions listed above.

T1 cruiser hulls don't cost 50 mil.

- Lose more money PER PERFOMANCE compared to a Battlecruiser if I get popped..

JESUS CHRIST DO YOU ALL HAVE READING DISABILITY???!!!

They are also 'just' T1 cruisers.

For their value, they get plenty of performance, but I'll bite and comment on your questions/statements:


ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser.


ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser.


ANSWER: Doesn't make any sense, so could result in another question regarding how you come to that conclusion.
(which in return would be recieving a similar answer so not going there.)



ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser. And I still disagree about the spending-more thing.

It's a low-skill investment choice of ship that cost-wise is pretty negligable.

---

So whats the next topic going to be Kaikka?
Industrials need more tank because they can haul so much potentially expensive stuff?

T1 cruiser hulls don't cost 50 mil.

AFs are t2, no t2 hull has ever or will ever be on the same "money per performance" as t1 hulls. Your fail argument is exactly that, a fail argument. Next!