EVE Information Portal

I dont even think that's needed as amarr ships or aka Lazers are good at thoughs kinds of games at thoughs ranges. 5% tracking inc should bring rails right in line with beams for tracking speed.

And the tracking bounses on alot of gallente gun boats would let them out fly amarr guns if they are not going all out amarr aka tracking disrupter fitted amarr ships starts looking good at this point though. Or at least better then it did yesterday.

5% dps upgrade on blasters is just lulz. You need to do better than that Tallest if you want them to be viable.

Railguns need a little more boost , especially tracking. They should be near as good as beams.

I have a question, CCP Tallest:

Is there any reason why antimatter should have a -50% range bonus when blaster optimal are so poor?

Me three!
The mediums sound pretty-good.
I was so dissapointed when I fired that first shot with my shiny-new 425mm-fit Battleship for the first time.


You're right Rip, the Amarr do fill that role pretty-well.

What has not been mentioned is that a change (improvement) to tracking is an INCREASE in damage. For those who might not be aware of this, you might wish to read:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadid=275675

or

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=97942

20% is a very substantial boost, and small blaster tracking/damage has always been good (20% might be too much for small's, but good for mediums and large). Get on SiSi and try it out - your damage output has improved. The 30% reduction is cap usage is nice, though not really essential given the superiority in passive tanking over active tanking since Revelations. I worry that the changes to Gallente ships (agility/velosity) might be a bit too much, but lets use sisi to determine that impact. Overall I believe these changes are warrented and well thought out. I am tired of the past CCP practices of every change being so OP as to make that group FOTM. Because of that, I can use all t2 weapons, I look forward to trying these changes out.

For the changes to T2 ammo, I simply say thank you and about time. For those that were here, the pre-nerfing of t2 ammo was always something that was going to be re-evaluated in the future for possible removal, so it has been a very long time coming

I'm sure this was probably mentioned somewhere in the 50+ pages here, but....


Do you really want to give a speed and inertia buff to the Falcon?

It's not flown like a blaster boat. It sits at range from a fight and jams people to hell.

So now it can sit at range and kite a brawl even better?

As a pilot that loves to kill off enemy ewar boats in a vaga, I don't like it.

And if you're going to show love to the falcon, why not do the same for its Tech 1 brother, the Blackbird?

Please pull the falcon off the list of ships getting a speed and inertia buff. or at least explain the rationale for the buff on the forums.

thanks.

Perhaps because the idea of ships that are supposed to sit at long range being slow-flying bricks (and thus barely capable of extending the amount of time before that range disappears, let alone maintaining it, oftentimes even against hulls a class above them) hasn't really worked out so well.

I dont think the relatively minor buff it (or any of the caldari ships for that matter) are getting will make it significantly more difficult to chase down anyway. I do agree the base hull should get the same benefit, however.

So, it sounds like rails are getting a tracking boost (a small one, but medium and especially large rails can use the help since they don't often get to use their suppsedly-primary advantage of "massively long range" and thus can't compensate for their tracking as well) but the damage bonus has been dropped with the introduction of shortened reload? Not sure about that, even if it does mean less penalty for switching ammo types... even the not-so-large large rails can throw AM almost as far as people generally talk about engagements taking place, especially on a range-bonused ship, so while that will be nice for frigates/destroyers (probably mostly destroyers) and maybe moa/ferox hulls (since M's do seem to do well switching back and forth a bit) I don't see that *really* helping much. Blasters, sure, since if you're being kited your choices are "switch" or "don't do damage". Rails, hopefully there's either still a bit of a raw damage boost being mulled over, or revisiting the hulls
has become a solid "next priority."

Seriously +1

Another point of view a few pilots I know have been championing. While some have been trying to change to a logical penalty for armour plates and armor rigs. Both are suggesting a boost to armour plates and armour rigs, but the pilots i was referring too. Want to boost all close range set-ups (bigger issue). Not directed towards any specific racial ships or turret, but to increase the viability of all close range ships. My "idea" of a increase in stasis webifier range and warp scrambler range was taken from conversations, with some of these pilots. Their Idea is to keep the penalties to inertia (agility/align-time) and acceleration. Which is where they differ from the most popular views on the subject. What should be changed is armor rigs and plates penalty to base velocity of the ship and micro-warp-drive. So, a Thorax with 1600mm plate and armor rigs. Would be going 1400 meters second, instead of 1100 meters a second. Which makes alot of sense. Great Ideas that should be implemented. Although, this will help with the viability of not only Gallente ships, but also Minmatar and Armarr ships.