Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well I do not care much for the medium guns, but yes for the large. THe medium guns are at least on platforms that still ahve mobility enough to get close agaisnt things they can kill and get away from things that will kill them. Large guns are on platforms that are disasters

Yes, ever since the hybrid buff, autocannons have been getting outranged by their much harder-hitting blaster brethren which actually have superior base tracking. It doesn't help that null ammo offers a nice range bonus while the only significant distinction of barrage is that it deals less damage.

Fact: small blasters outrange small autocannons.

Fact: medium blasters and medium autocannons have approximately equal base range.

Fact: all sizes of blasters outrange equivalent autocannons when using null ammo, while still beating them in DPS by a good margin, and with almost as much tracking.

Bump, i want to pew pew with my cyna.

I think Projectiles and Mini-Hulls need a closer look from CCP. Both could need some (slight) love.
The Nerf-Bat for Tracking-Enhancers hit Minis a little bit to hard at all.
From King of the Hills (aka Winmatar) to something crappy.
Please, CCP, make Minis moar up to date and moar competetive!

IMHO ACs and turrets in general are pretty well balanced currently. Capless operation and selectable damage type are strong perks especially when engaging eg. T2 ships and PVE ships. Drones (especially sentries on cruiser hulls) and light missiles need a nerf more than projectiles need a buff.

Tweaking ACs should be limited to perhaps rolling back the falloff portion of TE nerf and introducing EM, Thermal and Kinetic alternatives to Barrage and Hail.

I think the problem is that they are comparing the wrong things when they balance something. They want to make minor tweaks without impacting the overall balance, while that is the root of the problem--the critically imbalanced base values across the board are preventing changes from putting one thing in balance without pulling another out of balance.

What they should be doing is making blanket changes to categories that are out of balance, and issuing an immediate counter-change for the things which were previously in balance to put them back to where they were before the blanket change.

Example imbalance: large autocannons outrange large blasters while small autocannons do not outrange small blasters. It is already settled that autocannons should outrange blasters at least by having much more falloff because they deal less damage, have less tracking, and have tiny optimal.

Effects of the imbalance on ships: The Slasher is critically inferior to the Atron due to having less range with less tracking and less DPS. The Rifter is a bit inferior to the Incursus but not by as great a margin because of its large bonus to falloff (10% per level) and slightly higher EHP due to the low powergrid cost of its weapons. The Tempest is outperformed completely by the Megathron because even with the damage and rate of fire bonus, the Tempest's autocannon DPS is about even with the Megathron's DPS with 6 blasters, while the Megathron can fit a much bigger tank and 7 guns for higher total DPS with better tracking and, when using Null ammo, better range. The only counterbalance is the ability for the Tempest to have 2 utility high slots, but with its DPS so low it's generally better to have a 5-gun Megathron with 2 "utility highs".

Example of CCP's method of fixing the problem: The most out of balance is the Slasher and it's due to its low DPS/range combo, so we'll change its damage bonus to a falloff bonus so it can take better advantage of its speed and tracking in making tight orbits. Then, since small autocannons have such tiny range, we'll buff the 200mm autocannon's falloff by 33%. This leaves the other small autocannons (which don't get used much anyway) lacking and ignores the problem of Barrage ammo's range bonus being pathetically weak. The Thrasher, which is already a pretty decent ship due to its ability to fit tons of tank plus guns because of their low powergrid cost, has just received a buff due to the 200mm autocannon change. CCP ignores it and suddenly Thrashers start popping up all over the place.

How I would fix the problem: line up the base ranges a bit better--small autocannons probably need their falloff doubled to be on par with the difference between large autocannons and blasters (which are the only reasonable range setup). This is of course going to buff all small autocannon ships so we have to apply counter-nerfs. Current line-up after changes:
Slasher: already so weak it'll probably be fine left alone
Rifter: mediocre weapons now (instead of complete crap) plus excellent tank and good speed
Thrasher: far higher tank than other destroyers with a top gun setup, and now its guns don't suck, meaning it'll hugely outperform other destroyers
Sabre: already was the king of interdictors, now even stronger
Dramiel: much better ability to engage in a tight orbit, already possesses tremendous speed and agility with decent tank.
Firetail: I don't know where it stood before, someone with more experience will have to tell me

Point of interest: the low powergrid cost of small autocannons affects frigates very little as weapons already account for only a small fraction of their powergrid expenses. Destroyers on the other hand are heavily influenced by their weapons' powergrid costs.
Solution: boost the powergrid costs of small autocannons:
125mm autocannon: +1 MW (2MW)
150mm autocannon: +2 MW (4MW)
200mm autocannon: +2 MW (6MW)
Effect on Slasher, Rifter, and Dramiel: slightly less tank, not hugely noticeable. Effect on Thrasher and Sabre: much less extra powergrid, more in-line with (yet still higher than) what other destroyers have left over after fitting top weapons. Now Thrasher and Sabre have less total capacity for tank, and instead can take advantage of their speed and agility for kiting, especially with the new autocannon buff giving them a pretty decent range along with that awesome role bonus on the Thrasher.

Now after changes, the small autocannons compare with other small turrets similarly to how large autocannons compare with other large turrets. This is a good thing when it comes to making balance changes that are effective in the long term. There are still a few imbalances from our change, but these can easily be attributed to attribute alterations made long ago or during tiericide trying to balance the ships while ignoring the heart of the problem. Now that we have it solved, the attribute changes on individual ships can put them in-line where they belong.

To everyone saying that Medium ACs are fine, go try kiting in a Cynabal, Vagabond, or other Minmatar Hull. Then, try it in a rail Thorax, Deimos, Pulse Nomen, Aug Navy, or Zealot. Let me know if you were consistently applying more damage in Minmatar hulls with ACs, or other hulls with other weapons.

i don't know what the best things to do are :

Give pre-TE nerf stats to all Autocanon (all size , all meta)
Give pre-TE nerf stats on minmatar hull (falloff/tracking)
or
Give DPS/Falloff/Tracking bonus on all Autocanon (all size)
Give DPS/Falloff/Tracking on Minamtar hull

But we are all accordly here to say this : in lot of situation , autocanon (and medium much more affected in the current meta) are in a really bad place (in the current meta again) and can't do anything better or even similar to all other weapons platform
yes , they are free cap use , yes they have swappable damage type/ammo with different ammo , giving a lot of flexibilty , but i'm sure if CCP make some stats/graph about what is the more used weapon type in all Eve , we will see autocanon in a really really really deep and bad position XD

So, for another thread which is attempting to address battleships and large guns of all sorts, I would like to see what you folks think of for my ideas.

before skills on the T2, and arrange the meta versions accordingly
dual 425s: trade 3km of falloff into optimal, buff damage mod to 2.59875, buff tracking to .0585, slight drop in CPU and PG
Dual 650s: Trade 3.5km of falloff into optimal, buff damage mod to 3.116355, buff tracking to .05, same CPU and PG
800s: trade 3.75km of falloff into optimal, buff damage mod to 3.47655, same tracking, same CPU, 2400PG

Optimal: About doubling the optimal range of dual 425s, to about adding ~3/4 the current optimal to 800s.
Damage: ~5%, 6.25% and 7.5% respectively to dual 425, dual 650 and 800.
Tracking: .00162 added to base dual 425, .00032 to dual 650s