Ships & Modules

CSM minutes from December - page 21 of 44 on my iPhone. CCP is going to revisit and rebalance T1 frigate's and cruisers as well as tier one BC. Get R' Dun.

If I haven't mentioned it yet, you've become one of my favorite posters recently. I don't 100% agree with you all the time, but you definitely put a lot of thought into your positions and aren't throwing out total nonsense.

-Liang

When is CCP going to overhaul the ship insurance system?
It is pretty arbitrary how ship insurance is really poor for T2 ships compared to T1 ships.

Far as I can tell, the only reason T2 insurance is poor is that it is harder to factor in invention costs rather than simply base it off raw mineral costs.
This is not a good enough reason, as there is ample data available to do the calculations.

Alara, normally you have reasonable posts but that one just... bleh. Not even mad, just bad taste in my mouth.


The problem between T1 and T2 Battlecruisers, and by extension, Cruisers is this:

You can, in my opinion, favorably compare T2 Battlecruisers to the Main Battle Tanks of Today. They're fast, can take hits and keep going, and have a gun that has the ability to kill or destroy another modern Main Battle Tank. They also have the ability to mow down a lot of smaller opponents and lighter armored vehicles with near impunity.

T2 Battlecruisers such as the Drake and Hurricane fulfill this role of "Main Battle Tank." well. I don't know much about the Myrmidon then "Bees with shield tank and auto cannons."

But where does this leave Cruisers. Cruisers, in our modern example, are light tanks, specialized tanks. They go find stuff. They support infantry, etc. But you can't expect something like a BMP, Bradley or Stryker to stand up to an M1A3 or T-92 or Challenger II. The lighter armored vehicle will get its **** pushed in.

But where do T1 battlecruisers fit? Well, you can think of them as older, more outdated Main Battle Tanks. So, rather then trying to nerf the MBTs of today, why not update T1 BCs?

Cruisers, won't be left alone, of course. If anything, the Tech1 Cruisers should get a looking at in terms of fittings and slots, within reason. Gunboats such as the Thorax and Omen should be looking at mounting medium guns, rather then the heavy guns that BCs put on. In exchange, they should get better agility, speed, and perhaps 55% of the HP of a Battlecruiser.

EWAR cruisers not named the Blackbird should get better CPU and powergrid in the attempt to make them viable picks for small gangs wanting Ewar. T1 Logistics should be viable picks. Right now, somebody looks at a T1 Logistics, and then you're short a T1 Logistics.

Its late, I probably rambled but that's my 2 cents

tl;dr:
T2 Battlecruisers are MBTs
T1 Battlecruisers should be updated.
Cruisers are IFVs and Light Tanks.
All Cruisers should get better agility and speed.

I disagree with your point that T1 BC's need a buff/fix. The only T1 BC that deserves a look, if any, is the prophecy. Not because it's bad, but just because the harbinger pretty much beats it in every regard. I realize it has the armor resist bonus that many Amarr ships get, but imho, it's too similar to the Harbinger with a worse slot layout. Another low or mid slot would be a nice consideration, but enough of my rambling.

Aestivalis, you should consider whether your use of analogies is helping or hurting your cause. The one thing that is pretty much guaranteed when analogies like this get used is that in an effort to create an analogy that simplifies things, the analogy does not accurately describe all circumstances and your argument fails. Not because your argument is invalid, or even weak, just because your analogy breaks down at a point.

IIRC, this game isn't about modern battle tanks, old battle tanks, IFV's, or anything else that you mentioned. Your analogy is now interfering with the ability to compare the merits of your argument and stay on topic in this discussion.

Let me ask you, what Tier 1 and 2 BC's have you flown? What is/was wrong with them when compared to their racial relatives? Is that difference a bad thing?

In most cases, the trade off between Tier 1 and 2 is a matter of tank vs gank. Speed and agility also come into play as well as ability to project damage and the like. Active cyclone can easily outank a hurricane (and an active hurricane just makes me laugh). It also has a larger drone bay. It can also be fit for insane amounts of gank for a minnie ship that size (BC) or smaller. So which tier 1 BC's are the problem?

The Ferox is the most cited problem child for tier 1 BC. What is your opinion on it?

The problem is not BC's. The problem is that cruisers and battleships lack a defined role.

Three simple changes could solve this quite fast:

1) Cruisers get more speed and damage (via increased fittings and proper bonuses), so they work as the hit and run ships they should be.

2) Battleships stay where they are but get a signifigant EHP increase.

3) Nerf titan tracking/Super EWAR immunity. Titan tracking is one of the main reasons for the decline of battleships in PVP in recent times. Untill it gets changed it will only get worse. IMO just change the immunity to a 75% reduction in EWAR effects and massively buff Supers sensor strength.

Dont limit anti super ewar to electronic attack frigates or something equally stupid. If you do don't blame me for skipping out on a scorpion/arbitrator.


That and CCP keeps adding specialized ships with more clear roles than a battleship without ever adapting BS's to these changes. THIS is the main reasons why BC's are so popular, CCP simply forgot about the rest.

@ OP see my above post.

Once again, I'll say the same thing I say to all you know-nothing screeching, faeces-throwing howler-monkeys as regards the "need" for BC nerfs:

And no, I'm not going to moderate my tone or wording: This is complete ******* bullshit, and you all bloody well know it. Tier 2 BCs have been the way they are for many, many years now, and until the last ca. 6 months, no-one has ever screamed for across-the-board nerfs.

It wasn't too long ago, in fact, that if you even mentioned "Drake" and "PvP" in the same sentence, you'd get laughed right out of EVE. (Although, I might add, some of us always "got it." You, OP, clearly, do not, and just want your refusal to adapt excused...IOW: Butthurt over getting urp-sploded by a Drake in a fight you probably never should have fought, methinks?)

...But why now? Why, all of a sudden, now? Could it be that maybe....people have come up with new tactics for them? Tactics to which you've refused to try and adapt? I think yes!

Do I get to whine that what you pants-on-head retards are using mob-rule to try and destroy the gameplay of potentially tens of thousands of pilots across all levels, from the three-month-old newb just starting level 3s who just got his "Passive Shield Tanking: Standard" certificate all the way up to veteran PvP'ers and PvE'ers?

Where do I go to whinge about that, I think I've some right to.

Now, then:

How do the systemic deficiencies of one class, intrinsic to that class only, necessitate the nerfing of another, different class?

How will gimping one class into uselessness "fix" the fact that half the cruisers that exist can't be fitted for their nominal roles?

Nerfing a thing that's good to make a thing that's bad look better will not fix the latter, it will still be just as bad as it always was.

Oh, and any 2-3 combat-fitted war-cruisers (Thorax, Rupture, Arbitrator) will, if properly fitted and flown rip any Tier 2 BC to shreds, and one of them can solo a BC if the latter's pilot isn't paying attention, is poorly fitted, and/or a newb.

E: Note that I didn't mention the Omen in the war-cruiser example: That's because it simply sucks--no where near the fitting capacity needed that the other three races have--but even still, it can shoot right into the Drake's main resist-hole. Nerfing the Drake/Cane/Binger/Myrm will not make the Omen, to name just one, better.

For ****'s sakes...

Damn! I got trolled :facepalm: