EVE Search - Battlecruisers kill the appeal of cruisers?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Battlecruisers kill the appeal of cruisers?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Angie McFish Gallente Caldari Industrial Capitalist Consortium	Posted - 2010.12.26 16:07:00 - [1] I think it's great with all these nerf the drake threads, but I'd like to go even further and say that the entire battlecruiser class should be overhauled. What really bothers me with battlecruisers are that they have all the benefits of a cruiser, but way better and maybe a tad slower. If I want a missile cruiser, I might as well go for a drake because it's a better tank than a caracal, can throw out a great deal of dps, it's a bit slower though. If I want a omen, why not just train for a harbinger instead? They fill the same role but the harbinger is just better overall. It is a transition class just as destroyers are, but destroyers do no not eliminate the frigs from the game at all. I say we should make battlecruisers more like glass-cannons, more like they are supposed to be when talking about naval warships. cruiser sized vessels with battleship sized weaponry. Maybe this isn't how we're supposed to fix the battlecruisers, but surely they need to have some kind of downside compared to cruisers. What I propose is to make Cruisers more balanced and all-around ships, and let the Battlecruisers keep their higher damage output but at the cost of a small tank than the one they have right now. If battlecruisers had a more distinct difference from cruisers maybe there would be a valid reason to add more different BCs, I'm hinting about faction BCs etc. I've equiped multiple thermic armor hardeners, so I'm highly resistant to flaming. Thoughts?
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.12.26 16:12:00 - [2] Quote: cruiser sized vessels with battleship sized weaponry. I can see this going one of two ways: 1. If you're putting that much training in to fly them, why not fly, you know, an actual battleship? 2. Hurricane blobs packing 1400mm artillery. Neither is a particularly good solution. On the other hand: remove the stupid tier system and buff cruisers. The Caracal would really shine with some more grid and possibly an extra low, the Omen likewise on the grid front, etc. etc. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Jaina Sunspot Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.12.26 16:13:00 - [3] Edited by: Jaina Sunspot on 26/12/2010 16:16:09 Originally by: Angie McFish maybe a tad slower. How many extra slots do I have... Nano. But yeah the Tier 2's. * With Medium Rigs/Insurence there is a very small cost difference. * Bonuses are usually better. * Fitting per Slot is way, way, way better. * Big Drone Bay, Spare Neut Slots and fitting, slots for Sebo's = Frig murderer * Crazy Tanks * Weapons sizes are the same with more guns, Dmg mods and fitting for bigger guns. * Sig difference means they are vulnerable to Battleships, cept they can escape them no problem. * Again so, so cheap. So yeah they are kind of an all in one of awesome with no downside.
Angie McFish Gallente Caldari Industrial Capitalist Consortium	Posted - 2010.12.26 16:15:00 - [4] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington Quote: cruiser sized vessels with battleship sized weaponry. I can see this going one of two ways: 1. If you're putting that much training in to fly them, why not fly, you know, an actual battleship? 2. Hurricane blobs packing 1400mm artillery. Neither is a particularly good solution. On the other hand: remove the stupid tier system and buff cruisers. The Caracal would really shine with some more grid and possibly an extra low, the Omen likewise on the grid front, etc. etc. Originally by: Angie McFish I say we should make battlecruisers more like glass-cannons, more like they are supposed to be when talking about naval warships. cruiser sized vessels with battleship sized weaponry. Maybe this isn't how we're supposed to fix the battlecruisers, but surely they need to have some kind of downside compared to cruisers. Context is beautiful, please don't forget that. I still think the BCs are kind of overpowered
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.12.26 16:18:00 - [5] You want to make battlecruisers to cruisers what destroyers are to frigates? Glass Cannon style? That doesn't work very well for destroyers. I doubt people would sign up to have some of the favorite ships in Eve nerfed. You should argue instead against the cruiser tier system. That's where the real weakness is.
Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2010.12.26 16:18:00 - [6] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington On the other hand: remove the stupid tier system and buff cruisers. The Caracal would really shine with some more grid and possibly an extra low, the Omen likewise on the grid front, etc. etc. So much this. It's not like loads of us have been asking for this for years either (oh wait) :/ So much of the t1 lineup would become very viable. t1 logi cruisers (Osprey etc) would be more attractive for a start as well as allowing lower tier cruisers to act more like 'trainer' ships for their t2 counterparts (which HAVE no tier system artificially limiting their effectiveness). Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate'
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.12.26 17:02:00 - [7] As long as BC's are as cheap as they are and have such a huge performance gap down to cruisers, they will dominate .. I'd wager that you could double the material cost of BC's and they would still be in heavy use .. near BS close range performance with more manoeuvrability and cheaper fittings. Would actually be a good trade-off. Choosing between a tier1 BS or a tier 2 BC - same price with one offering mobility and the other range/EHP.
Kelvin Joule Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.12.26 17:26:00 - [8] As a fairly inexperienced player (my only combat training is in Frigates, Cruisers, and Battlecruisers) I don't have the same perspective as many of you, but to me the current progression feels natural: the capabilities of a Battlecruiser seem to lie between those of a Cruiser and a Battleship. Once I do train for Battleship (and can actually afford one), won't I have the same feeling of never wanting to go back to BC that I currently have now for not wanting to go back to Cruiser? And is that a bad thing? "Paper is fine. Nerf Rock!" --Scissors "Rock is fine. Nerf Scissors!" --Paper "Scissors is fine. Nerf Paper!" --Rock
Jaina Sunspot Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.12.26 17:45:00 - [9] Originally by: Kelvin Joule Once I do train for Battleship (and can actually afford one), won't I have the same feeling of never wanting to go back to BC that I currently have now for not wanting to go back to Cruiser? And is that a bad thing? For PVE that's fine, it is PVP we are talking about. Battleships are slow and easily targeted and hunted by superior forces. Battlecruisers are fast and evasive, Battleships have difficulty catching them, Cruisers have difficulty escaping them. So while the other two are ether out gunned or flying targets with difficulty catching them. Battlecruisers are in the sweet spot. They are on that line between effective, evasive and don't draw attention from Capitols or bigger slower gangs. HAC's on the other hand for the cost increase are not often worth it unless filling a niche role, RR Sniper, Fast Kiter excreta. And all of this for lower cost the anything above them and similar cost to everything below them.
Papa FireDance	Posted - 2010.12.26 18:10:00 - [10] I agree, the concept here should not be to nerf Battlecruiser, but to buff Cruiser class vessels. Quote: On the other hand: remove the stupid tier system and buff cruisers. The Caracal would really shine with some more grid and possibly an extra low, the Omen likewise on the grid front, etc. etc. Quote: How many extra slots do I have... Nano. But yeah the Tier 2's. * With Medium Rigs/Insurence there is a very small cost difference. * Bonuses are usually better. * Fitting per Slot is way, way, way better. * Big Drone Bay, Spare Neut Slots and fitting, slots for Sebo's = Frig murderer * Crazy Tanks * Weapons sizes are the same with more guns, Dmg mods and fitting for bigger guns. * Sig difference means they are vulnerable to Battleships, cept they can escape them no problem. * Again so, so cheap. So yeah they are kind of an all in one of awesome with no downside. The Tier system is kind of messed up. Ideally, I believe that no ships should be "better" than another(sand tech II/III), rather an intricate game of sidegrades. I always thought the tier system was a crutch; it's easy in terms of game development, but I don't think it's a well though out system. Rather, I'd like to see the tiers of comparable power, but differently focused. For instance, look at Gallente Battleships; -If you prefer Drones, use Domi; -If you prefer Hybrids, but want some good drone capacity, use Mega; -If you prefer less drones, more tank, use a Hyperion. Granted, it's not balanced right now; Hyperion only loses 25 capacity and bandwidth for a huge armor repairer bonus. In any case, I believe the tier system has to go; the Cruiser lineup is where it's at. Each Cruiser has a role, if you want to specialize in that role, you have one Cruiser to use. I wish BCs and BSs were in that same lineup.

Proxyyyy Caldari draketrain	Posted - 2010.12.26 19:27:00 - [11] Gawd im so tired of this bu11sh!t! Fu(king f0rumz is such a waste of time. Instead of coming up with new ideas, creating intresting setups, strats and tacts. Its always this bu11sh!t. Fu(king f@9b0yz and you know im getting banned for this. Not once have i ever learnt anything new or intresting. ****ing worthless peices of sh!t! -happy holidays btw = )
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.12.26 19:44:00 - [12] Oh, this topic again? Simple solution, remove insurance, cruisers become popular again. Then fix the t1 logistic cruisers that are utterly useless, i.e. Auguror and Scythe.
Angie McFish Gallente Caldari Industrial Capitalist Consortium	Posted - 2010.12.26 19:54:00 - [13] Originally by: Omara Otawan Oh, this topic again? Simple solution, remove insurance, cruisers become popular again. Then fix the t1 logistic cruisers that are utterly useless, i.e. Auguror and Scythe. also, give the navy osprey a role, instead of being a failed caracal. But no, I believe they have to change the roles of battlecruisers, they should be something that would melt beneath the firepower of a battleship, not stand its ground against one. I don't see why anyone would ever fly either a battleship or a cruiser (if not for ecm) when battlecruisers outperform both.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.12.26 20:09:00 - [14] Originally by: Angie McFish I don't see why anyone would ever fly either a battleship or a cruiser (if not for ecm) when battlecruisers outperform both. There are enough reasons to fly cruisers over BCs, its just not fiscally responsible since fittings make up the majority of investment in the ship. Remove insurance, and they get their appeal back compared to battlecruisers. Battleships is a non-issue, their function cant be properly filled by battlecruisers or cruisers at all. Not even by the Drake.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.26 20:30:00 - [15] What we have now is a ship that has a median level of firepower when compared to a battleship and cruiser, and a median level of tank compared to a battleship and cruiser. What battlecruisers offer is cost-effectiveness. For small-gang warfare, battlecruisers are the most cost-effective ships in the game. While I typically eschew real-life comparisons to the game, the concept of the heavy cruiser/battlecruiser/pocket battleship in real life was the same. Contrary to an earlier poster, real-life battlecruisers were not cruiser hulls with battleship weaponry. They were bigger, heavier-than-cruiser hulls with smaller numbers of battleship weaponry, or heavier-than-cruiser hulls with heavier-than-cruiser weaponry. Most "battlecruiser" class ships in real life were designed to skirt the battleship constraints of the Washington Naval Treaty. Now, in-game, no equivalent number of battleships, with the same logistical support, can be defeated by an equivalent number of battlecruisers. Likewise, I'd hate to try and solo a PvP-fit Raven or Rokh in a PvP-fit Drake--that would be a quick death. The problem is that most people perceive battleships as being impotent against anything other than stationary targets, or other battleships, and that is where the issue is. Its not a problem, its a perceived problem brought on by fotm, lock-step thinking.
Major Sackrash Odium Certa	Posted - 2010.12.26 21:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Proxyyyy Gawd im so tired of this bu11sh!t! Fu(king f0rumz is such a waste of time. Instead of coming up with new ideas, creating intresting setups, strats and tacts. Its always this bu11sh!t. Fu(king f@9b0yz and you know im getting banned for this. Not once have i ever learnt anything new or intresting. ****ing worthless peices of sh!t! -happy holidays btw = ) +1 good post sir!
Proxyyyy Caldari draketrain	Posted - 2010.12.26 21:10:00 - [17] Originally by: Von Kroll The problem is that most people perceive battleships as being impotent against anything other than stationary targets, or other battleships, and that is where the issue is. Its not a problem, its a perceived problem brought on by fotm, lock-step thinking. Great write up! I completely agree and have made this point a few times, but it wont change. Worse, the true discourse is convoluted. "Fair/ballance", "good/bad pilot", "Good/bad setup" has permeated the forums for to long and are often used to hinder idea's and change. The current trend, suggesting that so many ships are overpowered/underpowered; has been around alot in-game and has finaly migrated to the forums. Are all these ships overpowered? I'm sure the answer is diffrent for most and is based on their limited experiences in-game. TBQH, it seems that most pilots who complain about these things, just want to fly the best! So why not train all racial-ships and weapon-system? There will always be certain things, that are not optimal for a given situation or enviroment, and its not going to be poissble to change this unless everything is the same. If you want to fly cruisers to much, whats wrong with just flying them? Even if a battlecruiser is better in everyway (which i dont realy believe)?. Flying a ship, because you enjoy it is all the reason you need imo. If all you care about is winning, then fly and or skill for the ships/weapon-systems that are the best! -Now gtfo and stfu
Angie McFish Gallente Caldari Industrial Capitalist Consortium	Posted - 2010.12.26 21:45:00 - [18] Originally by: Proxyyyy Originally by: Von Kroll Stuff that made sense Stuff, etc... If you want to fly cruisers to much, whats wrong with just flying them? Even if a battlecruiser is better in everyway (which i dont realy believe)?. Flying a ship, because you enjoy it is all the reason you need imo. If all you care about is winning, then fly and or skill for the ships/weapon-systems that are the best! -Now gtfo and stfu I don't want to offend you or anything, but that was just plain stupid. In a game like eve there should be no "master-race" ship. There should be a fine balance between each ship class, racial ships etc. As of now, I believe cruisers suited for combat (lets use the caldari ones for example, the moa and the caracal) are completely useless compared to their Battlecruiser variants, the drake and the ferox hulls. This is what I believe is a broken balance, sure the Bcs should be stronger, but I where's the balance? As people have said, the only cost you have to cover when you lose a ship is the cost of the equipmenet.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.12.26 21:46:00 - [19] Originally by: Von Kroll .. Originally by: Proxyyyy .. Are you boys sure you didn't take a wrong turn somewhere? Thread presents a simple enough question regarding BC vs. Cruiser, the whole BS back-and-forth is entirely unrelated to it. Nice ranting there though Prox
Proxyyyy Caldari draketrain	Posted - 2010.12.26 22:06:00 - [20] Edited by: Proxyyyy on 26/12/2010 22:10:19 Originally by: Angie McFish Originally by: Proxyyyy Originally by: Von Kroll Stuff that made sense Stuff, etc... If you want to fly cruisers to much, whats wrong with just flying them? Even if a battlecruiser is better in everyway (which i dont realy believe)?. Flying a ship, because you enjoy it is all the reason you need imo. If all you care about is winning, then fly and or skill for the ships/weapon-systems that are the best! -Now gtfo and stfu I don't want to offend you or anything, but that was just plain stupid. In a game like eve there should be no "master-race" ship. There should be a fine balance between each ship class, racial ships etc. As of now, I believe cruisers suited for combat (lets use the caldari ones for example, the moa and the caracal) are completely useless compared to their Battlecruiser variants, the drake and the ferox hulls. This is what I believe is a broken balance, sure the Bcs should be stronger, but I where's the balance? As people have said, the only cost you have to cover when you lose a ship is the cost of the equipmenet. Your a tw@t! Gtfo with your balance bs and stfu. I'm p much saying your silly like a clown. I personaly enjoy cruisers over every class of ship in-game. I fly them with great succuss. I've recentlty finished training all cruisers, so now i can enjoy even more variety. Also, please do offend me. I wonder if someone bullied you when you were younger or even now? Is that y you believe everything should be fair/balanced? Maybe if you weren't so weak, you could change things so everyone could b as weak as you. If you dont have a good sniper hac as a gallente pilot; skill for the zealot. your amarr Bc seems garbage; train for a drake. Your interceptor is weak; tain for a taranis. EACH RACE CLAIMS A BEST OF CLASS SHIP TURD! So, im just writing this off, as you whining about something you dont use or want to use, because its not the best. BTW this is another thread about underpowered ships v powerful ones. Now its a lower class v higher class with this guy, wtf! You can put sprinkles on a turd, but its still a turd. -i hope your not offended

Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.26 22:11:00 - [21] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 26/12/2010 22:13:18 Originally by: Kelvin Joule Once I do train for Battleship (and can actually afford one), won't I have the same feeling of never wanting to go back to BC that I currently have now for not wanting to go back to Cruiser? And is that a bad thing? Let me see... I can fly every battleship in game (including faction ones) with virtually perfect skills. I fly battlecruisers. -Liang Ed: BTW, remove the freaking tier system already. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.26 22:50:00 - [22] Originally by: Angie McFish As of now, I believe cruisers suited for combat (lets use the caldari ones for example, the moa and the caracal) are completely useless compared to their Battlecruiser variants, the drake and the ferox hulls. Not even close. While the Moa has some challenges, the Caracal is a fantastic cruiser--cheap to fit, very agile (competes with some frigates in agility), and a very lethal fleet ship. Your perception of the roles of the ships are what is skewed--not the ships themselves. The battlecruiser should be somewhere between a cruiser and battleship in capability, which they are in-game. Most cruisers in-game are exactly what they should be--smaller, auxiliary-type ships that fulfill certain support roles. Caracal and Moa, to continue your example, are both outstanding anti-support ships. This is, in my opinion, the best fleet role for a cruiser in game. Don't expect to go toe-to-toe with a BC in a cruiser. Again, [wincing for using a real-life comparison] Cruisers were never intended to duke it out with heavier ships. They were intended as fast, light ships for patrolling, screening, and raiding. In EvE, this role is typically considered "skirmishing", and most Cruisers in game are set up well for this role. Some are better at it than others. The Stabber, Caracal, Rupture, etc. all excel at this. Taken out of this context though, and they can be considered a bad choice in a certain engagement.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.26 23:02:00 - [23] Also, you say that the Battlecruiser class in EvE has all the advantages of a cruiser, with none of the drawbacks. In my Caracal, I can warp off a gate before a battlecruiser can target me. I cannot do that in my Drake or Ferox. When I lose a Caracal, I lose around 12 mil in ship and fittings, compared to my Drake which costs me 50 mil in ship and fittings. Logistically, it takes a fraction of the mineral volume of a Drake to produce, and 2 can be transported for every Drake when packaged. Unpackaged, you can transport many more Caracal than Drakes. In straight firepower, a Caracal can have about 72% of the firepower of a Drake, all in a smaller, more agile, faster, and cheaper package. Taken as a whole, I find a typical cruiser in-game to be quite adept at what it brings to the fight, considering the skills and isk required.
Umega Solis Mensa	Posted - 2010.12.26 23:36:00 - [24] I'm goin' have to agree with some of the statements in this thread. Forums are pretty much becoming cluttered with people begging for the 'Kills everything frigs to BS, aligns like a frig, tanks like a BS, locks like an interceptor, immune to ewar Waaaah waaaaaah waaaaaaah do everything iwin ship'. There is no point to pimping up cruisers and removing the tiers.. it already exists. The Navy ships. Sorry.. but I don't see the point to making cheap versions of what already exists in game. Want the luxury of one.. earn it. This is why I tend to look on the forums with disgust.. hardly too many good ideas, whole lot of 'crying to momma cause I iz spoiled, feed me my wants now cause I too much of a sorry ** to get it on my own'. Pathetic. Battlecruisers are well designed.. they are the perfect median between cruiser and battleships, which is the whole point of them. Solid dmg, solid tank, solid mobility.. but doesn't excel in any of that. Battleships still own BCs in PvE, POS bashing, large fleet. Count large fleet Lag drake missile spam if you want, I find that to be an irrelevent point as it exploits a flaw in the system and not the game itself. When lag and stupidity/incompetence isn't the factor, BS fleets own drake fleets. And cruisers still fill many niches on their own. Recons/HACs tend to make better solo/small gang ships than BCs. Cruisers still a lot of ewar roles. They still have superior mobility over BCs. They still can pwn pesty frigs with more reliability. I think some people need to spend more time learning what they have instead of demanding what they believe they deserve. And as always.. adapt, or die. How ironic the growing trend of TDs and the lack of cyna/dram * fit threads. Imagine that.. the game didn't have to 'fix' itself, people had to fix themselves. ---------------------------------------- Be a part of a solution instead of a lil whiney ***.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.26 23:40:00 - [25] Originally by: Von Kroll In straight firepower, a Caracal can have about 72% of the firepower of a Drake, all in a smaller, more agile, faster, and cheaper package. I'll be extremely surprised if you can find a Caracal fit that does even half the damage of a Drake with a quarter the EHP. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Wacktopia Dark Side Of The Womb	Posted - 2010.12.27 00:10:00 - [26] It's worth mentioning that cruiser hulls open up to Recon, HAC and Strategic, which are all great in their own right. But the T1 varients themselves can appear like a duff option between fast and slippery frigs and hard-hitting battlecruisers. I don't believe that T1 cruisers are on the shelf though, far from it. They have some nice advantages: 1. You can buy and fit one using named gear for something like 10-15 mil. 2. You can support a 50k+ ehp tank with a small sig 3. You can rock over 600 dps Some of the best fun I have had in even has been in T1 cruiser gangs. Sure you may well go down but who gives a damn - you might just whack out some shiney ship many times the cost of your own.
Zhilia Mann Tide Way Out Productions	Posted - 2010.12.27 03:39:00 - [27] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kelvin Joule Once I do train for Battleship (and can actually afford one), won't I have the same feeling of never wanting to go back to BC that I currently have now for not wanting to go back to Cruiser? And is that a bad thing? Let me see... I can fly every battleship in game (including faction ones) with virtually perfect skills. I fly battlecruisers. This. A thousand times this. And yes, even for PvE when the least bit viable.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.27 03:40:00 - [28] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Von Kroll In straight firepower, a Caracal can have about 72% of the firepower of a Drake, all in a smaller, more agile, faster, and cheaper package. I'll be extremely surprised if you can find a Caracal fit that does even half the damage of a Drake with a quarter the EHP. -Liang Standard HML PvP fit Drake shows 368 missile DPS with Lvl 5 skills versus an HML PvP Caracal fit with 263 missile DPS. That's 71%. And, I said firepower, with no comparison to tank.
Karn Velora	Posted - 2010.12.27 03:43:00 - [29] Personal opinion of course but I feel T1 cruisers only have 2 uses: a) Stepping stone to BCs or bigger for the nubs. (Second subscribed month.) b) Cheap disposable crap for pvp. Performance isnt much tp write home about, but hey, we can afford to lose it. At least without rigs. Shame, really.
Anubis Xian Reavers	Posted - 2010.12.27 04:24:00 - [30] Just give us a BS version of the BC and we can just call it a day. Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.

Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2010.12.27 05:56:00 - [31] Originally by: Von Kroll Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Von Kroll In straight firepower, a Caracal can have about 72% of the firepower of a Drake, all in a smaller, more agile, faster, and cheaper package. I'll be extremely surprised if you can find a Caracal fit that does even half the damage of a Drake with a quarter the EHP. -Liang Standard HML PvP fit Drake shows 368 missile DPS with Lvl 5 skills versus an HML PvP Caracal fit with 263 missile DPS. That's 71%. And, I said firepower, with no comparison to tank. comparing various ships and only comparing one stat is pretty much meaningless. and I dunno how you fit ships but my pvp hml drake has about 100 more missile dps than yours.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.12.27 06:16:00 - [32] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/12/2010 06:18:56 Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton and I dunno how you fit ships but my pvp hml drake has about 100 more missile dps than yours. That 4th BCU is really a waste of a slot. Not sure about how easy it is to get a hold of substantial quantities of DG Scourges for non-ludicrous prices, but prolly a waste as well. Looks good in EFT though. At least the dps figures.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.27 07:38:00 - [33] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/12/2010 07:39:40 Originally by: Von Kroll Standard HML PvP fit Drake shows 368 missile DPS with Lvl 5 skills versus an HML PvP Caracal fit with 263 missile DPS. That's 71%. And, I said firepower, with no comparison to tank. Two things: - You said nothing about missile only DPS - The Caracal can't fit a 3rd BCU. - The Caracal doesn't have the grid for HAMs. For your claim of the Caracal having 72% of the firepower of a Drake to be true, you'd need to be able to get 487 DPS out of it. But I'm only asking for 339 DPS and 20K EHP (1/2 DPS + 1/4 EHP). -Liang Ed: Originally by: Omara Otawan That 4th BCU is really a waste of a slot. Not sure about how easy it is to get a hold of substantial quantities of DG Scourges for non-ludicrous prices, but prolly a waste as well. Looks good in EFT though. At least the dps figures. Uh, his claim is 368 Missile DPS. 3 BCU + Fury = 462 Missile DPS. You are such an epic failure of a poaster. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
gpfault Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.12.27 07:57:00 - [34] Originally by: Liang Nuren I'm only asking for 339 DPS and 20K EHP (1/2 DPS + 1/4 EHP). Quote: [Caracal, prop mods are overrated] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Invulnerability Field II J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x2
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.12.27 08:00:00 - [35] Originally by: Liang Nuren Uh, his claim is 368 Missile DPS. 3 BCU + Fury = 462 Missile DPS. You are such an epic failure of a poaster. God forbid you want to use your cruiser size weapons against a cruiser. Or a HAC. Or a Recon. Also, since this isnt CAOD its spelled poster.
Veliria	Posted - 2010.12.27 08:09:00 - [36] BCs could use a mobility/scan res reduction compared to cruisers. They're a little slower as it is, but widening the gap might encourage some to go more agile cruisers instead. The main issue is insurance though, putting BCs quite close to Cruisers when it comes to how it costs to lose. Maybe ships under say 10mil get cheaper insurance or something like that?
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.27 08:22:00 - [37] Originally by: gpfault prop mods are overrated I must admit that I laughed. I actually knew it was possible to get the DPS.. just a little skeptical on the tank. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.27 08:40:00 - [38] For full disclosure, these are the fits for my comparison, and Liang, in my original post in the thread, I said "from a straight firepower perspective" or something to that effect. And no, I wasn't comparing an HML Cara to a HAM Drake. We don't use HAMs for our fleet fit Drakes typically. It was purely a HML comparison, without drones, without tackle, with faction missiles, and no implants. [Drake, Standard HML] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Sensor Booster II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [empty high slot] Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I -and- [Caracal, Standard HML] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Sensor Booster II Invulnerability Field II Medium Shield Extender II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Ultimately my point was that a Cara provides a cost-effective ship for its inherent capability. The exact percentage of firepower can be debated, but the ultimate bang-for-the-buck was my point. YMMV
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.27 08:59:00 - [39] Originally by: Von Kroll For full disclosure, these are the fits for my comparison, and Liang, in my third post in the thread, I said "from a straight firepower perspective" or something to that effect. And no, I wasn't comparing an HML Cara to a HAM Drake. We don't use HAMs for our fleet fit Drakes typically. It was purely a HML comparison, without drones, without tackle, with faction missiles, and no implants. A couple of things: - Straight firepower implies straight firepower. You know, killin' ** firepower. Not limited firepower for specific situations. - If you try you can swap that PDU for a BCU. Quote:** Ultimately my point was that a Cara provides a cost-effective ship for its inherent capability. The exact percentage of firepower can be debated, but the ultimate bang-for-the-buck was my point. YMMV Bang for the buck is normally a term that compares the alternatives. In that light, the Caracal's bang for the buck is extremely low. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
NoNah	Posted - 2010.12.27 09:36:00 - [40] Originally by: Liang Nuren Bang for the buck is normally a term that compares the alternatives. In that light, the Caracal's bang for the buck is extremely low. -Liang It's not. You're just buying rollerskates and expect them to make a big bang as you put them on fire. If you put your focus on cost the caracal is quite competent. Of course this means weapon, shield resistance or no rigs at all. Meta 0 equipment and possibly random cheap named modules. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 553465

Karn Velora	Posted - 2010.12.27 09:52:00 - [41] Originally by: NoNah Originally by: Liang Nuren Bang for the buck is normally a term that compares the alternatives. In that light, the Caracal's bang for the buck is extremely low. -Liang It's not. You're just buying rollerskates and expect them to make a big bang as you put them on fire. If you put your focus on cost the caracal is quite competent. Of course this means weapon, shield resistance or no rigs at all. Meta 0 equipment and possibly random cheap named modules. Exactly. Only way a cruiser feels competitive is to use it as an un-rigged junk-fit disposable pvp ship. Shame. Wish they had a use still, as something else than a base hull to make T2 ships out of.
Scorpionidae	Posted - 2010.12.27 10:01:00 - [42] I didn't read all of the post so sorry if this has already been said. But I'm pritty sure that the BC class of ship is bigger then the crusier class which should then mean that they should get more tank and more gank then the ships below its class? I said this when someone wanted to get rid of T3s because they was better then T2 and T1... Well ges what... there ment to be. Scorpionidae
Nanferr	Posted - 2010.12.27 10:32:00 - [43] Quote: I said this when someone wanted to get rid of T3s because they was better then T2 and T1... Well ges what... there ment to be. this is an insanely complicated concept which is impossible to explain to the vanilla eve player.
NoNah	Posted - 2010.12.27 10:50:00 - [44] Originally by: Nanferr Quote: I said this when someone wanted to get rid of T3s because they was better then T2 and T1... Well ges what... there ment to be. this is an insanely complicated concept which is impossible to explain to the vanilla eve player. Don't think anyone has ever stated it shouldn't be better - for many things. Question is if cost and ease of access is actually balanced to their performance. And they are. Assuming the difference in isk is noticable, which sadly it is not right now. Isk is easy enough to come by that drakes are as disposable as caracals, the encumberance for the average player when losing a drake is not to afford a new one - as you can make the isk back wherever you are in noticably less than an hour. Less if oyu already have a capital you keep active. So what all it actually roots back to is ships are to cheap in general, caracals are somewhat balanced to drakes(or would've been) if there was any difference in cost. Removing insurance was a tiny step on the path, now the cost just has to... tenfold. :\| Parrots, commence! Postcount: 517604
Petrov Kreigt Caldari Global Defence Initiative	Posted - 2010.12.27 11:23:00 - [45] So... youre whining about BC being better than cruisers... because theyre bigger, fit more guns and have more uses than a cruiser, they have more EHP and a higher damage output. Isnt that the intended purpose of a "battle"cruiser? to be better than a cruiser because its a ship class above it and requires higher skills to use properly? BC are like smaller BS in their role, they do good DPS, have a decent EHP (dont get pedantic with me) and are faster than battleships... which is exactly you want them to be. Stop whining.
Michael Zign Caldari Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2010.12.27 11:26:00 - [46] Faction Cruiser V Battle Cruiser. Who is going to win?
ibnSin	Posted - 2010.12.27 12:59:00 - [47] yea did we really need a thread for this? thought it was pretty obvious for a while now lol
Moonmonkey Amarr Orange Clover	Posted - 2010.12.27 14:50:00 - [48] Let big guns easly hit small ships and be done with and if small ships don't like it, being more friends next time.

CCP Adida C C P C C P Alliance	Posted - 2010.12.27 15:48:00 - [49] Removed troll comments and replies to the comments. Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online

Angie McFish Gallente Caldari Industrial Capitalist Consortium	Posted - 2010.12.27 16:21:00 - [50] Originally by: Petrov Kreigt Stuff Originally by: Scorpionidae Stuff Problem is that I feel that there is no reason to ever fly a cruiser when the battlecruisers can do everything they can and they can do it better. The idea with cruisers and battlecruisers is silly, if anything battlecruiser should be a T2 variant of a cruiser hull. Battlecruisers should be a transition class, as it is now the cruiser is a transition class from frigs to BCs.

baltec1 Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2010.12.27 16:34:00 - [51] Whats wrong with the caracal? I love that ship.
Scorpionidae	Posted - 2010.12.27 16:43:00 - [52] Originally by: Angie McFish .... Please CCP don't listen to this guy and people like him. Leave the BCs as they are they are fine. Scorpionidae
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.12.27 17:08:00 - [53] Nerf tier 2 BCs to tier 1 levels.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.27 17:18:00 - [54] Originally by: Gypsio III Nerf tier 2 BCs to tier 1 levels. DIAFKTHXBYE (ingame) TBH its not such a bad solution, but it hurts me to think of all the BCs being as good as the Prophecy. :( -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Zhim'Fufu	Posted - 2010.12.27 17:32:00 - [55] Originally by: Scorpionidae Originally by: Angie McFish .... Please CCP don't listen to this guy and people like him. Leave the BCs as they are they are fine. Scorpionidae Exactly. Tier 2 bc are perfect in balance and form. Tier 1 could use a boost and pretty much the entire t1 line of frigate and cruisers need a massive rebalance against the plethora of ships that have been introduced to the game since its launch. That is the reason people don't use t1 cruisers. They simply suck compared to everything else due to them being virtually abandoned by ccp's balance team over the years. So want to make t1 cruisers appealing? Retool them to be trainer ships for the t2 hulls and rework them all to be useful in some way. Just a quick few examples using the anemic amarr line of ships. Executioner: Give it a special bonus to propulsion jamming cap use like its inty cousins and a general buff to its stats so that a newish player can be effective in a gang as tackle or an older player with max skills can use it as a cheap inty substitute on risky roams. Maller: Drop the lasers and give it 4 launchers with a bonus to hams(5% damage per level) with the grid and cpu to fit 4 hams and at least an 800mm plate with mwd and tackle. Now future sac pilots will have something to run around in and get experience with as they skill up. Omen: Does it really need to be repeated? Prophecy: This should be changed much like the maller into a ham boat so damnation pilots can have something to use as they skill up. Then repeat for all races t1 lineups.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.27 17:38:00 - [56] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/12/2010 17:37:52 Originally by: Zhim'Fufu Prophecy: This should be changed much like the maller into a ham boat so damnation pilots can have something to use as they skill up. I dislike this because the Damnation has so little DPS. I'd want to see 8 highs, 6 launchers, and a ROF bonus. And a 50m^3 drone bay. -Liang Ed: And a pony. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Zhim'Fufu	Posted - 2010.12.27 17:47:00 - [57] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/12/2010 17:37:52 Originally by: Zhim'Fufu Prophecy: This should be changed much like the maller into a ham boat so damnation pilots can have something to use as they skill up. I dislike this because the Damnation has so little DPS. I'd want to see 8 highs, 6 launchers, and a ROF bonus. And a 50m^3 drone bay. -Liang Ed: And a pony. Well command ships really were not supposed to be massive damage dealers even if a few can be fitted out for some pretty sick dps at the expense of fitting command links. As far as the prophecy goes yeah I totally agree it should be a close range slugger hence my desire to change it to a ham boat but maybe giving it 50m3 dronebay is a bit too much. Unless they kept the 25mbit bandwith of course.
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order	Posted - 2010.12.27 19:24:00 - [58] Edited by: Megan Maynard on 27/12/2010 19:25:39 I love minny cruisers. But the difference between them and BC's isn't as vast in the minny line of ships as other races I think. Battleship cost is a big factor now that insurance sucks nuts. Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Stareatthesun No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down. Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S
Ephemeron Solitairian Society	Posted - 2010.12.27 19:53:00 - [59] If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.12.27 20:04:00 - [60] Originally by: Ephemeron If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter. That might actually work, would certainly make the decision "BC or BS" a lot harder and make Cruisers a good 'budget' option for a lot of the small scale stuff. Armour rigs would need a tweak to bring costs down 20% or so .. massive gap between shield and armour rigs at present.

NoNah	Posted - 2010.12.27 20:14:00 - [61] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Ephemeron If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter. That might actually work, would certainly make the decision "BC or BS" a lot harder and make Cruisers a good 'budget' option for a lot of the small scale stuff. Armour rigs would need a tweak to bring costs down 20% or so .. massive gap between shield and armour rigs at present. It's a free market baby. Don't mess with it. Large rigs is however not a terribad idea. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 38577
Grut The Protei	Posted - 2010.12.27 20:18:00 - [62] Edited by: Grut on 27/12/2010 20:18:11 Originally by: Ephemeron If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter. Would work as would moving t1 cruisers to small rigs, but either solution is basically a balancing failure. Of the t1 cruiser lineup the logistics / EW ships would be fine with the teir system removed and provide a nice stepping to the full t2 ships at reduced cost. Though ofc the ew hulls suck were the racial ew is below par. The combat lineup on the other hand makes no sence, if you compare say a rupture to a cane why would you want to use the ruptures superior speed / agility to get close and lose through ehp? I'd either stick a +50% optimal or falloff role bonus on the hulls, or work it into the cruiser skill bonus. Lets the combat cruisers either kit bcs or sig tank bs, more options anyway. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Heretic Army	Posted - 2010.12.27 20:28:00 - [63] Originally by: Ephemeron If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter. It was well after the rig change when RR BS were king, and you'd see them everywhere. If you wanted to have large rigs on battlecruisers, we'd need to introduce x-large rigs for battleships, and capital rigs for it to make any sense.
Fistme	Posted - 2010.12.27 20:29:00 - [64] -Increase Cost of all BC, both tier 1 and tier 2. This increase in cost would not be carried over to Command ships. If command ships don't get the hp increase BCs received years ago then they should not get the increase in production cost that I'm proposing for BCs. -Nerf of all Tier 2 BCs closer to the levels of tier 1, this potentially means - 1 slot and maybe other stats as needed.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.27 20:39:00 - [65] Originally by: NoNah Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Ephemeron If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter. That might actually work, would certainly make the decision "BC or BS" a lot harder and make Cruisers a good 'budget' option for a lot of the small scale stuff. Armour rigs would need a tweak to bring costs down 20% or so .. massive gap between shield and armour rigs at present. It's a free market baby. Don't mess with it. Large rigs is however not a terribad idea. Its a free market, but the material supply matters a lot. Armor rigs are expensive because component salvage is more rare than shield salvage. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2010.12.27 22:08:00 - [66] Originally by: Scorpionidae I didn't read all of the post so sorry if this has already been said. But I'm pritty sure that the BC class of ship is bigger then the crusier class which should then mean that they should get more tank and more gank then the ships below its class? I said this when someone wanted to get rid of T3s because they was better then T2 and T1... Well ges what... there ment to be. Scorpionidae yes it should mean they are better than cruisers, but not so much better that they make cruisers worthless. I also agree that it should be t3>t2>t1, but in some cases t3 is waaaaaaay above t2.
Fiben Bolger Gallente	Posted - 2010.12.27 23:56:00 - [67] Are we seriously talking about nerfing the Myrmidon? What kind of cruel bastards are you people? Let's face it. You are talking about the Drake, the Harbinger, and the Hurricane. Mostly the Drake and the Hurricane. Okay, really just the Drake.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.27 23:57:00 - [68] Originally by: Fiben Bolger What kind of cruel bastards are you people? Hey, uh... ~~they~~ we play Eve. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.28 02:39:00 - [69] But if all of the BC class ships in game get a nerf to a Tier 1 capability, Battleships will completely rule them. The fact that this discussion occurs in the shadow of the fotm Drake stuff isn't coincidental. We could currently say that the capability relationship that exists between the Battlecruiser and Cruiser is the same as that between the Battleship and the Battlecruiser. Sure, the isk amounts are higher, but the relative strength between the classes is the same. The disparity between the ship classes is irrelevant when everyone has access (unfettered by isk, market availability, or production capacity) to all ships equally. 6-month old players can operate a very capable Cruiser and afford to keep 3 or 4 of them PvP fit and ready for battle, while struggling to keep a hanger full of marginally effective (due to their skills at that point) Battlecruisers ready for combat. A player that's been in the game long enough to have perpetual isk can afford to operate Battlecruisers pretty much endlessly. If Battleship gangs were operated against battlecruisers, instead of merely bringing more battlecruisers, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.28 02:54:00 - [70] Originally by: Von Kroll We could currently say that the capability relationship that exists between the Battlecruiser and Cruiser is the same as that between the Battleship and the Battlecruiser. We could say that, but we'd be wrong. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -

OhNoes1	Posted - 2010.12.28 02:58:00 - [71] Let's not forget frigate are at the other end of the spectrum for maximum escape ability. T1 cruisers are in a bit of a no man's land between frigs and BCs.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Heretic Army	Posted - 2010.12.28 03:21:00 - [72] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 28/12/2010 03:25:42 Its all just the blob, counter-blob, counter-counter-blob problem. About from 6 up to 12 months back we have been rolling mainly RR BS fleets. Nothing else really, I didnt even own a battlecruiser most of the time. You could engage fleets much larger than your own, when things get really tense escalate and bring a triage carrier. This method worked pretty well, until at some point word got out that beating a well-organized RR BS fleet is done most effectively by just bringing 3-4 times the numbers, and having capital superiority in case of escalation. I dont regulary fly battleship anymore, it is mainly since the only thing that will happen these days is that you get absolutely overpowered by sheer numbers, and battleship class leaves little room for actual piloting skill. If you are losing the EHP and damage race, there is not much you can do to change that fact, and you definitely are losing it when the enemy has the ability to bring multiple times your numbers and reship close to the battlefield if they just have a little time. There is nothing wrong with the relation battlecruiser to battleship, the thing is with the current mentality of just bringing at least twice the numbers to take on any given fleet, it is lost if you dont have the ability to escalate to capitals, and all thats left is skirmishing the enemy in smaller ships, killing a few and disengaging. Battlecruisers are those ships. Battleships are for when you intend to end that fight no matter what, and hold the field. If its about hitting hard for a limited time and disengaging when the inevitable reinforcements arrive, its battlecruisers.
gpfault Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.12.28 05:28:00 - [73] Originally by: Von Kroll But if all of the BC class ships in game get a nerf to a Tier 1 capability, Battleships will completely rule them. The fact that this discussion occurs in the shadow of the fotm Drake stuff isn't coincidental. We could currently say that the capability relationship that exists between the Battlecruiser and Cruiser is the same as that between the Battleship and the Battlecruiser. Sure, the isk amounts are higher, but the relative strength between the classes is the same. The disparity between the ship classes is irrelevant when everyone has access (unfettered by isk, market availability, or production capacity) to all ships equally. 6-month old players can operate a very capable Cruiser and afford to keep 3 or 4 of them PvP fit and ready for battle, while struggling to keep a hanger full of marginally effective (due to their skills at that point) Battlecruisers ready for combat. A player that's been in the game long enough to have perpetual isk can afford to operate Battlecruisers pretty much endlessly. If Battleship gangs were operated against battlecruisers, instead of merely bringing more battlecruisers, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm surprised that you managed to pack that much wrong into one post. 8/10
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.28 05:58:00 - [74] Originally by: gpfault I'm surprised that you managed to pack that much wrong into one post. 8/10 For the sake of discussion, how about you and Liang expound. I'm here to learn instead of simply being told I'm wrong with no further explanation... So why?
Goloith	Posted - 2010.12.28 07:09:00 - [75] To be honest I think T1 Cruisers are where they should be. Fun. Cheap. DPS. Thats what they are. Now I've flown how many T2 and T3 ships and I have to say flying T1 cruisers was a lot of fun in PvP. People underestimate the hell out of you if you use bait tactics and actually have a good FC. More times than that hostiles get **y and make a mistake like attacking a Maller that is tanked like a battleship or a 1600 plated Thorax thats tanked like crazy with Vespa - ECM drones and jamming the ** out of them until the rest of the T1 gang arrives. People feel that BCs are better than cruisers, but I have to ask, why the hell are you bringing a knife to a gun fight? Peoples lack of intelligence in tactics and picking targets doesn't mean ships need to be nerfed. Take for example the Assault Missile Launcher Caracal. I can't count how many interceptors these ships have killed, even Dramiels. Nothing like running around in carebear space with one of these and watching light tackle flock to you.......and collect their sweet tears. Here is an example: (Dmg control is optional) [Caracal, Interceptor Killer] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Warrior II x2
Paikis Blue Republic	Posted - 2010.12.28 07:54:00 - [76] Originally by: Goloith [Caracal, Interceptor Killer] <snip> Lets ignore the fact that neither of these ships actually be able to tackle an interceptor unless they screw up... [Drake, Interceptor Killer] Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Warrior II x5 The above fitting on a drake will kill Interceptors better. It is only slightly more expensive (after insurance), and out performs the caracal in everything except a slight loss in mobility. The drake fit for killing interceptors has 3 times as many EHP, 100 DPS more and only suffers a 100m/s loss in speed (all Vs). If you swap the BCUs out for overdrive injectors, then it will go faster than a Caracal, and STILL kill interceptors better.
Niklas	Posted - 2010.12.28 08:01:00 - [77] Main issue with cruisers, imo, is they are completely eclipsed in every respect by t2 cruisers(BC too, but BC at least have some drawbacks). T2 has no drawback other than price. The HACs are superior in every way. The recons? Superior, in every way. Logis? WAY, WAY, WAY superior. All of the benefits of cruisers, i.e. sig, speed, medium weapons, and on top of it they get lots of additional hitpoints, additional range(be it reps, optimal for guns, or ewar), additional resists(oftentimes crazy amounts), additional fitting stats, etc, etc, etc... The only way cruisers will be worthwhile is if t2 cruisers are redesigned(nerfed) to have major drawbacks like the t2 battleships have. Else they will only ever be what they are.. Cheap, subpar cruisers, and the real cruisers, t2, are all that will be used.
Sjugar	Posted - 2010.12.28 08:57:00 - [78] Remove a rig slot and make BC use large instead of medium rigs, voila fixed.
Lina Theist Amarr War Veteran Pension	Posted - 2010.12.28 09:23:00 - [79] Originally by: Niklas Edited by: Niklas on 28/12/2010 08:10:35 Even if BC weren't directly impinging on the cruiser role, they are still completely eclipsed in every respect by *t2 cruisers(BC too, but BC at least have some drawbacks). T2 has no drawback other than price. The HACs are superior in every way. The recons? Superior, in every way. Logis? WAY, WAY, WAY superior. All of the benefits of cruisers, i.e. sig, speed, medium weapons, and on top of it they get lots of additional hitpoints, additional range(be it reps, optimal for guns, or ewar), additional resists(oftentimes crazy amounts), additional fitting stats, etc, etc, etc... The only way cruisers will be worthwhile is if t2 cruisers are redesigned(nerfed) to have major drawbacks like the t2 battleships have. Else they will only ever be what they are.. Cheap, subpar cruisers, and the real cruisers, t2, are all that will be used. Concerning BC though, one thing that could be done, to make them interfere less with the role of cruisers(and make the cruisers more popular) is to nerf BC weapons. Not the dps. Tracking, Sig res, and explosion vel/radius. Make a medium weapon perform, when fitted to a BC hull, somewhere in the middle between mediums and larges. This would make BC rather worse off against cruisers and frigates, instead of getting all the benefits of more guns with none of the drawbacks battleships have. T1 cruisers, and frigates probably, could also all use several additional slots and fitting stats to support them, so that they can fit to be more multipurpose and have better tanks. Not t2 though.. They have enough advantages as it is. This brings us back to insurance... but I agree to a certain extent. The gap between t1 and t2 ships is too great, even though it should be there. -Lina Theist*
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.12.28 10:18:00 - [80] Originally by: Von Kroll ... The fact that this discussion occurs in the shadow of the fotm Drake stuff isn't coincidental.... The Drake fad is just the latest development, it started slowly with rig changes and went bat** crazy with TE changes .. was actually a lot of cruisers around prior to AC patch. Drakes are "only" really a problem in 0.0, low-sec is swamped with all the gun BC running around in shield/gank/tracking configs .. quite tedious Originally by:** Niklas Even if BC weren't directly impinging on the cruiser role, they are still completely eclipsed in every respect by t2 cruisers... While you can (if you are good) kill HACs/Recons using cruisers, you have no reliable way of killing BCs without using BS or BC's yourself .. the EHP is simply way too high - performance gap is skewed towards BS. PS: Logistics superior? They are one of a kind so of course they are

Fistme	Posted - 2010.12.28 13:17:00 - [81] Originally by: Sjugar Remove a rig slot and make BC use large instead of medium rigs, voila fixed. Worst idea of the thread thus far, congratz!
Fistme	Posted - 2010.12.28 13:24:00 - [82] Originally by: Lina Theist This brings us back to insurance... but I agree to a certain extent. The gap between t1 and t2 ships is too great, even though it should be there. Wrong. the gap between t2 and t3 is FAR too great, t3 have 1 more rig slot and Stats that exceed field command ships while retaining the agility and mobility benefits of a cruiser... The issue is that ccp think that the best solution is the band-aid style solution. We all know that there are some major issues when it comes to inter class and cross class balance in this game. The main Issue as always is going to be the utterly unacceptable tier system. CCP spends too much time giving ships bonuses based on "RP" rather than what works with said ships, this is another fail concept of ccps balancing. Another fail is the fact that t3 ships get 3 rigs where t2 get 2? WHY? A breakdown of all T1 ships is needed, we need to evaluate what works and what does not work. Standardize the tiers, this will be a MASSIVE improvment over what has been here for over 7 years now.
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.28 17:12:00 - [83] Originally by: Lina Theist This brings us back to insurance... but I agree to a certain extent. The gap between t1 and t2 ships is too great, even though it should be there. The price difference between HACs/Recons and T1 cruisers is just as significant as the difference in capability. A HAC/Recon costs 120 mil isk fitted. A cruiser, around 10-12 mil (and that's on the expensive end.) Originally by: Fistme Another fail is the fact that t3 ships get 3 rigs where t2 get 2? WHY? Two T2 rigs have the same effectiveness as three T1. 15% + 15% = 10% + 10% + 10%. CCP probably figured that everyone would think that T2 rigs would be the only way to go for T2 ships...
Von Kroll Caldari Kroll's Legion	Posted - 2010.12.28 17:19:00 - [84] Originally by: Paikis The above fitting on a drake will kill Interceptors better. It is only slightly more expensive (after insurance), and out performs the caracal in everything except a slight loss in mobility. The drake fit for killing interceptors has 3 times as many EHP, 100 DPS more and only suffers a 100m/s loss in speed (all Vs). If you swap the BCUs out for overdrive injectors, then it will go faster than a Caracal, and STILL kill interceptors better. Its not a cost-effective alternative to an AML Caracal. If you have a fat wallet, and market access to every ship and module imaginable, then yes, this will be a more capable frig killer. But, it will never be more cost-effective. Plus, when you add the logistical effort needed to build, transport, and fit a Drake in an austere area, versus the same effort needed to field a Caracal, the difference gets even more drastic. If we keep this only within the context of EFT, Battlecruisers will always outshine Cruisers. There are a lot of intangibles that affect the overall utility of a ship.
Niklas	Posted - 2010.12.28 17:42:00 - [85] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida PS: Logistics superior? They are one of a kind so of course they are A logi can fit 4-6 large reppers, permarun most of them, and still fit a very respectable buffer with very nice resists. A t1 logi cruiser(you know, augorer, exequror, etc? remember those?) can fit, if lucky, 3 or 4 mediums, will have issues running even 2 of them unless they just do a battery setup, and will as a result have 1/4 the ehp. Oh, and less than half the range as a bonus. The t1 logis are a joke, and I've frankly never heard of anyone seriously using them for their intended role, other than, perhaps, ospreys for POS repping.
Carniflex StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.12.28 18:19:00 - [86] Originally by: Niklas The t1 logis are a joke, and I've frankly never heard of anyone seriously using them for their intended role, other than, perhaps, ospreys for POS repping. Ospreys for POS repping were all the rage back in 2005 when they were changed and got the bonus. Nowadays I cant imagine how desperate should a pilot be to bring a ... Osprey ... to a POS coming out of reinforced. With the dropping price of carriers (as mineral price has dropped) the job is usually left to nice pile of them. Those with so low SP they cant fly logi or carrier tend to be better used in some t1 frigate with point. That out of way I must admit that I do tend to keep dozen or so Ospreys around somewhere where I can stuff em in the carrier in a hurry. You never know how desperate you can get afterall and in 0.0 **** happens blitzing fast when it happens.
BiggestT Caldari Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.12.28 18:30:00 - [87] Originally by: Ephemeron If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter. Best post in the thread. This would be a good first step to addressing the massive imbalance between BC's, Cruisers, and BS's. Plus CCP would like this change as it's ~~lazy~~ easy to implement with little mucking around/large scale testing needed! EVE Trivia EVE History
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2010.12.28 19:53:00 - [88] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 28/12/2010 19:55:02 Originally by: Niklas The t1 logis are a joke, and I've frankly never heard of anyone seriously using them for their intended role, other than, perhaps, ospreys for POS repping. That is not really true, the Osprey and Exequor can be made into working gang logistics, the thing is just if you are at the point where they really start to perform, you are just a few days away from a max skilled t2 logistics (i.e. you got all the support skills, you just need to train the logistics skill to 5). Also, its rather questionable if another cheap gank cruiser wouldnt be better anyway... even t2 logistics need pretty much maxed skills for them to work well, the t1 variants are not really serving the training vessel role at all. The Auguror and Scythe are truely broken and useless.
Zilberfrid	Posted - 2010.12.28 20:00:00 - [89] Luckily, I am not alone in my crusade for balance. I will speak as I did so often: Balance all battlecruisers against their tier 1 variant (an excellent suggestion was toning down the speed and agility of tier 2 BC's while keeping the rest of its stats) Balance all cruisers against their top-tier variant Balance all frigates against their top tier variant Limit supercarriers to fighterbombers only, and increase the sig of these to specifically counter other capitals. That would be all. This will make battleships a victor in sub-cap DPS and tank with lesser chance of being motherdropped, command ships would find a use, cruisers will have some time in the sun, and people might fly other frigs then rifters. Best part would be giving people choices on what ships to use without getting horribly nerfed. ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
Kuso Tabeteshine	Posted - 2010.12.28 22:09:00 - [90] Problem is that there's so much overlap between the roles/capabilities of T1 BCs and T2 cruisers, and T2 BCs and T3 cruisers. Add to that the completely idiotic insurance system and ridiculous price differences, and you arrive at this mess. T1 BCs are probably the most cost-effective ships in the game and that's the primary reason why they are so popular.

Opertone Caldari World - of - Empire	Posted - 2010.12.28 22:31:00 - [91] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 28/12/2010 03:25:42 Its all just the blob, counter-blob, counter-counter-blob problem. About from 6 up to 12 months back we have been rolling mainly RR BS fleets. Nothing else really, I didnt even own a battlecruiser most of the time. You could engage fleets much larger than your own, when things get really tense escalate and bring a triage carrier. This method worked pretty well, until at some point word got out that beating a well-organized RR BS fleet is done most effectively by just bringing 3-4 times the numbers, and having capital superiority in case of escalation. I dont regulary fly battleship anymore, it is mainly since the only thing that will happen these days is that you get absolutely overpowered by sheer numbers, and battleship class leaves little room for actual piloting skill. If you are losing the EHP and damage race, there is not much you can do to change that fact, and you definitely are losing it when the enemy has the ability to bring multiple times your numbers and reship close to the battlefield if they just have a little time. There is nothing wrong with the relation battlecruiser to battleship, the thing is with the current mentality of just bringing at least twice the numbers to take on any given fleet, it is lost if you dont have the ability to escalate to capitals, and all thats left is skirmishing the enemy in smaller ships, killing a few and disengaging. Battlecruisers are those ships. Battleships are for when you intend to end that fight no matter what, and hold the field. If its about hitting hard for a limited time and disengaging when the inevitable reinforcements arrive, its battlecruisers. We need mass effect shockwave weapons. Which for starters do damage to shields. So sort of shock cannon that is able to control a crowd and affect the enemy blob, so that making blobs becomes impractical. Shockwave cannons should not however be a death to all... they simply discourage crowds.
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2010.12.28 23:36:00 - [92] Regarding cost vs effectiveness, it is possible to fit a battlecruiser to get almost T2-fitted cruiser level performance using just T1 mods and no rigs. That means similar, almost insignificantly worse or a fair degree better speed/agility/EHP/DPS/range/scan res at worst, with a lower effective cost as you can claim the majority of the outlay - the hull - on insurance. The sole advantage that a cruiser has over a battlecruiser is sig res, and that is only because you cannot reduce that through modules or rigs.
Jaina Sunspot Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.12.29 00:00:00 - [93] Originally by: Bibbleibble The sole advantage that a cruiser has over a battlecruiser is sig res, and that is only because you cannot reduce that through modules or rigs. Lucky for Battlecruisers they fit the same size weapons as Cruisers so tracking is not an issue and they can escape anything big enough to kill them.
Ava Starfire Minmatar Nordanverdr Modr	Posted - 2010.12.29 12:07:00 - [94] While I am fine with BCs the way they are, I must admit it would be nice to see something in losec besides BC/HAC gangs (and, of course, dramiels) Not sure how things are in 0.0, apparently the drake is the new fleet ship?
Jaina Sunspot Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.12.29 12:15:00 - [95] Edited by: Jaina Sunspot on 29/12/2010 12:16:15 Originally by: Ava Starfire Not sure how things are in 0.0, apparently the drake is the new fleet ship? Kinda sorta, they are common. There are a few standard fleets, Zealots, Amarr Armor Battleship Gangs, Minmatar Shield Battleship Gangs and Drake Gangs. For smaller roams it is Bomber, Vega, Dramiel and Interceptors, Tier 2 Battlecruiser and Recons. A few other ships mixed in but a huge emphasis on Stealth and Battlecruisers. Least that is my experience.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2010.12.29 19:25:00 - [96] Edited by: baltec1 on 29/12/2010 19:36:31 Originally by: Goloith The above fitting on a drake will kill Interceptors better. It is only slightly more expensive (after insurance), and out performs the caracal in everything except a slight loss in mobility. The drake fit for killing interceptors has 3 times as many EHP, 100 DPS more and only suffers a 100m/s loss in speed (all Vs). If you swap the BCUs out for overdrive injectors, then it will go faster than a Caracal, and STILL kill interceptors better. Caracal will be attacked by solo frigates drakes won't. That and the fact that caracals are much easyer to train for and a whole lot more fun. They are also very adaptable, much easyer to build/replace and are no where near as fat.
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order	Posted - 2010.12.29 19:40:00 - [97] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: NoNah Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Ephemeron If BC's were forced to use Large rigs, it would make them much more fair relative to cruisers and battleships. Costs matter. That might actually work, would certainly make the decision "BC or BS" a lot harder and make Cruisers a good 'budget' option for a lot of the small scale stuff. Armour rigs would need a tweak to bring costs down 20% or so .. massive gap between shield and armour rigs at present. It's a free market baby. Don't mess with it. Large rigs is however not a terribad idea. Its a free market, but the material supply matters a lot. Armor rigs are expensive because component salvage is more rare than shield salvage. -Liang Is it more rare or are more people shooting those rats? Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Stareatthesun No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down. Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S
Lina Theist Amarr War Veteran Pension	Posted - 2010.12.30 17:23:00 - [98] Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: Liang Nuren Its a free market, but the material supply matters a lot. Armor rigs are expensive because component salvage is more rare than shield salvage. -Liang Is it more rare or are more people shooting those rats? I believe it's because large armor rigs are more used, hence their prices exceeding 20mil when other t1 rigs do not. -Lina Theist
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.30 19:20:00 - [99] Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: Liang Nuren Its a free market, but the material supply matters a lot. Armor rigs are expensive because component salvage is more rare than shield salvage. -Liang Is it more rare or are more people shooting those rats? Pretty sure that's the same thing. Rarity has more sources than just drop rates. ;-) -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.