| Author |
Topic |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2010.11.09 21:29:00 - [ 1]
As said in the OP, this is not about Drakes, missile spamming or anything else related to that.
One of the problems with EVE balance at the moment is that t1 cruisers are almost totally obselete compared to battlecruisers. The fact is that Battlecruisers just do everything that cruisers do better, with the downsides being overly mitigated against.
Back in the dawn of time, when battlecruisers were first introduced, they were not the ships that they are today, as the Ferox, Prophecy, Brutix and Cyclone are not by any stretch of the imagination the ships that their tier 2 cousins are. This meant that the performance bonus provide by the additional cost was not a problem, because these ships all have their downsides and are more than balanced by them.
However, EVE has moved on since then, and two factors have made the tier 2 Battlecruisers not overpowered, but overshadowing compared to the tech 1 cruisers.
The first is that they are all better in all bar three significant and two less noticable stats. All the tier 2 Battlecruisers have better tank, DPS, capacitor, locking range, fitting and slots, and it is even almost possible to do this whilst fitted with tech 1 gear compared to a tech 2 fitted cruiser. This is a product of the second problem, as it means that one of the ways in which the tech 1 cruiser does indeed win over the battlecruiser - cost - is made nearly irrelevant due to the wonderful world of insurance.
The second problem is that insurance acts as too much of a crutch for battlecruiser losses and mitigates their extra cost over normal cruisers by too high a degree. Therefore, cruisers are not as obvious winners over the battlecruiser as one might presume.
The ways a cruiser does win over a battlecruiser are limited but I'm not going to pretend they don't exist. Cruisers are naturally faster and have better agility, however, battlecruisers have such an advantage in slots that they can fit a bunch of nanos and what not in the low slots, and still have more slots for tank and gank than a cruiser. Cruisers are cheaper, but as I just pointed out, if a tech one battlecruiser does more DPS, has more Tank, moves faster and has better all round back up stats, then cost is not an advantage as rigs will be needed to have an edge over a battlecruiser, as well as tech 2 modules.
Cruisers however, do have one final advantage permanently over battlecruisers, but it is only in sig radius, which is a significant, yet to what extent is debatable though no one can say it is not one with absolutely no real effect.
This is not necessarily true as it is only my opinion, but I have yet to see any real reason why it's not true. If someone can actually show how a tech 1 cruiser can consistently out perform a similarly fit battlecruiser, I will admit that I am wrong. However, until that happens I will continue to say that there is a fundemental disbalance in EVE around battlecruisers - ships that are just better in almost every way than cruisers with little in the way of added disadvantages. |
Alara IonStorm
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.11.09 21:41:00 - [ 2]
Between the cost of rigs and fittings there price is rediculously close. Another problem you forgot is the fitting issue. A lot of cruisers have enough fitting issues need rigs and other mods to make them fit. Decreasing there tank even more. The Omen is legendary for it. And with the Teir System a lot of these ships are lacking HP. Some have poor slot layout. 5m Drone Bay on the Stabber with 6 highs. give it 15-25 and move one High to a low and it would be flown a lot more. The Caracal has to deal with not being able to fit HAM's and a LSE+MWD making a Frig kiting fit the only options. If anything I thing Tech 1 Cruisers need a complete overhaul of there stats, slot layout and weapons. Because I see little reason to pick a Rupture over a Hurricane anymore. I am now pretty much playing Teir 2 Battlecruisers Online.  |
Shin Dari
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.11.09 22:50:00 - [ 3]
I do have to admit that I only use Assault frigates, Battlecruisers and Battleships for missions.
When my skills were low I did use cruisers for missions but now I only use them for low cost PvP.
And I don't think that this is a problem.
|
Misanthra |
Posted - 2010.11.10 01:14:00 - [ 4]
depends on where you are at I guess. I was in one null sec corp....we loved our suicide T1 cruiser roams. Rare case...haven;t seen that at all in later homes too much :( .
Cheap thrill rides that can be decent in mixed t1 cruiser type fleets. Loved my suicide runs...shame too many take thier internet spaceships super serial these days.
But do see your point. Besides the above...only reason I have t1 cruiser bpo's is to make the base ship for t2 cruisers as cheap as possible lol. Carebears lose t1 cruiser interest faster than a teenager trying to lose thier virginity as they rush to BC. PVP... its just not common since the starting days of goons and their T1 fleets to blot out the sun. |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2010.11.10 07:47:00 - [ 5]
 Originally by: Shin Dari
I do have to admit that I only use Assault frigates, Battlecruisers and Battleships for missions.
When my skills were low I did use cruisers for missions but now I only use them for low cost PvP.
And I don't think that this is a problem.
Surely a situation where an entire class of ships is made totally obselete is a tricky one to justify as balanced? The fact is that Battlecruisers are flat out better than cruisers even for low cost PVP, because you can fit them purely with t1 gear and get almost the exact performance out of them compared to a cruiser with t2 gear. That has to be unbalancing somewhere, as t1 gear on a t1 ship is ludicrously cheap to lose once you factor in insurance. |
HeliosGal
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.11.10 07:54:00 - [ 6]
Maybe cruisers can get a 5% value bonus when a t2 mod is fitted |
Angie McFish
Gallente
Caldari Industrial Capitalist Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 08:58:00 - [ 7]
As I've imagined battlecruisers they are ships with the hull and armour of a cruiser, but the armament of a battleship. (I'm thinking of naval ships.) Decrease their tank and let the battlecruisers fit the largest medium weapons without problem. That way battlecruisers would still have their advantage but it'll even out because of their slightly higher price. This way Tier 1 battlecruisers will be kind of like glasscannons because of their increased signature radius along with their cruiser-sized tank.
How CCP is supposed to balance tier 2 Battlecruisers is beyond my understanding. |
HeliosGal
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.11.10 09:17:00 - [ 8]
they are fine as is command ships are worth almost as 50% more than hacs. Strategic cruisers altered the balance a bit |
Eclorc |
Posted - 2010.11.10 12:53:00 - [ 9]
tbh I think all T1 frigates and cruisers could use a boost. |
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 15:37:00 - [ 10]
I think from a cost/dps standpoint your right BCs are better.
I think its a bit easier to solo roam in a cruiser in low sec than in a BC. If you run into a gate camp you have a slightly better chance of escaping than if you are in a bc.
But as was mentioned the rig changes really boosted the BC. The cost of BS rigs stayed very high and the rigs for BCs are the same a cruiser. Perhaps only giving bcs 2 rig slots would even things out a bit.
But I am not really in favor of this. I think the cruiser still has a role (at least in low sec). BC's are nice ships but I still prefer to fly cruisers. The reason being is most people feel they can cut it closer against a cruiser. So a group of say 3 frigates and a destroyer will more likely give you a fight if you are in a cruiser. If you are in a bc and someone engages they probably have allot of back up. |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2010.11.10 17:32:00 - [ 11]
Originally by: Cearain
I think from a cost/dps standpoint your right BCs are better.
I think its a bit easier to solo roam in a cruiser in low sec than in a BC. If you run into a gate camp you have a slightly better chance of escaping than if you are in a bc.
But as was mentioned the rig changes really boosted the BC. The cost of BS rigs stayed very high and the rigs for BCs are the same a cruiser. Perhaps only giving bcs 2 rig slots would even things out a bit.
But I am not really in favor of this. I think the cruiser still has a role (at least in low sec). BC's are nice ships but I still prefer to fly cruisers. The reason being is most people feel they can cut it closer against a cruiser. So a group of say 3 frigates and a destroyer will more likely give you a fight if you are in a cruiser. If you are in a bc and someone engages they probably have allot of back up.
The problem is, it's not only DPS and tank that battlecruisers surpass cruisers in: it's also speed and agility when fitted with nanos. However, you are right that t1 cruisers can escape situations that battlecruisers wouldn't, and they do get more fights. However, the fact remains that there is almost never a situation where a cruiser is an obviously better choice than a battlecruiser, or at least not the point where it is a clear cut decision in favour of the cruiser. Originally by: HeliosGal
they are fine as is command ships are worth almost as 50% more than hacs. Strategic cruisers altered the balance a bit
You've missed the point so badly it's not even funny. Tiers are not tech levels. Ferox - Tier 1 Battlecruiser Drake - Tier 2 Battlecruiser Nighthawk/Vulture - Tech 2 Battlecruiser. |
Shin Dari
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.11.10 17:36:00 - [ 12]
Originally by: Bibbleibble
Originally by: Shin Dari
I do have to admit that I only use Assault frigates, Battlecruisers and Battleships for missions.
When my skills were low I did use cruisers for missions but now I only use them for low cost PvP.
And I don't think that this is a problem.
Surely a situation where an entire class of ships is made totally obselete is a tricky one to justify as balanced?
The fact is that Battlecruisers are flat out better than cruisers even for low cost PVP, because you can fit them purely with t1 gear and get almost the exact performance out of them compared to a cruiser with t2 gear. That has to be unbalancing somewhere, as t1 gear on a t1 ship is ludicrously cheap to lose once you factor in insurance.
I think that T1 cruisers still have a better bang-for-buck then T1 BCs. |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2010.11.10 17:56:00 - [ 13]
Originally by: Shin Dari
Originally by: Bibbleibble
Originally by: Shin Dari
I do have to admit that I only use Assault frigates, Battlecruisers and Battleships for missions.
When my skills were low I did use cruisers for missions but now I only use them for low cost PvP.
And I don't think that this is a problem.
Surely a situation where an entire class of ships is made totally obselete is a tricky one to justify as balanced?
The fact is that Battlecruisers are flat out better than cruisers even for low cost PVP, because you can fit them purely with t1 gear and get almost the exact performance out of them compared to a cruiser with t2 gear. That has to be unbalancing somewhere, as t1 gear on a t1 ship is ludicrously cheap to lose once you factor in insurance.
I think that T1 cruisers still have a better bang-for-buck then T1 BCs.
I'm not going to go all trolly and claim that I am right, but I'm just wondering how you've managed to resolve the problem that a battlecruiser fitted with t1 gear can be better in almost every way compared to a normal t1 cruiser fitted with t2 gear, whilst costing a lot less in real terms. I mean, effectiveness is only ever relevant once cost is taken into account, surely? |
Lemmy Kravitz
Minmatar
Rebirth. |
Posted - 2010.11.11 07:17:00 - [ 14]
Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 11/11/2010 07:18:14 Originally by: Cearain
I think from a cost/dps standpoint your right BCs are better.
I think its a bit easier to solo roam in a cruiser in low sec than in a BC. If you run into a gate camp you have a slightly better chance of escaping than if you are in a bc.
But as was mentioned the rig changes really boosted the BC. The cost of BS rigs stayed very high and the rigs for BCs are the same a cruiser. Perhaps only giving bcs 2 rig slots would even things out a bit.
But I am not really in favor of this. I think the cruiser still has a role (at least in low sec). BC's are nice ships but I still prefer to fly cruisers. The reason being is most people feel they can cut it closer against a cruiser. So a group of say 3 frigates and a destroyer will more likely give you a fight if you are in a cruiser. If you are in a bc and someone engages they probably have allot of back up.
actually BC's should run off of BS rigs. that will fix the drake and all other BC's. more people will prefer to run cruisers and T2 cruisers and HAC. Or.. create BC sized rigs. make em cost between BS and medium rigs. BC's HAC, all run off this new rig. |
Lana Torrin
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 07:45:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Angie McFish
As I've imagined battlecruisers they are ships with the hull and armour of a cruiser, but the armament of a battleship. (I'm thinking of naval ships.) Decrease their tank and let the battlecruisers fit the largest medium weapons without problem.
Well thats really the crux of the problem right there.. To fit 6 or so of the largest medium sized guns you need x CPU and grid, the problem is that if you fit the medium version of the guns you now have an excess of CPU and grid to play with that can be used for tanking. Tanking modules (armour plates and shield extenders) and resistance modules (armour coatings and invuls) are pretty easy to fit in these cases... (Add to that the whole 'long range is easier to fit for missiles' and you get a drake, but this isn't about drakes.) |
Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 16:15:00 - [ 16]
IMO Lemmy's idea of making a bc sized rig is better than my suggestion of dropping a rig slot. Again I don't think BC are so overpowered that it makes a big difference - I still fly cruisers in low sec.
At least according to eve kill drake and hurricane are number 1 and number 2 top ships. Myrm and harby are in the top 20 as well. No t1 cruisers in the list. I really don't know how reliable the website is but whatever its worth:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
|
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.11.11 17:57:00 - [ 17]
I support BC's having large rigs, that would be a quick patch.
I would also support bringing speed and agility down to 80% for tier 2 BC's |
Shin Dari
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.11.11 20:11:00 - [ 18]
Originally by: Bibbleibble
I'm not going to go all trolly and claim that I am right, but I'm just wondering how you've managed to resolve the problem that a battlecruiser fitted with t1 gear can be better in almost every way compared to a normal t1 cruiser fitted with t2 gear, whilst costing a lot less in real terms.
I mean, effectiveness is only ever relevant once cost is taken into account, surely?
Simple use more cruisers, a T1 battlecruiser can't defeat its own worth in T1 cruisers. And 1-vs-1, I wouldn't expect a cruiser to ever defeat a battlecruiser in battle. |
Spugg Galdon |
Posted - 2010.11.11 22:31:00 - [ 19]
The balance of the ships isn't wrong but cost might be.
Cruiser hull base cost is probably about right.
Battlecruisers should maybe be a little more expensive to produce, pushing market value up. |
Rhinanna
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2010.11.11 22:43:00 - [ 20]
And its exactly the same situation with destroyers vs frigates....
Cruisers DO have a role, they are called battleships and cruisers have a much easier job of speed tanking them than a BC ever will. They are also much better at hunting down and killing frigates and destroyers.
BCs are there to kill the cruisers and to as a better fleet battle platform as speed is less important in large fleet fights compared to tank and DPS.
One of the main reasons you see a lot of BCs compared to cruisers is that people who like cruisers generally train HACs, Recons and/or Logistics fairly quickly where are people who like BCs train their tier 2 BC normally because the tier 1 BC sucks monkey balls and stay in it longer because command ships is a ***** to get and because they cost so much. So instead of people spreading out over 5 different ships they use, they all go to 1 ship. This artificially increases the ship's popularity, particualy for the caldari who don't have many other options for decent ships.
End of the day, if you try and fit a cruiser like a BC or BS, it'll be crap, yeah. Cruisers need to pick and choose their targets and act like predators, not brawlers. |
Kraschyn Thek'athor |
Posted - 2010.11.12 04:54:00 - [ 21]
Suitable:
Rupture
Stabber
Arbitrator
Vexor
Blackbird
For Industrial purposes
Exequror
Ospey
Rest has so much problems...
And sake of circumstances, Faction Cruisers...
Augoror Navy Issue
Scythe Fleet Issue
Exequror Navy Issue
Osprey Navy Issue
are so underwhelming... it hurts!
Replace them with Tier 1 Battlecruisers.
Augoror, Maller, Omen |
Illwill Bill
Svea Crusaders
|
Posted - 2010.11.12 08:56:00 - [ 22]
Edited by: Illwill Bill on 12/11/2010 08:55:48 Originally by: Rhinanna
And its exactly the same situation with destroyers vs frigates....
Cruisers DO have a role, they are called battleships and cruisers have a much easier job of speed tanking them than a BC ever will. They are also much better at hunting down and killing frigates and destroyers.
BCs are there to kill the cruisers and to as a better fleet battle platform as speed is less important in large fleet fights compared to tank and DPS.
One of the main reasons you see a lot of BCs compared to cruisers is that people who like cruisers generally train HACs, Recons and/or Logistics fairly quickly where are people who like BCs train their tier 2 BC normally because the tier 1 BC sucks monkey balls and stay in it longer because command ships is a ***** to get and because they cost so much. So instead of people spreading out over 5 different ships they use, they all go to 1 ship. This artificially increases the ship's popularity, particualy for the caldari who don't have many other options for decent ships.
End of the day, if you try and fit a cruiser like a BC or BS, it'll be crap, yeah. Cruisers need to pick and choose their targets and act like predators, not brawlers.
You are absolutely right, of course, but there are still some fitting issues with some T1 cruisers that need to be adressed. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.11.12 09:19:00 - [ 23]
BCs perform at around 50-75% of BS level yet cost pennies in comparison.
Double the base cost for ALL BC hulls.
With a noticeable price difference the question whether a cruiser might be a better choice for a given job will no longer be for the die-hards and other fools. |
All Channels
Features and Ideas Discussion
