These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Battleships?

First post
Author
Andrey Wartooth
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2016-11-06 23:05:15 UTC
But why male models?
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#22 - 2016-11-07 00:06:51 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
This is an honest question, because I truly don't know the answer. I'm not an expert at this game.

I know why you'd fly a battleship to run a level 4 mission. It's because there's gonna be a ton of other ships there, including battleships, and battleships are good vs. other battleships, and you need a big tank.

But why a battleship in general? They seem to suck. They have a hard time hitting anything but other battleships. I don't know why you'd PvP in one (and perhaps people don't), and why would you put them in fleets? Seems like a fleet of battleships would have a hard, if not impossible time, against a bunch of cruisers and frigs.

This is one place where I think CCP screwed the pooch. In real life, a frigate, destroyer, cruiser, whatever, would be toast against a battleship. But at any rate, tell me why these things are used, if indeed they are.

(Oh, not sure if it would make a difference in your answer, but ignore tier 2, tier 3, navy issue, pirate, etc)



So part of it is that people expect them to be just progressively better or stronger than the tier/class before them, or that there is/should be such a progression. Now, given that, they do occupy a really terrible spot in the ship line up - they aren't fast enough in terms of scan res/warp speed/speed to be of any practical use, and they aren't real heavy sluggers like capitals. There are a few exceptions when you factor in things like rapid heavies, or utility that cannot otherwise be replaced easily (Bhaalgorn/Vindi) that give some life into battleships, but by and large, they are not worth it.

Add in the current meta we are in, plus all the hotdrops that just prey on big slow targets like BS, and we see where they are horrible. T3C doctrines also just offer more. The counter-swing to that is some BS doctrines become viable when you have a titan bridge, or in are in lowsec.

Marauders are great! Well, until you get dreadnoughts dropped on it. Tank and damage at the cost of mobility.

Black Ops BS are another class that sorely needs looking at. Damage and mobility at the cost of tank. On paper, they actually have traded lots of tank for insane mobility, they just have to sacrifice a lot to use it; the same plague of terrible scan resolution haunts this class, especially ironic considering they are supposed to be used in ambush tactics. They are good in small numbers for smashing defenseless people, or in huge numbers, but they struggle to find relevance in between where they just don't offer much over the other choices. Having to fit both a cap booster and a sensor booster just to do their thing really sort of constrains choice.

There are people who make them work or find favorable circumstances to make BS look fun. Sometimes they are. Very rarely you will find a fight where EvE is really engaging and the power of a larger ship finds itself a good match against several smaller ships. Just most of the time, they are going to be sort of not quite enough numbers machine to be cap, and not mobile enough to effectively be a subcap.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#23 - 2016-11-07 02:21:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Zakks wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
In real life, a frigate, destroyer, cruiser, whatever, would be toast against a battleship.


IRL, battleships have become museums.


Without even going to your link, of course they have become museums. But that's because of carriers. I was tempted to say submarines as well, but the other big ships (carriers) seem to survive just fine, so it was carriers that did it.

Above I said a frigate, destroyer, or cruiser would be toast against a battleship, and I still stand by that. But yes, a battleship would be toast against a carrier.

Without (admittedly) the experience or perspective to know all the ramifications this change would bring, I'd go out on a limb and say I'd like to see battleships in this game be able to do better against frigates and cruisers. Just seems absurd that battleships have to live in mortal terror of cruisers and frigates. If anything CCP now has the 'tiers' (if you want to call them that) backwards in this game. It's as if we should all start out skilling BS's, then graduate up to cruisers, then finally frigates, since they seem to be king.

I applaud the mindset of 'make all ships useful' and 'frigates shouldn't be useless' blah blah, but CCP has gone too far, and things need to be tweaked. If the problem with battleships was 'too useful against everything,' all that they've done is make that true of cruisers, and perhaps frigates.
Memphis Baas
#24 - 2016-11-07 04:03:00 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Above I said a frigate, destroyer, or cruiser would be toast against a battleship, and I still stand by that. But yes, a battleship would be toast against a carrier.


Actually, missile cruisers are holding the field currently, and a battleship would be toast against one, too. But it's all about weapon systems, and the fact that guns are too short range compared to gps-guided cruise missiles. Maybe if railguns, or satellite-bounced lasers take off, battleships will make a comeback. Although, if they can put the weapon system on a more mobile cruiser, they probably will.

Quite a few ships have been added to EVE to rival battleship performance, from HACs to T3 cruisers to battlecruisers. Arguably, battleships are easier to train than the T2 / T3 ships, but with a playerbase made up mostly of veterans, we'd rather fly the more mobile HACs or T3's.

I'm sure there are many ideas about how to make them more worth flying. Personally, I'm wondering where their niche would be; small fleet warfare is about mobility and high-tech ships, large fleet warfare is about capitals... wormholes? They'd need some w-space gimmicks to be desirable there.

Maybe CCP should just add more of them. There are a whole slew of different frigates, a million different cruisers, and what, 3 battleships per race? Frigates are universally speedy / small, cruisers are versatile, battleships are resilient bricks, but why do they only have the DPS role? Why not resilient logi, or ewar? The neuts and the ECM ones are quite popular, why not the full spectrum of ewar, long range, and on resilient battleship hull?
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2016-11-07 04:40:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
So years of changes later there is a reason to fly other ships, while battleships are still powerful in the hands of competent pilots .

The video doesn't exactly do a good job conveying that. If anything, it shows the main problem battleships have: They are slow, they get caught and overwhelmed, and then they die. They are brilliant at murdering T1 Battlecruisers, but those aren't exactly popular anymore either.

OP does have a point - outside of Missions, Ratting and incursions, there's almost always a better option for about everything than any kind of Battleship, with the only exceptions being a few pirate hulls, the Armageddon for its neutralizing range and of course Black Ops when you want to fling a couple of ships around and don't have a Titan.

I don't know how one could go about changing that, though, without flipping the whole thing around again and making battleships the best option for most things. Maybe the D.I.C.K.S will at least make them good in blobs again, but we'll have to see.
Aatch Bland
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2016-11-07 05:21:44 UTC
Battleships (specifically T1) are kinda the awkward middle child of the ship lineup. They are a fair bit more expensive than battlecruisers, and a lot more expensive than a cruiser. You can fit probably 10-15 cruisers for the same cost as a single battleship. If money isn't a factor (or the scale of 100s of millions of ISK is pittance), then you've probably progressed past battleships into stuff like carriers.

One useful thing battleships do, however, is force newer, mission-running players to put more time into improving their (in-game) skills and explore more fits. Since the next step up from battleships in terms of ship class is either a dreadnought or a carrier, a newish player can't just go up a ship class if they find a mission tough. They have to take advantage of those skill bonuses and learn what fits work well.

In the wider game, though, it's hard to find a niche for them. They're big and slow, but don't have jump drives like capitals for moving around in space and can't bring the same DPS to bear. They're tanky when fit properly, but that comes at the expense of DPS, reducing their threat on the battlefield, meaning that the tank is less useful (doesn't matter how much damage you can soak up if nobody bothers with you).

Battleships are a good early goal for a new player, so they're definitely useful in the game, but I do agree that they don't have a good place in PvP. At least as far as I've seen.
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#27 - 2016-11-07 05:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Memphis Baas wrote:
I'm sure there are many ideas about how to make them more worth flying. Personally, I'm wondering where their niche would be; small fleet warfare is about mobility and high-tech ships, large fleet warfare is about capitals... wormholes? They'd need some w-space gimmicks to be desirable there.


I don't know why it has to be complicated or fancy.

One would assume that we currently use the names of frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battlecruiser, etc. to at least loosely convey relative the same relative size/power/strength in this space game as in real life, meaning frigates are the smallest lightest cheapest fighting craft, cruiser next in line, etc. The problem is, while price tags and size continue to match the names, CCP has now skewed the power/strength from matching so that it makes little sense. Frigates and cruisers are extremely powerful although the lightest of the group, while battleships - the heaviest and most expensive - are not so useful and are more vulnerable. Yet it is also easier to tech into the frigate and cruiser, while hardest to tech into the battleship.

What would be wrong with correcting the situation so that the names at least roughly match their historical counterparts? Why shouldn't battleships be the big heavies among the three in terms of survivability, power, etc. just as in real life? What would be wrong with that? Someone will no doubt say 'because then nobody would fly anything but battleships.' My retort would be that right now no one wants to fly anything but cruisers and frigs. Either way, I see no reason why battleships couldn't be balanced to be the big heavies that they should be, while at the same time making sure the other ships have relevance.

The particulars could be debated here, but all other things being equal, a battleship could be balanced to lose to a small swarm of frigates and cruisers (especially if they were equipped with ewar, scramming, webbing, etc), and win against a couple of either. I don't see the heresy in this logic. Cruisers are probably balanced to do the same to frigates (correct me if I am wrong).

If not that, then I see no reason to keep the name 'battleship' if it doesn't match up with anything in a historical context, so the other option could be to change the name to something else. The term 'battleship' is supposed to convey just that - a battleship.
Exaido
Fire Over Light
#28 - 2016-11-07 05:31:09 UTC
I'll go with the slow, they are arduous. Though the large number of drones the Rattlesnake carries makes it easy to deal with frigates and cruisers. Generally for an L4 I find the Tengu works well, I'm tempted to put up a Golem but there's really no need when I have a T3C. HAC sounds fun to try out for some variation.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#29 - 2016-11-07 07:18:50 UTC
There is a lot of misinformation here from people who seem to think battleships should be some sort of I win card. As someone who has spent great deal of time in these hulls I can safely say that battleships are more than able to get around quickly, fully able to pin down even interceptors and well able to disengage. While bombs are an issue it's mostly a shield issue, armour battleship fleets can handle 100+. The man reason you don't see as many battleship fleets is the fact that T3C get the same tank with a tiny sig and can run their prop mod and weapons while being cap stable. This effectively gives T3C a massive tank even compared to battleships.
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#30 - 2016-11-07 07:28:35 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:

If not that, then I see no reason to keep the name 'battleship' if it doesn't match up with anything in a historical context, so the other option could be to change the name to something else. The term 'battleship' is supposed to convey just that - a battleship.


Short of inventing new names or possibly adapting some aircraft ones, I think we are stuck with the naval names even if the details differ.

I like the idea of converting more battleships (especially Gal and Min) to logi or ewar.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#31 - 2016-11-07 07:33:18 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:

If not that, then I see no reason to keep the name 'battleship' if it doesn't match up with anything in a historical context, so the other option could be to change the name to something else. The term 'battleship' is supposed to convey just that - a battleship.


Short of inventing new names or possibly adapting some aircraft ones, I think we are stuck with the naval names even if the details differ.

I like the idea of converting more battleships (especially Gal and Min) to logi or ewar.


Stay away from my battleships.
Aatch Bland
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#32 - 2016-11-07 07:43:35 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
[quote=Jenn aSide]Maybe the D.I.C.K.S will at least make them good in blobs again, but we'll have to see.


D.I.C.K.S. are only fittable to destroyer hulls, so unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure how they'll change things for battleships.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2016-11-07 07:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Steffles
Beast of Revelations wrote:
Cara Forelli wrote:
They make me feel like a real tough guy.


Granted, how the thing makes you feel when you fly it is a valid gameplay reason to fly it. But if you want to win a PvP (you vs. another ship), or win a small engagement (a couple of ships vs. a couple of ships) or win a large engagement (big fleet vs. big fleet), is there any particular reason to fly one, and if so, why?

Not really.

They look good on paper but in practical terms terrible.

A lot of people will say they have great tanks but they really don't. Tank wise you need to consider the following:

1. Does the ship take full damage after speed, sig, explosion radius, tracking? For battleships the answer is almost always yes. For all other sub-capitals the answer is usually always no.

2. Does your ship do full dps to the target after speed, sig, explosion radius, tracking? For battleships the answer is almost always no. For all other sub-capitals the answer depends on whether the ship is bigger (Yes) or smaller (No).

For example you have a wonder on paper tank of 200,000 ehp in your battleships and 1,000 dps. You're fighting a Proteus with 150,000 EHP and 700 dps. Your dps application against that Proteus due to speed, sig, explosion radius is 50%.

In practical terms rather than this:

Your battleship: 200,000 ehp and 1,000 dps
Enemy Proteus: 150,000 and 700 dps

We actually have:

Your battleship: 200,000 ehp and 500 dps (you will only being doing 500 dps to the target)
Enemy Proteus: 300,000 ehp and 700 dps. ( you will need to do 300,000 on paper dps to kill the target even though only 150,000 dps will be recorded on any killmail)

Its very clear who is going to win in this scenario.

The main issue with battleships is that while there is a penalty to large guns / missiles in terms of sig radius and speed of target the battleship will never benefit from this at all, it is essentially a direct nerf to battleships. There is no benefit from having a larger base tank (Think of Sherman tanks (small) vs Tiger Tanks (large) in WW2). Tigers had such a large buffer it took a while for armor to pierce through whereas in EvE even the tiniest guns on a interceptor or frigate have full penetration on a titan, the largest biggest buffered ship in EVE.

One other thing that makes the battleship so terrible is they're the only ship in the game that can't use oversized mods. You can put a medium or large extender, mwd, shield booster on a frigate, destroyer, a large or extra large on a cruiser, t3, battlecruiser but you cannot put a networked sensor array on a battleship, a capital extender, booster or anything similiar on a battleship. They are frankly the most screwed up hulls in the game other than a few with special abilities or mobility.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#34 - 2016-11-07 08:00:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
baltec1 wrote:
There is a lot of misinformation here from people who seem to think battleships should be some sort of I win card.


Just because someone doesn't think battleships are in the right place doesn't mean that person thinks battleships should be an 'i win card.'

Quote:
The man reason you don't see as many battleship fleets is the fact that T3C get the same tank with a tiny sig and can run their prop mod and weapons while being cap stable. This effectively gives T3C a massive tank even compared to battleships.


This probably points to one of the issues. Why are T3C so darn good?
Beast of Revelations
Multiverse Trading
#35 - 2016-11-07 08:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Beast of Revelations
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:

I like the idea of converting more battleships (especially Gal and Min) to logi or ewar.


I don't. Certainly not if the name 'battleship' is to be kept (makes no sense whatsoever - and yes, names actually mean something). And why do we need logi or ewar on battleship hulls, with battleship slot layouts? If we need more logi or ewar hulls, seems we could just make some rather than turn battleships into them.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2016-11-07 08:40:25 UTC
Beast of Revelations wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
There is a lot of misinformation here from people who seem to think battleships should be some sort of I win card.


Just because someone doesn't think battleships are in the right place doesn't mean that person thinks battleships should be an 'i win card.'

Quote:
The man reason you don't see as many battleship fleets is the fact that T3C get the same tank with a tiny sig and can run their prop mod and weapons while being cap stable. This effectively gives T3C a massive tank even compared to battleships.


This probably points to one of the issues. Why are T3C so darn good?

T3's are not that good. If they were you would see significant numbers of them but you don't.

There are certainly applications that make T3C's, T3D's, Cruisers and other ships overpowered but they are not hull specific.

Take a look at some of my alts kills: L Dopa

There's a Covert Ops Tengu that I lost to NC, that started off with me agressing a dictor which I killed later. That agression turned into a couple of inties and cruisers showing up, followed by couple of HAC's, eventually an Aeon arrived which still didn't manage to kill me, I think there were 12 ships at that point unable to break my tank, finally they dropped a Hel and I melted.

Tengu OP? Nope. That Tengu was fitted with a battleship sized cap battery and a battleship sized XL shield booster. Those two oversized mods fitting on that T3C is why it was so overpowered. I think it tanked around 2k dps per second.

I have another kill on L Dopa, an Onyx which tanked a fleet of 20 thrashers who ran away after I started killing them, later I tanked a fleet of 15 Svipul's which again ran away and refused to engage again after I killed one or two. An Onyx can tank cap stable a ridiculous amount of damage, up to 3-4k dps (twice as much as a battleship) and still put out 400 dps cap stable, and comes with a 37k long infinite point long scram. Again the reason, battleship sized cap battery and battleship sized XL boosters, or you can get a battleship sized buffer tank on it again with oversized extenders.

Its not the hulls that need nerfing.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#37 - 2016-11-07 09:30:41 UTC
Steffles wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
There is a lot of misinformation here from people who seem to think battleships should be some sort of I win card.


Just because someone doesn't think battleships are in the right place doesn't mean that person thinks battleships should be an 'i win card.'

Quote:
The man reason you don't see as many battleship fleets is the fact that T3C get the same tank with a tiny sig and can run their prop mod and weapons while being cap stable. This effectively gives T3C a massive tank even compared to battleships.


This probably points to one of the issues. Why are T3C so darn good?

T3's are not that good. If they were you would see significant numbers of them but you don't.

There are certainly applications that make T3C's, T3D's, Cruisers and other ships overpowered but they are not hull specific.

Take a look at some of my alts kills: L Dopa

There's a Covert Ops Tengu that I lost to NC, that started off with me agressing a dictor which I killed later. That agression turned into a couple of inties and cruisers showing up, followed by couple of HAC's, eventually an Aeon arrived which still didn't manage to kill me, I think there were 12 ships at that point unable to break my tank, finally they dropped a Hel and I melted.

Tengu OP? Nope. That Tengu was fitted with a battleship sized cap battery and a battleship sized XL shield booster. Those two oversized mods fitting on that T3C is why it was so overpowered. I think it tanked around 2k dps per second.

I have another kill on L Dopa, an Onyx which tanked a fleet of 20 thrashers who ran away after I started killing them, later I tanked a fleet of 15 Svipul's which again ran away and refused to engage again after I killed one or two. An Onyx can tank cap stable a ridiculous amount of damage, up to 3-4k dps (twice as much as a battleship) and still put out 400 dps cap stable, and comes with a 37k long infinite point long scram. Again the reason, battleship sized cap battery and battleship sized XL boosters, or you can get a battleship sized buffer tank on it again with oversized extenders.

Its not the hulls that need nerfing.


It's very much the hulls that need nerfing.
Steffles
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2016-11-07 09:48:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Steffles
baltec1 wrote:
Steffles wrote:
Beast of Revelations wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
There is a lot of misinformation here from people who seem to think battleships should be some sort of I win card.


Just because someone doesn't think battleships are in the right place doesn't mean that person thinks battleships should be an 'i win card.'

Quote:
The man reason you don't see as many battleship fleets is the fact that T3C get the same tank with a tiny sig and can run their prop mod and weapons while being cap stable. This effectively gives T3C a massive tank even compared to battleships.


This probably points to one of the issues. Why are T3C so darn good?

T3's are not that good. If they were you would see significant numbers of them but you don't.

There are certainly applications that make T3C's, T3D's, Cruisers and other ships overpowered but they are not hull specific.

Take a look at some of my alts kills: L Dopa

There's a Covert Ops Tengu that I lost to NC, that started off with me agressing a dictor which I killed later. That agression turned into a couple of inties and cruisers showing up, followed by couple of HAC's, eventually an Aeon arrived which still didn't manage to kill me, I think there were 12 ships at that point unable to break my tank, finally they dropped a Hel and I melted.

Tengu OP? Nope. That Tengu was fitted with a battleship sized cap battery and a battleship sized XL shield booster. Those two oversized mods fitting on that T3C is why it was so overpowered. I think it tanked around 2k dps per second.

I have another kill on L Dopa, an Onyx which tanked a fleet of 20 thrashers who ran away after I started killing them, later I tanked a fleet of 15 Svipul's which again ran away and refused to engage again after I killed one or two. An Onyx can tank cap stable a ridiculous amount of damage, up to 3-4k dps (twice as much as a battleship) and still put out 400 dps cap stable, and comes with a 37k long infinite point long scram. Again the reason, battleship sized cap battery and battleship sized XL boosters, or you can get a battleship sized buffer tank on it again with oversized extenders.

Its not the hulls that need nerfing.


It's very much the hulls that need nerfing.

If you hold that opinion explain why that is so? Without oversized mods T3C's, T3D's and other ships that vastly outclass other ships by using oversized mods would not outclass them.

Take this ship, close to the one I used in the battle I had with NC:

EHP: 37,000
Active Tank: 2414 (3100 with heat)
DPS: 450
Cap Stable
Cap 2815
Peak Recharge: 149


[Tengu, Dopie III]
True Sansha Power Diagnostic System
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Ballistic Control System II

Corelum C-Type 10MN Afterburner
Domination Warp Disruptor
Pith X-Type X-Large Shield Booster
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
EM Ward Field II
Thukker Large Cap Battery

Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier II

Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile x6213
Nanite Repair Paste x330
Scourge Fury Light Missile x1340


Now lets change it to using non-oversized modules

EHP: 37,000
Active Tank: 835 (1063 with heat)
DPS: 450
Cap Stable
Cap: 1566
Peak Cap Recharge: 108


[Tengu, Dopie III]
True Sansha Power Diagnostic System
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Capacitor Flux Coil II
Ballistic Control System II

Corelum C-Type 10MN Afterburner
Domination Warp Disruptor
Pithum A-Type Medium Shield Booster
Pithum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
EM Ward Field II
Thukker Medium Cap Battery

Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier II

Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile x6213
Nanite Repair Paste x330
Scourge Fury Light Missile x1340

Conclusion:

The largely impossible to kill Tengu with extreme recharge and extreme boosting power becomes a possible to kill Tengu with decent recharge and a good very good tank. It was in effect, the oversized mods that were the problem not the Tengu itself.

Hey CPP - Time we put highsec back to how it was originally designed - http://i.imgur.com/GT0T0oS.jpg

Aplysia Vejun
Children of Agasul
#39 - 2016-11-07 09:58:03 UTC
The abilities to use these oversized modules on a tengu ARE the reason why these cruiser hulls are too strong
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2016-11-07 10:05:07 UTC
Those are not the fleet comp T3C we are talking about here.