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.

It's funny that the OP mentions Big Miker, because it illustrates the point that it's not the Battleships that are a problem, it's their pilots. It's never the expert pilots that complain (I consider Baltec to be one of them), it's the mediocre pilots who want CCP to give them a leg up, not understanding that a leg up for mediocre pilots simply makes good pilots that much more dangerous and creates Ishtar like imbalance.

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

They have a lot of diversity between the hulls.

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.

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.

*cough*BATTLE*cough*ship.

Geddon = curse on roids
Scorp = heavy ECM
phoon = fast very heavy anti support
raven = slow anti support and the best bait ship ever.
Apoc = long range ship of the line
hyperion = small gang house of tank
Megathron = whatever I want it to be
Pest = the old cane only bigger everything.

I can go on and these are just the simpler fits. Anti frigate ravens, sheild nano blaster megathrons, smartbomb rokhs.

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.

TD don't work for battleships because of their size.

Nestor.

Why would you use a force econ if a battleship with much more tank can do the job?

T3 replace them as DPS ship not E-war.

Some people use rail tengu doctrines (aside from Slippery Petes) and i just can't see the benefit vs Eagles. People will be dumb no matter what. eg; Rail Eagle = Rail tengu (no-Pete) +/- 5% on DPs and tank and costs double.

But that's not universal. Beam Zealot is competitive with DPS to beam Legion, but has 35% of the legion's tank and 2 fewer midslots. Legion all the way.

Rail proteus vs Rail Deimos? no competition. There is no rail Deimos, even leaving aside the presence of the Ishtar.

Arty Loki vs....sorry, laughing too hard...Munnin. I mean, arty Lokis are crap, but the Munnin is massively more crap it's got its own thread in F&I. Loki all the way.

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.

EWar? Two hulls. One if you knock Amarr for not having a TD hull.
Logi? No hulls.

Battleships did not become flawed. It's not as if something happened and they became broken (aside from the warp speed changes).

The problem is that other ships evolved around them while battleships largely remained constant. T3s, bombers, HACs, supers, et al. Even Marauders, and to a lesser extent Black Ops, have evolved. These ships have coexisted with battleships for a long time, but all of them have seen multiple improvements over time whereas battleships have not.

It's long overdue time that CCP evolved battleships.

With tiericide, CCP did a reasonably good job with frigates and cruisers. They evolved into ships with distinct roles, the roles were diverse, and T1 ships still had a place with rookie/disposable fleets even in the presence of T2s and T3s. While tiericide certainly helped battleships, it didn't give them individual roles like it did with other classes. Aside from the Scorpion and arguably the 'Geddon they all fill the same role as front-line combat ships. Sure, some of them are faster, some of them are tankier, and some of them use different weapons, but there are no clear role breakdowns.

Imagine if instead of logi, EWar, fast combat cruiser, and tanky combat cruiser, all we got out of tiericide was four combat cruisers (unless you were Caldari, and then you kept the Blackbird). This is pretty much what has happened to battleships over time.

To become relevant again, battleships need a purpose.


I don't claim to know what that purpose is, and if I did I'd be posting it in F&I instead of here. But I do know that they need some role to fill because, by and large, their roles are currently being filled much more effectively by other ships and as long as that is the case battleships will suffer.

Are battleships dead? No, and I've posted as such in other threads. But there's a huge difference between being "not dead" and "relevant". To be relevant again, CCP needs to finish tiericide and evolve battleships.

Some people use rail tengu doctrines (aside from Slippery Petes) and i just can't see the benefit vs Eagles. People will be dumb no matter what. eg; Rail Eagle = Rail tengu (no-Pete) +/- 5% on DPs and tank and costs double.

But that's not universal. Beam Zealot is competitive with DPS to beam Legion, but has 35% of the legion's tank and 2 fewer midslots. Legion all the way.

Rail proteus vs Rail Deimos? no competition. There is no rail Deimos, even leaving aside the presence of the Ishtar.

Arty Loki vs....sorry, laughing too hard...Munnin. I mean, arty Lokis are crap, but the Munnin is massively more crap it's got its own thread in F&I. Loki all the way.

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.

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.

The very fact you are comparing a cruiser with a t2 battlecruiser to try to show T3s are not overpowered shows just how overpowered they are.

The very fact you are comparing a cruiser with a t2 battlecruiser to try to show T3s are not overpowered shows just how overpowered they are.

The very fact you are comparing a cruiser with a t2 battlecruiser to try to show T3s are not overpowered shows just how overpowered they are.

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).

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).

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).

T3 cruisers are supposed to land between T1 and T2 cruisers.

T3Destroyers are actually not as cancerous as they used to be - The non-Defensive mode resist profile is worse than that of T2 equivalents, and I would have given them only 1 Rig slot.

The Augmented Plating sub-systems along with T2 resist profile on T3 cruisers is a broken concept, however. The subs were reduced from 10% Hp bonus to 7.5% not long ago, and still they are bloated EHP-wise.

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.

1 Rig Slot??? Are you serious? There is a huge difference between balancing something or making it obsolete. I guarantee that no one would've bothered with the T3Ds if they had only 1 rig slot.

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.

This is where they should be. CCP will be making savage nerfs to T3s and it is long overdue.