These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#241 - 2014-12-14 16:21:26 UTC
Strange... I use AC on my Stratios instead of medium pulse despite having bonuses for them... I wander why? Probably coz I'm a noob...

Seriously:

Ac are fine. Lasers mostly too, except insane cap use. It's the ships that need a buff:

1) Some Minmatar ships need slight dps buff.

2) Some Amarr ships need a real bonus intead of -10% cap use. All lasers need a coniderable cap use decrease.

3) Ishtar needs a nerf (and gila maybe too).
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#242 - 2014-12-15 16:30:45 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Strange... I use AC on my Stratios instead of medium pulse despite having bonuses for them... I wander why? Probably coz I'm a noob...

Seriously:

Ac are fine. Lasers mostly too, except insane cap use. It's the ships that need a buff:

1) Some Minmatar ships need slight dps buff.

2) Some Amarr ships need a real bonus intead of -10% cap use. All lasers need a coniderable cap use decrease.

3) Ishtar needs a nerf (and gila maybe too).



"Ac are fine"

Care to elaborate? I can say ishtar and lasers are "fine" but it doesnt make it true.

Wanna know why you put acs on your strat? Because they use very little fitting compared to lasers and you are using them as a SECONDARY weapon system. Strat relies on drones, not acs for damage. Try flying a vagabond or stabber and then tell me its ok that im doing frigate level dps at my intended engagement ranges.

I do love your arguement though, "i fly faction laser/drone ship, projectiles fit and shoot stuff, so theyre ok." Try flying a minny ship that relies exclusively on acs and then tell us they're ok.

You're using acs because lasers wont fit due to either cpu or pg restrictions due to some heavy tank fit (1600 plate or dual rep), not because theyre good.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#243 - 2014-12-15 20:24:32 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Strange... I use AC on my Stratios instead of medium pulse despite having bonuses for them... I wander why? Probably coz I'm a noob...

Seriously:

Ac are fine. Lasers mostly too, except insane cap use. It's the ships that need a buff:

1) Some Minmatar ships need slight dps buff.

2) Some Amarr ships need a real bonus intead of -10% cap use. All lasers need a coniderable cap use decrease.

3) Ishtar needs a nerf (and gila maybe too).



"Ac are fine"

Care to elaborate? I can say ishtar and lasers are "fine" but it doesnt make it true.

Wanna know why you put acs on your strat? Because they use very little fitting compared to lasers and you are using them as a SECONDARY weapon system. Strat relies on drones, not acs for damage. Try flying a vagabond or stabber and then tell me its ok that im doing frigate level dps at my intended engagement ranges.

I do love your arguement though, "i fly faction laser/drone ship, projectiles fit and shoot stuff, so theyre ok." Try flying a minny ship that relies exclusively on acs and then tell us they're ok.

You're using acs because lasers wont fit due to either cpu or pg restrictions due to some heavy tank fit (1600 plate or dual rep), not because theyre good.


Where to start... lets see:

1) Lasers do fit on stratios no problem

2) I fit ac coz of no cap use - asset you greatly uderestimate. Also for tracking.

3) I fly Loki - in most cases they outpreform laser legion. I also fly Sleipnir - it's great.

4) vagabond is weak coz the hull is weak - not ac.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#244 - 2014-12-15 20:55:33 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Strange... I use AC on my Stratios instead of medium pulse despite having bonuses for them... I wander why? Probably coz I'm a noob...

Seriously:

Ac are fine. Lasers mostly too, except insane cap use. It's the ships that need a buff:

1) Some Minmatar ships need slight dps buff.

2) Some Amarr ships need a real bonus intead of -10% cap use. All lasers need a coniderable cap use decrease.

3) Ishtar needs a nerf (and gila maybe too).



"Ac are fine"

Care to elaborate? I can say ishtar and lasers are "fine" but it doesnt make it true.

Wanna know why you put acs on your strat? Because they use very little fitting compared to lasers and you are using them as a SECONDARY weapon system. Strat relies on drones, not acs for damage. Try flying a vagabond or stabber and then tell me its ok that im doing frigate level dps at my intended engagement ranges.

I do love your arguement though, "i fly faction laser/drone ship, projectiles fit and shoot stuff, so theyre ok." Try flying a minny ship that relies exclusively on acs and then tell us they're ok.

You're using acs because lasers wont fit due to either cpu or pg restrictions due to some heavy tank fit (1600 plate or dual rep), not because theyre good.


Where to start... lets see:

1) Lasers do fit on stratios no problem

2) I fit ac coz of no cap use - asset you greatly uderestimate. Also for tracking.

3) I fly Loki - in most cases they outpreform laser legion. I also fly Sleipnir - it's great.

4) vagabond is weak coz the hull is weak - not ac.


Well im glad all your examples are in reference to brawler fits with acs that have absolutely nothing to do with what the majority of this thread is about. So good job there.

Also you're using loki and slep in your examples to show that ac are ok. The 2 most powerful minny ships to make your point? So it takes a command ship and a t3 cruiser to make acs decent? Where as deimos, thorax, vexor, ishtar, myrm, mega, fed comet etc, etc are all viable with their weapon systems in a t1 or HAC format?

Why would we want more falloff at brawl range? Did that thought cross your mind at all?

Did you read anything in this thread? Or just had to state your point since they work on a strat, slep and loki and didnt consider anything else? Please read more, as i dont feel like repeating myself about why ac need more falloff.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#245 - 2014-12-15 22:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Cassius Invictus
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Well im glad all your examples are in reference to brawler fits with acs that have absolutely nothing to do with what the majority of this thread is about. So good job there.

Also you're using loki and slep in your examples to show that ac are ok. The 2 most powerful minny ships to make your point? So it takes a command ship and a t3 cruiser to make acs decent? Where as deimos, thorax, vexor, ishtar, myrm, mega, fed comet etc, etc are all viable with their weapon systems in a t1 or HAC format?

Why would we want more falloff at brawl range? Did that thought cross your mind at all?

Did you read anything in this thread? Or just had to state your point since they work on a strat, slep and loki and didnt consider anything else? Please read more, as i dont feel like repeating myself about why ac need more falloff.



Chill out man... please read what I wrote again - carefully this time. AC are fine as many people have explained to you before me. It's the ships that need some work. You said it yourself basically. AC work on some ships they don't on others. So obviously it's not the weapons are in need of help. QED.

1. You cry about falloff yet blasters, the most powerful weapon system, are 90% falloff...
2. There are like 300 different ships in EVE.. not all need to be equally balaced.
3. Missiles are in much worse shape than ac.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#246 - 2014-12-16 02:35:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Cassius Invictus wrote:

Chill out man... please read what I wrote again - carefully this time. AC are fine as many people have explained to you before me. It's the ships that need some work. You said it yourself basically. AC work on some ships they don't on others. So obviously it's not the weapons are in need of help. QED.

1. You cry about falloff yet blasters, the most powerful weapon system, are 90% falloff...
2. There are like 300 different ships in EVE.. not all need to be equally balaced.
3. Missiles are in much worse shape than ac.


1. So if blasters are 90% fall-off, then what does that make AC? Over 100%? Not quite sure i follow since blasters have more optimal than a/c, and a/c operate almost exclusively in fall-off. Yet blasters with Null project dps equivalently to AC's with barrage at medium AC engagement range.

This is why AC's need more fall-off, to help shift dps curve towards their engagement range, which is medium (15-25km) distance. Blaster's are considered close range weapons, hence the higher optimal, better tracking, higher dps. BUT, blaster's are treading all over a/c territory in terms of range, tracking, and dps.

This leaves ac's in this awkward situation in which blasters do it better in almost all ways but cap usage.

2. Nope, not the point. Actually read what has been written in the thread, instead of not reading it, and then replying. We're talking about shifting fall-off, strictly for a/c's to actually make them a medium engagement weapon. Just like blasters are short, and lasers variable. As of right now for a/c's to actually project damage, you are in the short to medium engagement range, at which point blasters will tear you apart.

3. Agreed, but this is a thread about a/c's, not missiles. You want to fix missiles, make a thread about it, or reply to an old one. i'll be sure to like it, and hope to see missiles tweaked as well.

I fly almost strictly minmatar ships, i'm not saying this to be on the bandwagon, i'm saying this because minmatar have lost their flavor. From a/c's doing frigate dps at their engagement ranges (after TE nerf, but not base fall-off adjustments), artillery not being a viable long range weapon (fitting restrictions), and minmatar losing their speed advantage compared to everything around them. All the meanwhile, their tanks have not been modified or tweaked to compensate for the loss of the "sig/speed tank" racial trait. Everything keeps getting better around them, but they aren't being tweaked. This is not the "winmatar" age you seem to remember.

All they all bad? no. I still fly minny and make workable fits for the most part, but certain things need to be tweaked. Not fully revamped, just a fall-off addition, and reducing fitting for artillery. That would put them back into a decent spot, and actually make people consider minny stuff, instead of drones/gallente online.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#247 - 2014-12-17 17:08:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
i think if a trade off is needed for a buff then reducing the clip sizes dramatically combined with making autos very high ROF weapons with low alpha might be the way too go , along with a decent reload timer of say 6 secs

kind of like how rapid missile launchers should have been instead of their dodgy reload gimmick.. and undersized ammo exploits

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Badman Lasermouse
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps
#248 - 2014-12-17 17:31:29 UTC
Thanks for the bumps guys. Lets keep it going, CCP will have to look at it eventually.

-Badman
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#249 - 2014-12-19 01:50:00 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:



Vargurs, vagas , sleipnirs, Machariels and Cynabals are used. Know why? Falloff bonus. Slashers? Are you serious? They are tacklers 99% of time, have them throw cookies and they would be used same way. It has been YEARS since I saw a huggin, and sicne the tiercide I have not seen a single rupture and almost no canes anymore.


AC basically are only usable on ships that have falloff bonus. On all the others, the blaster ships outdps them isnide tackle range, and outside tackle range both do so little dps that long range weapons should be the choice.


which would be an option for matari ships if arty was fittable. but yes turrets in general need to be buffed
Nodire Hermetz
Jump 2 Beacon
Death Legion of Capybaras
#250 - 2014-12-21 13:24:19 UTC
bump this thread , we still waiting a blue response :(
Lug Muad'Dib
Funk'in Hole
#251 - 2014-12-21 14:33:05 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


1. So if blasters are 90% fall-off, then what does that make AC? Over 100%? Not quite sure i follow since blasters have more optimal than a/c, and a/c operate almost exclusively in fall-off. Yet blasters with Null project dps equivalently to AC's with barrage at medium AC engagement range.

This is why AC's need more fall-off, to help shift dps curve towards their engagement range, which is medium (15-25km) distance. Blaster's are considered close range weapons, hence the higher optimal, better tracking, higher dps. BUT, blaster's are treading all over a/c territory in terms of range, tracking, and dps.

This leaves ac's in this awkward situation in which blasters do it better in almost all ways but cap usage.



Be capless is very powerfull, and more, very more powerfull is damage selection. Hybrid are bad in neut range and against caldari and gallente T2 resist.

Explain me why i use AC on my tristans, algos and why we see them on lot of drones boat without damage bonus ? Simply cause it's a powerfull weapon with low fitting requirement and lot of pvper think AC > Blaster.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#252 - 2014-12-21 17:41:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Lug Muad'Dib wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


1. So if blasters are 90% fall-off, then what does that make AC? Over 100%? Not quite sure i follow since blasters have more optimal than a/c, and a/c operate almost exclusively in fall-off. Yet blasters with Null project dps equivalently to AC's with barrage at medium AC engagement range.

This is why AC's need more fall-off, to help shift dps curve towards their engagement range, which is medium (15-25km) distance. Blaster's are considered close range weapons, hence the higher optimal, better tracking, higher dps. BUT, blaster's are treading all over a/c territory in terms of range, tracking, and dps.

This leaves ac's in this awkward situation in which blasters do it better in almost all ways but cap usage.



Be capless is very powerfull, and more, very more powerfull is damage selection. Hybrid are bad in neut range and against caldari and gallente T2 resist.

Explain me why i use AC on my tristans, algos and why we see them on lot of drones boat without damage bonus ? Simply cause it's a powerfull weapon with low fitting requirement and lot of pvper think AC > Blaster.


There are plenty of gal ships that fit cap boosters, or have fitting to fit a nos, so only in a few cases is this a problem. Also, fhe fact they use cap means that blasters do a hell of a lot more dps than a/c's. I'd say thats an even trade. Being capless doesn't mean much when your tank under ideal circumstances will be crushed by anything in blaster range, and then you don't have the dps to even break their tank at your intended engagement range (medium).

Um.. you use a/c's on your tristan, algos, myrm, strat, domi, ishtar, vexor etc etc... because.... THEY'RE DRONE BOATS! A/C's are not your primary source of damage, the drones are. You are using a/c's as a secondary weapon system. Drone boats already have selectable damage types, with their drones, and still apply damage at the same range as my a/c's, but more of it. Talk to me when you actually fly a ship that is dedicated in a/c's, and doesn't have drones to fall back on for dps.

Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a vagabond solo'ing? Do you see stabber's everywhere like thorax/vexors? The only place i see stabbers is in FW, where they are decent for anti-frig. But guess what other ship is good for anti-frig? Caracals and vexors, and they do a far better job than stabbers.

Selectable damage type is a joke when it comes to kiting with a/c's. Barrage is firmly locked into explosive only, and its the only ammo type that actually allows borderline decent dps at kite range, but then you suffer a tracking loss. You will do 75-100 dps less with EM/plasma/fusion at kite ranges.

So, its ok for my 300m vagabond to do 250-300 dps at 20km out of 550dps? Essentially being a glorified anti-frigate ship. Deimos does 700+ dps, Ishtar does 600+ dps, deimos can fit rails or blasters and do awesome dps at range. Vagabond can only fit a/c's, artillery won't fit.

Deimos with null projects similar to vagabond. The vagabond only starts to out dps the deimos past 18km. So, you mean to tell me blasters (the ultimate short range weapon), out dps my a/c's at medium engagement range (15-24km), which is where a/c's are supposed to operate at. Not only that, but the deimos has a better sustained tank, better agility, and has 50m3 of drones, so its available dps will always be higher.

All that would be fine, if i could put more than 280dps on target at point range. Lets use a real world example (which i've posted before, but you probably didn't read).

[Vagabond, Best Kite]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Warp Disruptor II

220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M
[empty high slot]

Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Medium Projectile Ambit Extension II

Warrior II x5

See that, 3 application mods. 2 TE and a T2 ambit extension, giving barrage a fall-off of 39km with perfect skills. Wanna know how much dps i do at 20km? Excluding the 5 warrior's, its 280 dps out of about 350dps. Thats with Barrage, the highest fall-off ammo, but stuck with explosive and tracking nerf. So lets go to that selectable damage type everyone keeps talking about.

With faction EM/Plasma/Fusion, at 20km, i'm doing 260dps out of 440dps. Yep, thats good for pretty much nothing except popping frigs. A dual rep vexor/thorax could tank that pretty easily, and a deimos would just get tickled. So again, why would i fly a 300m ship, which realistically, could only kill frigs and maybe buffer fit ships?

Does that selectable damage type really mean anything, when i'm doing pathetic dps at my intended engagement range? That's not even full point range, or OH point range. If you really intend to kite, at 27-30km, faction ammo drops below 200 dps, barrage sits around 240.

Still waiting for a good argument as to why a/c's should not receive a fairly minor 10-20% fall-off buff. Capless and selectable damage types don't amount to much when kiting as shown, and you don't have the dps to break a t1 cruiser tank with a HAC.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#253 - 2014-12-22 12:38:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
^^^^^

you could go with 425s for a kite-abond with a skimpy tank, and nanos. the issue, is you're not going to trade damage favorably with most HACs or good T1 cruisers. and anything almost anything that scrams you will kill you.

honestly, I think the best use for the Vaga right now is dual prop, scram XLASB bruiser.

Lug Muad'Dib wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


1. So if blasters are 90% fall-off, then what does that make AC? Over 100%? Not quite sure i follow since blasters have more optimal than a/c, and a/c operate almost exclusively in fall-off. Yet blasters with Null project dps equivalently to AC's with barrage at medium AC engagement range.

This is why AC's need more fall-off, to help shift dps curve towards their engagement range, which is medium (15-25km) distance. Blaster's are considered close range weapons, hence the higher optimal, better tracking, higher dps. BUT, blaster's are treading all over a/c territory in terms of range, tracking, and dps.

This leaves ac's in this awkward situation in which blasters do it better in almost all ways but cap usage.



Be capless is very powerfull, and more, very more powerfull is damage selection. Hybrid are bad in neut range and against caldari and gallente T2 resist.

Explain me why i use AC on my tristans, algos and why we see them on lot of drones boat without damage bonus ? Simply cause it's a powerfull weapon with low fitting requirement and lot of pvper think AC > Blaster.


Because ACs on drone boats are used a lot like dual medium nuets on pre nerf hurricanes, but intead of nuking the cap of any frig that dares land a scram on you, you could just straight up kill the frigs while keeping your drones on larger targets.

ACs are a secondary weapon system, much like unbonuesed drones and nuets. as a primary weapon system they just do everything poorly.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#254 - 2014-12-22 12:51:42 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
^^^^^

you could go with 425s for a kite-abond with a skimpy tank, and nanos. the issue, is you're not going to trade damage favorably with most HACs or good T1 cruisers. and anything almost anything that scrams you will kill you.

honestly, I think the best use for the Vaga right now is dual prop, scram XLASB bruiser.


Which is sad, considering that the vaga has a fall-off bonus, and the best use for it, is not to use it, since it adds so little.

The fit i linked is decent, but falls victim to the same thing, once you're scrammed, you're dead in most cases.

425's don't add much and take a good chunk of grid to fit. Gain like 20-30 dps, and 2km of fall-off, but tracking gets a bit worse. Helps shift dps a smidge in your favor with the added dps and fall-off. The thing is, i haven't really found a worthwhile fit with 425's, sacrifice too much for them to fit. Its either 220's or 180's to fit any form of tank.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#255 - 2014-12-22 13:59:33 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
^^^^^

you could go with 425s for a kite-abond with a skimpy tank, and nanos. the issue, is you're not going to trade damage favorably with most HACs or good T1 cruisers. and anything almost anything that scrams you will kill you.

honestly, I think the best use for the Vaga right now is dual prop, scram XLASB bruiser.


Which is sad, considering that the vaga has a fall-off bonus, and the best use for it, is not to use it, since it adds so little.

The fit i linked is decent, but falls victim to the same thing, once you're scrammed, you're dead in most cases.

425's don't add much and take a good chunk of grid to fit. Gain like 20-30 dps, and 2km of fall-off, but tracking gets a bit worse. Helps shift dps a smidge in your favor with the added dps and fall-off. The thing is, i haven't really found a worthwhile fit with 425's, sacrifice too much for them to fit. Its either 220's or 180's to fit any form of tank.


well historically matari ships in general did not need much of a tank, but between the Mini agility nerfs, nano nerfs, grid nerfs TE nerfs, and massive buffs to weapon systems and hulls that could project, apply and deal good damage while also having tank and utility slots.

really the entire race need and overhaul. either ACs need to project or arty need to actually be a minmatar weapon... really I see are on ammarian ships more often,
Nodire Hermetz
Jump 2 Beacon
Death Legion of Capybaras
#256 - 2014-12-22 17:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nodire Hermetz
If we got all this nerfs it's because of all the whinners asking to nerf minmatar and projo have win...
before all the races have their coins and pros
today , all minmatar ship (exepting a few few few niche ships like sleipnir/vaga and vargur in some case) are beiing bad in the current meta
not a good dps/tracking in brawling
not a good dps in med-range engagement (even with a fallof bonuses like stabber/vaga)
not a good tank
not a good pve ships
not a good agility
not a good capacitor (a pvp stabber can sustain 1min with mwd on yay)
the only good point are they are.... fast ... that's all
i really think that's the entire race/ships need a rework , and asap , it can't be possile to avoid an entire race in this game....it's really sad ...
Arla Sarain
#257 - 2014-12-22 18:07:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Maybe Null ammo is just too strong.
If it wasn't for Null, A/Cs falloff wouldn't be so irrelevant.

At the end of the day one can't argue A/Cs falloff is the selling point, cos at what is their normal operating range blasters simply out DPS them.

Being capless and "low fitting" is desirable in some cases, ironically on ships that are not even bonused for them.

Selectable damage is moot because you will lose damage during reload.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#258 - 2014-12-22 19:01:27 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
Maybe Null ammo is just too strong.
If it wasn't for Null, A/Cs falloff wouldn't be so irrelevant.

At the end of the day one can't argue A/Cs falloff is the selling point, cos at what is their normal operating range blasters simply out DPS them.

Being capless and "low fitting" is desirable in some cases, ironically on ships that are not even bonused for them.

Selectable damage is moot because you will lose damage during reload.

Null is strong, but not the only reason ac falloff is irrelevant.

Other problem is from what others have said, projectiles were balanced with TE. After TE nerf, projectiles were hit hard. CCP didnt bother tweaking base falloff stats after nerf, so thats why we are in this position.

The other reason is due to not having a legit long range weapon system that fits our ships.i wouldnt care so much about ac application at 20km+ if minmatar long range weapons were viable. As i would be using those instead of ac for kiting.

If minny weapon systems were tweaked to be viable then i could ignore the other issues with minny ships.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#259 - 2014-12-22 19:24:36 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
1. You cry about falloff yet blasters, the most powerful weapon system, are 90% falloff...
2. There are like 300 different ships in EVE.. not all need to be equally balaced.
3. Missiles are in much worse shape than ac.


Oh dear, this is enough crap to make me log into forums again \o/

Ships need to be balanced. All of them. Ongoing effort is creating a shifting meta. In case you, too, dislike Eve being remembered as Eve before the drake nerf and Eve after the drake nerf, you should shout "yippie balance all of the things". Cause nerfing the Drake kinda helped. The same could be said about *Tracking Titans*, *Finger of god* and *This Sleipnir loads 13 charges into an ASB* (I kinda miss this one, wasn't OP at all I swear).

If there is obviously something wrong with medium autocannons, they need tweaking of some sort. The only reason people fit the odd 180s instead of blasters: 180s take less grid and they didn't notice the quad light buff. CCP Rise actually said *you can now fit quad lights to anything and they're kind of awesome* - and he actually was right. Stratios got a rather crappy capacitor and doesn't rely on gun dps at all, so your choice of weapons was a pretty irrelevant one. You either fit for range, go for that 30-35km point and kill it with drones/scorch, go into close orbit with neuts and in the case you got buffer, a scram and guns on there, you look up the closest couch to talk to someone about your lack of min/maxing prowess.

That point about Missiles isn't entirely true. It does count to an extent for torps and most certainly for heavies, but LML, RLML, RHML, Cruises and Hams are all quite viable. HAMs for example hit beautifully against medium+ targets with as little as a web and a paint and the enemy not AB'ing. You also got a 16-30km bubble of perfect application in that range, calling that *worse than AC* is a lie.

As the OP stated initially, ACs suffer from their design.
  • Lasers are meant to be high-damage, high-range at the expense of capneed, ammoselection and low tracking. Applied, there is no trackingissues because of the high range they usually shoot from (scramkiting tormentor, scorch/beamzealots, Foxcats) and the capneed can be bypassed since nearly all ships got a cap booster anyways. EM/therm is very feasible against shieldtanked ships and all T2 resistprofiles besides minmatar.
  • Hybrids are high-damage, high-RoF weapons with massive range issues (blasters) or massive tracking issues (rails), therm/kin only and a bit of PG need. Then they added 10% optimal range boni left and right, so a catalyst now got 240dps at 20km while being **** quick, an eagle sits in linked navy webrange - and his optimal, and a naga hits out to 18km optimal with null (which is slightly beyond a naga's heated/linked dualwebrange...) Also, there is really nothing wrong with shooting Therm/Kin unless shooting at another caldari/gallente t2 hull, in which case the situation is equally crap at both ends.
  • And then you got projectiles. Pathetic raw damage, selectable damage to apply a few % more of your crappy raw damage, crap range is amplifying the issues of crappy raw dps and the ammo consumption to actually justify the hoarder's existance is somewhat annoying. The buff to the cynabal's cargohold would've been noticed, if they weren't all refitted to artillery already.
    • So on the upside, you got no cap use for your guns, and you can quickly spend 10seconds reloading to switch to some mildly more effective ammo in this rather omnitanked game.
    Kendarr
    The Congregation
    RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
    #260 - 2014-12-22 19:34:11 UTC
    TheMercenaryKing wrote:
    wow...If there is any weapons in the game that doesn't need a buff, it is projectile turrets in general.



    This guy is 100% Correct.

    Zebra-Corp