Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I'd definitely like to see a battleship sized weapon with a target res between 250-400m. This would give it a battlecruiser sized target zone, but on the high end. If it used medium rounds, then gravy. That's a hell of a lot more difference than 15% more tracking. I don't even know how you would adjust your flying to benefit from a 15% increase in tracking, so the current system pretty much encompasses a distinction without a difference.

Currently, all people do is fit as much gun as their fitting allows, so we aren't getting as much ecological diversity as we might like. If fitting requirements were static across the board, it would be just as functional. Anti-support fits really don't even need all that much tank, so I'd rather see the range get buffed instead, but have the damage multiplier lowered so the high hit-rate, normal range guns don't outperform the standard anti-BS weaponry.

On the flip-side, I'd like to see the heaviest medium guns be able to punch up, with reduced tracking and range, but then have a significantly increased damage multiplier. However, their target sig would be somewhere between 125-250m. That would make them really popular with battlecruiser, as they'd have an own class normalized weapon system.

That would have Ruptures fitting 425mm ACs with the intent of getting under the guns of battleships, or hitting harder against battlecruisers. They'd fit 220mm ACs for fighting other cruisers, and Dual 180mm ACs for anti-support work.

I don't think anybody could have a problem with Cormorants fitting 125mm rails to do a better job of hitting interceptors, and actually doing a better job of than when fitting 150mm rails, which would have a target sig somewhere between the current 40m and 75m.

I really like this idea.


I sort of prefer a long cooldown after x cycles to extra crystal damage, but I don't know if this is technically feasible.

Seems like I may have created a similar thread on this very issue

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread

See how I define the problem and propose the solution. Post your thoughts.



My POV is that we probably shouldn't look directly to Rapid L/HMLs for a solution.

These turrets could have a medium sustained DPS - higher than the medium/small equivalents - with no need for long reloads.

I think giving small battleship sized guns (in general, not just rails) the ability to engage small targets is a good idea, but I think the changes should be based on what makes sense from a game design perspective not what makes sense for what is technically a "dual ___" weapon. Boosting DPS by 120% for example doesn't make sense and just creates a weapon that has far far better DPS than the largest size of the Battleship weapons (including the largest size of *short range* weapon by the way), and buffing *those* in turn just creates power creep and all sorts of other problems.

So yeah, I like the basic idea but your specific numbers not so much. They swing the weapon from the current "meh, not worth it" to "wildly and completely over-powered".

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread has a very similar, if slightly less fleshed out version of this. I like the discussion here and the general way this is trending more than the much more general numbers in the other thread though.

Just for the avoidance of any doubt.....

TQ Dual 250mm Railgun (runs out of ammo in 936 seconds):

Peak DPS = 16.25
Sustained = 16.16

Proposed mechanism using Dual 250mm Railgun (runs out of ammo in 108 seconds):

Peak DPS = 22.16
Sustained = 16.75

Edit: and to re-state - this was my stab at iterating the numbers (but a pretty decent start IMO).... the spreadsheet used is linked in the OP, to allow anyone to see the impact of changing the five different parameters... (reload time and capacity vs ROF for example - can make the 'peak' DPS more aggressive at the expense of 'sustained', or vice versa)

I've done a 3x Damage mod setup on a Harbinger, Brutix, Hyperion and an Abaddon - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5646050#post5646050

Damage would have to be reduced by a lot for these turrets, if they are to have lower signature resolutions.

I don't want to create more 800 DPS RLML Orthruses in the game.

That's raw DPS with their current attributes.

My vision for this weapons system is thus - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5646234#post5646234:



TL;DR: Similar to what you would get if you simply gave Battleship and BC hulls bonuses to Medium/Small turrets.

I'll do an amended spreadsheet, hopefully this weekend, to show DPS from potential fits.

Personally, I wouldn't drop the scan resolution as it is a relatively blunt tool; I think, keep it matched to the base weapon (125m for a dual cruiser weapon), give it lower tracking (it's a bulkier turret after-all), and carefully iterate the ROF vs clip capacity to get the numbers into a sensible place.

It's a fair point but I don't think the concern should be a huge one. They're still slower than a Cruiser or Frigate and have significantly less HP than a Battleship, so if the guns are acceptable on a Battleship then they should do fine on these ABC hulls.

Plus Battlecruisers in general, including the ABCs, aren't in a great spot either relative to Cruisers so giving them a bit more teeth wouldn't be the worst thing here, especially since the only ABC with a tracking bonus is the Talos, and Rails suck at tracking already.



I actually wanted to offer to help. I've cooked up spreadsheets like this before, you may remember one of them from the Medium weapons rebalance. I generally copy the full relevant stats of the weapons in question out of the game client using the Compare Tool to get the stats I want, and then I setup formulas where I can adjust values to come from the base weapons or adjusted versions.

If you'd be interesting in hacking away at this a bit shoot me an Eve Mail.