Ships & Modules

HACs are more mobile and have better resistances, but don´t have drones.

Give 25mb and 25m^3 for drones to all HACs and MWD cap bonus.

Tr3 Battlecruisers shouldn't be able to fit all the largest battleship weapons without having to compromise (it's easier to make an Neutron-fit work on a Talos then on a Megathron) AND get the damage bonus on top of those EIGHT turrets as well.

The solution to overpowered Tr3 BC is not just making HACs more powerful. That's just rampant powercreep.

Well when you implement a class of ship with more slots, more bonuses, better bonuses, better fittings, and 3 rigs instead of 2... on top of the same t2 resists... You usually end up with a ship far better than the other

What's sad is that tech 3 cruisers are not suppose to be specialized ships... This more or less holds true when comparing them to all other t2 cruisers other than hacs. For some reason a t2 combat cruiser is not defined as a specialized ship by this fail logic and leads to t3s being better than the specialized combat cruisers at combat.

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 .

Harbinger is balanced, Prophecy is sort of underpowered. The issue people have is with the Drake/Hurricane and some of the other BCs.

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

Since this thread resurrected again, i can only repeat my argument from page one...

Battlecruisers are not too good. Most HAC flown as a comp proper will decimate any equal or even larger BC gang. In order to understand how or why you need to look past the direct comparison and understand some of the finer points of the game, like how mitigation apply to RR (appropriate, given how most Tech II have their class-trait of resists).

The problem came from the fact a BC would essentially cost it's 20-25m given insurance deposit and 20 odd slots filled by 1m mods, whereas a HAC would range around 200m possibly up toward 250m given some entry-level faction mod here or there. That means you'd be able to lose 10 BC for every single HAC loss.

The difference in price relative performance made HAC unappealing in the popular eye. BC are not better though, possibly barring Tier 3. They would have been perfectly balanced provided they'd do about half the DPS of what they currently push out. A 250-300 dps cheap sniper with the drawback of BS-turret resolution would have been as tolerable (or not) as other BC.

Once again though, don't make the mistake and think a BC comp would stand any chance against a similar HAC comp under any normal circumstances (eg., Tier 3 as SHAC removed from the equation). Even the infamous Drake get whipped by many HAC-comps out there, or should i say, particularily by HAC-comps as that class lend itself well to the intricate backsides of the mundane BC-class.

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.

Also fine. However that will make pvp even more expensive and as I'm always space-poor if prefer cheaper ships.

Small rigs will also allow new players to get into pvp more easy.

BC-s would be balanced if they'd follow same design principles as destroyers, lots of guns and few mid/low slots

But I don't support such change, because OP or not, I ******* love battlecruisers.

Simple, yet thoughtful .

My favourite suggestion still lie in Garmon's idea of shifting production balance between hulls and mods though. Making ships less expensive and modules more expensive to produce. It has the upside of promoting more drops from PvP, that offer up an equalizer between the poor and rich in the game; as well as the various tech of ships, since everyone use the same modules.