These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Hybrid weapon and Tech II ammo balancing

First post First post
Author
Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#501 - 2011-11-01 13:03:52 UTC
It's a start I suppose but you still got a long way to make Gallente subcaps mainstay ships in fleets. I suggest you guys start working on the Gallente ships themselves next.

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#502 - 2011-11-01 13:08:19 UTC
Imawuss wrote:
Lets look at some numbers this rebalance will give us shall we? Since T2 Ammo is also getting a buff lets focus there by comparing Blasters to Autocannons using their respective t2 short range ammo types. No skills added or ship bonuses just turret + ammo.


Neutron Blaster II with Void
Range: 10,400m
Tracking: .03637
DPS: 32

800mm Repeating Artillery with Hail
Range: 21,600m
Tracking:.03024
DPS: 25.28

Heavy Neutron Blaster II with void
Range: 5,200m
Tracking: .84
DPS: 24.64

425mm Autocannon with Hail
Range: 10,800m
Tracking: .0739
DPS: 18.99

So Large and Medium Autocannons have 207% more range than Blasters.What?
Large Blasters will have 27% more DPS and 20% more Tracking than Large Autocannons
Medium Blasters will have 30% more DPS and 13% better tracking than Medium autocannons.

So ships that are faster and more agile with comparable tanks have over 207% more range over Blaster boats while doing only 27% less DPS. And in practise they will have much higher range becuase TE's and TC's will benefit Autocannons much more becuase of the much higher starting stats they have. So how quickly can you cover 5 to 15 km to actually apply that massive What? 27% more DPS to actually win the fight while in web/scram range chasing down faster ships...? i bet that extra 10 m/s will really help out in that? Look we dont need Gallente to become Mimatar ships or blasters to become Autocannons. Plenty of good and varied ideas to fix this have been told to you (CCP) by the community now please use them and not this half assed attempt.

Congrats CCP in the same patch to buff Hybrids you have also managed to make them obsolete with this Hail buff (removing the .5x falloff modifier).



and to add insult to injury, now do the same thing to pulsesP

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#503 - 2011-11-01 13:13:52 UTC
Ash MAXIE wrote:
Tanya Powers wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:
That drone idea is terrible.

First, if it's limited to Gallente ships it's an unfair advantage

when you're in combat you don't have drone models on the overview and you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from the 11ty billion other drones out at that time.

It completely makes rails and other ranged attacks useless- you just end up making the pendulum swting in the other direction. Sure you can shoot one or two down, but if everyone has one then likely one is getting through. The ability to probe + warp 150km-250km on grid is already a problem, that idea just makes it worse.



Same opinion but, the possibility for blaster ships to "warp to" at very small ranges let's say 25km for Med hulls or 35 for BS/BC size would clearly keep the uniqueness of close range combat, uniqueness of very short range weapon and an unique racial trait with this feature.

Would it be overpowered? maybe if it's an instant warp, but delayed and with random chance to land between 0 and 10km with half cap consuming at each use of this feature this could make it really unique and now useful in many scenarios.

Just throwing this stuff out there, since it seems all other choices make blasters look like other weapon systems.

(I know I know this will never happen)


I mean smack a beacon light on each drone so that they become highly visible in space within a 50 km range , so you don’t have to look at your overview to try and figure out where they are ...just target them in space.

The whole idea of this is to address the "getting into the 10 km optimal range "without screwing with uniqueness of races...I don’t see any other way tbh.



tbqh it's better just to give Gallente ships a web bonus in strength (back to 90%) and increase range/optimal. Think of gallente ships as spiders: Play it smart and stay at range and you can manage them, maybe even overpower them easily. But if you get caught in their web, bricks should be shat.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#504 - 2011-11-01 13:17:28 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:

Has it stands, the buff is there for sure, but it isn't enough and profits even more to projectiles than hybrids once again.

I thought it was an hybrid rebalancing.

Well, we'll find out for certain, after play testing on Sisi, and live on Tranquility.

I think it is a step forward and the extra CPU, PG, and cap makes for some new ways to fit the Gallente ships, in particular. It might not be quite enough, but I'd prefer to see another buff in the future, rather than a nerf.

Hopefully, what we are all really seeing here is just the first of many, and more frequent, ongoing, rebalancing changes to the game.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#505 - 2011-11-01 13:17:30 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Imawuss wrote:
Lets look at some numbers this rebalance will give us shall we? No skills added or ship bonuses just turret + ammo.

I like that you took the time to work out some numbers. But, I think you really do need to consider skill and ship bonuses, too, since no one uses a gun, without a pilot or ship - at least, not in Eve.

Seriously, though, DPS should be compared on a per ship basis, not on a per gun basis.

When comparing Gallente blaster boats to Minmatar AC boats, you need to factor in the split weapon systems on Minmatar ships (a Gallente gunship usually has more turrets than the equivalent Minmatar gunship), and the signficantly larger drone capacity/bandwidth on most of the Gallente ships.

Drones have a much higher range than autocannons, too, and, in DPS terms, a flight of 5 medium T2 drones is equivalent to 2 to 3 medium T2 neutron blasters. So, to say that a Gallente blaster boat can do no damage outside of blaster range is obviously incorrect.

Skills must also be considered, because a max DPS Minmatar ship requires max projectile, max missile, and max drone skills; whereas, a max DPS Gallente ship requires only max hybrid and max drone skills. A significant difference in SP. So, comparing a max DPS Gallente pilot to a max DPS Minmatar pilot is probably equivalent to comparing a 2 year old toon to a 3 year old toon. If you consider pilots of the same age, then, in most cases, the Minmatar pilot will have fewer level 5 skills trained up, due to the additional missile skill tree, thus gimping relative performance in some other non-missile area - guns, tank, speed, fitting, etc.


Just a couple counter points:

1) With no web bonus the Gallente pilot will be using web drones to help keep you still so that offsets any extra drone DPS, while the minnie pilot still uses combat drones. If a Gallente pilot uses combat drones there is separate tackle or you're no risk of running.

2) Yes minnie has a split weapon system but other than the typhoon current doctrine has all AC or all arty setups.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
Get Off My Lawn
#506 - 2011-11-01 13:19:20 UTC
It seems to me you're making the same mistakes you've been making for years. Trying to force each racial weapon type in to a comparative clone of each other is only going to lead to a state of constant balancing and re-balancing. Rather than doing this you should be thinking about creating specific roles within Eve that specific weapon types (and by extension, specific racial ships) excel at. The two Hybrid weapons themselves are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Let's take Blasters as an example and let's assume Blasters are brought in-line with the fitting requirements and range of Autocannons. Why would I use a Blaster right now when Autocannons do sufficient enough damage to kill a target yet allow me to dictate speed just as easily, if not better, with a Minmatar ship rather than a Gallente, without having to worry about using Cap? If I was a comparatively new player who'd just spent the last year and a half training up Minmatar skills, where is the incentive for me to cross train?

The question here isn't "how do I make Blasters more comparable to Autocannons?", the question should be "how can I give people a reason to use Blasters in some situations where they are better than Autocannons and Pulse Lasers?". The same question applies to Rails vs. Artillery/Beam Lasers. Variety is the spice of life but it's also the key to balancing these weapons rather than the paper, scissors, rock approach that's been taken for years and simply results in over compensation in one weapon type resulting in a preference being given at the expense of the others. There needs to be more variation in PvP, more reason to use different combat types to suit different situations where different weapon systems and racial ships are superior within those situations.

13 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.

Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#507 - 2011-11-01 13:29:51 UTC
If someone brings a Hyperion to an armor fleet it has to be as worthwhile as bringing an Abaddon in its own special way. After all they are both tier 3 battleships the gap between the usefulness of both are just ridiculous. Sadly this injustice applies to every single Gallente ship in the game with exception of frigates and capitals obviously.

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#508 - 2011-11-01 13:44:40 UTC



Interesting stuff.


Hope to see it work.


Quick reminder, don't forget to change all the "Descriptions" for the T2 Ammo highlighting any relevant penalties.

Where I am.

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#509 - 2011-11-01 13:53:28 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
Alex Harumichi wrote:


In narrative, there persists the idea that blasters do huge damage up close, when in reality ACs nowadays are pretty close while having tons of other advantages. Especially with the (weird) AC boost that's also introduced here. An already-good t2 ammo for a borderline-overpowered weapon system, made even better? Huh?


Indeed. For all practical purposes autocannons have comparable damage to blasters, while at the same time having a bunch of other advantages and supposed to be fit on ships that have a meaningful slot layout. CCP needs to get their head out of their arses and realize that gallente arent performing anything like "they were supposed to be".

buffs of about 20% are 'getting there' when for example t2 blaster ammo tracking penalty is in the range of -25% if memory serves.


AC's almost exclusively operate in falloff, doing a portion of it's potential damage. Blasters will almost always do near max damage, that is, if they catch their target..

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#510 - 2011-11-01 13:55:21 UTC
All these one-line posters going 'Woo!! Thanks CCP! This is awesome!' are going to feel pretty let down when they realise these tweaks basically change nothing.

CCP, this is really disappointing. When the Chaos stats were leaked, you told us that they were WIP and may change. Now, it turns out that they were exactly what you were going to implement (apart from correcting your agility nerf to a buff).

Blaster boats will still be outclassed by every other short-range weapon system. They will still be kited by every other type of ship, with their superior versatility of range. If, by some miracle, a blaster platform gets its target into optimal range, its damage output will still not be enough to make up for all the damage being applied by the opponent while it was getting into range.

Right now, blasters are an all-or-nothing weapon, but their 'all' is really quite pitiful compared to the downsides. So the way to fix them is either to a: give them a truly massive increase in damage output at short range, as a trade-off for all the times they'll be outranged, or b: broaden the envelope where they can be partially effective, while still maintaining their slight advantage up-close.

If you're determined that blasters should remain a very short range weapon, then they really have to do a truckload of damage at that range to make up for all the time getting into range, taking damage while doing none. In other words, blasters should do something like twice the damage of ACs if they get in range. Letting a blaster platform get into optimal range before it's at least half-dead already, should mean almost certain death.

If you don't want to give blasters that kind of insane damage, then you have to give them better range. They shouldn't be iwin buttons at longer ranges, but they desperately need more versatility. No other weapon system has such a small envelope in which to operate, and such a steep decline in effectiveness outside of that sweet spot. So fix it with a rebalancing of ammo types to give blasters viable options at ranges beyond Null.

As for rails, you've designed a weapon system that only gains superiority in ranges where the new scanning mechanics make fighting completely impossible. Just give them another 10% damage boost on top of the one you've given them already, and they might become useful.

It would be nice if CCP posted at all in this thread to reassure all those concerned about this supposed 'rebalancing' that the feedback is actually being taken on board, and being acted on.
ConXtionS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#511 - 2011-11-01 13:57:55 UTC
Lets see... Big wig comes out, "we realize we have made mistakes and are going to fix them", then he says "we are going to FIX gallente ships"

So, you have known they are broken for over 2 years and this CRAP is the best you can do?????

Do you people play the game, do you realize the amazing amount of time we have to devote to cross training stupid stuff because of your LOUSY responses to the player base?????

Look.. either fix the game or dont, but stop making promises you dont intend to keep.... If you make a promise then DO IT and DO IT RIGHT for once....

Sheesh I hate this game sometimes....
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#512 - 2011-11-01 14:01:45 UTC
Darth Felin wrote:
Well some more thoughts after I write off all advantages/disadvantages for hybrids. "Hybrid problem" is really complex and you just can not fix it by mega buff to hybrid weapons.

IMHO the problem consist of 4 parts:

1) hybrid weapon sucks - it is more or less fixed by you change.
2) tracking enchanters - they give really overwhelming 30% bonus to falloff and only 15% to optimal. This is the main reason why many pilots think that projectiles are overpowered. 2-3 Tracking enchanters on minmatar ship and you can shoot at really crazy distances, drop it to 15% and gun balance is much better now.
3) Many hybrid platform are just bad, especially t2 one. Eagle, Deimos, Astarte. They need rework of their bonuses
4) Armor rigs and armor tanking. Gallente ships are armor tankers, but they can not use active armor tank as it is really bad even on bonused hulls and armor rigs decrease their small speed even more. It is easy to fix rigs by switching speed penalty to shield amount one or maybe even cargo amount one.


But now you fix 25% of the problem and pretend it is ok now - you are wrong.


This, pretty much. Just highlighting too what you said in #2, why many *think* that projectiles are.. Projectiles operate in falloff, which many don't understand how it works. Extend the falloff and you improve the projectiles alot, decrease the falloff and they're worse. The TE buff was what made projectiles so popular, as you point out. Projectiles in themselves was neither considered good nor bad pre-TE buff.

In my view the major issue is really that Gallente struggles to get in range. At the same time you want the speed and agility on Minmatar, it's their racial role. Same time Minmatar has the web ewar, which would be better suited on Gallente.. and we have the armor rigs with their high calibration and speed nerfing effects. It just all adds up. Gallente works - if they get in range. Which they do, in high- and lowsec (it's probably why I don't think it's an issue with blasters, just rails).

Some dude suggested Gallente should have like a short burst-speedboost somehow, I thought it sounded interesting. Give them a kick, not overall speed over time, just a kick. Might be what's lacking. And fix the damn rigs already. Whole rig layout could use a look at. P

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#513 - 2011-11-01 14:02:18 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:

Just a couple counter points:

1) With no web bonus the Gallente pilot will be using web drones to help keep you still so that offsets any extra drone DPS, while the minnie pilot still uses combat drones. If a Gallente pilot uses combat drones there is separate tackle or you're no risk of running.

2) Yes minnie has a split weapon system but other than the typhoon current doctrine has all AC or all arty setups.

How about some counter-counter points?

1) No one uses web drones. As large drones, they require too much bandwidth, are too slow, too easy to hit & kill, and do not provide enough extra web. More commonly, if you need the extra webbing power - say, using a Celestis to kill Drams - you'd fit an extra web in your mids and use the drones for damage or ECM.

2) You are defending my point. Mimmatar ships typically have fewer turret hardpoints than the equivalent Gallente ship. An all AC setup, using the spare highs for utility, means that a Minmatar gunship is sporting 1-2 guns less than the Gallente gunship (and usually 1-2 drones less, as well). So, comparing DPS on a per gun basis is simply wrong - you need to multiply the number of guns by the DPS per gun, and add in the contribution of the drone DPS, in order to compare the relative DPS of the Minmatar ship and the Gallente ship.
Vedje
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#514 - 2011-11-01 14:04:57 UTC
Joelleaveek wrote:
i disagree that blasters need more range. Short range in their niche. What may help is if the current ammos that give increased range did a reasonable amount of damage. Then maybe I'd consider using them over antimatter.

The proposed 10 m/s speed increase isn't enough though, as has already been stated. Minmatar ships will still be able to maintain range.


What on earth are you talking about
Short range being a niche? clearly you don't do much pvp,
That's a disadvantage, means a => bad thing
And it was ment to come as a downside of using blasters
compared to upsides of blasters.

General idea behind it was Blasters = very short range, but incredible dps.
However at this point blasters = very short range, incredible (however not applicable) dps
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#515 - 2011-11-01 14:08:42 UTC
ConXtionS wrote:
Lets see... Big wig comes out, "we realize we have made mistakes and are going to fix them", then he says "we are going to FIX gallente ships"

So, you have known they are broken for over 2 years and this CRAP is the best you can do?????

Do you people play the game, do you realize the amazing amount of time we have to devote to cross training stupid stuff because of your LOUSY responses to the player base?????

Look.. either fix the game or dont, but stop making promises you dont intend to keep.... If you make a promise then DO IT and DO IT RIGHT for once....

Sheesh I hate this game sometimes....


Relax preppie, it's just a brewskie.

It was mentioned that they were also looking into modifying ships, I am hoping for a web bonus.

They have come out with changes and have made milestones in focusing on a lot of the issues that have been angering bitter vets.

They have kept promises so far, and yes they still suck at communication (really, if a dev posts a blog about making balance changes he/she should be in here actively to respond to comments instead of just saying, "I'm monitoring this thread") but your post is reaching a bit.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

VonKolroth
Anarchist's Anonymous
#516 - 2011-11-01 14:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: VonKolroth
Hungry Eyes wrote:
Tallest, listen brother....

some change is better than no change, i'll give you that. you seem to have a good understanding of what's wrong (you mentioned projectiles, and the possibility of the actual ships needing boosts).

but these changes dont even scratch the surface, not even close. you have to look at it this way:

- why should i use a blaster boat over an AC or pulse boat?
- if the role is not changing, then make these guns as desirable as lasers and projectiles
- blaster platforms need to be the fastest in the game or have some sort of resistance to scrambling, or more resists to damage, or a really long web, or something, hands down. you cant leave these ships status quo (10m/s boost is nothing, 30m/s boost would be something)
- if youre not touching the ships much, then increase blaster range and falloff significantly. i hate to say it, but make them like AC's.

i cant stress this enough, please consider an AC nerf as a viable solution to this mess. then simply balance rails and blasters to pulses at medium range


TLDR: projectiles are simply overpowered, consider nerfing them. blasters need to be as appealing as AC's and pulses in some way. if youre not changing the role of these weapons, blaster boats need some serious buffing; they should be the fastest OR the most resilient in the game.

thanks for listening, this is a great start. im sure some other players will give you a much better breakdown of what i mentioned above because the community is pretty much in agreement.


Could not have said this better. They either need to be faster or the most durable hulls.

Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#517 - 2011-11-01 14:18:32 UTC
I honestly don't think it matters if the immediate changes are enough or not, since I think that is a secondary concern with balancing in general. Naturally you want to hit that perfect balance on the first try, but missing the mark isn't a huge problem. It only becomes a problem, if you aren't willing to monitor the situation and be prepared to revisit the issue after a short time. What I want is for CCP to keep an eye out for how things change with the buff and be willing to do a second round of changes in a month or two after the initial buff has been released, if their design goals haven't been reached. Whatever you do don't sit around with your collective thumbs up your asses for a year or two before revisiting the issue.

PS. +1 to the idea of creating a clear and distinctive role for blasters and rails and making them excell in those roles, instead of trying to make all weapon systems similar. Every weapon system should have some clear advantage over the others.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#518 - 2011-11-01 14:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
Sizeof Void wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:

Just a couple counter points:

1) With no web bonus the Gallente pilot will be using web drones to help keep you still so that offsets any extra drone DPS, while the minnie pilot still uses combat drones. If a Gallente pilot uses combat drones there is separate tackle or you're no risk of running.

2) Yes minnie has a split weapon system but other than the typhoon current doctrine has all AC or all arty setups.

How about some counter-counter points?

1) No one uses web drones. As large drones, they require too much bandwidth, are too slow, too easy to hit & kill, and do not provide enough extra web. More commonly, if you need the extra webbing power - say, using a Celestis to kill Drams - you'd fit an extra web in your mids and use the drones for damage or ECM.

2) You are defending my point. Mimmatar ships typically have fewer turret hardpoints than the equivalent Gallente ship. An all AC setup, using the spare highs for utility, means that a Minmatar gunship is sporting 1-2 guns less than the Gallente gunship (and usually 1-2 drones less, as well). So, comparing DPS on a per gun basis is simply wrong - you need to multiply the number of guns by the DPS per gun, and add in the contribution of the drone DPS, in order to compare the relative DPS of the Minmatar ship and the Gallente ship.



And a counter-counter-counter point

1) You are right in that unless you have the bandwidth (which you do on specific bonused ships) you will use combat drones but then you are back at the beginning. The DPS of the drones is offset to the fact that you are out of range to bring your blasters to bear. And if you throw on a second web (which is the freaking point of this whole problem) in order to hold a FLIPPIN' BATTLESHIP/BATTLECRUISER in place then you're tossing out boosting mods that your opponent has no need to do. You're throwing out a SEBO, disruptor, or any other mod because you already are filled with a MWD, cap booster, and scram... this means to be viable even against a shield tanker you need to have a minimum of 5 midslots. The diemost has 3. Brutix has 4. Mega has 4.

MWD, cap booster, scram, web... and for a cruiser you have drop one.

2) Yes but you are also missing the weapon bonus as well, the Tempest's bonus gives it just as much DPS. and you're also throwing in a red herring... Gallente have to train more in drones than a minnie pilot. Even counting in training time missiles takes about 2-3 weeks to be a viable additional weapon system. Not really a huge deal, you'll be running heavies and not cruise on them.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Kumq uat
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#519 - 2011-11-01 14:29:58 UTC
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
All these one-line posters going 'Woo!! Thanks CCP! This is awesome!' are going to feel pretty let down when they realise these tweaks basically change nothing.

CCP, this is really disappointing. When the Chaos stats were leaked, you told us that they were WIP and may change. Now, it turns out that they were exactly what you were going to implement (apart from correcting your agility nerf to a buff).

Blaster boats will still be outclassed by every other short-range weapon system. They will still be kited by every other type of ship, with their superior versatility of range. If, by some miracle, a blaster platform gets its target into optimal range, its damage output will still not be enough to make up for all the damage being applied by the opponent while it was getting into range.

Right now, blasters are an all-or-nothing weapon, but their 'all' is really quite pitiful compared to the downsides. So the way to fix them is either to a: give them a truly massive increase in damage output at short range, as a trade-off for all the times they'll be outranged, or b: broaden the envelope where they can be partially effective, while still maintaining their slight advantage up-close.

If you're determined that blasters should remain a very short range weapon, then they really have to do a truckload of damage at that range to make up for all the time getting into range, taking damage while doing none. In other words, blasters should do something like twice the damage of ACs if they get in range. Letting a blaster platform get into optimal range before it's at least half-dead already, should mean almost certain death.

If you don't want to give blasters that kind of insane damage, then you have to give them better range. They shouldn't be iwin buttons at longer ranges, but they desperately need more versatility. No other weapon system has such a small envelope in which to operate, and such a steep decline in effectiveness outside of that sweet spot. So fix it with a rebalancing of ammo types to give blasters viable options at ranges beyond Null.

As for rails, you've designed a weapon system that only gains superiority in ranges where the new scanning mechanics make fighting completely impossible. Just give them another 10% damage boost on top of the one you've given them already, and they might become useful.

It would be nice if CCP posted at all in this thread to reassure all those concerned about this supposed 'rebalancing' that the feedback is actually being taken on board, and being acted on.



Not empty quoting
EMPRA
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#520 - 2011-11-01 14:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: EMPRA
All the other players bring very good points. This better just be the icing on the cake. We don't want anything half assed like usual.

Either make Gallente ships design worthwhile or change the design all together. We are TIRED of being niche pilots.

What's the point of being class cannons if everyone else are lightning bruisers or bulldozers?