These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battlecruisers need large rigs.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
X Mary
Lousy T-Shirt Corp
#21 - 2011-11-27 03:17:54 UTC
Arthur Frayn wrote:
Small rigs: Frigates, Destroyers
Medium rigs: Cruisers, Battlecruisers
Large rigs: Battleships, Capital Ships

Op needs to think before posting.

OP thought and came to the conclusion this list is bad.
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE
#22 - 2011-11-27 04:22:23 UTC
X Mary wrote:
OP thought and came to the conclusion this list is bad.


Op is an idiot.
Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
#23 - 2011-11-27 09:44:48 UTC
Don't let me burst your bubble, but plenty of people were fitting rigs to BCs back in the day when there were no rig sizes.
Khors
Doomheim
#24 - 2011-11-27 10:21:22 UTC
I prefer the cheap prices on battlecruisers. It encourages people to suicide them into battleship fleets, which is massive fun for the battleships.
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2011-11-27 10:56:13 UTC
Patient 2428190 wrote:
Don't let me burst your bubble, but plenty of people were fitting rigs to BCs back in the day when there were no rig sizes.


This is true, people are hilarious if they think all BS sized rigs are as expensive as the trimark and extender rigs and probably have no idea how rigging on BCs was done back in the days. Weapon and speed rigs where quite common and not more expensive as medium extender or trimarks now.

The idea of the OP however isn't this bad actually since it somewhat fixes the very big performance/price difference between tier 2 BCs and HACs or BS. In the long run it might help cruisers since not every BC will be trimarked/extender rig fitted, to make the EHP difference not this big and gives people that use the more expensive rigs on her BC the actual advantage back, that they had before they became so cheap that everybody fitted them all the time.
CanonMP180
#26 - 2011-11-27 12:42:35 UTC
If isk is an issue then fly cheap and cheerful ships like the blackbird, rupture, thorax, or a surprise augoror. I especially recommend the Blackbird, it punches well above it's weight and costs peanuts and is fun to fly. I see the point you're trying to make about isk progression, but people mainly fly BC's because they hit a sweet spot between all the attributes and are so versatile rather than their cost.

Show your support!  Dislike button for the EvE forums proposal
Comptroller Oumis
McCloister Limited
#27 - 2011-11-28 19:31:17 UTC
Patient 2428190 wrote:
Don't let me burst your bubble, but plenty of people were fitting rigs to BCs back in the day when there were no rig sizes.


I recently purchased an Omen Navy Issue from a contract and it was fitted with 2 Large Capacitor Control Circuits which I thought was odd but I guess it was fitted before the restrictions were in place?
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#28 - 2011-11-28 20:10:14 UTC
Might be a am-musing way to NERF battledresses I suppose.
Lord Drokoth
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#29 - 2011-11-29 05:11:49 UTC
X Mary wrote:
A lot of people talk about battlecruiser balancing in pvp but in my opinion it's mostly a cost issue.

If you only look at hull costs there's a nice progression in cost from cruiser to battlecruiser to battleship.
A battlecruiser costs about 3 times as much as a cruiser and a battleship 2-3 times as much as a battlecruiser after insurance.

Then you start factoring in rigs and that Battlecruiser is not even twice as expensive more like 1,5 as a cruiser and the battleship becomes 6-7 times as expensive as the battlecruiser.

So nobobody flies cruisers because for just a bit more you have a boat that will perform a lot better and only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.

My solution to this is to give battlecruiser and then mostly the tech 2 type of battlecruiser a mix of large and medium rig slots.
Something like 2 large and 1 medium or 2 medium and one large. This way you would have the cost progression from cruiser-battlecruiser-battleship back and you see both more tech1 cruisers and tech1 battleships on the field.






NO

The end
Fail idea
Captain Kezef Baal
State War Academy
Caldari State
#30 - 2011-12-26 23:56:11 UTC
ok, I am a relatively new player but I played extensively a few years ago. but to my point

Drakes are amazing, no discussion need for that

it costs about 30mil-32milion a pop for the hull
plus another 10mil-15million for equipment and Riggs
all together it has a price tag of 40mil-47million without insurance with the later being the most likely with current market conditions

while on the other hand the Caracal is a simple cruiser, or as every one thought

they go for about 4million a pop
equipment and rigs is really gunna go for about 8mil-12million mostly from the rigs
giving you a total cost of about 12mil-16million a pop before insurance

when you look at this cost difference you realize that, in terms of cost, a BC is actually worse than than it's equivalent cost of cruisers because those three cruisers if equipped they way I would equip them would be about 15 million each and that includes 5 heavy missile launchers per cruiser. so at 15 million a pop you can have 3 cruisers for the cost of 1 battle cruiser.
and be honest with yourself what is going to win? the three cruisers with 15 total heavy missiles launchers? or the Drake with it's 7?

the point of the battle cruiser is to allow a player to invest power fire power with themselves without pay a small fortune for a battle ship. also

with a large enough corporation cost does not really mean much, but for players like myself, that extra 30million is harder to come by.

so it would be pointless to nerf battle cruisers because they are already balanced
Fedimart
Doomheim
#31 - 2011-12-27 00:47:35 UTC
Thinking about it... Thinking about it.... No
Endeavour Starfleet
#32 - 2011-12-27 04:06:07 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
No



This.

Just another Drake hate topic. Drakes are perfectly balanced for the battlecruiser role. And the SP needed to use them for max tank and DPS is EXTREME not moderate, EXTREME.

Drakes need not be touched at this time.

If you got killed by a drake it was because the pilot spent a great amount of time training to use it properly. Nerfing it would harm a great deal of players for no benefit.
Deus lmperator
Sick That Duck
#33 - 2011-12-27 04:38:29 UTC
OP needs larger brain.
Goose99
#34 - 2011-12-27 05:08:25 UTC
Make cruisers use small rigs and cap use cap rigs.
Endeavour Starfleet
#35 - 2011-12-27 06:56:11 UTC
Deus lmperator wrote:
OP needs larger brain.



Alot of these "NERF TA DRAKE!" Posts come within hours of someone losing their ship from one. Many of them just are mad that they could not break it's tank when in fact that is the primary purpose of the drake.

And they also do not stop to think how much SP it takes to achieve that tank. This isn't something a newer player can seriously fly.

The reward for that training is a versatile craft that you can PVP and PVE in. Yet you aren't going to be extreme with the DPS.

That is called balance. Notice how the tier 3s skew the other way towards DPS. They also take extreme DPS to use correctly. Nerfing them with such a change would mean far less PVP.
whaynethepain
#36 - 2011-12-27 11:21:35 UTC
Whatever.

Rigging is rigging, Probly takes more rigging to rig up a BS than a cruser.

But as we are doing rigging as a module that fits in a slot, where is the extra-large rigging for capitol ships?

I think rigging should be sold by the foot, maybe a Dramiel could use a few feet of rigging and an Orca could use a hundred foot of rigging.

Maybe I missed the concept of rigging completely.

Getting you on your feet.

So you've further to fall.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#37 - 2011-12-27 11:36:45 UTC
The proposal is not going to solve the Cane/Drake issue and will make Tier1 BCs even more worthless than they already are.

Cane, Drake and Harb all need to lose a slot to bring them in line with the myrm and help balance them against Tier1.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Brotha Umad
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2011-12-27 12:54:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Brotha Umad
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
No



This.

Just another Drake hate topic. Drakes are perfectly balanced for the battlecruiser role. And the SP needed to use them for max tank and DPS is EXTREME not moderate, EXTREME.

Drakes need not be touched at this time.

If you got killed by a drake it was because the pilot spent a great amount of time training to use it properly. Nerfing it would harm a great deal of players for no benefit.


Yeah, can't wait to be able to jump in a drake, this is so eliiiiite. And I'm so bored of the tengu.
I know what you mean but come on, it is also a newb-friendly ship. That's why it's everywhere...

I disagree with OP on everything but one : T1 cruisers need love. News at 11.

Quote:
Cane, Drake and Harb all need to lose a slot to bring them in line with the myrm and help balance them against Tier1.

How about no ?
The Harbinger is already weaker / less used than the Myrm.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#39 - 2011-12-27 15:02:22 UTC
Brotha Umad wrote:


Quote:
Cane, Drake and Harb all need to lose a slot to bring them in line with the myrm and help balance them against Tier1.

How about no ?
The Harbinger is already weaker / less used than the Myrm.


I agree on the Harb underperforming cpmpared to the other tier2 BCs (at least if it's not shieldanked) - just threw it inthere to appease the scorch-whiners. Losing a high wouldn't hurt the harb nearly as much as losing a med on the drake or losing any non-high slot would hurt the cane, since it can't be properly armortanked whilst fittin the highest tier med pulses already. 
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#40 - 2011-12-27 15:47:44 UTC
X Mary wrote:
A lot of people talk about battlecruiser balancing in pvp but in my opinion it's mostly a cost issue.

If you only look at hull costs there's a nice progression in cost from cruiser to battlecruiser to battleship.
A battlecruiser costs about 3 times as much as a cruiser and a battleship 2-3 times as much as a battlecruiser after insurance.

Then you start factoring in rigs and that Battlecruiser is not even twice as expensive more like 1,5 as a cruiser and the battleship becomes 6-7 times as expensive as the battlecruiser.

So nobobody flies cruisers because for just a bit more you have a boat that will perform a lot better and only people with large wallets fly battleships in pvp.

My solution to this is to give battlecruiser and then mostly the tech 2 type of battlecruiser a mix of large and medium rig slots.
Something like 2 large and 1 medium or 2 medium and one large. This way you would have the cost progression from cruiser-battlecruiser-battleship back and you see both more tech1 cruisers and tech1 battleships on the field.




Well actually I have to say no because it's the opposite problem.
Large rigs and Bs size ships cost far too much and have crap insurance reimboursement, those are the ones that need improvements like more bonus and/or less materials to make those cheaper.

New BC's are too costly atm just because it's some new business opportunity and if you see that much of them being killed it's most probably because of some reimboursement program+insurance.
C'mon far too many alliances don't know what to do with their isk and it's a good thing they don't care to pay those the same price they pay for BS but imho it's not worthy the price tag (I'm not saying they're not worthy)