EVE General Discussion

CCP, with the winter redesign of the cruiser offerings, you are narrowing the performance gap even more between two cruiser classes (attack and combat cruisers) and the Tier 1 and Tier 2 BC's.

The Tier 3's fill the traditional BC role (cruiser tank / mobility and BS sized guns).
But the Tier 1 and 2's are going to be certainly slower than the attack cruisers (and probably combat cruisers), and the damage difference between the non-tier 3 BC's and the cruisers will be lessened substantially.

They will only be marginally better DPS, much heavier tank, and substantially less mobility.
That is precisely the role of a heavy cruiser.

It is time for a rename.

And as a sidenote, I brought this up a week ago or so.
With the generic T1 hull changes, especially in the cruisers, you are relegating some Navy, T2 (specifically HAC's), and even faction hulls to the dustbin.

Please, please, think carefully about the T1 changes, and SLOW DOWN!
If you are going to alter the generic T1 hulls, you MUST do the Navy, T2, and Faction overhauls at the same time.
Yes, that is doubling your work, but if you don't want to not cause much gnashing of teeth, do it slow and properly, not half the job.

The problem with slowing down is that you end up spending more time with the game in a state of imbalance. I would prefer they continue on this pace, and get things rebalanced quickly.

On the renaming thing, whilst I don't think CCP should rename them, I personally already tag tier 1 and 2's with CA or CG in their name instead of BC.

The Tier 3 BCs are the only true BCs in the game. They should change the rest of the BCs to fit BS turrets.as well

Precisely, the Tier 1's and 2's are CA's and CG's.
But I would also remove a small amount to confusion for the newer players in my estimation, plus a rename shows that CCP is more on the ball with what they have created.

I think a true BC would have the BS sized weapons while keeping the BC tank and mobility.

Thread got a little clean up. Remember that personal attacks are not allowed in these forums, so keep the insults to yourself please - ISD Type40.

The level of confusion one has about something is directly proportional to its complexity. It would be pointless to change the name unless confusing people is the goal here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I really do think this would be a good change.

The Tier 3s and the Tier 1s & 2s really just do not fall into remotely the same role class. It would make the balancing much easier, since you're not trying to balance them all against each other and making them balanced versus the other ships in their class. Because right now, you cannot in any way balance a drake against a Naga, or a hurricane against a tornado, they're just too different.

This is like, the ultimate troll thread isn't it.

Leave the BCs alone please. No need to give them stupid BS Turrets, no need to change their names cause they don't. no need for the Tier 3 to be renamed or out-of-classed because they fit BS Turrets. They are what they are, and if you haven't figured it out, 'Battle' Cruiser is not a reference indicating they are 'part' Battle ship. Two totally different things.

Now, lets move on please; this topic is stupid.

Battlecruisers major time in reality was in WW!, there were very few in WW2 besides the Hood that went belly up at the beginning.

German WW1 Battlecruisers were Heavily Armored with smaller guns compared to the British Battlecruisers which had larger guns with less Armor. In honesty it was hard to compare these things to battleships since Pre Dreadnaughts were smaller and weaker while post Dreadnaughts were anywhere from the same Armor and Armament to more so. Ship development moved fast and Ship designations were very loosely chosen and differed by nation. Not often in weight but in size Battlecruisers were actually bigger then Dreadnaughts by sometimes quite a margin.

Really the only ships I would compare the new Battlecruisers remotely too was the Deutschland class Heavy Cruiser which mounted 2 Triple Turret Battleship sized guns on a Heavy Cruiser Hull. Then their was the Hybrid Battleship / Battlecruisers like the WW2 German Scharnhorst class which had both the Armor and Firepower of many of its Battleship competitors yet faster but only 1.5 knots above the Bismark class. Many of the Battlships then were moving past the speed of old Battlecruisers with sleeker longer hulls and more engines.

Thing about real ship designations is they are so convoluted that you can not make a real life comparison. Even today a ships close in size with similar armaments would be say a large Corvette in Russia, is a Cruiser in America, which is a Destroyer in India and a Frigate in China. Looking at every Warship in the last two centuries (because I enjoy naval combat history) I have learned that class means little and changes every year. A 1905 Battleship is the size of a modern Chinese Destroyer for instance while the 30 years later Iowa would be about 10 times in mass and twice the length of said Battleship.