TIII Battle Cruisers

I think that TIII battle cruisers should be similar to TIII destroyers with a new twist. The TIII BC would be able to online and offline modules associated with the various configurations.

For example in one mode the TIII BC would perform anti-frigate and and anti-destroyer roles such as having bonuses to light missiles. While in this mode the cruise missile launcher would be off lined.

When the cruise missile configuration was used the bonuses for the light missiles would be reduced while the bonuses for the cruise missile launcher was increased as well as being on lined without severely depleting the capacitor.

The overall application of the TIII battle cruiser would incorporate the TIII destroyer and the Attack Battle Cruiser into a new ship class.

Here is an experimental fit I was working on before Blood Raiders showed up and destroyed it, probably taking the encoded op specs for its design back to one of their bases with them.

So these things would have multiple sets of high, middle and low-power slots, pre-designated as belonging to a particular mode, and being shut-off when that mode is not active. The balance being, I suppose, significant capacitor penalties when onlining the modules of a new mode and hilariously high cost?

1 Like

Whlie I am usually all for new ship ideas… There is more than enough T3 cancer running around.


Lol that fit.I’m sure the blood raiders are laughing their coded asses off.


Also it’s nice to see you moved from welping to players to welping to fob rats,what next death by asteroid collision(if only we had that)

Never give up hope, he can at least stuck on an asteroid and get killed by NPCs that way while trying to warp away. I’m sure he would post a thorough report of the situation along with his accusations that it was a CODE setup all along and is a bug abuse evil exploit on their part. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

bro im sorry man but with all your silly posts i cant take anything you say seriously.

Sentences begin with capitol letters. I’m certain you are lazy.

It’s only cancer because you can’t kill it.

1 Like

Like I have stated many times. Those who only ridicule an original idea lack the ability to come up with an idea because they do not want to be ridiculed for anything.

Like I posted, if you would have read the entire post and knew anything about the TIII destroyer design the TIII BC design would use the same system designs that the TIII destroyers use to ensure capacitor use is maintained while switching between each configuration.

Switching between each type of configuration on a TIII destroyer would require more capacitor use due to all of the moving parts and energy being shunted to complete the configuration compared to merely off lining and on lining a module that only requires redirecting energy through conduits.

Anything else Mr. Wizard?

Putting the unwarranted hostility aside, you’re correct in that I did not gather on first read that you had proposed to have the ship class be immune to the capacitor cost of onlining modules.

It wouldn’t be immune to onlining modules.

Training the skills to operate the T III BC would include reducing the penalty associated with onlining modules.

Take for example the Nemesis and its 99.7% reduction in Torpedo Launcher power grid requirements.

For a T III BC training each level of the skill to operate the T III BC would reduce the need of the capacitor while onlining the modules during configuration by 19.94%.


Thanks for mentioning a role bonus - wouldn’t it be far easier to simply be able to switch the role bonus of the ship?
That way you can stick to be using just heavy missiles and the role bonus would modify the missile stats (flight time, speed, radius, etc.) thus changing the missile effect either into something more suited for fast moving small targets or for slow large targets.
Hehe - and we are back to the “modes” of the tactical destroyer … just with another set of options … :slight_smile:


Basically the T III BC switching its roles during a configuration mode would allow the capacitor to be used to bleed capacitor energy into the systems of the cruise missile launcher. The process world function by storing up the excess energy from the light missile launchers while they were being used to a second larger capacitor for the cruise missile launcher.

Because of the large size of the second capacitor the TIII BC would lose most of its cargo volume, 50 m3 overall, have only two rig slots, four low slots, four medium slots and six high slots.

Drone volume would remain the same as the base hull however.

The hulls for the TIII BC would come from Sleeper loot along with limited Drifter loot that would create a more powerful version of the TIII BC’s base TIII hull.

Your way seems unnecessarily hard to implement, multiple very different weapon types fitted at the same time, cap issues to solve, completely new cap storage.

And there’s aesthetics: if problems like power grid would force you to switch off/on weapons while maybe doubling the slots by a 100% bonus to compensate (there is a maximum of 8 after all) the ship would be in a very unsatisfactory and awkward state. I prefer symmetry and all fitted things active at the same time. Grayed out stuff makes a ship look incomplete, like something is wrong or even damaged - or like I am incompetent/lacking skills.

There is no need for cruise launchers when adapting the performance of heavy missiles via a role bonus.

There is no need for light launchers when adapting the performance of heavy missiles via a role bonus.

There is no need for new cap storages when adapting the performance of the ship via a role bonus. No extra cap necessary when simply keeping the same launchers online all the time.

TIII cruisers are already much better - besides, this is way too deep into details. I know it is tempting, but don’t get carried away too early. Slow down, breathe, think :wink:

1 Like

Details is what CCP needs for the ship design. Players simply need to lock and click.

You haven’t flown a carrier yet have you?

There are two different screens that have to work when flying a carrier.

The TIII BC could have two screens as well to manage modules and capacitor use.

Up to a certain extent. But it’s always necessary to take one step at a time. No need to worry about exact slot layout (also remember: 4 factions) or exact cargo space at this point. And balancing has to take its course through a lot of patches/updates anyway. In part because there is no way to predict the ideas of thousands of damaged player minds :stuck_out_tongue: and, obviously, in part because it hasn’t been thought through thoroughly enough.

Jumping to unfounded conclusions, are we? :sunglasses:

Why? As I was trying to say: don’t make it unnecessarily complicated for both, players and devs. You said it yourself: “Players simply need to lock and click.”

1 Like

Id rather see Pirate/SoE BCs before worrying about a T3BC.


To be honest… I think Tech 3 Cruisers should be renamed Tech 3 Battlecruisers.

I mean… they can tank like a BC, hit like a BC, yet move like cruisers.


I know that it seems like a small thing, but changing T3 Cruisers to T3 Battlecruisers would bring more consistency the the lineup (because you have T3 Dessies, skip a class, then T3 BCs… plus T3C and T2 BC stats are closer than those of T2 C and T3 C stats).