Looking at the battlecruiser class of ships cargo capacity i wonder if they shouldn’t be revised and updated or is there a particular reason for them to have what they have now (with some exceptions) ?
There are destroyer class ships with almost the same capacity as a battlecruiser which seems odd considering battlecruisers are one class behind of battleships and those usually have double+ capacity.
On the other hand, the Triglavian battlecruiser Drekavac for example, has reasonable capacity ( 650m3 ) which seems more appropriate for this class.
This observation became more critical when i was looking at the most recent ships, Tholos 43k m3 Volume / 400 m3 Cargo and Cenotaph 216k m3 Volume / 425m3 Cargo, regardless of their use scenario.
the new Deathless ships have boni to two different weapon systems, three if you count in the Breacher Pod Launcher. Which means they do need to carry multiple piles of ammo.
Most other ships only have 1 weapon system (and maybe drones, that don’t require cargo but have a different bay for replacements). That might be the reason why the deathless ships have a larger than usual cargo capacity than their normal counterparts.
Same for the Gnosis for example, which has Boni to basically all weapon systems and also a very large cargohold to store multiple stacks of Ammo for fits that use two different weapon systems for example.
For the Drekavac, that ships is specifically designed as RR-, SB- or Neutralizer platform and need a large cargohold for storing capacitor booster charges. You can see the same for the Oneiros (Logi-Cruiser, but 600m³ cargo, because it usually operates without capchain, unlike the Guardian that only needs 465m³ cargo…).
Which Battlecruiser do you feel is so short on Cargospace that it can’t fit in it’s intended role? Because that would justify a rebalance, not just looking at percentages of volume or comparing it to other ships of it’s class.
Tholos is a Deathless Circle destroyer class ship with 400m3 cargo
Cenotaph is a Deathless Circle battlecruiser class ship with 425m3 Cargo
both use similar class systems - i used this as a recent ship example.
Same applies to most faction battlecruisers vs their destroyers - the jump in cargo capacity is minimal.
The reason i write about this is because, unlike popular preferences, i run L4’s (not burner) with sub marauder class ships because i find that fun. Some battlecruisers can deal with most L4’s fighting, even if the TTK is on the lengthy side, but come short when dealing with cargo since battleship drops have increased volume.
*Drekavac is an exception - please don’t nerf it!*
Ps: the battlecruiser i was looking for l4’s was Angel’s Khizriel but reading your remark on “intended role” makes me wonder.. am i odd ?
Eehhh… are trying to say that you loot the mission site with your combat ship? Really, no wonder you ask these questions. Correct me if I got that wrong please, english is not my native language…
Those ships are combat ships, they are not built for looting mission sites and they shouldn’t be, because that would screw up their performance balance in the field they are built for: Combat.
Don’t be offended, I really want to help: You are using a tool in a way it is not built for. It is to be expected that you find it underperforming. Either accept these shortcomings or learn how to properly run those missions and make profits from the loot that they can generate. If you are interested, I am willing to tell you. However if you insist wanting to do what you are doing the way you are doing it, I will get the impression that you are not interested in learning, so I will just let you be…
That’s fine, i know i could be changing ships into something more specialized like the Noctis or some homebrew looting ship but, 25m3 cargo increase between a destroyer class and a battlecruiser is nothing.
I guess i’m odd… but my cargo capacity comparison still stands - it should be bigger for the class Tier increase.
Edit: Looting the mission site with the same ship is fine with a bit of proactive actions while fighting , specially with a short range fighting ship and tractor beam equipped.
Both the battlecruiser and destroyer just need enough space for a MTU if you wish to loot.
This doesn’t require a bigger cargohold for the battlecruiser.
Then later you can come back in another ship to pick up the MTU and loot it’s contents. I like blockade runners, they’re fast. A Noctis also is a good option if you wish to pick up the salvage too.
I think he know this, he wants to do it differently by intention.
But unfortunately, of course you can grab a hammer by the head and drive in nails with the handle. And of course that will suck. But nobody is gonna redesign hammers to just fit his idea of holding them.
well “the point” is, that ship design (and with that cargo space) isn’t nessessary defined just by “ship class” and bigger always needs more cargo. The devs look at what amount of cargo the ship needs to fulfill its role. And on most amarr ships for example, they need less cargo because with just a few m³ they can already store all of the ammo they need. While other fits just need more space for multiple stacks of missiles, gun ammo, bombs or capboosters.
So, you need to understand that
a) comparing a Drekavac to a Harbinger for example makes little sense if you just look at the cargo
b) comparing a Maller to a Drake doesn’t make much sense as well
c) using “mission battleships have larger loot drops” as an example isn’t a very good one
So what if he is looting with the ship he is running the site itself? Why should that matter?
I don’t see what is wrong on this suggestion. It is logical and reasonable, it makes sense for BC to have something in between of cruiser and battleship (of that empire). There are some BCs like that already like that Drekavac or Gnosis, why shouldn’t they all be like that?
What do you see as a problem on this suggestion? I did respect you, but the more I read from you lately the more I agree with others who called you to be a nay-sayer.
It simply is no balancing argument, because Battlecruisers are not meant to do that (efficiently). Their cargo space is calculated and balanced to fit their role as a combat ship and increasing it just because someone wants to “loot missions” with them would interfere with their ability to hold ammo, cap charges and/or deployables. The more cargo they have, the less important - strategically - becomes the decision what to carry and what to leave behind. Just “buffing something” for the sake of having “more” to please even the wildest usecases isn’t good balance or design.
I say nay to suggestions that aren’d well thought and add no value to the game. I do say yay to suggsions that do. But they are pretty rare. Because most people making suggestions, either don’t care or don’t understand fundamental mechanics and balances of this game. They just want to adress their personal need and happily ignore all consequences for other parts of the game.
It’s not difficult to see there’s something off here, unless you don’t WANT to see it. Combat BC should have around 600 or so, that just makes good sense.
Unless you’re doing really fancy missions it matters not
If you cherry pick loot valued at 1.5m or more, you’ll get just enough to fill your hold from most mission sites; almost all the ships have loot but few have anything of value.
Collecting everything is a waste of time any way you slice it, yes you can reprocess it for the materials but as soon as you’re accommodating this with multiple trips, MTUs, cargo expanders or a completely different ship just for a bigger hold, you are now already paying for those additional materials in time and/or added awkwardness.
Could you please enlight me on what balance issues it would incur in increasing battlecruisers cargo capacity ?
Because, i was just using common sense while looking at cargo discrepancies between ship classes.
~600 m3 cargo capacity for battlecruisers just feels right because we don’t have anything else between them and battleships which have double + the capacity. The increase in volume and sig could be because of that too - not just because defense layers.
The usage i give battlecruisers in this thread is meaningless because i was just adding usability in MY scenario
Fastest and most efficient way to make isk is to get a job and buy plex.
Anything you do in game is going be less efficient than that. So might as well do what you like even if it is not the best way to do something when playing a game.
I have tried that. Looks like you didn’t read it. The cargo of a ship can be used for different purposes:
ammo
deployables
capboosters
loot
refit modules
etc…
If you add more cargo to a ship, you devalue the decisionmaking between those things. It becomes less an “it is important what you pick” and more an “I just can load up basically everything”. That lowers strategical depth.
What should that be in an online game that requires indepth knowledge about how mechanics work and how ships are used to find a working balance? One person can have that knowledge and the other can just “decide by feelings”.
Oh wait…
I just wanted to point out that your usage is a pretty bad example to justify a cargo boost for them, because the way you use it isn’t the way it is designed to be used.
Now back to your question (again):
using the Drekavac as reference or even the Gnosis is not helpful. Why? Those ships are designed intirely with a different purpose in mind than the standard Battlecruisers. The Drekavac is a support ship with boni for Remote-Rep, Neutralizing- and Smarbombing (see it’s boni!). That means it will heavily rely on capboosters to do so. And to store these, it needs a lot more cargospace. Similar to the Gnosis, it is designed to work as an exploration ship, with Boni to all weapon systems and scanning probes. It should be able to do longer trips on it’s own and will have the need to carry at least a mobile Depot, mostly even an MTU to be efficient. Often even refit modules like a cloak or an MJD. That is why both of them are outliers and that is why both of them have an exceptionally large cargohold for a Battlecruiser.
Now, coming to the normal battlecruisers.
– a Harbinger has the lowest Cargospace, because it needs the lowest amount of cargo for ammo. 12x Conflag, 12x Scorch, 6x Standard and 6x Multifrequency and thats it. Thats 36m³. Means you still have 339m³ free space for whatever you like.
– a Drake on the other hand needs at least 3 sorts of “Scourge” HAMs, 3000 Rage for bigger Targets, 3000 Faction for smaller targets and 1500 Javelin for Frigsize targets. In addition you want at least 1 other damage type in case you encounter an opponent with extremly high Kin Resistance or a Reactive Hardener. That means another 1500 Mjolnir Rage and 1500 Mjolnir Faction. And that is the minimum Ammo I would carry on a PvP Drake. Now adding all those stacks up, we have 157,5m³ reserved for Ammo. From the total of 450 cargo (which is significantly more than then 375 of the Harbinger), you have 292,5m³ left for *whatever - that is less that what you have free at the Harbinger.
– now a simple minded person could say “oh wait, then the Drake needs more Cargo!!”. No. The Harbinger is Laserboat and the Drake is not. If the Harbinger gets neutet dry, it cannot shoot any more. The Drake still can. So the danger of being neutet is by far higher for the Harbinger than for the Drake and that is why the ability to carry more (or larger) capboosters still makes that difference somewhat balanced.
– Conclusion: Just looking at the “Cargo Numbers” and listeing to “what feels right” isn’t enough. You have to know how these ships are used in realistic combat Scenarios. You can now check the Hurricane and the Brutix and you will see a similar pattern. The more the ship is reliant on cap and the more ammo it needs to carry, the more cargo it will have.
Last part: Difference to Cruisers.
While Battlecruisers are mostly made for Fleet Scenarios (aka thick buffer tank), Cruiser size Hulls are designed a lot more for mobile skimirsh- and ambush-scenarios. They can be fitted for sigtank-localrep to migitate most of the incoming damage from maneuvering and then tank the remaining bit with their local reppers.
Note: Brutix, Myrmidon and Cyclone for example which have a bonus to local reppers also are on the higher end of Cargohold (450-450³).
But the different usecase for Cruiser hulls also means they need additional space for capboosters when tanking locally, while still carrying the same ammo that battlecruisers do. Also they have a significantly lower cap-pool but still use the same propmods, reppers or weapons, also increasing their need to carry capboosters to compensate that. If you would lower their cargo to make your “feel better” just because then there is a visible difference between the cruiser and the battlecruiser class, they would become very weak in capbooster fits. If you buff the Battlecruiser Cargo just for the sake of just having “more”,… well we are at point 1 back again.
So, in the end: You don’t have to agree. I am perfectly fine with you insisting on your feelings. I have tried to explain you why those ships are balanced as they are, and from my opinion that is absolutely fine. I made more than 500 kills with the Harbinger alone and I can tell you: that ship doesn’t need more Cargo, even if it has the lowest cargo even in the BC class. It’s well balanced in power, among the different racial battlecruisers and among the different ship classes. And I basically haven’t heard any complaints about BC cargo from PvPers at all, not in years. For someone trying to loot L4 missions with it, okay… but the game isn’t designed around PvE, the PvP balance is by far the more important factor and for PvE you chose whatever you think is good and stick with it’s benefits and drawbacks.
Just for clarification: Would I have a problem with all BCs getting Cargo buffed by 100 or 150m³? No. I wouldn’t care that much. I just don’t feel it is nessessary. The current balance is very good already and more cargo only adds some convenience for the price of a bit lower strategical depth. But both of those differences hardly wouldn’t be noticable imho.