Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You still haven't explained why my suggestion--which is to provide a role bonus allowing all large turrets to be fit to attack battlecruisers, and giving small weapons of all types a range bonus on attack destroyers--is a bad idea. You are merely trying to appeal to majority, a logical fallacy.

My post isn't about whether or not cross-fitting these ships is a good idea, it is about whether or not cross-fitting should be allowed. Please keep the posts on topic--very few of you have thus far.

It homogenizes eve further which is widely regarded as a bad thing, awhy would a gallente ship need to fir arty when it's entire purpose is based around said guns, is it not logical that it would be setup solely to reduce the fitting requirements for hybrids because of the vast differences in it's and other weapon systems methods of fire. Same goes for destroyers, would a more specialized energy system (which I see as the way the coercer gets a role bonus to range) affect how far projectile weapons shoot? While your justification is why not the evermore present question of why do it at all looms over it, which you haven't answered.

Simple. Having more options is generally a good thing, provided these options are not overpowered. Trying to streamline every ship into a specific set of weaponry just takes more choices away from the players. If allowing an oracle to fit 1400mm artillery is a bad thing, then CCP might as well disallow ALL cross-weapon possibilities, and allow Oracles to fit ONLY large lasers, while hurricanes will be limited to medium projectile weapons, and blackbirds shall be unable to fit any weaponry besides ECM jammers.

I'm not good with words, I'll be the first one to admit that. So here's a little exercise for everyone who thinks I've lost my marbles: explain to me why it is okay for a Hurricane to fit a rapid light missile launcher, for a Scorpion to fit a medium smartbomb, why it is okay for a Tengu to fit a 100mn afterburner. Because whatever you say to that will be my defense of my idea here.

Thing about T1 is that they ARE flexible, Here how it goes, T1 are flexible under their hull TYPE, for example

An E-war T1 is flexable in such a way that it allows it to fit damage instead of E-waring it up. T1 is more flexible when compared to it T2 counter part.

A T2 is less flexable cause it falls into a certain role, and breaking this role is....extremely difficult without it being gimped to hell and back. This is also one of the reason I suspect why T2 has less rig slots as well.

Which I can fully understand, there are things there I agree are not flexible enough but there are reasons for that. It hard enough to balance under the current system. Just think for a second how hard it would balance under a system that allows bonuses for ALL damage types and so on. This gives hulls a reason to exist. Your system can and will most likely destroy a great number of the current hulls. We do want diversity as well.

you have made all ECM/logistics frigates and cruisers all obsolete except for the ones that has the most CPU and has the most abount of high/mid slot combo.



Because it encourages racial diversity across ship types, it allows for the ship to be used under certain constraints and limitations, if this was limitation was removed then the ship that can fit the most DPS to tank ratio will be the ship that will be used all the time

because then the destroyers will now remove 90% of the frigates off the board as there are already frigates out there that get bonuses to that weapon system, if you give the bonus to destroyers as well....Well why fly a frigate when you can fly a destroyer that can fit many more turrets then the Frigates?




this is a tail tell sign that these examples are not limited to what you provided. This is why people are harping on your case, it cause they HAVE read your post, and many of them not only having the foresight of what will happen, but also explaining to you from experience what WILL happen under these new rules you provide.

You are claiming we have not read your post, but you must understand. We have read it, and we are telling you exactly what will happen.

Sounds luke having a hissy fit over people not liking your ideas, bur have you note noticed that ROLE bonuses are meant fi push ships towards it's intended purpose.

and what intended purpose is that? Seems like to me they already have a intended purpose. You want a cheap E-war ship that can also be outfitted with DPS items? Having a problem with targets that are hard to hit? Get minmitar, their bonus are perfect for that. (Example.)

I've already done all that, but you guys ignore it. Here, I'll do it again, this time even more simplified, streamlined, and repugnantly riddled with redundancy. Lets stick with just ONE example, the Oracle. I'll explain what is out of balance and even provide examples.

I believe the Oracle should have a 95% powergrid reduction and 50% CPU reduction to all large turrets, not just large lasers. Why? Because its fitting, hit points, mobility, mineral cost, and other attributes are all designed toward being a ship that deals high damage from long range. It works well with large lasers, but is not necessarily overpowered (though I think it could use a bit of a nerf). However, when fit with medium variants of any turret, it is woefully inadequate. Its range and dps are similar to any combat battlecruiser (with cross-fit turrets), yet its hit points are much lower and it runs out of powergrid much faster while its cost is considerably higher. This means that it is only viable when fit with large laser turrets, and that is a lack of flexibility which contrasts with, say, the Harbinger.

The Harbinger can easily be fit with any type of medium turret, and it has both the powergrid and the CPU to fit them. And then it still has enough fitting resource left over to be well-tanked. It loses power only to the lack of weapon skill bonuses for turrets that aren't lasers. But this drawback is sometimes outweighed by the advantage it can gain from the other attributes of these weapons. A popular example is the autocannon Harbinger which is often used in ganks. The autocannon Harbinger sacrifices DPS and range in order to boost tracking and broaden available damage types, while also reducing powergrid cost to make room for more tank modules.

But if an Oracle switches from mega pulse lasers to 425mm autocannons, it will cost even MORE powergrid to fit them. It will cut away from what little tank it has while also cutting its range down to a tiny fraction of what it had before, and offering absolutely no significant benefit whatsoever. On the other hand, if it had the powergrid and CPU cost reduction for large projectile turrets, it could fit 800mm autocannons and it would save powergrid while still having range and DPS comparable to a laser-fit Harbinger. It would still have less tank, but it would have more mobility, no weapon cap cost, and a wider array of damage types available. It wouldn't be a paper tank with negligible DPS and range. It would actually be marginally useful.

And the big reason I think all of this matters is that they're all tech 1 ships. They aren't supposed to be highly specialized; that is the role of tech 2 ships. I feel that the ability to cross-fit tech 1 ships is an important characteristic of their design, and it is clear that attack battlecruisers cannot be cross-fit without being unreasonably gimped. Also needing a boost to cross-fitting options are the Coercer, Cormorant, Catalyst, and Thrasher as each has a range bonus to its standard weapons but not to other small turrets.

I don't understand why you people keep talking about EWAR ships here. I don't recall even mentioning them, let alone making any claims as to any weaknesses they might have.