These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] EW Frigate Rebalance

First post
Author
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#241 - 2012-08-23 10:36:06 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?


This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.



However this form of EWAR would be diametrically (dunno if that is the correct term but it sounds good Blink) opposed to tracking disruptors in that this ship improves the defenses of friendlies instead of reducing the offensive capabilities of enemies.

A ship using TD's is also defending itself from the enemy. A ship using inverted TP's is only defending it's squad mates leaving itself vulnerable. This vulnerability is balanced out by the fact that inverted TP's would do something TD's can't. Which is effect missile ability to apply damage.

It's an interesting mechanic that I think should be explored and can easily be achieved by simply adding an "Offensive" or "Positive" sript and a "Defensive" or "Negative" script.


He is right, a "negative" (sig decreasing) TP would definitely NOT be the same as a Tracking Disruptor - although it applies to the same formula and may have the same effect if the bonus is same.

If there were negative TPs, imagine this:
You have a "negative TP Recon" in your fleet. Enemy fleet calls targets and uses focus fire to destroy one of your ships.
Now you can use these defensive Target Painters on your buddy under attack to reduce his sig and shield it FROM ALL incoming gunfire.

With Tracking Disruptors you would need 1-2 TDs on EACH ENEMY SHIP in this situation.
And by the way, the worst thing about Tracking Disruption is - given you would have brought enough TD to disrupt all 20 enemy ships - that there is no really good way to coordinate TDs so each enemy gets one.
Focus fire is easy, the opposite is not!

A negative target painter would be an effective counter for the ever-present "focus fire" tactic - the most basic of all maneuvers. Enemies would be forced to split fire to reduce the dampening effect on their total firepower. So even a negative TP with a weaker bonus than the typical TD would be an invaluable boon in any bigger fleet fight.
Pantson Head
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#242 - 2012-08-23 10:39:38 UTC
I fly vigils a lot. I put 12 mil isk mwds on them and perma run the prop mod. I have 4 different Vigil fits I'll use.
I don't fly them because of target painters.
This ship gets used, and it isn't because of target painters. If I use a target painter in fights, it's because I'm there anyways in my Vigil, not because I brought a Vigil so we can have tps.
There is nothing wrong with the speed the vigil can attain now, compared to its' lol tank, and there is no reason not to bake Min Frig V into the hull.
or web bonuses, i'll fly that, i'm just not going to fly tp boat.
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#243 - 2012-08-23 10:56:00 UTC
Edward Olmops wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?


This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.



However this form of EWAR would be diametrically (dunno if that is the correct term but it sounds good Blink) opposed to tracking disruptors in that this ship improves the defenses of friendlies instead of reducing the offensive capabilities of enemies.

A ship using TD's is also defending itself from the enemy. A ship using inverted TP's is only defending it's squad mates leaving itself vulnerable. This vulnerability is balanced out by the fact that inverted TP's would do something TD's can't. Which is effect missile ability to apply damage.

It's an interesting mechanic that I think should be explored and can easily be achieved by simply adding an "Offensive" or "Positive" sript and a "Defensive" or "Negative" script.


He is right, a "negative" (sig decreasing) TP would definitely NOT be the same as a Tracking Disruptor - although it applies to the same formula and may have the same effect if the bonus is same.

If there were negative TPs, imagine this:
You have a "negative TP Recon" in your fleet. Enemy fleet calls targets and uses focus fire to destroy one of your ships.
Now you can use these defensive Target Painters on your buddy under attack to reduce his sig and shield it FROM ALL incoming gunfire.

With Tracking Disruptors you would need 1-2 TDs on EACH ENEMY SHIP in this situation.
And by the way, the worst thing about Tracking Disruption is - given you would have brought enough TD to disrupt all 20 enemy ships - that there is no really good way to coordinate TDs so each enemy gets one.
Focus fire is easy, the opposite is not!

A negative target painter would be an effective counter for the ever-present "focus fire" tactic - the most basic of all maneuvers. Enemies would be forced to split fire to reduce the dampening effect on their total firepower. So even a negative TP with a weaker bonus than the typical TD would be an invaluable boon in any bigger fleet fight.



The fact that using more than 3 on a ship is pointless also prevents massive "Negative TP Spamming fests". An like I said. A ship can't negative TP itself and remains vulnerable without a friend Nega TP'ing it. It would make TP'ing ships a real force multiplyer
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2012-08-23 11:16:09 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Not sure how accurate this is but it explains the tracking formula and references signature radius a little. The way I see it is if a weapons signature radius is larger than the ships signature radius is there a "Chance to miss" even if the target is stationary?


A stationary battleship never misses a stationary frigate within optimal. See for yourself.

A target painter giving +30% signature radius to the target is the same as a +30% tracking computer on your ship as far as hit tracking-based hit chance goes.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#245 - 2012-08-23 12:44:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Olmops
If you are looking for a new E-War effect that does somehow cripple an enemy ship without doing actual damage.... what about reducing agility?

Ok, this is more another type of propulsion jamming and does not reduce offensive capabilities, but reduced agility could
-help dictate range
-prevent aligning (and thus warping without actually being a warp jammer)
-make people cause boundary violations in Alliance Tournament *eg*
-break maneuvers

Tired of that puny Dramiel orbiting you at a ridiculous speed?
Just turn on your agility-nerf-mod and watch the wannabe-tackler dash away straight from you unable to maneuver...

Wait. Straight away from me? That means close to zero transversal? :-D -> POOF.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#246 - 2012-08-23 14:33:46 UTC
A suggestion:

Give a small nerf to the other ewars besides ecm, that would be TDs, TPs, and damps. Then increase the bonuses on the hulls specialized for these ewars to more than the proposed 7.5 or 10%. This would be similar to what you did for ECM. This would make the non-ecm boats as worth flying. As long as in total the new non-ecm ewar boats gain over the current power values they have, I don't care what percentages are applied to the module nerfs and specialized ewar boat buffs.

Also, I am rather worried over the 5 mid slot griffin. It is already very powerful and now it will be able to carry more ecm modules. Essentially you are leaving it better than the other ewar ships because none of them will be able to carry 4 ewar modules and prop mod like it will. Add to this the extra mods and rigs ecm boats can fit to increase range and strength for which there are not analogues bonusing the other ewar types, and it looks like another ecm buff. This is not what the game needs.

The only way the 5 mid griffin becomes palatable is if you increase the effectiveness of eccm, make them worth fitting on a frig, and add skills for people to increase their racial sensor type strength and thus a small measure of defense against ecm.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#247 - 2012-08-23 16:18:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Deena Amaj
Edward Olmops wrote:
If you are looking for a new E-War effect that does somehow cripple an enemy ship without doing actual damage.... what about reducing agility?

Ok, this is more another type of propulsion jamming and does not reduce offensive capabilities, but reduced agility could
-help dictate range
-prevent aligning (and thus warping without actually being a warp jammer)
-make people cause boundary violations in Alliance Tournament *eg*
-break maneuvers

Tired of that puny Dramiel orbiting you at a ridiculous speed?
Just turn on your agility-nerf-mod and watch the wannabe-tackler dash away straight from you unable to maneuver...

Wait. Straight away from me? That means close to zero transversal? :-D -> POOF.


I made a suugestion in the module thread right here, for what it is worth.

It is a science ewar module idea.

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.

Letrange
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2012-08-23 17:08:37 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?


This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.

Not exactly a full analysis of the situation Fozzie. The tracking disruptor affects only gun boats and only those targeted - so if some boats attacking the primary were not tracking disrupted then they would still go on the primary at full effect. Inverting the sig radius and applying it to the TARGET of the primary call however affects ALL attacking ships on the target since they would all be attacking the same sig reduced target. There is also the fact that sig reduction would combine with explosion radius and also affect incoming missiles.

Due to the nature of target calling in fleet fights and the nature of the type of modules it is always worthwile to bring more ECM boats in a fleet, but it is usless to bring more than a few target painting ships due to the diminishing returns of applying more target painters to the same target. (currently)

Giving the TP a defensive option as well as an offensive one would definitely make them more desirable. Also note that since anything that affects the "primary" target in a fleet fight is effectively an nice anti-blob mechanism. It then becomes a defensive weapon that affects blobs more than small gangs as well as an offensive weapon.

When analyzing effects you need to look at the entire picture, not just a small part of it.
MJ Incognito
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#249 - 2012-08-23 17:24:10 UTC  |  Edited by: MJ Incognito
If you think sig and tracking are the same, then you don't understand ratios, multipliers and other basic math. You also don't understand that in eve, Sig is relatively static where as tracking goes all over the place.

Literally, the way eve's formula equates to this. If I'm in a 200kph Ferrari speeding down the highway and I see a person I want to try gun down, It might be a bit hard as I approach the person and will become impossible to shoot the guy right at the point where I pass him due to my own limitations. But since I have limitations on how well I can hit that small target, by definition, I also can't hit the Planet earth with the same factors, meaning I can't aim straight down and somehow manage to hit the ground.


That's how ******** the multiplier formula works in eve. I've argued for years that the formula needs to be rewritten so that signature is affected by range just like dilations occur in real life and that signature needs to be added to, not multiplied to the tracking ratio.


Now while this sounds off topic, when you're talking about giving a frigate a massive MASSIVE increase to the effects of tracking disruptors while also making it virtually impervious to damage due to it's new range... that's a huge imbalance that shows that the Developers aren't even considering game mechanics. It also calls into question whether this can possibly break the game depending on if the client has some point at which it rounds or stops recognizing place value in decimals.

We already know that gun tracking numbers are placed in the denominator of the formula which means if there is some rounding issue, It can lead to a divide by 0 situation again causing the 100% Perfect shot infinite range gun problem we've already had in wormhole space.

In all reality, the formula should be based on (Tracking ration * .5 + sig ratio * .5) * a normalized bell curve for probability
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#250 - 2012-08-23 17:50:47 UTC
MJ Incognito wrote:
If you think sig and tracking are the same, then you don't understand ratios, multipliers and other basic math.


How about you look at some EFT dps graphs comparing 30% tracking bonus vs a 30% target painter before you go around insulting devs and posters?

MJ Incognito wrote:
I've argued for years that the formula needs to be rewritten so that signature is affected by range just like dilations occur in real life and that signature needs to be added to, not multiplied to the tracking ratio.


You're not the first one to ask for this. I'm not sure what your proposal would do exactly but the formula has room for improvement. Mostly that turrets who can attain extreme falloff or optimal start tracking frigates too well at the ranges they can reach out to. Also the inability to hit at 0 distance to the target.
MJ Incognito
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#251 - 2012-08-23 18:43:39 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
MJ Incognito wrote:
If you think sig and tracking are the same, then you don't understand ratios, multipliers and other basic math.


How about you look at some EFT dps graphs comparing 30% tracking bonus vs a 30% target painter before you go around insulting devs and posters?
.


You are not grasping what is said. EFT will tell you exactly 1 thing, that Sig is a multiplier based on the current formula. Sig is still 100% dependent on tracking. Take that same concept and put a dread, or hell even a titan up against a any ship where the speed of that ship exceeds it's tracking abilities and watch the damage decline rapidly. This is what happens even if you have a huge multiplier of sig radius vs sig res and based it soley on tracking. The same would not be true if sig was 50% of the tracking formula.

The exact same thing happens in reverse, but is more obvious with the example above.

The truth is that a Battleship should have a very hard time hitting a very small target, even when webbed down to almost no speed. You're argument is saying that the devs are right, it can't hit the frig because sig has a huge impact. Anyone who's played this game for a day knows that's not true.

If a 400 sig res bs were to aim at a 16 sig frigate, there should be at the very best somewhere around a 51% chance to ever even hit the target.... the formula does not do that. People/Devs who argue that the formula isn't broken never understand this concept. It's like trying to kill a fly with a cannon.
Meditril
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#252 - 2012-08-24 12:55:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Meditril
CCP Fozzie wrote:

VIGIL:

Frigate skill bonuses:
7.5% Bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level
10% Bonus to Target Painter optimal range per level



I haven't read all the proposals inbetween, but the Vigil is the only one which has a bonus on something which is in fact not "Disrupting" the enemy. Target Painters have the huge disadvantage that they are not defensive at all (especially if comapred to Tracking Disruption, ECM or Sensor Disruption). Therefore the Vigil can't use its E-War to defend itself (like the other can) and with the Vigils pathetic missile damage output the Target Painter doesn't help at all, especially not against larger targets.

Therefore I advocate to rework the vigil completely, here are some proposals which are meant exclusivly (only do one of them, not all at once!)


  1. Give the Vigil a huge shield buffer, for example tripple shields while also dripple shield recharge time which results in shield recharge rate staying the same. Alternatively...
  2. Give the Vigil a unique small signature, let's say just 25m. Alternatively...
  3. Allow the Vigil to fit Heavy Missiles or Assault Missiles, with these the TP-bonus would make at least make some sense. Alternatively...
  4. Rework TP so that also give some defensive bonus. For example if you use TP on a target then it will glare the target so that the signature of of the ship using TP is reduced by the same factor as the signature of targeted ship is raised by TP. What I mean, if my Vigil is using TP on a target then for all weapons of the target my signature should be reduced but only for these and not for weapons of other ships which I have not targeted with TP.


I think the last one in the list would be the best solution.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#253 - 2012-08-27 22:42:53 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
What about adding benefits that a TP provides? Right now it increases the size of the target. Your gang buddies can lock it faster and hit it harder. What if it could also decrease a target's shield or armour resistances?



This was actually an excellent suggestion and make TP's as interesting as ECM can be (Damps are still going anywhere or situational and makes me sad)

brb

Lili Lu
#254 - 2012-08-28 14:47:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
What about adding benefits that a TP provides? Right now it increases the size of the target. Your gang buddies can lock it faster and hit it harder. What if it could also decrease a target's shield or armour resistances?



This was actually an excellent suggestion and make TP's as interesting as ECM can be (Damps are still going anywhere or situational and makes me sad)

TPs, TDs, and Damp boats all suffer not only from the fact that their effects pale in comparison to preventing an opponent from locking anything, their bonuses are also are too small in comparison the the base module strength. ECM modules were nerfed heavily due to the obligatory multispec power in the old days. ECM boat bonuses were massivley buffed to compensate. Result ECM boats retained their place as far and away the best ewar boats.

For a long time we have had 5% bonuses for damp, td, and tp boats. Why use some ship that at most will get a 25% bonus to a tp when you could put a target painter on a free mid of some other ship anyway? The only reason those ships got used was for their secondary tackling bonuses.

So what CCP needs to do to make the other racial ewar worth flying is nerf the base stats on the TD, TP, and Damp a little. And then increase the bonuses on the ships specialized for those mods. As long as the effect is a net increase over current values for those ships they will gain some strength, which they need, in comparison to ecm. And they will become valuable to gangs and fleets just as ecm boats are.

There is no reason a damp couldn't get a base nerf of some amount (exact amount not stated because I suck at math) and the damp boats get a 20% per level bonus such that you end up with damping effect stronger than it is now. Then an FC would consider damp boats a worthwhile addition in the event of encountering sniping tier 3s to range damp them, or for logistics to scan res damp them. Ditto for TD or painting boats. They would have worthwhile advantages.

Sure ecm can still deal with all that as well but it wouldn't be where it is now which is "oh you want to bring an ewar ship, then get in an ecm boat or gtf into another drake" Ugh
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#255 - 2012-08-28 15:35:31 UTC
I am really curious to see what happens to damps,
but otherwise I'd suggest a secondary attribute to
affect other stats like how many ships people can
have targeted or peoples sensor strength...
Packe
Interstellar eXodus
Against ALL Authorities.
#256 - 2012-08-28 19:30:00 UTC


Target painters are useful, but you have to have max skills, faction painters and preferably a proteus running links.


Really the only problem with painters is that they arn't quite strong enough. Modifying the base range and strengths, information warfare bonus etc will make them more lethal, without messing with their overall effect. It's almost as if the painter's base values were setup before stacking penalties came in.


I practiced painting up targets with a rapier fitted with 4 fleet painters + proteus links and you can boost a targets signature by about 4x, similiar to running a microwarp drive. It's goodnight to any ceptor hit by a bomb, even with the mwd off. The 4th Painter doesn't really do much, but I was experimenting. On one occasion we popped a fail fit arazu with 1 bomb and the painters.


This new frigate has enourmous possibilities with the painter range bonus, vast range, speed, and tiny sig. I would imagine running this ship with a cloak and aim to paint at range (100+)
J A Aloysiusz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2012-08-29 03:34:55 UTC  |  Edited by: J A Aloysiusz
Crucifier looks great, maulus decent. Friggin Griffin (had to!) looks a bit overpowered, not because of the ship's bonuses, but because I feel ECM is overpowered.

Why not add a new ECM statistic: "Jamming Duration". Say an ECM module's cycle time is 30 seconds, its "jamming duration" might be 10 seconds. Thus, there is a 20 second period in which the targeted ship can lock during each cycle. This will allow the jammed ship(s) to fight back to some degree, without heavily nerfing ECM. Being the E-War race, Caldari will still retain the power to immediately disrupt the operations of an enemy force, but make them less useful in prolonged fighting.

This change would make ECM less effective against smaller ships - a small ship will have a low sensor strength, so it will still be initially jammed, but it will have a high scan resolution to relock after the "jamming duration" is complete. While a single ECM ship is currently able to "perma jam" 4-6 frigates, it would now lose the ability to keep them jammed. On the contrary, large ships have more sensor strength to prevent jam, but once jammed, will have greater difficulty locking the ECM ship. Marauders will still 100% suck vs ECM (lol).

If this change were implemented, I can foresee the idea of "staggering" the cycle of your ECM modules so one activates at the other's mid-cycle. Even still, this change would effectively double the amount of ECM needed to "perma jam". Or, it could force "solo" pvpers to bring in their arazu alt (scan res sensor damps), in addition to their falcon alt, in order to beat that one missioner. Looks great on killmails, really!

If nothing else, the falcon would be forced to fight more like an ECM stealth bomber, especially because it would be particularly vulnerable to high alpha weaponry. And holding range will be more difficult for ECM ships, since MWD inflates sig radius, making it easier to lock during the ecm cycle's off time.

And heck, vigil pilots won't be primaried, so they can use their badass TP bonus on an ECM ship, making easier for their buddies to lock him mid cycle ;D
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#258 - 2012-08-29 10:28:45 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
Crucifier looks great, maulus decent. Friggin Griffin (had to!) looks a bit overpowered, not because of the ship's bonuses, but because I feel ECM is overpowered.

Why not add a new ECM statistic: "Jamming Duration". Say an ECM module's cycle time is 30 seconds, its "jamming duration" might be 10 seconds. Thus, there is a 20 second period in which the targeted ship can lock during each cycle. This will allow the jammed ship(s) to fight back to some degree, without heavily nerfing ECM. Being the E-War race, Caldari will still retain the power to immediately disrupt the operations of an enemy force, but make them less useful in prolonged fighting.

This change would make ECM less effective against smaller ships - a small ship will have a low sensor strength, so it will still be initially jammed, but it will have a high scan resolution to relock after the "jamming duration" is complete. While a single ECM ship is currently able to "perma jam" 4-6 frigates, it would now lose the ability to keep them jammed. On the contrary, large ships have more sensor strength to prevent jam, but once jammed, will have greater difficulty locking the ECM ship. Marauders will still 100% suck vs ECM (lol).

If this change were implemented, I can foresee the idea of "staggering" the cycle of your ECM modules so one activates at the other's mid-cycle. Even still, this change would effectively double the amount of ECM needed to "perma jam". Or, it could force "solo" pvpers to bring in their arazu alt (scan res sensor damps), in addition to their falcon alt, in order to beat that one missioner. Looks great on killmails, really!

If nothing else, the falcon would be forced to fight more like an ECM stealth bomber, especially because it would be particularly vulnerable to high alpha weaponry. And holding range will be more difficult for ECM ships, since MWD inflates sig radius, making it easier to lock during the ecm cycle's off time.

And heck, vigil pilots won't be primaried, so they can use their badass TP bonus on an ECM ship, making easier for their buddies to lock him mid cycle ;D


I like the idea, it also solves the problem of other disruption ships needing more coordination to jam multiple targets. What if TP did not have a stacking penalty, would that make it worth its salt in fleets?
J A Aloysiusz
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2012-08-29 19:00:16 UTC
Rick Rymes wrote:
I like the idea, it also solves the problem of other disruption ships needing more coordination to jam multiple targets. What if TP did not have a stacking penalty, would that make it worth its salt in fleets?


The only argument I've heard against either making TP's more powerful, or removing/lessening their stacking penalty is that it would make dread/titan "blap" fleets OP. This seems like a problem with cap ships as opposed to a problem with target painters in general.

Personally, I'd like to see stasis webifiers stacking penalized to hell, so a second web will do less than adding a TP. Match that with the vigil getting a 10% web range and 7.5% TP effectiveness, and you've got your mids set. Clearly this would greatly overshadow the Hyena, but I'm assuming electronic attack frigs will all be looked at after these changes.

However, I'm fairly certain the vigil's bonuses will not be changed. So alternatively, TP's could be changed to increase their raw strength as well as their stacking penalty. They wouldn't be any more useful in fleets, but a TP buddy would be a viable asset in small skirmishes. And honestly, Minmatar already has plenty options for fleets. If you ask to get into a fleet with your vigil, FC will most likely say no, train for a hyena/huginn. It's not like being turned down in a vigil will keep a minmatar pilot from pursuing the "e-war" (I use this term reluctantly) path.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#260 - 2012-08-29 21:37:43 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:

It's not like being turned down in a vigil will keep a minmatar pilot from pursuing the "e-war" (I use this term reluctantly) path.

Minmatar have as many reasons to follow the EWAR path than caldari to follow the drones path or gallente to follow the missiles path.

And speaking about nerfing EWAR, we should be sure that it's still useful even on unbonused hull : EWAR is supposed to be an advantage of armor tank. Nerfing all ewar to oblivion is also a nerf to armor tanking.