EVE General Discussion

... Aaaand my drake ate a daredevil the other day with 5 light drones, web + neut.

Instead of those 5 light drones and that neut, I could have used the last highslot on my drake to dish out drone DPS but without the neut... and with a lower over all buffer so if I got caught by his friends, it would have melted much faster.

Would you like to know more?

I would like to know why any of this is needed.

All I see is something that will either unbalance larger ships against smaller ones (and thus a bad addition) or be completely pointless (and thus be a bad addition).

The nebulaes were not "needed", nor were the new missile effects, nor were the new v3 skins, nor was PI, nor was ... etc. You don't think it would look cool? Well, unless you think most people would find it disgusting that point is pretty moot.

As for what it can actually accomplish, I think it can add more diversity in fittings.
- It can give drones more specific roles by giving those ships interesting bonuses.
- It can give podkilled corpses a purpose.
- It can promote active tanks in PVP.
- It can remove the automatic neut that every ship fits with extra highs.

I understand you are skeptical about the implementation, but even the most awesome feature still need to be properly balanced.

It's more about discussing the concept more than any implementation at this point.

If you read my ideas one more time, you will see they're mostly about switching where the dps is coming from. You already mentioned ships can be dedicated to killing smaller stuff, I say we get dedicated modules for that with the appropriate drawbacks. You are free to think it would not look cool, I disagree, let's move on. Hardly breaking any core principles here, since the appropriate buff would be coupled with an appropriate de-buff.



Not if it is balanced like choosing shield or armor. There is hardly a ship that will dual-tank without shooting itself in the foot. Keep that in mind before bringing back this point. What is inherent to the game is that there will always be flavor-of-the-month builds as the game will never be perfectly balanced. Obviously, testing before implementation is required to avoid imbalance when adding new variances.



See my above two points.



While I do respect your sentiment the game has a balance that should not be tampered with, I think giving more variables to the mix actually allows for more creativity and for the game to progress. And while this may give you more "flavor-of-the-month" ships, it also gives more tools to the players for countering them.

No.

Your idea is to replace drones with a small gun system at the expense of tank on larger ships?

Instead of this brainfart of an idea, why not just use the proper smaller ship with its guns *and* drones? Who wants a Drake that tanks like a Moa and hits like a Moa, but still has the added benefit of Drake agility, Drake scan resolution, Drake cost, and reduced effective range vs small ships? Sign me up!

Often when sitting in a Maelstrom, I've found myself thinking, "Gosh, I wish I could fit cruiser guns on this ship, cut my tank in half and lose all those pesky drones in order to shoot at that Thrasher." But then I remember I could do all that without losing any tank or the drones. Or I could just fly a Hurricane, or a Rupture, or a Thrasher, or...

Here is what I would do. I would tripple the number of turret slots on BCs and up. Then I would apportion those for point defense and main battery duty, meaning small turrets for PD and larger turrets for the main battery. Then I would double the HP and materials requirements and implement upkeep costs for all ships.

The idea that a frig or two can kill a BC+ ship is just dumb, and so are the rediculously low build and nonexistant upkeep costs for all ships.




This is the worst reason to do or not do anything in EvE. Nearly all of the lore in this game was devised for no other reason than to explain away its shortcomings.