EVE Search - A reasonable fix to projectile turret problems

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

A reasonable fix to projectile turret problems

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.01 09:17:00 - [1] Most of us already know projectile turrets are in need of loving. Currently, autocannons represent a weapon system which has no range bracket where it excels.Compared to blasters, trades DPS for somewhat better ranged performance (virtually none at BS level <24km combat), while, compared to lasers, it generally trades DPS and range for very slight amounts of tracking. To balance this, projectiles are capless (although it also means that Minmatar ships get the worst capacitors of them all to 'balance' this). On top of it all, going full damage requires to turn your projectile turret into the shortest range worst tracking weapon system (compared to CN AM / AN MF users which get full - or rather, 99% - DPS without these penalities) which kills your capacitor as well on top of not really providing you a DPS advantage in most cases. The range performance is gimped by falloff being a double DPS nerf - not only does it introduce range misses, but introduces hit quality degradation as well. This effectively means you're achieving 39% of your DPS at optimal+falloff rather then 50% which hit quantity alone suggests. The only way to boost this range performance is falloff rigs, as no modules exist (yet, it can be countered by a module the same way optimal can). Artillery is even worse off. To begin with, for a long range weapon system, it's plagued by short optimal range combined with low tracking, giving it significant tracking issues at the ranges it is designed to operate at, given how angular velocities increase the closer the range is. Furthermore, in the role of long-range damage, it has issues achieving range because a good part of the range being falloff which is not modifiable with the same set of modules (or any, in fact) governing optimal range - this is on top of the fact that most of its DPS/alpha is lost when firing in falloff. It's supposed advantage is alpha, but currently it does not offer a significant enough alpha to be relevant in most combat situations given average ship EHP values - and it suffers from very low clip sizes and fairly low DPS to balance this (now obsolete) attribute. So, in light of that, here's a proposal of a reasonable (and balanced) fix which keeps the essential properties of projectiles intact but would fix their current underwhelming performance. ACs & Artillery: - Boost EMP (and thereby, RF EMP) to do 0.5 (small) / 1 (medium) / 2 (large) points more damage (in explosive preferably). This still does not make EMP match the effectiveness of MF / AM (as it would be 11.5 v 12 damage rather then 11v12 damage it is currently for small turrets, same scale for bigger ones), but provides Minmatar with a better close-range faction ammo. You would still suffer a 5% DPS loss when firing RF EMP rather then Hail (compared to 1% DPS loss of AN MF / CN AM vs Conflag/Void), but it would compete better for both artillery and ACs. - Make TEs give equal amounts of falloff as well as optimal. This does not affect ACs as much as artilleries obviously, but does enable you to squeeze more range out of both weapon systems and counter range tracking disruption better. For artilleries, it would enable you to modify artillery effective range (which is about optimal + 0.4*falloff before you start recieving significant DPS penalities) to better match other weapon systems. AC specific fixes: - Improve falloff on larger AC tiers. Currently, larger AC tiers offer little in way of DPS advantage, while giving you virtually no extra range and a tracking penality - which is why currently tank sacrifices on Minmatar ships to get bigger guns are very unpopular. In the light of the double DPS reduction in falloff, a 10% boost to larger AC tiers would give a reason to fit them. Example: 125mm AC II - 5km (current) 150mm AC II - 5.5km 200mm AC II - 6km D180mm II - 10km (current) 220mm II - 11km 425mm II - 12km D425mm II - 20km (current) 650mm II - 22km 800mm II - 24km Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Lubomir Penev Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.10.01 09:20:00 - [2] Agree 100%. But way too reasonable to be passed as is by CCP, lets be realistic here. -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.01 09:22:00 - [3] Artillery specific fixes: - Tracking boost. If we take it that artilleries are designed to be a comparatively short range long range weapon systems (which is how they generally preform), then they need significantly more tracking to operate at these ranges efficently, as angular velocity rises the closer you are. This could be solved by a simple 25% tracking boost. - Clip sizes. With longer combat and alpha less relevant (given average EHP values), small clip sizes of artilleries already constitute a DPS reduction to a already relatively low DPS weapon system. In addition, the massive clip reduction going from smaller tier to larger tier artillery insures you get minimal to no DPS advantage by fitting the (much harder to fit) larger artilleries. To resolve this, I'd propose: For smaller tier artillery (250mm/650mm/1200mm): 50% larger clip size (which would be 30 rounds for a 650mm II turret for instance) For larger tier artillery (280mm/720mm/1400mm): 100% larger clip size (which would be 20 rounds for a 720mm II turret for instance) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Greckor Monmouth THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.01 09:36:00 - [4] What about giving a slight bost to alpha as well for arties at least? they need a little something to stand out, however do like your suggestions.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.01 09:37:00 - [5] To adress a few complaints which I see showing up: Q: It doesn't fix Minmatar BS and their inferiority when it comes to dealing DPS at any range. A: No, it doesn't. However, fixing Minmatar BS is preety much impossible with projectile fixes only, as giving the weapons enough bonuses to fix a, for instance, 6 turret ship with 6 lows would require a projectile boost which would make them overpowered on small/medium sized ships which do not suffer from slot allocation issues. This is aimed to fix the weapon system only, sub-par ships will always underpreform because of slot / etc issue. Q: Falloff boosting TEs enable relatively big falloff ranges when combined with falloff rigs. A: You must mean, give them inferior range to TE+locus rigged optimal range based ships while firing at reduced DPS? Please don't embarras yourself in my thread. Q: It's not enough, they're still inferior range / DPS wise. A: I do believe we need to pay some price for caplessness (aside from nerfed capacitors on ships), just that we're paying far too much right now. Besides, overboosting is always a bad idea. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.01 09:39:00 - [6] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 01/10/2008 09:44:16 Originally by: Greckor Monmouth What about giving a slight bost to alpha as well for arties at least? they need a little something to stand out, however do like your suggestions. Well, I don't mind, however, I think giving meaningful amounts of alpha is tricky business, because it's very easy to overboost the weapon system that way. The issue with alpha is that it's extremely powerful as long as you can instapop a target and very meaningless if you can't (all advantage of alpha is gone after some 2 volleys of artilleries). RF EMP boost gives them around 4.5% more alpha (and DPS) when using RF EMP, which is already a bit of a improvement. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Greckor Monmouth THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.10.01 09:46:00 - [7] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 01/10/2008 09:44:16 Originally by: Greckor Monmouth What about giving a slight bost to alpha as well for arties at least? they need a little something to stand out, however do like your suggestions. Well, I don't mind, however, I think giving meaningful amounts of alpha is tricky business, because it's very easy to overboost the weapon system that way. The issue with alpha is that it's extremely powerful as long as you can instapop a target and very meaningless if you can't (all advantage of alpha is gone after some 2 volleys of artilleries). RF EMP boost gives them around 4.5% more alpha (and DPS) when using RF EMP, which is already a bit of a improvement. True, I did not think about how boosting the ammo will also boost alpha. IMO projectiles just fell like they are lacking something However I would love to see your changes implemented and test them out.
Saietor Blackgreen The First Foundation	Posted - 2008.10.01 10:15:00 - [8] Still, even doubling the alpha (combine with corresponding ROF decrease to keeep the DPS) will hardly overboost matari arty platforms. AND will solve the clip size problem at the same time. Hell, even 50% could do. The rest seems very reasonable. I'm always a sad panda that I cant take advantage of artilleries HUGE falloff. TE/TC giving falloff increase is a good idea. --- Redesign local/scanner feature - make the place huge, dark and scary again!
ArmyOfMe Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.01 11:55:00 - [9] the fact that projectiles isnt really that much of a bonus anymore, at least not since everyone started using cap injectors and buffer tanks. In general minmatar bs isnt made for buffer tanks, with the exeption of the phoon that is. due to our low number of low slots we are stuck at a point were we cant be as effective as the others so our cap usally goes to try and run dual reps while we try and kill something that has 40-60k armor and a lot more dps then us. your suggestions are a good start, but i dont actually think they are enough to make minmatar battleships as good as some of the other bs ingame Originally by: deadmaus Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.01 12:10:00 - [10] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 01/10/2008 12:11:03 Originally by: ArmyOfMe the fact that projectiles isnt really that much of a bonus anymore, at least not since everyone started using cap injectors and buffer tanks. In general minmatar bs isnt made for buffer tanks, with the exeption of the phoon that is. due to our low number of low slots we are stuck at a point were we cant be as effective as the others so our cap usally goes to try and run dual reps while we try and kill something that has 40-60k armor and a lot more dps then us. your suggestions are a good start, but i dont actually think they are enough to make minmatar battleships as good as some of the other bs ingame Oh, I agree it won't make Minmatar BS as good as the others (sans the extremely minor boost to the Typhoon which is already relatively competitive and imo only needs a shield HP / armour HP switch). It's a issue of slottage and poor design in combination to the projectile issues, however, so it cannot be only fixed by a projectile turret boost. Take a look at a Megathron - on a per turret basis, it deals equal amount of DPS (while having better tracking, a important fact for close-range combat, and Megathron being able to use CN AM while Tempest has to use Hail to get on that level, making the Megathron track 150% better then a Hail-loaded Tempest). However, in addition to having 7 turrets, it also has 125m3 dronebay and a extra low - meaning, the Tempest in a armour tank configuration has to fit 1 less damage mod, and it lacks a great deal of drone DPS anyway. What it gets is a utility mid (devalued in light of constant nerfs to unbonused EW) and a extra heavy neut. It has worse EHP, naturally, and it gets more shield HP then armour. Now, surely, you say, the Tempest can't be the damage king the Megathron is given it has extra range? True, it can't. But it cannot lag that massively behind it either. I'd personally like a extra turret, but you could live without that - as long as the ship decides wether it wants to tank armour (+1 low, -1 mid, armour HP / shield HP switched around) or shields (-1 low, +1 mid). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint

6Bagheera9 Slacker Industries	Posted - 2008.10.01 12:24:00 - [11] I approve, especially with regard to to better fall-offs for higher tier ACs.
ArmyOfMe Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.01 12:34:00 - [12] Originally by: Cpt Branko Now, surely, you say, the Tempest can't be the damage king the Megathron is given it has extra range? True, it can't. But it cannot lag that massively behind it either. I'd personally like a extra turret, but you could live without that - as long as the ship decides wether it wants to tank armour (+1 low, -1 mid, armour HP / shield HP switched around) or shields (-1 low, +1 mid). I hope to god they dont make it +1 mid, we already have the kings of shield tankers in our lineup. My main problem with minmatar is that its hard to fix one thing without screwing up something else on their ships. I really want tempest to have a 7th turret slot, but i fear it will become overpowerd then, and it still wont fix the damage on the other ships, maelstrom is still to low on dps for a tier 3 bs imo. I actually have no idea how to fix the tempest without screwing up something else on the minni ships Originally by: deadmaus Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.01 12:35:00 - [13] /signed Awesome EVE history
Tykkis	Posted - 2008.10.01 14:59:00 - [14] It just seems overall projectile weapons are very messed up and have quite little support from ship modules along with ships having dual weapon systems to add to insult. Minmatar ship speed + artillery bad tracking with low optimal range is pretty screwed up combination. I'd like to see projectile weapons have more alpha, slower rof and SMALLER clip size. yea smaller. but keeping the dps(including reload times). that would go along with the hit and run tactic CCP is advertising minmatar being. run in empty clip, run out of enemy optimal to reload and get back in empty it again. That along with superior speed and falloff for range dictation could be interesting. AC and Artillery would be like running around with 6 barrel revolver. or maybe i'm just dreaming.
Lili Lu Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships	Posted - 2008.10.01 15:31:00 - [15] Edited by: Lili Lu on 01/10/2008 15:34:04 Originally by: Tykkis It just seems overall projectile weapons are very messed up and have quite little support from ship modules along with ships having dual weapon systems to add to insult. Minmatar ship speed + artillery bad tracking with low optimal range is pretty screwed up combination. I'd like to see projectile weapons have more alpha, slower rof and SMALLER clip size. yea smaller. but keeping the dps(including reload times). that would go along with the hit and run tactic CCP is advertising minmatar being. run in empty clip, run out of enemy optimal to reload and get back in empty it again. That along with superior speed and falloff for range dictation could be interesting. AC and Artillery would be like running around with 6 barrel revolver. or maybe i'm just dreaming. Let me preface this response by saying I fly all race ships and use all weapon types between the accounts i have. I don't like this idea. I think the problem with Minmatar and arty mirrors the problem with Amarr and lasers. CCP wanted to try to prevent people from putting cross-racial weapons on their ships. So they came up with pre-nerfing arty with a crap rof, and lasers a butt-kicking cap use (and to be fair hybrid a low damage per hit). Problem is the purity was not gonna happen (people like to tweak fittings way too much ), and they overdid the pre-nerfs to the projectile and laser weapon systems (hybrid rail damage turns out to be less of a burden to overcome by mag-stabs in particular, rof and damage boosts compensating for the per hit nerf much easier). What they should do is either slightly reduce the rof pre-nerf on arty, and the cap use on lasers, or up the common rof bonus on Minmatar ships and the cap use reduction on Amarr ships. Let's say 7.5% or 10% per level on Minmatar ships, and 12.5% per level cap reduction on Amarr. CCP would probably prefer the latter. Lasers and Arty do plenty damage per hit as they are presently constructed. Minmatar would get a relative DPS boost because the rof boost would directly affect that. Additionally, arty should get a slightly bigger clip (again to help the DPS a little). Amarr flyers would benefit from less cap use although it would not provide them with more damage. Amarr ships in general need a little more PG. Why? It's very tough to fit a PG intensive armor tank with the high PG weaponry as it is. Minmatar shield tank and presently set PG v weaponry fitting is easier. I was amazed when this character fit my first Maelstrom compared to fitting an Abaddon. I do like the OP's suggestion that tracking enhancers give a little falloff as well as optimal and tracking. And that would suggest a fall-off script for tracking computers. However, the balancing on that is another whole can of worms. Well looking back that was a bit of ramble. Main point being ease the prenerfs on projectile/Minmatar and laser/Amarr slightly. Both races need it.
Elena Morin'staal Minmatar Tau Online Explorator Corp	Posted - 2008.10.01 15:31:00 - [16] I like that idea. If we matari are supposed to be the hit and run kings (although I struggle with run, my speed on my 'Cane is about 180m/s, and all the rats are faster than me) then we should hit hard, hit fast then pull back. More damage in an alpha strike but a smaller clip/RoF could be a good fix, it would certainly set us apart and make us fight like we should. My bad somewhere, maybe I should permarun an AB and keep moving...
Tykkis	Posted - 2008.10.01 16:18:00 - [17] Originally by: Lili Lu Let's say 7.5% or 10% per level on Minmatar ships, and 12.5% per level cap reduction on Amarr. I think you're bit off from the topic. Don't think ship bonuses are the right way fixing the guns. 12.5% per lvl would be total 87.5% cap use reduction on lasers would basically mean hybrids would be the new 'Laser'cap use race. and i like the difference between weapon systems. Elena: Yeah this idea would not help that much with slower ships =/ Agree with Cpt Branko that adding falloff to some modules and increasing higher tier AC falloff would be a big step helping projectiles. /signed
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2008.10.01 16:39:00 - [18] I don't fly Minmatar very much, so I'm not the person to talk to for the most part on how to fix them. Having said that, I will offer one suggestion regarding your fixes. If TCs get boosted to improve Falloff as well as Optimal (which I really think should happen, especially in light of the recent TD boost), TEs should get a similar boost to falloff just to maintain the parity between the two modules. Even if you have to juggle the numbers somewhat (i.e. 15% bonus to Optimal on a TE becomes a 10% bonus to Optimal and Falloff, etc.), I'd be okay with that as long as it wasn't too underwhelming. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Lili Lu Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships	Posted - 2008.10.01 17:11:00 - [19] Edited by: Lili Lu on 01/10/2008 17:14:57 Originally by: Tykkis Originally by: Lili Lu Let's say 7.5% or 10% per level on Minmatar ships, and 12.5% per level cap reduction on Amarr. I think you're bit off from the topic. Don't think ship bonuses are the right way fixing the guns. 12.5% per lvl would be total 87.5% cap use reduction on lasers would basically mean hybrids would be the new 'Laser'cap use race. and i like the difference between weapon systems. Elena: Yeah this idea would not help that much with slower ships =/ Agree with Cpt Branko that adding falloff to some modules and increasing higher tier AC falloff would be a big step helping projectiles. /signed 12.5% x 5 levels = 62.5% not 87.5%. And, it would probably be CCP's preferred "fix for the guns" because lasers would still mightily suck cap on non-Amarr ships and projectiles would still be DPS gimped on non-Matar ships. It would mean that your average noob amarr flyer could be useful at level 3 (38.5%) and 4 (50.5%) cap reduction, instead of a near-worthless or at least very frustrasted cap out at those skill levels (particularly in missions).
Gneeznow Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.10.01 17:17:00 - [20] OP's idea's are pretty good, with these changes falloff tempests might become feared again (as they should be)

HeavyWave Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.01 17:23:00 - [21] Originally by: Cpt Branko To balance this, projectiles are capless (although it also means that Minmatar ships get the worst capacitors of them all to 'balance' this). That's not quite true - check Sleipnir, Maelstrom for instance. Agreed on the rest though.
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.01 17:53:00 - [22] Well Cpt, this pretty much sums up what I suggested in the last great Tempest/Projectile thread... except that I suggested increasing alpha instead of clip size. Either would probably work in the end, since doubling clip size yields the same aggregate boost that doubling alpha and halving ROF does. -Liang --
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.01 18:17:00 - [23] Looks good, but here's an idea: Leave EMP and its damage as it is. Boost fusion to make it deal the same base damage as antimatter/multifrequency and make fusion the default close-range, high-damage ammo. bam, now you get to use RF Fusion instead of hail, and if you want to deal a variety of damage types, hey look you also have EMP as the second most damaging ammo (which would still deal its current damage) and then phased plasma if you want to deal lots of thermal. Hey look, suddenly Minmatar have close-range ammo types that deal reasonable amounts of each damage type, but without encroaching on the "pure" selectable damage types that Caldari have, and now switching ammo might actually be worthwhile. I would also suggest that, maybe instead of making TEs affect falloff, give tracking computers a falloff script. This makes sense to me (tracking computers require trajectory analysis to use, which gives you a falloff increase) and would be good for ships with lowish damage but extra mids (o hi tempest). Maybe a 25-30% falloff increase? Twice as much as the optimal bonus, balanced because it's a bonus to falloff which "isn't as good." __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
ArmyOfMe Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.01 18:55:00 - [24] Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 01/10/2008 18:55:50 Originally by: Terianna Eri Looks good, but here's an idea: Leave EMP and its damage as it is. Boost fusion to make it deal the same base damage as antimatter/multifrequency and make fusion the default close-range, high-damage ammo. bam, now you get to use RF Fusion instead of hail, and if you want to deal a variety of damage types, hey look you also have EMP as the second most damaging ammo (which would still deal its current damage) and then phased plasma if you want to deal lots of thermal. Hey look, suddenly Minmatar have close-range ammo types that deal reasonable amounts of each damage type, but without encroaching on the "pure" selectable damage types that Caldari have, and now switching ammo might actually be worthwhile. actually i love the idea of boosting fusion ammo, that would be a great start to a minmatar buff Originally by: deadmaus Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.01 19:39:00 - [25] Imo: -ACs Boosting fall off on highest tier of ACs in every size and giving a boost like suggested to emp ammo is enough. Adding all the other AC boosts is a tad much. You still have to keep in mind that ACs take very little grid to fit also ontop of the no cap use advantage. -Arties Double clip size and increase alpha by 50% and adjust rof to maintain dps. Enough imo to fix arties. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.10.01 19:46:00 - [26] Just checking in to add my support but i'd really like to do away with emp. I think emp and fusion should be switched (in regards to range/dmg) and then fusion (the new high dps ammo) should be brought inline with the other high damage ammos. It just doesn't feel right to not have exp/kin combo as main dmg type.

CCP Mitnal C C P	Posted - 2008.10.01 22:01:00 - [27] Moved to Features & Ideas. Mitnal Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang

Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.01 23:05:00 - [28] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 01/10/2008 23:07:53 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Imo: -ACs Boosting fall off on highest tier of ACs in every size and giving a boost like suggested to emp ammo is enough. Adding all the other AC boosts is a tad much. You still have to keep in mind that ACs take very little grid to fit also ontop of the no cap use advantage. -Arties Double clip size and increase alpha by 50% and adjust rof to maintain dps. Enough imo to fix arties. Arties definitely need more loving then that - their issue (well, aside their alleged role - alpha strike - not being so well, but as I said, alpha is not that relevant given EHP values today) is short range (with bad options for modifying said range) in combination with bad tracking. Boosting the tracking + making TEs modify falloff (which gives artillery users the option to fully modify range to some extent - although in reality it would benefit our short range ammo more then our long range ammo as ammo range bonus on things like Tremor does not apply to falloff) puts artillery back on the map without any alpha boosts necessary. I don't find the role of 'high alpha' weapon system is really very applicable today. As for ACs, the only boost you haven't mentioned is really the TEs giving falloff - and TEs are hardly a common module on AC ships (nor they would be on most of them, you always have something better to do with your lows on a AC ship aside from maybe 1-2 on a shield buffered AC Hurricane or shield buffered AC Tempest). Falloff boosting TEs are more of a artillery fix rather then AC boost really. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.01 23:55:00 - [29] Originally by: Cpt Branko Falloff boosting TEs are more of a artillery fix rather then AC boost really. Giving TCs an optimal script instead of TE change: Good for AC, good for Artillery, or good for both? __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.02 00:02:00 - [30] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/10/2008 00:02:45 Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Cpt Branko Falloff boosting TEs are more of a artillery fix rather then AC boost really. Giving TCs an optimal script instead of TE change: Good for AC, good for Artillery, or good for both? Good for artillery really, I don't see any viable AC ship fit sacrificing a midslot for a TC. Even for artilleries, you've got a better reason to fit TEs (and lows are generally more common on Minmatar arty ships - particularly cruiser/BC sized ships) then TCs, since TEs also boost your (quite shoddy) tracking which you need, particularly for using short range high damage artillery ammo (where tracking is more relevant). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.