Doing alittle thinking today and found a simple solution that will balance the game and not destroy everything.

As it sits everyone complains about T3 with battleship tank and damage per second. When you compare a battleship to captials, there is a hige gap between them. My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge. This is a simple fix that will fix the gap between battleships and capital. Buffing battleships to this level will not only make it worth wild bringing a BS gang against a T3 gamg. It will also balance out the SP required to fly a proper BS compare to a proper T3.

Keep it simple.

t3s are fine and if anything need a buff

Its a start to a solution and that start is better then nothing. Key note here is to have a filler between the T3 and caps. No need to make another ship when you have Battleships that are semi worthless against T3 and Caps.
Yes i understand the gap between BS and caps is a HUGE gap and that's why I am recommending a slight power shift for Battleships towards caps. A shift so small and minute. The best way to compare the gap between the two (BS and Caps) would be the distance from the US and Europe. my recommended power shift is equal to the tectonics plates shifting between the two countries (change is distance from year to year). Its not a Big buff by any means.

suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge.

well i listed the armor increase and it was not anywhere near what a t3 can get. two 1600 mm plates on a Proteus with subsystems that give 10% armor hp, with high grades gives the Proteus 53k raw armor hp. with T2 resist and 1000dps can you please explain how my buff is asking too much? Last i checked 53k raw armor hp with T2 resist is way more then my 30k raw armor hp T1 resist Mega. So what was that about me smoking some stuff?

I don't post without taking into consideration other variables in the game. with that being said. Capitals have over 100k shield, armor, hull hp in each category. Some BS have less then 10k while some have a little more the 10k. so capitals have 10x or more shield, armor, hull hp then BS but BS only have 3 time more raw hp then cruisers. Cruiser are in line with frigs with 5 time or more raw hp then a frig. but my small buff which will still leave BS having 10 times less raw hp but become 4 times more then cruisers is unreasonable? I do not see any logic in your debate.

you also seem too be leaving out the part where the T3 cruiser hull will reduce BS dps by 1/4, which means not only are T3's far more reppable (insane resists+sig+higher speed) but they are also much more mobile on top of the raw HP comparison.

I never had a problem applying dps to T3. I go to my opt, scram and web it then shoot my main batteries at it. As long as my ship isn't moving and they are at rang i have no problems hitting them. In a decent fleet fight BS don't have enough dps to shoot them off field before logi can get reps on them. BS also die too fast against a T3 gang. I still think the cost and SP lost is a huge risk when flying T3 that they are fine where they are at and BS don't posses the proper strength for fleet warfare.

1. They dont, bcs have mjds which alone makes them different enough and they are T1 ships, which makes them insurable, cheap and easy to fit. Yes they arent in a great spot right now but that has nothing to do with t3s, if you remember back around 2011 t3s were stronger then now and bcs were about the same (slightly better) and it was all bcs, t3s really dont enroach onto bc at all.


2. Then you have t2 cruiser, logi are straight up better as you said, for anything bar reaaaly big fleets recons are straight up better, hics are hics so no contest there. Then you have Hacs, which you probably mean by t2 cruisers. And there you can buy 2.3 hacs per t3, they are somewhat insurable and you dont lose sp if you die in them, which by itself makes them on par. But they arent even actually worse then t3s as such, cerb>tengu due to rlml bonus', vaga is about equal to a loki in most cases and the deimos is a valid proteus substitue, the prot reps more and does more dps but its much worse in most other stats, and speed is fairly important.

3. And the sac is an amazing fleet ship as shown by balex countless times, legion is good too but they are similar enough for the extra price on the legion to be worth it.

4. Face it, for solo, small scale and mid scale hacs are almost equal to their t3 counterparts, some more some less. And that a proteus is a better fleet dps ship then the deimos is totally irrelevant cause the abso still is cheaper and better.

5. t3s do pseudo recons in big fleets where recons would instapop, they do the fleet ships for the unskilled who cant fly command ships and thats about it.

6. If you roam around and see a t3 you don't worry at all, they arent good ships, they are easy to beat and offer nothing special in the current meta. A orthrus or gila is much more scary.

It sounds like a contradiction and admittedly hypocritical when you quote snipets of my post but not if you consider and understand the entire thing in context... But I fail to see how I lied.

I never said T3s are perfectly balanced I said t3 cruisers are not "overpowered".

I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power. I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost.

I also said nothing about price acting as a "justification" for power.

I said it was a balancing factor, if you acknowledge the fact that eve is a game about risk and reward, where assets have a value and can be permanently lost.

I'll fight a T3 in a non-t3 if anyone wants to prove to me how OP they are. Just let me know.

i don't care how you try to justify this, but what you say is price is a justification for its power

Then answer my question...

Why is being poor stopping you from fighting me if you are so sure you will win?

Well overpowered indicates one thing has a superior advantage. So unless it is a certainty that a ship will beat a "weaker" ship, I don't think you should be claiming it is OP.

My point with the offer to fight a T3, was to show that price does get considered in ballance. Not on paper but in game. If it didn't, you wouldn't care if you lost to me no matter how bad at pvp you consider yourself to be.

Anyway, we are massively off topic. Can we just agree battleships need a buff in damage?

My suggestion is make all battleships hit 17.8% harder, 22% more shield, structure, armor hp, and finally 11% larger cap with 8% faster cap recharge.