Player Features and Ideas Discussion

CCP's introduction of tiericide into the re-balancing process of many, hopefully all, ships has become a game changer and has resulted in increased usage of previously unflown ships.

Will it stop there? Why should it?

I think tiericide should not stop with ships, I think CCP should utilize tiericide to address the issue of unused weapons.

Within each type of weapon, lasers, projectiles, hybrids, there exists in various locations on the tree weapons that rarely see use. For instance, the gatling pulse laser is something I see rarely utilized, or the quad light beam laser, electron blasters, Dual 180mm Autocannons, and many others, are rarely used. I would argue that, currently, they may as well not even exist but for the outlier situations where someone has decided to sacrifice all but the least DPS for something else.

Should not tiericide be applied to turrets?

Missiles, coincidentally, seem to have been implemented with straight cut roles for each particular type. HAM's for close, HM's for far, assault launchers for cruiser sized anti-frig, lights for long, rockets for close, etc, etc.

Turrets, logically, have multiple tiers in each type's different long or short range category in order to allow pilots to trade some DPS for the ability to fit a full rack of guns. Usually though, that occurs within the top two tiers... ion or neutron blasters, ignoring electron, mega beams or tachyons, ignoring dual heavy beams, etc. Most pilots I know, if you can fit one or the other of those, you revise your fit, not switch your weapons to the 3rd and lowest tier.

...I'd love to see tiericide applied to turrets. I'm not sure what an appropriate implementation would be, but I do know, I hate not having the option of fitting Quad Light Beam Lasers without sacrificing nearly all my DPS. To me, and by CCP's own initiative, I think turrets need another look, but this time with the intent of making all useful.

Yes. This.

Not only do you always only ever fit the biggest possible guns, for the most damage, but there also isn't any reason for you to use any of the meta weapons over T2, at all- T2 is just better, in every way, rather than a 'specialist platform' (like is apparently the thing with ships). It'd be much more interesting if there were real palpable reasons to use the 'meta 3' gun over 'meta 4', or even stick with meta 0 (heaven forbid, considering that meta 0 is worthless for literally everything that isn't building the T2 version of the module). It could open up whole new venues for fits for a variety of ships that could just in general get a lot more versatile at the T1 level, which isn't bad.

Precisely!

Only the biggest guns you can fit are ever used, and if you can't fit them or the second best, you rework your ship fit.

I'd love to see some way to maybe adjust the DPS/powergrid ratio for the weapons you are using, and change the actual roles each weapon system fills.

That's pretty hard to do as it is because turrets are already built as long range or short range options, like Artillery and Autocannons. Figuring out how to de-tier inside each of those types is a big challenge...

Off hand, I know there are properties of turrets that vary only between classes, like their signature resolution. BS guns have a signature resolution of 400... meaning shooting anything smaller results in decreased hit changes. Cruiser sized weapons are set to about 150.

I think it could be interesting to vary the signature resolution across weapon types. A BS turret meant to shoot capitals, or cruisers. Frigate weapons meant exclusively to shoot cruisers... that would certainly increase frigate usage and threat level.

Any solution will certainly have to be creative.

A big part of the problem here is the T1 ammo/faction ammo sucking so bad beyond one or two types usually being high dps close range ammo like antimatter.

sorting out the ammo would be a massive help for opting to use T1 guns instead of always using T2 guns.

of course that also means T2 weapons not being better than T1 guns at everything.. they shouldn't be better rather allow for T2 ammo usage.

But their are also so many other T1 mods that need looking at compared to T2/faction mods.

I agree with this.

Each turret should have three main types.

1. Tracking-type, with a faster tracking speed and RoF than the other turrets. Example: Electron Blaster
2. Range-type, with a better optimal and falloff than other turrets. Example: Ion Blaster
3. Damage-type, with the highest DPS, but limited tracking and range. Example: Neutron Blaster

Additionally, all the turret subclasses should use the same amount of powergrid, CPU and capacitor.

Tracking-type turrets would be better against smaller ships at closer ranges than the other turrets, and the higher rate of fire increases the chance of actually hitting your target. Range-type turrets would be better against small ships (and ships in general) at longer ranges than other turrets. Damage-type turrets would have less range and tracking than both of them, but the high DPS means that if you can get into a good position, you can do some serious damage.

It's important to point out here than against a small target at close range, tracking-type turrets should have more effective DPS than damage-type turrets. At extreme ranges, range-type turrets should have more effective DPS than damage-type turrets.

And of course, not all turret classes currently have three types. Well, we'll be needing those.

Word up, don't forget ammo too!

Nice portrait by the way.

This.
Some ships just operate better with "low tier" weapons than they do with the "high tier" ones... sometimes even exceeding the DPS of "high tier" weapons because they require less CPU/PG which allows you slap on a MagStab/Gyro/Heat Sink or two... and/or have the extra tracking so that you can use the high-damage T2 ammo without a second thought.

Electron Blasters on an Algos do work... especially when coupled with Void. Merlins can use Electrons effectively too (but not with Void). And with the dual-rep Incursus you don't really want Neutron Blasters because their tracking is terrible at point-blank range... instead people prefer Ions or Electrons.

Even at the medium level, Electron blasters work pretty well. My armor brawling Vexors use them almost exclusively.
And Dual-180 Autos are incredibly sexy on the Stabber Fleet Issue. With the gun's inherently high tracking, the ship's tracking bonus, and dual gyrostabs... you pack a punch while maintaining your tank and swatting frigates, destroyers, and some cruisers with ease.
I've even found Focused Medium Pulse Lasers to be better than Heavy Pulse Lasers for a variety of reasons.


tl;dr...

You are making sweeping generalizations OP. There are uses for "low tier" weapons, but you're just focusing purely on the raw DPS aspect.
Don't get me wrong though... there are times where raw DPS or volley damage is king (*cough*artillery*cough*) and getting the biggest guns you can strap on is required... but again, there are times where smaller barrels are simply superior.

I'm not arguing that smaller weapons are totally unused, or do not have a role. I'm arguing that from a usage perspective, they are significantly underused as compared with mid and top tier weapons. Many people may use Electron blasters, successfully, and for a good reason, but those people are in a small minority compared with the number of people who try to fit Ion or Neutron blasters.

My focus here is on trying to make all weapons equally desirable to be used, and follow in CCP's footsteps of de-tiering and instead re-purposing under represented systems(ships atm).

I think tradeoffs for PG usage, cap, tracking, damage, etc, should be a function of the Meta level system. There are A LOT of meta levels, even below T2, that could be differentiated with difference cap usage, different tracking, different DPS, different powergrid, etc, filling the different requirements that different tiers of weapons do now.

I think that what are different tiers of weapons now should become re-purposed with particular roles. My suggestions being differentiation by total DPS and total alpha. Those may not be the only possibilities.

I'd just like to see all weapons being used, equally desirable, enriching the PvP and PvE experience, and economically viable to produce.

Edit:

Credit to Felsusguy for the idea of differentiating based on tracking/range/dmg. I ran with it a bit and I think that range should remain more or less with the Beam/Pulse, Rail/Blaster, Arty/AC categories, whilst tracking/dmg/powergrid/cap should be a factor of re-purposed meta-level.

Let's use medium autocannon as our example here, because it's all I can be bothered to remember right now. You have dual 180s, 220s and 425s. Would you nerf the **** out of the dual 180s and 220s by giving them the same fitting as the 425s, buff 220s and 425s by using dual 180 fitting, or buff the popular 425 and nerf the underused dual 180 by choosing the middle ground?

And what about all those fits that cannot use more than the dual 180s or the 220s, would you have them all become useless, or would you buff the hell out of them?

You blind oaf. I said "additionally". By that, I mean it should happen if the other changes I proposed occur.