These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Give the harbinger a 3rd bonus.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
To mare
Advanced Technology
#61 - 2013-03-04 05:30:13 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
The Harbie has issues itself, it's a mediocre ship and didn't get enough change to give it a role anywhere.

But that doesn't affect the laser issue in general, which is really the crux of the thread, people are getting tied down on this 'Third bonus for harbies' thing and not looking at fixing the real problem.

If you fold the 50% ship bonus into Lasers themselves, LASERS STILL USE THE MOST CAP OF ANY WEAPONS.
Bolded to make the point. They still use significantly more cap than the equivilent Hybrids while at -50% cap use.

So the 'bonus' should be folded into the weapon. Maybe at only 40% to reflect the fact a lot of people only train ships to lvl 4, while 5 is 'specialisation'. That then frees up a 'bonus' (Which isn't a bonus since it is required to use lasers on any ship which isn't pirate, you can 'just' use lasers on the pirate ships, but since they have half the guns for the same DPS, they have a 50% cap reduction bonus already in that) that can actually be something interesting.
As well as allowing ships like the Maller & Abbadon to be viable as laser ships without capping out or requiring twin cap boosters just to shoot guns.

lasers have a built in damage bonus, if the cap usage get reduced also that damage bonus would be reduced, you really want that?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#62 - 2013-03-04 05:33:39 UTC
To mare wrote:
what about ships like the hurricane who get only 1.3 bonus since the harby get a straight +10% on 6 turret and the hurricane waste 2x5% bonus (granted one is a rof and that the only reason i put 1.3 bonus) or what about the brutix who get only 1 useful bonus the 10% damage and the repair bonus its completely wasted since the ship perform much better as a shield gank boat than a armor repping bleeder.


The cane has two useful & effective bonuses, neither of which is 100% required simply to fit Projectiles, but are nice bonuses to those projectiles.
Btw, Lrn2mth. 2*5% rate of fire bonus + 25% damage = 1.66666.... bonus. So is actually a larger damage buff than the Harbinger has.

The Brutix (Infact a lot of Gallente ships) is known for having issues with the armour rep bonus being impractical most of the time except for very niche fits, hence the number of suggestions people make on that. So... bringing up a known problem ship as a counter argument to another ship having problems? Not seeing your point here.

The Harbinger that cap bonus is required to use lasers. It doesn't make them 'better' in any way, it actually lets them be used.

P.S. To the other poster above.... Omen has a cap use bonus as well, so using the Omen as a counter argument to 'Why lasers Cap is ok' really doesn't work. Imperial Navy Slicer (Which I assume is what you were talking about) has a built in cap reduction via the 25% turret damage per level bonus, The same as the Pirate ships do also since it's 2 turrets count for 4/4.5 turrets so it's at 'half effective cap useage'. And happens to be a Navy ship with only two small turrets.
So.... neither of those examples actually produce any meaningful statement that Laser Cap use is fine.
Now.... Show me the viable Laser Mallers & Abbadons & Prophecies. Rather than Projectile Mallers & Abbadons & HAM/HM prophecies
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#63 - 2013-03-04 05:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
To mare wrote:

lasers have a built in damage bonus, if the cap usage get reduced also that damage bonus would be reduced, you really want that?

Lasers no longer have this built in damage buff. One of the CCP devs recently posted to say this buff had been removed.
And the fact that they get happily out DPSed by a lot of things kinda supports that.
Valleria Darkmoon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2013-03-04 05:40:55 UTC
I fly at least as much Amarr as I do anything else and I don't support this for the harb or any other Amarr ships.

I read a thread similar to this some time ago that said all Amarr ships should get a 50% cap use role bonus and asked would the Abaddon really be overpowered if its cap wasn't so touchy? The short answer is yes. So ignoring the "where's X race's role bonus" threads which are 100% guaranteed to spawn in the wake of that decision there is just no reason for it. Amarr are not typically lacking compared to ships of other races to warrant second bonuses beyond what they have.

Amarr typically have stronger than average if not the strongest capacitors in each ship class available which goes a long way to mitigating the cap use of lasers, with decent skills the guns are not that big a strain and reducing the strain would just give that much more cap to use on everything else with my superior capacitor.

Reducing the base cap use of lasers is not a good option either or you risk running into an issue where kiting ships like Minmatar use lasers too because while projectiles are forgiving and at least partially effective at a huge variety or ranges no short range weapons can touch pulse/scorch for damage projection. On paper dps doesn't reflect this so much but scorch at optimal is usually the same as similar projectile turrets at optimal + falloff and therefore the projectile ship is doing ~50% of listed damage while the laser boat is doing ~100% with all else being equal.

Basically I feel like Amarr ships were balanced with the cap usage bonuses in mind and giving them something else would make them too good, especially in the hands of pilots with insane quantities of skill points. While in the short term it might make Amarr more appealing to low SP pilots there are people like myself who are approaching the stats you get in EFT with all level Vs loaded that would make you regret getting your way.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#65 - 2013-03-04 05:49:44 UTC
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:
I fly at least as much Amarr as I do anything else and I don't support this for the harb or any other Amarr ships.

I read a thread similar to this some time ago that said all Amarr ships should get a 50% cap use role bonus and asked would the Abaddon really be overpowered if its cap wasn't so touchy? The short answer is yes. So ignoring the "where's X race's role bonus" threads which are 100% guaranteed to spawn in the wake of that decision there is just no reason for it. Amarr are not typically lacking compared to ships of other races to warrant second bonuses beyond what they have.

Amarr typically have stronger than average if not the strongest capacitors in each ship class available which goes a long way to mitigating the cap use of lasers, with decent skills the guns are not that big a strain and reducing the strain would just give that much more cap to use on everything else with my superior capacitor.

Reducing the base cap use of lasers is not a good option either or you risk running into an issue where kiting ships like Minmatar use lasers too because while projectiles are forgiving and at least partially effective at a huge variety or ranges no short range weapons can touch pulse/scorch for damage projection. On paper dps doesn't reflect this so much but scorch at optimal is usually the same as similar projectile turrets at optimal + falloff and therefore the projectile ship is doing ~50% of listed damage while the laser boat is doing ~100% with all else being equal.

Basically I feel like Amarr ships were balanced with the cap usage bonuses in mind and giving them something else would make them too good, especially in the hands of pilots with insane quantities of skill points. While in the short term it might make Amarr more appealing to low SP pilots there are people like myself who are approaching the stats you get in EFT with all level Vs loaded that would make you regret getting your way.



Whats wrong with Minmatar ships with lasers?
If Amarr ships with projectiles are fine that is......

If it's all fine & dandy for Amarr ships to have their standard fits be Projectiles, why is it not ok for certain Minmatar ships to fit Lasers as a standard fit

The argument you are attempting to employ goes both ways. As I said, maybe not a 50% cap reduction, but right now, Lasers use somewhere around 330% the cap that Hybrids do as a base cap useage.
Bizheep
Advanced Technology
#66 - 2013-03-04 06:26:26 UTC
we could write 1 full page with all the maths and stories about weapons balancing of the last years, and most of you would just ignore that and go crying for a boost.
the long story short is that energy weapons have unmatched dps projection (still retaining a good dps at close range) and for that you pay cap.
want dps no matter what? go blaster
want no cap usage and selectable dmg? projectile or missile
want good dps and awesome damage projection? go laser
Sigras
Conglomo
#67 - 2013-03-04 08:18:14 UTC
so wait . . . the OP is complaining that the harbinger is bad and that the way to fix the harb is to give it a third bonus?

First tell me what is wrong with the harbinger. Does it lack damage? Speed? Versatility?

The second thing is, would a third bonus really be the best way to address these shortcomings? And if so, what bonus are you gunning for?

The only complaint ive read in this thread is that "the 10% cap usage bonus isnt any good" that isnt a reason to give a ship a third bonus, the 7.5% armor rep bonus isnt any good either but the brutix and myrm dont need more bonuses.

Please list the things wrong with the harb that it needs a third bonus.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#68 - 2013-03-04 08:23:24 UTC
All the Harbinger needs to be completely boss is a NOS buff.


Double web rapeage!

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#69 - 2013-03-04 11:38:44 UTC
Omega Crendraven wrote:
Can't agree more, the harbinger and Amarrian ships in general need a bonus to decrease the consumption of cap in lasers

Then wouldn't it make more sense to change the weapon if the weapon is the problem?

And as for the numpty who said "Its not better if it just makes it less ****." Surely, by definition, if something makes something less ****, it makes it better.

So, again I say: every weapon system has its pros and its cons.
Lasers have awesome optimal, no reload time, no ammo expenditure unless using faction or T2 ammo and a good level of dps.
The downsides are that they have poorer tracking, limited damage type and high cap use. However, given that lasers also benefit the most from the gunnery skill; "Controlled Bursts", we are left with a somewhat interesting situation.

A stock Heavy Pulse Laser II has a 2.666gj/s draw. With all skills at 5, that same weapons draw is 2.777gj/s, adding the RoF increases and the cap need reduction.

Put that on a Harbinger at all 5's and the draw is 1.389gj/s.

So you don't need nearly as much power to use your weapons, allowing you to put damage down range for longer and even allowing for more damage mods because of it.

In combination, the two bonuses the Harbinger gets allow the damage potential of 9 lasers with the draw of 3. How is that not a useful bonus?

The 10% per level cap bonus gives more flexibility to the hull. Without it, you would need more cap mods to keep it going, taking away from speed, tank or damage potential.

Your problem is that you feel the bonus does not compare with other ships that have optimal bonuses or RoF bonuses. When you compare the bonuses to the weapons they tell a different story. Other ships need bonuses to optimal and falloff because their weapons are limited in that way. Blasters, without a bonus have a severely limited range, so you have to fit mods to give them range enough to be effective. Lasers don't need more range, they need more cap. The bonus supports them this way.

If you still feel that the cap use bonus is not good enough, then I suggest you run a few numbers without it. Try other bonuses on there, very few will be half as useful as the one it has. If your still not satisfied, then I still say your barking up the wrong tree and that your problem is the weapon not the ship.

Friends
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#70 - 2013-03-04 16:00:29 UTC
Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

I'll start by copypasting what I said in the Combat Frigs thread in relation to this question back before Retribution:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:
So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic.
The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU

    • Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.


    That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

    This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    MailDeadDrop
    Archon Industries
    #71 - 2013-03-04 16:20:08 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

    Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.

    That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

    This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.


    The problems aren't new. The solutions aren't forthcoming. My understanding from your statements is "Yeah, it's broken, and we're maybe going to fix it sometime in the nebulous future, perhaps even the distant future, but none of your ideas are what we're going to do, and no I can't tell you what we're going to do about it. You'll just have to put up with the brokenness until we do something about it"

    Do you really expect us to be happy with that position? What?

    MDD
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #72 - 2013-03-04 16:28:45 UTC
    MailDeadDrop wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

    Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.

    That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

    This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.


    The problems aren't new. The solutions aren't forthcoming. My understanding from your statements is "Yeah, it's broken, and we're maybe going to fix it sometime in the nebulous future, perhaps even the distant future, but none of your ideas are what we're going to do, and no I can't tell you what we're going to do about it. You'll just have to put up with the brokenness until we do something about it"

    Do you really expect us to be happy with that position? What?

    MDD


    You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
    The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    Warde Guildencrantz
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #73 - 2013-03-04 16:30:19 UTC
    bonus is fine, hull is fine. It's got better DPS than most other BCs at the moment and similar tank.

    Cane needs a bit of its PG back, Beam lasers and rails on BCs need to be more useful. That's about all.

    TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
    Hakan MacTrew
    Konrakas Forged
    Solyaris Chtonium
    #74 - 2013-03-04 16:34:45 UTC
    MailDeadDrop wrote:
    The problems aren't new. The solutions aren't forthcoming. My understanding from your statements is "Yeah, it's broken, and we're maybe going to fix it sometime in the nebulous future, perhaps even the distant future, but none of your ideas are what we're going to do, and no I can't tell you what we're going to do about it. You'll just have to put up with the brokenness until we do something about it"

    Do you really expect us to be happy with that position? What?

    MDD

    Alternatively, you can take what he said at face value which is:

    "There is a lot that needs doing, we can't do it all at once, we will fix it." & "The high cap use of lasers means we can improve other parts of the weapon to make up for it."

    Did Fozzy say:
    "We are going to ignore everything you guys have said"?
    No, he didn't.

    Friends
    Bienator II
    madmen of the skies
    #75 - 2013-03-04 17:16:47 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

    I'll start by copypasting what I said in the Combat Frigs thread in relation to this question back before Retribution:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Laser cap use bonus on Amarr ships:
    So this became a pretty heated debate in the thread, and I'm going to address it even if it is a bit off topic.
    The original design of lasers was that they essentially had a built in damage bonus, being more powerful in base damage than any other weapon system. In the time since launch however that specific damage advantage has diluted somewhat, as most of the buffs lasers received over the years were to tracking. Pulse lasers tend to have good damage and excellent range for short range guns, and Beams have good damage, fair range and excellent tracking compared to other long range options. There are a lot of Amarr ships that need help, as well as many that are working well. Certain problems are tied to the weapons themselves, for instance fittings on small lasers need help and many of the problems with beams are tied to the weapons. We're taking our first steps towards improving the fitting situation for frigates in the already announced changes for winter:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
  • All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU

    • Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.


    That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

    This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.


    sorry but this statement is a bit unrealistic. For me it sounds like lasers are intended to be the best weapon in the whole game and receive therefore more drawbacks/penalties/direct counters than other weapon types. But this is clearly not the case in the current state of eve balancing. They are just a weapon like any other.. just with more drawbacks and direct counters. This does not make them bad or anything but they are certainly not a general purpose weapon like projectiles or missiles.

    In a perfect not lore based world, gallente and amarr would be the projectile and missiles races and minmatar caldari the hybrid laser races. Why? because this would balance the capacitor drawbacks. No ship in eve should be able to fight AND tank with empty capacitor. Drawbacks and direct counters for everyone.

    how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #76 - 2013-03-04 18:06:02 UTC
    Im happy CP doesn't bend over for changing the lasers. Apart from beams and railguns the weapons systems in Eve are super close together ansd effective in each of their areas...

    I do however agree the cap bonus is a waste when instead the Harbinger could get more flavour and a bigger capacitor in return. Would make the ship far more interesting. Tank and gank only get you so far - especially with limitations on both.

    Pinky
    Ager Agemo
    Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
    #77 - 2013-03-04 19:09:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ager Agemo
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
    The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.


    Fozzie what about NOT build the cap bonus into the weapons or the ship, instead what about letting the weapon stay the same but replace the bonus on the ship, to something that makes it worth to use a super heavy capacitor weapon, say:

    Rof bonus and Damage bonus

    True, it would have it very hard capacitor wise but also its dps would be worth it, even if it lasts just for a short time.

    the same could be applied to the larger ships, so instead of cap stability or long firing time you get really powerful ships that need very good capacitor skill management.

    this way you keep the lasers a complete different weapon than other weapons, that also will behave on a more balanced way.

    I find that laser Damage and damage application is not high enough to compensate for the capacitor use and lack of damage choice, but if the ships get very specialized on using said weapon, it makes it worth to pay the price of the drawbacks.

    Also:
    I agree completely, giving third bonuses to just a line of ships or building the bonus into the hulls or homogenizing weapons is not a good idea at all.
    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #78 - 2013-03-04 19:21:24 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    MailDeadDrop wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

    Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.

    That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

    This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.


    The problems aren't new. The solutions aren't forthcoming. My understanding from your statements is "Yeah, it's broken, and we're maybe going to fix it sometime in the nebulous future, perhaps even the distant future, but none of your ideas are what we're going to do, and no I can't tell you what we're going to do about it. You'll just have to put up with the brokenness until we do something about it"

    Do you really expect us to be happy with that position? What?

    MDD


    You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
    The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.


    I would suggest the balance of lasers are fine too me the ships could use a little help here....... but my main thought is that the other weapon systems have been buffed much more than lasers and as such lasers don't look so good...

    i think projectiles need a cap penalty as i think all turrets should need cap as a feature
    Missiles now dominate in range and can now track much better they have surpassed the bonus lasers had that made them worth using.

    'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

    sabre906
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #79 - 2013-03-04 19:28:44 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    MailDeadDrop wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey guys, just want to pop into this discussion with my perspective.

    Expect more tweaks to many weapon systems, including lasers, as we go forward.

    That being said I do not think the solution to the problem is to build the cap use bonus back into the guns. The high cap use is a defining feature of lasers, helps create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships, and I believe it provides us more balance tools than it removes. There's a lot we need to fix with many Amarr ships, but I do not currently expect that the solution is going to be removing the cap use bonuses across the board.

    That statement has not fundamentally changed. The solution to problems with certain Amarr ships isn't to remove the cap bonus across the board, or add a third bonus. It's to ensure that the strengths of each weapon system counterbalance the drawbacks.

    This is an ongoing iterative project and we're not going to get there for all weapon systems overnight, but I can fairly firmly state that we're not going to remove the laser cap use bonus from the Amarr flavor and we're not going to start giving them 3rd bonuses across the board.


    The problems aren't new. The solutions aren't forthcoming. My understanding from your statements is "Yeah, it's broken, and we're maybe going to fix it sometime in the nebulous future, perhaps even the distant future, but none of your ideas are what we're going to do, and no I can't tell you what we're going to do about it. You'll just have to put up with the brokenness until we do something about it"

    Do you really expect us to be happy with that position? What?

    MDD


    You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
    The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.


    Lasers are good. But medium rails still need help.
    MailDeadDrop
    Archon Industries
    #80 - 2013-03-04 19:29:12 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    You can be as happy or unhappy with me as you want, that's your prerogative. What I'm saying is that we're not going to remove the uniqueness of different turret types without good cause.
    The balance between weapon types is better now that it has ever been in EVE, and after each expansion in the future it will keep getting incrementally better.


    Fozzie, if I came across as attacking you personally, then I apologize. That wasn't my intention (I blame low blood sugar grumpiness).

    It merely seems like for all the attempts at balancing the weapon systems we never get there. Projectiles have been the go-to turret system for years. It would be interesting to see weapon type use versus time over the last several years.

    MDD