These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Battlecruisers are MBTs of EVE...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#1 - 2012-05-09 14:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaikka Carel
... and cruisers do not carry infantry.

Jokes aside BCs:

- Have good damage potential.
- Have enough staying power to apply said damage.
- Mobile(all setups have MWD) or have a good reach(Drake).
- Cost effective.

Now CCP promises to remove the tier system and all the Augrors, Arbitrators and Belicoses will have their slots, PG, CPU and bonuses to do their job.

But what about battle cruisers? Ok maybe my Omen gets enough PG to fit an MWD, Cap Booster, 800mm plate and a rack of FMPLs. But I stil willl:

- Have less damage potential than a Harbinger.
- Have not enough staying power.
- Lose more money per perfomance compared to a Battlecruiser if I get popped.

So basically I spend more resources(not only isk but logistics and time included) to achieve less output.

What is the niche of T1 cruisers? Where do they excel and outshine the ships of other classes?

OR

What should we do to make them viable alongside Main Battlecruisers?

EDIT: I'm not QQing about how overpowered BCs are and just ask the questions listed above.
Wingmate
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-05-09 15:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Wingmate
cruisers are significantly faster and more agile than BCs, and cost way less than HACs. they're meant to add punch and tank to a frigate gang, in the same way that BSes add punch and tank to a BC gang, without sacrificing the 4-5s warp time that most frigate gangs use to stay mobile and ahead of the competition. losing one fully fitted also costs less than a BC hull alone.

alternatively, babydrakes (like caracals) are cheap and can fit long-range heavy missiles easily. three caracals is the equivalent of two drakes in terms of damage, and costs way less. it's also way, way more mobile, and allows for more fleet flexibility because of the agility and ability to kite.

also, a mwd-ing cruiser is usually up past 2km/s, whereas most BCs can't break 1400m/s. so it can function as a heavy tackle when you don't want to use (and lose) an assault ship.

i make spreadsheets for pretty cheap. contact me for more info.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=197433
Aesheera
Doomheim
#3 - 2012-05-09 15:11:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Aesheera
They are also 'just' T1 cruisers.

For their value, they get plenty of performance, but I'll bite and comment on your questions/statements:

Kaikka Carel wrote:
- Have less damage potential than a Harbinger.

ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser.

Kaikka Carel wrote:
- Have not enough staying power.

ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser.

Kaikka Carel wrote:
- Lose more money compared to a Battlecruiser if I get popped.

ANSWER: Doesn't make any sense, so could result in another question regarding how you come to that conclusion.
(which in return would be recieving a similar answer so not going there.)

Kaikka Carel wrote:
So basically I spend more resources(not only isk but logistics and time included) to achieve less output.


ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser. And I still disagree about the spending-more thing.

It's a low-skill investment choice of ship that cost-wise is pretty negligable.


So whats the next topic going to be Kaikka?
Industrials need more tank because they can haul so much potentially expensive stuff?

- I think my passion is misinterpreted as anger sometimes. And I don't think people are ready for the message that I'm delivering, and delivering with a sense of violent love.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#4 - 2012-05-09 15:22:24 UTC
Battlecruisers as they are do everything cruisers do, but better. The reason crusiers are/will be viable are that cruisers can be fit to imitate BCs in a single particular aspect (Rupture can do Hurricane DPS if it sacrifices other things, for example), while being far cheaper.

Cruisers should also be much faster and more agile compared to BCs (with nano BCs being particularly egregious) so as to provide a reason to use a cruiser instead of a BC when you need a fast-moving ship with more punch than a frigate hull.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#5 - 2012-05-09 15:28:50 UTC
Wingmate wrote:
losing one fully fitted also costs less than a BC hull alone.



Not true.... t2 fit and rigged cruisers cost you maybe 10m less to loose compared to an insured bc.
Wingmate
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-05-09 15:32:52 UTC
a t2 fit rupture costs ~30m depending on how you fit it. how much do canes cost nowadays?

i make spreadsheets for pretty cheap. contact me for more info.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=197433
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#7 - 2012-05-09 16:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaikka Carel
Aesheera wrote:
They are also 'just' T1 cruisers.
ANSWER: It's a T1 Cruiser.


Yeah the answer to all questions.

Aesheera wrote:
ANSWER: Doesn't make any sense, so could result in another question regarding how you come to that conclusion.
(which in return would be recieving a similar answer so not going there.)


My bad forgot to say per perfomance I get out of it.(Actual dealt/tanked damage)

Aesheera wrote:
And I still disagree about the spending-more thing.


Well I stated my points in this regard.

Aesheera wrote:
It's a low-skill investment choice of ship that cost-wise is pretty negligable.


Battlecruiser is only one skill away from a cruiser.


[quote=AesheeraSo whats the next topic going to be Kaikka?
Industrials need more tank because they can haul so much potentially expensive stuff?

Yes and a tornado-proof minning battleship :) [/quote]
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#8 - 2012-05-09 16:20:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaikka Carel
Wingmate wrote:

cruisers are significantly faster and more agile than BCs, and cost way less than HACs. they're meant to add punch and tank to a frigate gang, in the same way that BSes add punch and tank to a BC gang, without sacrificing the 4-5s warp time that most frigate gangs use to stay mobile and ahead of the competition. losing one fully fitted also costs less than a BC hull alone.


Now that's a good reasoning. But still ain't you're better off with AFs? Cruisers can still be caught at camps with SBd ships.

Wingmate wrote:
alternatively, babydrakes (like caracals) are cheap and can fit long-range heavy missiles easily. three caracals is the equivalent of two drakes in terms of damage, and costs way less. it's also way, way more mobile, and allows for more fleet flexibility because of the agility and ability to kite.


How about those Caracals kiting a Drake? I'm pretty sure it'll have more EHP then the three combined and will simply force them out of engagment which means that one man(real player) is worth more in a Drake than three would in Caracals unless they field some sort of tactic which turns both numbers and Caracals strong sides(speed and sig) into enough advantage to not use a Drake.

Wingmate wrote:
also, a mwd-ing cruiser is usually up past 2km/s, whereas most BCs can't break 1400m/s. so it can function as a heavy tackle when you don't want to use (and lose) an assault ship.


Isn't AF or Interceptor going to have more staying power due to bonused MWDs? Just asking.

Wingmate wrote:
a t2 fit rupture costs ~30m depending on how you fit it. how much do canes cost nowadays?


67m for an Armor Cane Jita-price. +8m insurance and a 30m payout which results in 45m total loss.

Also what good those 22m will do if I merely go doing in fires in the first minute of engagement?
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#9 - 2012-05-09 16:28:58 UTC
Easy, BC's are supposed to be heavy frontline cruisers so tweak them to fill that role.

Hit them with -50% tracking/explosion radius, reduce their speed a tad and increase their sensor stats (closer to cruiser lock times).
- Puts their damage application and battlefield mobility somewhere between cruisers and BS rather than being as almost as fast as cruisers with near BS damage (minus range).
Caveat: depending on what the tiericide results are, the above might only be necessary for the tier2 BCs thus acting as incentive to use the 'lesser' BC.

PS: Also "Lol" at a Cruiser being able to cover one aspect of a BC by making sacrifices .. they are faster and smaller but that is the extent of it, they can never, ever achieve same EHP or damage (would love to see the Ruppie fit that supposedly equals the Cane in damage though).
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#10 - 2012-05-09 16:33:28 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
PS: Also "Lol" at a Cruiser being able to cover one aspect of a BC by making sacrifices .. they are faster and smaller but that is the extent of it, they can never, ever achieve same EHP or damage (would love to see the Ruppie fit that supposedly equals the Cane in damage though).

Hmm... I suppose I was wrong, I can only make a reasonable Rupture fit go up to about 500 dps. Still, that's not bad for an 8 mil hull.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Tor Gungnir
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-05-09 16:36:39 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Battlecruisers as they are do everything cruisers do, but better. The reason crusiers are/will be viable are that cruisers can be fit to imitate BCs in a single particular aspect (Rupture can do Hurricane DPS if it sacrifices other things, for example), while being far cheaper.


If only Destroyers were more diverse, couldn't that be said about the Frigate/Destroyer relationship too?

Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#12 - 2012-05-09 16:40:17 UTC
@Veshta Yoshida I don't believe such harsh nerfs are the way out.

Also I don;t believe that the problem is in the BCs. As the title of this thread says: Battlecruisers are Main Battle Tanks of EVE and without them it would suck. The problem is in the cruisers which are outdated. If you need common dps and staying power use BCs, if you also need more speed you're better with HACs/T3.

IRL military/navy just decommission such stuff.

@Petrus Blackshell

It would be good. But I am pretty sure it will die before I can have fun with it. And even faster if I sacrifice those little bits of tank.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#13 - 2012-05-09 16:48:11 UTC
Tor Gungnir wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Battlecruisers as they are do everything cruisers do, but better. The reason crusiers are/will be viable are that cruisers can be fit to imitate BCs in a single particular aspect (Rupture can do Hurricane DPS if it sacrifices other things, for example), while being far cheaper.


If only Destroyers were more diverse, couldn't that be said about the Frigate/Destroyer relationship too?

Nope, destroyers as they are do not do everything frigates do, only better. They make significant sacrifices in speed, agility, signature radius (and thus tank), for their one shtick: dealing large amounts of damage using small guns. Destroyers are vulnerable to anything that is not a frigate -- they pop instantly to other destroyers, and do not have enough firepower to pose a serious threat to cruisers or above, while being big and slow enough to easily hit using bigger guns.

Battlecruisers are not that much slower than cruisers (and some BCs are actually faster than some cruisers), not that much bigger in sig radius (Drake excepting), much better at tanking, damage, and generally being useful in ye olde average PvP situation. They are often not even surpassed in their abilities by the specialized T2 HACs. This is exacerbated by the relative rarity of battleships, which are the only ship class that can kill BCs with relative ease.

Tier 3 battlecruisers are closer to comparing to cruisers in the way destroyers compare to frigates. If Tier 3 BCs had medium guns instead of large guns, the comparison would be very accurate.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#14 - 2012-05-09 16:49:16 UTC
Kaikka Carel wrote:

@Petrus Blackshell

It would be good. But I am pretty sure it will die before I can have fun with it. And even faster if I sacrifice those little bits of tank.

If you're rolling with scarier ships, or ships that provide tastier killmails, you'd be surprised how many people ignore the Rupture. Same goes for a lot of other underrated ships. Try flying a Sentinel in a fleet sometime and see how many people ever even bother to shoot you.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Jayrendo Karr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-05-09 16:50:59 UTC
Fix the Moa and Caracel please.
Wingmate
Perkone
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-05-09 16:51:50 UTC
cruisers cost 1/3-1/2 of an AF, and can either fit more dps or more tank. a smart cruiser pilot can kill an average AF pilot most of the time. also, anything can be caught with sebo'd ships. cruisers are just cheaper while maintaining versatility and dps =)

caracals can't out-tank AND out-dps something like that - remember, they're not full battlecruisers. they're not going to go toe-to-toe with BCs any more than AFs are. the idea is that they add punch and range to an otherwise fast and mobile fleet.

you can get 50k EHP out of a Rupture with a micro and be up past 2km/s. can't do that with an AF. the sig radius bonus makes a difference, of course, but a rupture costs half of an AF and can be effectively piloted by a trial pilot. an AF can't. overall, they're an excellent low-SP alternative to t2 frigs and add DPS (or tank) and range to small-ship small-gang roams.

i make spreadsheets for pretty cheap. contact me for more info.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=197433
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#17 - 2012-05-09 17:05:39 UTC
@Wingmate I can fit a Rupture to almost 50k ehp but it flies 1236m/s at all5.

Otherwise good reasoning.
Alara IonStorm
#18 - 2012-05-09 18:40:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Cruisers don't have a problem. They have about 10 problems spread across 16 different hulls.

- The Shield Hurricane is plain out faster or so close to there speed it doesn't matter. It is faster then every armor fit T1 Cruisers and has a higher MWD speed then the Moa. Most people try to Shield Fit Armor Cruisers because they are so slow.

- Battlecruisers can pretty much perma run there MWD while Cruisers last a couple of minutes. Most have to get close to there pray. Duel Neut Cane eats them and most don't have the free slots and fitting to host a Cap Booster. Many of them have Guns that take Capacitor.

- Poor bonuses and slot layouts. 3-3 Stabber is a joke. Most people use the Rupture for kitting because of it. 1 Dmg Bonus, 4 Turrets and 5m3 Drone Bay...

- Terrible Fitting for half of them. Omen, Caracal, Stabber. Thorax has gotten a little better.

- Tier 1's often can't do there job do to Cap, Fitting, Split Bonuses, Slots. Basically because of Tiers.

- Half the EWAR Ships are ineffective. The Arbitrator is considered Amarr's best Combat Cruisers which says something.

- Battlecruisers have more slots to make up the difference in base stats. Sebo's and Nano's.

- Insurance covers much of the loss. It is 4 Medium Modules difference in cost between them.

- They suck at low skill. Battlecruisers can often be reasonably fit at Electronic 4, Engineering 4. Most Cruiser Fits require max fitting skills. Also with middle of the road Damage skills you can put out DPS in Battlecruiser but a Cruiser on the other hand not so much. Can't really convince players to practice in the lower tier ships when they aren't as good or newbie friendly.

- Finally people in this thread use the word throw away... For a class of Ships. Not they have there own advantages that make them respectable but throw away. Cost is not a factor in T1 Balance role is. The Hurricane is basically the good Cruiser.

---

Cruisers are broken and most newbies train right past them for PvP on there way to the easily affordable Hurricane unless they are training a Tengu alt. This isn't my opinion but the head of CCP's Balance team CCP Yitterbaum who stated so in the CSM Minutes and a few times on the forum.

Cruisers need to fixed. They need different adjustments on a Ship by Ship basis if they are going to be more effective in the Cruiser role then the Shield Cane Battlecruiser is.
Kalli Brixzat
#19 - 2012-05-09 19:27:16 UTC
Yes, BC's are the main battle tank of the EvE universe because they are generally powerful, well-balanced and plentiful.

Cruiser hulls (most of them, anyway) are just fine. They serve their intended purpose for the most part, and often do it VERY well. If you're getting into a T1 cruiser and expecting an exquisitely-balanced design that is good to excellent at everything, you're coming in with the wrong mentality. Thus, you can QQ about T1 Cruisers being bad ships.

A T1 cruiser in the right hands, with the "right" fit (not the BIS fit), can be lethal in PvP.

From my own personal experience, my Assault Caracal lays waste to pretty much any frig or destroyer that happens to be within 50km. Most of the time, my tank doesn't even matter (it's respectable). They're dead before they get close enough to pew pew. As for Cruiser vs. Cruiser, depends on the match up. Cruiser vs. BC...well, the cruiser is not "supposed to" win. Doesn't mean it won't.
Butzewutze
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-05-09 19:29:21 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
PS: Also "Lol" at a Cruiser being able to cover one aspect of a BC by making sacrifices .. they are faster and smaller but that is the extent of it, they can never, ever achieve same EHP or damage (would love to see the Ruppie fit that supposedly equals the Cane in damage though).

Hmm... I suppose I was wrong, I can only make a reasonable Rupture fit go up to about 500 dps. Still, that's not bad for an 8 mil hull.


Let me present you the 733 dps Rupture:

[Rupture, New Setup 9]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II

425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
425mm AutoCannon II, Hail M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x1
Hobgoblin II x4

Turrets: 459 DPS ( Overloaded : 528 DPS)
Missiles: 80 DPS ( Overloaded : 94 DPS)
Drones: 110 DPS

Dont look at EHP tho.
123Next pageLast page