Player Features and Ideas Discussion

To begin, here is my estimated rebalanced attributes (the weapon bonuses are displayed for convenience and have not been changed):

Oracle: 1150MW powergrid (-225), 370 CPU (+25)
Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
* 10% bonus to medium energy turret capacitor use
* 5% bonus to medium energy turret damage

Role Bonus:
* 40% reduction in the powergrid need of medium turrets
* 50% bonus to optimal range of medium turrets

Naga: 950MW powergrid (+75), 450 CPU (+25)
Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
* 5% bonus to medium hybrid turret damage
* 10% bonus to medium hybrid turret optimal range

Role Bonus:
* 40% reduction in the powergrid need of medium turrets
* 50% bonus to optimal range of medium turrets

Talos: 1050MW powergrid (-50), 385 CPU (+25)
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
* 5% bonus to medium hybrid turret damage
* 7.5% bonus to medium hybrid turret tracking speed

Role Bonus:
* 40% reduction in the powergrid need of medium turrets
* 50% bonus to optimal range of medium turrets

Tornado: 900MW powergrid (-100), 380 CPU (+38)
Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonus per level:
* 5% bonus to medium projectile turret rate of fire
* 5% bonus to medium projectile turret falloff

Role Bonus:
* 40% reduction in the powergrid need of medium turrets
* 50% bonus to falloff of medium turrets

===============================================================
FITTING EXAMPLES ===============================================

Oracle with max skills and 8x Heavy Beam Laser II: 1071.4/1437.5 powergrid and 222/462.5 CPU

Naga with max skills and 8x 250mm Railgun II: 898.56/1187.5 powergrid and 336/562.5 CPU

Talos with max skills and 8x Heavy Neutron Blaster II: 807.84/1312.5 powergrid and 264/481.25 CPU

Tornado with max skills and 8x 720mm Howitzer Artillery II: 1071.36/1125 powergrid and 256/475 CPU
Tornado with max skills and 8x 425mm Autocannon II: 665.28/1125 powergrid and 200/475 CPU

---

Major differences with this setup:

1. Attack battlecruisers would have a third less firing range, a quarter less DPS, and much better tracking
2. Easier to fit artillery to Tornado, and beam lasers to Oracle, though harder to fit pulse lasers to Oracle (but still easy)
3. Talos excess powergrid reduced - I didn't think it needed it but let me know if I'm wrong
4. Tornado artillery volley damage greatly reduced

Why I think it is balanced this way:

1. Attack battlecruisers sacrifice hit points and powergrid for their lower signature radius and higher speed/agility, and greater weapon power than other battlecruisers
2. Attack battlecruisers would still be a lot more powerful than combat battlecruisers and can outrange them, and would even be as powerful as some battleships
3. Attack battlecruisers would still be fearsome predators of larger ships left alone, but now would be able to take on smaller prey as well, widening their options for ambush

Final Points:

• I purposely gave them the role bonus reducing powergrid for all medium turrets, not just their own racial variants. This is because they are tech one and should have an emphasis on versatility. The powergrid cost reduction is not the same as their skill bonuses to weapons, rather it is a trick to lowering their defense without lowering their offense by lowering their net powergrid after giving them the reduction in powergrid cost of the guns. So this way attack battlecruisers can crossfit the same as other tech 1 ships can.
• The Tornado needs to have that 5% falloff turned up to 10% to bring it in line with the Naga's range bonus, or maybe both should be 7.5% like the Apocalypse.
• The fitting cost would be lower now, since these would fit medium turrets instead of large. It might also be reasonable to lower their hull mineral cost and bring them in line with combat battlecruiser costs. This would go well with their decreased net power, and keep them among the best of attrition ships.

The ABC's are the true BC's of the game.
If anything, CCP should be modifying the other 2 classes, which fit the definition of heavy cruisers, into BC's as well.

Or simply split the 3 ships, 2 being a heavy cruiser class, and then add another BC class to each race, simply for flavour.
You would end up with 2 Heavy Cruisers per race, and 2 Battlecruisers per race, and call it a day.

What makes the combat battlecruisers not really a battlecruiser? I don't understand.

or make them T2 and then 4 of the combat bc's could become Attack bc's instead thus following the natural line more..

In traditional terms, guns of a battleship, armour of a cruiser is the definition of a battlecruiser, which is not what combat BCs have. They have the guns of a cruiser and more armour, making them heavy cruisers.



And this idea takes away the entire point of ABCs. We completely lose the 'cheap battleship DPS' thing, every doctrine or tactic using them becomes irrelevant, and they simply become battlecruiser DPS/range with bugger all tank. Why bother with a tornado over a hurricane in your revision?

Because the tornado hits harder at longer range and can get in and out of a fight more quickly. The hurricane is better when you intend to stand up in a long fight, but the tornado is better for strafing and ambushing. Tornado would be much better in a gate camp, for instance.

This is a much better solution. All Battlecruisers should use Battleship-sized weapons.

thing is abc arent overpowered, they have their strong points no question asked. The Problem is still that bs underperform (compared to lower classes) and they did it even before abc where introduced. So u call for a nerf on a personal reasonable shipclass. Sry i stay with my no

ABC's do have an issue. They perform fine relative to the other BC's and all classes underneath them. The problem is Battleships do not overpower them.
Traditional Battleships were preferable over Battlecruisers in a lot of situations due to the diverse range of weapons a BS mounted, while a Battlecruiser might mount the large guns, it had nowhere near the same number of Medium & Small guns.

EVE Battleships only mount large guns, so the ABC's actually have equal or in some cases greater firepower than a Battleship mounts, which wasn't historically true at all. And the tank difference isn't enough. Battleships simply are too close in tank to Battlecruisers. If a Battleship had 200k EHP base and fitted for tank was 600k EHP, or active tank in the thousands without crazy gimpy fits, but just a single rep (But not the tens of thousands like a capital), (I.E. Half way between Battle cruisers & Capitals) then you might see Battleships having a larger role in EVE.

Till that happens, ABC's will continue to overshadow BS's in most places (Only exception atm is Drones where there isn't a drone ABC, and there the Ishtar takes the role instead often)

I'm going to assume you meant bc, not bs. If you meant bs, then your comment wouldn't make much sense to me.

Battlecruisers as a class have classically been anything but underperforming. There is a reason why nullsec was cluttered with battlecruisers left and right. Even CCP agreed that battlecruisers were easily the most popular class. Battleships were still getting used and had a pretty secure niche, but CCP decided the most important change to fix battlecruisers being overused was to leave them without a nerf and instead focus on buffing frigates and cruisers - which they did marvelously. Now a variety of ships are seen out there, as opposed to the only tech 1 ships in use being tier 2 battlecruisers, half of the battleships, rifters, and stabbers.

Combat battlecruisers are still not an underperforming class by any stretch of the imagination--the numbers show that, but they also reveal that attack battlecruisers are more popular than combat battlecruisers and by no small margin.


That's like saying scissors aren't overpowered because rock can win in a 1 on 1. Though to be truthful, I have to say that in a realistic fight in EVE, the ABC has a good chance of winning over the CBC. What it lacks in defense it more than makes up for in ambush potential. Actually it's not even all that lacking in defense. The main thing a CBC can do to gain the upper hand is get in close, though the ABC is faster and more agile so good luck on that unless the CBC gets in close at the beginning of the fight.

edit: a battleship does NOT, under any reasonable circumstance, have any significant advantage over an attack battlecruiser in a one-vs-one engagement.


That doesn't have anything to do with battlecruiser balance.


ABCs already have a sig radius and agility between CBCs and cruisers, and a speed at the low end of combat cruisers. I have suggested no change to their mobility. In fact it is their high mobility that gives them their strong edge, and a big part of my point here is that such an edge is a big bonus in itself, and doesn't need to come with battleship guns.