Ships & Modules

TL;DR
The more balanced optimal:falloff ratio of hybrid weapons makes range bonuses on hybrid ships bad in comparison to other races. Also, this makes ships like the Ferox terrible at using blasters, because the bonus does not suit the weapon system.



Hybrid ships with either a optimal (Caldari) or falloff (Gallente T2) bonus are currently at an unnecessary disadvantage to Amarr and Minmatar ships which contain the appropriate similar bonus.

Let's look at a Caldari ship fitted with blasters, for instance.
2 (optimal) + 6 (falloff) metres will become 3 (optimal) + 6 (falloff). The bonus is useless.

Now, a railguns with AM vs. pulses with Scorch.
Caldari: 36 + 30 (66 total) becomes 54 + 30 (84 total). 27% gain.
Amarr: 45 + 10 (55 total) becomes 62 + 10 (72 total). 31% gain.

Hybrids needlessly suffer because of their more 'balanced' relationship between optimal and falloff. With a 50% falloff bonus:
A 50 optimal, 50 falloff hybrid weapon will have 50 optimal and 75 falloff. 125 total.
A 10 optimal, 90 falloff projectile weapon will have 50 optimal and 135 falloff. 145 total.

Now, if the bonuses were changed to be a 50% bonus to optimal AND falloff (On all ships with a range bonus, not just hybrids!), there would be no disadvantage to a weapon system:
A 50 optimal, 50 falloff hybrid weapon will have 75 optimal and 75 falloff. 150 total.
A 10 optimal, 90 falloff projectile weapon will have 15 optimal, 135 falloff. 150 total.


A range bonus on a hybrid ship will actually mean something.
Discuss!

The one with 75 optimal and 75 falloff would be far more powerful than 15 optimal/135 falloff. Having optimal + falloff adding up across weapons system is rather meaningless.

-Liang

How do you consider that balanced? Take sane ranges -- say, 60km -- and then do your comparison based on damage percentages. The fact that your two examples hit optimal + falloff at exactly the same point does nothing to negate the fact that the falloff weapon is doing less damage than the optimal weapon up until that point. While it's nice that falloff-heavy weapons can hit further beyond optimal + falloff than optimal-heavy weapons, no one in their right mind ever tries to maneuver into a situation beyond optimal + falloff.

Honestly, I don't think you've identified a real problem. Caldari optimal-bonused hulls can manage to use Void in a wider range of situations, and Gallente have to rely on Null. Rails... well, I still haven't had the chance to play with rails since their alleged boost, but I've never been a fan before for any number of reasons -- none of which would be solved by double bonusing hulls.

I'm most certainly not. ACs, of course, are fine and work in falloff. But that has nothing to do with whether comparing identical optimal + falloff numbers gives any indication of balance. I was questioning your methodology, not trying to claim that falloff is somehow useless.



Of course they are. Comparing rails and ACs is rather daft in the first place as the two weapon systems fill entirely different roles.



I guess I'm not seeing the point here. What are these numbers supposed to show?

Usually not a good idea to compare long range guns with short range guns... Kind like comparing apples with bricks, to many differances.

Try to compare rails with mega beams or artilleries and use short range, high damage ammo.