EVE Information Portal

In regard to medium rail guns instead of nerfing a weapon and reducing its abilities. How about asking why people aren't using the other weapons? i.e., missiles aren't as viable for pvp vs other weapons because of delayed damage vs. instant damage etc....

Where the **** is the Sov changes Dev blog*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

So lets down the effective DPS of rails with 7% so not only the PvPers get a slap in the face but also the PvEers. :facedesk:

On the other hand im getting a extra 150 armor points for my PvE proteus \o/ thanks for that, though im not quite sure about the reasoning behind it.

I also agree that sky-netting is a bit daft at best, but like many before me have mentioned in great concern, making them be more exposed (like actually on-grid !!!!!) would be a far better solution then just removing a feature because people are creative with its intended purpose.

But hey what do i know i sold my Carrier after coming back from my forced brake and read about Jump drive changes, Capital are no longer a ship type i aspire to train for/use (i agree with those changes though, things were getting out of hand for some time already, i just cant be bother with the risk/hassle unless i at some point get back into 0.0 again witch i dont see happening any time soon either).



If you ask me, Sentrys and heavys should have a difference between bandwidth (maybe even the space they take up should be different), so its easier to split the 2 when attempting to ballance a ship or system. Atm you cant nerf bandwidth without removing the ability to use heavy's drones as a replacement, unless i seriously missed out on some detail somewhere. Since the amount of launched drones has been nerfed to death a long time ago, i don't see why has not been done already because "sentry's > heavy's" in both PvE and PvP for quite some time now. As a hybrid/drone toon, i hardly even use heavys any more tbh, even with the changes i saw that have been done over the past year orso, i simply don't see a reason to use them any more, and i dont like sentry's so i hardly even use drones at all atm tbh (i mainly PvE though, when i do PvP i usually only have ECM or other drones on me that contribute in other use-full ways).

Tbh I have no idea how those BC damage stats came to be, I rarely see BCs at all. I'd say what they currently offer is not competitive.

Also since you took care of power projection, can you please start to undo the nerfs to titans and supers which were originally done in the name of curtailing power projection?

The idea of changing things so PvP does not continue to be dominated by a few ship types/fittings is a good thing. That said, I think some of the changes are in the wrong direction.

Firstly, Sentry drones are the core of a lot of the problems and the rise of the current methods of fighting. They need to have some work done across the board, not just to one flavor. The Bouncer sentry drone is not the problem, nor is it better than the others. The primary reason it is favored so heavily right now is the overwhelming presents of Caldari and Gallente ship hulls being fielded (primarily the Ishtar really). With the two races having higher Kinetic resistances, that leaves EM and Thermal for remaining long range damage types to be used. The Bouncer can reach out farther than the higher rate of fire Curator. That is all it is. Not some kind of Bouncer superiority, recent fleets I have been part of which have fielded Sentry drones have actually been carrying flights of both. The balance between the four types of Sentry drones (when compared to each other) is actually in a pretty good place.

Rather than trying to solve a symptom of the problem, look at the issue as a whole. One flavor of sentry drone is not overwhelming all other PvP options, they all are. They have good tracking, range, and damage output and do not require any kind of special fitting or odd setups. Simply use the hulls with the bandwidth and maybe even related bonuses. The downside of the sentry drones being able to be destroyed is often negated by quick ‘scooping’ and redeploying them or by having 10,000 more in the bloated carrier bay. Often, even skilled bombing runs have trouble effectively forcing this downside to be an issue.

Moving on, the Ishtar. Personally, I think CCP needs to bite the ‘out-cry’ bullet and drop the Ishtar to below 125. None of the other HACs can match their battleship counterparts damage output potential without severely compromising their fits. The Ishtar just has it built in, Dominix/Armaggedon bandwidth with Dominix-like bonuses. Simple fix, switch the Ishtar’s bonuses over to ‘all drones’ and give it 100mb bandwidth. That leaves the Eos as the only 125mb bandwidth ship below battleship weight/vulnerabilitytobombing.

Oh yeah, the Vexor Navy Issue should not have 125 either; drop it down to 100 at most. Same reason as the Ishtar needing to have less, it should not have Battleship damage output with no downside. If we look at a normal cruiser as having 4-5 turrets (not counting ship/skill bonuses), Navy versions tending to get a effective 25% bonus to that, bring them up to effectively 6-7 turrets. Overall, very good and able to out damage their non-faction counterparts. The Vexor’s 75mb compared to the VNI’s 125mb is an increase of 66%, making it an already higher end of T1 Cruiser in to an effective 7-9 turret cruiser . . . that could still fit three more unbonused turrets. See the issue here?

So, the Medium Railgun changes are one of the things I am in favor of. Right now Hybrid weapons are king. Look at the supremacy of the Rail-Harpy, Rail-Eagle, and Rail-Tengu (despite the submod being subpar). Instead of just singling out the Medium sized railguns, look at all three of the normal sizes (small/medium/large). If/when battleships become viable again it will just turn back into Megathron 23/7 if the large railguns remain as good as they are right now.

The carrier/fighter changes I am torn on. While I am all for eliminating riskless advantage, I think an over all revamp of fighters needs to be done instead of a wedged-in change. With the fighters no longer being as versatile in their usage, they are no longer going to be worth their mineral cost to build. They barely are right now when compared to the vastly superior and cheaper sentry drone (which more of can be carried). If the fighter drones are intended to just be XL sized drones (or XL+ for the bombers) drop their cost down to be in scale with their damage. Drop their bandwidth and size/volume as well. That will also cleanly solve the problem of near infinite non-fighter drones being fielded by carriers. If the Fighters are only 50m3-100m3, the carrier drone bay can be scaled down to reflect that and thus the carrier can no longer hold hundreds of drones.

Finally the T3s. I do not know what to really say on this except wait. There are a wide number of changes being made, most of which are reactions to very specific issues. Assuming all the other changes go through as written originally, see if the medium railgun rebalance fixes the dominance of the Rail Tengu. Part of the idea of the more rapid development cycle is to be able to make slow improvements, why not do that. Make an adjustment, see how things go, make another adjustment.

Sorry for the wall of text, but a lot of things are being purposed and most of them raise some concerns.

For those of us that are quite dumb and have bothered to strinmg together more than a sentence to air their views maybe you'd like to prove your obvious superior intelligence and justify what you say....at the moment you havent said anything of substance.

Problem is that makes bombers easily useless. BOmbers are too much focused. They need a redesign so that they do not need to be SO GOOD at killing battleships to have a reason to exist.

And then battleships can get some bufffs (like fitting for some of them)

Or restricting assistance from fighters to ships that have no drone bandwidth just an idea?

Skynet

Very unhappy about the nerf on rail guns and the Proteus, only true counter to a navy Navy apocalypse fleet.

Navy apocalypse fleets will now be untouchable other than with a capital fleet engagements.

In High sec War Dec's they will be unstoppable with a good logi chain.

A least buff some of the other battle ships to counter the Navy apocalypse or balance the Navy Apocalypse . The range bonus on them is ridiculous with short range weapons.


Since there is a double nerf of the Proteus with its tank and rail guns then at least consider dropping the training time penalty. or no one will fly them.

It will become the laughing stock of the game like the drake after it was nerfed.


I also suggest we nerf mining lasers since the miners and care-bears keep wanting to nerf pvp weapons so bad.

A reduction of mining yields would drive up prices and add more risk in the game.

CCP could take a holistic approach to balancing rather than cherry picking and what looks to be appeasing pressure groups.

Balancing is fine as long as it is balanced and we are not left with some having huge advantages over others.