These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 are MBTs of EVE...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#61 - 2012-05-11 14:21:58 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
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.



Some are asking more T2 BC hulls (other than command ships), when BC's are already close if not better than T2 cruisers at dps job.

Since price is not an argument of balance (sic) battlecruisers on line is a nice game Lol
Adacia Calla
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2012-05-12 04:28:25 UTC
Kaikka Carel wrote:
... 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.


T1 cruiser hulls don't cost 50 mil.

Test signature....forum not applying settings :(
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#63 - 2012-05-12 04:38:23 UTC
Adacia Calla wrote:
T1 cruiser hulls don't cost 50 mil.


JESUS CHRIST DO YOU ALL HAVE READING DISABILITY???!!!

Kaikka Carel wrote:

- Lose more money PER PERFOMANCE compared to a Battlecruiser if I get popped..
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2012-05-12 05:57:04 UTC
Kaikka Carel wrote:
Adacia Calla wrote:
T1 cruiser hulls don't cost 50 mil.


JESUS CHRIST DO YOU ALL HAVE READING DISABILITY???!!!

Kaikka Carel wrote:

- Lose more money PER PERFOMANCE compared to a Battlecruiser if I get popped..


It's pretty silly, since AFs will lose you more money per performance in many (most?) situations.
Kaikka Carel
Ziea
#65 - 2012-05-12 06:02:05 UTC
There's way much more fun-factor in frig-hulls. Besides frigs have their own survivability.
Just Alter
Futures Abstractions
#66 - 2012-05-12 17:13:54 UTC
Aesheera wrote:
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?


Thread should've stopped here.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#67 - 2012-05-13 00:23:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Adacia Calla wrote:


T1 cruiser hulls don't cost 50 mil.


/facepalm

I swear, some people have the absolute WORST reading comprehension.


Truth is that after fitting up your t1 cruiser with all the bells and whistles, like t2 mods, rigs, faction ammo, t2 drones.... It's going to cost you slightly less to loose after insurance compared to a similar fit bc for a substantially less capable combat platform... This would be fine if maybe the BC took a significant amount more sp to fly however they don't. This leads to people ignoring t1 cruisers all together and just fast tracking twards bcs. Something that has been commonplace for years now....


ALL of the advantages a cruiser gives you over a bc can be mitigated with the additional slots bcs have other than sig radius. Sig radius is the only real advantage the cruiser has over a bc when you really break it down. This is the fundamental issues people are trying to have addressed....


oh yeah, almost forgot

"It's pretty silly, since AFs will lose you more money per performance in many (most?) situations."

AFs are t2, no t2 hull has ever or will ever be on the same "money per performance" as t1 hulls. Your fail argument is exactly that, a fail argument. Next!
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2012-05-13 11:20:15 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
AFs are t2, no t2 hull has ever or will ever be on the same "money per performance" as t1 hulls. Your fail argument is exactly that, a fail argument. Next!


I like how spending "money per performance" suddenly doesn't count when it's frigs or T2 or T2 frigs.
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#69 - 2012-05-13 22:11:22 UTC
Price is an argument, while it should not have a overwhelming advantage, it should give an advantage.

Which is why T2, Faction, Deadspace, Officer, and Pirate modules and ships exist.

Who would bother using them if there was no advantage using them over T1. Should we just simply do away with them and remove them from the game?

Your argument is flawed.