open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Fixing Railguns: Hybrid Ammo Overhaul
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.05.01 01:23:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Infinion on 03/06/2011 17:26:21
Edited by: Infinion on 19/05/2011 00:28:30

There have been countless threads about how railguns are utterly broken in comparison to their lasers and artillery counterparts as weapon platforms. After spending some time understanding how railguns work, I came to realize that it's not the weapons that need to be buffed/tweaked, its the ammo that needs to be completely overhauled.

Comparing Ammo Types

Let me first start by saying, my approach to wanting to fix railguns is that no 2 weapon platforms should act or perform in the same way. Ammo for each weapon system dictates how the weapon performs and I wanted to point out each of the weapon systemsí distinct traits (excluding missiles) based on their ammo.

Lasers
  • use frequency crystals and capacitor for their ammo

  • deal EM and Thermic damage types

  • and can switch between ammo types without a reload penalty


Projectile Turrets
  • have no reliance on capacitor and only fire projectile shells at their targets

  • have 3 ranges (-50% , 0% , 60%) unlike the other weapon platforms' 8 ranges ( -50% , -37.5% , -25%, -12.5% , 0% , 20%, 40% , 60%) but make up for this disadvantage by being able to deal any damage type

  • and boast a generous unstacked tracking bonus for each range ( +0% , +20%, +5%)


Hybrid Turrets

Hybrids are supposed to share the characteristics of both lasers and projectile turrets. Unfortunately, there aren't any real stand-out characteristics for hybrid ammo besides
  • they fire shells

  • they do thermic and kinetic damage

  • each ammo has various cap need bonuses that don't particularly make sense, from antimatter to iron, the 8 different capacitor needs are (0%,-5%, -8%, -40%, -50%, -24%, -27%, -30%)


which really doesn't aid hybrids in having any distinct trait or advantage over the other two weapon platforms.

How Railguns Should function

Let me start by disagreeing with how hybrid ammo is currently dictating damage and cap need for railguns. It is contradictive to how a railgun works. Basically, a railgun is an electric gun with two conductive rails and a conductive shell in-between them to complete the circuit. The destructive force of a railgun doesn't come from its payload, but rather its kinetic force. The magnitude of this kinetic force is always a function of two things: the length of the physical rails and the amount of current (capacitor) delivered to the rails.


Knowing this, there is a problem with the current ammo we have for railguns. Looking at the facts, the current description for hybrid charges states that they all have a titanium shell, which means the conductivity of each shell type (antimatter, plutonium, iridium, etc) is the same. Right now, hybrids use the most cap at their closest ammo ranges and the least at the mid-long range types. So how do their ranges and cap needs make any sense together? It's like the attributes used in hybrid charges are just there because CCP is following the same convention that frequency crystals preceded with. For a railgun on earth, less energy means less velocity for the shell it projects, and Iím not sure how fluidic space friction factors into the ranges dictated in eve but I would argue at the very least that rails would require more energy to fire at longer ranges.

So here's what I'm going to propose for hybrid ammo:

  1. Have lowest cap need at close ranges and highest cap need at longest range

  2. Have kinetic damage increase as range increases

  3. Have tracking increases as range decreases (as suggested by Darksteel Rifter in this thread)



Hybrid weapons would adopt a completely new tactical philosophy by being most lethal at long ranges, while most accurate at close ranges.


Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.05.01 01:26:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Infinion on 03/06/2011 17:28:45

unneeded space

Eidric
Tears of Terra
SOLAR WING
Posted - 2011.05.01 02:16:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Eidric on 01/05/2011 02:19:22
Edited by: Eidric on 01/05/2011 02:18:32
Preamble:
I know this sounds ridiculous but how about having them being more specialized: they would use a capacitor, deal mostly (or only) kinetic damage but these setbacks should be complemented by some boons as well. Preferably in a similar pattern as other turrets. Lasers have reduced ammo\fast reload while having dps comparable to current hybrids (and i am not even counting the effect on dps when you have a target that gets close or runs away). Projectiles have falloff for AC and optimal for artillery while not using capacitor and having more options on the type of damage.

So it looks like turrets have (or were initially designed to have) one boost for specific type of weaponry and two separate boosts for long and close range subtypes.

Fable:

  • Thus how about boosting damage to all hybrids even more (so when facing an omnitank the kinetic-only hybrids would yield more dps).


  • Rails would retain or get their tracking bonus tweaked.


  • While blasters would get RoF bonus.



Why? wouldn't it make hybrids new uberweapons?

No if boni are applied in moderation. Reason why i offered a damage boost at the expense of single damage type is this: more fluctuation in pvp tanking configs. Assume you have an omni tank - Minmatars, Ammars, and Caldari missiles damage you as usuall but hybrids hurt. people start to tank for more kin resistance and suddenly hybrids are nerfed again but every other weaponry is hurting you more at the expense of that extra kin tank. Now intelligence is even more beneficial; knowing how many hybrids your opponent can field would force you to adjust your tanks.

Blaster bonus comes from the fact, that the current world "hybrid" weaponry doesnt need much time to fire a certain round - as long as the system is set up and working the ammunition needs to be simply delivered into the barrel - nothing more (also not a lot of physical parts moving either)

Tracking of rails....well I decided to keep it from the original bonus but one can argue that it is easier to align the round using magnetic fields (or the change in their strength) than moving a barrel\lens. Albeit the actual system is rather bulky.

These boni CAN make the hybrids overpowered, but only if applied without considerable test-phase.

Atm the only drawback i see is considerable testing phase and more work for intelligence\fleetcoms.

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.05.10 10:03:00 - [4]
 

bump for great justice


Psytropic
Posted - 2011.05.10 21:19:00 - [5]
 

I just wanted to add some points here. I agree with the Kinetic damage staying the same. Instead of all that mess you typed up there for a solution why not make it simple:

Antimatter creates the highest thermal damage while burning so fast it loses range, and Iron produces next to no thermal damage and gives you greatest range. Antimatter = ball of fire; Iron = metal slug

Realistic enough I'd say? Problem solved. I think this would go great against blasters as well. They need love too.

Spartis Reave
Gallente
Applied Creations
Posted - 2011.05.10 22:12:00 - [6]
 

bump for railgun justice.

Would also like to add that Antimatter charges don't really make sense; assuming you get past how insanely difficult they should be to make in the firstplace they would deal significantly more damage than they already do and emit very high amounts of hard radiation, as well as heat that would dwarf the kinetic damage of the actual shell.

Also as Antimatter annihilates it's antiparticles aswell as deforming/melting them ect, it should be impossible to completely repair the damage with nanobot repair systems as where impacted there should be "missing" armour/structure unless you can provide a store of replacement metal for the damaged armor that nanobot repairers could use.

Personally I think something as complex as antimatter charges should be removed and replaced with somehing else.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.10 22:23:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Spartis Reave
bump for railgun justice.

Would also like to add that Antimatter charges don't really make sense; assuming you get past how insanely difficult they should be to make in the firstplace they would deal significantly more damage than they already do and emit very high amounts of hard radiation, as well as heat that would dwarf the kinetic damage of the actual shell.

Also as Antimatter annihilates it's antiparticles aswell as deforming/melting them ect, it should be impossible to completely repair the damage with nanobot repair systems as where impacted there should be "missing" armour/structure unless you can provide a store of replacement metal for the damaged armor that nanobot repairers could use.

Personally I think something as complex as antimatter charges should be removed and replaced with somehing else.


Hey look, someone's trying to apply realism to EVE.
/Point and laugh

(Hint: if we did everything based on what's realistic, the game would be very, very different and not particularly fun)

Deerin
Minmatar
Murientor Tribe
Posted - 2011.05.12 11:32:00 - [8]
 

Here is an idea:

Damage figures are given according to standard small ammo.

Optimal is same for all ammo. The thermal falloff replaces standard falloff and is the range where the thermal damage is zeroed and ammo is depleted.

Antimatter: 7 kin 5 therm
Plutonium: 7 kin 4 therm -15% signature
Uranium: 7 kin 3 therm -30% signature
Thorium: 5 kin 4 therm -45% signature
Lead: 5 kin 3 therm +50% optimal
Iridium: 4 kin 3 therm +50% optimal -15% signature
Tungsten: 4 kin 2 therm +50% optimal -30% signature
Iron: 4 kin 1 therm +50% optimal -45% signature

The numbers may change, but the idea is to use hybrid weapons as precission firing platforms.

Darksteel Rifter
Posted - 2011.05.12 12:12:00 - [9]
 

I like this thread and I agree much with the OP. I have been inspired in my search for hybrid fixes. Here is a possible theory, based partly on what I've read in this thread:

Howabout railguns get their stand-out characteristic by being most effective at long range. The long range ammo would do the MOST damage, while the short range ammo would do the LEAST. Additionally, short range ammo would have increased tracking, and long range ammo would have decreased tracking.

Antimatter: 4 thermal, 1 kinetic, -50% optimal range/capacitor, +100% tracking
Plutonium: 4 thermal, 2 kinetic, -37.5% optimal range/capacitor, +75% tracking
Uranium: 4 thermal, 3 kinetic, -25% optimal range/capacitor, +50% tracking
Thorium: 4 thermal, 4 kinetic, -12.5% optimal range/capacitor, +25% tracking
Lead: 4 thermal, 5 kinetic, +0% optimal range/capacitor, +0% tracking
Iridium: 4 thermal, 6 kinetic, +20% optimal range/capacitor, -20% tracking
Tungsten: 4 thermal, 7 kinetic, +40% optimal range/capacitor, -35% tracking
Iron: 4 thermal, 8 kinetic, +60% optimal range/capacitor, -45% tracking

Now before you jump to saying that rail platforms will be overpowered, keep in mind that they would be fairly ineffective at short range. They may be able to hit smaller, faster approaching ships with the improved tracking of short range ammo, but they won't be able to dps so well at close range except against very slow ships. This long-range-only aspect would clash with blasters' short-range-only aspect, and make hybrid platforms especially potent at either long or short range, but not so much in-between.

As for blasters, I think they should have a shotgun effect, in which every shot is a hit but factors such as range can greatly affect the damage done. How would that play into the new ammo setup I suggested? Simple. Tracking vs transversal velocity would play a role in how hard the "shotgun" blast hits the target. Up against a slow target, you can just pound them full of holes. But up against small, quick targets, you might get more damage with the faster tracking ammo. In any case, it'll cost less capacitor.

So then a blaster ship is still a massive DPS machine, but it won't be as limited on which targets it can fight, and will be able to perform semi-effectively against targets that would otherwise not be ideal.

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.05.22 00:08:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Infinion on 04/06/2011 18:38:56
Originally by: Darksteel Rifter

suggestion for rails

suggestion for blasters


excellent idea for rails, but your shotgun idea sounds very familiar to the current losses in dps from falloff and tracking. Also transversal velocity is just a ship's angular velocity converted from rad/s to m/s (Velocity (m/s) = Angular Velocity (rad/s) * distance (m)). So tracking vs transversal is just your regular turrets tracking a moving target. I would interpret the shotgun idea as something similar to how fighter bombers calculate dps but based on the arc length of how far ahead the ship is in relation to the tracking speed of the blaster ( or just a ratio between the two velocities)


Say we have a large blaster that is trying to track an orbiting cruiser. The cruiser is orbiting at 200 m/s while the blaster has a transversal tracking speed of 180 m/s , about 11% slower. Now look at this first Diagram 1; each color band in the diagram represents damage modifiers, with bright colors yielding the strongest hits and dark colors yielding the weakest. These hits would be calculated based on a simple ratio of the ship's angular velocity over the turret's tracking speed.

Yellow: target is moving slower than blaster's tracking speed; blaster has a damage bonus of 5-10%
Orange: target is moving up to 3% faster than tracking speed; blaster has a damage bonus of 1-4%
Red: target is moving between 4% - 10% faster ; no damage bonus/penalty
Purple: target is moving 10% - 15% faster ; 3% damage reduction
Purple-blue: target is moving from 15% - 30% faster ; 5% - 10% damage reduction
blue: target is moving 30% - 45% faster; 10% - 35% damage reduction
dark blue: target is moving 45% - 50% faster ; 35-50% damage reduction
black-blue: target is moving 50 - 55% faster ; 50-80% damage reduction
black: no damage

so if the target is moving 11% faster than the blaster's tracking speed, it will do 3% less dps rather than a complete miss with regular tracking conventions.
that takes care of the tracking bit for the shotgun idea, but how about the impact on range? Diagram 2

In this diagram, the strongest hits would occur within the blaster's optimal range, then once the target goes past that optimal into falloff, it starts losing dps similar to how it does in the previous diagram.

In the end, the damage the blaster actually deals would be a sum of the tracking and optimal modifiers in the diagram. Nice idea darksteel


Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov
The Eleusinian Mystery Cult
Posted - 2011.05.22 00:48:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov on 22/05/2011 01:41:38

Some fantastic ideas here, folks. I do hope CCP take notice, though I'm sure that they won't. The Hybrid Problem has been ignored like a fart in an elevator full of strangers. I don't think it has ever actually been formally acknowledged, has it?

Darth Helmat
Posted - 2011.05.22 11:39:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Darksteel Rifter

Howabout railguns get their stand-out characteristic by being most effective at long range. The long range ammo would do the MOST damage, while the short range ammo would do the LEAST. Additionally, short range ammo would have increased tracking, and long range ammo would have decreased tracking.


Now before you jump to saying that rail platforms will be overpowered, keep in mind that they would be fairly ineffective at short range. They may be able to hit smaller, faster approaching ships with the improved tracking of short range ammo, but they won't be able to dps so well at close range except against very slow ships.


Its a nice idea - gives hybrids a unique selling point. However guns that need a particular distance (including current blaster boats) need to be able to maintain that distance. Gal boats aren't fast. Similarly ships that struggle to maintain correct range, should expect to take a pounding - so there tank should be significantly higher. So IMO any range solution needs some combination of a buf to tank, realignment of ship tanking bonuses, remove velocity penalty for armor rigs, or more base speed OR make the weapons system much less dependent on range (I'd be all for merging blasters and rails and make range/damage purely based on ammo)

Mike C
Caldari
MicroFunks
Posted - 2011.05.22 13:40:00 - [13]
 

Giving it special abilities, like sig radius or affecting repair, is simply a bad idea. It will become unique, and that is simply unneeded.

I would like to see just three damage types:
  • Anti-Armor (25% Heat, 25% Kin, 50% Exp)

  • Anti-Shield (25% Heat, 25% Kin, 50% EM)

  • Standard (50% Heat, 50% Kin)

Caliglia
Posted - 2011.05.22 15:00:00 - [14]
 

I am still asking friends in 0.0 what the problem with rails in pvp are.
But I am against fixing guns vs other guns course it removes the aspect of the ships they are fitted on and aspect of tactical advantages and disadvantages set guns have on set ships have in set space vs set enemy ships with there set of guns and there tactical advantages and disadvantages.
I do agree that blaster boat setup has a problem but this problem started after the overhaul of the game mechanics behind ship speed and had nothing to do with a removal of DPS from the blaster turrets one might wonder if the CCP team behind that, tighten the screws a bit to tight.

Normal citizen
Posted - 2011.05.22 21:07:00 - [15]
 

I agree completely with OP. Also, rails and blasters need more epic animations and more BLOOM

Soon Shin
Posted - 2011.05.23 08:10:00 - [16]
 

I think OP is on the something here. I agree that more range should use more capacitor. But wouldn't increased range also mean the velocity of the charge be greater, therefore meaning greater kinetic damage?

TheExtruder
Caldari
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.05.23 08:12:00 - [17]
 

I agree that blasters should take less energy, because it kinda makes scientific sense and also practically, blasterboats use MWD afterall which takes alot of cap

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.05.26 08:18:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Darth Helmat
Originally by: Darksteel Rifter

Howabout railguns get their stand-out characteristic by being most effective at long range. The long range ammo would do the MOST damage, while the short range ammo would do the LEAST. Additionally, short range ammo would have increased tracking, and long range ammo would have decreased tracking.


Now before you jump to saying that rail platforms will be overpowered, keep in mind that they would be fairly ineffective at short range. They may be able to hit smaller, faster approaching ships with the improved tracking of short range ammo, but they won't be able to dps so well at close range except against very slow ships.


Its a nice idea - gives hybrids a unique selling point. However guns that need a particular distance (including current blaster boats) need to be able to maintain that distance. Gal boats aren't fast. Similarly ships that struggle to maintain correct range, should expect to take a pounding - so there tank should be significantly higher. So IMO any range solution needs some combination of a buf to tank, realignment of ship tanking bonuses, remove velocity penalty for armor rigs, or more base speed OR make the weapons system much less dependent on range (I'd be all for merging blasters and rails and make range/damage purely based on ammo)



I think the problem of maintaining distance can be said for all close range boats, and it can be easily remedied by adapting to different ammo types and using mwds. Like you say, a blasterboat that wants to maintain a close range will take a beating, but it's up to them how they fit their tanking mods; it's not necessarily a broken mechanic that needs to be fixed.

Lady Laserlance
Posted - 2011.05.26 14:32:00 - [19]
 

What are close range boats by your definition?
Tanking mods are not "up to them", you either fit mediocre shield tank in mids and weapon mods in lows allowing you b-level mobility, or you try to brick with your lows ignoring mobility and hoping/praying for a good warp-in.
s
The mechanic IS broken because it simply does not fit in today's combat environment.

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.05.27 06:16:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Infinion on 04/06/2011 20:24:54
Originally by: Lady Laserlance
What are close range boats by your definition?
Tanking mods are not "up to them", you either fit mediocre shield tank in mids and weapon mods in lows allowing you b-level mobility, or you try to brick with your lows ignoring mobility and hoping/praying for a good warp-in.
s
The mechanic IS broken because it simply does not fit in today's combat environment.


it sounds like you're thinking of nano-gank hurricane fits. I will agree with you that the pvp mechanics are outdated but that's a completely different set of issues that need to be looked at; I was simply saying that you can usually keep up with ships and maintain a sufficient range as long as you have a mwd fitted.

...a few years ago ccp mentioned on their drawingboard that they wanted to introduce subsystems as a replacement to the current combat environment such that you could target propulsion, eccm radar, weapon systems, capacitor power plants, etc to draw out battles and increase tactical options (and possibly further increase ship customize-ability). Of course the issue was that it would change every aspect of pvp that everyone was used to, so they couldn't just throw it out casually; it would take much more preparation. But they found different things to work on and I haven't seen or heard any mention of it since.
It's hard to say whether such a change would fix the common fitting convention and broken mechanic you are describing, but introducing subsystems could significantly increase certain areas of survivability. Something like if you were to conventionally attack the tank directly and ignore certain tanking subsystems, it would take 10 times longer to destroy a ship. That could potentially put less of a requirement on "bricking" your lows and re-purposing them for other means.

I might take a shot at making a thread for subsystems to try and get ccp's attention on the topic, or support anyone who does it before me

Greystal
Amarr
Citadel Security Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.27 06:32:00 - [21]
 

I would prefer a separation of hybrids into distinct weapons classes, so there would be shortranged gauss guns and long ranged railguns, and on other branch somne sort of LR and SR for particle projectors. The ammo would stay the same. And I ageer with OP, realism is a must for sci-fi.

Syndic Thrass
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.27 09:48:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Greystal
I would prefer a separation of hybrids into distinct weapons classes, so there would be shortranged gauss guns and long ranged railguns, and on other branch somne sort of LR and SR for particle projectors. The ammo would stay the same. And I ageer with OP, realism is a must for sci-fi.


Your ****ing kidding me, right?

Acac Sunflyier
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.03 11:30:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Darksteel Rifter
I like this thread and I agree much with the OP. I have been inspired in my search for hybrid fixes. Here is a possible theory, based partly on what I've read in this thread:

Howabout railguns get their stand-out characteristic by being most effective at long range. The long range ammo would do the MOST damage, while the short range ammo would do the LEAST. Additionally, short range ammo would have increased tracking, and long range ammo would have decreased tracking.

Antimatter: 4 thermal, 1 kinetic, -50% optimal range/capacitor, +100% tracking
Plutonium: 4 thermal, 2 kinetic, -37.5% optimal range/capacitor, +75% tracking
Uranium: 4 thermal, 3 kinetic, -25% optimal range/capacitor, +50% tracking
Thorium: 4 thermal, 4 kinetic, -12.5% optimal range/capacitor, +25% tracking
Lead: 4 thermal, 5 kinetic, +0% optimal range/capacitor, +0% tracking
Iridium: 4 thermal, 6 kinetic, +20% optimal range/capacitor, -20% tracking
Tungsten: 4 thermal, 7 kinetic, +40% optimal range/capacitor, -35% tracking
Iron: 4 thermal, 8 kinetic, +60% optimal range/capacitor, -45% tracking

Now before you jump to saying that rail platforms will be overpowered, keep in mind that they would be fairly ineffective at short range. They may be able to hit smaller, faster approaching ships with the improved tracking of short range ammo, but they won't be able to dps so well at close range except against very slow ships. This long-range-only aspect would clash with blasters' short-range-only aspect, and make hybrid platforms especially potent at either long or short range, but not so much in-between.

As for blasters, I think they should have a shotgun effect, in which every shot is a hit but factors such as range can greatly affect the damage done. How would that play into the new ammo setup I suggested? Simple. Tracking vs transversal velocity would play a role in how hard the "shotgun" blast hits the target. Up against a slow target, you can just pound them full of holes. But up against small, quick targets, you might get more damage with the faster tracking ammo. In any case, it'll cost less capacitor.

So then a blaster ship is still a massive DPS machine, but it won't be as limited on which targets it can fight, and will be able to perform semi-effectively against targets that would otherwise not be ideal.


I really like your mods for rais but i don't think your blaster are very good.

Viktor Lacroix
Posted - 2011.06.03 11:57:00 - [24]
 

Bump for hybrid/railgun love.

The eagle is a great example, it's nice to be fighting in optimal but without an additional 100 dps the ship's just laughable.

Crewman Jenkins
Caldari
Malicious Demi-Lancers
Posted - 2011.06.03 12:04:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Crewman Jenkins on 03/06/2011 12:10:22
Wouldn't shell density have an affect on damage and speed(effective range)?

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.06.03 13:20:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 03/06/2011 13:21:06
Originally by: Psytropic
Antimatter creates the highest thermal damage while burning so fast it loses range, and Iron produces next to no thermal damage and gives you greatest range. Antimatter = ball of fire; Iron = metal slug

Realistic enough I'd say? Problem solved. I think this would go great against blasters as well. They need love too.


Well if we look at THIS, the projectile should be able to put a ****ing hole in your ship and the AM reaction do a the rest of the job overtime.

Now the round can also be loaded with explosive stuff inside and get freed at the impact adding expl dmg?

Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2011.06.04 21:31:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Crewman Jenkins
Edited by: Crewman Jenkins on 03/06/2011 12:10:22
Wouldn't shell density have an affect on damage and speed(effective range)?


Yes, and it does. I have no idea of the mass of antimatter, but you can actually calculate the mass of each payload with wolfram quite easily since we are given the volume of hybrid charges.

for example, using large ammo, the volume of each charge is 0.05 m^3:
plutonium ; -37.5% range , 991 kg payload
uranium ; -25% range , 953 kg payload
Thorium ; -12.5% range , 586 kg payload

Lead ; 0% range , 567 kg payload

Iridium ; 20% range , 1130 kg payload

Tungsten ; 40% range , 963 kg payload

Iron ; 60% range , 394 kg payload

I am now quite convinced that ccp completely just made up the cap need bonuses for hybrid charges and used the same convention with laser cap needs... look at iridium, its 14% heavier than plutonium and takes -50% cap need compared to plutonium's -5%. Honestly CCP needs to scrap their cap need model for something better than this

ShadowGod56
Posted - 2011.06.06 01:50:00 - [28]
 

i like these ideas +1


Jessy Berbers
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.06 09:20:00 - [29]
 

I agree here to, fix those darned Hybrids already!
Or at the very least say something about them being looked at and there performance being Reeveluated.
Greets
Jess.

Rek Seven
Gallente
Zandathorn Industries
Posted - 2011.06.06 11:41:00 - [30]
 

I like the idea but i see threads like this all the time and I've yet to see a comment for ccp on the subject. Will hybrids ever be changed?


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only