Ships & Modules

Download "pyfa cruiser balance" archive


My attempt at tiercide of fighting cruisers and battlecruisers.

I. Overal stat increase:

- HP buff. Cruisers: around 25% for lesser tier, 15% for higher; BCs: lesser tier brought in line with higher.

- CPU and PG buff. Certain ships are no longer a "fitting nightmare". Some ships given enough PG to finally fit long range turrets alongside MWD(ex: Brutix/Stabber).

- More slots: 14-15 for cruisers, 17-18 for BCs.

- Capacitors of lower tier ships are brought in line.

- Added unbonused launcher points to Maller, Prophecy and Ferox. User should always have some sort of flexibility.

II. Ships are now divided into 2 main categories: tank and gank.

Tank: Maller, Moa, Vexor, Rupture, Prophecy, Ferox, Myrmidon, Cyclone. HP tend to be concetrated in the respective racial tank layer(ie armor for Amarr, shield for Caldari)

Gank: Omen, Caracal, Thorax, Stabber, Harbinger, Drake, Brutix, Hurricane. Less overal HP more turrets/launchers. Some of the ships were taken as starting points and thus are left with only slight buffs.

Please note that the above doesn't restrict ships to be purely "bricks" and "glass cannons". For example Rupture can still be kity due it's high speed while Vexor and Myrmidon can be set up as gankers with the abundance of low slots in shield configs.


NOTE: So far I didn't change any bonuses which play a huge role in the ship orientation.

PS: I know little about Filehosting services so I'd be greateful if someone could advise the best one.

^ Correct. But I tried to follow the attack/combat ship concepts: made a huge .xls table with stats of original ships and their T2 to make a comparision research. Downoald the programm and play around with fittings - what would you say?

^ Can you state that this is not a result of my work?

This Prophecy needs more base CPU than a Drake and would require base HP to exceed that of a battleship to achieve 140k ehp. Not to mention speed and align time.

Thanks for trolling but please try the programm and do some constructive feedback.

^ From what you say it seems you didn't see the changes...

I'm perfectly aware that tier3 are completely new stuff and I don't think ships should be nerfed. I'd rather have a powercreep buff on the ones who lack it.

For instance the Prophecy and Ferox here were given Armor/Shield buff which are combined with their respective ressist bonus increase their total EHP beyond that of tier2 BCs. They exceed them but are still limited to 6 turrets/launchers which probably could be a balancing factor.

I'm not sure you have a good understanding of the issues surrounding T1 cruisers. See, the issues are on the player side and not with the ships. The issues have to with the concept of "fair and ballance" and not reality. Another issue is cost to preformance.

There will always be things that are better than something else. Most delude themselves into believing others and are not willing to put the time into making certain things preform better or improve thier own ability. They rather be given easy mode.

Many of the recent terrible changes is a result of a player base which is considerably deluded. I've had conv with a pilot who's flown the Dramiel upwards of 7 times and has lost it to t1 frigates. He then went as far as to say that frigate was terrible. After awhile of losing many other frigates. He suggested the whole class of ship is useless and should be removed from game.

This is Lit. what the fast majority of players ingame experience and how they are. Most don't want to put effort into pvp and want easy ganks and never to lose a ship.

Stop complaining and coming up with your silly fantasy changes (no offense). Problem solved!

With that said. I appreciate the effort you've put in OP. Keep doing your thang and having fun.


- goddess

I kinda wanna take a look. Can you find a download site where I don't have to give them my E-Mail.

Like what? Giving them 3rd bonus? Increasing base speed?

Increasing base HP is the only conventional way to increase their survivability to me so far, but if you have ideas share them.

Conventional way, yeah, you're right. It's the easy way and it's gives us the really big power creep problem that we're seeing today, after several HP buffs over the years.

The best way to fix it would be to adjust the turret damage formula so that larger weapons have harder times hitting smaller ships, especially at extreme ranges (either extremely far, or extremely close.) This will allow Battlecruisers (but not the new ones that use large turrets) to keep their role as anti-cruiser platforms, while also allowing cruisers to go toe-to-toe with battleships. Ideally, in fight between a cruiser and a battleship, neither of them would be able to break the other's tank very easily. The battleship should always have a hard time hitting the cruiser (even at long ranges, unlike today,) and the cruiser just shouldn't be able to do quite enough DPS to actually break the battleship. Speaking in generalities here, of course. A really hard-hitting cruiser (like, say, the Cerberus or the Zealot ought to be) should be able to feasibly break a poorly tanked battleship. Likewise, a tracking fit battleship with good range ought to be able to (barely) score some solid hits on a very slow cruiser.

(Edit: and while a battleship should have a pretty tough time hitting a cruiser, it should have an absolute field day against battlecruisers, much like cruisers today can eat destroyers alive. Frig < Destroyer < Cruiser < Battlecruiser < Battleship < Cap Ship, and the farther apart you get on that scale the harder it is to hurt anything.)

(2nd Edit: I would suggest removing current range mechanics in favor of reducing a turret's sig resolution as range to target increases. This way, guns still effectively have a maximum range as the chance to hit a target becomes reduced to near nothing at extremely long ranges. With this style of mechanic, your optimal range will be anything from 0m to the point where your turret's modified sig resolution becomes equal to the sig radius of your target. Beyond that, chance to hit will be reduced. The farther away a target is, the more difficult it is to aim accurately as the target is effectively smaller without actually being smaller.

Put another way, a 1400mm Artillery is designed to have a 400m sig resolution at approximately 50km. Anything closer than that and your sig resolution will actually be smaller, farther than that and your sig resolution will be larger. Ships which currently have falloff bonuses would instead have sig resolution bonuses. Optimal range is still a trait that would exist under this system as the range at which your sig res matches the sig res in the item's description. Ships with tracking bonuses will not have the increased range that a sig res bonus, previously falloff bonus, gives. They will, however, still have an easier time hitting ships that are close.)

The problem isn't with their health, the problem is that currently in EVE bigger & more expensive = flat out better in general at way too many things. What we need is a system of proper counterbalancing. Ships should be designed around playstyles, and no one ship should be flat out better in general than any other ship.

Balancing things around cost has its place, though. You should have to pay more for the greater destructive power that battleships or cap ships can bring to the field. What else are you going to pop structures in, right? And you should have to pay extra for that T2 cruiser that's better at sniping than any other cruiser in the game, even if it doesn't do anything else even as well as the T1 variant. Min-maxing at work, there. But as long as ships are only better at specific things, and not better in general, then we can call the game balanced. Currently we joke about how poorly EVE is balanced, and I'd like this to change.