Yes.

Tier 2 BCs are too good, and obsolete cruisers, field command ships, and short range HACs. Tier 1s are fine-ish. Tier 3s almost completely obsolete sniper HACs.

Perhaps BS dont do enough dps or move too slow for their ehp?

BCs are too good, perhaps they are bang on and thats why everyone likes them.

Also they use medium rigs, which means access to t2 without duking it out with supercaps, they have good aglity and arnt too slow - ccp made them the more attractive cheaper option and what do you really get for upgrading to a BS. only down sides and 100 or so mroe dps AND worst tracking.

FIX bs **** BCs!

The most logical solution to the second issue I have talked about is a change in the size of rigs either cruisers use or BCs use. If cruisers were to use small rigs then their relative fitting cost compared to a BC that uses medium rigs will be substantially less even when factoring in insurance. The same net result would be achieved by changing BCs to use large rigs instead of medium rigs.

3200mm plates

If the discussion is BS vs. BC then I would suggest new mods before recreating the wheel with BS. I'm thinking 3200mm plates or XLSE.

It just seems the problem with them now is that BC can wtfpwn frigs and dessies too easily. So their engagement envelope is too big.

Nerf BC speed/agility (or just mass) to only be slightly better than BS, and the problems go away.

The easiest thing to me would be either a increase in all cruiser speed (I dont think damage is a good idea - you can already get 500+ dps 700+ in some cases), or a slight change to BC tracking or perhaps speed. For instance, if you give BC a slight tracking penalty (or what is the missile version? ROF nerf?) they will have a harder time engaging frigs, dessies, and some cruisers depending on fit. It wont effect their usefulness against BS or most cruisers.

However, BCs (especially nano'd) are only a little slower than crusiers, don't cost that much more (after insurance) and they pack FAR more punch (2x more). That makes the lost agility worth the extra punch in almost every case, and makes it impossible for cruisers to even compare to BCs.

I'm fine with this for Tier 1/2 BCs, but Tier 3 BCs are expressly designed to be cruisers sporting BS guns. They have their own host of problems related to tracking and I would say they're probably the most balanced BCs.

-Liang

Ed: I'm a bit concerned by the term "slightly". I'm fine with nerfing Tier 1/2 BC mobility... but it doesn't need massacred.

Tier 3s are faster and more agile than sniper HACs, while having more damage at the same time, too. Tracking notwithstanding, it just seems wrong that a 60 mil ISK specialized hull is more effective at long range sniping than a 120 mil ISK specialized hull (that requires better skills). They should be the fastest of the BCs, but not any faster than cruiser hulls. (This comparison brought to you by Tornado vs Muninn)

As for the "slightly better than BS" -- I don't have numbers. Those are up to CCP to decide on. I think the Harbinger's mobility is a good reference point for what the Hurricane should be changed to, with the other BC's following suit to preserve relative racial mobility... but that's just my opinion.

You remember last night when I told you that people ignoring tracking are dumb, and you responded that people ignoring sig radius are dumb?

Yeah.

-Liang

Hm, I stand corrected, in a straight up "snipe each other" thing, a Muninn would destroy a Tornado -- if it kept moving. The issue remains that against stationary or low-transversal targets (optimal situation if you're aiming for alpha), the Tornado is far superior. Coupled with the fact that Muninn has drones, I could let it go. However, it still bothers me the Tornado is faster than the Muninn, and the Naga is faster than the Eagle. It just doesn't make sense given the sizes of the ships.

Oddly enough, the Oracle is not faster than the Zealot, and I am fine with the balance between the two. I am also fine with the Talos being the mini-Megathron it is.

Tier 3s are indeed better balanced than the other battlecruiers are, but they can still use a bit of work.

Just a personal opinion here, but I think BCs are used as a hammer: one quick tool for everything. Low skills, big bang. Like any ship, BCs have their place.

I truly believe that the Hammer or the center should move to Cruisers.

I have a bit of a different perspective on range. I am okay giving Sniper HAC to Tier 3's. Make it so that faster, Tankier HAC's are better in the 40-70 KM Range. With 2 Damage Bonuses they put out the DPS but are smaller, more agile and harder to kill. Leave the long range stuff to Tier 3's and Battleships instead of making then try to compete.

Make them Ships designed to take out Gangs of Tier 1/2 Battlecruisers, close range Cruisers and Destroyers. General stuff and leave long range f 70+ to L Sized weapons at the issue that HAC's can close range and if they get a warp in you are not regaining range on the field.

Make Cruisers, HAC's and Battlecruisers from short to medium range ships and and L Guns Ships Medium to Long Range but make sure none of them can out run Cruisers and HAC's flat out.

That said, I occasionally find myself wishing that bonused medium weapons went as far as unbonused large weapons. For instance, the pulse Zealot should have similar range to the pulse Oracle (and Geddon) assuming similar numbers of TEs/TCs. That'd be swell, but probably OP as hell.

Here is some food for thought. Look at the relationship between the Enyo and it's Tech one hull, the incursus. The Incursus, before any mods, has:

391 Shield
460 Armor
460 Structure

The Enyo has:

465 Shield
1099 Armor
1495 Structure

Now the Thorax and the Deimos. The Thorax:

1905 Shield
2051 Armor
2344 Structure

The Deimos:

1450 Shield
2550 Armor
3164 Structure

It's not even close to the same percentage. Should it be? The Deimos based off the Thorax would then look like:

2266 Shield
4900 Armor
7618 Structure

Now clearly that would be overpowered- especially the structure. But the key part is that the easiest way to balance HACs would be to move their EHP closer to BC territory. Again, food for thought.

There's literally no reason for that to change except that you prefer it.

Tier 3s and Sniper HACs don't really do the same things. I know it looks like it from EFT, but its just not true in game.

-Liang

No reason to do anything except that someone prefers it.

Reasons I prefer it.

* More Role variety in Cruisers currently gimped by stats.
* Reintroduces under used ships without taking away usefulness of other ships.
* Lowers costs of Effective PvP entry with effect diminished return increases by cost.
* Boosts effective EWAR / Support on the base level without lessoning the increase f more advanced T2 versions.
* Brings the 8 Battlecruisers in line with each other without stepping on Cruisers toes or limiting their heavier role.

I would prefer a change for those reasons. I think a lot of other people would to so I will say so.

Tier 3s and Sniper HACs don't really do the same things. I know it looks like it from EFT, but its just not true in game.

-Liang

1) Yes and I have given my opinion on how to remove the Tier System.
2) Yes and I have given my opinion on how to remove the Tier System.
3) Base stats over utility. They should have fewer slots and be cheaper but their effectiveness should be increased.
4) And their is only one EWAR Cruiser, the rest are toothless.
5) It will also be helped by the Drake rebalance and a slight adjustment to the Cane.

You can claim that the Tier System with no rebalance of mechanic will fix everything but I would like them to go a bit further to close the gaps between classes.
[quote=Liang Nuren]
It's almost entirely unnecessary and I don't think you quite grasp how tenuous the balance really is (in game, not in EFT).

-Liang

Yet the 50km pulse Zealots you want are?

I think he wants 50km Pulse Zealots like I want 300 DPS frigate lasers, but we both know those are horrible and broken ideas.

You can claim that the Tier System with no rebalance of mechanic will fix everything but I would like them to go a bit further to close the gaps between classes.

There's really no need to do this, and TBH your ideas strike me as being based primarily on EFT rather than in game performance. IMO after a few weeks you'd either be calling for your ideas to be reverted or you'd be piling on change after change after change to fix the mess they'd made in the first place.

-Liang

You are wrong about that one. 80% of what I fly is T1 Cruisers. Low DPS tank ratio is a problem on even the higher Tier Cruisers. MWD's burn out the cap to fast and Canes with 2 Neuts are not just a threat to your Capacitor but **** it.

30-40K EHP and 6 Guns is not a lot to ask for, neither is better fitting or more cap.I don't want Cruisers to have more tank then a BC or even more DPS. I want them to be 2-3 Slots down as well. In return I want them faster, all of them.

As you said it is about the center and I think that the preferred T1 ships skirmish roaming gangs should be the 16 Cruisers and not the Minmatar Battlecruiser. I don't want to take away what is good about the Battlecruiser Class which is being a Heavy Cruiser but I want it to be an improvement in non mobility related area's and not better in utility.

Yes I think T1 Cruisers Tank and DPS are to low and very slight DPS / Tank buffs won't ruin BC's because they will still be superior in those roles.

Heavier cruiser, balanced by increased cost/reduced speed
Cruiser with extra dps, balanced by increased cost

Are there any type of reports that show how much the BC's are being flown? I know from personal experience I see more canes and drakes then just about anything else

I do fly Tier 1 and 2 Battlecruisers. I have seen the difference very clearly and think that the Drake balance is correct and a slight adjustment to the Cane is good thing. Along side Tier 1 Battlecruiser buffs and a Cruiser / Frigate General buff the game would be better.

Tier 3's and HAC's you are right I don't fly them and am just basing my opinion off of posts by CCP Yitterbalm, the CSM Minutes, Video's of their use and data collected. So their is a bigger chance of error on my part there. That said looking at the stats I can only find a valid reason to fly a couple of them. You yourself say the Vega is not that great anymore and the Artillery Cane trumps the Muniin. Most HAC's see little use, the Sac, Eagle, Cerb and such.

My suggestion for them was an extra weapon and maybe an extra slot. My suggestion for Tier 3's is to keep them fast but not outright outrun Cruisers which has been stated to be their counter.

I don't think my suggestions are as radical as you make them out to be. In fact I don't think I have obsoleted one ship.

Claiming the Cane needs a nerf and the Drake is fine... :psyduck:

-Liang

When I said the Drake balance is correct I meant the balance changes.

The proposed Drake nerf obsoletes the Cerb - something you said you were keen to avoid.

-Liang

The Cerberus in it's current form yes. Various adjustment I suggested such as faster speed, more agility, more cap for running an MWD, 6 Launchers, removal off all rig penalties changes the field. For one thing my Cerb would more Damage with missiles then the Drake, be better at maintaining it with an MWD, be much more agile, and be fast enough to keep larger competitors from closing range.

Are there any type of reports that show how much the BC's are being flown? I know from personal experience I see more canes and drakes then just about anything else

The proposed Drake nerf obsoletes the Cerb - something you said you were keen to avoid.

-Liang

This dream would require cruisers to have the following kinds of buffs;
- 5% cap use bonus per level for MWD's (or, indeed, a bigger capacitor) OR 5% less penalty per level to MWD capacitor modifier (allowing MWDing like a pro)
- adjusting down cruiser sig radius a touch, especially for clearly shield tanked ones like bellicose, to reduce the impact of MWD sig bloom
- 5% better tracking for medium guns, 5% bonus to explosion velocity of missiles, or 5% drone nav speed bonus
- 10% more base hitpoints across the board (remember, 1600's do more than trimarks; you fit ACR rigs to fit the plate first)
- buffing drone bays to 10m3

I'd bet money on EHP buffs. Assault frigates and destroyers got them. Industrialists are just about screaming for them. The writing is just about on the wall.

We don't need more EHP buffs - we need more fragile glass cannons like the Tier 3s.

-Liang

We don't need more EHP buffs - we need more fragile glass cannons like the Tier 3s.

-Liang

And when the tier one ships have more raw EHP then their T2 counterparts the EHP buff will continue....

...

EVE combat is too short.

I disagree, I think Cruisers do need EHP buffs. Of course the lower Tiers need them.

Yes, I make this assertion off of the assumption that all T1 cruisers will become top-tier like... and hopefully a bit less ******** with regards to mobility (Moa) and fittings (Omen). You went through some effort to show "common EHP values" and then armor tanked everything with a 1600 plate. Protip: that's pretty stupid in this day and age.

Also, you want 40k EHP on a basically untanked Rupture? Are you out of your ******* mind? Stop face tanking - I tank entire fleets with a 10k EHP Talos.
-Liang

I did not Armor Tank everything with a 1600mm, just the Arby, Rupture, Thorax and Vexor.

Not as stupid as you think TBH with those 4 Ships. They can be if you overheat and burn in quick on the primary.

I don't really understand what you mean? I never said I wanted a basically untanked Rupture. I just want it to equal 40000 EHP with an 800mm Plate and buffer armor while 1600mm Plates are adjusted to require Battleship PG.

Flatly untrue, the Vexor and Arbitrator are almost always Armor Tanked, Thorax's are about 50 / 50 and the Rupture is in for the most par the Shield column.

Hardly most.
[quote=Liang Nuren]
This just isn't necessary. You're asking for the Rupture to have a near modern-BC level tank while asking for it to have dramatic improvements in cruiser-like areas. The **** storm you're asking to open up is epic in proportion.
-Liang

Flatly untrue, the Vexor and Arbitrator are almost always Armor Tanked, Thorax's are about 50 / 50 and the Rupture is in for the most par the Shield column.

Hah, that is cute, near modern BC levels of tank. Your near modern levels of Battlecruiser tank are based off the Brutix and the Hurricane fit for Shield. Drakes can pull above 100k EHP and 90k after the nerf, the duel plate Cane currently 95k EHP. So it is okay for Battlecruisers but not Cruisers.

Hurricane and Brutix were never designed to be fit that way but have to because of Shield OP. A priority should be to fix small scale Armor tanking so they don't have to be and get the tank they deserve.

Good for them.

So your argument is that cruisers need as much tank as the most common BCs because tank bonused BCs have better tanks and you can create unviable EFT only fits for the Cane that get somewhat close. Cool story bro.

Stealth arty nerf.

Lol, you really haven't been paying attention.

1. My argument is that they should fix armor tanking so that those aren't the most viable fits for the Cane and Brutix. So we don't have to jam plates on.
2. I clearly listed the EHP values I hope to see post buff and they are all below the common current tank of the Cane and Brutix and do less damage.

At this point I don't think it matters what I say because you will just make it up.

Yes fleet Drakes commonly are. That isn't the point though. Liang is complaining that I want common viable tanks for Cruisers to be between 40-60k and Battlecruisers between 60-75k.

Most modern BCs have relatively low EHP - Myrms, Brutixes, Canes, Cyclones, and Shield Bingers. That leaves Armor Bingers and Drakes as the realistic stand outs, and they typically only have 60-80k EHP depending on the fit. In your ideal future, cruisers would be about as tanky as most BCs we see today - except they would have all the lovely cruiser features like being faster with smaller sigs.

Your suggestion would be a disaster for game balance.

-Liang

So you want a common cruiser to have ~6x the HP of a tanked out AF. Cooool.

-Liang

Bolded the missed point. I want to see that changed.

I want to see it changed by fixing Armor Tanking, as for Shield Battlecruisers the Darke will be fine, Ferox and Cyclone are getting EHP buffs.

What I want for Armor Battlecruisers to close the gap is simple.

* Make 1600mm Plates unfittable below Battleships like the L Armor Repair. Introduce an XLSE module also unfittable.
* Buff Plate HP above Extenders value.
* Remove Rig Penalties across the board.
* Remove Plate mass and Shield Sig increase or lessen them.

Make speed and sig a non issue and make the difference between Armor and Shield that of low slot vs mid slots.

You keep talking about the relationship of BCs and Cruisers post patch, but you are in effect creating a wholly new game with different ships and modules but the same general mechanics. You are neglecting the ideas of what is going to change relative to now, and that's what I'm trying to show you.

Furthermore, your knowledge of current in game mechanics seems sorely lacking because you keep trying to improve cruiser hulls by turning them into low DPS battlecruisers with emphasized cruiser attributes! Again, your balancing approach would be a catastrophe.

-Liang

I know I am and I am probably not going to get what I want, or at least not going to get most of it.

But I like to at least get my idea's out there.

Low DPS, Low Tank Battlecruisers. They all have 20-35% less tank then the current Cane and Brutix. But I do not think that this is a catastrophe at all. I think that is where they should be and Battlecruisers slow by comparison and have a fatter sig but have 35-50% more tank and 20-30% more DPS.

As I said, I want to move Cruisers to the center. I want Battlecruisers to become what Destroyers are to Frigates and not the standard fleet ship like now. I want that to be Cruisers.

Make speed and sig a non issue and make the difference between Armor and Shield that of low slot vs mid slots.

If you want to turn cruisers into BCs, you need to be nerfing their cruiser attributes.

****, not this **** again

See, people whine about Eve being dumbed down when it's just a simple name change, but a change like this one is true "dumbing down". The armor mass vs shield sig radius penalties are essential attributes of each type of tanking, and add flavor and depth to combat.

The brickiness of fleet Drakes is countered by the fact that hitting one is as easy as hitting the broad side of a barn, while the brickiness of Harbingers is countered by the fact that they are slower than some battleships when fit for maximum tank.

On top of that, 1600mm plates should not be changed. 200mm and 400mm plates are frigate plates, and 800mm and 1600mm plates are cruiser plates. Battleships make do with 1600s, but in case you haven't noticed, the 1600mm plate does not take a significant amount of any battleship's fittings, just as LSEs do not. I would be fine with the addition of 3200mm and 6400mm plates for battleships, or of XLSEs, but the current tank progression is not the problem.

The problem is that across the board, at all tasks, battlecruisers are superior to cruisers. That is, there is not a single thing that a cruiser does well (excepting EWAR) that there does not exist a battlecruiser that does the same thing better. That is causing cruisers to fall into disuse. Changes to tank only doesn't do anything to create a niche for cruisers. It just changes mechanics for the sake of changing them.

If a battlecruiser is supposed to be a heavier cruiser, most things are already fine. "Heavier" implies a bigger tank and bigger damage, which are already the case. However, it also implies "slower, clumsier, easier to hit, and more difficulty against smaller targets", which are not the case -- at least, not significantly. Some solutions to this?

• Buff cruiser speed/agility, particularly in egregiously lacking cases like the Moa and Maller.
• Nerf BC speed/agility (increase their mass) to eliminate nano fit abuse.
• Nerf BC tracking (25% tracking penalty across the board, with equivalent explosion velocity/radius penalty on Drake?)
• Nerf BC signature radius (make 'em bigger)
• If mega-tanks are an issue (I'm not convinced they are), increase penalties of doing so (1600mm plate mass, LSE sig radius)

Simply tweaking tanks of ships doesn't balance them, and a base cruiser having many times the EHP of an assault frigate is not balance.

With the usual gang of deliberately obtuse idiots (ohaidere Alara!) who don't understand balancing.

What makes you think that you should be able to face tank 4 BCs with a cruiser?

-Liang

Your theory falls apart when everything that can hit a Drake also hits a Harbinger. The Harbinger is not countered by the fact that is is slow, it is ignored or fit for Shield. and something must be done about that.

Sooooooooo...

Cruisers need more capacitor. Everyone agrees?
Most cruisers need a bigger fitting grid? Everyone agrees?

The rest of the equation is going to be speed vs. EHP. Raise the cruisers in these areas or nerf BC.

approve since the whole conversation is pointless unless one of you guys is a hidden developer.

You have no idea what sweet CCP _______ name my main has. I am the secret CCP developer that never posts on forums or devblogs, or shows up in videos, or comes to Fanfest, but is the one who actually does all of the work behind the scenes. It's a hobby of mine.

Liang, you are being deliberately obtuse .... Saying CCP will turn it into a rupture, you are basically admitting that it needs more EHP ... But the Rupture is not a particularly good example of a broken cruiser, and given CCP wants to balance for role, the Bellicose won't turn into a Rupture anyway.

If signature and MWD sig bloom are not an issue, as you claim, then clearly CCP was mad for giving AF's a sig radius bonus.

My argument is that cruisers who attempt to use their maneuverability to sig tank simply DIAF, from lack of speed (see Celestis), too much sig (see Celestis) or not enough cap (see Bellicose).

What I said was that giving a role bonus to what is effectively an entire class of ship is pretty silly, and a far more direct solution is to alter the module to fit with the role its supposed to fill. Pretty much the only frigate ship class that doesn't sport sig bonuses are T1 and covert ops cloakers.

-Liang

OP- yes.

Hopefully the upcoming tiericide will narrow the gap between t1 BCs and the cruisers. If cruisers come out decent, with better agility and ewar (thanks to the specialized hulls) then the more powerful BC's I'll consider it balanced. Right now, there's two kinds of cruiser sized PVP ships: BC's, and Hurricanes.

Yes.

Tier 2 BCs are too good, and obsolete cruisers, field command ships, and short range HACs. Tier 1s are fine-ish. Tier 3s almost completely obsolete sniper HACs.

It comes down to battlecruisers being way too light and agile for how much punch they pack. How a battlecruiser "should" be is represented by the Ferox or Prophecy -- perhaps with a bit more firepower tacked on. The Hurricane and Drake, plus the Myrmidon and Harbinger to some extent, are just way too powerful for their price.

The CSM minutes hinted at BCs getting the nerfbat soon. Let's hope those changes will be appropriate.

Glass cannons are exactly what battlecruisers should be. You have a specialized ship with an extremely focused role that they are very good at performing, but thin armor that makes them vulnerable. It is essentially the 'promise' of the battlecruiser concept: big guns, high speed and light armor. It has all the dash and bravado of their real-life counterparts, along with the same weaknesses.

I mean, just read this little snippet from Wikipedia about the real-life BCs. It's essentially exactly what we got with the T3s, and it's no small wonder that that's the design of BC that makes the most sense:


The fault lies with the T2 (and, to a lesser extent, T1) BCs, who are more like 'supercruisers' than they are true BCs. And that's where you run into the issue of 'why the **** should I fly cruiser X when I can pilot BC Y?' And the answer, of course, is you shouldn't, because the T2 and T1 BCs basically out-cruiser cruisers, and, in light of that, there is no strong reason to fly a cruiser at all.

Frankly, in the not-too-far-flung future, I wouldn't mind seeing the role of the T1 and T2 BCs changed signficantly. I know that would make the ubiquitous drake owners all short circuit and threaten to cancel, but, as the OP said, the presence of these 'super ships' with all upside and very minor weaknesses has essentially nullified an entire class of vessel; something that really shouldn't be happening in this 'there's a role for every ship' universe. I'd love to see cruisers again, and I'd love to see all BCs become specialized (but powerful in their role) vessels.

I like this idea a lot. It strikes me that all BCs should use large weapons.

What would be the point of the brutix, ferox, prophecy, harbinger, cyclone, and hurricane, then? The tier 3 would obsolete them all if they all became glass cannons with large weapons. The myrmidon would field five ogres again in addition to large hybrids and the drake would fire torpedoes or cruise missiles; since they have different weapon platforms they wouldn't be obsoleted.

That's like saying that the Abaddon obsoletes the Armageddon, or that the Tempest is useless because the Maelstrom is just better. Each ship is good at something different, and there is enough variety in roles that the ships all having the same gun size can still result in variety.

That said, a change like this would hugely limit the effectiveness of battlecruisers. It gives them a nice niche, but I'm not sure it's that good an idea.

Personally, I would love it. I fly frigates. Tier 3 BCs as they are are wonderful fodder, and if they had smaller/weaker versions, those would be even more fun to kill.

Drop all damage bonuses on the Tier 3 BC
Give all BC around 25% more mass.

Fixed

But he likes the idea that all the BCs should have large weapons like the tier 3. Why fly a lower tier of the same thing that has less slots and firepower (the exception being a different weapon platform)?

Each battleship has it's own role next to the other battleships in their own race.

Maybe we should put large weapons on cruisers as well as all the BCs.

...
I think they have too many of something: ehp, manoeuverability or firepower.

They are hard to hit by caps and supercaps

Not even remotely close to true.

Ed: And before you go off on me, I've already agreed that Tier 1/2 BCs could use some small mobility adjustments. But people are way underestimating the advantages of cruiser hulls.

If the discussion is BS vs. BC then I would suggest new mods before recreating the wheel with BS. I'm thinking 3200mm plates or XLSE.

Tech 3 killed the HAC.

Prophecy is one of the worst ships in the game.

Harbinger is good, but it's much more expensive than an Omen - and not particularly worth it.
It's also similarly priced to a Navy Omen, which means there are two ships for the same role.

The Zealot's bang-for-buck is currently dead as it now costs about 3x as much as a Navy Omen.

Do I think BCs are overpowered? No not really.

Battlecruisers killed the HAC.

Hell, t3 cruisers surpass field commands. Compare tengu to nighthawk, or legion to absolution. They are both better at being what those field commands are designed for than the field commands themselves. At least the Astarte and Sleipnir are better gankers than their races t3 so they are better at something .

And when it comes to ganking, you're usually better off using a Tier 3 BC rather than a Tech 2.

I believe Battlecruisers must be brought down to earth in order to open way for other ships to shine.... But in order for balance to happen Battlecruisers must be brought down, because they are simply too good.

The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.

the cost would go down and more people would use them.

How about making BC's use large rigs instead?

How about making BC's use large rigs instead?

How about making BC's use large rigs instead?

The best suggestion I read so far is still: Cruisers should use small rigs.

the cost would go down and more people would use them.

Removing Rig Penalties would be a colossal buff to Shield / Armor Cruisers and Armor Battlecruisers.

The second biggest thing you can do is remove the Tier System and give every Cruiser the fitting. cap, slot number of ships like the Rupture and Thorax.

The second biggest thing you can do is remove the Tier System and give every Cruiser the fitting. cap, slot number of ships like the Rupture and Thorax.

Thorax is no where near the rupture when it comes to fitting potential and cap stability, or even number of slots (ruppy gets +1). Thorax is basically 2 slots fewer than ruppy when fitting it with an armor buffer. -1 natural slot, and -1 for a fitting mod to fit a 1600 plate with smallest med guns, something a rupture does not require. They are not comparable based on the merits you have listed, rupture is in it's own class... A class that all cruisers including the thorax should be balanced against.

Yes that is all very true but it doesn't mean you should be so quick to foresake the Armor Thorax. It has almost twice the Capacitor for a start letting it run its MWD longer. Even with the lowest weapons it does more DPS then a Ruptures guns with the option for medium drones that push it higher. It maintains near the same tank with that fitting rig do to a stronger base buffer and without that third rig its speed is comparable to an Armor Rupture.

And btw alara, we fly the exact same thorax fit

Even the Valks?