EVE General Discussion

On first glance, I got very excited by these changes (being a Gallente fanboi). But on deeper reflection, I think there's still a way to go from these adjustments before Gallente (and in particular hybrids) become viable for fleet engagements again.

Blasters need more damage up close, but their long-range low damage ammo types need to give far more flexibility. So at current blaster optimal range, they really need to melt face (ACs operate better at blaster optimal currently, and I'm not convinced that improving blaster tracking alone makes a big enough difference to make blasters worthwhile).

But to be remotely useful in fleet fights, blasters need to be able to do respectable damage at longer ranges. Switching ammo types should make a lot more difference to the range of blasters than at present. (achieving that without giving rails an insane range boost will require adjusting base ranges for both weapons and range multipliers on all charges)

Rails with AM need to be able to compete with (if not outperform) the equivalent tier of Pulse lasers loaded with scorch. The main reason nobody flies Gallente ships in fleet battles is because, even with rails, Amarr ships with pulse lasers still perform better at every realistic combat range. The fact that a short-range weapon with long-range ammo can significantly outperform a long-range weapon with short-range ammo at every range is ridiculous.

Anyway, I know those new stats aren't set in stone. But please, while you're still working on it, make hybrid platforms viable for modern fleet combat.

If this is true these items are being worked on the next patch can be titled `this is win` and I think everyone would agree.

CCP, this is the direction EVE -0should- have been going the last 2 years...Dust, WoD: great ideas. but EVE should not suffer for them. ( I'm actually looking forward to Dust, might even buy a PS3 for it... )

Anyways, -yeayz I on the threadknought!

Snowballs? *wink* *wink*

No, it's a nerf. Higher number = less agility.

If you look in the item database, you'll see those numbers repeated under the heading “Inertia modifier”, which is multiplied together with the ship's mass to give the final agility of the ship. You want that product to be as small as possible, and consequently, you want the factors to be as small as possible as well. This is why istabs have a negative modifier: because they lower the inertia modifier of the ship (again, the same stat as “agility“ in that data dump) which in turn makes the ship more agile.

The reason cruisers and BS have lower inertia modifiers is because they also have masses that are some orders of magnitude higher, and therefore need inertia modifiers that are smaller to counteract this (otherwise, the align time of a battleship could be counted in minutes rather than seconds). The modifier on its own tells us nothing — it's the combination of modifier and mass that is important.

So you can't say “cruisers are less agile, due to lower inertia modifier”, firstly because a lower inertia modifier is actually better, and secondly because you also have to know what it's modifying. Only if two ships have the exact same mass can you do a direct comparison of the inertia mods.

So all good..

CCP still missing only a few things

- the 4th bonus to AF
- nebula release date
- details on pos's and temporary pos's (whatever that mobile pos thing was called)


Did anyone notice the destroyers are getting HP buff and sig radius nerf, and removal of the rof issue, did they just become epic fighter and frigate killers not just "soso" ones they actually look like they may be usefull for pvp possibly!

Soundwave: troll! :D

i hope you're reading all the feedback here :D

read this its a very detailed thread on features and ideas that talks about a hybrid boost...

there are some pretty good ideas in there CPP... Read it before making changes to hybrids pretty please

meh its not that bad if they reduce the cap activation cost to compensate for the increase rate of fire...

Then the question is, why do they even lower the agility of these ships. It's not like the Thorax for example ever has had any problems of being TOO agile. As a close range blaster ship, it if any ship would require high agility.

And coupled with the higher speed on all the affected ships, wouldn't that mean they will take even longer to change direction? So the already clumsy gallente ships will get "twice as much" clumsier (but a bit faster).

Could CCP perhaps like many here have messed up the values? Maybe they meant to change them the other way?

The ships with a speed bonus will accelerate faster even with the inertia nerf, but does anybody here know what parameters affect how quickly a ship turns? If it's the acceleration formula, then the ships will be more agile (the ones with speed bonus). ???