These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Player Features and Ideas Discussion » Battlecruisers and Cruisers

Topic is locked indefinitely.

Battlecruisers and Cruisers
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Likes received: 1,324

#1 - 2012-01-14 23:22:52 UTC | Edited by: Kahega Amielden

Cruisers have pretty much disappeared.

Few people fly t1 cruisers (mostly newbies), and even fewer fly HACs. Sniper HACs used to have a role, but then tier 3 BCs showed up. The only cruiser-class ships that are regularly used are logistics and recons (and t3). Interestingly enough, logistics and EW are the only two roles that aren't fulfilled by a BC.

Example: the diemost

[Deimos, Diemost]
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Reactive Membrane II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
[empty high slot]

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I

Hammerhead II x5

does 816 DPS with CN AM with 36K EHP. Aligns in 7.4S with MWD off and goes 1500 m/s.

Pretty sweet. Let's look at the Brutix instead.

[Brutix, Baddie]
Damage Control II
800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

Hammerhead II x5

...41.6K EHP, 895 DPS. It's a bit slower (1K m/s and 9.6s align time), but it's also a tiny fraction of the cost.

You can do this sort of comparison for any sort of t2 cruiser vs t1 battlecruisers. The hilarious part is that the Brutix is pretty mediocre as far as BCs go. There are only two HACs whose jobs aren't done better and cheaper by battlecruisers. First is the vagabond...but people still make shield buffer canes as pretend-vagas because it makes up for the lack of speed with superior damage, tank, and the ability to not fold instantly if something gets close. The second is the Ishtar, only because the Myrm isn't a 'true' droneboat (no bandwidth for 5 heavies, very slow).

There's a reason everyone flies BCs and no one uses HACs anymore. The effect is just as pronounced on t1 cruisers (why fly a Rupture when I could pay a little bit more and get something twice as effective and less likely do DIAF?) BCs need to be changed across the board, though some (cane, drake...) obviously need it more than others.

The first option is to just make them slower. Right now, BCs have about the same agility as cruisers, which is just wrong. Even agile BCs (shield buffer cane) should be significantly slower than all but the biggest bricks in the cruiser lineup. Just as cruisers have a hard time tackling frigates, BCs should have a hard time tackling cruisers. The combination of fast-tracking (e.g. medium-sized) guns with huge damage and tank approaching battleship-level and cruiser-level agility is just too much.

The second option is to give them all the tier 3 treatment. All battlecruisers use large-sized guns, making them unsuitable for dealing with smaller, faster ships. Bonuses and turret slots could be adjusted to make sure the current tier 3s still have a role (e.g. adjust such that they have superior damage, but still no drones and weak tank).

Caldari Provisions Caldari State 17
Xandralkus Caldari Provisions Caldari State Likes received: 17	#2 - 2012-01-14 23:38:21 UTC I see the point here...but I cannot fathom any easy and conceivable way to do it. You're right about battlecruiser agility and speed - it should be brought to a rough midpoint between cruisers and battleships. Actually, introducing battlecruiser-size weapons would do quite nicely. Eve UI wouldn't suck if CCP allowed UI addons.

Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Likes received: 1,324

#3 - 2012-01-15 00:05:09 UTC

Xandralkus wrote:

I see the point here...but I cannot fathom any easy and conceivable way to do it. You're right about battlecruiser agility and speed - it should be brought to a rough midpoint between cruisers and battleships.

Actually, introducing battlecruiser-size weapons would do quite nicely.

Introducing a new class of weapons would be unnecessarily cumbersome. If you really just wanted them to have less tracking you could introduce a role penalty or something.

Mars Theran

Foreign Interloper

Likes received: 1,781

#4 - 2012-01-15 00:29:14 UTC | Edited by: Mars Theran

Why don't you just wait for the rebalance on cruisers, Frigates, and the rest, and see where it's at. They'll be brought up to spec eventually as far as I know; at least, that seems to be CCPs intent.

edit: Also, part of the reason everyone flies T2 and BC is because, with their gang sizes, they can pwn anybody without losing hardly any ships. Using T1 for cost effectiveness is a moot point now. Very few fights in Lowsec result in a ship loss by the guys fielding 5 T2 Cruisers including EWAR and Recon.

zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub

Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Likes received: 1,324

#5 - 2012-01-15 00:59:57 UTC

Quote:

Why the hell would they rebalance every ship class? Most ship classes are fine against each other except maybe EAFs and combat ceptors (post-AF buff). The only problem is that battlecruisers obsolete them all.

It's easier (and makes way more sense) to just nerf BCs.

Quote:

edit: Also, part of the reason everyone flies T2 and BC is because, with their gang sizes, they can pwn anybody without losing hardly any ships. Using T1 for cost effectiveness is a moot point now. Very few fights in Lowsec result in a ship loss by the guys fielding 5 T2 Cruisers including EWAR and Recon.

No, everyone does not fly t2. One of the main points of my OP was that few people bother with HACs anymore because BCs do it better for cheaper.

Mars Theran

Foreign Interloper

Likes received: 1,781

#6 - 2012-01-15 03:40:55 UTC

Ships need a balance in general. BCs aren't all powerful or even most used. I've run into more T2s in Lowsec than BCs, and seen a fair splash of BS as well. It just depends on where you fly and who you're up against. Perhaps you should try another section of space.

Besides, the new Tier 3 BC are just new; they're not all that fantastic from what I can see. Once the new toy syndrome wears off, people will be going back to cheaper and more practical ships for the most part; where the new Tier 3 BC will find a proper role in fleet and be used appropriately.

I'll admit, I haven't seen a lot of T2 HAC; but that is because they are in need of balance. They still function fine in small gangs; but like the AF, they need a boost to bring them up to par.

Things just need shaken up a bit. A few new ships and everyone is in an uproar. Best comment to describe the new BC I've seen yet:

Mike712 wrote:

These ships only work well with very good skills, such is the nature of ships relying on battleship weapon systems in combination with tiny tanks.

Stick with a brutix till you can manage full tech 2.

zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub

Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Likes received: 1,324

#7 - 2012-01-15 03:44:34 UTC | Edited by: Kahega Amielden

Quote:

What kind of T2s? I haven't seen many HACs around. There are some T2 ships that are used, they just aren't the ones whose roles are similar to those of BCs.

Tell me, what is the point of using a Deimos rather than a Brutix? What is the point of using a Muninn rather than a tier 3 BC? How about a Cerb over a drake?

What's the point of using a Rupture rather than a hurricane?

Quote:

Besides, the new Tier 3 BC are just new; they're not all that fantastic from what I can see. Once the new toy syndrome wears off, people will be going back to cheaper and more practical ships for the most part; where the new Tier 3 BC will find a proper role in fleet and be used appropriately.

They output way, way more damage than sniper HACs with similar agility.

Quote:

I'll admit, I haven't seen a lot of T2 HAC; but that is because they are in need of balance. They still function fine in small gangs; but like the AF, they need a boost to bring them up to par.

They are fine. Compare the t2 cruisers to their T1 equivalent. The Deimos is way, way better than the Thorax...around twice the EHP and 60% or so more damage.

The problem isn't that the Deimos sucks. The deimos is ******* awesome relative to its t1 cousins, or frigates.

it's that the BCs make them useless, and it's the same story with nearly all HACs. To balance it you would either need to buff all t1 frigates, all t2 frigates, t1 cruisers, and HACs...or you could just nerf BCs. Which makes more sense?

Petrus Blackshell

Rifterlings

Likes received: 3,297

#8 - 2012-01-15 08:34:40 UTC

Kahega Amielden wrote:

They output way, way more damage than sniper HACs with similar agility.

Correction: Compared to sniper HACs, tier 3 BCs have better agility, smaller sig radius, better scan res, longer range, similarly skill-intensive, and only a little more than half the hull cost. They render sniper HACs utterly obsolete, in the same way Brutix obsoletes Deimos.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

A Problem with Authority 33
Jade Mitch A Problem with Authority Likes received: 33	#9 - 2012-01-15 10:19:37 UTC \| Edited by: Jade Mitch 1 BCs should be better than cruisers in everything but logistics and EW. Sounds to me like t2 manufacturing is too expensive. Instead of buffing HACs or nerfing BC, just reducing the cost of manufacturing t2 cruisers.

King Rothgar

Deadly Solutions

Likes received: 408

#10 - 2012-01-15 10:29:22 UTC | Edited by: King Rothgar

Kahega Amielden wrote:

The first option is to just make them slower. Right now, BCs have about the same agility as cruisers, which is just wrong. Even agile BCs (shield buffer cane) should be significantly slower than all but the biggest bricks in the cruiser lineup. Just as cruisers have a hard time tackling frigates, BCs should have a hard time tackling cruisers. The combination of fast-tracking (e.g. medium-sized) guns with huge damage and tank approaching battleship-level and cruiser-level agility is just too much.

Trimarked abaddon: Speed 678m/s, align 21.7s, EHP 233k, dps 1161
Trimarked harbinger: speed 896m/s, align14.6s, EHP 100k, dps 778
Trimarked zealot: speed 1332m/s, align 11s, EHP 74k, dps 609

These numbers use slaves, 5% gunnery hardwirings, conflag, hammerheads and no ganglinks. Align time is with mwd enabled. As far as I can tell, your proposal has already been implemented. I agree they are too cost effective compared cruiser hulls (t1/t2/faction) but I disagree with the notion that a stat nerf is appropriate. What is needed is a price adjustment. If a harbinger had the same fitted price tag of a fitted zealot, I suspect you wouldn't be complaining.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

Alticus C Bear

University of Caille

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 202

#11 - 2012-01-15 10:40:36 UTC

There are some HACS and Battlecruisers I would compare but the Deimos and Brutix is not one of them. The stats in EFT do look similar but that is without comparing EHP with Damage Profiles, The Deimos T2 resists pull it ahead in a straight fight between the two not to mention that the Deimos out damages the Brutix past approx 5km.

Read any of the Hybrid balancing threads and one of the main complaints is speed, the Deimos is not just a bit faster it is a lot faster it’s agility and speed enable it to control ranger better and it’s range bonus allows it to project DPS better.

While I agree some balancing needs to take place especially with the power of Tier 2/ Tier 3 battlecruisers they are different ships, right on top of their targets they look very similar but the Deimos and most HACS have advantages not easily described with base stats.

Aglais

Ice-Storm

Likes received: 533

#12 - 2012-01-16 00:12:57 UTC

The solution won't come from wrecking battlecruisers because then you'll have yet another ineffective ship class. Instead, Cruisers should be buffed, as well as implementation of Tiericide across ALL tech one ships. ALL of them.

Suddenly, T1 cruisers, which will not be held back by terrible grid/CPU because they're a Caracal or a Bellicose or some other odd thing will turn up more because, even though they still have a specific role, there isn't a 'hierarchy of quality' that they have to obey. A Moa and a Caracal could be equal in alot of aspects (like defence) but operate totally differently for offense and such, with one favoring one kind of combat and another doing something else. This could also mean that you'd see more variation in what people fly, which might also mean, more people would fight because they don't have to skill for the cookie cutter crap.

It'd only make sense then to have things like T2 cruisers excel in specialized roles like they're already supposed to do, while inheriting the newly improved stats of the T1 ships they're based on. A Cerberus that can actually fit a tank in addition to a rack of HAMs being a medium range DPS option instead of the "lolololololol 200km missile boat" it is right now, with more speed than a Drake. It's still distinctly not a drake, because it won't have like 70k EHP. Probably closer to 55k or something. But it will have it's own role, and it'll do it well.

Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Likes received: 1,324

#13 - 2012-01-16 08:22:23 UTC | Edited by: Kahega Amielden

Quote:

You don't have to overnerf them. BCs aren't on the verge of being useless. They'd be perfectly fine after the nerfs described in my post. Tiers are not the problem. If tiers were the problem, then the high tier cruisers would still be competitive. They are not. A rupture is in no way useful when you could be flying a cane.

In order to return balance, you'd have to buff t1 AND t2 cruisers, as well as t1 and t2 frigates...and maybe even battleships. Why not just nerf BCs?

Quote:

EFT = Effective Hit points. It takes into account resists. Even with t2 resists the Deimos is squishier.

Blasterboats exist to get near point-blank. The falloff bonus is useful but not a deciding factor in any way.

Quote:

These numbers use slaves, 5% gunnery hardwirings, conflag, hammerheads and no ganglinks. Align time is with mwd enabled. As far as I can tell, your proposal has already been implemented. I agree they are too cost effective compared cruiser hulls (t1/t2/faction) but I disagree with the notion that a stat nerf is appropriate. What is needed is a price adjustment. If a harbinger had the same fitted price tag of a fitted zealot, I suspect you wouldn't be complaining.

While that's a fair point, price isn't the only factor at play. With medium guns and high agility, BCs **** on any smaller ships in a way that cruisers don't do to frigates or BS don't do to BCs.

Besides, it would create a big gap in cost. You'd have two "tiers" of ships - T1/t2 frigs + t1 cruisers, and t2 cruisers/BC/BS. The cheap and the expensive. Right now BCs act as a good middle ground between them.

...And to make a fitted BC cost the same as a fitted HAC you'd need to make the hull more expensive than BS.

King Rothgar

Deadly Solutions

Likes received: 408

#14 - 2012-01-16 14:26:35 UTC

Actually I was thinking more of bringing t2 cruiser price down, rather than dramatically increasing BC price. And BS's crush BC's pretty much every time. In fact the standard counter to BC's is BS's. They do to BC's what BC's do to t1 cruisers. I also think the only balancing that needs to be done is t2/faction cruiser vs BC, basic t1 versions are irrelevant. The reason is eve is a sufficiently mature game at this point that such cheap ships are basically unused by players. t2/faction frigates fill a useful role, thus they are used. The same is true of t2/faction cruisers. The straight t1 are not used because everyone is too rich to be caught flying something so crappy. Their fate was sealed when 100M isk stopped being a lot of isk to the average player.

The only way to see a return of those ships is not only to kill off the tier system, but also to obliterate player income. And I mean really hit it hard, not some little nerf. It would take something along the lines of deleting all missions above lvl2, dropping null sec rats to BC's as the highest spawns (even in anoms), deletion of mining barges/exhumers and deleting incursions entirely. Obviously this isn't going to happen, nor should it. The eve economy is at such a point where below BC, it's t2/faction or nothing. Not because the other stuff isn't cost effective, but because t2/faction is better and it's inexcusable to be so poor you can't afford it.

[u]Fireworks and snowballs are great, but what I really want is a corpse launcher.[/u]

Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Likes received: 1,324

#15 - 2012-01-16 15:10:09 UTC

Quote:

The difference is that a BS will never, ever catch a BC, while the same thing cannot be said of BCs and cruisers. I guess it doesn't necessarily apply to all BCs, but many of them.

Additionally, BS with their huge guns have trouble tracking cruisers and frigates. BCs do not have this problem; they have enough agility that they can catch things and GTFO when necessary, enough tank/damage that anything that isn't a battlecruiser will die horribly, and medium guns.

T1 ships are used. Every QEN I've ever seen shows that the rifter is one of the most flown ships. The only t1 ship class that isn't used is the t1 cruiser because, as discussed in my OP, BCs do it better. You would see more t1 cruisers too if BCs weren't just in every way more useful.

I reject the idea that price should be the only important balancing point between ship classes; that BCs are justified doing everything that cruisers do and more because they are slightly more expensive. The choice between a t1 frigate, a t1 cruiser, and a t1 battleship isn't black and white, it isn't just a matter of "do I have enough money for the t1 battleship" (although price is a major consideration). T1 battleships have major downsides in addition to their high cost which help encourage the use of smaller ships.

Many battlecruisers just do not have those downsides, which is why they are dominant. If you think it is purely an issue of cost than I'd ask why more people don't use tier 1 battleships. An unrigged tier 1 battleship would be barely if at all more expensive than a rigged battlecruiser and yet be significantly better in a standup fight.

Citimatics 129
Nestara Aldent Citimatics Likes received: 129	#16 - 2012-01-16 21:13:22 UTC \| Edited by: Nestara Aldent Supported. Rebalance of some kind is needed.


Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings Likes received: 3,297	#17 - 2012-01-16 22:01:53 UTC 1 Nestara Aldent wrote: Supported. Rebalance of some kind is needed. Yup. Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1,227
Commander Ted Caldari Provisions Caldari State Likes received: 1,227	#18 - 2012-01-16 23:25:34 UTC My thorax rapes face and is epic. The blackbird is the best isk-benefit ship in the game imo. The Maller and moa have great tanks. The rupture rapes face to! I love cruisers and only a few oddball ones need buffs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.

Kahega Amielden

Rifterlings

Likes received: 1,324

#19 - 2012-01-16 23:33:03 UTC

Hey, look! If I replace two MFS with nanofibers in the fit I linked in the OP, I have something that is about as agile/fast as a Thorax while still doing way more damage with double the tank!

[Brutix, Baddie]
Damage Control II
800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

Hammerhead II x5

Ministry of War Amarr Empire 208
Lunkwill Khashour Ministry of War Amarr Empire Likes received: 208	#20 - 2012-01-18 12:32:32 UTC 1 Destroyers have about 50% more mass than frigates. BC's have about the same mass as cruisers. If you give BC's a 50%ish increase in mass, their agility and MWD speed will suffer.