Because they will rip apart a fleet of cruisers in 10 seconds flat. BS on its own is shockingly vulnerable. A few BS with logi support are an impressive force - the alpha alone will instapop most targets if the fleet is being flown properly by disciplined pilots. Frigates are not usually a threat, the BS can just warp off/gate jump away/microjump out of the way. Against bigger stuff like fast hacs, etc, well that's what the logi is for, and the BS has a huge, huge buffer tank. Every ship has a function in Eve. Every single one has a niche.

Doesn't really say much because the T3 fleet was out numbered 3 to 1, plus the Domi's had a pretty good sized logistics fleet along with them. Of course they are gonna eat up the T3 fleet with that much help and support.

T3s are irrelevant when discussing ship balance. Wait until they are nerfed and then we can see how they compare to BSes (they won't lol).

Battleships are powerful enough, people simply are not using them well

1 vs 1 ships are not designed to fight outside their class for the most part. And battleships are specifically vulnerable to smaller ships. So by going '1v1 a cruiser can beat a BS' you are deliberately setting them up in the worst possible position.
Battleships are a fleet vessel and are meant to be used as such. And in that role they have a number of useful positions.

Lots of EHP, lots of damage, lots of range.

BS aren't ownmobiles, and they shouldn't be, but there are some jobs that nothing else will do.

Your meticulous commitment to exposing your ignorance is, in it's way, quite inspirational.

BSs are not junk or crap, they are big, slow, heavy and absolutely clumsy, but for that they get the best dps and the best tanking of all subcaps.
At least they are supposed to, if they do not then it's a problem.

1v1 is now how you compare ships. Otherwise a tempest can defeat almost any ship smaller than him by sheer power of neuts combined with no cap usage guns. That altoguh doe snto make the temepst less horrible in real applications.

Why are you passive tanking a ship that has an innate advantage when active tanking?

The mega, in it's nature as a Battleship, has a massive advantage being active tanked. There is no way, you can fit a Proteus to solo a propperly fit mega. Passive tanked Battleships are old hat, and only work now with on-grid logistics. Fit a web and scram to that mega, a MJD, and an active tank and there is nothing a proteus can do on it's own to win. It can escape, sure, and the Mega won't be able to catch it, but the opposite is also true. If your going to sit within web and scram range of a Mega, your going to die. Stray out of scram range, and you can't pin a mega with a MJD.

The natural advantage of a Battleship in active tanking, is that it has a large cargo bay for cap boosters, a natural buffer (that you don't need to add to) for some leeway in your active tank, and lots of slots. Plus, it doesn't rely on moving to keep it's tank up, unlike anything smaller that will explode almost instantly the moment it stops moving. Change the Mega for a Hyperion and the effect is massively exaggerated.

Your amazing 60 kills in your career , from wich 16 are pods , 4 barges , 2 rookie ships, 4 industrials, 2 shuttles and 5 frigates do not igve you as well much room to talk about your "EXPERIENCE".


You clearly are very very bad at PVP. Therefore your capability to annalyse what ship is good or not is incredibly limited.

I think a lot of this debate is around other ships....

I don't really think BS's are too weak.

I think T3's and certain other specific smaller ships (Ishtar comes to mind) are too strong and need to be nerfed.

What if I told you Marauders can solo certain C5 sites, which are very profitable?

Blaster Rokh is quite a beast especially with null

GǪif you royally screw up the fittings. What the hell are you doing to those poor ships?!

Yes, larger ships lock slower than smaller ships, and module bonuses are relative to the base stats. This is to make so that locking times are (roughly) the same for same-class targets. How does this make battleships suck?

You clearly have no clue how to fight don't you? geez... you must be even worse than in the forums.

A cruiser MUST get within 10 km to fight a battleship, or the Battleship will MJD away and leverage on its range advantage. And if you get under 10 km.. your graphs do not look so cute anymore.

Of course 3-4 thoraxes will kill a rokh, but that is how eve is designed, numbers means a lot.
Yeah thats why I have a 6/1 KD completely solo record and why I went to war solo in null vs Tribe and beat them 22/1. Because I don't know to fight.

Now take your same cute throax agaisnt a tempest.. it wil be OBLITERATED , no matter what you try. The same rokh altough has a fair chance of killing the tempest.

And how you GET there on a realistic scenario? And by realistic scenario I mean.... 3 v 3 for example. You really show your lack of understanding of combat whan you fix your mind into hypotetical 1 v1 scenarios where a cruiser jump into a battleship flying alone.. battleships flying alone outside pve are among the rarest things you will see. On a real fight, the battleships will stay roughly 10 km from each other.. so wherever you go you will receive 2 k dps on your head at near perfect range.

The only cruisers capable of matching battleship power are t3, and they are going to be nerfed for a reason.

Re you that unable to read?

3 BS vs 3 cruisers. In fact even 3 battleships vs 6 cruisers!!!! What you think would happen to 6 thoraxes attacking 3 armageddons? or attackign 3 tempests?

Hint.. they would not fire for more than 12 seconds...

after actually going through and fixing up the graphs its clear to see that a blaster Rokh vs a Rail Thorax (which is what infinity is using) the Rokh is going to do more Dps from 3 kms to 20kms then the thorax. now that 2 kms area the thorax does win out with about 200-250 dps more but even looking at that increase in dps its not enough to change things because of the massive difference in tank

Why are you using a Rokh to compare to a Thorax anyway? Why not something with similar role bonuses like a Megathron, which with dual webs, applies very healthy DPS to a Thorax from 0km-11km.

GǪexcept, of course, that the battleship in this scenario is not neutered, and that the T1 cruiser will die horribly.

Good news: it does. WellGǪ at any distance up to 2+ùfalloff.

NO! Its NOT possible! Or almost impossible 1 thorax jumping into a solo battleship is infinitely less realistic scenario than 3v3.

Yes this is not about 1v1 or 3v3, thius is about your complete and utter lack of PVP experience or understanding of the game and how people behave in this game!

You are the one theorycrafting! You are the one bringing examples taken from obscure holes!


If your scenario is remotely realistic why you do not have a single kill with a thorax against a solo battleship.

GǪcan't be verified without you providing the fits. So I did the next best thing and built something that approached the capabilities shown.

As it happens, such a fit would deal 400GÇô450 DPS to the Thorax at 2k, killing it in, oh, about a minute or so. Compare this to the supposed 550 DPS from The Thorax, which will need 4GÇô5 minutes to chew through the RokhGǪ assuming it hasn't done the sensible thing for a solo Rokh and gone active-tank, in which case the Thorax won't dent it at all.

Taking 400 DPS is not the same as GǣinvulnerableGǥ, so you Thorax is moving in the wrong direction if that's what he's aiming forGǪ

Tippia I always mean to tell you this when i read your posts but i think im in love with you just a little bit...

So much just straight up fact laced with a healthy dose of to the point sarcasm and finished up with a "here is my proof where is yours"

So, moving the goalposts now, huh?

Ok. At 500, it does 182 DPS, which kills the poor thing in just over two minutes. Meanwhile, the Thorax still does ~550, and still requires 4GÇô5 minutes (or GêP minutes).

We're still waiting for your fits. Why are you being so secretive about your work if you are so confident that you are right?

So your Rokh actually only has one tracking mod (not 3), no rigs and is using the largest guns available. Which ammo are you using in those guns?

Small gangs can and do follow doctrines.
And yes, Battleships are designed to move around the field, their damage and EHP is not designed with carrier immobility in mind.

4 BS are sitting ducks to be attacked by a huge number of compositions.

For example, lets say you added two falcons to those 12 thoraxes.

Now do you understand my point?

They can. And that is when you use them. As in my example. when the fight location is set by geogrpahy ( a POS or POCO) and the battleships are defending. The cruisers are FORCES to engage.

Again.. how you think you are the ONE that understand eve when EVERYOEN tha really do PVP disagree with you, and know that Battleships have thier roles and uses and on those roles they are superior to cruisers?

And you were using Void.

GǪand he's pointing out that your comparison is meaningless since all ships are not meant to be equal in all things.

So why are you ignoring the capabilities of the BS and the vulnerabilities of the small ships?
If it's not about homogenization, why are you making irrelevant 1v1 comparisons?

GǪexcept that no small ships offer that package other than a ship class that is about to lose it (and even there, it's far from universal).

So in other words, battleships are still worth it seeing as how they're very much used.

Oh, I got it from the very start: you are making faulty generalisation from your very narrow set of use-cases and you refuse to accept that your examples are not actually generalisable.

Anyone who attempts to expand the set and show the numerous uses battleships have gets labelled as bringing up irrelevant (read: inconvenient) facts because it's not something you, personally, do. Anyone who succeeds in use-cases where you fail get labelled as incompetentGǪ somehow.

The facts remain: your generalisations are false; your claims are factually incorrect and/or ridiculously cherry-picked and you petulantly refuse to answer simple questions or support those claims; you keep moving the goal posts when you're (consistently and inevitably) proven wrong. It's fallacy city pretty much every time you post.

Wow lost so bad you arent even going to try and argue... well to be honest that may be best however if you are going down that route go all the way and shut up completely.

Gee, I wonder why he's ignoring this post.

I think perhaps you should stop posting. You have literally an entire thread of people facepalming over each of your posts. Saying that you can't solo roam around nullsec and catch frigates in a battleship is like saying you can't screw lightbulbs in with a Pneumatic drill.

No you can't. But you can't drill holes in the pavement with your hand either. It's a false economy. To paraphrase Einstein 'If you judge a Battleship by its ability to lock frigates, it will live its whole life believing that it is terrible.'

"Battleships can't solo PvP" he says. Meanwhile, people are out there doing solo PvP in battleships.

Why do tons of people use battleships

oh because they're blobbers it doesn't count

are we just shooting structures that don't shoot back

No we are not, that's why the decreased track speed is in itself a big enough problem, no need to have a decrease or stagnation in damage to top it off.
Frankly, people take BS to L4 for the increased tank, but if all large turrets are like that I start to understand why dominel fits are so popular.


And, Zonia ?
I'm not on the BS topic here, I'm on the fact large railguns dps suck big time, large weaps are not the ships themselves.

No, that's not an accurate overall comparison. That's a one-to-one comparison.


Which is irrelevant, because they've since been rebalanced several times.

No, it's a niche comparison. It's as invalid as you claim that fleet comparisons are.

No, you look at its individual roles in the multitude of situations it can encounter GÇö including fleets GÇö and see how it fares across all of those situations. Individual attributes are meaningless because only come to life in a larger (and very varied) context. Hell, even if that was the way you made an overall comparison, you still fail at making one since you've not once looked at those individual attributes.

So stop doing that. Stop making up irrelevant comparisons that only look at a minute set of characteristics that are, essentially, meaningless on their own. Try to follow at least some semblance of basic principles, such as either admitting that you're comparing a niche case (making the results impossible to generalise) or do full-spectrum comparisons: a full range of fleet sizes; a full range of fleet compositions; a full range of engagement ranges.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: your generalisations are inherently false because you generalise from a very specific and hugely biased single-case sample; your claims are factually incorrect and/or ridiculously cherry-picked and you petulantly refuse to answer simple questions or support those claims; you keep moving the goal posts when you're (consistently and inevitably) proven wrong. Now you've crossed over into dev abuse when your attempt at history revisionism fell flat on its face when it came in contact with reality.

So how about you change it? How about, instead of unfounded and provably false nonsense, you actually rely onGǪ you knowGǪ data? Structured comparisons? Non-biased samples? Reality? Some fundamental rules of generalisability? Something other than special pleading?

I can understand that you get frustrated when your boring and predictable baseless claims get called out for what they are, and when at every point, you fail to produce anything to support your biases. Well, there's a solution to that: stop making biased, baseless claims.

More accurately: you have no way of responding to these simple truths so you have to dismiss them outright and hope that people are foolish enough to think that your lack of argument proves anything in your favour.

You really shouldn't, since they can be pretty prickly on that point.

So why are you using one as your only real (and provably false) argument? It's a niche argument because you've set up a long-range fleet ship against a close-range brawler in a 1v1 with specific rules about how each is allowed to GÇö indeed must GÇö dictate the engagement. This is about as niche as it gets. It tells us nothing about battleships or cruisers or engagements. It only tells us something about this very specific instanceGǪ which you got wrong anyway.

Oh, and I understand that you want to stay away from scenarios since those are actually able to provide some kind of general pattern, if you include enough of them. After all, a scenario takes all the attributes into account and put them into context GÇö something you are loath to do since it kind of hurts your point. As mentioned, you can't compare attribute to attribute because they are meaningless in isolation. They need to be applied to a real (or at least realistic) set of scenarios, with all the environmental and situational and compound effects those scenarios entail.

GǪbut we're not talking about balancing GÇö we're talking about your arguments and GÇ£dataGÇ¥, and the immensely broad conclusions you draw from that minute data set. You've cherry picked your data to (incorrectly) come to a conclusion you want, and then you make some grand declamation based on this biased sample.

You mean, accepting the fact that battleships in general have been turned into fleet ships? Yes, that would be useful if it weren't for how it would blow your claims out of the waterGǪ which is why you don't want anyone to do this.

Compelling argument and really convincing proof.

I used to ask myself if someone could actually be this ********, and then my suspicions were confirmed when I learned that a significant number of people believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

No, they can't. You're just stupid.


He never said that. You're just stupid.


So what?

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.


Clearly all three being cruisers a Phobos has the same role as a Thorax or a Deimos.

Last time infinity offered a battleship to go solo and kill stuff I accepted.

Infinity didn't deliver.

Wait wait, you need to listen more to what Infinity Ziona has to say...

So because no one is interested in humouring you for a free BS, that must mean you're right.

They suck....when you don't use them right. That's what you refuse to understand (in standard selfish fashion). BATTLESHIP, not BC, not cruiser, dessie or frig. Just because you want to solo in a BS doesn't mean it's a good idea for the game. Ship classes should have definite roles, things they are good at and things they aren't.

Tell me, if BS' could do what you want them to, why would anyone fly something else?

No I asked for a kronos, which is a mega hull and the best adapted for solo work.

Its not a solo focused ship, the mega is a great fleet/small gang ship. The kronos is a much better adapted ship for solo/small gang work.

A Veyron isn't a Formula 1 car. Why won't you buy the Kronos?

>>------woooosh---->>>> The Point

)(Your Head)(




...yet you are using the same argument somehow?

Yes, it is. Let me paraphrase your argument:

A Megathron is not a solo pvp ship.

Let's judge the strength of Megathrons with a 1v1, or by flying solo.

Logic.

I'm still not sure, how do we know the developers didn't intend the Rokh to be a solo pvp ship?


Oh right.

you did not exactly give it any allowances ether. I'm reminded of Castro's last election .

I offered to run your gauntlet with the modification of going through wormholes instead (which would get you more of that "Solo" pvp that you declare to be the only viable pvp{okay you did also say small group as well}) still no reply from you you just ignore the fact that someone is willing to take the challenge.

I think you just dont even read posts other than to give them a base scan and pick up on buzzwords, and then find what to say to further your arguments.

Infinity also backed out of the first challenge when I accepted in another thread.

They will never be nerfed simply because the penalties that come along with flying T3's. Loss of SP must be reflected in something. They also represent future tech. For now only tech 3 cruisers been released. Some day CCP will get around to expanding the T3 ship tree. Price, required skills and penalty at death will save other ships from becoming obsolete as they do now. T3 battleship would kick strategic cruisers ass, that's for sure...

Then where's my brawling amarrian battleship?... and the apoc doesn't count cuz lazorz v0v

Battleships to me are the strongest 'all around' ship types, with the large number of slots, ehp and dps you can do a lot with them, comparing them in specific circumstances to a different ship type is just totally misunderstanding their role. Sure you can say an AF has a better sig tank and better applied dps but if that AF gets webbed and scrammed down by a small gang of T1 cruisers it's toast, a megathron for example gives not a single **** that it just got webbed and scrammed by 5 T1 cruisers, it doesn't NEED to be in an optimal situation to do well, it has the base stats to handle a wide variety of situations even with the major drawbacks that comes with a big unwieldy hull.

Good job they have you to tell them how to fix Eve.

Every single balance pass with teircide has been modified after players were given the ships to test which has resulted in very few bad or overpowered ships.

T3s are going to be getting a savage nerf to turn them into the cruisers they are meant to be.

Let me explain something. What you THINK does nto care. CCP devs disagree with you, most of the inteligent community disagree with you. And no matter how much wishful thinking you have. T3 will be nerfed.... All tiercide has been opposite direction of what you believe.

You will fall... and we will be here.. to laugh at you... even more

How is that the opposite of tiericide? As it stands right now T3s are very clearly in a different 'tier' to all the other cruisers, with ehp, dps, and damage application being in some cases several times greater than T1, T2 and faction cruisers performing a similar role.

And inb4 the bullshit about the on paper figures not being representative of the real ingame effectiveness I'll give the real ingame example of a proteus facetanking my 1500 dps vindicator for 10 minutes... buffer fit... and only getting to 1/3rd armour...

We know that they will be between t1 and t2 cruisers, either on par with faction or slightly better. This means a hefty nerf and no chance of them keeping the battleship tanks. CCP have stated that they will be getting hit by a sledge hammer in most areas with improvements to the underpowered sub systems. They are going to be highly adaptable cruisers and not highly manoeuvrable pocket battleships the size of a cruiser.

What is the main draw of BSes? Tank and damage application, T2 cruisers don't compare with BSes in either of those areas.


Tengu fleets, which I know you've encountered frequently. Do you think the Russians would have fielded T2s against us if T3s were inferior? I don't think they would, they'd use Rokhs instead.

I was referring to range when I said damage application, although I think the DPS is still a little better in BSes too. Cruisers tank the same with reps, or more with T2 resists but they lack buffer, which makes them easier to alpha.

I'm not arguing that BSes have been made obsolete by T3s so I'm not sure if your question is relevant. I'm saying they're more comparable to BSes than other cruisers are (due to tank) and that they are more comparable to BSes than they are to other cruisers. They outclass all cruisers greatly in combat roles.

And yet battleships can kill both effectively, it just happens to be a game of fitting your ship for the specific role.

You have to fit a T2 or T3 cruiser accordingly in order to kill battleships. Likewise, you have to use specific battleships and fit them accordingly in order to kill T2 and T3 cruisers

I don't really consider HICs and Logi to be combat roles, as such. I mean, a logi boat isn't winning any fights and I don't think a HIC is either.

Nobody asked for your input. Nobody wanted a solo analysis.

Indeed. My point is that we can argue about HACs being OP if you want, but every point you make in that argument will only strengthen my argument that T3s are OP because T3s, in general, outclass HACs.

Did you seriously just compare our AFK Ishtar fit against that Proteus fit? A faction fit Proteus no less?

Its not exactly shocking that ishtars show up a lot as most powerblocks fly fleets of them simply for the drone assist.

Did you consider WHY that might be? Ok, lets pretend we're comparing apples with apples here. I can squint hard enough for that.

Here's a thought; perhaps the KB looks the way it does is because a faction fit T3 cruiser is less likely to die in combat than a PVE fit Ishtar. Gee, it's almost as if one of these apples is actually a hand grenade painted red, and the other is just an apple.

Guess which one is just an apple.

T3 wipe the floor with them if not for the instant and perfect hitting alpha and the need to retrain for the subsystem if you do die. Incidently, how much ehp does this max dps ishtar have?

T3 will rip them apart.

Which is, naturally, why you found a stack of dead T3s on our killboards, rather than PVE Ishtars...

Oh wait.