@Zhilia Mann: I'm even sure how to acknowledge that.

@Lyrrashae: Would you like to give some reasons as to why I might be incorrect, rather than (poorly) attempting to insult me?

DRAKE (and to an extent, tier 2 battlecruisers):

There is a reason why it is the most used battlecruiser out there. The problem with the Drake is that it is does everything too well for little cost or sacrifice, while being easy to train for. Thus, and to an extent most of the tier 2 battlecruisers create a certain number of issues that should be addressed:

(Yes, leaving tier 1 battlecruisers out of the discussion because there is no point arguing with the obvious fact they need some attention).

Overshadow other tech 1 hulls: the leap in performance between cruiser and tier 2 battlecruiser classes is just too great for too little cost (average slot count, EHP mainly). This, coupled with the gain in damage for having access to more weapon slots, as well as extra fitting power (ever tried squeezing turrets into an Omen and keep a decent fit?), makes the small loss of speed irrelevant when leaving the cruiser class as battlecruisers still remain fairly mobile. That's partly why the Hurricane also is so popular.

Overshadows tech 2 counterparts: Heavy Assault Ships and Command Ships are suffering from this situation. This is most apparent with the Nighthawk, but any ship that shares a common role with them is affected. Why take the time to train up and pay for an expensive hull when there is an easy to get into and cheap option available that almost have the same performance?

Incorrectly funnel new players: don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP. What's the point of a Bellicose? Exequror? Maller? Moa? They shouldn't be things you just skip on the way to a greater purpose, like a leaf of salad in my 250gr double-layered onion and egg hamburger.

@Zhilia Mann: I'm even sure how to acknowledge that.

@Lyrrashae: Would you like to give some reasons as to why I might be incorrect, rather than (poorly) attempting to insult me?

They say a picture says a thousand words. I figure a video ought to say more, so here's a video of me raping BCs in AFs: https://vimeo.com/35642474

-Liang

I fail to see how "Drake/Harpy/Harpy/Kestrel/Firetail vs Brutix/Cane" qualifies as AFs raping BCs, but I am well aware that BCs are not wtfpwnmobiles that automatically win a fight against anything smaller than them. I am suggesting that they are too cost effective for what they can do.

Buffing Cruisers might be a better option. Cost is the only thing separating BCs from Cruisers atm, and to any player with a steady income it's a very negligible difference when the vast superiority of the BCs is taken into consideration.

Buffing Cruisers might be a better option. Cost is the only thing separating BCs from Cruisers atm, and to any player with a steady income it's a very negligible difference when the vast superiority of the BCs is taken into consideration.

Buffing agility, speed and scan res seems like the obvious solution, however it also creates issues with Cruisers bleeding into the territory of Frigates.

CSM minutes from December - page 21 of 44 on my iPhone. CCP is going to revisit and rebalance T1 frigate's and cruisers as well as tier one BC. Get R' Dun.

The OP is both right and wrong.

Yes, this is a problem that encompass all of the BC, not just the one or two most appearant examples.

No, the answer is not to individually, time-consumingly, tweak and balance each ship. They are quite well balanced in-class and among classes looking at sheer on-grid performance.

The real problem resides in the fact that despite the ships cost almost 10x as much as a Cruiser, with insurance, they cost essentially the same as a Cruiser (and the added training-time is negliable). Incidentally, that also mean they cost next to nothing in the larger scheme of things.

People fly them due to cost-efficiency, not kp-efficiency (kp- stands for kill-per, by the way). The things that are meant to beat "Drakes", they beat them until you begin to factor in scalability and numerical advantages rooted in cost-efficiency.

The best way to nerf all the BC is to nerf their resource-return and nerf the incentive to put as many as possible of them in any given system.

Nerf the disease, not the symptoms.

If I haven't mentioned it yet, you've become one of my favorite posters recently. I don't 100% agree with you all the time, but you definitely put a lot of thought into your positions and aren't throwing out total nonsense.

-Liang

When is CCP going to overhaul the ship insurance system?
It is pretty arbitrary how ship insurance is really poor for T2 ships compared to T1 ships.

Far as I can tell, the only reason T2 insurance is poor is that it is harder to factor in invention costs rather than simply base it off raw mineral costs.
This is not a good enough reason, as there is ample data available to do the calculations.

Alara, normally you have reasonable posts but that one just... bleh. Not even mad, just bad taste in my mouth.

But where do T1 battlecruisers fit? Well, you can think of them as older, more outdated Main Battle Tanks. So, rather then trying to nerf the MBTs of today, why not update T1 BCs?

T2 Battlecruisers are MBTs
T1 Battlecruisers should be updated.
Cruisers are IFVs and Light Tanks.
All Cruisers should get better agility and speed.

OP:

You are an idiot.

Please biomass ASAP, you'll be doing yourself a favour.