Battlecruisers

[Reddy]

such bitterness in this thread. this isn't healthy

[TheShooter36]

Pre-balance BC s were op. They could solo anything ranging from light cruisers to any class of BS. And i soloed even Osirises without losing shield once They had too much safety at range and too much dodginess at close range. I could literally dance around enemy at 1k and still not give a damn

---

[Spectre]

you can help out in Balancing by giving inputs how to improve the current BCs

Range, shrink the size a little bit and projectile speed. The biggest issues.

[Unlucky_Soul]

you can help out in Balancing by giving inputs how to improve the current BCs

Range, shrink the size a little bit and projectile speed. The biggest issues.

If you can elaborate a bit more, that would be better.

As for size shrinking, It might get harder for BS's, but a slight reduction wont hurt much i think.

Well I hope Titan considers these inputs when doing the necessary changes to the BC's

---

[Spectre]

If you can elaborate a bit more, that would be better.

Even with reduced damage, BCs should still be able to counter BSs. The range they have now makes that practically impossible, and countering cruisers is difficult with the slow projectile speeds. Fix these and the size a little, and BCs will be far more tolerable to fly.

---

#BringBackTheCommonwealth

=CR=-----IN|G
----
A plurality is not a majority, and a majority is not everybody.

---

Spec's RP Consortium
V-3X | CV-Montu | Fort Murray
Unum pro Omnibus, Omnes pro Uno

Your signature grew too big, I helped downscale it. ~Vex
Your adjustment grew too big, I helped downscale it. ~Spectre

[DarkTails]

The point of battlecruiser-class warships are to carry big sticks while being fragile to enemy weapons. This means they carry weapons to rival that of enemy dreadnoughts and battleships, as they're made to hunt these down and destroy them while outrunning and outmaneuvering them. Because of this, they were rather smaller (generally) in size, lacked survivability, and defensive armaments against heavy and light cruisers, who in turn would hunt them down and protect their battleships. The reason the community lashed out when this was changed is because one dev was allowed to deny the entire class it's purpose and say that's not what it's for.

In Disco terms, should I be dictating it in this hypothetical, would be a bit smaller than it is now, but larger than pre-change, retain a bit of fragility to compensate for it's suite of battleship killing weapons. Battleship-rivaling primary batteries, powerful, slow offensive missiles and current BC mortars, while it's defensive armament (currently the BC secondaries) wouldn't be very strong but have a faster travel rate to compensate. A flak gun or two, some point defense secondaries to harass and potentially kill wounded cruisers. All this time, they would have a degree of maneuverability to aid their survival factor, but not enough that they can outrun and escape from it's pursuing younger brothers trying to hound it down and kill it.

Now I'm sure I'd immediately get told the secondaries are insufficient to deal with cruisers. However, these secondary guns are for minor damage and self defense, not offense. The reason for this would be, should one of the primary anti-battleship guns get a bead on the offending cruiser, it's gunna have to break away really quick or face punishing firepower, like when evading a battleships main armament.

---

No one can out boop me, not even an Admin!
Boop. ~Spuddo
GRAVE REPERCUSSIONS ~Ramke
Get booped on, nerd. ~Durandal
I wanted to be a part of the party, hi Tails. ~Inferno
Pokes are superior boops. ~Naz

[Jessitrescott]

battlecruisers was anti-heavy battleship

Lol. I and @Auzari have killed pretty much every ship class in a 1v1 scenario using a Bullhead with ease. Outright saying they were useless against everything else is a joke, dude. The light mortar begs to differ when it came to snubs, gunboats and cruisers. As did the cerbs.

so you admit that pre work bc's were really good at killing both battleships and cruisers.

Thats exactly why they got nerfed fyi.



Edit: Old Bc's were supposed to be anti battleships but where also anti cruisers, you cant have the best of both worlds sorry.

---

[Jessitrescott]

what are you talking about it is not possible, you cant aim while turret steering you just have to click on the aim reticle otherwise you will shot to empty space

Then you obviously can't aim, so if you would politely stop implying that people who can aim are pure crap in the BCs that you believe are useless.

uhh you forgot the efficiency. Efficiency is the only thing that matters, again say that to some veteran cap player they will laugh at your face.
Hellbore loadout doesnt have chance against Cerberus loadout at close range. Believe or not even Primary Turrets better against Hellbore Turrets
Hellbore is more like Heavy Battleship weapon and have lots of weakness, you need to fly battleships before talking about capital weapons. it is clear that you dont know about battleships much.

This alone tells me that you don't know how to fight in a capital ship. Hellbores have very good efficiency for a weapon like they are. Primary turrets eat power, and Hellbores are second to none in efficiency at long range.

Also, don't tell me I don't know BS all that well when I literally have a fleet of them. (3rd| :p)

im sorry, did you just call titan a cap noob, do you even know the amount of pepole who can pvp as good as titan in caps or even know how to aim like him ???

let me give you the answer- 2.

---

[Durandal]

The point of battlecruiser-class warships are to carry big sticks while being fragile to enemy weapons. This means they carry weapons to rival that of enemy dreadnoughts and battleships, as they're made to hunt these down and destroy them while outrunning and outmaneuvering them. Because of this, they were rather smaller (generally) in size, lacked survivability, and defensive armaments against heavy and light cruisers, who in turn would hunt them down and protect their battleships. The reason the community lashed out when this was changed is because one dev was allowed to deny the entire class it's purpose and say that's not what it's for.

In Disco terms, should I be dictating it in this hypothetical, would be a bit smaller than it is now, but larger than pre-change, retain a bit of fragility to compensate for it's suite of battleship killing weapons. Battleship-rivaling primary batteries, powerful, slow offensive missiles and current BC mortars, while it's defensive armament (currently the BC secondaries) wouldn't be very strong but have a faster travel rate to compensate. A flak gun or two, some point defense secondaries to harass and potentially kill wounded cruisers. All this time, they would have a degree of maneuverability to aid their survival factor, but not enough that they can outrun and escape from it's pursuing younger brothers trying to hound it down and kill it.

Now I'm sure I'd immediately get told the secondaries are insufficient to deal with cruisers. However, these secondary guns are for minor damage and self defense, not offense. The reason for this would be, should one of the primary anti-battleship guns get a bead on the offending cruiser, it's gunna have to break away really quick or face punishing firepower, like when evading a battleships main armament.

As great a post as this was in terms of knowledgeably on the subject matter, its pretty much inconsequential to the thread topic. If we tried to have real life naval 'balance' in Discovery, everyone would sell their battleships in a day. I know you added in "Disco terms" in the second paragraph, but still, what you're describing you'd like to see is about the same.

At the end of the day it basically comes down to this: We had two classes that were very, very good at killing battleships (cruisers and battlecruisers), and none that were good at killing cruisers (except for cruisers themselves, in which case it comes down to a limited number of factions which possess heavy cruisers to win in a 1:1 fight.)

Personally I think the intent of placing battlecruisers as an actual mid way class between battleships and cruisers is an excellent idea, and I think making them dedicated cruiser killers is a decent idea as well. Do I think they're there yet? Well, that's a very loaded question which I don't think anyone can answer, considering the latest patch which delivered considerable changes to battlecruisers - including giving them their own shield class and allowing them to mount three weapon classes as opposed to two - has been out for less than 24 hours.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask you all to stop shit flinging and wait and see what the latest changes bring until you've actually gathered enough data to see what they do rather than going off of conjecture or nostalgia as the basis of your arguments.

[Reddy]

The point of battlecruiser-class warships are to carry big sticks while being fragile to enemy weapons. This means they carry weapons to rival that of enemy dreadnoughts and battleships, as they're made to hunt these down and destroy them while outrunning and outmaneuvering them. Because of this, they were rather smaller (generally) in size, lacked survivability, and defensive armaments against heavy and light cruisers, who in turn would hunt them down and protect their battleships. The reason the community lashed out when this was changed is because one dev was allowed to deny the entire class it's purpose and say that's not what it's for.

In Disco terms, should I be dictating it in this hypothetical, would be a bit smaller than it is now, but larger than pre-change, retain a bit of fragility to compensate for it's suite of battleship killing weapons. Battleship-rivaling primary batteries, powerful, slow offensive missiles and current BC mortars, while it's defensive armament (currently the BC secondaries) wouldn't be very strong but have a faster travel rate to compensate. A flak gun or two, some point defense secondaries to harass and potentially kill wounded cruisers. All this time, they would have a degree of maneuverability to aid their survival factor, but not enough that they can outrun and escape from it's pursuing younger brothers trying to hound it down and kill it.

Now I'm sure I'd immediately get told the secondaries are insufficient to deal with cruisers. However, these secondary guns are for minor damage and self defense, not offense. The reason for this would be, should one of the primary anti-battleship guns get a bead on the offending cruiser, it's gunna have to break away really quick or face punishing firepower, like when evading a battleships main armament.

As great a post as this was in terms of knowledgeably on the subject matter, its pretty much inconsequential to the thread topic. If we tried to have real life naval 'balance' in Discovery, everyone would sell their battleships in a day. I know you added in "Disco terms" in the second paragraph, but still, what you're describing you'd like to see is about the same.

At the end of the day it basically comes down to this: We had two classes that were very, very good at killing battleships (cruisers and battlecruisers), and none that were good at killing cruisers (except for cruisers themselves, in which case it comes down to a limited number of factions which possess heavy cruisers to win in a 1:1 fight.)

Personally I think the intent of placing battlecruisers as an actual mid way class between battleships and cruisers is an excellent idea, and I think making them dedicated cruiser killers is a decent idea as well. Do I think they're there yet? Well, that's a very loaded question which I don't think anyone can answer, considering the latest patch which delivered considerable changes to battlecruisers - including giving them their own shield class and allowing them to mount three weapon classes as opposed to two - has been out for less than 24 hours.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask you all to stop ***** flinging and wait and see what the latest changes bring until you've actually gathered enough data to see what they do rather than going off of conjecture or nostalgia as the basis of your arguments.

+1