Bring back the cavalry ravens.

Nerf T3's and won't you just see more Eagles?

T3s aren't all that OP really. Some balancing tweaks throughout the subs would be good though, along with getting rid of that SP loss on death garbage.

Battleships don't need a buff, they need diversity.

Not really. Aside from two, they're all straight-up combat hulls.

Sure, there's diversity within the combat role, but there's no diversity of roles.

EWar? Two hulls. One if you knock Amarr for not having a TD hull.

Logi? No hulls.

If you want to fly logi or EWar, you have to (with a few very limited exceptions) fly something other than a battleship. My question is...why? Why should battleships be inherently less diverse than frigates or cruisers?

Frigates and Cruisers each have a good mix of roles. Battleships don't, and this contributes to them being so easily replaced by T3s. Nerfing T3s needs to happen, but adding greater diversity of roles for battleships would help as well.

Lower tracking is lower tracking, it still hurts damage application. I imagine they'd work wonders against other battleships.

One expensive, semi-bonused faction hull does not a viable battleship logi option make.

Mobility? Covert cloak? EWar strength? T1 Ewar battleships wouldn't have any of these.

A very interesting comparison, but how about a more realistic comparison like:

Rail Protues vs Rail Astarte?

RailGu vs Rail Vulture?

Beam Legion vs Beam Absolution?

No point in mentioning the Loki cause it sucks apples and can't compare to a Sleipnir.

It's no secret that no T2 Cruisers can compete with their T3 counters, so I went up a class. I wanted for someone to give me an accurate comparison from a T3C to a CS. If they are better than CSs, then yes I agree that they are OP and CCP should change them accordingly to fall in between T2Cs and CSs (also buff CSs).

ewww, I hope not. That would make them totally worthless. Tech 3 is suppose to be better than Tech 2, no? Or else CCP should change their names to T2 Strategic Cruisers and not mislead everyone thinking they are suppose to be more powerful than T2 cruisers.

I wouldn't pay 500M for a ship that's less effective in combat than a HAC costing half that. I think T3's should be better than T2 by definition. I'm not sure how to fix them so that they're not a superior substitute for BC and BS among high level players, but the nerfs people are talking about here would see them relegated to uselessness. Maybe that's a desired result for some players.

What if you removed all weapon range bonuses from the subsystems? Would that solve the problem?

That's only due to their lower sig. BSs with their balloon sigs should have around 300k-400k ehp to compensate and a RHML turret based weapon system to track smaller sigs.

Yea that's fine, IF you remove the SP loss on death AND reduce their cost to around 300 mill for the whole package. If CCP does this then I have no problem with them having 80k-100k EHP instead of 140k-200k EHP.

Does that mean CCP is actually getting ready to nerf these ships?

With the exception of a cloaky Proteus, I'd never use a T3C for pvp unless I was in a fleet backed with logi. Only with logi support does the T3Cs impressive ehp resonates the OP-ness siren. If anything needs a nerf, its logi ships.

And I dare you to run a class 6 combat anomalie in your Megathron, you, only you and only your Megathron.


Though the Megathron may be an iconic ship, I will tell you what seven Sleepless Guardians will do to your Megathron in ~20 seconds:

Your boat will be the lead-victim of next week CSI - Special Victims Unit.

I don't hate you brake it to you again, nullsec is not the only playground in EVE.

So if CCP decided to remove the T3Cs armor/shield buffer subs entirely, would that satisfy you? I doubt it! If there is a particular ship class that some pilots (particularly vets) don't like or view as OP that CCP reasonably nerfs that still has some uses, the opposing pilots would still scream for another nerf until the ships are completely worthless. A perfect example is the Ishtar that many pilots wants CCP to remove it's sentry bonuses (which I also agree with), but all is gonna happen is that you'll be seeing Ishtars with geckos moving 3k while doing 900+ dps shredding BSs apart all the same. What would the masses whine about then?

Dual 425s have a lot of uses. Its just people have preconceived notions that they cant hit anything because they are large guns. They already track very well for a BS sized gun that does BS levels of dps. You lower the sig resolution and you can quite easily start popping frigs with no problem if you know what youre doing. Ive killed a couple hecates with them the past couple days.

That being said, im not opposed to the change, as its fairly logical, but can see how it could be abused easily. Hybrid/laser equivalent may not be as dicey as ac's to balance. Thing with acs is they get ammo that increases tracking. Throw in a meta rig or drop booster, and you can get well over medium 220 tracking with dual 425s.

A lot of people need to learn math. In eve , due to how the tracking formula works, it is nothing else but a modifier over the applied DPS that is not linear.

So it does not matter if you have 20% more tracking but 25% less DPS. Tracking capabilities must be MUCH more pronounced to make a serious effect, and that is why ships with tracking bonuses need a 7.5% bonus per level to match a 5% damage bonus, and that only on a amorespecific scenario.

A 7.5% rof bonus is better than an usual tracking bonus on most part of the engagement envelope. And that is not opinion, its math.

People fitting Dual 425 MM THINKING they will be dealing more damage, are just placeboing themselves. THe ammount you lose due to smaller falloff and smaller base dps means more than what you gain on tracking on all engagement envelpe except the very apex of the limit between the radial velocity of the target vs your tracking. And you do nto FIT a ship for extreme scenarios that only happen when you are already losing a fight.

Well, what do "modern" naval Battle ships have? They have mixed sized Weapons....so perhaps make it viable to equip medium sized weapons (besides the large ones) to counter smaller targets
E.g. divide the hi slots, give a bonus to the large weapons to compensate the loss and perhaps some application bonus for the smaller weapons.
Just as an idea

oo now a game that is run over processors that implement math can have different results than math? Yeah.. right .

Math is never wrong. If you had the capability to understand it ..

MAth shows that what you can kill with dual 425 MM you can do as well with 800mm. If you cannot achieve what math say it is possible, it is YOUR problem, not maths problem.

But most people problem seems to not be math, but basic communication skills. You assume and base your sentences as if i had said that battleships cannot kill frigates. That just show that you cannot post a response to what others write, because you answer statements that exist only on your imagination.

try to read what people write before spewing ego on your keyboard. The result is much better.