Player Features and Ideas Discussion

50% range on a medium weapon takes them well into large weapon ranges, with superior tracking and almost the same DPS. We can see how well that works out with Sentries having medium weapon racking and sig radius with large weapon range and DPS. In saying that I wouldn't instantly scream to high heaven if CCP did go with 50%, or 37.5%. But I don't think BC's need that big a buff to bring them back into more use.
I'm also of the opinion that T1 BC's need the projection bonus also. Though you could go 25% for T1 & T2, 37.5% for Navy & Pirate. Or something like that if you really wanted to.

You also weren't understanding me. I was using the 25% to both Optimal & Falloff as intended to bring a real 25% increase in range regardless of weapon system. Not halving the 50% bonus between the two.
Your Fall off only bonus doesn't benefit Arty nearly as much as AC's.
So if we were talking a 50% bonus, I'd be meaning a 50% bonus to both Optimal & Fall Off. While it sounds powerful on paper, nearly every weapon actually has most of it's range in either Optimal or Fall Off, so the bonus won't really overpower anything relative to the 'correct' bonus of either optimal or fall off, but it means you can chose short or long range systems without being locked into just one because of the range bonus.
And that way you actually are getting a real 25%/50%/whatever% increase to range, rather than only a portion of that increase.

The ishtar is balanced ™
We'll fix links soon ™
Tech 1 is useful™
Gevlon isn't trolling™

Ishtar fix alone would distribute the segments, possibly towards more Battleship use, as it is employed due to its Battleship-sized weapons systems, ranges and damage.

Another thing is T3 cruiser EHP levels due to exact T2 resist profile and the percentage bonus amount on the Augmented Plating subsystems - but that issue is Ishtar squared.

http://i.imgur.com/afJycoE.png?1

It is somewhat of a joke, though the data is from pre Railgun fix and Ishtar splintering of the damage bonus for Sentires - with the latter having minimal effect, because the problem is in the Optimal range + Tracking double bonus for Sentries.



http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

Yep.

Drone Cruisers & Everything Else Drones Online

I believe CCP intended the FACTION battlecruisers to be the COMBAT battlecruisers as you described, but failed. Adding the Optimal/Fallout range role bonus could get them back on track on what they were suppose to be.

This is how BCs were originally (minus the projection), and no one used them, or they were heavily outclassed by another BC. I see nothing wrong with making them all link boats, or all capable of combat. It should be dependent on fit and what that person wants to do with said ship.

Maybe someone prefers a cane to a cyclone or myrm to a brutix. Why should we limit links to only 1 hull like it was in the past? I dont see anything game breaking by having all t1/faction bcs having a link/projection bonus.

I agree, all should be able to fit links. And they should at least be able to go to 2 links without command processor or people simply won't use them for links.

The main reason a lot of the old battlecruisers weren't flown in combat were ancillary to their layouts. The Prophecy had one too few turret hardpoints to be useful with the tiny drone bay it used to have, but all the rest had problems elsewhere than the hull. Hybrid weapons had cost way too much powergrid, which made it impossible to put a decent fit onto a Brutix, and the Ferox was ALWAYS superior when fit like a Drake to a Ferox fit any other way--which made it nothing more than a lousy Drake. The Cyclone's mediocre turret DPS was somewhat boosted by its rather significant drone bandwidth, barely making it useful when you beefed up its defenses and made use of its three utility high slots. Alternatively, it made a decent frigate killer when fit with a faction webifier and a mix of autocannons and light missile launchers. But even it was not a popular hull.

The tier 2 battlecruisers were all popular, in contrast. The Myrmidon was mostly used in PVE. The Harbinger was mostly used in solo or small gang PVP, but it also was often fit with autocannons not because it wasn't able to fit lasers but because lasers were simply underpowered when you considered fitting costs, and that gave it somewhat of a bad name. The Hurricane was rather popular and used here and there, sometimes in large gang warfare; and Drakes were used anywhere and everywhere due to their sheer defensive power.

Indeed.

The 37.5% figure seems like an excellent spot, highest Tier closest range weapon systems with T2 long-range ammo: Cane 3+18 km vs 3+24.75 falloff, Tempest is at 6+36 km with Barrage, Scorch Harbi at 22+6.3 km vs 30.25+6.3 km optimal against Abaddon's 44+13 km and Brutix 6.3+8.8 km vs 6.3+12.1 km versus Mega's 13+18 km.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/36i8qb/plate_and_extender_changes_on_sisi/

The 800mm RT plates just had their mass adjusted northward, with Tech 2 version reduced in mass. Tech 1 & 2 1600mm hp boosted, mass reduced in Tech 1 case, and RT 1600mm increased from 2750000 => 3500000.

LSEs are not getting signature changes, LSE II even goes down in power: 165 => 160.


T3s needed even more EHP.

Whatevski. v0v

Two thirds of active playerbase is flying Ishtars/Gilas and/or T3Cs, c/d?

Well, I guess that's that then - no XL plates for BCs/Battleships, PG remains the same for 1600mms.

Introducing an XL tier in plates and extenders would be the wrong way imho.
What might help is discouraging the smaller ships going for the biggest/bigger tanking modules by default.
Bait-Maller is nice and all, but fitting the biggest extender or plate on a cruiser should be something that requires more dedication.